Piety, Justice, and the Necessities of War: Thucydides' Delian Debate

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 233-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford Orwin

Political philosophy or science first emerged in response to certain contradictions in political life that thoughtful citizens could not but face. Nowhere is this process better portrayed than in Thucydides, who of all great students of politics remains closest to the perspective of practice, at the same time showing how practice points us toward a place of critical distance from politics. The Greek political world, like all prescientific worlds, acknowledged certain gods who, as rulers, made demands on humankind. But because these were neither the only, nor in practice the most insistent, demands made on humankind, the question necessarily arose as to the gods' status in the event of conflict—as to the relative necessity of these divine demands. From this followed the further question—crucial for the emergence of political science or philosophy—as to whether the political world was ruled indeed by the gods or by necessity.

Problemos ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alvydas Jokubaitis

Straipsnis skirtas šiuolaikinės politinės filosofijos nuošalyje likusiai sąmokslo problemai. Sąmokslas yra didelis iššūkis pozityvistinei mokslo sampratai. Karlo R. Popperio sąmokslo teorijos kritika prieštarauja pagrindinėms šio autoriaus metodologinėms nuostatoms. Popperio požiūris į sąmokslo teoriją gali būti apibūdintas kaip nenuoseklus ir vienpusiškas. Sąmokslas yra didelis iššūkis liberalizmo politinei filosofijai. Daugelis autorių mano, kad sąmokslas yra mažai reikšmingas liberalios visuomenės gyvenimo elementas. Tai menkai pagrįstas požiūris. Net pačioje liberaliausioje visuomenėje veikia daugybė slaptų susitarimų, viešai nematomų politinio gyvenimo subjektų ir manipuliacijų viešąja nuomone. Kai kurie dabartinių liberalių visuomenių politinio gyvenimo reiškiniai verčia naujai pažvelgti į sąmokslo fenomeną.Reikšminiai žodžiai: sąmokslas, sąmokslo teorija, pozityvizmas, liberalizmas. CONSPIRACY AS A PROBLEM OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND LIBERAL SOCIETYAlvydas Jokubaitis Summary The article discusses the concept of political conspiracy. This concept is a great challenge to a positivistic understanding of political science. The criticism of conspiracy theory proposed by Karl Popper contradicts the main methodological ideas maintained by the author. His view on conspiracy theory may be described as incoherent and one-sided. Conspiracy is an ambitious challenge to contemporary liberal political philosophy. It is widely asserted that conspiracy is an insignificant element in the political life of a liberal society. This view is hardly substantiated. Even in the most liberal society there are a lot of clandestine agreements, undercover subjects of political life and manipulations of public opinion. Many phenomena of contemporary liberal society encourage us to regard conspiracy from a different perspective.Keywords: conspiracy, conspiracy theory, positivism, liberalism.


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-145
Author(s):  
Sanja Bojanic

The book Phenomenology of Plurality: Hannah Arendt on Political Intersubjectivity is a contribution not only to the phenomenological tradition of thought and Hannah Arendt studies, but also political science and, most importantly, political philosophy. Sophie Loidolt advances an intervention that stands in contrast to contemporary phenomenological research which in certain times have had the tendency to perform depoliticized examination of the self and sociality, actually revealing the intention of Phenomenology of Plurality to articulate the numerous elements that comprise the methodological novelty with which Arendt changes the theory of the political.


Author(s):  
Shahrough Akhavi

The doctrine of salvation in Islam centers on the community of believers. Contemporary Muslim political philosophy (or, preferably, political theory) covers a broad expanse that brings under its rubric at least two diverse tendencies: an approach that stresses the integration of religion and politics, and an approach that insists on their separation. Advocates of the first approach seem united in their desire for the “Islamization of knowledge,” meaning that the epistemological foundation of understanding and explanation in all areas of life, including all areas of political life, must be “Islamic.” Thus, one needs to speak of an “Islamic anthropology,” an “Islamic sociology,” an “Islamic political science,” and so on. But there is also a distinction that one may make among advocates of this first approach. Moreover, one can say about many, perhaps most, advocates of the first approach that they feel an urgency to apply Islamic law throughout all arenas of society. This article focuses on the Muslim tradition of political philosophy and considers the following themes: the individual and society, the state, and democracy.


2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford Angell Bates

Political theorists today are addressing issues of global concern confronting state systems and in so doing are often forced to confront the concept of Homo sapiens as a ‘political animal’. Thus theorists considering Aristotle’s Politics attempt to transcend his polis-centric focus and make the case that Aristotle offers ways to address these global concerns by focusing on Empire. This article, contra Dietz et al., argues that Aristotle’s political science is first and foremost a science of politeia and that this approach to the operation and working of political systems is far superior to recent attempts at regime analysis in comparative politics. Thus Aristotle’s mode of examining political systems offers much fruit for those interested in approaching political phenomena with precision and depth as diverse manifestations of the political communities formed by the species Aristotle called the ‘political animal’. From this perspective, focusing on the politeia constituting each political community permits an analysis of contemporary transformations of political life without distorting what is being analyzed.


1981 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Ware

The aim of this paper is to explicate the concept of manipulation, to show why it is of central importance in democratic theory, and to explain its relation to power. At first glance this might seem an unusual objective, since it remains one of the least studied of the concepts that are usually recognized as members of the power or control ‘family’. Yet allegations of the existence of manipulative practices, and demands for intervention by public agencies to prevent them, are commonplace in political life. Political science and political philosophy have contributed little to the understanding of how, for example, the following four claims about manipulation are to be evaluated.


2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Lynch

A decade ago, very few political scientists had either the opportunity or the incentive to engage with the political public in a direct, unmediated way. Today, there is a dense and eclectic ecosystem of political science and international relations-focused blogs and online publications, where good work can easily find an audience through social media. There are multiple initiatives dedicated to supporting academic interventions in the public sphere, and virtually every political or cultural magazine of note now offers a robust online section featuring commentary and analysis in which political scientists are well represented. This has transformed publication for a broader public from something exotic to something utterly routine. I discuss how these changes have affected individual scholars, the field of political science, and the political world with which we are engaged.


Author(s):  
Will Kymlicka

Within political philosophy, citizenship refers not only to a legal status, but also to a normative ideal – the governed should be full and equal participants in the political process. As such, it is a distinctively democratic ideal. People who are governed by monarchs or military dictators are subjects, not citizens. Most philosophers therefore view citizenship theory as an extension of democratic theory. Democratic theory focuses on political institutions and procedures; citizenship theory focuses on the attributes of individual participants. One important topic in citizenship theory concerns the need for citizens to actively participate in political life. In most countries participation in politics is not obligatory, and people are free to place private commitments ahead of political involvement. Yet if too many citizens are apathetic, democratic institutions will collapse. Another topic concerns the identity of citizens. Citizenship is intended to provide a common status and identity which helps integrate members of society. However, some theorists question whether common citizenship can accommodate the increasing social and cultural pluralism of modern societies.


Author(s):  
Jacob Copeman ◽  
Dwaipayan Banerjee

This book is an account of the political economy and cultural meaning of blood in contemporary India. It examines how the giving and receiving of blood has shaped social and political life. The book traces how the substance congeals political ideologies, biomedical rationalities, and activist practices. Using examples from anti-colonial appeals to blood sacrifice as a political philosophy to contemporary portraits of political leaders drawn with blood, from the use of the substance by Bhopali children as a material of activism to biomedical anxieties and aporias about the excess and lack of donation, the book broaches how political life in India has been shaped through the use of blood and through contestations about blood. As such, the book offers new entryways into thinking about politics and economy through a “bloodscape of difference:” different sovereignties, different proportionalities, and different temporalities. These entryways allow exploration of the relation between blood's utopic flows and political clottings as it moves through time and space, conjuring new kinds of social collectivities while reanimating older forms, and always in a reflexive relation to norms that guide its proper flow.


2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-41
Author(s):  
Julen Etxabe

In a 2006 article, Duncan Kennedy identifies politics as the central dilemma of contemporary legal thought, but affirms that law is non-reducible to politics, which could be read as a partial retraction from the known coda “law is politics.” This article suggests an interpretation of his refusal to conflate law and politics not in terms of disavowal, or a way of distancing politics from law, but as an attempt to carve out a space from where to think of the relational aspect between law and politics. This becomes necessary due to a current phenomenon which Pierre Schlag calls “dedifferentiation,” where no distinction – and hence no relation – seems to be possible between law and other spheres of life. Opposing that conclusion, this article contends that engendering relations allows us to keep the terms connected in relative motion. The article then moves to describe four distinct modes of framing the relation between law and politics, which gives rise to very different disciplinary projects: law as politics, dating back to the legal realist movement; law as political science, which finds its current expression in empirical and quantitative research; law as political philosophy, generated by a renewed interest in “the political”; and law as political contingent, growing out of a similar interest but challenging the boundary-setting ambitions of philosophy. While the latter has not yet been adequately translated into law, I suggest as an alternative the work of Jacques Rancière, which declines to grant an aura of invincible ubiquity to any totalizing description, including neoliberalism’s attempt to present itself as a world system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document