Search results

A review essay on books by (1) Judith N. Shklar, Political Thought and Political Thinkers Chicago: U Chicago Press, 1999); (2) Judith N. Shklar, Redeeming American Political Thought (Chicago: U Chicago Press, 1998); & (3) Bernard Yack [Ed], Liberalism without Illusions: Essays on Liberal Theory and the Political Vision of Judith N. Shklar (Chicago: U Chicago Press, 1996). After Shklar's death in 1992, Hoffmann & Thompson collected her elegant & insightful essays in two volumes. These provide a useful survey of her intellectual career, supplemented here with biographical data. Redeeming American Political Thought, in particular, contains much previously unpublished material that, characteristic of Shklar's rare originality & distinctiveness as an historian, confronts recent interpretive trends in political theory. Taken together, the two volumes lead to a reconsideration of Shklar's paradoxical achievements -- the political theorist who, throughout her career, remained skeptical of political theory & uneasy with its state at the end of the 20th century. Various interpretations of Shklar, discussed here, are presented in the essays presented by Yack. M. Pflum

Russian Liberalism charts the development of liberal ideas and political organizations in Russia as well as the implementation of liberal reforms by the Russian and Soviet governments at various points in time. Paul Robinson's comprehensive survey covers the entire period from the late eighteenth century to the present day.Robinson demonstrates that liberalism has always lacked strong roots in the Russian population, being largely espoused by a narrow group of intellectuals whose culture it has reflected, and has tended toward a form of historical determinism that sees Russia as destined to become like the West. Many see the current political struggle between Russia and the West as being in part a conflict between the liberal West and an illiberal Russia. By explaining the historical causes of liberalism's failure in that country, Russian Liberalism offers an understanding of a significant aspect of contemporary international affairs. After Putin's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, understanding Russian political thought is a matter of considerable importance

The modern liberalism is a political thought movement which develops by the enlightenment of western. Firstly it used by Adam Smith as a notion. Liberalism comes into prominence with dignity and supporting the true things as freedom of religion and conscience, the leadership of mind, determinate countries, private ownership etc. Sophism was born in V. century. Protagoras is the first agent of sophism. Sophism is a philosophical quadrat that which one criticizes aristocratic and entrenched thoughts, takes people in to the center and the top of life by idea of metronantropospanton (human is measure of everything), based on humanity while legislation and implement .sophists suppose the successful person as happy person, gives a pragmatical meaning to life. Generally, we can tell that the sophists have a democratic approach. This works handles sophism as a messenger of modern liberalism and the agent in Ancient Greece with "against the aristocratic constitution, criticize sing entrenched thoughts, takes humanity to the center of everything and with pragmatic nascency". ; The modern liberalism is a political thought movement which develops by the enlightenment of western. Firstly it used by Adam Smith as a notion. Liberalism comes into prominence with dignity and supporting the true things as freedom of religion and conscience, the leadership of mind, determinate countries, private ownership etc. Sophism was born in V. century. Protagoras is the first agent of sophism. Sophism is a philosophical quadrat that which one criticizes aristocratic and entrenched thoughts, takes people in to the center and the top of life by idea of metronantropospanton (human is measure of everything), based on humanity while legislation and implement .sophists suppose the successful person as happy person, gives a pragmatical meaning to life. Generally, we can tell that the sophists have a democratic approach. This works handles sophism as a messenger of modern liberalism and the agent in Ancient Greece with "against the aristocratic constitution, criticize sing entrenched thoughts, takes humanity to the center of everything and with pragmatic nascency".

Since the Sixteenth century there have been 2 basic problems to which liberal thought has sought a solution: to fix moral limits on the powers of governments and to mediate between the different perceptions of the 'goodlife' reasonable people hold. (SJK)

During the past 40 years, many of liberalism's most distinguished defenders have presented complex, controversial, abstruse, and even impenetrable theories to justify liberal institutions and practices, often relying on metaphysical constructs, imaginary beings, and fanciful events to describe abstract liberal principles that rarely reach real-world problems. This book proposes that John Stuart Mill's harm principle - that the state may act only to prevent harm to others - can justify a government capable of dealing with pressing modern problems of human harm while restrained enough to provide people freedom to live life on their own terms

Taking Daniel Deudney and John Ikenberry's demand for a 'more selfconscious and robust liberal statecraft' as its point of departure, this article considers whether this demand can be realised in practice, given the apparent contradiction between a desire for a self-conscious Liberalism and a desire for a robust Liberalism. By weaving a path through the work of Deudney, Ikenberry and Kant, and through the film District 9, this article suggests that Liberalism and especially Liberal Internationalism 3.0 fail to provide an ethical basis that could supply a 'non-negotiable demand of human [and "alien"] dignity', which is what a more self-conscious Liberalism ought to strive for. This failure is down to the way Liberalism draws its limits on political subjectivity. It is these Liberal practices that we cannot be 'after' in a temporal sense so long as Liberalism carries on. And so we need to be 'after Liberalism' in a different sense of being after — of calling it to account by being aware ourselves of how the core principles of Liberalism are both beneficial and destructive in their crafting of all political subjectivities.