Search results

The broad themes of investigation taken by Norberto Bobbio in his writings on political philosophy are traced. Bobbio was interested in the possible relation between political philosophy & political science. Early on, he distinguished between four types of political philosophy: the description & theoretization of the ideal model of the state; research on the fundamentals of power; politics as an activity autonomous from ethics, econonics, law, & religion; & political philosophy as a critical discourse about the assumptions of objectivity & validity in political science. Bobbio's work Estado, gobierno, sociedad ([State, Government, Society] 1991) was the culmination of ten years of development of a general theory of politics, which differentiates political philosophy & political science. M. Pflum

A tribute to Raul Cardiel Reyes, Mexican philosopher, jurist, political scientist, & historian, presenting a brief outline of his extensive studies of the classics in philosophy & political science. Noted especially for his publication of the political works of Machiavelli, Reyes was also committed to teaching the classics in his department. J. Sadler

The differences among political philosophy, political theory, & political science are distinguished to clarify the confusion between them even in academic circles. Philosophy treats principles, properties, & ultimate causes working with the logical-deductive method. Political philosophy is philosophy directed toward politics to study ideal forms of government, the bases & justifications for the state, the nature of politics, & the analysis of political discourse (Bobbio, 1971). Political theory is speculation or hypothesis building on political practice, or a proposal to solve a political problem. Scientific political theory is subject to testing. Political science attempts to explain facts & realities of society & the state & elaborate on theories through empirical testing; it formulates general laws in its own language & methods. M. Pflum

Explores the evolution of Bobbio's thinking & political considerations, emphasizing the ties between philosophy & political science that led him to build his theory of democracy. Bobbio's analysis regarding changes in communist thinking underpins an examination of the events of 1968 in Italy & their determinants & interconnections with politics & civilian life, highlighting Bobbio's role as a promoter of political critique & systematic doubt. Central elements of Bobbio's political theory, eg, the Right-Left distinction, the crisis of historical communism, individual-political power relations, & the problematization of democracy, are considered. Adapted from the source document.

The paper discusses the appropriateness of speaking about Post-Rawlsian Philosophy. In order to establish the context of the question, the paper carries out a limited & tentative check of present political philosophy produced in English & a rereading of post-war political philosophy. Its objective is to assess political philosophy "before" & "after" Rawls in a critical way & then identify the specificity & particular problems of Post-Rawlsian philosophers & their way of understanding political philosophy. Finally, it supports the appropriateness of a Post-Rawlsian political philosophy in a critical & pluralist sense capable of facing present day challenges. Adapted from the source document.

This article seeks to question the Manichean understanding of the theoretical approach to politics, on the one hand, a kind of political philosophy equated with a specific type of moral philosophy oriented to ground the politics, & on the other one, the political theory as a second-order theorizing of political science or a mixed (empiric-normative) form of inquiry in politics. Arguing against that contrasting & entrenched dualism, the following pages advance a reinterpretation of the nature of political philosophy in the contemporary context through an examination of its distinctive tasks, promoting unexplored missions & bringing to bear an interdisciplinary & action-oriented perspective for the normative theory building about politics. The general hypothesis developed in this paper is that political philosophy & normative political theory are interchangeable, thinking & evaluating the political life not in terms of abstract & ahistorical moral language but getting an insight more sensitive to the real world of politics. In order to do so, the political philosophy concerns to capture properly a political domain & its varied dimensions, evaluates political institutions & tries to identify the possibilities of changes. In any case, although normative political theory cannot make dictate what the citizens have to do, it can help them to choose & to form a reasonable, attentive & therefore prudential political judgment. References. Adapted from the source document.

The rejection of so-called "methodological individualism" has always been part of the theoretical tradition of historical materialism. From Karl Marx to contemporary works within this theoretical perspective, the points of departure for explaining historico-social phenomena are collective phenomena, which always have priority over individual phenomena. Here, the position of Jon Elster on methodological individualism is presented. Elster is a Norwegian philosopher whose works encompass a variety of disciplines, including analytical philosophy, political science, sociology, economic theory, & Marxism. In his most recent book (Making Sense of Marx, London/Paris: Cambridge U Press/Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, 1985), Elster maintains that methodological individualism underlies most of Marx's works, & he defends this methodology by an adequate analysis of social phenomena. Some of the assumptions of methodological individualism that are problematic for the construction of a social theory are pointed out, along with a certain ambiguity in Elster's thesis. Author Summary Tr & Modified by C. Waters

This brief article applies the famous principles of Zarathustra (which emphasizes overcoming the basic human condition) to the Greek tragedies, likening Zarathustra to the spirit of Dionysus. A short overview of Nietzsche's legacy & contribution, encompassing the sciences, philosophy, anthropology, & social theory, are touched on, before moving on to the focal point of Greek tragedy & the fundamental ideas of Zarathustra. It concludes with critical comments, asserting that Zarathustra is not merely a literary, political, or philosophical creation, but also an anthropological exploration, such as was unleashed by the figure of Dionysus. M. D. Cowder

The discussion between Rorty & McCarthy reflects one side of the current "philosophy & politics" debate on how to improve the City after the end of Philosophy? In his reply to McCarthy's accusations of performative contradiction & political aquiescence, Rorty outlines the challenge of the new nomadic City as a result of the incommensurability between philosophy & politics. Adapted from the source document.

The principal ideas contained in Robert Nozick's Anarquia, Estado y utopia ([Anarchy, State and Utopia] 1988) are summarized, noting the importance of this work in Anglo-Saxon political philosophy. Nozick argues against three social intervenors: the anarchist, the defender of the welfare state, & the socialist. He concludes that only the minimum state, limited to the narrow function of protecting citizens against violence, robbery, & fraud, is legitimate. States assuming functions beyond those violate human personal freedoms. Per Nozick, neoliberal economic theory assures that private & voluntary charitable institutions will be available for welfare purposes. Nozick's work lacks theorization about the origins, fundamentals, & hierarchies of rights; he only addresses how rights function as part of a moral theory. Theories of distributive justice further refute his neoliberal argument. M. Pflum

In this article, I have sought to identify & reflect on one particular issue that confronts normative political philosophy whatever form it takes, & which lies at the centre of the Rawlsian project. This issue concerns the basis or grounds of the normative authority that is claimed for political philosophy. How is it possible, that is, for normative political philosophy to authoritatively mediate political conflict? My answer, in a nutshell, is that it cannot. In normative political philosophy, there is little by way of certainty, & we are never dealing with logical deductions front indubitable premises. Instead, we have always to grapple with values that are in various ways controversial, disputed beliefs, contestable empirical claims, questionable in motivational assumptions, concepts that are imprecise, & chains of reasoning that are to a greater or lesser extent informal. These are not to be understood as correctable flaws, somehow to be remedied by the normative political philosopher, but as a persistent feature of political conflict. When they are absent, so too is serious political conflict. 31 References. Adapted from the source document.