Suchergebnisse

The aim of the paper is to prove the incompatibility of Kantian philosophy with empirical political science. The nonexistence of such a science in Kant's structure of reason is not a coincidence that was determined by historical contingencies, it is a necessary position of his teaching. The domination of morality in Kant's conception of practical reason does not leave any room for empirical science of politics. Firstly, introduction of methods borrowed from the natural sciences would lead to the demoralization of politics. Secondly, empirical science of politics deforms our understanding of politics. Thirdly, when politics is divorced from morality it loses its ontological foundation. Empirical science of politics that only attempts to investigate facts is incapable of understanding the role of ideas and for this reason does not distinguish between empirical and conceptual factors. Such a science does not recognize the human person as a free subject of morality and sees him as a consequence of external factors. Finally, political science that is divorced from morals deforms understanding of practical reason.

The paper deals with the main presuppositions of the emergence of political science. The aim is to show that the rupture in the history of political philosophy in the Renaissance, the refusal of the classical political thought about human nature as zoon politikon and about purpose of state, and the birth of modern political ideas about politics as mechanics, was conditio sine qua non for the emergence of the new political science. Main philosophers who initiated this rupture were N. Machiavelli and Th. Hobbes. The 17th century scientific revolution and Enlightenment helped to bring the methods of natural sciences into philosophy. All those ideas were fused together in Positivism which played a pivotal role in the emergence of Political science.

The paper deals with the main presuppositions of the emergence of political science. The aim is to show that the rupture in the history of political philosophy in the Renaissance, the refusal of the classical political thought about human nature as zoon politikon and about purpose of state, and the birth of modern political ideas about politics as mechanics, was conditio sine qua non for the emergence of the new political science. Main philosophers who initiated this rupture were N. Machiavelli and Th. Hobbes. The 17th century scientific revolution and Enlightenment helped to bring the methods of natural sciences into philosophy. All those ideas were fused together in Positivism which played a pivotal role in the emergence of Political science.

The paper deals with the main presuppositions of the emergence of political science. The aim is to show that the rupture in the history of political philosophy in the Renaissance, the refusal of the classical political thought about human nature as zoon politikon and about purpose of state, and the birth of modern political ideas about politics as mechanics, was conditio sine qua non for the emergence of the new political science. Main philosophers who initiated this rupture were N. Machiavelli and Th. Hobbes. The 17th century scientific revolution and Enlightenment helped to bring the methods of natural sciences into philosophy. All those ideas were fused together in Positivism which played a pivotal role in the emergence of Political science.

The paper deals with the main presuppositions of the emergence of political science. The aim is to show that the rupture in the history of political philosophy in the Renaissance, the refusal of the classical political thought about human nature as zoon politikon and about purpose of state, and the birth of modern political ideas about politics as mechanics, was conditio sine qua non for the emergence of the new political science. Main philosophers who initiated this rupture were N. Machiavelli and Th. Hobbes. The 17th century scientific revolution and Enlightenment helped to bring the methods of natural sciences into philosophy. All those ideas were fused together in Positivism which played a pivotal role in the emergence of Political science.

The aim of this article is to discuss the relation between political philosophy and political science. The development of political science highlighted two main approaches toward this relation. One group of political scientists says that political science must stay close to political philosophy while another group demands strict dissociation. Behaviorism in political science marked the enormous growth of influence of the later group. Leo Straus appeared as a rigid critic of behavioral political science and an influential defender of political philophy. This paper deals with his criticism of basic premises of political science and his attitude to the significance of political philospohy.

The aim of this article is to discuss the relation between political philosophy and political science. The development of political science highlighted two main approaches toward this relation. One group of political scientists says that political science must stay close to political philosophy while another group demands strict dissociation. Behaviorism in political science marked the enormous growth of influence of the later group. Leo Straus appeared as a rigid critic of behavioral political science and an influential defender of political philophy. This paper deals with his criticism of basic premises of political science and his attitude to the significance of political philospohy.

The aim of this article is to discuss the relation between political philosophy and political science. The development of political science highlighted two main approaches toward this relation. One group of political scientists says that political science must stay close to political philosophy while another group demands strict dissociation. Behaviorism in political science marked the enormous growth of influence of the later group. Leo Straus appeared as a rigid critic of behavioral political science and an influential defender of political philophy. This paper deals with his criticism of basic premises of political science and his attitude to the significance of political philospohy.

The aim of this article is to discuss the relation between political philosophy and political science. The development of political science highlighted two main approaches toward this relation. One group of political scientists says that political science must stay close to political philosophy while another group demands strict dissociation. Behaviorism in political science marked the enormous growth of influence of the later group. Leo Straus appeared as a rigid critic of behavioral political science and an influential defender of political philophy. This paper deals with his criticism of basic premises of political science and his attitude to the significance of political philospohy.

The aim of this article is to discuss the development of the relation between political philosophy and political science. The main causes and possible perspectives of that development are elaborated. There are explored philosophical ideas which influenced the emergence of political science, the process of its institutionalisation and the relation between political science and political philosophy. The analysis of the process of institutionalisation aims at identification of the main causes of the conflict between two disciplines. The culmination of that conflict occured at sixth decade of twentieth century and was named "The Behavioral Revolution". The sharp antagonism lasted nearly two decates and when it came to an end the relation between political philosophy and political science became stable though ambiguous.

The aim of this article is to discuss the development of the relation between political philosophy and political science. The main causes and possible perspectives of that development are elaborated. There are explored philosophical ideas which influenced the emergence of political science, the process of its institutionalisation and the relation between political science and political philosophy. The analysis of the process of institutionalisation aims at identification of the main causes of the conflict between two disciplines. The culmination of that conflict occured at sixth decade of twentieth century and was named "The Behavioral Revolution". The sharp antagonism lasted nearly two decates and when it came to an end the relation between political philosophy and political science became stable though ambiguous.

The aim of this article is to discuss the development of the relation between political philosophy and political science. The main causes and possible perspectives of that development are elaborated. There are explored philosophical ideas which influenced the emergence of political science, the process of its institutionalisation and the relation between political science and political philosophy. The analysis of the process of institutionalisation aims at identification of the main causes of the conflict between two disciplines. The culmination of that conflict occured at sixth decade of twentieth century and was named "The Behavioral Revolution". The sharp antagonism lasted nearly two decates and when it came to an end the relation between political philosophy and political science became stable though ambiguous.

The aim of this article is to discuss the development of the relation between political philosophy and political science. The main causes and possible perspectives of that development are elaborated. There are explored philosophical ideas which influenced the emergence of political science, the process of its institutionalisation and the relation between political science and political philosophy. The analysis of the process of institutionalisation aims at identification of the main causes of the conflict between two disciplines. The culmination of that conflict occured at sixth decade of twentieth century and was named "The Behavioral Revolution". The sharp antagonism lasted nearly two decates and when it came to an end the relation between political philosophy and political science became stable though ambiguous.