Suchergebnisse

In Pride and Solace, Norman Jacobson presents a novel perspective on the history of politcal theory. He sees an implicit conspiracy between political thinkers and their audience, in which theory feeds the common longing for solace, while the conversion of the audience to the thinker's truth gratifies a craving for immortality, the thinker's pride. In each age since the birth of the modern state, political theorists have found

"All philosophers, of every school, imagine that causation is one of the fundamental axioms of science, yet, oddly enough, in advanced science … the word 'cause' never occurs …. The Law of Causality, I believe, like much that passes among philosophers, is a relic of a by-gone age, surviving like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm."—Bertrand Russell (1928)Causality is an invention of the formal reason, a product of philosophers and scientists. As an idea, however, "cause" finds its basis in ordinary experience. Objects move. How? By being acted upon by other objects or by human agency; exert a pull here, create an effect there. In the world of experience unrefined by science or philosophy, it sometimes seems as if every thing is connected in some way with every other thing, all are parts in a cosmic puppet show. A simple string model appears natural and true and is a prototype of common-sense notions of causality. Even in science, at least until recently, such notions were given expression as well. The string model, for instance, was to be found equally in the simplest interpretations of Newtonian mechanics as in the implicit theories of the carpenter, the plumber, or the agriculturist. Particles exist and forces act between them as causes, producing change. The very idea of force introduces a feeling of compulsion and the causal connection between events seems a physical necessity, reinforcing the lessons taught by every-day experience.

Much of this essay falls within the realm of speculative thought. Since it is in the nature of speculation that one's words may appear immodest and his conclusions often eccentric, I shall state my arguments at the outset without pausing to elaborate them. The arguments themselves are quite simple. Each of them will reappear later on clothed, I hope, in more attractive dress.Two varieties of political thought contended for the allegiance of the American people at the founding of the new nation. The two seem irreconcilable in certain crucial respects.One was notable for its expression of friendship and brotherhood, for its insistence upon individual spontaneity and uniqueness, and for its disdain for material concerns; it was intuitive and unsystematic in temper. The other displayed a preoccupation with social order, procedural rationality, and the material bases of political association and division; it was abstract and systematic in temper.The exponents of the latter point of view, having put their opponents to rout, assumed the responsibility for organizing the government and politics of the country. They enacted their psychological, social, economic, and political theories into fundamental law, then erected insititutions designed to train generations of citizens to prefer certain goods and conduct over all others.

TWO STREAMS OF POLITICAL THOUGHT WERE PRESENT AT THE FOUNDING OF THE AMERICAN NATION.ONE WAS NOTABLE FOR FRIENDSHIP,BROTHERHOOD,INDIVIDUAL SPONTANEITY AND DISTAIN FOR THE MATERIAL.A FOLLOWER WAS T.PAINE,AND ITS BASIS IS IN ROUSSEAU.THE DECLARATION AND ARTICLES EXPRESSED IT.THE SECOND WAS FOR SOCIAL ORDER,RATIONALITY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS EXPRESSED IN THE CONSTITUTION BY HAMILTON AND MADISON.

Almostevery period of crisis and decision in American history has produced writers on political affairs who have championed a "realistic" approach to the study of human and social problems. Convinced that successful political action must proceed from man "as he is," such writers have been persistently and profoundly suspicious of theories which, they believe, are based either upon faulty assessments of the actual nature of the individual or upon visionary estimates of his potentialities. It is the opinion of these analysts that the nature of man is irrevocably fixed in its partially depraved and partially irrational career—a constant, as it were, among the myriad imponderables entering into the social equation. Thus it has long been a significant part of their method to attempt to discover in the experience of the past a coherent theory of limits applicable to contemporary political society. Eager to profit from the experience of other generations with the perennial problems of government and politics, they have generally displayed little tolerance toward those who would flaunt rationally grounded political experiment in the face of the practical lessons of history. Such combination of pessimistic analysis and resort to the experience of the past—Political Realism —has played a crucial role in the history of political thought in America.