Suchergebnisse

Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.

Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.

Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.

Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.

The article attempts to provide a definition for the problem area of the philosophy of politics, political philosophy and political science. Given the lack of a well-established distinction between the subjects of these sciences in the Russian-language discourse, the author turns to the English-language tradition. The analysis of this discourse shows the following: 1) the absence of a distinction between political philosophy and the philosophy of politics, which is replaced by political ontology as part of political philosophy; 2) the existence of a distinction between political theory and political philosophy; 3) the dependence of the paradigm of the relationship between political theory and political philosophy on the consensus developed in the national intellectual tradition. In the English-language discourse, the question of the relationship between political science and political philosophy comes to the fore. The latter is considered as a subordinate, integral part of political science. It is shown that, based on the criterion of "insufficient scientificity", attempts to exclude political philosophy from the political science do not stop. The article substantiates the position according to which, despite their apparent similarity, the subjects of political science and political philosophy do not coincide – the disciplinary ontology of political science can become the subject of political philosophy. When discussing the relationship between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy, the article presents several hypotheses. First, a distinction is made between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy and the author argues that they are distinct. Secondly, the position, according to which the philosophy of politics belongs to the field of philosophy, and political philosophy to political science, is critically examined, and the fact that the two disciplines belong to the philosophical corpus of knowledge is substantiated. Thirdly, it is proposed to demarcate between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy in accordance with the difference between their subjects. The subject of philosophy of politics is the phenomenon of the political, while the subject of political philosophy is political phenomena.

The article starts with the question: how is the political philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche even possible? The author discusses with Tracy B. Strong's presumption that Nietzsche's political philosophy is not possible as a transcendental deduction. The author supposes that this type of question clashes with the premises of Nietzsche's thinking and also undermines the interpretation of the other aspects of his philosophy. First of all: the question of nazification and denazification of Nietzsche's thought. The article comes to the conclusion that in the scope of recent investigation there is not much sense in raising the question whether Nietzsche's political views are political philosophy in the normative meaning of the term, but it is possible to discuss the question of political anthropology as the psychology of the nations Nietzsche was really interested in.

The article starts with the question: how is the political philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche even possible? The author discusses with Tracy B. Strong's presumption that Nietzsche's political philosophy is not possible as a transcendental deduction. The author supposes that this type of question clashes with the premises of Nietzsche's thinking and also undermines the interpretation of the other aspects of his philosophy. First of all: the question of nazification and denazification of Nietzsche's thought. The article comes to the conclusion that in the scope of recent investigation there is not much sense in raising the question whether Nietzsche's political views are political philosophy in the normative meaning of the term, but it is possible to discuss the question of political anthropology as the psychology of the nations Nietzsche was really interested in.

The article starts with the question: how is the political philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche even possible? The author discusses with Tracy B. Strong's presumption that Nietzsche's political philosophy is not possible as a transcendental deduction. The author supposes that this type of question clashes with the premises of Nietzsche's thinking and also undermines the interpretation of the other aspects of his philosophy. First of all: the question of nazification and denazification of Nietzsche's thought. The article comes to the conclusion that in the scope of recent investigation there is not much sense in raising the question whether Nietzsche's political views are political philosophy in the normative meaning of the term, but it is possible to discuss the question of political anthropology as the psychology of the nations Nietzsche was really interested in.

The article starts with the question: how is the political philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche even possible? The author discusses with Tracy B. Strong's presumption that Nietzsche's political philosophy is not possible as a transcendental deduction. The author supposes that this type of question clashes with the premises of Nietzsche's thinking and also undermines the interpretation of the other aspects of his philosophy. First of all: the question of nazification and denazification of Nietzsche's thought. The article comes to the conclusion that in the scope of recent investigation there is not much sense in raising the question whether Nietzsche's political views are political philosophy in the normative meaning of the term, but it is possible to discuss the question of political anthropology as the psychology of the nations Nietzsche was really interested in.

The aim of this article is to discuss the influence of historicism on political philosophy which was revealed by Leo Strauss. The paper deals with links between historicism, modern political philosophy, and political science. Reasons are explicated for historicist elimination from scientific discourse of the main problems of classical political philosophy: justice, natural right, best political regime. The paper discusses the main ideas of historicism, which political science absorbed, and Strauss`s exposed contradictions of historicism, its inability to prove consistently the narrowness of philosophical thinking or the reliability of historicist attitude. Political science also becomes self-contradictory as much as it uses historicist approach.

The aim of this article is to discuss the influence of historicism on political philosophy which was revealed by Leo Strauss. The paper deals with links between historicism, modern political philosophy, and political science. Reasons are explicated for historicist elimination from scientific discourse of the main problems of classical political philosophy: justice, natural right, best political regime. The paper discusses the main ideas of historicism, which political science absorbed, and Strauss`s exposed contradictions of historicism, its inability to prove consistently the narrowness of philosophical thinking or the reliability of historicist attitude. Political science also becomes self-contradictory as much as it uses historicist approach.

The aim of this article is to discuss the influence of historicism on political philosophy which was revealed by Leo Strauss. The paper deals with links between historicism, modern political philosophy, and political science. Reasons are explicated for historicist elimination from scientific discourse of the main problems of classical political philosophy: justice, natural right, best political regime. The paper discusses the main ideas of historicism, which political science absorbed, and Strauss`s exposed contradictions of historicism, its inability to prove consistently the narrowness of philosophical thinking or the reliability of historicist attitude. Political science also becomes self-contradictory as much as it uses historicist approach.

The aim of this article is to discuss the influence of historicism on political philosophy which was revealed by Leo Strauss. The paper deals with links between historicism, modern political philosophy, and political science. Reasons are explicated for historicist elimination from scientific discourse of the main problems of classical political philosophy: justice, natural right, best political regime. The paper discusses the main ideas of historicism, which political science absorbed, and Strauss`s exposed contradictions of historicism, its inability to prove consistently the narrowness of philosophical thinking or the reliability of historicist attitude. Political science also becomes self-contradictory as much as it uses historicist approach.

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.