Political Philosophy Today

Philosophy ◽  
1965 ◽  
Vol 40 (152) ◽  
pp. 162-164
Author(s):  
D.O. Thomas
2019 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabian Freyenhagen

In this paper, I would like to take up one proposal that I touch on as part of the longer paper delivered at the SPT conference on Critical Theory and the Concept of Social Pathology. The proposal is an analytic grid for characterising social pathologies, particularly in thelight of the conceptualisations of this idea specified within the Frankfurt School CriticalTheory tradition.Let me first summarise briefly the longer paper. I present some general features of the idea of social pathology (see below), and suggest that this idea can set FrankfurtSchool Critical Theory apart from mainstream liberal approaches – notably, in virtue of the specifically ethical register it involves (rather than a justice-based one dominant incontemporary liberalism) and the interdisciplinary approach it calls for (which marks a contrast to the relatively stark division between normative theorising and the social sciences characteristic of much of political philosophy today). I criticise the way Habermas and Honneth transform the early Frankfurt School conceptualisations of this idea by tying itto their respective models of functional differentiation of society.


2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 505-519
Author(s):  
Matthias Lutz-Bachmann

Abstract Hope. A Philosophical Outlook The »Concept of Hope« has been established as a central idea in Philosophy not earlier than in the Philosophy of Enlightenment by Kant. In Kant’s Philosophy, the concept of hope is describing a constitutive dimension of »Reason« in its »practical use« which is mediating Political Philosophy with Kant’s Philosophy of Religion. As we can see Kant is following much more the biblical tradition on hope than the former understanding of hope as a virtue in Philosophy. From the insight of Kant, Philosophy today is able to learn about the fundamental importance of the concept of hope for a contemporary theory of public reasoning.


Author(s):  
Tony Burns

This chapter examines the argument of Aristotle's Politics in relation to the theory of justice that he articulates in his Nicomachean Ethics. It first provides a biography of Aristotle before discussing his view of human nature, the starting point for understanding his views on both ethics and politics. In particular, it considers what Aristotle means when he describes man as a ‘social and political animal’ (zoon politikon). It goes on to explore the theory of justice developed in Aristotle's Ethics, focusing on the notions of proportional and arithmetical equality. It also analyses the two areas of social life in which the concept of justice has a practical application: the spheres of rectificatory and distributive justice. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the continuing relevance of Aristotle for political philosophy today, especially for the debate between John Rawls and his communitarian critics.


2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 205-219
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Zucca

This paper is about the place of religion in Alan Brudner’s Constitutional Goods. More generally, it offers some thoughts on the place of religion in constitutional theory and political philosophy today. This theologico-political question was central for many centuries, but gradually faded as our secular age affirmed itself. Recent political and social events at the European and at the global level have firmly turned the tide.


2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eldon J. Eisenach

Parallel statements through the 1970s and 1980s can be found regarding study of the religious elements in early modern liberal political thought, notably that of Hobbes and Locke. By any measure, the study of religion in American politics, history, and culture, and in political philosophy today, is not only flourishing, it threatens to overwhelm us. This is true not only in the bureaucratic sense of the Religion and Politics Section of the APSA, but in the focus on religion across the discipline and in the use by these political scientists of the work of political, social, cultural, racial, and gender historians and literary critics. And where enough entrepreneurial academics go, grant-giving foundations are sure to follow.


2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (144) ◽  
pp. 587-607
Author(s):  
Gustavo H. Dalaqua

ABSTRACT The agonistic vs. epistemic dichotomy is fairly widespread in contemporary democratic theory and is endorsed by scholars as outstanding as Luis Felipe Miguel, Chantal Mouffe, and Nadia Urbinati. According to them, the idea that democratic deliberation can work as a rational exchange of arguments that aims at truth is incompatible with the recognition of conflict as a central feature of politics. In other words, the epistemic approach is bound to obliterate the agonistic and conflictive dimension of democracy. This article takes this dichotomized way of thinking to task by reconstructing the association between democracy and compromise made by John Stuart Mill, John Morley, and Hans Kelsen. It concludes that the conceptualization of democracy as compromise offers an alternative to the agonistic vs. epistemic divide that disconcerts a significant part of political philosophy today.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document