scholarly journals On the difference between the reasonable and the rational in normative political theory

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 135-146
Author(s):  
Ivan Mladenovic
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Main Concern ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Fair Principles ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Normative Political Theory

In this paper I will explore the importance of making the difference between the reasonable and the rational for normative political theory. The starting point of my analysis is Rawls?s distinction between the rational and the reasonable in his later political philosophy. For Rawls one of the main characteristics of reasonable persons is that they are able to offer the justifications for their actions, but also for fair principles of cooperation, in terms of reasons that all can accept. There are many criticisms of this view of reasonable persons and its role within normative political theory. My main concern, however, is whether the presupposition of reasonableness is necessary if one already assumes that all individuals are rational. I will argue that not only the reasonable, but the relationship between the reasonable and the rational is crucially important for normative political theory.

Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anik Waldow ◽  
Nigel DeSouza
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Philosophical Anthropology ◽  
Current Work ◽  
Language Games ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Human Culture ◽  
Scientific Terms ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Relationship

This interview explores Charles Taylor’s understanding of philosophical anthropology and its relationship to Herder. Taylor argues that human culture can be properly understood only in a genetic fashion, through hermeneutics and phenomenology, and names Herder as an important precursor here. Taylor illustrates this through the difference between a purely normative political theory and a contextual political philosophy. On the relationship between naturalism and philosophical anthropology, Taylor identifies what he calls a “good naturalism,” associated with Herder, that explains what kind of animal human beings are, and a “bad naturalism” that explains human beings in reductive, natural scientific terms. Finally, Taylor outlines his current work on language, in which a similar opposition arises, between language as necessarily emerging as a rich set of language games/practices and language as pure description. Theories of language that interpret it only in terms of the latter are thus fundamentally flawed and inaccurate.

The Origins of Temporal Legitimacy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Santos Campos
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
The Past ◽  
Fundamental Distinction ◽  
The Future ◽  
History Of ◽  
Political Structures ◽  
Normative Political Theory

Historical analyses of the relations between political theory and time often hinge on two claims. The first is that political theorists have until recently put less emphasis on the future than the past when debating political legitimacy and obligation. The second is that the history of political theory draws a fundamental distinction between theories that invoke time to legitimate political structures and theories that reject temporal considerations in favor of timeless principles. This chapter disputes these two claims by maintaining that competing languages of legitimacy harbor different and interrelated conceptions of temporality. A survey of time conceptions in the history of political philosophy shows that normative political theory is inherently multitemporal, involving double regard for the past and the future. And, since even tenseless principles of legitimacy often depend on temporally related forms of formulation and application, considerations about time seem inescapable in normative political theory.

Kant’s Political Philosophy as a Theory of Non-Ideal Normativity

Kant-Studien ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 107 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Horn
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Categorical Imperative ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract:Kant’s political philosophy confronts its interpreters with a crucial difficulty: it is far from clear if (or how) Kant, in his political theory, makes use of the Categorical Imperative (CI). It is notoriously demanding to clarify the relationship that exists between his political thought on the one hand and the ethics of the

Sovereignty and freedom: Immanuel Kant's liberal internationalist ‘legacy’

2001 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTONIO FRANCESCHET
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Human Freedom ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
The Relationship

This article explores a fundamental division among contemporary liberal internationalists regarding the relationship between state sovereignty and the goal of freedom. The article suggests that, in spite of his popular status among a wide variety of contemporary liberal international theorists, Immanuel Kant's political philosophy is an extraordinarily ambiguous ‘legacy’ because of the dualistic doctrine of state sovereignty to which he subscribed. Kant's thought is committed to state sovereignty while providing the grounds for a profound critique of its existence. The reason that sovereignty is ambiguous in Kant's political theory is that it is justified by his bifurcated understanding of human freedom.

scholarly journals Philosophy of Science in Islamic Thought Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Marlian Arif Nasution
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Main Concern ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Islamic Thought ◽  
Islamic Science ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Basic Philosophy ◽  
Practical Level

<span class="fontstyle0">Tracing a starting point that is very important from the traditional Islamic sciences, modern Western science was developed such that it adopts a philosophical footing. Unlike modern Islamic science, the philosophical footing is to be distinguished from the philosophical foundation of Islamic science. Indeed, Islamic science main concern is closely related to the basic philosophy of science issues is growing and is recognized today, including science paradigms and methodologies developed in the modern world that is more influenced by the thinking paradigm of the modern secular Western philosophy. This implies bias in epistemology and axiology between science and moral paradigm developed in Islam. In the practical level of science that was developed to be dried from a religious touch, these conditions afflict various disciplines of knowledge that Muslims studied. Therefore, Muslims increasingly need to differentiate between Islam and science that is not Islamic. Today, not many intellectual issues are more important to the contemporary Islamic world beyond the relationship between Islam and modern science.</span> <br /><br />

Modern Political Philosophy and Prehistoric Anthropology: Some Preliminary Issues

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Widerquist ◽  
Grant S. McCall
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
The State ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
State Of Nature ◽  
Theory Section ◽  
To Receive ◽  
The Relationship

Because this book involves two very different academic disciplines, political philosophy and anthropology, some background about the relevant topics in each one is helpful. In this chapter, Section 1 introduces the relevant political theory. Section 2 discusses some of the anthropological methods and conceptual issues involved in the examination of the evidence relevant to these philosophical arguments. Section 3 discusses how the state and the state of nature are defined in relation to each other. Section 4 addresses some responses this book is likely to receive. Section 5 discusses the relationship between this book and modern indigenous peoples.

1. Introduction

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will Kymlicka
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Ronald Dworkin ◽  
Fundamental Idea ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
The Relationship

This edition provides an introduction to the major schools of thought that dominate contemporary debates in political philosophy. The focus is on theories which have attracted a certain allegiance, and which offer a more or less comprehensive vision of the ideals of politics. The text examines the notion, advanced by Ronald Dworkin, that every plausible political theory has the same ultimate value, which is equality. It considers another, more abstract and more fundamental, idea of equality in political theory — namely, the idea of treating people ‘as equals’. It also explores what it might mean for libertarianism to have freedom as its foundational value, or for utilitarianism to have utility as its foundational value. Finally, it analyses the relationship between moral and political philosophy and argues that the ultimate test of a theory of justice is that it should be concordant with, and help illuminate, our convictions of justice.

Missing the Archimedean Point: Liberalism's Institutional Presuppositions

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Grafstein
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Collective Choice ◽  
Insufficient Attention ◽  
Political Relationships ◽  
Institutional Relations ◽  
Normative Political Theory

Though liberalism has been widely criticized for its attempt to frame a detached judgment of society based on an asocial conception of individuals, insufficient attention has been paid to the particular social and political relationships this search for an Archimedean point presupposes. Using collective choice theory, I show that liberalism has adopted two distinct kinds of Archimedean points reflecting different and unjustified presuppositions about the true institutional relation between politics and society. Liberalism's Archimedean search is not merely unsuccessful but biased in a way that is significant even for positions critical of liberalism. It is possible, I argue, to have a normative political theory that avoids an asocial conception of individuals without falling victim to liberalism's specific biases concerning institutional relations. The implications for both Rawlsian- or Nozickian-style liberalism are discussed, including the possibility of a political philosophy that avoids their “analytical extremism.“

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document