An Introduction to Political Philosophy

Product Information

Our open-access short courses include day events, weekly learning classes and summer schools. Learn more about our short courses. Academic credit Written by the renowned political philosopher, Jo Wolff, this is the most succinct, lucid, and thought-provoking introduction to the key questions and controversies dominating political philosophy. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. This second edition also goes beyond any other anthology on the market in its coverage of traditionally under-represented views such as libertarianism, neo-socialism, feminism, and critical race theory. And it is one of the only anthologies to go beyond A Theory of Justice in its coverage of the political thought of John Rawls.

An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Cambridge

The ability to describe the main arguments for and against the main positions in the some main debates in political philosophy. After reading Popper’s devastating critiques of each thinker, it is difficult to return to their political ideas with confidence. However, The Open Society and Its Enemies should not only be thought of as a successful negative work: Popper also posits one of the most profound conceptions and defences of democracy ever written, arguing that only if criticism is allowed to flourish in society can progress be made. The Graduate School exists to provide a stimulating and enriching environment for postgraduate students. An Introduction to Political Philosophy The subordinate function which Hume attributed to reason may be briefly described as that of applying scientific generalizations. Of course these generalizations are. not * rational' in the a priori sense for they are synthetic propositions, and only analytic propositions are, in Hume's view, a priori. But on the assumption—which experience seems to justify1— that both physical and mental events occur in accordance with certain general laws, it is rational to look for these laws and to apply them with a view to predicting the future course of events. The process is rational in the strict sense in so far as it consists in drawing the logical implications of a hypothesis. If all arsenic is poisonous, it follows a priori that this piece of arsenic is poisonous, but neither the proposition that all arsenic is poisonous nor the proposition that this is a piece of arsenic is a priori Both of these propositions are empirical and cannot be rationally justified. The Rationalism of Kant and Hegel Hume's revolutionary account of the function of reason naturally evoked a reaction, and the philosophies of the great German thinkers Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) were attempts to restore to reason the positive functions which Hume had denied to it. Kant and Hegel sought to do this by stressing the active function of the mind in knowledge and, in particular, by arguing that, while synthetic propositions may by themselves be devoid of logical necessity, they are characterized by another kind of necessity (which Kant called 'transcendental necessity*) derived from the mind in which they originate. They are necessary, not in the logical sense that their falsity is inconceivable, but in the transcendental sense that experience could not take the form which it does take unless they were assumed to be universally true. Such, in brief, is Kant's theory of the nature of causal and moral laws. He admits that they are synthetic but claims that they are none the less a priori in the transcendental sense. His theory is idealist' in the sense that he holds the stuff of experience to be not independent objects but our ideas ofox judgments about objects. And while he believes that there are independent objects—which he calls 'things-in-themselves'—he holds that these are necessarily unknowable except in the form of appearances conditioned by the way in which the mind, in view of its structure, is bound to apprehend them. Many philosophers would question whether a theory of this sort constitutes any real answer to Hume's empiricism. They would question whether * transcendental' necessity is more than the empirical regularity admitted by Hume—whether, for example, the fact that we always interpret our experience in terms of causal regularities justifies the conclusion that we necessarily interpret it in this way. It must at least be admitted that Hume and other philosophers who think like him have not interpreted their experience in this way. And it is difficult to see why the almost universal belief in causal determination cannot be adequately described, as Hume described it, in terms of habit

By using this service, you agree that you will only keep content for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services Each chapter, when accessed digitally, includes tutorial-style videos from the author to help students understand the key questions and controversies in political philosophy and encourage them to form their own opinion. Rawls argues most people would agree to basic healthcare, fairness, and so on — and uses this as his basis for his “justice as fairness” social contract whereby the state has an integral role to play in the lives of its citizens, which he builds upon in detail throughout this brilliant and significant work. Publishers description: Discussed and debated from time immemorial, the concept of personal liberty went without codification until the 1859 publication of On Liberty. John Stuart Mill’s complete and resolute dedication to the cause of freedom inspired this treatise, an enduring work through which the concept remains well known and studied. Callicles A theory which closely resembles that of Antiphon is attributed by Plato to Callicles in the dialogue Gorgias, According to Plato, Callicles held that Nature is governed by the law of force, while civil and moral laws are normally the result of contracts made by the weak to defraud the strong of what their strength would otherwise secure for them. In a state of nature the survival of thefitwould be the effective rule of life, whereas the laws of society frequently reverse this principle and compel the strong to assist the weak. Callicles thought that his theory was supported by the considerations that in both the animal kingdom and the sphere of international relations,1 in neither of which there are restrictive laws, the rule of force is the operative principle. Hence, Callicles concludes, the rule of force is natural, and should not be opposed by the laws of society. It is not clear from what Plato tells us about Callicles* theory whether (to put the point in modern terms) he was defending a naturalistic theory of morality by defining 'right' in terms of 'might', or whether he was merely arguing that, as a matter of fact, it is morally desirable that the strong should get their way. The fact that he tried to deduce what ought to happen in human society from what does happen in the animal kingdom suggests that the

An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Paperback) - Waterstones An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Paperback) - Waterstones

Turning from introductions and anthologies to primary texts, where better to start than with a discussion of political philosophy that, though over two thousand years old, is one of the subject’s finest works and still drives discussion today? The second alternative has been called the 'Naturalistic' Theory of Morality by Professor G.E.Moore. See his Principia Ethica, Chapter II:First published in 1953, this seminal introduction to political philosophy is intended for both the student of political theory and for the general reader. After an introduction which explains the nature and purpose of philosophy, Dr Murray provides a critical examination of the principle theories advanced by political philosophers from Plato to Marx, paying special attention to contemporary issues.

Conceptualizing Politics | An Introduction to Political Conceptualizing Politics | An Introduction to Political

Some main problems of political philosophy, including the authority of the state, the justification of democracy, the place of liberty, the distribution of property, and feminist theory. Beauvoir dissects how “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman” — shining a light on the negative fallout and injustices of stereotyped gender expectations.First published in 1996 and now in its third edition, Jonathan Wolff’s An Introduction to Political Philosophy is a fantastic starting place for anyone curious about political philosophy. An Introduction to Political Philosophy The difference between analytic and synthetic propositions was defined by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) as follows: Analytic propositions, he said, 'add nothing through the predicate to the concept of the subject, but merely break it up into those constituent concepts that have all along been thought in it, although confusedly', while synthetic judgments 'add to the concept of the subject a predicate which has not been in any wise thought in it, and which no analysis could possibly extract from it'.1 The difference is, in short, that the predicate in an analytic proposition is contained within the meaning of the subject, while in a synthetic proposition the predicate is not contained within the meaning of the subject but adds something related to it. Kant illustrated the difference by the two propositions 'All bodies are extended' and 'All bodies are heavy'. The former, he thought, is analytic, because the concept of 'extension' is part of the meaning of 'body', while the latter is synthetic because the concept of 'heaviness' is not part of the meaning of 'body', but only a quality which it acquires when it is placed in a gravitational field. Kant's definition drew attention to an important difference between analytic and synthetic propositions, although not all analytic propositions naturally fall into the simple subject-predicate form which his examples illustrate. The essential characteristic of an analytic proposition is that it defines the meaning, or part of the meaning, of its subject and does not describe unessential features which may, or may not, belong to it A cube of iron has a certain weight at sea level, a smaller weight at the top of a high mountain, and no weight at all at a certain point between the earth and the moon; but these differences are not essential elements in the meaning of the description 'cube of iron'. It is clear, on the other hand, that if the cube of iron had no extension it would not be a cube of iron, since extension is an essential part of the meaning of the phrase 'cube of iron'. In other words, to deny an analytic proposition is self-contradictory since that is simultaneously asserting and denying the same thing. It is, to borrow Bertrand Russell's example, like saying 'A bald man is not bald'.1 Modern philosophers have devoted much attention to the study of analytic propositions, and many would agree with Professor Ayer that 'a proposition is analytic when its validity depends solely on the definitions of the symbols it contains',2 and that this is so because analytic propositions 'do not make any assertion about the empirical world They simply record our determination to use words in a certain fashion.'3 They are, in other words, tautologies; and the reason why we think it worth while to assert them and sometimes, as in mathematics, to draw elaborate deductions from them, is that our reason is too limited to recognize their full significance without going through these complex verbal processes. These considerations may appear to be extremely abstract and their connection with what is commonly understood as 'political philosophy' far from obvious; but in fact this connection is both simple and fundamental. For philosophy is the 'quest for certainty', and if certainty is a characteristic of propositions, then an inquiry into the nature and scope of Find the best philosophy books on a wide variety of topics with this collection of over 120 philosophy reading lists.

Political Philosophy Reading List – The Best 14 Books to Read Political Philosophy Reading List – The Best 14 Books to Read

Author Jonathan Wolff explores the subject through a series of enduring and timeless questions, jumping centuries and millennia to explore the most influential answers and demonstrate how political philosophy is relevant to contemporary issues.

While Sandel discusses core approaches to ethics and morality, he structures the conversation around contemporary political and societal concerns, touching on such issues as affirmative action, same-sex marriage, physician-assisted suicide, abortion, national service, the moral limits of markets, and more. Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies, first published in 1945, is famous for skewering the politics of two highly-regarded philosophers who also appear on this list, Plato and Marx. From short courses and training to flexible postgraduate programmes; update your skills, change career, or earn a qualification. Learn more about our CPD courses. This raises a further set of questions that we will consider over the term. How are regimes founded, the founding of regimes? What brings them into being and sustains them over time? For thinkers like Tocqueville, for example, regimes are embedded in the deep structures of human history that have determined over long centuries the shape of our political institutions and the way we think about them. Yet other voices within the tradition–Plato, Machiavelli, Rousseau come to mind–believed that regimes can be self-consciously founded through deliberate acts of great statesmen or founding fathers as we might call them. These statesmen–Machiavelli for example refers to Romulus, Moses, Cyrus, as the founders that he looks to; we might think of men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the like–are shapers of peoples and institutions. The very first of the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton even begins by posing this question in the starkest terms. “It has been frequently remarked,” Hamilton writes, “that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” There we see Hamilton asking the basic question about the founding of political institutions: are they created, as he puts it, by “reflection and choice,” that is to say by a deliberate act of statecraft and conscious human intelligence, or are regimes always the product of accident, circumstance, custom, and history? Chapter 3. Who Is a Statesman? What Is a Statesman? [00:22:19] In one sense, you could say political philosophy is simply a branch or what we call a subfield of the field of political science. Yes, all right. It exists alongside of other areas of political inquiry like American government, comparative politics, and international relations. Yet in another sense, political philosophy is something much different than simply a subfield; it seems to be the oldest and most fundamental part of political science. Its purpose is to lay bare, as it were, the fundamental problems, the fundamental concepts and categories which frame the study of politics. In this respect it seems to me much less like just a branch of political science than the foundation of the entire discipline.