The Mathematics of Countering Tyranny seems like a particularly well done example.
Ethical Foundations Political philosophy has its beginnings in ethics: Since people are by nature sociable — there being few proper anchorites who turn from society to live alone — the question follows as to what kind of life is proper for a person amongst people.
The philosophical discourses concerning politics thus develop, broaden and flow from their ethical underpinnings.
To take a few examples: Accordingly, in the political realm, the utilitarian will support the erection of those institutions whose purpose is to secure the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
In contrast, an ethical deontologist, who claims that the highest good is served by our application of duties to the right or to otherswill acknowledge the justification of those institutions that best serve the employment of duties. In turn an ethical relativist will advocate a plurality of institutions within a nation or around the worldwhereas an ethical objectivist will condemn those that are seen to be lacking a universally morally proper purpose for example, those that support certain inalienable rights.
As ethics is also underpinned by metaphysical and epistemological theories, so too can political philosophy be related to such underlying theories: The greatest and most persistent ethical-political issue that divides philosophers into a host of schools of thought is that concerning the status of the individual: Although the variety and subtleties of this area of thought cannot be examined here, suffice it to say that philosophers divide between those who deem the individual person as sacrosanct that is, ethically and thus politically so and those who consider the individual to be a member of a group and accordingly for whom the group takes on a sacred status.
Others consider political institutions to be sacred in their own right but this is hardly a tenable position: The key question that divides political philosophers returns to whether it is the group or the individual that should be the political unit of analysis. The language used by the opposing thinkers to describe the political primacy of their entity that is, individual or group alters throughout history depending on other competing or complementing concepts; but today the division is best characterized by the "rights of the individual" versus the "rights of the group.
In political theory courses, the debate proceeds today between communitarians and liberals who debate the middle ground of rights and obligations as they stretch between groups and individuals.
This caricature of extremes enables us to consider the differences and the points of agreement between the several schools of political philosophy in a better light.
But as with generalizations made of historical events, the details are much more complicated and subtle. Methodological Issues In pursuing a philosophical examination of political activity, philosophers also divide between those who are methodological individualists and those who are methodological holists.
Methodological individualists seek to explain social actions and behavior in terms of individual action — and politically are known as individualists, whereas holists seek to explain behavior by considering the nature of the group.
The bifurcation results from a metaphysical division on the appropriate unit of study. In contrast to methodological individualists, who claim that a society or culture, people, nation is no more than the sum of its living members, holists argue that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, which in the political realm is translated into the state being greater than the citizenry, or the race, folk, or people being greater than the individual; politically, holism translates into the general theory known as "collectivism," and all collectivist theories deny or lessen the value and authority of the individual in relation to the higher status accorded a collective entity.
Simmering in the background, it must also be noted, are theological-political philosophies that deny any primacy to the individual or to the group in favor of the supreme status of the divine realm.
Yet these too must also split between individualist and holist conceptions of the individual or of the soul and for our purposes here can be said to follow the same dialogue as secular oriented political philosophers.
Once theologians admit to having to have some kind of government or rule for the living on earth, the general debate of political philosophy can be admitted and expounded upon to define the good life for people amongst people. A second important methodological issue that relates both to epistemology as well as to ethics is the role that reason plays in social affairs.
The extreme positions may be characterized as rationalism and irrationalism, but the descriptions are not necessarily logical opposites. A rationalist may declare his belief in rationalism to be ultimately irrational for example, Karl Popperand an irrationalist may act rationally.
Political rationalism emphasizes the employment of reason in social affairs: Rationalists argue that reason unifies humanity politically and hence is a conducive vehicle to peace.
Irrationalists, on the other hand, downplay the efficacy of reason in our human affairs or more particularly in our social affairs.
Irrationalists of all hues can also criticize rationalists for ignoring the subtle wisdom of intellectual and social heritage that often lies beneath contemporary society or which is deemed necessary for the reasoning mind; politically, they consider the demands of reason to be rationalizations of a particular culture usually the criticism is leveled against the West rather than demands that are universal or universalizable claiming that political solutions that appear rational to one group cannot necessarily be translated as solutions for another group.
Some irrationalists uphold polylogism — the theory that there are or ought to be more than one form of logic, which ultimately collapses into an epistemological subjectivism.
However, other irrationalists deny that the human mind develops alternative logics around the world, but that human action does develop alternative methods of living in different places and from different historical circumstances.
To return to the epistemological problems facing holism, the existence of overlapping loyalties that often characterize groups presents a strong criticism against collectivist doctrines:In mainland China, differences in terminology sometimes confuse and complicate discussions of Chinese economic reform.
Under Marxist ideology, capitalism refers to a stage of history in which there is a class system in . This is a story about Nelson Mandela, the world-famous "freedom fighter" and "democrat." You'll have to pardon those slightly sardonic quotes, because I'm afraid this is that kind of story: a bit iconoclastic, and likely to provoke howls of outrage from Western liberals who see Mandela as a benign black moderate who led an army of hymn-singing Uncle Toms to the promised land.
The Midterm Elections are fast approaching. ABC News brings you in-depth coverage and breaking political news, as voters determine the Senate and House of Representatives.
9/12/ - I manage to finish Marx's opus a couple days before the th anniversary of its first publication. Per usual, I find the mere feat of powering through a great & difficult book doesn't automatically lead to an increase in wisdom/5.
A comprehensive, coeducational Catholic High school Diocese of Wollongong - Albion Park Act Justly, love tenderly and walk humbly with your God Micah American Party of Labor; Black Riders Liberation Party; Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CDCS) Communist Party USA; Democratic Socialists of America.