Political Philosophy

[Dialectic]

Hello all, I'm new here and I thought I might begin my foray into the litnet forums by starting a thread on a subject which I feel most passionate about, that being political philosophy.

I was wondering if everyone would be willing to list the political theorist who has had the greatest impact on their thought, and possibly explain what aspects of the person's work have struck you as so worthwhile. I use the term political philosophy in the broadest sense possible, so feel free to discuss those thinkers whose writings may not appear to be political on the surface but whom you feel has still had a distinct and lasting impact on the ongoing discussion which is political theory. So, individuals such as Nietszche Emerson for example. Furthermore, even if they might not be considered strictly philosophical though their thought has nonetheless set the stage for dilemmas which thinkers are still grappling with, feel free to mention them, i.e. Tocqueville and Weber.

At the risk of sounding cliche' (and possibly running people off) I feel that I must go with Karl Marx for my own selection. I am certainly no dogmatic marxist, I don't feel overly compelled to overthrow capitalist modes of production, and I feel that his conception of historical materialism is somewhat untenable. That being said, there are aspects of Marxian theory which I continually draw upon and which have remained relevant and (I feel) important to consider. His conception of ideology would be an example of this. The way in which a particular social class will purpetuate a system of thought to justify and legitimize the realities of their day-to-day existence works insidiously and powerfully. You see strains of Marx's thought, in respect to ideology, played out prominently in the work of such figures as Weber, Nietzsche, and Foucault.

[prickly_pete]

Freud - we've only been out of the pleistocene for a few thousand years. Definitely not enought time for biology to catch up with the drastically different environment we're living in.

Robert Michels - all organizations are by their very nature oligarchic and as such democracy is untenable or, at best, something we can realize only in a very limited context and limited situations.

[deguonis]

I love politics.

[G L Wilson]

Machiavelli - sharp and wicked as a knife.

[PSRemeshChandra]

All political philosophers since Plato were echos: When their spell vanished, things reverted.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

The oldest political philosopher still remains the greatest ever single political influence in this world which was Plato. And he still remains the most read political philosopher in this world. Thousands and thousands of political philosophers have come, held a brief spell of their own and gone but the world still remains the same, asking the same question of Socrates amplified through his students: what is goodness and how can the soul of a nation bettered? Therefore it is only logical to conceive that since them there have been no political philosophers except a few echos. A political philosopher is a person who permanently changes the way of things. In the case of all political philosophers since Plato whose names were already mentioned here or may be mentioned here hereafter, when the charismatic hallo of their person withdrew from this world, their spell also were gone and everything reverted to their previous positions. Karl Marx was the last in this unbelievably long line. His storming and fuming his head in the British Museum for a quarter century came to nothing. He conceived Marxism as the highest language of the human heart. Will anyone believe that Marxian Communism and Socialism anywhere were not political suppression and biological annihilation? Had Socrates and Plato had access to modern communication means enjoyed by the political philosophers since the times of Sir. Thomas Moore and Francis Bacon, nothing in this world would have remained unchanged.

[Dialectic]

The oldest political philosopher still remains the greatest ever single political influence in this world which was Plato. And he still remains the most read political philosopher in this world. Thousands and thousands of political philosophers have come, held a brief spell of their own and gone but the world still remains the same, asking the same question of Socrates amplified through his students: what is goodness and how can the soul of a nation bettered? Therefore it is only logical to conceive that since them there have been no political philosophers except a few echos. A political philosopher is a person who permanently changes the way of things. In the case of all political philosophers since Plato whose names were already mentioned here or may be mentioned here hereafter, when the charismatic hallo of their person withdrew from this world, their spell also were gone and everything reverted to their previous positions. Karl Marx was the last in this unbelievably long line. His storming and fuming his head in the British Museum for a quarter century came to nothing. He conceived Marxism as the highest language of the human heart. Will anyone believe that Marxian Communism and Socialism anywhere were not political suppression and biological annihilation? Had Socrates and Plato had access to modern communication means enjoyed by the political philosophers since the times of Sir. Thomas Moore and Francis Bacon, nothing in this world would have remained unchanged.

This is certainly a valid argument, but a tad overstated in my opinion. It reminds me of a quote by Alfred Whitehead:

"The European philsophical tradition consists of a series of footnotes to Plato"

Certainly, no one in their right mind would deny the tremendous influence which Plato has had on not only political philosophy, but also on the entirety of western thought. That being said, I disagree with a number of your arguments. First, you state that for an individual to be considered a political philosopher one must "permanently change the way of things." I fall more in line with Marx's eleventh thesis on Feurbach where he states that the history of philosophy up to his time was that of individuals looking to explain the world, however, the point must be to change it. While I agree with you in the sense that for political philosophy to have any normative value it must seek to change things, I think it is unrealistic and altogether misguided for one to disregard the relevance and worth of a thinker for lack of real world impact. Just because the populace fails to adhere to a certain philosophical doctrine does not render it meaningless. The history of political philosophy is that of a conversation, and it is an important one to have. I am fearful of a time wherein individuals no longer feel the need to contribute.

Also, drawing on the real world manifestations of communism does not necesarrily delegitimize Marxism, as Maoism, Leninism, and Stalinism represent bastardized interpretations of Marx's political thought. True Marxism has never existed, and that being said, I realize that it is unlikely ever to occur, and this may very well be a good thing.

Furthermore, if the value of a particular theorist is to be measured solely by their impact on the structure of society, would not the contractarian tradition of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau be of greater value than that of Plato? I feel one would be hard pressed to argue that the political writings of Locke in particular didn't fundamentally change the world around us, look no farther than the Revolutionary War for an example.

[G L Wilson]

No philosopher is really stupid, he can be just boring like Plato.

[Fyodor]

Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius. The stoic stance requires much attention in our modern culture.

[G L Wilson]

Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius. The stoic stance requires much attention in our modern culture.

Stoicism is not a truth.

[Fyodor]

Unfortunately your post doesn't make any sense. Stoicism is a school of philosophy.

You wouldn't say, for instance, liberalism is not a truth. Or conservatism is not a truth.

If you disagree with the stoics you can say 'There is no truth in stoicism.'

At least that would make sense.

If you want to change your statement to something sensical like this then I will counter with: I disagree.


Stoicism is not a truth.

[G L Wilson]

Unfortunately your post doesn't make any sense. Stoicism is a school of philosophy.

You wouldn't say, for instance, liberalism is not a truth. Or conservatism is not a truth.

If you disagree with the stoics you can say 'There is no truth in stoicism.'

At least that would make sense.

If you want to change your statement to something sensical like this then I will counter with: I disagree.

There is truth to Stoicism, it just isn't real to life.

[Dialectic]

I'm sorry Wilson, but your posts are entirely nonsensical.

[G L Wilson]

I'm sorry Wilson, but your posts are entirely nonsensical.

What is nonsensical, Dialectic, is dialectic.

What is true in Stoicism is not true in life.

[prickly_pete]

what is goodness and how can the soul of a nation bettered?

Except the idea of a 'nation' is a historically contingent idea that only emerged in the last 200 years or so.

[G L Wilson]

What is goodness? In the eyes of nations, untruth.

[Dialectic]

Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius. The stoic stance requires much attention in our modern culture.

Fyodor, I've been wanting to delve into Stoicism more as of late, where's a good place to start? I hear a great deal about Seneca and Cicero in addition to the two you mentioned.

[G L Wilson]

The pleasure of pain is a grace to a dying animal.

[prickly_pete]

Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius. The stoic stance requires much attention in our modern culture.

You really think Epictetus is relevant to today's world? It seems to me that politics requires specialization. Applying some abstract principle to everything seems to ignore that different problems require different sollutions.

[G L Wilson]

I agree with you if I've got you right, prickly_pete, politics is not necessary beyond the necessity for it.

[danah]

Edward Said... he is good


and also Fanon..


and Spivak