Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
And other global events.
I am stumbling about in the Philosophy of Politics forum, from basically a position of ignorance.
I would be grateful for pointers to reliable sources, books etc. on politics, the history of...or the philosophy of.
Thanks.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
You might want to narrow it down a bit and say what aspects of political philosophy and history you are particularly interested in.Georgeanna wrote: ↑August 7th, 2018, 11:11 am I am a relative newcomer to the world of politics. Recently stirred from my slumbers by recent shake-up in UK i.e. Brexit.
And other global events.
I am stumbling about in the Philosophy of Politics forum, from basically a position of ignorance.
I would be grateful for pointers to reliable sources, books etc. on politics, the history of...or the philosophy of.
Thanks.
I'd recommend "Communist Manifesto" but you'd need to understand the historical context of child labour and other forms of exploitation.
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
I don't think I can understand e.g. current UK politics without delving into the history of the 2 main political parties.
However, my interests lie in the rising inequalities in power; the global consequences of swift moving political and technological changes enabling extremism. Not to mention the role of media and how persistent messages can brainwash the vulnerable.
What and How any countermeasures can be taken to provide real education and understanding.
Stuff like that.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
The same technologies are also enabling a more democratic debate.Georgeanna wrote: ↑August 7th, 2018, 12:04 pm
However, my interests lie in the rising inequalities in power; the global consequences of swift moving political and technological changes enabling extremism.
I'm not sure there are more inequalities of power. I think the technology as made ordinary people more aware of existing inequalities and has given them the opportunity to express those findings to a wide audience.
The big question is to what degree ordinary people are capable of divesting themselves of the manipulation of the media and to counter it with their own stories.
It is my hope that standard media outlets such as Newspapers and TV shall have increasingly less power in the face of social media. 30 years ago they had it their own way completely, and were able to destroy a growing popular left politics. Obama and Jeremy Corbyn would have not been a possibility back then. Obama made good and intentional use of social media, whilst JC has benefitted from it without him being personally aware of it.
Labour party politics is getting increasingly more democratic by the day - this is how inequalities of power are being challenged.
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
In the meantime, I've been poking about the internet and found this:
The Best Books on Political Philosophy
https://fivebooks.com/best-books/jonath ... hilosophy/
' British philosopher Jonathan Wolff chooses five books by thinkers who have shaped the field. He explores the experiences that influenced each writer, saying 'it’s very rare for philosophers to say very much about their history and what brought them to the views they have'.
The interview by Nigel Warburton contains much more than a list but here are the 5.
1. Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan
2. Karl Marx's Early Writings - the 1844 manuscripts
3. John Rawls A Theory of Justice
4. Robert Nozick Anarchy, State and Utopia
5. G.A. Cohen If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
Any further ideas welcome...
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
You could do much worse than to simply watch all the YouTube videos featuring Noam Chomsky.Georgeanna wrote: ↑August 7th, 2018, 1:50 pm I'm not sure if I could plough through any of the books listed.
Any further ideas welcome...
Whatever you think has been happening over the last 50 years, he'll demonstrate that something else entirely different has been happening. And he'll be telling the truth.
You might also want to follow Yanis Varoufakis, for another clearly look at the minefield of political lies that the media represents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGt82RFfg3U&t=53s
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
First, I read about Noam Chomsky on wiki.
Seems like my kind of philosopher:
' In Chomsky's view, the truth about political realities is systematically distorted or suppressed through elite corporate interests, who use corporate media, advertising, and think tanks to promote their own propaganda. His work seeks to reveal such manipulations and the truth that they obscure.[209] He believes that "common sense" is all that is required to break through the web of falsehood and see the truth, if it (common sense) is employed using both critical thinking skills and an awareness of the role that self-interest and self-deception plays both on oneself and on others.[210] He believes that it is the moral responsibility of intellectuals to tell the truth about the world, but claims that few do so because they fear losing prestige and funding.[211] He argues that, as such an intellectual, it is his duty to use his privilege, resources, and training to aid popular democracy movements in their struggles.[212]
Next up, Yanis Varoufakis...
Tomorrow.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
The following are all available free:
What is Political Philosophy:https://www.scribd.com/document/3590868 ... tegral-pdf
Introduction to Political Philosophy: http://kronos.org.pl/wp-content/uploads ... ol-III.pdf
History of Political Philosophy: https://filosofiapolitica3unam.files.wo ... trauss.pdf
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
Other than that looking at fashoins trends and general pop culture should give you a reasonable grasp when considering the power of propaganda, advertising and the human susceptibility to believe what we want to hear.
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
I think I do need varying kinds of resources to keep motivated.
However, too often I spend my time looking for stuff, finding it, downloading it and having done that - sit back satisfied, exhausted and that's it.
For example, this morning I found I already had a book ' Reading Political Philosophy - Machiavelli to Mill' - Nigel Warburton, Jon Pike, Derek Matravers. I think I entered the OU site some time ago where it was recommended.
I do wonder if I might have some strange obsession with having material to hand. Just incase the internet goes down in flames.
Here's another freebie starter from Open Yale:
https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/ ... /lecture-1
with video, transcript and audio.
Enough to be getting on with, I think.
Thanks again for all contributions.
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
Oh, missed this. Writing at same timeBurning ghost wrote: ↑August 8th, 2018, 4:04 am Plato’s The Republic and Aristotle’s Politics would be the first place to begin. If you read these you’ll probably notice the differences of city states and nations - here I find many try too apply small scale solutions to large scale problems.
Other than that looking at fashoins trends and general pop culture should give you a reasonable grasp when considering the power of propaganda, advertising and the human susceptibility to believe what we want to hear.
Again, appreciate the insights.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
The lecturer, Steven B. Smith, is a graduate of the University of Chicago, the seat of the movement in political philosophy begun by Leo Strauss. He is the author of “Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism”. From the publisher’s (University of Chicago) website:Here's another freebie starter from Open Yale:
https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/ ... /lecture-1
Interest in Leo Strauss is greater now than at any time since his death, mostly because of the purported link between his thought and the political movement known as neoconservatism. Steven B. Smith, though, surprisingly depicts Strauss not as the high priest of neoconservatism but as a friend of liberal democracy—perhaps the best defender democracy has ever had. Moreover, in Reading Leo Strauss, Smith shows that Strauss’s defense of liberal democracy was closely connected to his skepticism of both the extreme Left and extreme Right.
I agree with this assessment. It is what I was getting at when I said Strauss is a polarizing figure.
I have not listened to the lecture yet, but will. Comments to follow.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
I decided to switch to the transcript. Instead of commenting at this time, some interesting points worth considering:
Today it is the hope of many people, both here and abroad, that we might even overcome, might even transcend the basic structure of regime politics altogether and organize our world around global norms of justice and international law. Is such a thing possible? It can’t be ruled out, but such a world, I would note–let’s just say a world administered by international courts of law, by judges and judicial tribunals–would no longer be a political world. Politics only takes place within the context of the particular. It is only possible within the structure of the regime itself.
Is the best regime, as the ancients tended to believe, Plato, Aristotle, and others, is it an aristocratic republic in which only the few best habitually rule; or is the best regime as the moderns believe, a democratic republic where in principle political office is open to all by virtue of their membership in society alone? Will the best regime be a small closed society that through generations has made a supreme sacrifice towards self-perfection? Think of that. Or will the best regime be a large cosmopolitan order embracing all human beings, perhaps even a kind of universal League of Nations consisting of all free and equal men and women?
And this finally raises the question of the relation between the best regime or the good regime, and what we could say are actually existing regimes, regimes that we are all familiar with. What function does the best regime play in political science?
But the good citizen, Aristotle goes on to say, is not the same as the good human being, right? Where the good citizen is relative to the regime, you might say regime-specific, the good human being, so he believes, is good everywhere. The good human being loves what is good simply, not because it is his own, but because it is good.
Second lecture:The good human being, it would seem, would be a philosopher, or at least would have something philosophical about him or her, and who may only be fully at home in the best regime. But of course the best regime lacks actuality. We all know that. It has never existed. The best regime embodies a supreme paradox, it would seem. It is superior in some ways to all actual regimes, but it has no concrete existence anywhere. This makes it difficult, you could say and this is Aristotle’s point, I think, this makes it difficult for the philosopher to be a good citizen of any actual regime. Philosophy will never feel fully or truly at home in any particular society. The philosopher can never be truly loyal to anyone or anything but what is best. Think of that: it raises a question about issues of love, loyalty, and friendship.
I am skipping over much of the discussion of the Apology, not because it is not of value, on the contrary, but because I want to keep in view the question of political philosophy without the risk of the trees blocking our view of the forest.
Today we start with Plato, Plato’s Apology of Socrates. This is the best introductory text to the study of Political Philosophy. Why? Let me give you two reasons. First, it shows Socrates, the reputed founder of our discipline, the founder of Political Science, and I will say a little bit more about that later on today, explaining himself and justifying himself, justifying his way of life before a jury of his peers. It shows Socrates speaking in a public forum, defending the utility of philosophy for political life. And, secondly, the Apology demonstrates also the vulnerability of political philosophy in its relation to the city, in its relation to political power. The Apology puts on trial not merely a particular individual, Socrates, but puts on trial the very idea of philosophy. From its very beginnings, philosophy and the city, philosophy and political life, have stood in a sort of tension with one another.
Are these two things, are these two goods as it were, freedom of mind and political life, are they compatible or are they necessarily at odds with one another? That seems to me to be, in some ways, the fundamental question that the Apology asks us to consider.
Note that Socrates never defends himself by reference to the doctrine of unlimited free speech. He doesn’t make that claim. He doesn’t make the claim about the general utility of freedom or unlimited speech. Rather, he maintains as he puts it near the end of the defense speech, that the examined life is alone worth living. Only those, in other words, engaged in the continual struggle to clarify their thinking, to remove sources of contradiction and incoherence, only those people can be said to live worthwhile lives. “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Socrates confidently, defiantly asserts to his listeners, to his audience. Nothing else matters for him.
Socrates’s defense speech, like every platonic dialogue, is ultimately a dialogue about education. Who has the right to teach, who has the right to educate? This is in many ways for Socrates the fundamental political question of all times. It is the question of really who governs or maybe put another way, who should govern, who ought to govern.
How are we to understand Socrates’s claim that the pursuit of justice requires him to turn away from public to private life? What is this new kind of citizen, again, concerned with this kind of private virtue, this concern for the virtue of one’s soul? That’s the question I want us to consider again for next week as we finish the Apology and move our way up to the Crito.
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
Thanks for accompanying me along the way; such interaction motivates me and your experience should help with understanding.
Lecture 1 became more interesting after Ch 1 which dealt with 'What is Political Philosophy' which tended to repeat itself in a bid to 'sell' the audience - why you should read the ancients. It usefully covered the main questions and issues.
However, I was a bit puzzled by the final 'all-important' one:
'Quid sit deus - what is God ? Does he and what are the implications for human obligations as citizens.
Perhaps this will become clearer - probably because religion does play a major part in regimes and partisanship.
Ch 2- what is a regime ? Kinds, definitions. Plato's conception in the Republic. The part which raised my eyebrows was in the fact that 'war is built into the very structure of politics' - I suppose I should not have been surprised by the Henry Adams quote: 'Politics is simply the 'organisation of hatreds'...'
The lecturer added that Adams missed out it was 'also an attempt to channel and redirect hatreds towards something like a common goal'.
Next up - how regimes are founded. The basic question - ' by 'reflection and choice' or deliberate act of statesmanship and human intelligence, or product of accident, circumstance, custom and history'.
Must say, at this point, I couldn't help but think of Trump. And then this:
Ch 3 - who or what is a statesman ? the qualities for steering the ship of state - different views by Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Rousseau and Hobbes.
It was pointed out that political philosophy was a practical discipline - those writers were not detached from the world.
Ch4 - what is the best regime?
Here, we are told that 'it constitutes a people's way of life - what they believe makes life worth living - what a people stand for.
The tension between the 'is' and 'ought' is what political philosophy is all about.
Finally, the continuing quest for the best is sustained by Eros - Love.
I look forward to reading more. I do hope that God doesn't get in the way.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023