Talk:Political philosophy/Archive 2

Two more?
I know that the list section is already rather large, but I'm somewhat surprised that C. Wright Mills wasn't included in modern political philosophy, his works, especially "the power elite" are often cited to this day. His contribution of a more quantitative look at political philosophy and the structure of state has become a common motief in modern studies of political philosophy. The same with Robert Dahl for that matter. The fact that my university's course in "contemporary political philosophy" focuses on Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Dahl and Mills (with a little bit of others thrown in) shows something I think, they were also the promary focuses of the text we used. The progression of Jefferson being critisized by Madison being critisized by Dahl being critisized by Mills is a short summary of the progression of modern political thought. Even if they don't bear individual mention, the move from abstract philosophy and platonic ideal forms (IE The Republic The Leviathan and to some extent Locke's second trietis (SP?)) to a quantitative look at the realities of states and then a comparison to the ideals is a noteworthy one. The concept of plurality as expressed by Dahl was also a key turning point, the first big 'new' theory of government since the development of pluralism in the 1800s. I strongly think these ideas might bear exploration. Wintermut3 03:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Midevil Period Needs "Magna Carta" Mentioned
In 1215 the Magna Carta began major Declarations establishing man's and individual rights, including some very early womens rights.

This was a political turning point as these rights separated God given rights of all free men within the realm from royalty or government.

It began limitations to legislation (the legislative) against these rights (see Rights of the colonists 1772).

These rights can be traced through common law (up to present day), the English Constitution, English Bill of Rights 1689, The Rights of the Colonists 1772, The Declaration of Independence 1776, discussed during the U.S. Constitutional debates and the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.

See study and reference links at: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/Foundation_of_Rights/foundation_of_rights.html

User Richard Taylor APP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.35.51.241 (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

History section inacurate and unsourced
This section is very poorly written, does not cite sources and is simply incorrect in certian cases. For example, the section on Islamic political philosophy states that the Islamic world was only exposed to Plato, while the West was exposed to both, thus making their current political philosohpies differnt. This is absurd. In reality, the near east was exposed to Plato AND Aristotle while the West had altogether forgotten the Greek langauge until the late middle ages. The reason the two systems are different has nothing to do with Plato or Aristotle: it has to do with the fact that most Islamic countries have a theocratic political system to some degree while the west has a secular philosophy. Someone please fix this. Djlayton4 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Political Philosophers has no Precedent and should be Removed
Including such a long list has no precedent in other articles (see an article about another philosophical branch such as Philosophy of Mind). We should instead simply have a the separate list linked at the bottom and try to integrate the important philosophers into the article (as of right now it the article itself is very cursory). Djlayton4 02:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

More detail needed in historical sections
I would like to see more emphasis on the major themes of political philosophy covered in the different historical sections. For instance, I am of the general impression that prior to Machiavelli, political philosophy focused almost solely on justice. After Machiavelli, the emphasis shifted to power (which began the political science tradition). In the Enlightenment and after, many authors focused on economic well-being as the proper goal of good government. That sort of thing. What were the themes? -- Calion | Talk 18:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

a couple questions and some errors
1. "Early Muslim philosophy emphasized an inexorable link between science and religion, and the process of ijtihad to find truth - in effect all philosophy was "political" as it had real implications for governance". First, I do not believe early muslim philosophy emphasized science as science, in the sense we understand the word today, simply did not exist anywhere in the world during this time. If by 'science', however, the author means something closer to the older sense of the word, where things like philology, philosophy, etc. are all sciences (and science simply = a discipline aiming for rigor and truth, however loosely), then I think the word should be changed, as it is deceptive (most people will read it and think of the modern meaning). In truth, though, I don't know what it could be changed to, and this because of my second confusion -- I have no idea what this sentence means. I am not sure what word to replace for 'science' because I don't know what the author is trying to say; I don't know what a link between science (whatever this word is really supposed to mean) and religion has to do with causing all philosophy to be political. Maybe if the two halves of the sentence were more clearly related we could figure out what 'science' is supposed to mean in the first half.

2. "Islamic political philosophy, was, indeed, rooted in the very sources of Islam i.e. the Qur'an and the Sunna, the words and practices of the Prophet. However, in the Western thought, it is generally known that it was a specific area peculiar merely to the great philosophers of Islam: Kindi, Farabi, İbni Sina, İbn-i Bacce and Ibni Rusd. So, the political conceptions of Islam such as kudrah, sultan, ummah, cemaa -and even the "core" terms of the Qur'an, i.e. ibada, din, rab and ilah- should be taken as the very basis of an analysis. Hence, not only the ideas of the Muslim political philosophers but also many other "jurists" and "ulama" posed political ideas and even theories. For example, the ideas of Hawarij in the very early years of Islamic history on Hilafa and Ummah, or that of Shia on the concept of Imamah deserve to be named as the proofs of political thought. In fact, the clashes between the Ehl-i Sunna and Shia in VII. and VIII. centuries had a genuine political character." WHAT IN GOD'S NAME DOES THIS PARAGRAPH MEAN !!!?????!!!  ie, "as the very basis of an analysis" = ???  I am very murky on what this paragraph is trying to prove to me.  The first two sentences (assuming that "in the Western thought, it is generally known" is replaced with "in the Western thought, it is generally ASSUMED") seem dedicated to convincing me that political philosophy in Islam is not an innovation but rather a practice rooted in the sources of Islam (Quran and Sunna).  But then the rest of the paragraph becomes jargon-choked, poorly explained, and confusing.  I believe the author is trying to give examples of political philosphy that existed prior to the political philosophers so as to prove that political thought originated in the quran and pre-dated political philosophers, but if this is right, the whole thing needs to be made much clearer, the examples need to be better explained, and it needs to be shown that those held up as political theorists who predate political philosophers were basing themselves on the quran (if you want to prove the quran as the source of Islamic political philosphy, you cannot just point to political thought prior to political philosophy; you must further show that that political thought in fact derives from the quran). I would try for a rewrite but I simply lack the expertise.

Mercmisfire 02:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

New Template: Lib
I just created a new template Template:Lib. (It's my first template). It takes one parameter, declaring whether the use on the page is "liberal", "libertarian", or "both". My idea was to use it to head articles such as Liberal International and Libertarian perspectives on gay rights where it might not be clear at first glance which meaning is intended. This would hopefully ensure consistent usage within an article, and prevent overly verbose unclear repetition from article to article. Feel free to discuss on the talk page Template_talk:Lib. samwaltz 20:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

John Adams?
I'm not so sure about the inclusion of John Adams on this list. This is the entry for him:

"#
 * 1) John Adams: Enlightenment writer who defended the American cause for independence. Adams was a Lockean thinker, who was appalled by the French revolution. Adams is known for his outspoken commentary in favor of the American revolution. He defended the American form of republicanism over the French liberal democracy. Adams is considered the founder of American conservative thought."

I personally have never considered Adams to be that important of a political philosopher, especially in comparison to Madison and Jefferson, neither of whom are on this list. He did, however, produce some writings on politics. What I suppose I am actually saying is that if John Adams is on here, Jefferson and Madison should be as well. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Krobilla 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Scare quotes; Bernard Williams and Communitarianism
I've just done a small edit (but forgot to enter a summary) removing some inappropriate scare quotes; particularly in the section on Islamic political thought, where their inclusion seemed especially POV. I've also replaced 'Bernard Williams' with 'Michael Sandel' in the blurb on the liberal-communitarian debate, as Williams always refused to be identified as a communitarian, while Sandel's Sphere's of Justice was one of the more important books in the communitarian resurgence of the late 70s/early 80s.

- Yes, Bernard Williams in his "Morality: An Introduction to Ethics" is scathing about what he calls "vulgar relativism", which certainly puts him at odds with the core of communitarianism :)Cleeliberty (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Francis Fukuyama?
I think the omission of Fukuyama from the slight blink to contemporary political thinkers is bizarre.

It also seems to me that someone really needs to get to work on a comprehensive revision of this page. Although the page covers a lot of territory, I feel that it does not tell the story of the development of historical theory in a way that is accessible to any non-Poli Sci majors. Those of us who did all the assigned reading already know this information, so the page must be considered a resource primer for the uninitiated. Perhaps there is some lesson in theory that explains why no one has leapt into the breach as of yet. Wikipedia seems as close to Rousseau's state of nature as I can imagine, but still the polotical philosophy page remains in a state of chaos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmyrick007 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Concluding list of notable contemporaries
Having just linked them to their WP articles, I noticed that this list seems rather limited to a certain number of perspectives and in fact university appointments. I don't know the field, but would expect certain other universities and countries might be represented. Having read this page, I understand the difficulties in being complete yet concise &c. Best wishes. ABShippee (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

learn
iwant to political plz help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.67.6 (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling: Ethusiasm is probably meant to be enthusiasm (in the last line of the paragraph about medieval islam). Please correct it, if you agree. Wiki has alltogether 6 search results for "ethusiasm ". Sorry, if wrong (I am not native English). kovacske

Subtitle Medieval Islam
This subtitle is a contradiction in terms.

The medieval period is a period in European history. The Islamic philosophers mentioned here don't fit to this catagory but to Islamic Golden Age. I suggest renaming this subtitel to 'Islamic Golden Age'.

See Middle Ages for the following quotes:

Definition 'The Middle Ages form the middle period in a traditional schematic division of European history into three "ages".'

and

Geographic issues While the term "medieval period", often used synonymously with "Middle Ages", is usually used to describe a period of European history, some 20th century historians have described non-European countries as "medieval" when those countries show characteristics of "feudal" organization. The pre-Westernization period in the history of Japan, and the pre-colonial period in developed parts of sub-Saharan Africa, are also sometimes termed "medieval." These terms have fallen out of favour, as modern historians are reluctant to try to fit the history of other regions to the European model. --Labus (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Difference of Political philosophy and legal philosophy ignored in this article
It is important to reconsider all approach. Politic is not equal to law and vice versa. Legal philosophy has law as its subiect. Correct distinction must be done. Pethume (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please highlight the differences between political philosophy and the philosophy of law?
Everything Is Numbers (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetization
Could "we" please put Ayn Rand in the correct place in the alphabetical list of Influential Political Philosophers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.228.222 (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Social philosopher
Could someone more clued-up figure out if the current redirect of Social philosopher to this article is correct, or whether it should instead point to Social philosophy? Cheers. Bromley86 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Plato is not the earliest example of Greek political thought, nor does fn 4 claim that he is.
The article currently includes the sentence (under History > Ancient > Ancient Greece): "Western political philosophy originates in the philosophy of ancient Greece, where political philosophy begins with Plato's Republic in the 4th century BC." This sentence is false, because there were political philosophers in ancient Greece before Plato, including Gorgias, Protagoras, and Heraclitus (and arguably Socrates, since there's a vibrant trend of reading Socrates in his own right, as separate from the ideas of Plato). Also, what about Plato's dialogues that predate the Republic and discuss political issues?

Anyway, the sentence cites a quote from Sahakian, which reads "Western philosophical tradition can be traced back as early as Plato." Note that this wording does not support the claim that Plato was the first political philosopher, or that political philosophy began with Plato, but rather that political philosophy can be traced to as early as Plato. To say that x can be traced to as early as y does not mean that x cannot also (perhaps more controversially) be traced back earlier still to z. But to say that x began with y is to say that none came before y.74.232.112.235 (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well stated. I just made a minor change due to the error, and incorrect citation, as you noted. There should probably be a pre-Socratic entry. Nothing too elaborate or detailed, but at least a few sentences to help illustrate what was really the foundation that Socrates drew from in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.112.234 (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

ctrl+F "Tocqueville" ...not found.
I... seriously? Alexis de Tocqueville, anyone? Democracy in America, anyone? Nowhere to be found in an article on political thought? Can my eyebrows defy gravity any more than they are right now? I don't think so? 69.114.223.250 (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

He should certainly be listed under the Influential political philosophers section, without question. I'm horrible at all this formatting stuff otherwise I'd add it now. Anyone else who could volunteer to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.112.234 (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Straussian political philosophy
I propose a new subsection titled "In the context of Leo Strauss" or something like that. For it is quite impossible to understand the meaning of the phrase "political philosophy" in writers like Strauss and Laurence Lampert from the article as it is. Simply put, the article as it is is an entry for the phrase as it is commonly understood: as philosophy is love of wisdom, so political philosophy is the love of political wisdom. But in writers like Strauss, the phrase is equally meant to refer to the political love of wisdom, that is to say to philosophy that has become political--not so much in the narrower sense, of "being in politics" (although Bacon for example was Lord Chancellor), as in the broadest sense, of political activity in general, for example the publication of a political manifest. Political-philosophical writings, as understood by Strauss et al., are basically manifests for the benefit of philosophy, written by philosophers who felt they had to rise up for it. Or rather, go down: for in this understanding, the great Platonic political philosophers--whose ranks include Homer (Seth Benardete, "The Bow and the Lyre: A Platonic Reading of the Odyssey") and Nietzsche (Strauss, "Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy")--are philosophers who temporarily leave their height in order to involve themselves with its foundations for the benefit of that very height. In fact, we could say that, in this reading, the common understanding of the phrase is due to the success of Platonic political philosophy in the narrower sense, whose Socrates ostensibly went down merely in order to learn political wisdom, but with all his feigned naivety and impartiality really at least as much sought to teach a select few intelligent listeners his own political wisdom. Sauwelios 16:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

theory or philosophy, that is the question.
I realize this may be an old issue, but is this an article on theory or philosophy? Political Theory redirects here but the Intro states they are not the same thing. And if they are not the same, where in this article is Theory discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.73.175 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Similar terms, similar titles
Need to disambiguate paradoxically similar usage combinations of "Government"/"Law"/"Politics", and "Philosophy"/"Ideology"/"Theory.": Government philosophy, Philosophy of government, Government ideology, Ideology of government, Government theory, Theory of government, Law philosophy, Philosophy of law, Law ideology, Ideology of law, Law theory, Theory of law, Political philosophy, Philosophy of politics, Political ideology, Ideology of politics, Political theory, Theory of politics. -Inowen (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Problems with Ancient India Section
Hello Team, basically the entire first paragraph of the subsection is unreferenced. I have not found any independent mention of the term Mantranga, apart from it being a common family name. Should I change the content to reflect what is scholarly knowledge or wait for any response with reliable references to what has been quoted. To clarify, what is mentioned is not a reliably sourced description of early Indian Political Philosophy.--Wikishagnik (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Religious reason and prohibitions in Right-wing politics
I am trying to determine the underlying causes for the re-emergence of ultra-conservative right-wing movements, especially across Europe following the Austerity decades of the early 20th century. This may perhaps also inform the political philosophy behind many other profoundly religious and dictatorial-military regimes.

To that end I have started a draft document user-page here > User:Timpo/Religious_reason_and_prohibitions_in_Right-wing_politics with a section concentrating on Religion as a successful survival strategy. Please feel free to add your comments and contributions to the talk page Regards, Timpo (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)