Support NeoGAF

[Zimmy64]

Welcome to the first official Political Philosophy and Theory GAF thread. After debating with myself whether or not to make this thread I decided to go ahead and just go for it.

Goals of the OT

To provide a respectful intellectual environment where individuals can discuss political philosophy regardless of their views. Liberals (both classical and modern), Conservatives, Absolutists, Socialists, Anarchists, Communists, and Libertarians are all welcome. This is a place for argument, to discuss new and upcoming research and trends in political philosophy, to share current research, and to offer and receive constructive criticism

FAQ

What is Political Philosophy?

-Political philosophy is the systematic, theoretical study of many topics: natural rights, justice, government, liberty, authority, and revolution. The fundamental question asked by political philosophers is what should the individuals relationship be to society and what government structures are legitimate and/or desirable.

Wait, how is this different from Political Science. Don’t we already have a thread for this?

-Political Science and Political Philosophy are not the same thing. Political Philosophy deals more with argumentation and uses different methods than Political Science with tends to use the methodology of the Social Sciences. Another distinction is that Political Science tends to be more positive while Political Philosophy can be and often is normative.

Isn’t this Complicated?

-It can be but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. This is supposed to be a place for both beginners and experts in political philosophy. If you have questions, want something explained, or are just confused I’m sure someone here is willing to give you a hand.

Where do I begin?

One of the great things about Political Philosophy is that many of the works are in the Public Domain. It’s easy to Google “Leviathan, Hobbes”, “Two Treatises of Government, Locke”, or “The Social Contract, Rousseau” and find something. In addition Cambridge’s Texts in the History of Political Thought is a great series too.

Who are the big names in Political Philosophy?

-Please see the section below headed major political philosophers

That’s great but can you provide me some more specific recommendations?

-Sure these texts are great for beginners to Political Philosophy

Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and “Discourses on Livy”
Hobbes’s “The Leviathan”
Locke’s “Two Treatises on Government” and “On Property”
Jay, Hamilton, and Madison’s “The Federalist Papers”
Aristotle’s “Politics”
Plato’s “The Republic”
Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” and “Discourses on the Origins of Inequality”
John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”
Rawls’s “A Theory of Justice”
Cohen’s “Structure of Proletarian Unfreedom” and “Freedom and the Proletariat”
Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” (Particularly Chapters 8 and 9)
Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom”

I don’ t know about this. What if I make a fool of myself?

-It’s okay we won’t laugh. Political Philosophy can be a complicated discipline and sometimes it feels like trying to practice it without saying something stupid is like trying to walk through a mine field. And in the event that you do screw up don’t worry even the greats had their less than stellar moments. Hobbes tried to square the circle, Locke thought that at some point in history people actually physically signed the social contract, Rousseau thought the only way to form a legitimate government was to trick people into believing God existed (in the process undermining his own theory in my opinion) so rest assured you’re not alone.

What if I’m not sure what I believe?

That’s okay. I’m not completely sure either. One of the best ways to find out is to engage in argument with other people and find out what you believe is right and what you believe is wrong

What’s up with the thread title?

-It’s a quote by Jeremy Bentham where he criticizes natural rights calling them “nonsense upon stilts”

Did you make these questions up?

Yes, even this one

Useful resources

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

-This is a great peer-reviewed source on different topics in philosophy

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu/

-This is another great source. I’m not sure if it’s peer-reviewed but it’s written by credible academics in the field. The article on Liberalism was co-written by my former Political Philosophy and Ethics Professor Shane Courtland and his former mentor Jerry Gaus who is now at the University of Arizona (The Harvard of Political Philosophy).

Schools of Political Philosophy

Because everyone likes breaking down into different teams and competing against each other to prove their superiority. Please note that you might not neatly fit into one of these categories and I may not have listed all possible schools here.

Conservatism (Team Burke)

-Conservatives tend to promote traditional social institutions, gradualism, and protecting the way things are. For the classical statement of Anglo-American Conservatism see Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France.”

Classical Liberalism (Team Locke)

-Classical Liberalism advocates civil liberties and political freedom under representative government. It tends to stress limited government and economic freedom. John Locke is considered the father of Classical Liberalism and his works “Two Treatises on Government” and “On Property” are considered major works.

Absolutism (Team Hobbes)

- Absolutism advocates unrestrained power in the hands of a single individual usually a monarch who is in almost all cases “above the law.” Thomas Hobbes’s “The Leviathan”, where he first introduces the famous thought experiments the state of nature and the social contract, is considered the classic defense of Absolutism and is an undisputable classic in Political Philosophy.

Communism (Team Marx)

-Communism argues for the worldwide overthrow of Capitalism and socioeconomic structures based upon common ownership of the means of production. It advocates the elimination of the state, money, and social classes. For major works in communist thought see Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto.”

Socialism (Team Cohen)

-Socialism advocates for communal property and cooperative management of the economy. Gerald Allen Cohen is considered the most influential socialist philosopher of the twentieth century and his works include “The Structure of Proletarian Unfreedom” and “Freedom and the Proletariat.”

Libertarianism (Team Nozick)

-Libertarianism argues for individual choice, maximum autonomy, and laissez-faire economics. Most libertarians argue for the minimal state. Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” as well as Milton Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom” are major works.

Natural Law (Team Augustine/Aquinas)

-Natural Law theory suggests that laws are determined by nature and are universal. In addition adherers tend to take a Christian view of politics believing grace is necessary for human freedom. Major Work’s include Augustine’s “City of God.”

Anarchism (Team Proudhon)

-Anarchism argues for a state-less society often with other self-governing institutions. Anti-statism is central. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is considered the father of anarchic thought. Major works include Proudhon’s “What is Property?”

Modern Liberalism (Team Rawls)

-Modern liberalism is more concerned with distributive justice than its distant predecessor. It is more tolerant of state intervention and believes the state is fundamental to achieving human progress. John Rawls, the greatest political philosopher of the 20th century, wrote the classic statement of modern liberalism in his work “A Theory of Justice”, where he formulates the original position, reflective equilibrium, and the veil of ignorance to argue that government institutions should be designed to benefit the least well off.

Major Political Philosophers

By no means an exhaustive list.

-Plato
-Aristotle
-Cicero
-Aquinas
-Augustine
-Machiavelli
-Grotius
-Hobbes
-Locke
-Spinoza
-Montesquieu
-Voltaire
-Hume
-Roussea
-Kant
-Blackstone
-Burke
-Smith
-Paine
-Bentham
-Jefferson
-Madison
-Wollstonecraft
-Malthus
-Hegel
-Ricardo
-Mill
-J.S. Mill
-Comte
-de Tocqueville
-Thoreau
-Marx
-Spencer
-Green
-Hayek
-Rand
-Berlin
-Rawls
-Nozick
-Cohen
-Taylor
-Pettit
-Proudhon
-Kant
-Emerson

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

As a political science major, my biggest concern in politics today is what I see as the dissolution of Western liberalism here at the so-called end of history. I'm worried that ideas such as free speech or free associated my be lost, not because they are stolen by shady authoritarian figures, but because they are forgotten by the people of our listless, post-modern world. Does anyone else feel the same way?

And also thanks for this thread, man! I've always wanted something like this on NeoGAF; I'm subscribed.

 

[Vermillion]

So in.

 

[Zimmy64]

As a political science major, my biggest concern in politics today is what I see as the dissolution of Western liberalism here at the so-called end of history. I'm worried that ideas such as free speech or free associated my be lost, not because they are stolen by shady authoritarian figures, but because they are forgotten by the people of our listless, post-modern world. Does anyone else feel the same way?

And also thanks for this thread, man! I've always wanted something like this on NeoGAF; I'm subscribed.

You're welcome. I know at least one other member that expressed a desire for this kind of thread so I decided to take the initiative and make it. As for your question I'm not as worried. I generally associate the end of history view with the late 90s and believe that view was discredited around 2008/2009 during the great recession. I do worry about losing freedom of speech and association due to widespread apathy but don't think that's connected to any end of history view or post-modern ideology.

Also if your interested in Free Speech and Association I'd recommend J.S. Mill's On Liberty particularly Chapter 2. A link to it can be found here https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm

I find it particularly interesting when we justifies free speech with opinions we know are true, opinions we know are false, and opinions that are partially true.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Fun thread idea. To focus the discussion, at least at the outset, and to further distinguish this thread from the PoliGAF thread, perhaps we could all read through some of the major works in political philosophy simultaneously. As the OP notes, some of the classical stuff is in the public domain, which means the cost of entry to such a discussion is only the time it takes to read the materials. Would that interest anyone?

 

[Zimmy64]

Fun thread idea. To focus the discussion, at least at the outset, and to further distinguish this thread from the PoliGAF thread, perhaps we could all read through some of the major works in political philosophy simultaneously. As the OP notes, some of the classical stuff is in the public domain, which means the cost of entry to such a discussion is only the time it takes to read the materials. Would that interest anyone?

That's a great idea. How exactly would we do it and how would we choose what to read? I'm game for just about anything although it would be best to start with one of the beginner texts: the Leviathan, the Prince, the Two Treatises of Government, the Discourses on the Origins of Inequality, the Discourses on Livy.

 

[Karsticles]

I have often considered making this thread, but I doubt I have anyone to talk to...

 

[Metaphoreus]

That's a great idea. How exactly would we do it and how would we choose what to read? I'm game for just about anything although it would be best to start with one of the beginner texts: the Leviathan, the Prince, the Two Treatises of Government, the Discourses on the Origins of Inequality, the Discourses on Livy.

I took a Political Philosophy course in college, but that was coming up on a decade ago, so I'd just as soon leave that choice up to those who have engaged the topic more recently. However, I do think a chronological approach has its advantages. My PoliPhil class began with Plato (specifically, The Republic), and went on from there in chronological order. That gives a taste not only of the major philosophies, but also how they have developed over time.

 

[Zimmy64]

I have often considered making this thread, but I doubt I have anyone to talk to...

Honestly that was my major fear upon starting this thread too, but I figured I'd go for it. What's the worse that can happen?

I took a Political Philosophy course in college, but that was coming up on a decade ago, so I'd just as soon leave that choice up to those who have engaged the topic more recently. However, I do think a chronological approach has its advantages. My PoliPhil class began with Plato (specifically, The Republic), and went on from there in chronological order. That gives a taste not only of the major philosophies, but also how they have developed over time.

That's also a good idea. The first Political Theory class I took did something similar although we read Aristotle's "Politics" instead of "The Republic."

 

[Metaphoreus]

Well, Zimmy, it may just be you and me doing so at the outset, but I'm all for reading through some of the major works of political philosophy and discussing them. Where shall we start and at what pace should we read?