By Glen Newey
Why do political philosophers shrink back from politics? Glen Newey bargains a not easy and unique critique of liberalism, the dominant political philosophy of our time, tackling such key matters as kingdom legitimacy, value-pluralism, neutrality, the character of politics, public cause, and morality in politics. studying significant liberal theorists, Newey argues that liberalism bypasses politics since it ignores or misunderstands human motivation, and elevates educational systembuilding over political realities of clash and tool.
Read Online or Download After Politics: The Rejection of Politics in Contemporary Liberal Philosophy PDF
Best social philosophy books
Communicative Engagement and Social Liberation: Justice should be Made acknowledges barriers in modern understandings that separate background and rhetoric. Drawing jointly ontological and epistemic views to permit for a fuller appreciation of communique that shapes lived-experience, elements of the 2 educational disciplines are united in acts of communicative engagement.
Marx's uprising opposed to Lenin, through negating the Leninist-Stalinist idea of dialectical materialism and tracing Marx's political philosophy to the Classical Humanism of Aristotle, overthrows the stultifying entrapment of Stalinist Bolshevism and contributes to the revitalization of Marx's procedure.
This publication bargains a liberatory notion of person freedom that uniquely responds to the issues of social oppression and calls for of the interrelatedness insofar because it pertains in particular to the social area of task.
- A Philosophy of Political Myth
- Bug music: How insects gave us rhythm and noise
- Constructing Social Theories
- The Practice of Everyday Life
- Digital Economy and Social Design
Extra info for After Politics: The Rejection of Politics in Contemporary Liberal Philosophy
Diversity extends to conceptions of the political good. A corollary of increased self-reflectiveness might be an awareness of how assumptions concerning the possibility of implementing a certain political order need to be made explicit or challenged, and may reflect unacknowledged beliefs about the nature of politics. If it is to do the job which it sets out to do, normative theory has to scrutinise the conditions of its own possibility. That means examining not only local assumptions informing ideal theory, but also the circumstances in which its prescriptions would be implemented.
If anything, the resurgence of interest in political philosophy has been marked by a sharply increased interest in its history. The influence of Kant on Rawls,12 of Hobbes on Gauthier, Mill on Gray, Locke on Nozick, Aristotle on Galston, Marx on Cohen, Hegel on Taylor13 – to name but a few – testifies to this. Indeed, the political philosophy syllabuses of many (probably most) anglophone universities are largely given over to historical texts, with a coda for the study (again, usually text-based) of ‘contemporary’ work.
This reaction, however, has its doubleminded aspect. In one direction, the blurring of the fact/value distinction has perhaps curbed political philosophers’ diffidence about normativity, while in the other, description has become the domain of ‘political science’, to be sharply distinguished from the inquiry in which political philosophers engage themselves – the latter move being apparently motivated by the very distinction which the first regards as discredited. Whatever the explanation for this may be, the effect has been to clear a space between empirical study of politics and the discipline of political philosophy.
After Politics: The Rejection of Politics in Contemporary Liberal Philosophy by Glen Newey