Towards a Canonic Version of Classical Political Theory
This study relates to Spinoza in an obvious manner: he is presented here as the leading contributor to what should count as the classical political theory. The way this connects with the sciences is dual: first, it is assumed that the classical theory is scientific, especially since in its later variant it includes classical economic theory; and, second, it is presented here as canonic in the sense in which classical physics is canonic since Einstein.
Classical physics achieved a canonic version with Einstein’s 1921 The meaning of Relativity (1956). Classical political theory has not, and for diverse reasons. First, much of it is still contested — yet it has been superseded since even those who lean towards it hold modified version of it, Second, much ot it is couched within the traditional metaphysical science is now presented with minimal metaphysical material, so classical poliltical science can and should be stated. This will also relieve us of some traditional metaphysical confusions which may simply drop out of the picture. Finally, just as there are different versions of classical physics — action-at-a-distance and filed theories — which historically competed but in the canonic presentation are put side by side, so one has to detach the two traditional liberal political theories, the realist and the Utopian strains. The difference here is that whereas physicists who worked with both action-at-a-distance and fields were aware of the conflict and openly attempted to reconcile them, in political theory which won respectability — an attempt which was successful until very recently.
KeywordsPolitical Theory Classical Physic Natural Goodness American Revolution Copernican Revolution
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Agassi, Joseph: 1969, ‘Unity and Diversity in Science’, in R. S. Cohen and M. W. Wartofsky (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, Reidel, Dordrecht, 463–522. Reprinted in Joseph Agassi, Science in Flux, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1975, pp. 404–468.Google Scholar
- Aubrey, John: 1972, Brief Lives, Penguin Book, Harmondswork, England.Google Scholar
- Bacon, Francis: 1906, ‘Of Goodness and Goodness of Nature’, in Essays, Everyman’s Library, New York.Google Scholar
- Collingwood, Robin G.: 1942, The New Leviathan, Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Einstein, Albert: 1956, The Meaning of Relativity, transl, by E. P. Adams, 5th edition, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
- Gilbert, Felix: 1967, ‘Machiavelli, Niccolè’, in Paul Edwards (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 5, Macmillan, New York, pp. 119–121.Google Scholar
- Halévy, Elie: 1955, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism, transl, by Mary Morris, Beacon, Boston.Google Scholar
- Kojève, Alexandre: 1969, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel; Lectures on the Phenomenology of the Spirit, assembled by Raymond Queneau, ed. by Allan Bloom, transl, by James H. Nichols, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
- Levi-Malvano, E.: 1912, Montesquieu e Machiavelli, Université de Grenoble and Institut Français de Florence, Grenoble.Google Scholar
- Munz, Peter: 1967, ‘Hooker, Richard’, in Paul Edwards (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 4, Macmillan, New York, pp. 63–66.Google Scholar
- Wisdom, J. O.: 1939–41, ‘The Analyst Controversy: Berkeley’s Influence on the Development of Mathematics’, Hermathene 29, 3–29;Google Scholar
- Wisdom, J. O.: 1939–41 ‘The Analyst Controversy: Berkeley as a Mathematician’, Hermathene 53;Google Scholar
- Wisdom, J. O.: 1939–41 ‘The Compensation of Error in the Method of Fluxions’, Hermathene 57, 49–81.Google Scholar