Three Questions of Methodology

M. Wight
{"title":"Three Questions of Methodology","authors":"M. Wight","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198848219.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Wight composed this note to make clear three caveats about his exposition of three main traditions of thinking about international politics in Western societies since the sixteenth century (Realism, Rationalism, and Revolutionism). First, the sources considered include not only works by theorists and international lawyers, but also statements and policies of politicians. Second, it is imperative to avoid ‘the hypostatization of categories’—that is, ‘taking a classificatory system too seriously and too concretely’ and attributing objective reality to intellectual concepts. The views of specific thinkers are more valuable than generalizations about shared opinions in categories or claims of progress in philosophical understanding over the centuries. Third, the scholar’s role concerning value judgements in this effort to elucidate the three traditions consists of ‘exposition and comparison, not criticism in any sense of propounding theory’ for the critical assessment of the ideas expressed in these traditions.","PeriodicalId":126645,"journal":{"name":"International Relations and Political Philosophy","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Relations and Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848219.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Wight composed this note to make clear three caveats about his exposition of three main traditions of thinking about international politics in Western societies since the sixteenth century (Realism, Rationalism, and Revolutionism). First, the sources considered include not only works by theorists and international lawyers, but also statements and policies of politicians. Second, it is imperative to avoid ‘the hypostatization of categories’—that is, ‘taking a classificatory system too seriously and too concretely’ and attributing objective reality to intellectual concepts. The views of specific thinkers are more valuable than generalizations about shared opinions in categories or claims of progress in philosophical understanding over the centuries. Third, the scholar’s role concerning value judgements in this effort to elucidate the three traditions consists of ‘exposition and comparison, not criticism in any sense of propounding theory’ for the critical assessment of the ideas expressed in these traditions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
方法论的三个问题
怀特写这篇文章,是为了明确阐述自16世纪以来西方社会思考国际政治的三种主要传统(现实主义、理性主义和革命主义)的三个警告。首先,考虑的来源不仅包括理论家和国际律师的著作,还包括政治家的声明和政策。其次,必须避免“范畴的实体化”,即“过于严肃和具体地看待一个分类系统”,并将客观现实归因于智力概念。具体思想家的观点比几个世纪以来对范畴的共同观点或哲学理解进步的主张的概括更有价值。第三,在阐明这三种传统的努力中,学者在价值判断方面的作用包括“阐述和比较,而不是在任何意义上提出理论的批评”,以对这些传统中所表达的思想进行批判性评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Review of Kenneth W. Thompson, Political Realism and the Crisis of World Politics: An American Approach to Foreign Policy (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press; London, Oxford University Press, 1960) On the Abolition of War Review of J. L. Talmon, Political Messianism: The Romantic Phase (London: Secker & Warburg, 1960) Popular Legitimacy Review of Hans J. Morgenthau, Dilemmas of Politics, and Correspondence (University of Chicago Press; and London, Cambridge University Press, 1958)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1