Longing for Total Dichotomies

IF 0.4 3区 社会学 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE Critical Review Pub Date : 2021-04-03 DOI:10.1080/08913811.2021.1955466
L. Thiele
{"title":"Longing for Total Dichotomies","authors":"L. Thiele","doi":"10.1080/08913811.2021.1955466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Bernard Yack’s Longing for Total Revolution asserts that a prominent tradition of modern moral and political theory is founded on the binary opposition between nature and culture. Yack rejects this dichotomy in favor of an Aristotelean outlook, and in so doing embraces the opposition between the ancients and the moderns. Neither binary is as oppositional as Yack suggests. There is, however, a more viable distinction to be made between the ancients and the moderns—concerning the role played by teleology—and it better serves the purpose of mapping the historical trajectory of moral and political theorizing. Teleology does not survive modernity, and it is this development that was truly revolutionary.","PeriodicalId":51723,"journal":{"name":"Critical Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"218 - 247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08913811.2021.1955466","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2021.1955466","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Bernard Yack’s Longing for Total Revolution asserts that a prominent tradition of modern moral and political theory is founded on the binary opposition between nature and culture. Yack rejects this dichotomy in favor of an Aristotelean outlook, and in so doing embraces the opposition between the ancients and the moderns. Neither binary is as oppositional as Yack suggests. There is, however, a more viable distinction to be made between the ancients and the moderns—concerning the role played by teleology—and it better serves the purpose of mapping the historical trajectory of moral and political theorizing. Teleology does not survive modernity, and it is this development that was truly revolutionary.
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
渴望完全的二分法
摘要亚克的《渴望彻底革命》认为,现代道德政治理论的一个突出传统是建立在自然与文化的二元对立之上的。亚克反对这种二分法,支持亚里士多德的观点,并在这样做的过程中拥抱了古人和现代人之间的对立。两个二进制都不像亚克所说的那样对立。然而,在古人和现代人之间还有一个更可行的区别——关于目的论所扮演的角色——它更好地服务于绘制道德和政治理论的历史轨迹。目的论无法在现代性中幸存下来,正是这种发展才是真正的革命性。
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
Critical Review
Critical Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society is a political-science journal dedicated to advancing political theory with an epistemological bent. Recurrent questions discussed in our pages include: How can political actors know what they need to know to effect positive social change? What are the sources of political actors’ beliefs? Are these sources reliable? Critical Review is the only journal in which the ideational determinants of political behavior are investigated empirically as well as being assessed for their normative implications. Thus, while normative political theorists are the main contributors to Critical Review, we also publish scholarship on the realities of public opinion, the media, technocratic decision making, ideological reasoning, and other empirical phenomena.
期刊最新文献
Depolarization Without Reconciliation Education and the Epistemological Crisis in the Age of ChatGPT Republicanizing Leviathan: Kant’s Cosmopolitan Synthesis of Hobbes and Rousseau Who Is Haunted by the Shadow Of God? Dialectical Notes on Michael Rosen’s Narrative of (Failed) Secularization Six Variations on Michael Rosen’s The Shadow of God
×
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