Since Charles Beard first focused attention upon it in 1913, the Tenth Federalist Paper has been at the centre of the debate concerning the foundations of the American republic. Specifically, there have been three primary interpretations of this document. Each corresponds to one of the three major traditions of interpretation that have dominated the study of American political thought in the twentieth century. Each also points towards and has been evoked in the service of drastically different political philosophies.
{"title":"Impartial representation and the extended republic: towards a comprehensive and balanced reading of the tenth federalist paper","authors":"A. Gibson","doi":"10.4324/9781351155168-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351155168-8","url":null,"abstract":"Since Charles Beard first focused attention upon it in 1913, the Tenth Federalist Paper has been at the centre of the debate concerning the foundations of the American republic. Specifically, there have been three primary interpretations of this document. Each corresponds to one of the three major traditions of interpretation that have dominated the study of American political thought in the twentieth century. Each also points towards and has been evoked in the service of drastically different political philosophies.","PeriodicalId":51773,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1991-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70463418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
After viewing the various criticisms of Engels and the attempts to separate him from Marx, one is left with the suspicion that in the texts of Marx there is a close connection rather than a consistent separation among the terms positivism, naturalism, Prometheanism and praxis. Thomas's attempt to separate them on a different axis only leads him to a softening of the supposedly precise distinctions existing among them. While Thomas's views largely typify the New Orthodoxy among Engels critics, his departures from that orthodoxy serve more to illuminate its problems than to solve them. In what follows I argue that Thomas, along with Kolakowski, Schmidt, Carver, Ball and the various Engels critics, despite their differences, have all been unconvincing in their attempts to show consistent distinctions among the four terms in the Marxian texts. Put another way, Marx's references to nature cannot be read as giving precise twentieth-century definitions to the four terms. On the contrary, in Marx's (and Engels') texts, these terms have an ambiguity which leads us to interpret Marx as linking the four terms as much as separating them.
{"title":"Marx, Engels and the Administration of Nature","authors":"J. Stanley","doi":"10.4324/9781351325646-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351325646-1","url":null,"abstract":"After viewing the various criticisms of Engels and the attempts to separate him from Marx, one is left with the suspicion that in the texts of Marx there is a close connection rather than a consistent separation among the terms positivism, naturalism, Prometheanism and praxis. Thomas's attempt to separate them on a different axis only leads him to a softening of the supposedly precise distinctions existing among them. While Thomas's views largely typify the New Orthodoxy among Engels critics, his departures from that orthodoxy serve more to illuminate its problems than to solve them. In what follows I argue that Thomas, along with Kolakowski, Schmidt, Carver, Ball and the various Engels critics, despite their differences, have all been unconvincing in their attempts to show consistent distinctions among the four terms in the Marxian texts. Put another way, Marx's references to nature cannot be read as giving precise twentieth-century definitions to the four terms. On the contrary, in Marx's (and Engels') texts, these terms have an ambiguity which leads us to interpret Marx as linking the four terms as much as separating them.","PeriodicalId":51773,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1991-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70472425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1991-01-01DOI: 10.4324/9781351148245-21
O. Anderson
Rather surprisingly, T.H.Green's ideas on women and the family are as neglected today as they were immediately after his death in 1882, when his thought was first interpreted for a wider public by his colleagues and friends.1 Silence on such matters in the 1880s is not remarkable. It is odd, however, that it persists today, despite recent intense concern with the history of women and the family, including their place in political thought, and despite reviving philosophical interest in the British Idealists and readiness to credit them with a significant impact on politics, education and social work. It has often been remarked that Green's political ideas have much in common superficially with those of John Stuart Mill, since their values and precepts are very similar, although the substructure of their thought is utterly different. Nevertheless it has altogether escaped notice that this is equally true of their ideas on women, marriage and family relationships. Today Mill's fabled feminism easily appears limited and imperceptive, and the priority he gave to the parliamentary vote strangely simplistic. Did Green show any greater realism and understanding? Did he practise as well as preach real equality between men and women, in private as well as public life? In short, what precisely was Green's position on 'the woman question'�?
{"title":"The feminism of T.H. Green: a late-Victorian success story?","authors":"O. Anderson","doi":"10.4324/9781351148245-21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351148245-21","url":null,"abstract":"Rather surprisingly, T.H.Green's ideas on women and the family are as neglected today as they were immediately after his death in 1882, when his thought was first interpreted for a wider public by his colleagues and friends.1 Silence on such matters in the 1880s is not remarkable. It is odd, however, that it persists today, despite recent intense concern with the history of women and the family, including their place in political thought, and despite reviving philosophical interest in the British Idealists and readiness to credit them with a significant impact on politics, education and social work. It has often been remarked that Green's political ideas have much in common superficially with those of John Stuart Mill, since their values and precepts are very similar, although the substructure of their thought is utterly different. Nevertheless it has altogether escaped notice that this is equally true of their ideas on women, marriage and family relationships. Today Mill's fabled feminism easily appears limited and imperceptive, and the priority he gave to the parliamentary vote strangely simplistic. Did Green show any greater realism and understanding? Did he practise as well as preach real equality between men and women, in private as well as public life? In short, what precisely was Green's position on 'the woman question'�?","PeriodicalId":51773,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1991-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70462654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1991-01-01DOI: 10.4324/9781315258492-23
S. Buckle, D. Castiglione
The object of this paper is to put Hume's criticism of the �fashionable theory� of the original contract within its proper contexts. This will enable us to show the inner coherence of Hume's arguments, but also their pronounced difference from those characteristically modern versions of contract theory which, like Rawls's, appeal to the notion of a hypothetical contract. We begin, however, with a few observations on the history of contract theories.
{"title":"Hume's critique of the contract theory","authors":"S. Buckle, D. Castiglione","doi":"10.4324/9781315258492-23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315258492-23","url":null,"abstract":"The object of this paper is to put Hume's criticism of the �fashionable theory� of the original contract within its proper contexts. This will enable us to show the inner coherence of Hume's arguments, but also their pronounced difference from those characteristically modern versions of contract theory which, like Rawls's, appeal to the notion of a hypothetical contract. We begin, however, with a few observations on the history of contract theories.","PeriodicalId":51773,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1991-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70643709","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Contrary to the common interpretation, Machiavelli's notion of tyranny is quite elusive, for it is not based on moral or legal considerations. Machiavelli does not obliterate the difference between tyranny and principality, but he judges regimes and political behaviour according to the circumstances and to the end pursued by the statesman. His major political writings can be construed as aiming at the permanent education of the real statesman, to furnish him with a vision of the correct aim to pursue and, at the same time, to enable him to master 'the quality of the times'. Machiavelli's political works thus belong to the classic tradition of political treatises in the fashion of Aristotle's Politics and Cicero's De Officiis.
{"title":"The place of the tyrant in Machiavelli's political thought and the literary genre of The prince","authors":"Giovanni Giorgini","doi":"10.7916/D8Z3250K","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8Z3250K","url":null,"abstract":"Contrary to the common interpretation, Machiavelli's notion of tyranny is quite elusive, for it is not based on moral or legal considerations. Machiavelli does not obliterate the difference between tyranny and principality, but he judges regimes and political behaviour according to the circumstances and to the end pursued by the statesman. His major political writings can be construed as aiming at the permanent education of the real statesman, to furnish him with a vision of the correct aim to pursue and, at the same time, to enable him to master 'the quality of the times'. Machiavelli's political works thus belong to the classic tradition of political treatises in the fashion of Aristotle's Politics and Cicero's De Officiis.","PeriodicalId":51773,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71368513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：