弗朗索瓦:现代哲学家还是保守的神学家?

IF 1.3 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE European Journal of Political Theory Pub Date : 2021-03-16 DOI:10.1177/14748851211002022
Alexandra Oprea
{"title":"弗朗索瓦:现代哲学家还是保守的神学家?","authors":"Alexandra Oprea","doi":"10.1177/14748851211002022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ryan Patrick Hanley makes two original claims about François Fénelon: (1) that he is best regarded as a political philosopher, and (2) that his political philosophy is best understood as “moderate and modern.” In what follows, I raise two concerns about Hanley’s revisionist turn. First, I argue that the role of philosophy in Fénelon’s account is rather as a handmaiden of theology than as an autonomous area of inquiry—with implications for both the theory and practice of politics. Second, I use Fénelon’s writings on the education of women as an illustration of the more radical and reactionary aspects of his thought. Despite these limits, the book makes a compelling case for recovering Fénelon and opens up new conversations about education, religion, political economy, and international relations in early modern political thought.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"580 - 586"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14748851211002022","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"François Fénelon: Modern philosopher or conservative theologian?\",\"authors\":\"Alexandra Oprea\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14748851211002022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Ryan Patrick Hanley makes two original claims about François Fénelon: (1) that he is best regarded as a political philosopher, and (2) that his political philosophy is best understood as “moderate and modern.” In what follows, I raise two concerns about Hanley’s revisionist turn. First, I argue that the role of philosophy in Fénelon’s account is rather as a handmaiden of theology than as an autonomous area of inquiry—with implications for both the theory and practice of politics. Second, I use Fénelon’s writings on the education of women as an illustration of the more radical and reactionary aspects of his thought. Despite these limits, the book makes a compelling case for recovering Fénelon and opens up new conversations about education, religion, political economy, and international relations in early modern political thought.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46183,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Political Theory\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"580 - 586\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14748851211002022\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Political Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211002022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Political Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211002022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

瑞安·帕特里克·汉利对弗朗索瓦·法萨内隆提出了两个最初的主张:(1)他最适合被视为一位政治哲学家,(2)他的政治哲学最适合被理解为“温和而现代”。在接下来的文章中,我对汉利的修正主义转向提出两点担忧。首先,我认为哲学在f尼隆的描述中扮演的角色更像是神学的侍女,而不是一个自主的探究领域——对政治的理论和实践都有影响。其次,我用f尼隆关于妇女教育的著作来说明他思想中更为激进和反动的方面。尽管存在这些限制,这本书还是为恢复fsamuelon提供了一个令人信服的案例,并开启了关于早期现代政治思想中教育、宗教、政治经济和国际关系的新对话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
François Fénelon: Modern philosopher or conservative theologian?
Ryan Patrick Hanley makes two original claims about François Fénelon: (1) that he is best regarded as a political philosopher, and (2) that his political philosophy is best understood as “moderate and modern.” In what follows, I raise two concerns about Hanley’s revisionist turn. First, I argue that the role of philosophy in Fénelon’s account is rather as a handmaiden of theology than as an autonomous area of inquiry—with implications for both the theory and practice of politics. Second, I use Fénelon’s writings on the education of women as an illustration of the more radical and reactionary aspects of his thought. Despite these limits, the book makes a compelling case for recovering Fénelon and opens up new conversations about education, religion, political economy, and international relations in early modern political thought.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Political Theory provides a high profile research forum. Broad in scope and international in readership, the Journal is named after its geographical location, but is committed to advancing original debates in political theory in the widest possible sense--geographical, historical, and ideological. The Journal publishes contributions in analytic political philosophy, political theory, comparative political thought, and the history of ideas of any tradition. Work that challenges orthodoxies and disrupts entrenched debates is particularly encouraged. All research articles are subject to triple-blind peer-review by internationally renowned scholars in order to ensure the highest standards of quality and impartiality.
期刊最新文献
Night labour, social reproduction and political struggle in the ‘Working Day’ chapter of Marx's Capital Lottocracy or psephocracy? Democracy, elections, and random selection Bearing witness, animal rights and the slaughterhouse vigil The dignitarian return Political theory and the politics of need
×
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