I. 20th century political and economic philosophy & its effect on the world
(1) how did 20th century philosophers interact with and influence global and domestic politics, directly and indirectly
(2) who had the most influence and why
(3) where can that influence still be seen in governments and economies today
(4) who are their living intellectual/philosophical inheritors and what are they doing now
II. schools of thought: winners, losers, bystanders
(1) what were the main competing schools of thought in 20th century political & economic philosophy
(2) when and where did we see these theories put into action; which were put into action, which were not & why. which could be said to have been successful and why. which could be said to have failed and why. -- which theories have become reality, which have become museum pieces, why
To tackle some of these questions I have so far assembled a small reading list.
the open society and its enemies, vol 1&2, karl popper
(1) the human condition & (2) the origins of totalitarianism, hannah arendt
four essays on liberty, isaiah berlin
general theory of employment, interest and money, john maynard keynes
(1) the road to serfdom & (2) the constitution of liberty, friedrich hayek
emerging ideas
(1) frontiers of justice & (2) the quality of life, martha nussbaum
world poverty and human rights, thomas pogge
(1) frontiers of justice & (2) the quality of life, martha nussbaum
world poverty and human rights, thomas pogge
democracy's edges, phillipe van parijs
democracy 2.0, cass sunstein
I focused on different ideas in 20th century liberal theory and a few contemporary people that I am curious about (nussbaum, pogge, parijs, sunstein) . I was initially focused on developments in western politics, before and after WW2, such as Keynes' influence on economic and political theory and practice (e.g., the 'Keynesian revolution'), the influence of Hayek's ideas on Reagan and Thatcher, Popper's influence on George Soros and other examples of philosophy interacting with people and institutions in the outside world. I also wanted to see how philosophers interacted with and influenced the major social and political crises surrounding WW2. Heidegger was involved with Nazi germany, Giovanni Gentile with Mussolini. What were some other links between philosophers and the violently opposed political positions of the time?
I would like to populate my list with a more diverse crowd. I don't want to limit the research to different flavors of modern liberalism. Marxism is a big one that is missing (I was hoping Jesse could give me some tips on that one). I also know of at least one 20th philosopher who argued in favor of fascism and did some ghostwriting for Mussolini (Giovanni Gentile). Please if you can post any ideas on what philosophers, political theorists and economists should be included, and anything expanding beyond liberalism, marxism and fascism (e.g., different kinds of socialism, anarchism, communism... how they were put into practice if at all, where they came from) and any tips or insight on any of the questions above, I would love some input. If you can point to a specific book, that's even better!
I focused on different ideas in 20th century liberal theory and a few contemporary people that I am curious about (nussbaum, pogge, parijs, sunstein) . I was initially focused on developments in western politics, before and after WW2, such as Keynes' influence on economic and political theory and practice (e.g., the 'Keynesian revolution'), the influence of Hayek's ideas on Reagan and Thatcher, Popper's influence on George Soros and other examples of philosophy interacting with people and institutions in the outside world. I also wanted to see how philosophers interacted with and influenced the major social and political crises surrounding WW2. Heidegger was involved with Nazi germany, Giovanni Gentile with Mussolini. What were some other links between philosophers and the violently opposed political positions of the time?
I would like to populate my list with a more diverse crowd. I don't want to limit the research to different flavors of modern liberalism. Marxism is a big one that is missing (I was hoping Jesse could give me some tips on that one). I also know of at least one 20th philosopher who argued in favor of fascism and did some ghostwriting for Mussolini (Giovanni Gentile). Please if you can post any ideas on what philosophers, political theorists and economists should be included, and anything expanding beyond liberalism, marxism and fascism (e.g., different kinds of socialism, anarchism, communism... how they were put into practice if at all, where they came from) and any tips or insight on any of the questions above, I would love some input. If you can point to a specific book, that's even better!
Any discussion and criticism of any of the questions and topics raised above is very welcome. Share your thoughts!
Thanks,
Nate
1 comment:
Snapshots from philosophia.
N is looking at the question: philosophy and politics.
A few ideas.
Start with some basics. What is political philosophy? What is philosophy – and further, what is political philosophy?
Philosophy is a kind of explicit examining, beginning from everyday experiences that in many cases are not examined – perhaps by design, perhaps because the focus of attention is busy with other things, perhaps because no one has figured out how to examine them yet.
Political philosophy is philosophy of the polis – the city, the community, the socios, the place where we get together and come up or fall down together, sharing some of our problems and hypotheses. Political philosophy is philosophy – that is, it starts out from some pre-philosophical things and tries to get to philosophy from beginnings like these.
Philosophy is examining that begins from unexamined things and common notions and political philosophy is examining political life beginning with unexamined parts of this life and from common notions, common sense.
An example of philosophy is Socrates’s starting out from everyday ideas in his society about terms like courage and justice and his attempt to show something of what is going on within these ideas and trying to get to a clearer set of ideas – also his sense that the main result of this process is to get us out of a position of certainty and into a position of confusion and search.
An example of political philosophy is Aristotle’s having a look at everyday ideas from his society about virtue and then engaging in a philosophical inquiry that takes everyday ideas as its focus – ultimately getting to a proposed definition of virtue; also dropping a few things from the everyday list (e.g. he drops shame and piety from the list) and also adding a few things to the list (e.g. he devises some new ideas about intellectual virtue).
These few foundation-stones go a long way towards showing what is going on in the relation between philosophy and politics. Another way of putting this idea is that we take a few steps away from everyday political opinion and take a few steps closer to political science.
Politics – right and left – right and left sides of the tennis court where the delegates met to shape the French republic.
The distinction between right and left is odd – striking – weird – it seems to put every kind of political idea into a continuum and in a strange way it seems to kill discussion – once the view is put into this continuum, we seem to know our way about and we don’t have to ask any big questions anymore – we just have to make a choice and come down on one side or the other.
In effect this sense of certainty gets us back to the original position that Socrates was attempting to interrogate and that Aristotle tried to overcome and replace with scientific certainty.
Looking at the last century, Nietzsche is a good starting point, because both left and right jump out of Nietzsche and cite him as the inspiration.
For the right, there is above all Heidegger, but also Gadamer, Leo Strauss, Oakeshott, Jung, Bataille, Blanchot and many many more. Some big ideas here are the sense of place, the idea that everything has to be rooted in a place, a people, a way of life, that culture is bigger than the individual, that duties are more important than rights – in moral terms that purity, respect for the leader, loyalty to the place or the symbol is a kind of ultimate; also that the government should not stand between the person and the group – the group should trump the government – e.g. the church or the family or the guild are more important and should dominate the individual – also that the group should not be frustrated in this attempt by the government. The right is against the enlightenment, for romanticism, for the church (or its replacement). Heidegger: “Only a god can save us.”
For the left, there are thinkers like Jaspers, Carnap, Schlick, Russell, Sartre, Freud and many, many more. Some big ideas here are cosmopolitanism, metropolitanism, the melting pot, crossing boundaries, breaking the chain; that the individual is more important than culture; the rights are more important than duties; in moral terms that fairness and do no harm are the chief principles. The individual always trumps the group. The left is about emancipation. There are always new forms of bondage that we have to try to get free of – new ways to crawl out of our tiny little places and get into the open. The left is about enlightenment and against romanticism. Russell: “logic is the essence of philosophy” and the purpose of reasoning is to enlarge freedom.
To dig into all this I would look at Leo Strauss, On Classical Political Philosophy; also Strauss’s Persecution and the Art of Writing, which puts up the traditional double-truth theory (a useful truth to control people, a puzzling truth for the elite who will not their guard down when they see that they are standing on air); Gadamer, Truth and Method, esp. his analysis of common sense; Heidegger’s interview with Der Spiegel (published at his request posthumously); Rawls of course; Richard Wolin’s The Seduction of Unreason, which takes on romanticism and its result in philosophy/fascism; left-critiques also such as Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind; also (arguing the opposite idea) Richard Hofstadter, Anti-intellectualism in American Life.
More: the Frankfurt school, that gets us to look at Weber, Freud and Marx in a unified way; Habermas’s many works, which as a whole draw us to defend the enlightenment and expand discussion; Peter Singer’s The Expanding Circle, which tries to get us to see a line extending from family life to more esoteric forms of political consciousness, ultimately getting to cosmos-piety; Popper’s many works, that get us to see the role of making mistakes in making progress, also attacking the reverential attitude wherever it pops up, because all forms of elitism and Mandarin-making are attempted power-grabs that arise out of class and race prejudices.
A possible conclusion to this point: philosophy goes on and does not lead to any dogmatic position, instead encouraging us to think on: thus the good for man is to search for the good for man. Likewise political philosophy should open us up to new communities – not emprisoning us on our little plot of land.
Post a Comment