>do graduate degree in political science >discuss no political theory between Aristotle (covered briefly) and Hobbes>do graduate degree in philosophy years later, focusing on medievals >still virtually no coverage of political theory between Aristotle and Hobbes, except for a bit of Aquinas adjacent to his ethics and understanding of virtue.>actually read the great medievals on politics (including the Islamics).>it's been developed *significantly* since antiquity and is quite compelling and even tends to make the early modern thought we have based all subsequent thought on look quite amateurishGranted, I get why it is ignored because you often get some theology and local political grievances mixed in (*cough* Dante) but it's really underappreciated. It's also sad how Strauss and MacIntyre became premier voices in 20th century thought just by dipping into this storehouse, and yet it still isn't taken seriously.
>>25394992Nobody wants you to be politically conscious in a potent way. That's obvious. Everybody's got an ism shaped prison made right for them.
>>25394992political science is a shit degree
>>25394993Even then, politics had to get past the epistemological and metaphysical "isms" of their day>>25395003Certainly no more than underwater lesbian basketweaving.
>>25394992Its because academia has a huge phobia over religion because it implies certain people are more deserving of rights than others
Serious question: What could I as a layman get from reading Strauss and MacIntyre? Will it give me a better understanding of why things are the way they are?
>>25394992History ends in the 5th Century CE and then jumps directly to the 17th Century of our era. Nothing relevant happened during the 12 Centuries in between where man returned to dwelling in caves barbarism ruled. As we know the only government that produces history is the Roman liberal globohomo and it's aborted baby neoliberalism.
>>25394992Hugo Grotius is the only noteworthy contribution. Just knowing that is already a few points against you. If you're just pointing at Strauss for some sort of authority then you definitely need to stick to whatever you think is relevant. Grotius is an easy way to let a room down. He was imprisoned for his beliefs though and wrote a number of books. He purportedly escaped locked in a chest clutching his writings. Maybe the guards then did search you on the way out, prisoners make the best philosophy, and the scholastics tended to peddle rehashes. You should stick to them.
>>25395023>The only good medieval philosopher is a contemporary of Hobbes and Descartes.>>25395017Read pic related instead
>>25395078I don't remember when he lived. You did just make my point for me though.
When "trade" appeal to libertarianism dressed up with some Aristotleian language they should be forced to read pic related.
>>25394992What exactly would you get out of reading about the divine right of kings?The idea has been so utterly discredited that it's only of interest to historians who study medieval politics.It merely deserves addition as part of a footnote on political fictions as part of a polisci course.
>>25395095>All political theory during the Middle Ages is just restatements of the divine right of kings.Thanks for proving Anon's point.
>>25395095The modern rejection of political order having a metaphysical, ontological foundation within the wider divine order is pretty high up there in where things began to go wrong. Authority just gets secularlized from there and filled in which a bunch of man made crap that gets thrown out during emergencies while pernicious individualism corrupts and destroys everything else.
>>25394992How did your graduate courses in political theory not touch at least Augustine and Aquinas, nor for that matter considering the time period Machiavelli? Mine did, but they didn't get into Medieval scholasticism beyond the former two, but I've since picked up how massive of an intellectual-cultural heritage we've somehow almost entirely buried.
>>25395078Great rec
>>25396957Oh yes, I agree. Don't forget "all law is merely positive law." When they wanted to try the Nazis after WWII, but found everything they did was legal, they basically (under many layers of obfuscation and suggestive language that is never cashed out in any true normative order) opted for "might makes right and we won" as the ultimate justification.Anyhow, I'll throw out a relevant title I liked.
>>25394992Most surveys, even though they are already writing on a niche field, are written primarily as histories of how the stage is set for Hobbes, Locke, etc. The focus on sovereignity, who holds ultimate coercive force, etc. is there because it fits modern narratives perfectly. So, the figures mentioned here aren't ignored, every survey mentions them, but their metaphysical underpinnings, the relationship between individual virtue and formation and communal virtue, the organic models that predominate (which honestly do a better job prefiguring modern systems approaches than anything until the late-20th century), the idea of law as participation (in a metaphysical and agential register) all become historical window dressing on the "real" issues, which are thought to be the issues that dominate modern thought.It's also worth pointing out that we have a pretty strong separation between the normative and descriptive in modern theory. That doesn't exist in ancient and medieval thought (and maybe it shouldn't, since people invariably backdoor their own biases in as descriptive, with loaded terms like "rational" and "efficient," etc.). But from a contemporary perspective, where all the normative content about what is truly just, good, and beautiful must be "bracketed out" that only leaves you with the mechanics of coercion and incentivizing. Basically, the toolkit is excludes the very things that make the period interesting.
>>25397251I guess the key difference is we often focus today on the individual versus society and "who had the right to rule?"Then it is more higher versus lower goods (or real versus merely apparent ones) and the question "what is rule for?"For Dante, it's all a pilgrimage, for the individual, and for the community. It's the journey from slavery, from the civil war of the soul and the community (the two generate one another) towards unity and justice. Any society that doesn't perfect individuals in virtue then is simply deficient, regardless of the lower goods it might fleetingly succeed in providing. But the society driven by vice will also ultimately fail, because it is ruled by untamed appetites.
>>25396957Preicsely. For example, Dante's argument in Monarchia is first and foremost a metaphysical argument. The case for universal empire proceeds from the claim that humanity as a whole has a proper act (i.e., the actualization of the possible intellect, which as we see in the Commedia itself requires the actualization of virtue). This process can only be brought to completion under a condition of peace, a peace secured by a single temporal authority. This is argument that flows from potency needing a determinate principle of actualization. It isn't merely a treatise on jurisdictional boundaries between popes and emperors. Treating it as primarily a precursor to modern church/state theory is getting it backwards. The church/state material is the application. It's the more general metaphysics of act and potency applied to the political totality of man's ascent to God.Likewise, John of Salisbury's argument for amputating a tyrant flows from the image of the political body as an actual body, which is itself a participation in the cosmic order (a pattern that reappears fractally at different scales). That's Plato's insight, but refined.
>>25395022There's a Jesuit I listen to that makes a snarky remark almost exactly like that.
>>25395084>The key distinction: Dante argues monarchy is necessary for universal peace and justice—the monarch is active, supreme, and essential. Tolkien argues monarchy is tolerable only if it's essentially inactive and leaves people alone. Sanderson presents monarchy as a flawed system that characters must navigate, with the "divine right" being revealed as historical myth.Ugh, I had to LLM what you refused to spoonfeed.
Bump
BUMBOOOO
>>25397283>>25397259Based posts
>>25395084I wrote an essay contrasting Aristotle with Dante once
>>25394992>graduate degrees in poly sci and philosophyBut why?>>25395003I like poly sci when it's applied, like learning how to run a campaign, conduct polls, etc.
>>25395084Monarchy is sort of a dead letter now though, and I don't think that is really a bad thing. Thankfully, we already have had a saintly intellectual giant steeped in Aquinas pave the way for the Republic of Virtue (and ofc the degenerates tortured him and martyred him).
>>25397251Funny enough, pic related says the same thing about Renaissance thought (and the dominance of Machiavelli, who is an outlier). Although it is indictive how clearly the author is clearly walking on egg shells in broaching the subject, and that all of history isn't just a prelude to Enlightenment liberalism (which is double plus good of course!).
>>25399714Good work. I would say our historical moment is much like the corruption, decadence, and decay of the later Roman Empire. Hence, we are primed for a move like that of the late ("neo") Platonists and Desert Fathers. But Renaissance Italy also recommends itself in some ways.As Thomas Merton described the Desert Fathers, they found their civilization was shipwrecked. Each man had to swim for his life. Only once they had escaped the wreck and set their feet upon the firm foundation of dry land could they hope to rescue others.Anyhow, I'll had some recs.
>>25399831Meant for >>25399006??
>>25399006>Enlightenment liberalism (which is double plus good of course!)I think this.
>>25399831Sterns work is actually a perfect example of how modern scholars try to turn every figure of ability in history into a proto-liberal. The entire thesis relies on a modern notion of faith as sheer affirmation without "justification" (a theological term originally, whose meaning was inverted in the Reformation), which is wholly anachronistic. Of course, there is good stuff there. Dante does not like dogmatism or corruption. But he also doesn't take the "life of philosophy" to be a sui generis higher life above Christianity or prefer open ended liberal "questioning" and the search for wisdom above its possession. The contrast between Limbo and the Heaven of the Sun couldn't make this clearer.Plus, there has been a huge commentary tradition on Dante from the beginning, including Dante's own words on what his work means, and it's a little odd that a thoroughly Enlightenment liberal style reading was missed by all readers for centuries...
>>25399899It would be double plus ungood to think otherwise.
>>25394992We ignore it because it relies on theology and thus is false. Simple as is. Hindu and Chinese thought both had very complex political philosophy aswell but it is, like Christian political philosophy, based on theology.>tends to make the early modern thought we have based all subsequent thought on look quite amateurishYeah because there are less principles to ground the philosophy in. It's like epistemology. Materialist/empiricist epistemology is quite simple because it doesn't have a whole lot to go from. Religious epistemologies on the other hand have much more to say by virtue of starting off larger principles.
>>25403567Secular political theory is also based heavily on theology though, it just isn't aware of this. The entire epistemology of liberalism required to secure the human good as unknowable or irreducibly plural is based on theology.Simply refusing to mention God, even as you keep foundational presuppositions from early modern Christianity isn't moving beyond theology, it's just embracing a particular form and being obscure about it.
>>25394992is that possible that there are aristotle attributions that are concerned about politics?
>>25394992ps2 rock band guitar hero algorithm
