You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
Moderate Liberalism and the Scottish Enlightenment responds to a perennial problem in political theory: how to balance commercial considerations with the public good. It investigates this dilemma through the lenses of Enlightenment thinkers whose liberal theories responded to the hazards of commercial innovation during capitalism's nascent stages. Vassiliou argues that Montesquieu, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Adam Ferguson represent a moderate perspective in foundational liberal thought, which emphasizes the critical importance of honour. He compares how their liberal theories uniquely channel human beings' desire for honour to nourish a sense of interpersonal magnanimity within an inward-looking, liberal commercial world. In an age of polarized extremes, we have witnessed restive democracies flirting with populist, illiberal responses for managing the hazards of capitalist innovation. Montesquieu and his Scottish counterparts' foundational liberal theories offer us more viable, middle-ground prescriptions which are sensitive to the emotional constitution of a liberal society.
In The Progressive Poetics of Confusion in the French Enlightenment, John C. O'Neal draws largely on the etymological meaning of the word confusion as the action of mixing or blending in order to trace the development of this project which, he claims, aimed to reject dogmatic thinking in all of its forms and recognized the need to embrace complexity. Eighteenth-century thinkers used the notion of confusion in a progressive way to reorganize social classes, literary forms, metaphysical substances, scientific methods, and cultural categories such as taste and gender. In this new work, O'Neal explores some of the paradoxes of the Enlightenment's theories of knowledge. Each of the chapters in th...
Eight prominent scholars consider whether Louis Hartz's interpretation of liberalism in his classic 1955 book should be repudiated or updated, and whether a study of America as a "liberal society" is still a rewarding undertaking.
The arts of rule cover the exercise of power by princes and popular sovereigns, but they range beyond the domain of government itself, extending to civil associations, political parties, and religious institutions. Making full use of political philosophy from a range of backgrounds, this festschrift for Harvey Mansfield recognizes that although the arts of rule are comprehensive, the best government is a limited one.
This book offers a significant reinterpretation of the history of republican political thought and of Niccol- Machiavelli's place within it. It locates Machiavelli's political thought within enduring debates about the proper size of republics. From the sixteenth century onward, as states grew larger, it was believed only monarchies could govern large territories effectively. Republicanism was a form of government relegated to urban city-states, anachronisms in the new age of the territorial state. For centuries, history and theory were in agreement: constructing an extended republic was as futile as trying to square the circle; but then James Madison devised a compound representative republic that enabled popular government to take on renewed life in the modern era. This work argues that Machiavelli had his own Madisonian impulse and deserves to be recognized as the first modern political theorist to envision the possibility of a republic with a large population extending over a broad territory.
In Nausea, the 1938 novel that made Sartre famous, the protagonist is a historian who abandons the biography he is writing because he comes to believe that all histories are fictional, escapist, and useless. He sought the one and only truth of history; a truth that would revolutionize the world. By the time Sartre published his most mature works, he claimed to have written a biography that was perfectly true. This book examines how and why Sartre's position on the possibility and worth of historical knowledge changed so dramatically. In addition, it illuminates Sartre's unique contribution to the grand debate between Marxist and anarchist revolutionaries-a debate that continues today.
In this book, James Stoner's purpose is to recover the common law basis of American constitutionalism. American constitutionalism in general, he argues, and judicial review in particular, cannot be fully understood without acknowledging their roots in both common law and liberal political theory. But for the most part, the common law underpinnings of constitutionalism have received short shrift.
Covers topics in philosophy, psychology, and scientific methods. Vols. 31- include "A Bibliography of philosophy," 1933-
A review devoted to the historical statistical and comparative study of politics, economics and public law.
None