A reply in part to George, as well as to Ken's original posting.
Yes it's fascinating, and it makes us think again about our assumptions. But,
> The only
> political theorists I know who would make a link, if not in content then at
> least in approach, between Marsilio and Hobbes (not sure about Locke) would
> be the Straussians, those 20th-century political philosophers who follow in
> the footsteps of Leo Strauss.
Try this one: Quentin Skinner, 'Political Philosophy' in _The Cambridge History
of Renaissance Philosphy_ (1988), pp.389-452.
There is one hell of a lot to be done in this area: PhD candidates, form an
orderly line and we will issue you your instructions! I'll apologise to George
if there's the suggestion of a mild 'snipe' above -- but I'll also thank Ken for
making more clear an issue which is one of my own bugbears (and I'm sorry I
haven't got answers)
>
> The book includes essays on political theorists deemed the most significant,
> from the time of Plato onward.
But it's surely not the 'most signiicant' ones that we should be looking at?
They've been 'done'. Isn't it important to look at people we've previously
thought less important? Traditions of thought are usually 'nudged' rather than
'revolutionised' -- and our revolutionaries too often prove to be 'nudgers'
anyway (cf. Peter Kropotkin, the anarchist formerly known as 'Prince').
Elliptically, so I now realise
Angus Graham, Oman (= 'altwip')
|