نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشجوی دکتری علوم سیاسی در دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

چکیده

این مقاله نظرات کوئنتین اسکینر[1]، مایکل اکشات[2]، و تامس اسپریگنز[3] را در خصوص فهم اندیشة سیاسی مورد توجه قرار می‏دهد و ضمن شرح آن‌ها و بیان کاستی‏های هر یک، امکان تلفیق آن‌ها را بررسی می‏کند. چنین تلفیقی در واقع تلفیق دو رویکرد فلسفی و تاریخی در خصوص فهم نظریات رایج در حوزة اندیشه یا فلسفة سیاسی است که در مقام مقایسه با هر یک از دو رویکرد مزبور از جامعیت و قابلیت بیشتری در فهم و ارزیابی این نظریات برخوردار است.



[1]. Quentin Skinner


[2]. Michael Oakeshott


[3]. Thomas Spragens

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Understanding Political Thought: An Integration of the Views of Skinner, Oakeshott, and Spragens

نویسنده [English]

  • Ali Golshani

PhD student in political science at Tarbiat Modares University

چکیده [English]

In this article, the author considers the views of Quentin Skinner, Michael Oakeshott, and Thomas Spragens on understanding political thought, and investigates the possibility of their integration.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Context
  • Quentin Skinner
  • Michael Oakeshott
  • Thomas Spragens
  • Understanding
  • Political Thought
  • Historical Approach

منابع

1-       Barry, B., Political Argument, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970.
2-       Dembski, W., “The Fallacy of Contextualism,” in The Princeton Theological Review, Oct. 1994, www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd, June 2006.
3-       Femia, J., “An Historicist Critique of Revisionist Methods for Studying the History of Ideas” in J. Tully (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988, pp. 156-175.
4-       Jordan, S. and C. Nederman, “Between Sartori and Skinner: Methodological Problems in the Study of Comparative Political Thought” Paper Prepared for Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,Chicago, 2004.
5-       Kos, E. “The Text and Context in Oakeshott’s Political Philosophy” Paper Prepared for Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, 2002.
6-       Lively, J. and A. Reeve, “General Introduction” in J. Lively and A. Reeve (eds.), Modern Political Theory from Hobbes to Marx,London: Routledge, 1989, pp. 1-8.
7-       Mandell, D., “The History of Political Thought as a Vocation: a Pragmatist Defence” Paper Prepared for Presentation at the Political Theory Workshop,University of Chicago, 1998.
8-       Oakeshott, M., Morality and Politics in Modern Europe, London: Yale University Press, 1993.
9-       Palonen, K., Quentin Skinner: History, Politics, Rhetoric,Oxford: Polity Press, 2003.
10-    Skinner, Q., Visions of Politics, Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
11-    Skinner, Q., et al. “Political Philosophy: the View from Cambridge” The Journal of Political Philosophy. Vol. 10, No. l, 2002, pp. 1-19.
12-    Spragens, Th., Understanding Political Theory,New York: St. Martins Press, 1976.
13-    Stevenson, L., “Contextualism” in T. Honderich (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 160.
14-    Strauss, Leo, “Political Philosophy and History” in Journal of the History ofIdeas, Vol. 10, No. 1, Jan. 1949, pp. 30-50.
15-    Tuck, R. “The Contribution of History” in R. Goodin and Ph. Pettit (eds.),A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy,Oxford: Blackwell, 1993, pp.72-89.
16-    Vincent, A., “Introduction”in A. Vincent (ed.), Political Theory: Tradition and Diversity,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 1-27.
17-    Zuckert, M., Launching Liberalism: On Lockean Political Philosophy, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2002.
 
 
 
 
CAPTCHA Image