What do you think?
Rate this book
A General Theory Of Authority by Yves R. Simon
Publisher: University of Notre Dame Press Publication date: 1962 Subjects: Authority Liberty Notes: This is an OCR reprint. There may be typos or missing text. There are no illustrations or indexes. When you buy the General Books edition of this book you get free trial access to Million-Books.com where you can select from more than a million books for free. You can also preview the book there.
- GenresPhilosophy
Paperback
First published February 28, 1991
13 people are currently reading
83 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 15, 2016
This is so, so, so important, but unless you took Political Theory with Fr. James Schall you've probably never heard of it.
July 23, 2013
This certainly deserves its high status, and it probably deserves to be more highly considered, especially if you haven't heard of it. It does take a little bit to get into (just a few pages), but once it gets going, it gets going strong on all cylinders, as the kids say down at the bike shop. Simon makes a strong case for the importance of authority, in stark refutation to the several reasons against authority, both strong and spurious. Simon deals with them all deftly, if not sometimes verbosely. Mankind needs authority, not just for expediency. By the end of the book, Simon's Catholicism shines through, which only strengthens his arguments, his force, and his urgency. This short book may require multiple readings, but the attentive reader will only benefit from the small effort taken to improve oneself, one's knowledge, and one's desire to acknowledge authority.
November 14, 2025
Simon studied under Jacques Maritain at the Institut Catholique de Paris. He taught at Lille from 1930 to 1938. In 1938, he went to the University of Notre Dame as a visiting professor. The advent of World War II precluded his return to France, as a result he remained as a professor at Notre Dame until 1948. He then joined the Committee on Social Thought, at the University of Chicago.
Yves Simon, a neo-scholastic, was chiefly known for his work in moral and political philosophy. Simon attended Kurt Gödel's logic lectures at Notre Dame in the late 1930s and was close to Bochenski and the Cracow Circle. He addressed the nature and functions of authority on three occasions: “The Nature and Function of Authority,”” Philosophy of Democratic Government,” and “A General Theory of Authority.”
In the mid-20th century, neo-scholastics faced twin philosophical storms. Existentialism called human nature into question, and logical positivism radically challenged the foundations of knowledge and belief. In addition, changing social and political conditions challenged the very notion of authority.
The Catholic perennial philosophy clearly acceded to the claims of authority against claims of liberty on a spectrum of issues – from politics to family and religion. The experience of totalitarianism and the devastation left in the wake of World War II created a yearning for social and political freedom. Liberal accounts of authority grounded the basis for authority in theories of consent, based on contractual understandings of consent to utility –for self-preservation and the enhancement of individual autonomy.
No community can exist in the absence of authority, and without authority freedom cannot flourish. For Simon, authority is the “power in charge of unifying common action through rules binding for all...” While authority may be vested in various forms, its presence is manifested in every political order. In the ideal community, authority’s function is to create unity of action toward the common good, notwithstanding a diversity of means.
Simon argues that the essence of authority is “the issuance and carrying out of rules expressing the requirements of the common good considered materially.” a community must employ a wise division of labor to determine how various tasks will be performed. Notably, Simon remarks that “when the object of a social function no longer can be defined, the function itself becomes meaningless...” And this is the societal condition C.E.M. Joad identifies as decadence.
Simon-like all neo-scholastics- is careful to differentiate between the individual, the person and the common good. Citizens are not just individuals who are each trying to live well for their own sake. He believes that citizens take a particular interest in whether their fellow citizens are living well, and this interest is reciprocated. It follows then that members of a political community will strive to realize a virtuous way of life, both for themselves and for fellow members of their community. Thus, Simon’s concept of the political end for man is at great variance from that which is postulated by the libertarian Catholic philosopher, Frank Straus Meyer. For Meyer, the political end of man is freedom; the end of man qua man is virtue. And, most importantly, virtuous acts must be freely chosen; they are not fruits of government diktats.
Simon, however, had faith in man’s capacity for self-government and his ability to transcend the confines of self-interest. He wrote, “Indeed, whenever we achieve any understanding of man’s social destiny, whenever we go beyond the cheap illusion that things social and political are merely means to the welfare of individuals, we virtually uphold the proposition that the ultimate accomplishments of prudence, of justice, of fortitude, and of temperance are not found in the individual man, but in the greater good of human communities.”
Simon’s devotion to the truth was unbending, and he fearlessly confronted threats to democracy that derived from all quarters. He is most remembered for his “Philosophy of Democratic Government;” however, one should not ignore this concise statement of Thomist political thought.
Yves Simon, a neo-scholastic, was chiefly known for his work in moral and political philosophy. Simon attended Kurt Gödel's logic lectures at Notre Dame in the late 1930s and was close to Bochenski and the Cracow Circle. He addressed the nature and functions of authority on three occasions: “The Nature and Function of Authority,”” Philosophy of Democratic Government,” and “A General Theory of Authority.”
In the mid-20th century, neo-scholastics faced twin philosophical storms. Existentialism called human nature into question, and logical positivism radically challenged the foundations of knowledge and belief. In addition, changing social and political conditions challenged the very notion of authority.
The Catholic perennial philosophy clearly acceded to the claims of authority against claims of liberty on a spectrum of issues – from politics to family and religion. The experience of totalitarianism and the devastation left in the wake of World War II created a yearning for social and political freedom. Liberal accounts of authority grounded the basis for authority in theories of consent, based on contractual understandings of consent to utility –for self-preservation and the enhancement of individual autonomy.
No community can exist in the absence of authority, and without authority freedom cannot flourish. For Simon, authority is the “power in charge of unifying common action through rules binding for all...” While authority may be vested in various forms, its presence is manifested in every political order. In the ideal community, authority’s function is to create unity of action toward the common good, notwithstanding a diversity of means.
Simon argues that the essence of authority is “the issuance and carrying out of rules expressing the requirements of the common good considered materially.” a community must employ a wise division of labor to determine how various tasks will be performed. Notably, Simon remarks that “when the object of a social function no longer can be defined, the function itself becomes meaningless...” And this is the societal condition C.E.M. Joad identifies as decadence.
Simon-like all neo-scholastics- is careful to differentiate between the individual, the person and the common good. Citizens are not just individuals who are each trying to live well for their own sake. He believes that citizens take a particular interest in whether their fellow citizens are living well, and this interest is reciprocated. It follows then that members of a political community will strive to realize a virtuous way of life, both for themselves and for fellow members of their community. Thus, Simon’s concept of the political end for man is at great variance from that which is postulated by the libertarian Catholic philosopher, Frank Straus Meyer. For Meyer, the political end of man is freedom; the end of man qua man is virtue. And, most importantly, virtuous acts must be freely chosen; they are not fruits of government diktats.
Simon, however, had faith in man’s capacity for self-government and his ability to transcend the confines of self-interest. He wrote, “Indeed, whenever we achieve any understanding of man’s social destiny, whenever we go beyond the cheap illusion that things social and political are merely means to the welfare of individuals, we virtually uphold the proposition that the ultimate accomplishments of prudence, of justice, of fortitude, and of temperance are not found in the individual man, but in the greater good of human communities.”
Simon’s devotion to the truth was unbending, and he fearlessly confronted threats to democracy that derived from all quarters. He is most remembered for his “Philosophy of Democratic Government;” however, one should not ignore this concise statement of Thomist political thought.
November 1, 2020
There's wisdom here. I think. Insightful, but just philosophical enough that I couldn't really find the payoff.
March 13, 2023
Would power by any other name still be as sweet?
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews