Political Philosophy

The Open Yale Courses Series

by Steven B. Smith

Who ought to govern? Why should I obey the law? How should conflict be controlled? What is the proper education for a citizen and a statesman? These questions probe some of the deepest and most enduring problems that every society confronts, regardless of time and place. Today we ask the same crucial questions about law, authority, justice, and freedom that Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Tocqueville faced in previous centuries.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, History

295 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 30, 2012

About the author

Steven B. Smith is the Alfred Cowles Professor of Political Science and Master of Branford College at Yale. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1981. At Yale he has served as the Director of Graduate Studies in Political Science, Director of the Undergraduate Program in Humanities, and Acting Chair of Judaic Studies. His research has been focused on the history of political philosophy and the role of statecraft in constitutional government. His recent publications include Spinoza, Liberalism, and Jewish Identity, Spinoza's Book of Life, and Reading Leo Strauss.

Reviews

[van1998 · Rating 5 out of 5]

เมืองในอุดมคติของเพลโต เปรียบเสมือน "พิมพ์เขียวทางสถาปัตยกรรมที่สมบูรณ์แบบ"

ในโลกความเป็นจริง เราอาจไม่สามารถสร้างตึกที่ไร้ที่ติเหมือนในพิมพ์เขียวได้ทุกกระเบียดนิ้ว เนื่องจากข้อจำกัดของวัสดุ (ธรรมชาติของมนุษย์) และสภาพแวดล้อม (การเมืองจริง) แต่การมีพิมพ์เขียวนี้ไว้ ก็เพื่อเป็น "เข็มทิศ" หรือมาตรฐาน ให้เรารู้ว่าตึกที่มั่นคงควรมีโครงสร้างอย่างไร หากเสาต้นไหนเอียง (จิตใจขาดความยุติธรรม) หรือรากฐานไม่แน่น (ขาดปัญญา) เราจะได้รู้ทิศทางในการซ่อมแซมและดัดแปลงตนเองให้เข้าใกล้ความสมบูรณ์แบบนั้นให้มากที่สุดเท่าที่จะทำได้

[Ozzie Crocco · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great look at the history of political philosophy. Added nice depth to my little existing knowledge. I got a lot of ideas for further reading, too.

[TT · Rating 3 out of 5]

Steven B. Smith 的教課很精彩。這是一本很好的政治哲學入門書。從蘇格拉底，柏拉圖，亞理斯多德，聖經，馬基雅維利，霍布斯，洛克，盧梭，到托克維爾，娓娓道來，是很好的入學介紹。
但西方哲學課若能用英語讀會更加好。比如說，這幾個字的翻譯，總覺得詞不達意或失去了某些含義： Art = 技藝，good = 善好，workmanship = 做工。

[Xinyi Du · Rating 5 out of 5]

Me and steven b.smith are forever in intellectual matrimony <3
A clear, concise, contextualised walk through some of the greatest political philosophers, coupled with steven b smith's dry, out of beat humour, what else can a hungry humble beginner want?

Would recommend for anyone who needs a linear and simple framework to ground one's thinking in.
Also makes me think aboute the obvious parallel between the state & its citizens and the mother & the developing infant.

[Alyssa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I feel that time has allowed me to understand the conflict between philosophy and the polis more deeply.

[Arianne X · Rating 4 out of 5]

Foundations we have None, Conventions we have Aplenty
This book is highly readable and very enjoyable; it is actually the companion to the Open Yale course ‘Introduction to Political Philosophy’ available on iTunes U, the instructor for which is the author of this book, Steven B. Smith. I can highly recommend both the book and the course with the understanding that Professor Smith is a follower of Leo Strauss while I myself am not a convinced Straussian.

In short, Straussianism puts forward the strong suggestion that a close reading of the thinkers of the ancient and classical past will help us get hold of the truth whereas in modern age we have gone terribly wrong in this pursuit. I am not a convinced Staussian because I am not convinced that there is such a thing as the truth out there to get a hold of in the first place.

It seems to me that whatever the ‘truth’ is, it is highly contingent and conditional; not absolute. I admit, I am more of a pragmatist in this respect but this difference in perspective does undermine the quality of the book. We mistake ‘truth’ for the agreement found within a like-minded cohesive community. Consensus is what ‘truth’ is even though consensus changes over time. We must work toward a consensus that improves social harmony rather than chasing after the absolute ‘truth’ of philosophy or political theory. Changes in the consensus is just what constitutes social evolution. This is our path to cultural improvement, not discovery of the ‘truth’.

Stated another way, our beliefs are not true because they correspond to reality, they are only true in the sense that they help us achieve our goals. This is a process of justification, not validation. It is not the discovery of the 'truth'. We cannot rise above or dig beneath the thinkers surveyed in this book to find ‘truth’ though this is implied throughout the text in a what is a good Staussian reading of these authors. We can only find justifications that ultimately depend on us for their justification, this is the circularity of human knowledge which produces its own justification and contradictions. This is why the greatest enemy of the ‘truth’ is not a falsehood, but another so called ‘truth’. Foundations we have none, conventions we have aplenty.

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Steven Smith's Political Philosophy is a great book where he engages the Great Philosophers on their views of political philosophy. What I like most of all is how clearly and concisely he explains each of the major figure's views. Smith has definitely had practice honing these essays, since they are the same essays he gives in the form of lectures at Yale when he teaches Intro to Political Philosophy. I also learned from this book just how interesting Alexis de Tocqueville is as a figure, and Smith also gave me a newfound appreciation for Jean-Jacques Rousseau whereas before I was averse to Rousseau. Highly recommended, this book.

[Ci · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book largely follows the online course offered by Yale. In fact, most the paragraphs are verbatim from the class lecturing. This is a good summary of the course itself, yet one must remember to read the original texts from various writers to make sense of the course itself. The overall course is very useful in thinking through the various political issues confronting us today from health care reform to social security.

[MeatResponse · Rating 2 out of 5]

it was a fine if slightly too brief survey of some great political thinkers (with a mildly conservative bent) until the last chapter. Dr Smith decided the last chapter should be an idiotic and reactionary ode to patriotism (a defensible subject! really!) that had all the grace and logical force of a monkey throwing a turd in rage. fuck that noise. I'm shocked they let an idiot like Dr Smith teach at Yale.

[Melora · Rating 4 out of 5]

I didn't actually finish this one. Yet. This year we are studying ancient history, so I stopped at Machiavelli. Antigone, Socrates, King David, etc. were all touched on in a useful sort of way. Nothing in depth, obviously, but was there was was interesting. I'll pick this up again when we get to the Renaissance next year.

[Jozeph Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب ابن لذينة عن الفلسفة السياسية
من الجمل اللي استوقفتني في الكتاب ده
“It's not the voting that's democracy, it's the counting.”
كنت حاسس اني شايف #المشير_السيسي وهو بيحلف اليمين في قصر الرياسة كده <3
احنا عايشين في عالم موازي عليا الطلاق
#هاش_تاج

[Karl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Four years after listening to the lectures they are not especially vivid, the course did not make that strong an impression - but it is absolutely worth a listen.