What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #097
Filosofia política: una breve introducción
Tomando como hilo conductor el contraste entre el buen y el mal gobierno, David Miller examina en " Filosofía política: una breve introducción " los asuntos clásicos de los que ésta última se ocupa, como cuáles deben ser los límites de al autoridad política, qué es la justicia social y cómo entender la libertad en sociedades plurales en las que los individuos tienen intereses y sensibilidades distintos, cuestiones cuyo mero enunciado muestra la relevancia práctica de la esta materia en nuestra vida cotidiana. La conclusión principal de este ameno texto, que aborda asimismo asuntos más contemporáneos, como el feminismo, el multiculturalismo y la globalización, es que existe algo que podemos denominar el conocimiento político, que nos permite discernir qué es y qué no es buen gobierno, y que los ciudadanos tienen la capacidad de decidir a qué tipo de gobierno aspiran.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
228 people are currently reading
2959 people want to read
About the author
David Miller
20 books26 followersDavid Miller is professor of political theory and official fellow, Nuffield College, Oxford. He is a fellow of the British Academy and the author or editor of fifteen books, including On Nationality and Principles of Social Justice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mi...
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mi...
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 152 reviews
December 27, 2021
آنگونه که دیوید میلر نویسنده انگلیسی در پیش گفتار کتاب نوشته است ، کتاب فلسفه سیاسی کتابی ایست کوچک درباره موضوعی بزرگ ، او در طول این کتاب کوشیده با کند و کاو در ماهیت ، علت ها و معلول های حکومت های خوب و بد به تعریفی جامع از معنای فلسفه سیاسی برسد .
حقیقت آن است که فلسفه سیاسی نقشی بسیار پررنگ در زندگی صدها میلیون نفر داشته ، برای نمونه می توان به رساله تفکر سیاسی نوشته توماس هابز و یا قرار داد اجتماعی ژان ژاک روسو و شاید از همه ملموس تر مانیفست کمونیست نوشته کارل مارکس اشاره کرد ، نوشته هابز دولت مطلقه را در اروپا بنا کرد ، رساله روسو نقش بسیار مهم در انقلاب کبیر فرانسه گذاشت و مانیفست کمونیست مارکس زندگی میلیون ها نفر را برای سالیان سال تحت تاثیر خرد کننده خود قرار داد .
آقای میلر پس از مقدمه ای کوتاه به حیاتی بودن نقش دولت پرداخته ، او برهان آنارشیست ها در نبود دولت را رد می کند ، سپس او به دولت و حاکم در قرن های گذشته می پردازد ، زمانی که حکومت متعلق به یک سلطان خردمند ، یا آریستوکراسی روشنفکر و یا ثروتمند یا افراد قدرتمند بوده تا زمانی که امروزه حکومت ها بر پایه ای از قدرت مردم یا دموکراسی بنا شده اند که به نظر می رسد مناسب ترین نوع حکومت و نه الزاما کاملترین است .
فصل دوم نویسنده فرمانروایی سیاسی و لزوم وجود آن و خدمات بسیار حیاتی آن مانند پلیس ، ارتش ، سیستم قضایی را بررسی کرده و از نظریات توماس هابز در دفاع از فرمانروایی سیاسی هم استفاده کرده است ، اما پرسش حیاتی که پس از پذیرش فرمانروایی سیاسی پیش می آید این است که مرزهای پذیرش قوانین آن تا کجاست ؟ آیا با پرداخت مالیات یا استفاده از خدمات بیمه و یا بانکداری به فرمانروایی سیاسی این اختیار را می دهد که مثلا در تعداد فرزندان ، نوع آموزش و جزییات ریز دیگر دخالت کند ؟ اصولا حریم زندگی شخصی کجاست و آیا مرزی آنرا از دخالت های دولت حفظ می کند ؟
در جواب این پرسش هاست که به دموکراسی و پذیرش رای و نظر اکثریت می رسیم ، اما امروزه به نظر می رسد که پاسخگو بودن حکومت ها به مردم ، حق انتخاب ملتها و تصمیم های مهمی یا رفراندوم هایی که مردم در آن مشارکت دارند هم نتوانسته سهم ملت ها را در ساختار حکومت ها بالا ببرد و اصولا از کجا معلوم که یک نماینده پارلمان دانش کافی در مورد اقتصاد ، بهداشت ، محیط زیست ، صندوق های بازنشستگی ، روابط خارجی ، امنیت ملی و مسائل بسیار مهم دیگر را داشته باشد ؟ و اگر این دانش را نداشته باشد چرا باید رای به قانونی دهد که زندگی هزاران نفر به آن وابسته است ؟ البته آنچه برای آقای میلر اهمیت داشته کارآیی و بازده دکراسی نبوده ، او معتقد است که دموکراسی بیشتر از هر گونه حکومت دیگر در برابر لیبرالیسم یا حفظ آزادی های فردی انعطاف پذیر بوده است .
البته از نگاه نویسنده مساله اقلیت و اکثریت هم چنان حل نشده باقی مانده ، از این روست که او در دو فصل دیگر کتاب به حریم شخصی یا محدودیت های حکومت و سپس به زنان و پایمال شدن حقوق آنان و اقلیت ها پرداخته ، او معتقد است که اگرچه حکومت نقش مهمی در به رسمیت شناختن حقوق زنان و اقلیت ها دارد اما اصلاح این امور باید از داخل خانه و در نهاد خانواده انجام شود تا شاید اثرات آن در نهایت به جامعه و حاکمیت هم برسد .
در پایان کتاب ، نویسنده اگر چه دنیای مطلوب خود را ترسیم کرده اما از نگاه او چنین دنیایی با وضعیت فعلی تفاوت زیادی دارد تا جایی که همانند آرمانشهری واقع گرایانه به نظر می رسد . از نگاه میلر بشر هنوز به پاسخی برای فرمانروایی سیاسی مشروع نرسیده و ابتدا نیازمند است که درباره این موضوع مفصلا اندیشیده شده و سپس تصمیم گرفته شود که چه باید کرد .
حقیقت آن است که فلسفه سیاسی نقشی بسیار پررنگ در زندگی صدها میلیون نفر داشته ، برای نمونه می توان به رساله تفکر سیاسی نوشته توماس هابز و یا قرار داد اجتماعی ژان ژاک روسو و شاید از همه ملموس تر مانیفست کمونیست نوشته کارل مارکس اشاره کرد ، نوشته هابز دولت مطلقه را در اروپا بنا کرد ، رساله روسو نقش بسیار مهم در انقلاب کبیر فرانسه گذاشت و مانیفست کمونیست مارکس زندگی میلیون ها نفر را برای سالیان سال تحت تاثیر خرد کننده خود قرار داد .
آقای میلر پس از مقدمه ای کوتاه به حیاتی بودن نقش دولت پرداخته ، او برهان آنارشیست ها در نبود دولت را رد می کند ، سپس او به دولت و حاکم در قرن های گذشته می پردازد ، زمانی که حکومت متعلق به یک سلطان خردمند ، یا آریستوکراسی روشنفکر و یا ثروتمند یا افراد قدرتمند بوده تا زمانی که امروزه حکومت ها بر پایه ای از قدرت مردم یا دموکراسی بنا شده اند که به نظر می رسد مناسب ترین نوع حکومت و نه الزاما کاملترین است .
فصل دوم نویسنده فرمانروایی سیاسی و لزوم وجود آن و خدمات بسیار حیاتی آن مانند پلیس ، ارتش ، سیستم قضایی را بررسی کرده و از نظریات توماس هابز در دفاع از فرمانروایی سیاسی هم استفاده کرده است ، اما پرسش حیاتی که پس از پذیرش فرمانروایی سیاسی پیش می آید این است که مرزهای پذیرش قوانین آن تا کجاست ؟ آیا با پرداخت مالیات یا استفاده از خدمات بیمه و یا بانکداری به فرمانروایی سیاسی این اختیار را می دهد که مثلا در تعداد فرزندان ، نوع آموزش و جزییات ریز دیگر دخالت کند ؟ اصولا حریم زندگی شخصی کجاست و آیا مرزی آنرا از دخالت های دولت حفظ می کند ؟
در جواب این پرسش هاست که به دموکراسی و پذیرش رای و نظر اکثریت می رسیم ، اما امروزه به نظر می رسد که پاسخگو بودن حکومت ها به مردم ، حق انتخاب ملتها و تصمیم های مهمی یا رفراندوم هایی که مردم در آن مشارکت دارند هم نتوانسته سهم ملت ها را در ساختار حکومت ها بالا ببرد و اصولا از کجا معلوم که یک نماینده پارلمان دانش کافی در مورد اقتصاد ، بهداشت ، محیط زیست ، صندوق های بازنشستگی ، روابط خارجی ، امنیت ملی و مسائل بسیار مهم دیگر را داشته باشد ؟ و اگر این دانش را نداشته باشد چرا باید رای به قانونی دهد که زندگی هزاران نفر به آن وابسته است ؟ البته آنچه برای آقای میلر اهمیت داشته کارآیی و بازده دکراسی نبوده ، او معتقد است که دموکراسی بیشتر از هر گونه حکومت دیگر در برابر لیبرالیسم یا حفظ آزادی های فردی انعطاف پذیر بوده است .
البته از نگاه نویسنده مساله اقلیت و اکثریت هم چنان حل نشده باقی مانده ، از این روست که او در دو فصل دیگر کتاب به حریم شخصی یا محدودیت های حکومت و سپس به زنان و پایمال شدن حقوق آنان و اقلیت ها پرداخته ، او معتقد است که اگرچه حکومت نقش مهمی در به رسمیت شناختن حقوق زنان و اقلیت ها دارد اما اصلاح این امور باید از داخل خانه و در نهاد خانواده انجام شود تا شاید اثرات آن در نهایت به جامعه و حاکمیت هم برسد .
در پایان کتاب ، نویسنده اگر چه دنیای مطلوب خود را ترسیم کرده اما از نگاه او چنین دنیایی با وضعیت فعلی تفاوت زیادی دارد تا جایی که همانند آرمانشهری واقع گرایانه به نظر می رسد . از نگاه میلر بشر هنوز به پاسخی برای فرمانروایی سیاسی مشروع نرسیده و ابتدا نیازمند است که درباره این موضوع مفصلا اندیشیده شده و سپس تصمیم گرفته شود که چه باید کرد .
September 18, 2023
همانطور که بقیه دوستان گفتند و از اسم مجموعه مشخص هستش کتاب خیلی مختصر و مفید هستش
شروع کتاب و طرح مجموعه سوالها و رسیدن به موضوعات اصلی رو خیلی دوست داشتم ولی در بخش دموکراسی به نظر من استدلالها خیلی ضعیف بودن و نویسنده طوری دلیل میآورد که انگار خیلی از دموکراسیهای حال حاضر دنیا رو به چشم ندیده و ایرادات محکمی به حرفهاش میشد گرفت
بعد از دموکراسی در مورد آزادی و عدالت توی حکومتها صحبت میشه که از نظر من سوالهای خیلی پایهای و مهمی مطرح میشه و ذهن خواننده رو درگیر میکنه فصلهای فمینیسم و دولت جهانی رو هم دوست داشتم.
ایرادی که میتونم به کتاب بگیرم همون مختصر بودن بیش از حد هستش که نتونسته مباحث مهم دیگری رو پوشش بده و یه جاهایی نویسنده به خوبی استدلال قانعکنندهای رو نمیاره و میخواد نظرش رو وارد داستان کنه که از نظر منطقی ایراد داره.
ولی درکل یک بار خوندنش مفید هستش
از همه مهمتر بخش مطالعه بیشتر آخر کتاب، منابع خوبی رو معرفی میکنه که خیلیهاشون به فارسی ترجمه شدن
شروع کتاب و طرح مجموعه سوالها و رسیدن به موضوعات اصلی رو خیلی دوست داشتم ولی در بخش دموکراسی به نظر من استدلالها خیلی ضعیف بودن و نویسنده طوری دلیل میآورد که انگار خیلی از دموکراسیهای حال حاضر دنیا رو به چشم ندیده و ایرادات محکمی به حرفهاش میشد گرفت
بعد از دموکراسی در مورد آزادی و عدالت توی حکومتها صحبت میشه که از نظر من سوالهای خیلی پایهای و مهمی مطرح میشه و ذهن خواننده رو درگیر میکنه فصلهای فمینیسم و دولت جهانی رو هم دوست داشتم.
ایرادی که میتونم به کتاب بگیرم همون مختصر بودن بیش از حد هستش که نتونسته مباحث مهم دیگری رو پوشش بده و یه جاهایی نویسنده به خوبی استدلال قانعکنندهای رو نمیاره و میخواد نظرش رو وارد داستان کنه که از نظر منطقی ایراد داره.
ولی درکل یک بار خوندنش مفید هستش
از همه مهمتر بخش مطالعه بیشتر آخر کتاب، منابع خوبی رو معرفی میکنه که خیلیهاشون به فارسی ترجمه شدن
April 22, 2021
«آیا حقیقت دارد که عملکرد دولت ها عمیقا بر کیفیت زندگی ما تأثیر می گذارد؟»؛ «آیا اقتدار سیاسی حکومت ها در گرو اعمال زور بر شهروندانشان است؟»؛ «شهروندان عادی چه نقشی در دموکراسی ایفا می کنند؟»
فصل اول: چرا به فلسفه سیاسی نیاز داریم؟
فصل دوم: فرمانروایی سیاسی
فصل سوم: دموکراسی
فصل چهارم: آزادی و محدودیتهای حکومت
فصل پنجم: عدالت
فصل ششم: فمینیسم و اصالت اکثر فرهنگی
فصل هفتم: ملت ها، دولتها و عدالت جهانی
فصل اول: چرا به فلسفه سیاسی نیاز داریم؟
فصل دوم: فرمانروایی سیاسی
فصل سوم: دموکراسی
فصل چهارم: آزادی و محدودیتهای حکومت
فصل پنجم: عدالت
فصل ششم: فمینیسم و اصالت اکثر فرهنگی
فصل هفتم: ملت ها، دولتها و عدالت جهانی
August 24, 2018
سری کتابهای مختصر مفید نشر ماهی(در اصل انتشارات آکسفورد) برای شروع مطالعه درباره موضوعی که هیچ پیش زمینه ای درباره ش نداریم خیلی خوبه. مخصوصاً افراد وقتی سراغ کتاب های اصلی اون موضوع میرن با چند صفحه مطالعه میبینن که چیزی دستگیرشون نمیشه!
June 13, 2015
نویسنده ها برای تالیف کتاب همه-فهم* غالبا دو کار انجام میدهند: گاه حواشی پر و پیمانی که طی سالها مجادله و تامل بدست آمده را در چند «ان قلت» ساده خلاصه میکنند، و گاه تا حد امکان از بکاربردن واژگان تخصصی (چه اصطلاحات حرفه ای و چه اسامی متعدد) پرهیز میکنند و گاه البته هر دو
کتاب «مقدمه ای بسیار کوتاه بر فلسفه سیاسی» دیوید میلر هردو را بکار بسته بود اما با این حال از آنچه انتظارش را داشتم (از آنچه شنیده بودم) بهتر بود
میلر بنا بود در سری کتابهای 150صفحه ای آکسفورد برای عموم خواننده ها کتابی بنویسد که صرفا بگوید فلسفه سیاسی به چه موضوعاتی و چگونه میپردازد
در این میان برخی مسائل کلیدی فلسفه سیاسی را گاه با ذکر نام فیلسوف مولف (مانند اشاره به اهمیت هابز در طرح اقتدار سیاسی مشروع سکولار در فصل 1، اهمیت مسئله برلین در توسعه مفهوم آزادی در فصل4 و محل اختلاف هایک و راولز در موضوع عدالت اجتماعی در فصل5) و گاه بدون ذکر نام (مانند شرح اهمیت مسئله عدالت به مثابه انصاف راولز در مواجهه با دو نظریه رقیب عدالت به مثابه توافق و عدالت به مثابه رضایت در فصل2 و یا اهمیت مسئله عرصه عمومی هابرماس در جلوگیری از نیل به دیکتاتوری اکثریت در مجامع دموکراتیک در فصل3) تا حد امکان پرداخته است
از دیگر خوبی های کتاب که در میان مولفین جدید جا افتاده، سوگیری و نقل ادعای شخصی بدون پروا در انتقال مطلب است که در فصول 5 و 7 به وضوح دیده میشود. خوبی این روش جدید تالیف کتابهای همه-فهم این است که خواننده به تکثر مسائل سطحی حل نشده و متناقض برنمیخورد: این کار بویژه در کتابهای همه-فهم با کم حجم مفید است
درکل، کتابی ساده و سبک است و میتوان آن را یک روزه (تقریبا در 6ساعت) تمام کرد و به همین دلیل در بین کتابهای موجود فارسی زبان خوب است
درباره ترجمه: از این کتاب دو ترجمه در بازار وجود دارد
یکی ترجمه بهمن دارالشفایی که نشر ماهی منتشر کرده است
دیگری ترجمه کمال پولادی که با نشر مرکز انتشار یافته است
من فهرست و بخشی از یادداشت نویسنده را مقایسه کردم و بنظرم ترجمه پولادی به وضوح ترجمه بهتری است
* introduction
کتاب «مقدمه ای بسیار کوتاه بر فلسفه سیاسی» دیوید میلر هردو را بکار بسته بود اما با این حال از آنچه انتظارش را داشتم (از آنچه شنیده بودم) بهتر بود
میلر بنا بود در سری کتابهای 150صفحه ای آکسفورد برای عموم خواننده ها کتابی بنویسد که صرفا بگوید فلسفه سیاسی به چه موضوعاتی و چگونه میپردازد
در این میان برخی مسائل کلیدی فلسفه سیاسی را گاه با ذکر نام فیلسوف مولف (مانند اشاره به اهمیت هابز در طرح اقتدار سیاسی مشروع سکولار در فصل 1، اهمیت مسئله برلین در توسعه مفهوم آزادی در فصل4 و محل اختلاف هایک و راولز در موضوع عدالت اجتماعی در فصل5) و گاه بدون ذکر نام (مانند شرح اهمیت مسئله عدالت به مثابه انصاف راولز در مواجهه با دو نظریه رقیب عدالت به مثابه توافق و عدالت به مثابه رضایت در فصل2 و یا اهمیت مسئله عرصه عمومی هابرماس در جلوگیری از نیل به دیکتاتوری اکثریت در مجامع دموکراتیک در فصل3) تا حد امکان پرداخته است
از دیگر خوبی های کتاب که در میان مولفین جدید جا افتاده، سوگیری و نقل ادعای شخصی بدون پروا در انتقال مطلب است که در فصول 5 و 7 به وضوح دیده میشود. خوبی این روش جدید تالیف کتابهای همه-فهم این است که خواننده به تکثر مسائل سطحی حل نشده و متناقض برنمیخورد: این کار بویژه در کتابهای همه-فهم با کم حجم مفید است
درکل، کتابی ساده و سبک است و میتوان آن را یک روزه (تقریبا در 6ساعت) تمام کرد و به همین دلیل در بین کتابهای موجود فارسی زبان خوب است
درباره ترجمه: از این کتاب دو ترجمه در بازار وجود دارد
یکی ترجمه بهمن دارالشفایی که نشر ماهی منتشر کرده است
دیگری ترجمه کمال پولادی که با نشر مرکز انتشار یافته است
من فهرست و بخشی از یادداشت نویسنده را مقایسه کردم و بنظرم ترجمه پولادی به وضوح ترجمه بهتری است
* introduction
March 22, 2015
Azar Gat could learn a thing or two from Miller. But then Miller could also learn a thing or two -- about spending less time on the obvious and moving on to interesting and controversial subjects earlier in a book, especially such a short one.
Too cursory for much of the book. Mildly interesting towards the end, but that is primarily because Mill goes into polemic mode and reveals his cards and thus exposes his reasons for the way the book was constructed. He does not think over-enthusiastic criticism of the nation-state system is warranted and he believes it is our best chance at stability. Need to read his more detailed works before any comment can be made on how effective his defense is. But miles ahead of Gat, I will grant him that.
March 6, 2015
This book is an excellent introduction to political philosophy.
The opening, with a discussion of Amgrogio Lorenzetti's painting "The Allegory of Good and Bad Government", provides an interesting reminder of the deep historical roots of political philosophy.
Key issues, such as the sources of political authority, the practical limitations of democracy and the tension between the freedom of the individual and the obligations of the state to provide just social outcomes, are described effectively and concisely.
Later chapters extend the discussion to cover naturally and in context more recent topics of feminism, multiculturalism and minority rights. The final chapter on the challenges to the nation state from globalization, market fundamentalism and other forces allegedly beyond the political control of governments is very relevant to today.
The book's discussion of justice and trust as important sources of political authority is also timely given that governments these days seem to be doing the very best they can to undermine the trust of many of their citizens while denying many others justice.
Matters such as the illegal spying by an unaccountable NSA or GCHQ on innocent citizens and the refusal to prosecute well connected criminal bankers and tax evaders are becoming too much for even the most politically apathetic person to ignore.
The book is scattered with some amusing quotes and references. In commentating on the lack of opportunity available to British citizens to substantively participate in democracy Rousseau shows that even in the 18th century he had a better understanding of British politics than many commentators have today:
Another quote I enjoyed from Dean Inge:
That's certainly true. The English hate the French, the French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles, the Poles hate the Russians and I suspect the Russians don't love all their neighbors… I wonder if you can trace a chain of national hatreds around the world? Rather depressingly I suspect you could trace more than a few. Perhaps a little more political philosophy could help.
The opening, with a discussion of Amgrogio Lorenzetti's painting "The Allegory of Good and Bad Government", provides an interesting reminder of the deep historical roots of political philosophy.
Key issues, such as the sources of political authority, the practical limitations of democracy and the tension between the freedom of the individual and the obligations of the state to provide just social outcomes, are described effectively and concisely.
Later chapters extend the discussion to cover naturally and in context more recent topics of feminism, multiculturalism and minority rights. The final chapter on the challenges to the nation state from globalization, market fundamentalism and other forces allegedly beyond the political control of governments is very relevant to today.
The book's discussion of justice and trust as important sources of political authority is also timely given that governments these days seem to be doing the very best they can to undermine the trust of many of their citizens while denying many others justice.
Matters such as the illegal spying by an unaccountable NSA or GCHQ on innocent citizens and the refusal to prosecute well connected criminal bankers and tax evaders are becoming too much for even the most politically apathetic person to ignore.
The book is scattered with some amusing quotes and references. In commentating on the lack of opportunity available to British citizens to substantively participate in democracy Rousseau shows that even in the 18th century he had a better understanding of British politics than many commentators have today:
"…The people of England deceive themselves when they fancy they are free; they are so, in fact, only during the election of members of parliament: for, as soon as a new one is elected, they are again in chains, are nothing,. And thus, by the use they make of their brief moments of liberty, they deserve to lose it…"
Another quote I enjoyed from Dean Inge:
".. a nation is a society united by a delusion about its ancestry and a common hatred of its neighbors…"
That's certainly true. The English hate the French, the French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles, the Poles hate the Russians and I suspect the Russians don't love all their neighbors… I wonder if you can trace a chain of national hatreds around the world? Rather depressingly I suspect you could trace more than a few. Perhaps a little more political philosophy could help.
September 12, 2018
One day I forgot to take Cortázar's Hopscotch with me to work; thankfully, I always have a backup book in my bag. In this case it was David Miller's VSI to Political Philosophy that I had snuck in. (I have a big VSI collection and I like to just take one with me that I haven't yet read in case I feel like jumping in at some point during the day—well, mostly during the commute.)
Anyway, Miller assumes no background knowledge of political philosophy. He really doesn't. Which is a good thing if you you're coming to it as a complete beginner—which, in all fairness, writers for the series have to assume. It's also fine if you're like me and you just find these little things fun to read even with background knowledge, mostly to see what the philosopher (usually) in question has to say about the subject. Others who expect more from a VSI are less likely to enjoy it, but that's really their own fault. There are plenty of more comprehensive introductions to political philosophy out there—in fact, Miller points to several in his very short intro.
Having said all this, I enjoyed the intro for what it was. Miller takes a painting by Ambrogio Lorenzetti, usually referred to as Allegory of Good and Bad Government, which covers three walls of the Sala Dei Nove in the Palazzo Pubblico of Siena, as a guiding metaphor for his discussion. He covers the rationale of political philosophy—why we need it—and goes into questions of political authority, democracy, freedom and the limits of government, justice, feminist and multiculturalist perspectives, and matters related to nations, states, and global justice.
The last part, on global justice, is where he most clearly voices his own ideas. Miller argues against the cosmopolitan view of having one global government; instead, he proposes that global justice—rather than social justice simply stretched out beyond national boundaries—should be based on the following three elements:
1) A set of conditions defining just terms of interactions between nation-states.
2) Respect for and protection of basic human rights everywhere.
3) The opportunity for people everyone to be politically autonomous.
Anyway, Miller assumes no background knowledge of political philosophy. He really doesn't. Which is a good thing if you you're coming to it as a complete beginner—which, in all fairness, writers for the series have to assume. It's also fine if you're like me and you just find these little things fun to read even with background knowledge, mostly to see what the philosopher (usually) in question has to say about the subject. Others who expect more from a VSI are less likely to enjoy it, but that's really their own fault. There are plenty of more comprehensive introductions to political philosophy out there—in fact, Miller points to several in his very short intro.
Having said all this, I enjoyed the intro for what it was. Miller takes a painting by Ambrogio Lorenzetti, usually referred to as Allegory of Good and Bad Government, which covers three walls of the Sala Dei Nove in the Palazzo Pubblico of Siena, as a guiding metaphor for his discussion. He covers the rationale of political philosophy—why we need it—and goes into questions of political authority, democracy, freedom and the limits of government, justice, feminist and multiculturalist perspectives, and matters related to nations, states, and global justice.
The last part, on global justice, is where he most clearly voices his own ideas. Miller argues against the cosmopolitan view of having one global government; instead, he proposes that global justice—rather than social justice simply stretched out beyond national boundaries—should be based on the following three elements:
1) A set of conditions defining just terms of interactions between nation-states.
2) Respect for and protection of basic human rights everywhere.
3) The opportunity for people everyone to be politically autonomous.
March 12, 2018
در مجالی کوتاه نویسنده چارچوبی مناسب برای شناخت فلسفه ی سیاسی و شاخه های آن و نیاز به آن به خواننده می دهد و نیز به گمانم به این نتیجه ی برجسته خواننده را نزدیک می کند که به مساله های سیاسی و حکومت با دیدِ فراتر از ابتذال عمومی و شایعه پرداز بنگرد. توجه به این نکته ضروری ست که بسیاری از ابراز نظرها و نتیجه گیری های فردی در مورد مسائل - خصوصن سیاسی - دور بودن از روش درست نگریستن به مساله(که معمولن آلوده به تعصب هم هست) و پیش داوری های بدون آگاهی جامع و درست از موضوع است کتاب این نکته را هم می آموزد و از این نظر بسیار ارزنده است و در کلیت خودش برای خواننده ی نا آشنا با موضوع بسیار روان و مفید نگاشته شده است
That is short book but it's very useful. You could find good points about Political Philosophy and branches of it.
finished at a rainny night in Tehran.
That is short book but it's very useful. You could find good points about Political Philosophy and branches of it.
finished at a rainny night in Tehran.
October 21, 2012
Very short, very clear, very fair. Well done!
November 1, 2020
Goodread.The author approached Sphere of Justice in various brief aspects.As he claimed, modern politics is much more complicated than Lorenzetti allegory of good and bad government. I enjoyed his view on cosmopolitanism and political pluralism. But I wish he includes more pages for Marxism and its dynamics..
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 8, 2021
রাজনৈতিক দর্শন নিয়ে আলাপ করতে গেলে প্রথমেই ঠিক করে নেওয়া আবশ্যক রাজনৈতিক দর্শন কী বস্তু। কিন্তু ডেভিড মিলার কোনোক্রমেই স্পষ্ট করলেন না রাজনৈতিক দর্শন বলতে কী বোঝায়। 'ভেরি শর্ট ইন্ট্রডাকশন' সিরিজের আরও কয়েকটি বই পড়েছি। সংক্ষেপে অনেককিছু বলতে গিয়ে এই সিরিজের লেখকগণ সবকিছু তালগোল পাকিয়ে ফেলেন।
সামাজিক চুক্তি তত্ত্ব থেকে রাজনৈতিক দর্শনের শুরু করেছেন লেখক। হবসকে বিশেষ গুরুত্বপূর্ণ মনে করেছেন। রুশো কিংবা জন লকের চিন্তা নিয়ে সেরকম আলোচনা দেখিনি।
সামাজিক চুক্তির পর কোথা থেকে আলোচনা কোথায় গেল তা বুঝিনি। সর্বোপরি পুরো বইটি অস্পষ্টতায় ভরা।
সামাজিক চুক্তি তত্ত্ব থেকে রাজনৈতিক দর্শনের শুরু করেছেন লেখক। হবসকে বিশেষ গুরুত্বপূর্ণ মনে করেছেন। রুশো কিংবা জন লকের চিন্তা নিয়ে সেরকম আলোচনা দেখিনি।
সামাজিক চুক্তির পর কোথা থেকে আলোচনা কোথায় গেল তা বুঝিনি। সর্বোপরি পুরো বইটি অস্পষ্টতায় ভরা।
March 12, 2019
3.5 sterren. Ik heb nog nooit in mijn 19-jarige zo lang gedaan over een boek gedaan. That being said: i feel smart as fuck
July 30, 2020
3.5 sterren
Politieke filosofie is nog steeds relevant, al is het maar puur om het feit dat de politiek nooit uit-geëvalueerd is. Vraagstukken uit het verleden (Wat is de beste manier om een land te besturen? Wat maakt een beslissing rechtvaardig?) blijven relevant, waar er ook nieuwe vragen oprijzen (Mag positieve discriminatie toegepast worden om een maatschappelijk probleem aan te pakken? Moeten we in een globaliserende en verbonden wereld streven naar kosmopolitisme of moeten we ons vast blijven houden aan natiestaten?). Interessante en korte introductie, maar bij vlagen misschien iets te simplistisch. Maar ja, tussen de schaarse open deuren en de overbodige plaatjes (Met plaatjes van filosofen kan ik niet heel veel) is het echt wel een leuk boekje om eens in te kijken.
Politieke filosofie is nog steeds relevant, al is het maar puur om het feit dat de politiek nooit uit-geëvalueerd is. Vraagstukken uit het verleden (Wat is de beste manier om een land te besturen? Wat maakt een beslissing rechtvaardig?) blijven relevant, waar er ook nieuwe vragen oprijzen (Mag positieve discriminatie toegepast worden om een maatschappelijk probleem aan te pakken? Moeten we in een globaliserende en verbonden wereld streven naar kosmopolitisme of moeten we ons vast blijven houden aan natiestaten?). Interessante en korte introductie, maar bij vlagen misschien iets te simplistisch. Maar ja, tussen de schaarse open deuren en de overbodige plaatjes (Met plaatjes van filosofen kan ik niet heel veel) is het echt wel een leuk boekje om eens in te kijken.
April 18, 2019
Very good overall. I had some disagreements here and there. but I think the book did a great job of presenting an introduction to PP.
May 22, 2019
For a book written by an Englishman some 15 years ago, it seems incredible fair exceptionally pertaining to its discussion on democracy and human rights.
As an introductory material, the book raises more questions than it answers. Some notes I took when certain parts piqued my interests.
Chapter 1 - What Do We Need Political Philosophy?
What do we study political philosophy? Only answer is to examine our belief system and the values that we come to accept as universal truths in Western society: are the values of economic growth, employment, higher income, etc intrinsically good? Or are they only beneficial to society under certain conditions.
It is easy to get swept away by the political topics of the moment and lose sight of basic issues that underline politics, dating back centuries and millenniums.
One the debate about the value of democracy - even Rousseau thought it was only suitable for gods and not for men.
Chapter 2 - Political Authority
Political authority is a combination of authority proper with forced compliance.
A much quoted passage from The Leviathan regarding anarchy “In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
The “natural condition” is horrible. Hobbes argue that there need to be a condition under which people to cooperate, and that is trust, which can only be maintained through government enforcement. His real point is that the climate of fear in the absence of a higher authority will obliterate the better sides of our nature. So, the purpose of political authority is to give us the confidence to trust others to that people may cooperate and create things together.
The fairness argument states that complying with the law allows the opportunities to be available to you when you need it.
Civil disobedience stems - illegal but non-violent actions - to protest government policies demonstrates that government can survive not on universal compliance but on general compliance.
Chapter 3 - Democracy
The debate on the best form of government shifted from monarchy to aristocracy to constitutional democracy.
Democracy is based on two assumptions: each person enjoys equal political rights, and the interests of the people can best be safeguarded by making them the final repository of political authority.
First element: competency. Is the modern democracy “elective aristocracy”? In making political judgement, is the “elective aristocracy” really more informed and expert than the general public on certain matters?
Second element: preferences. In using democracy to determine political actions, how do we weight between the number of preferences and the strength of the preferences - a lukewarm majority versus a passionate minority.
Third element: political decision. Are the elected representatives “moral experts” to ensure the fairness of all legislation.
“Our word ‘idiot’ comes from the Greek idiotes which was the term used to describe someone who lived an entirely private existence and took no part in the public life of the city”
Two problems about majority rules: discounting the strengths of preference, and failing the constant minority. The intense minority and the persistent minority. Two solutions: constitutional courts and designating separate constituencies.
Chapter 4 - Freedom and the limits of government
Freedom has two elements: internal and external. Whether there are a number of doors open and whether one has the ability to freely choose which door to pass through.
Loss of freedom can occur through compulsion of which the individual concerns would rather not have. It can also occur when one is not able to examine his or her own belief and consciously reject the second-hand answers.
Is self-regarding behaviour - as John Stuart Mill puts it - that at most offend people but does not harm justified to be permitted?
Three things to consider about freedom: the matter of personal idiosyncrasy, how avoidable is the offence by which degree of action, the positive value versus the distress caused through the offence.
The society has evolved considerably since the time when John Stuart Mill wrote On Liberty. Individual actions now have greater social implications. Hence, many self-regarding behaviours now cary social elements, and consequently can no longer be considered “self-regarding”.
Chapter 5 - Justice
Justice is as much about the proper outcome as about the proper procedure.
One principle of justice is equality - to distribute justice equally among all unless one party has greater need. But how to we separate genuine needs from other demands?
Whether someone deserves rewards or punishments depend on responsibility. For rewards, it also depends on intention.
Apart from need and desert, the expectation on how to be treated impacts justice too.
Friedrich Hayek’s view on justice being individual action that cannot violate a general rule a society has put in place to allow its members to cooperate with one another.
Protecting social justice and promoting market economy are not mutually exclusive. Marxists and and anarchists believe justice to be only about equality and need.
Theory of Justice by John Rawls: giving most extensive set of liberties, social positions of greater advantages available to everyone with an equality of opportunity, inequalities justified when it can benefit the least advantaged members of society. To qualify the third principle: guaranteed social minimum with relation to current societal standards, inequalities of income proportionate to relative contributions.
Chapter 6 - Feminism and multiculturalism
Today, politics has less to do with government institutions and more to do with personal relations. Hence this discussion.
How has society failed to deliver freedom and equality - the pillars of modern western societies - to women and minorities?
Two arguments from feminists: women are less free in private sphere, and “self-regarding” behaviours can damage women’s interests. For the former, it appears that women are still large bound by social norms to perform a greater share of domestic chores, and to conform to prevailing social expectations about their career choices.
Complicating the matter is the debate about whether men and women are of different nature that explains the wide-range of differences. This will determine whether women are limited by external social norms or that they voluntarily made certain decisions. And since we can’t possibly know the answer, we should ensure the freedom of choice for women in order to be safe about their liberties.
Since in modern society, elected representatives have a large degree of freedom, they can’t adequately represent women’s interests. Hence, a balance of gender for elected representatives is necessary to ensure their interests.
Two way women and minorities challenge the status quo: domestic justice and positive discrimination. How to ensure a fair distribution of household work between men and women, taking into consideration the social norms about women’s primary domestic role. On affirmative action: the value seems to be unearthing genuine merits - not to directly increase the general standing of one group in relations to others. Essentially, it is about showing what minority members are capable of once they are given an initial boost.
Chapter 7 - Nations, states, and global justice
Problems with world government, or, supranational organisations in general: a lack of democratic engagement that causes political disenfranchisement; the risks of world government being tyrannical; addressing cultural diversity by an universalising culture or culture privatisation.
The three non-cosmopolitan alternatives.
First, globally accepts rules of interactions between nation-states.
Second, respecting and protecting basic human rights - rights that are necessary for people to live minimally decent lives. Basic human rights seem to transcend and override our concerns about fairness and reciprocity.
Third, the rights to self-determination, because people have a compelling need to feel that they are in control of their own destiny.
A “realistic utopia” in the author’s opinion is:
If global justice along these lines were achieved, the world would look something like this: political authority would rest primarily with nation-states, but they would collaborate to ensure that the costs and benefits of international cooperation were fairly distributed. Each political community would govern itself according to its own political traditions, and schemes of social justice would likewise vary somewhat from place to place. But everywhere human rights would be respected, and in cases where they were threatened, either by natural disasters such as drought or by oppressive regimes, other states would work together to ward off the threat. Some states would be richer than others: this would not be unjust provided that it resulted from political choices and cultural decisions rather than from economic exploitation. Some states would also be more democratic than others, but even those peoples who did not control their governors directly would identify with their government and feel that it represented their interests and values.
And finally, some parting thoughts by the author: “it is at precisely those moments when we feel that humanity’s future is slipping out of our control that we need to think about them long and hard, and then decide, together, what to do.”
As an introductory material, the book raises more questions than it answers. Some notes I took when certain parts piqued my interests.
Chapter 1 - What Do We Need Political Philosophy?
What do we study political philosophy? Only answer is to examine our belief system and the values that we come to accept as universal truths in Western society: are the values of economic growth, employment, higher income, etc intrinsically good? Or are they only beneficial to society under certain conditions.
It is easy to get swept away by the political topics of the moment and lose sight of basic issues that underline politics, dating back centuries and millenniums.
One the debate about the value of democracy - even Rousseau thought it was only suitable for gods and not for men.
Chapter 2 - Political Authority
Political authority is a combination of authority proper with forced compliance.
A much quoted passage from The Leviathan regarding anarchy “In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
The “natural condition” is horrible. Hobbes argue that there need to be a condition under which people to cooperate, and that is trust, which can only be maintained through government enforcement. His real point is that the climate of fear in the absence of a higher authority will obliterate the better sides of our nature. So, the purpose of political authority is to give us the confidence to trust others to that people may cooperate and create things together.
The fairness argument states that complying with the law allows the opportunities to be available to you when you need it.
Civil disobedience stems - illegal but non-violent actions - to protest government policies demonstrates that government can survive not on universal compliance but on general compliance.
Chapter 3 - Democracy
The debate on the best form of government shifted from monarchy to aristocracy to constitutional democracy.
Democracy is based on two assumptions: each person enjoys equal political rights, and the interests of the people can best be safeguarded by making them the final repository of political authority.
First element: competency. Is the modern democracy “elective aristocracy”? In making political judgement, is the “elective aristocracy” really more informed and expert than the general public on certain matters?
Second element: preferences. In using democracy to determine political actions, how do we weight between the number of preferences and the strength of the preferences - a lukewarm majority versus a passionate minority.
Third element: political decision. Are the elected representatives “moral experts” to ensure the fairness of all legislation.
“Our word ‘idiot’ comes from the Greek idiotes which was the term used to describe someone who lived an entirely private existence and took no part in the public life of the city”
Two problems about majority rules: discounting the strengths of preference, and failing the constant minority. The intense minority and the persistent minority. Two solutions: constitutional courts and designating separate constituencies.
Chapter 4 - Freedom and the limits of government
Freedom has two elements: internal and external. Whether there are a number of doors open and whether one has the ability to freely choose which door to pass through.
Loss of freedom can occur through compulsion of which the individual concerns would rather not have. It can also occur when one is not able to examine his or her own belief and consciously reject the second-hand answers.
Is self-regarding behaviour - as John Stuart Mill puts it - that at most offend people but does not harm justified to be permitted?
Three things to consider about freedom: the matter of personal idiosyncrasy, how avoidable is the offence by which degree of action, the positive value versus the distress caused through the offence.
The society has evolved considerably since the time when John Stuart Mill wrote On Liberty. Individual actions now have greater social implications. Hence, many self-regarding behaviours now cary social elements, and consequently can no longer be considered “self-regarding”.
Chapter 5 - Justice
Justice is as much about the proper outcome as about the proper procedure.
One principle of justice is equality - to distribute justice equally among all unless one party has greater need. But how to we separate genuine needs from other demands?
Whether someone deserves rewards or punishments depend on responsibility. For rewards, it also depends on intention.
Apart from need and desert, the expectation on how to be treated impacts justice too.
Friedrich Hayek’s view on justice being individual action that cannot violate a general rule a society has put in place to allow its members to cooperate with one another.
Protecting social justice and promoting market economy are not mutually exclusive. Marxists and and anarchists believe justice to be only about equality and need.
Theory of Justice by John Rawls: giving most extensive set of liberties, social positions of greater advantages available to everyone with an equality of opportunity, inequalities justified when it can benefit the least advantaged members of society. To qualify the third principle: guaranteed social minimum with relation to current societal standards, inequalities of income proportionate to relative contributions.
Chapter 6 - Feminism and multiculturalism
Today, politics has less to do with government institutions and more to do with personal relations. Hence this discussion.
How has society failed to deliver freedom and equality - the pillars of modern western societies - to women and minorities?
Two arguments from feminists: women are less free in private sphere, and “self-regarding” behaviours can damage women’s interests. For the former, it appears that women are still large bound by social norms to perform a greater share of domestic chores, and to conform to prevailing social expectations about their career choices.
Complicating the matter is the debate about whether men and women are of different nature that explains the wide-range of differences. This will determine whether women are limited by external social norms or that they voluntarily made certain decisions. And since we can’t possibly know the answer, we should ensure the freedom of choice for women in order to be safe about their liberties.
Since in modern society, elected representatives have a large degree of freedom, they can’t adequately represent women’s interests. Hence, a balance of gender for elected representatives is necessary to ensure their interests.
Two way women and minorities challenge the status quo: domestic justice and positive discrimination. How to ensure a fair distribution of household work between men and women, taking into consideration the social norms about women’s primary domestic role. On affirmative action: the value seems to be unearthing genuine merits - not to directly increase the general standing of one group in relations to others. Essentially, it is about showing what minority members are capable of once they are given an initial boost.
Chapter 7 - Nations, states, and global justice
Problems with world government, or, supranational organisations in general: a lack of democratic engagement that causes political disenfranchisement; the risks of world government being tyrannical; addressing cultural diversity by an universalising culture or culture privatisation.
The three non-cosmopolitan alternatives.
First, globally accepts rules of interactions between nation-states.
Second, respecting and protecting basic human rights - rights that are necessary for people to live minimally decent lives. Basic human rights seem to transcend and override our concerns about fairness and reciprocity.
Third, the rights to self-determination, because people have a compelling need to feel that they are in control of their own destiny.
A “realistic utopia” in the author’s opinion is:
If global justice along these lines were achieved, the world would look something like this: political authority would rest primarily with nation-states, but they would collaborate to ensure that the costs and benefits of international cooperation were fairly distributed. Each political community would govern itself according to its own political traditions, and schemes of social justice would likewise vary somewhat from place to place. But everywhere human rights would be respected, and in cases where they were threatened, either by natural disasters such as drought or by oppressive regimes, other states would work together to ward off the threat. Some states would be richer than others: this would not be unjust provided that it resulted from political choices and cultural decisions rather than from economic exploitation. Some states would also be more democratic than others, but even those peoples who did not control their governors directly would identify with their government and feel that it represented their interests and values.
And finally, some parting thoughts by the author: “it is at precisely those moments when we feel that humanity’s future is slipping out of our control that we need to think about them long and hard, and then decide, together, what to do.”
June 29, 2024
قمت بتعريب الكتاب ، وتتوفر نسخة مجانية منه على الارشيف العالمي للكتب:
اسم الكتاب:
هذا الكتاب واحد من السلسلة التي أصدرتها مطبعة جامعة أكسفورد (OUP) ابتداء من عام 1995 تحت عنوان "تمهيد موجز جدا Very Short Introductions ". ومن المقرر ان يصدر في اطار هذه السلسة 700 كتاب ، صدر منها بالفعل نحو 670 كتابا . كتب السلسلة صغيرة الحجم نسبيا ، بين 150 الى 200 صفحة ، وهي موجهة لعامة القراء غير المختصين.
كتب المؤلف ، البروفسور ميلر في التمهيد للكتاب:
"غرضي من هذا الكتاب هو جعل الفلسفة السياسية جذابة وميسرة للاشخاص الذين لم يقرأوا فيها من قبل. ولذا حاولت جاهدا تبسيط الأفكار الى اقصى حد ممكن ، من دون التضحية بالدقة اللازمة في هذا النوع من الموضوعات. كان الجميع بين الايجاز والدقة والتبسيط تحديا غير يسير ، سيما حين تحتاج لشرح أفكار مجردة ، من دون الغرق في المصطلحات الدقيقة للعلم ، وهو الامر الذي تسبب أحيانا في اضعاف الاعمال الاكاديمية. اني ممتن جدا للاصدقاء الذين وافقوا على قراءة المخطوطة الأولى للكتاب وقدموا الكثير من النصائح المفيدة".
يقدم الكتاب اطلالة بانورامية على عدد من اهم المفاهيم الأساسية في الفلسفة السياسية: السلطة ، الحرية ، العدالة ، إضافة الى مسائل الهوية الاثنية والجندرية. وهو مكتوب بطريقة جدلية ، تشجع القارئ على التأمل في الأسئلة الخاصة بالموضوع ونقد الطروحات التي يقترحها الكاتب.
يبدأ البروفسور ميلر بعرض الأغراض الكبرى للفلسفة السياسية ولا سيما أسئلتها الأخلاقية ، مثل "كيف ينبغي أن نعيش معا في مجتمع مستقر ومزدهر". وفي الفصل الثاني يناقش أسباب احتياج المجتمع للسياسة والحكومة ، ويتساءل عن إمكانية إبقاء بعض مجالات الحياة في معزل عن السياسة والسلطة. ويناقش في الفصل الثالث فكرة النظام الديمقراطي ومبرراته ومعنى المشاركة الشعبية وحدودها. اما الفصل الرابع فهو مكرس لاشكالات الحرية وحقوق الانسان ، ما هو محلي وما هو كوني. ثم يستكشف في الفصل الخامس قضية العدالة والعدالة الاجتماعية والتأثير المتبادل بينها وبين السلطة والسوق ، ويقترح طريقا لجعل العدالة الاجتماعية وسيلة لتنظيم اقتصاد السوق بدلاً من تدميره. الفصل السادس مخصص لمناقشة المبررات التي تستند اليها الحركة النسائية والتيار الداعي للتعددية الثقافية وضمان حقوق الأقليات ، والتاثير الحاسم لهذين التيارين على الفلسفة السياسية وعلم السياسة. وفي الفصل السابع والأخير يناقش الكاتب مفهوم الامة والدولة القومية وإمكانية الدعوة لحكومة عالمية وكيفية العبور من إشكالات التعدد الثقافي والاثني. ويختم متسائلا عما اذا كانت "الحكومة العالمية" احتمالا واقعيا ام مجرد يوتوبيا خيالية.
اسم الكتاب:
هذا الكتاب واحد من السلسلة التي أصدرتها مطبعة جامعة أكسفورد (OUP) ابتداء من عام 1995 تحت عنوان "تمهيد موجز جدا Very Short Introductions ". ومن المقرر ان يصدر في اطار هذه السلسة 700 كتاب ، صدر منها بالفعل نحو 670 كتابا . كتب السلسلة صغيرة الحجم نسبيا ، بين 150 الى 200 صفحة ، وهي موجهة لعامة القراء غير المختصين.
كتب المؤلف ، البروفسور ميلر في التمهيد للكتاب:
"غرضي من هذا الكتاب هو جعل الفلسفة السياسية جذابة وميسرة للاشخاص الذين لم يقرأوا فيها من قبل. ولذا حاولت جاهدا تبسيط الأفكار الى اقصى حد ممكن ، من دون التضحية بالدقة اللازمة في هذا النوع من الموضوعات. كان الجميع بين الايجاز والدقة والتبسيط تحديا غير يسير ، سيما حين تحتاج لشرح أفكار مجردة ، من دون الغرق في المصطلحات الدقيقة للعلم ، وهو الامر الذي تسبب أحيانا في اضعاف الاعمال الاكاديمية. اني ممتن جدا للاصدقاء الذين وافقوا على قراءة المخطوطة الأولى للكتاب وقدموا الكثير من النصائح المفيدة".
يقدم الكتاب اطلالة بانورامية على عدد من اهم المفاهيم الأساسية في الفلسفة السياسية: السلطة ، الحرية ، العدالة ، إضافة الى مسائل الهوية الاثنية والجندرية. وهو مكتوب بطريقة جدلية ، تشجع القارئ على التأمل في الأسئلة الخاصة بالموضوع ونقد الطروحات التي يقترحها الكاتب.
يبدأ البروفسور ميلر بعرض الأغراض الكبرى للفلسفة السياسية ولا سيما أسئلتها الأخلاقية ، مثل "كيف ينبغي أن نعيش معا في مجتمع مستقر ومزدهر". وفي الفصل الثاني يناقش أسباب احتياج المجتمع للسياسة والحكومة ، ويتساءل عن إمكانية إبقاء بعض مجالات الحياة في معزل عن السياسة والسلطة. ويناقش في الفصل الثالث فكرة النظام الديمقراطي ومبرراته ومعنى المشاركة الشعبية وحدودها. اما الفصل الرابع فهو مكرس لاشكالات الحرية وحقوق الانسان ، ما هو محلي وما هو كوني. ثم يستكشف في الفصل الخامس قضية العدالة والعدالة الاجتماعية والتأثير المتبادل بينها وبين السلطة والسوق ، ويقترح طريقا لجعل العدالة الاجتماعية وسيلة لتنظيم اقتصاد السوق بدلاً من تدميره. الفصل السادس مخصص لمناقشة المبررات التي تستند اليها الحركة النسائية والتيار الداعي للتعددية الثقافية وضمان حقوق الأقليات ، والتاثير الحاسم لهذين التيارين على الفلسفة السياسية وعلم السياسة. وفي الفصل السابع والأخير يناقش الكاتب مفهوم الامة والدولة القومية وإمكانية الدعوة لحكومة عالمية وكيفية العبور من إشكالات التعدد الثقافي والاثني. ويختم متسائلا عما اذا كانت "الحكومة العالمية" احتمالا واقعيا ام مجرد يوتوبيا خيالية.
July 27, 2024
picked this up because my boyfriend is always going on about political philosophy and i always deem it too abstract and impractical to be applied in real life, ended up finishing this in one sitting at the bookstore. i was expecting this to be a brief introduction to the different schools of thought in politics but it ended up being essays on why political theory is relevant to the real world and how it can be applied to recent social movements, which addressed my doubts more directly lol. as a complete novice, i found this quite easy to follow and it was obvious that the author – a political academic! – tried to phrase his ideas in a way that would make things more interesting to the lay reader.
there are elements in lorenzetti's picture that are as relevant to us now as they were in 14th-century siena: the difference between legitimate political authority and tyranny; the relationship between government and its citizens; the nature of justice. these questions remain at the heart of political philosophy, and it is at precisely those moments when we feel that humanity's future is slipping out of our control that we need to think about them long and hard, and then decide, together, what to do.
there are elements in lorenzetti's picture that are as relevant to us now as they were in 14th-century siena: the difference between legitimate political authority and tyranny; the relationship between government and its citizens; the nature of justice. these questions remain at the heart of political philosophy, and it is at precisely those moments when we feel that humanity's future is slipping out of our control that we need to think about them long and hard, and then decide, together, what to do.
October 12, 2017
It is an over-simplistic book even for a short introduction. If you are someone who reads the news or listens to political commentary every day, you already know pretty much everything in the book. Also, while Miller does attempt to bring up alternative theories, he rarely explains their rationale in details and is very quick to dismiss them. I think this book is only good for someone who is completely unfamiliar with the political philosophy and thus does not mind an one-sided description of the topic.
February 21, 2017
Didn't hold my interest and didn't seam to have a purpose but then I'm a thriller reader and practical man.
May 29, 2024
I've had this little volume on my shelves for quite a while, and I finally picked it up ahead of some planned reading of related primary texts later in the year. Unfortunately, I didn't get much out of the experience. While I understand that the purpose of this series is to provide brief subject introductions suited to a lay audience, I don't feel that this one deals sufficiently with the key ideas or thinkers; rather, it feels narrowly focused on a set of themes that I can only assume are of particular interest to the writer's own research.
Thus, while I continue to regard the series highly, this isn't one of its better instalments. On the plus side, reading it has still whetted my appetite for reading Mill and Plato later in the year, even if out of frustration rather than curiosity.
Thus, while I continue to regard the series highly, this isn't one of its better instalments. On the plus side, reading it has still whetted my appetite for reading Mill and Plato later in the year, even if out of frustration rather than curiosity.
July 31, 2021
it talks about the philosophical basis of politics and tackles basic fundamental questions like why do we need politics, what makes a govt good and bad, limitations of democracy, juxtaposition of individual freedom and state's authority to establish the rule of law, multiculturalism etc. the musings discussed like the one about the Allegory of Good and Bad Government were borderline engaging.
it was pretty basic but if you're are a beginner with absolutely zero knowledge about the subject, then you may find it pretty helpful.
it was pretty basic but if you're are a beginner with absolutely zero knowledge about the subject, then you may find it pretty helpful.
January 29, 2020
Short, engrossing & highly appealing. A useful introduction to the main questions & points of contention in political philosophy.
July 4, 2021
Must-read!
March 21, 2024
Bestaat er iets mooier dan politiek en filosofie? Politieke filosofie komt in aanmerking.
De 'a very short introduction' reeks heeft me nog nooit teleurgesteld.
De 'a very short introduction' reeks heeft me nog nooit teleurgesteld.
December 13, 2024
better then the last one of these i read but still mid so
August 12, 2021
1400.05.21
April 4, 2023
managed to write an entire chapter on feminism without mentioning a single woman !!!
June 12, 2024
felt very long for a short introduction
May 28, 2012
I feel this book oversimplified where it wasn't necessary. Though, important to condense such a large topic, there were a lot of word choices and descriptions that belittled the fields of social psychology and psychology and frequently conflated the two without having a solid and contemporary understanding of the two areas.
I was also disappointed and distracted by the chapter on multiculturalism and feminism. It overlooked so many issues and only had a minute understanding of the intersectionalities of patriarch, racism, sexism, and homophobia. It also seemed to present homosexuality as a culture which seems out of date. Then again, in the digital age, information and research changes so fast, it is near impossible to keep up. With that, the book was written in 2003 and much has changed even since then.
I did get a better understanding of how different political system can be formed and got a better sense of where our current political structure is turning. With the presence of sociology and psychology acting in part as institutional lobbyists, perhaps political philosophy has done its work and its scientific babies, or counterparts shall take over from here.
I was also disappointed and distracted by the chapter on multiculturalism and feminism. It overlooked so many issues and only had a minute understanding of the intersectionalities of patriarch, racism, sexism, and homophobia. It also seemed to present homosexuality as a culture which seems out of date. Then again, in the digital age, information and research changes so fast, it is near impossible to keep up. With that, the book was written in 2003 and much has changed even since then.
I did get a better understanding of how different political system can be formed and got a better sense of where our current political structure is turning. With the presence of sociology and psychology acting in part as institutional lobbyists, perhaps political philosophy has done its work and its scientific babies, or counterparts shall take over from here.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 152 reviews