What do you think?
Rate this book
The Open Yale Courses Series
耶鲁大学公开课：政治哲学
应该由谁进行统治？为什么我应该遵守法律？应该如何控制冲突？公民和政治家应该接受什么样的教育？自由与权威之间有着怎样的关系？……
每一个人类社会都曾提出过这些问题，它们是所有社会都曾面临的永恒难题。今天，我们仍然对法律、权威、公正和自由这样发问，而在过去的2500年中，柏拉图、亚里士多德、马基雅维利、霍布斯、洛克、卢梭和托克维尔在自己的著作中对这些问题进行了深刻的探讨，这些著作就构成了政治哲学的伟大传统。
在这部生动而富有启发性的书中，斯密什教授通过细致讲解这门学科的伟大经典，向读者介绍了政治哲学的广阔领域。伟大思想家的经典著作刻画了人类政治生活中的永恒难题，斯密什教授将向我们展示，尽管我们不会通盘接受他们的答案，但他们总是以一种无与伦比的清晰和洞察力提出问题。只有透过昔日最严肃的思想家的视角，我们自己对当下的关切才是可以理解的。
每一个人类社会都曾提出过这些问题，它们是所有社会都曾面临的永恒难题。今天，我们仍然对法律、权威、公正和自由这样发问，而在过去的2500年中，柏拉图、亚里士多德、马基雅维利、霍布斯、洛克、卢梭和托克维尔在自己的著作中对这些问题进行了深刻的探讨，这些著作就构成了政治哲学的伟大传统。
在这部生动而富有启发性的书中，斯密什教授通过细致讲解这门学科的伟大经典，向读者介绍了政治哲学的广阔领域。伟大思想家的经典著作刻画了人类政治生活中的永恒难题，斯密什教授将向我们展示，尽管我们不会通盘接受他们的答案，但他们总是以一种无与伦比的清晰和洞察力提出问题。只有透过昔日最严肃的思想家的视角，我们自己对当下的关切才是可以理解的。
312 pages, Paperback
First published October 30, 2012
63 people are currently reading
328 people want to read
About the author
Steven B. Smith
42 books25 followersSteven 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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
December 21, 2025
เมืองในอุดมคติของเพลโต เปรียบเสมือน "พิมพ์เขียวทางสถาปัตยกรรมที่สมบูรณ์แบบ"
ในโลกความเป็นจริง เราอาจไม่สามารถสร้างตึกที่ไร้ที่ติเหมือนในพิมพ์เขียวได้ทุกกระเบียดนิ้ว เนื่องจากข้อจำกัดของวัสดุ (ธรรมชาติของมนุษย์) และสภาพแวดล้อม (การเมืองจริง) แต่การมีพิมพ์เขียวนี้ไว้ ก็เพื่อเป็น "เข็มทิศ" หรือมาตรฐาน ให้เรารู้ว่าตึกที่มั่นคงควรมีโครงสร้างอย่างไร หากเสาต้นไหนเอียง (จิตใจขาดความยุติธรรม) หรือรากฐานไม่แน่น (ขาดปัญญา) เราจะได้รู้ทิศทางในการซ่อมแซมและดัดแปลงตนเองให้เข้าใกล้ความสมบูรณ์แบบนั้นให้มากที่สุดเท่าที่จะทำได้
ในโลกความเป็นจริง เราอาจไม่สามารถสร้างตึกที่ไร้ที่ติเหมือนในพิมพ์เขียวได้ทุกกระเบียดนิ้ว เนื่องจากข้อจำกัดของวัสดุ (ธรรมชาติของมนุษย์) และสภาพแวดล้อม (การเมืองจริง) แต่การมีพิมพ์เขียวนี้ไว้ ก็เพื่อเป็น "เข็มทิศ" หรือมาตรฐาน ให้เรารู้ว่าตึกที่มั่นคงควรมีโครงสร้างอย่างไร หากเสาต้นไหนเอียง (จิตใจขาดความยุติธรรม) หรือรากฐานไม่แน่น (ขาดปัญญา) เราจะได้รู้ทิศทางในการซ่อมแซมและดัดแปลงตนเองให้เข้าใกล้ความสมบูรณ์แบบนั้นให้มากที่สุดเท่าที่จะทำได้
April 22, 2024
“Because democracy basically means: government by the people, of the people, for the people… but the people are retarded.” - Osho
Part of the Open Yale Courses program, this installment is based on the lecture series given by Dr. Steven Smith in the course Political Philosophy. The recorded lectures are available online, much of which are word-for-word what has been transcribed in this text. The book, however, has additional passages and information that doesn’t get covered in the lectures.
Smith starts by defining political philosophy. He explains how it is not only the foundation of political science, but the original social science, predating economics, sociology, psychology, and other similar fields. Defining political philosophy, according to Smith, is best done by defining a regime. “The regime refers, above all, to the form of government. The political world does not present an infinite variety. It is structured and ordered into a few basic regime types: monarchies, aristocracies, democracies, tyrannies. This is one of the most important propositions of political science” (5). But that is not all; The regime also “consists of the entire way of life - moral and religious practices, habits, customs, and sentiments…” (5-6). Each political figure is therefore identified by his notion of regime.
The following political philosophers and texts are allocated their own chapters: Sophocles, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Tocqueville. Others are mentioned of course, but these are where primary attention is given. Smith acknowledges that many have historicist and relativist objections to studying many of these men, meaning that they may have had a significant influence during their time, but are outdated and irrelevant to us. Smith counters by first saying, “This belief - widely held by many people of today - is almost literally self-refuting. If all ideas are limited to their own time and place, then this must also be true for the idea that all ideas are limited to their own time and place. Relativism or historicism, as it is sometimes called, insists, however, that it alone is true, that it alone is eternally valid, while at the same time condemning all other ideas to their historical circumstances” (2).
Smith also notes that there is a stream of continuity between each of these men, and that they build off of one another. Antigone, for example, is referenced later on by Descartes and Hobbes. While Plato and Aristotle agreed on many things, one of their differences was whether or not the family or the state should raise children. Hobbes is described as the foil to Machiavelli. So on and so forth; the point is that each political idea can be compared and contrasted to these thinkers and amongst themselves. Smith also points out that these men, from Socrates all the way to Tocqueville, ask the same questions we ask ourselves today, questions such as: Who ought to govern? What is a citizen? Why obey the law? Should there even be a law? And there really is no substantive difference between our lives and theirs, their societies and ours, that demonstrates these questions can’t be answered similarly.
Rather than summarizing each political philosopher, whom most people will likely have at least a basic grasp of what they’re known for, I will instead mention how Smith articulates their ideas better and more accurately than most would. He makes clear to readers the true intent of each author instead of implementing modern interpretations onto them. For example, Antigone is not a feminist play just because it has a strong female main character; it instead is about the dilemma of staying loyal to the city or to the gods, somewhat similar to the Euthyphro Dilemma. The Apology, despite what almost everyone says, is not about free speech, and as a matter of fact free speech is never directly alluded to. It is instead about who has the right to teach and lecture to the youth and to the public. Machiavelli is not a sadist - he instead sees violence as a means to an end, and a necessary one. These are just a few examples of Smith rejecting modern interpretations that are inaccurate and do injustice to the political philosophers. In this regard, I have to say the book exceeded my expectations. I was expecting a political survey book from an Ivy league school to be a Marxist handbook against the patriarchy, similar to my own college experience, but it is nothing of the sort. Readers learn the intricacies of each political philosopher’s ideal regime, and unlearn the inaccuracies which they may have been taught in their own educational experience.
Moreover, Smith writes in a way that is unbiased, but not neutral, meaning, he accurately describes the philosophy of each figure and steel-mans their views, but he gives his own opinions as well. For example, if you watch the lectures, he asks the students in the class whether or not Socrates should have been executed. In the book, he gives his own answer, and goes against the grain, saying that Socrates got what was coming to him. He does not do this for shock value though - he explains why, and after further deliberation, the reader himself may come to see Smith’s point of view. Smith also in his lecture says he identifies as an Aristotelian in terms of politics. Again, he does not force his own interpretations on to each figure, and he does make sure to give strong credence for and against their views, but he does express his own.
I highly recommend giving this a read. It doesn’t have to be read in full, either. One can focus on specific chapters if he is only interested in a select few of the political philosophers mentioned. At the very least, one could listen to the online lectures which are equally as good as the text. Readers are bound to learn something they didn’t know before reading/listening.
Part of the Open Yale Courses program, this installment is based on the lecture series given by Dr. Steven Smith in the course Political Philosophy. The recorded lectures are available online, much of which are word-for-word what has been transcribed in this text. The book, however, has additional passages and information that doesn’t get covered in the lectures.
Smith starts by defining political philosophy. He explains how it is not only the foundation of political science, but the original social science, predating economics, sociology, psychology, and other similar fields. Defining political philosophy, according to Smith, is best done by defining a regime. “The regime refers, above all, to the form of government. The political world does not present an infinite variety. It is structured and ordered into a few basic regime types: monarchies, aristocracies, democracies, tyrannies. This is one of the most important propositions of political science” (5). But that is not all; The regime also “consists of the entire way of life - moral and religious practices, habits, customs, and sentiments…” (5-6). Each political figure is therefore identified by his notion of regime.
The following political philosophers and texts are allocated their own chapters: Sophocles, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Tocqueville. Others are mentioned of course, but these are where primary attention is given. Smith acknowledges that many have historicist and relativist objections to studying many of these men, meaning that they may have had a significant influence during their time, but are outdated and irrelevant to us. Smith counters by first saying, “This belief - widely held by many people of today - is almost literally self-refuting. If all ideas are limited to their own time and place, then this must also be true for the idea that all ideas are limited to their own time and place. Relativism or historicism, as it is sometimes called, insists, however, that it alone is true, that it alone is eternally valid, while at the same time condemning all other ideas to their historical circumstances” (2).
Smith also notes that there is a stream of continuity between each of these men, and that they build off of one another. Antigone, for example, is referenced later on by Descartes and Hobbes. While Plato and Aristotle agreed on many things, one of their differences was whether or not the family or the state should raise children. Hobbes is described as the foil to Machiavelli. So on and so forth; the point is that each political idea can be compared and contrasted to these thinkers and amongst themselves. Smith also points out that these men, from Socrates all the way to Tocqueville, ask the same questions we ask ourselves today, questions such as: Who ought to govern? What is a citizen? Why obey the law? Should there even be a law? And there really is no substantive difference between our lives and theirs, their societies and ours, that demonstrates these questions can’t be answered similarly.
Rather than summarizing each political philosopher, whom most people will likely have at least a basic grasp of what they’re known for, I will instead mention how Smith articulates their ideas better and more accurately than most would. He makes clear to readers the true intent of each author instead of implementing modern interpretations onto them. For example, Antigone is not a feminist play just because it has a strong female main character; it instead is about the dilemma of staying loyal to the city or to the gods, somewhat similar to the Euthyphro Dilemma. The Apology, despite what almost everyone says, is not about free speech, and as a matter of fact free speech is never directly alluded to. It is instead about who has the right to teach and lecture to the youth and to the public. Machiavelli is not a sadist - he instead sees violence as a means to an end, and a necessary one. These are just a few examples of Smith rejecting modern interpretations that are inaccurate and do injustice to the political philosophers. In this regard, I have to say the book exceeded my expectations. I was expecting a political survey book from an Ivy league school to be a Marxist handbook against the patriarchy, similar to my own college experience, but it is nothing of the sort. Readers learn the intricacies of each political philosopher’s ideal regime, and unlearn the inaccuracies which they may have been taught in their own educational experience.
Moreover, Smith writes in a way that is unbiased, but not neutral, meaning, he accurately describes the philosophy of each figure and steel-mans their views, but he gives his own opinions as well. For example, if you watch the lectures, he asks the students in the class whether or not Socrates should have been executed. In the book, he gives his own answer, and goes against the grain, saying that Socrates got what was coming to him. He does not do this for shock value though - he explains why, and after further deliberation, the reader himself may come to see Smith’s point of view. Smith also in his lecture says he identifies as an Aristotelian in terms of politics. Again, he does not force his own interpretations on to each figure, and he does make sure to give strong credence for and against their views, but he does express his own.
I highly recommend giving this a read. It doesn’t have to be read in full, either. One can focus on specific chapters if he is only interested in a select few of the political philosophers mentioned. At the very least, one could listen to the online lectures which are equally as good as the text. Readers are bound to learn something they didn’t know before reading/listening.
August 8, 2014
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.
October 26, 2020
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。
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。
December 18, 2025
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.
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.
December 11, 2024
I feel that time has allowed me to understand the conflict between philosophy and the polis more deeply.
January 8, 2025
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.
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.
October 23, 2015
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.
March 18, 2015
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.
January 15, 2017
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.
November 30, 2013
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.
March 30, 2014
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
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
September 23, 2016
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.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews