The question of “what is the good?” was the main characteristic of the Socratic political philosophy. However, the modern political philosophy had to pass this question and like its enemy (namely revealed theology) present a definite and tangible definition of “the goo
More
The question of “what is the good?” was the main characteristic of the Socratic political philosophy. However, the modern political philosophy had to pass this question and like its enemy (namely revealed theology) present a definite and tangible definition of “the good”. In other words, they had to show that philosophy, in addition to being the authoritative source of knowledge, can and must be the basis for promoting human life and a guide for attaining the good in practice. The role of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Spinoza from this point of view is so prominent. It seems that the good they defended, was the true origin of the values of a liberal democratic regime. These philosophers recognized that the necessity of the dogmatic definition of the good necessitates a theological-rhetorical expression to persuade the addresses. Therefore, without comprehending this theological-rhetorical backbone, the values of a liberal democratic regime cannot be understood completely. The modern political philosophy, on other hand, is the forbear of modern political science that its main subject is behavior and action of the citizens in a liberal democratic regime. Therefore, we can say that modern political science cannot be comprehended completely without contemplating on the ambivalent effort of these philosophers: on the one hand, their theological defense of the liberal democratic values, and on the other hand, their defense of a new scientific politics distinguished radically from ancient political knowledge.
Manuscript profile
