tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post2979990446492202074..comments2023-11-16T07:12:40.867-05:00Comments on Dissoi Blogoi: The Laws the First Work of Political Philosophy?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-14673067548488590042007-06-22T17:50:00.000-04:002007-06-22T17:50:00.000-04:00But I think Michael was asking us, not Strauss or ...But I think Michael was asking <I>us</I>, not Strauss or Williams. If it were entirely clear what political philosophy is, then it would be entirely clear whether or not the <I>Laws</I> is the first work of political philosophy. That's what the dispute is about.<BR/><BR/>If we care at all about how the authors whose works we are judging conceived of 'political philosophy,' then it might be relevant to note that Aristotle seems to have considered the <I>Republic</I> a genuine work of political philosophy. On his own conception of <I>politike</I>, one of his primary aims is to examine real and possible <I>politeiai</I>, to inquire into how they work and whether they are successful in a variety of ways. The <I>Republic</I> both does that and provides one of the <I>politeiai</I> that Aristotle apparently thought he needed to consider. He spends more time on it than he does on the <I>Laws</I>, if that's any indication of his judgment of their relative merit. In any event, Aristotle doesn't seem to have thought that the <I>Laws</I> was somehow more genuinely political than the <I>Republic</I>. If Laks' view is to stand, it will have to lean on the relative emphasis that the <I>Laws</I> puts on political questions compared to the <I>Republic</I>, which begins and ends with an ethical question and considers not only politics, but metaphysics and epistemology and everything under the sun. The <I>Laws</I> is more focused on politics, sure, but is it for that reason more genuinely political?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-3971977551542576022007-06-21T05:43:00.000-04:002007-06-21T05:43:00.000-04:00First of all I am not sure whether it is clear wha...First of all I am not sure whether it is clear what <I>is</I> political philosophy. Following Plato’s/ Socrates’ method, first knowing what a given thing (branch of knowledge) is, we can tell whether this or that belongs there or not. I believe one would get different answers if one asked Leo Strauss or, on the other hand, Bernard Williams for example.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-77589854971475389482007-06-11T12:45:00.000-04:002007-06-11T12:45:00.000-04:00Can philosophy operate in a parable, or is it only...Can philosophy operate in a parable, or is it only truly philosophical in abstractus. There are many of our philosophers who operate in this way to make their works easier to understand. If the Republic was a sketch, well that statement in itself does little justice. I do not disagree with Laks' thoughts on Laws, but one must ask "if the quest for a utopia is not forward looking, what is it?" It cannot be a reflection of present circumstance, in Athenian times or otherwise, and if it is I'm certainly living in the wrong country.The Irreverent Seraphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14461329573171237045noreply@blogger.com