Combining Texts

Ideas for 'What is so bad about Contradictions?', 'Political Philosophy (3rd ed)' and 'The Discourses'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


4 ideas

24. Political Theory / A. Basis of a State / 1. A People / b. The natural life
A person is as naturally a part of a city as a foot is part of the body [Epictetus]
     Full Idea: Just as the foot in detachment is no longer a foot, so you in detachment are not longer a man. For what is a man? A part of a city, first.
     From: Epictetus (The Discourses [c.56], 2.05.26)
     A reaction: It is, of course, not true that a detached foot ceases to be a foot (and an isolated human is still a human). This an extreme version of the Aristotelian idea that we are essentially social. It is, though, the sort of view favoured by totalitarianism.
24. Political Theory / A. Basis of a State / 1. A People / c. A unified people
We are citizens of the universe, and principal parts of it [Epictetus]
     Full Idea: You are a citizen of the universe, and a part of it; and no subservient, but a principal part of it.
     From: Epictetus (The Discourses [c.56], 2.10.03)
     A reaction: He got this view from Diogenes of Sinope, one of his heroes. What community you are a part of seems to be a choice as much as a fact. Am I British or a European?
Anti-colonial movements usually invoke the right of their 'people' to self-determination [Swift]
     Full Idea: Nationalist movements seeking to throw off the yoke of colonial rule are often motivated by a sense that their 'people' have the right to self-determination.
     From: Adam Swift (Political Philosophy (3rd ed) [2014], 5 'Intrinsic 1')
     A reaction: In 2017, Basques, Catalans and Kurds come to mind. The whole of Africa was an example of this c.1950-80, but there was uncertainty about states, tribes and language groups.
24. Political Theory / A. Basis of a State / 4. Original Position / a. Original position
Isn't it more rational to maximise the average position, but with a safety net? [Swift]
     Full Idea: Wouldn't it be more rational to choose principles that would maximize the average position, perhaps subject to some 'floor' level beneath which they would not want to take the risk of sinking?
     From: Adam Swift (Political Philosophy (3rd ed) [2014], 1 'Rawls')
     A reaction: The criticism is that Rawls's prediction is over-cautious, and that people will take mild risks in what they choose, as long as there is no danger of disaster. (Just as you should allow small children to risk injury, but not death).