1. Introduction: What is Political Philosophy?

Summary

Professor Steven Smith introduces political philosophy as the foundational aspect of political science, emphasizing its role in examining fundamental questions about justice, rights, and the nature of regimes. He discusses the importance of studying great thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, whose enduring questions guide contemporary political thought. Smith also explores the practical implications of political philosophy, including the challenges of aligning philosophical ideals with real-world politics and the transformative potential of the 'best regime' concept.

Takeaways

• 📚 Political philosophy is considered the oldest and most fundamental part of political science, focusing on the underlying problems and concepts that frame political studies.
• 🌟 It is through the study of great thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli that we can understand the field of political philosophy, despite the risks of becoming overly reverent or antiquated.
• 🤔 The script raises questions about the relevance of studying historical texts in the context of modern issues like globalization and terrorism, challenging the idea that political science makes progress.
• 📖 The importance of continuing to read classical works is emphasized because they provide enduring questions that continue to guide the field, rather than outdated answers.
• 🧐 The script suggests that political philosophy is not just theoretical but practical, with historical figures like Plato and Aristotle being actively engaged in the politics of their time.
• 🏛 The concept of 'regime' is central to political philosophy, referring to a form of government and the ethos of a society, shaping the character of its citizens.
• 💡 The study of regimes involves understanding not just formal institutions but also the moral, religious, and cultural practices that define a society.
• 🕵️‍♂️ It questions whether politics can be transformed from conflict to harmony and whether global norms could replace the particularities of regime politics.
• 🗣️ Political philosophy is inherently practical, offering advice and guidance to statesmen and potential statesmen on the qualities necessary for sound statecraft.
• 🌐 The script explores the tension between the ideal of the 'best regime' and the reality of existing regimes, and the role of the philosopher in relation to these.
• ❤️ The study of political philosophy is described as an act of love (eros) for the pursuit of knowledge about the best regime, potentially transforming one's loyalties and allegiances.

Q & A

What is the primary purpose of political philosophy according to Professor Smith?

The primary purpose of political philosophy, as stated by Professor Smith, is to lay bare the fundamental problems, concepts, and categories that frame the study of politics, serving as the foundation of the entire discipline of political science.

Why does Professor Smith believe the study of political philosophy often begins with great books?

Professor Smith believes that political philosophy, being the oldest of the social sciences, has been shaped significantly by the works of great thinkers. Studying their works provides a way to understand the field's fundamental questions and the clarity and insight with which these questions were originally posed.

What are some potential dangers or issues of focusing solely on the study of great thinkers in political philosophy?

The potential dangers include the risk of arbitrariness in selecting which thinkers to study, the possibility of overlooking contemporary issues by focusing on antiquated texts, and the chance that students may become intimidated by famous names and fail to think for themselves.

Why does Professor Smith argue that political philosophy is not just a historical appendage but constitutive of the deepest problems in political science?

He argues that political philosophy is not merely a historical appendage because the doctrines and ideas from the past are still very much alive today, shaping our basic outlooks and attitudes, and continue to guide the field of political science.

What does Professor Smith suggest as a reason to continue studying works of Aristotle, Locke, and others despite the progress in political science?

Professor Smith suggests that these works provide us with the most basic questions that continue to guide our field, and that we continue to ask the same questions that were asked by these philosophers, even if we do not accept their answers.

According to the transcript, why is it important to study political philosophy even though it may not provide ready-made answers to today's problems?

Studying political philosophy is important because it provides a repository of fundamental or permanent questions that political scientists still rely on, rather than providing direct answers to contemporary problems.

What is the significance of the concept of 'regime' in the study of political philosophy as discussed by Professor Smith?

The concept of 'regime' is significant because it refers to a form of government and is constitutive of a people's way of life, including moral, religious practices, and customs. It is a fundamental political idea that has been central to political philosophy since the time of Plato.

Why does Professor Smith consider the study of regime politics to be a practical discipline?

Professor Smith considers the study of regime politics to be practical because it is advice-giving, rooted in the practical experience of the thinkers studied, and aims to provide guidance on how to navigate the political world.

What is the 'zone of indeterminacy' mentioned by Professor Smith, and why is it important for political philosophy?

The 'zone of indeterminacy' is the space between the 'is' and the 'ought,' or the actual and the ideal. It is important for political philosophy because it is where the discipline exists and thrives, allowing for the exploration of the best regime in contrast to actual regimes.

How does Professor Smith relate the quest for knowledge of the best regime to the concept of eros or love?

Professor Smith relates the quest for knowledge of the best regime to eros or love by suggesting that this quest must be accompanied, sustained, and elevated by love, making the study of political philosophy the highest tribute we pay to love.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Political Philosophy

Professor Steven Smith begins the lecture by questioning the nature of political philosophy, noting the challenge of defining it before delving into the subject. He suggests that political philosophy is both a subfield of political science and its foundational element, focusing on fundamental problems and concepts. The professor emphasizes the importance of studying great works and thinkers from the past, such as Plato and Aristotle, despite potential issues with such an approach, like becoming antiquated or overly reverent. The lecture hints at the enduring relevance of these works, suggesting that political philosophy provides a framework for understanding contemporary political issues.

05:02

🎓 The Timeless Relevance of Political Philosophy

Smith discusses the enduring impact of political philosophers on contemporary thought, noting that doctrines like Aristotelianism and Lockeanism are still influential. He uses Keynes' quote to highlight the power of ideas in shaping practical politics. The course aims to study the works of 'academic scribblers' whose ideas continue to form the basis of authority. Smith warns against treating these works as providing ready-made answers, emphasizing the need for students to engage with the material critically and independently.

10:03

🕵️‍♂️ The Role of Reason in Political Philosophy

The professor outlines the process of engaging with political philosophy, which involves reading, listening, and judging the validity of different viewpoints. He stresses the importance of using one's own reason and judgment rather than deferring to authority. Smith introduces key questions in political science, such as justice, the goals of society, and the nature of citizenship, highlighting the discipline's focus on fundamental, unresolved issues.

15:03

🏛 The Concept of Regimes in Political Philosophy

Smith introduces the concept of 'regime' as central to political philosophy, tracing its origins to Plato and the Greek 'politeia'. He explains that a regime is a form of government defined by how it distributes power and public offices, and what constitutes citizens' rights and responsibilities. The lecture explores the idea that regimes are not just structures but also encompass a society's ethos, shaping its citizens' character.

20:07

🌐 Regimes and the Nature of Political Conflict

The professor delves into the particularity of regimes and their opposition to one another, inherent in the structure of politics. He discusses the concept of partisanship and loyalty within regimes, and the potential for conflict. Smith also touches on the modern desire to transcend regime politics through global norms and international law, questioning whether such a transformation is possible without losing the essence of politics.

25:09

🛠️ The Founding and Sustenance of Regimes

Smith examines the origins of regimes, pondering whether they emerge from historical structures or are deliberately founded by statesmen. He contrasts thinkers like Tocqueville, who see regimes as deeply rooted in history, with others like Plato and Machiavelli, who believe in the intentional founding of regimes by great leaders. The lecture raises questions about the qualities of statesmanship and the role of the statesman in shaping societies.

30:11

🌟 The Philosopher's Engagement with Politics

The professor challenges the notion that political philosophy is detached from practical politics, citing the active political engagements of historical philosophers. He emphasizes the practical nature of political philosophy, which is meant to inform and guide the actions of statesmen. Smith also suggests that the study of regimes implicitly raises questions about the best form of government and the loyalty owed to different regimes.

35:13

🏆 The Pursuit of the Best Regime

Smith discusses the concept of the 'best regime' and its role in political philosophy, noting the difficulty in defining it objectively. He explores the tension between the ideal of the best regime and the reality of existing regimes, drawing on Aristotle's distinction between the good citizen and the good human being. The lecture concludes by reflecting on the paradox of the best regime, which is superior to actual regimes yet lacks concrete existence.

💖 The Love for the Best Regime in Political Philosophy

In the final paragraph, Smith reflects on the transformative potential of political philosophy, suggesting that the pursuit of knowledge about the best regime is a form of love or 'eros'. He implies that this quest can alter one's loyalties and allegiances, and may even be the highest form of tribute to love. The lecture ends with an invitation to students to begin their philosophical journey with Plato's 'Apology'.

Keywords

💡Political Philosophy

Political Philosophy is defined as a branch of political science that deals with fundamental questions about governance, justice, and the nature of society. It is the oldest and most foundational aspect of political science, aiming to uncover the basic concepts and categories that shape the study of politics. In the video, Professor Smith discusses its importance as the foundation of the entire discipline and its relation to the study of great books and thinkers like Plato and Aristotle.

💡Subfield

A subfield refers to a specific area of study within a broader academic discipline. In the context of the video, political philosophy is initially described as a subfield of political science, existing alongside other areas such as American government and international relations. However, it is also highlighted as being more than just a subfield, given its foundational role in the discipline.

💡Great Books

The term 'Great Books' refers to a collection of works that have significantly influenced a field of study. In the video, Professor Smith mentions that political philosophy often begins with the study of great books, which are the foundational texts written by influential thinkers in the field, shaping the discourse and study of politics.

💡Antiquarianism

Antiquarianism is an interest in or the study of ancient objects, practices, or texts, often to the point of excessive reverence. In the video, the professor warns against the risk of studying great books degenerating into antiquarianism, where the focus might shift from engaging with ideas to merely venerating old texts.

💡Regime

A regime, in political philosophy, refers to a particular form of government or a system of rule. The professor delves into the concept of regimes, questioning what defines them, how they are sustained, and what causes them to fall apart. The term is used to explore the nature of governance and the types of political organization.

💡Statesmanship

Statesmanship is the skill and qualities associated with being an effective and wise political leader. The video discusses the qualities necessary for sound statesmanship, contrasting it with other kinds of activities and questioning whether a good statesman must be a philosopher or if it's a purely practical skill.

💡Global Norms

Global norms refer to standards or principles that are recognized and followed worldwide, often related to justice and international law. The professor raises the question of whether it is possible to transcend regime politics and organize the world around global norms, highlighting a contemporary issue in political philosophy.

💡Ethos

Ethos refers to the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as reflected in its attitudes, aspirations, and values. In the script, the professor explains that a regime constitutes an ethos, which nurtures a distinctive character and shapes the common traits and qualities of a citizen body.

💡Partisanship

Partisanship is strong support, bias, or allegiance to a particular party, group, or cause. The video discusses how regimes are necessarily partisan, instilling certain loyalties and passions, which are inseparable from the character of regime politics.

💡Best Regime

The concept of the 'best regime' refers to an ideal form of government or political organization that is superior to all others. The video raises the question of what constitutes the best regime and how it might guide actions in the present, reflecting on the philosophical quest for an optimal political system.

💡Eros

Eros, in the context of the video, refers to a passionate desire or pursuit of something, specifically the quest for knowledge of the best regime. The professor concludes by likening the study of political philosophy to an act of love, suggesting that the pursuit of understanding the best regime is a form of eros.

Highlights

Political philosophy is introduced as the oldest and most fundamental part of political science, aiming to reveal the fundamental problems and concepts that frame the study of politics.

Political philosophy is not just a subfield but the foundation of the entire discipline of political science.

The study of political philosophy often begins with great books and thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli, who have shaped the field.

Studying great thinkers raises questions about the selection of texts and the risk of antiquarianism, as well as the relevance to contemporary issues.

Political philosophy continues to study historical figures like Aristotle and Locke because their works provide basic questions that still guide the field.

Political philosophy is characterized by profound disagreement among great thinkers, emphasizing the absence of final authorities and the need for individual reason and judgment.

Fundamental questions in political philosophy include inquiries into justice, the goals of a decent society, and the nature of a citizen's education.

The concept of 'regime' is central to political philosophy, with discussions on its definition, types, and the factors that lead to their cohesion or dissolution.

Regimes are particular and partisan, instilling loyalties and passions that can lead to conflict, reflecting the structured nature of politics.

The possibility of transforming politics to replace conflict with harmony is explored, questioning whether a global order based on justice and law is achievable.

A regime is more than formal structures; it includes the entire way of life, moral and religious practices that shape a people's character.

The study of regime politics involves understanding the ethos of a society and what it values, as well as the structure of its institutions.

The founding of regimes is examined through the lens of historical development versus deliberate acts of statesmanship.

Qualities of statesmanship are explored, questioning whether a good statesman must be a philosopher, a practical judge, or capable of transforming human nature.

Political philosophy is a practical discipline, with historical figures engaged in politics and providing models for contemporary thought.

The study of political philosophy raises the question of the best regime and its relation to actual existing regimes, challenging the philosopher's loyalty to any particular society.

The quest for knowledge of the best regime is described as eros or love, suggesting that the study of political philosophy is a tribute to love and may transform one's loyalties.

Transcripts

Professor Steven Smith: Let me start today by asking the

question, "what is political philosophy?"

Custom dictates that I say something about the subject

matter of this course at its outset.

This in some ways might seem a case of putting the cart before

the horse, or the cart before the course maybe,

because how can you say, how can we say what political

philosophy is in advance of doing it?

Anyway, let me try to say something that might be useful.

In one sense, you could say political

philosophy is simply a branch or what we call a subfield of the

field of political science. Yes, all right.

It exists alongside of other areas of political inquiry like

American government, comparative politics,

and international relations. Yet in another sense,

political philosophy is something much different than

simply a subfield; it seems to be the oldest and

most fundamental part of political science.

Its purpose is to lay bare, as it were, the fundamental

problems, the fundamental concepts and categories which

frame the study of politics. In this respect it seems to me

much less like just a branch of political science than the

foundation of the entire discipline.

The study of political philosophy often begins as this

course will do also, with the study of the great

books or some of the great books of our field.

Political philosophy is the oldest of the social sciences,

and it can boast a wealth of heavy hitters from Plato and

Aristotle to Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hegel,

Tocqueville, Nietzsche, and so on.

You might say that the best way to learn what political

philosophy is, is simply to study and read the

works of those who have shaped the field--yes,

right? But to do that is,

I recognize, not without dangers,

often severe dangers of its own.

Why study just these thinkers and not others?

Is not any so-called list of great thinkers or great texts

likely to be simply arbitrary and tell us more about what such

a list excludes than what it includes?

Furthermore, it would seem that the study of

the great books or great thinkers of the past can easily

degenerate into a kind of antiquarianism,

into a sort of pedantry. We find ourselves easily

intimidated by a list of famous names and end up not thinking

for ourselves. Furthermore,

doesn't the study of old books, often very old books,

risk overlooking the issues facing us today?

What can Aristotle or Hobbes tells us about the world of

globalization, of terrorism,

of ethnic conflict and the like?

Doesn't political science make any progress?

After all, economists no longer read Adam Smith.

I hesitate to... I don't hesitate to say

that you will never read Adam Smith in an economics course

here at Yale, and it is very unlikely that

you will read Freud in your psychology classes.

So why then does political science, apparently uniquely

among the social sciences, continue to study Aristotle,

Locke and other old books?

These are all real questions, and I raise them now myself

because they are questions I want you to be thinking about as

you do your reading and work through this course.

I want you to remain alive to them throughout the semester.

Yes? Okay.

One reason I want to suggest that we continue to read these

books is not because political science makes no progress,

or that we are somehow uniquely fixated on an ancient past,

but because these works provide us with the most basic questions

that continue to guide our field.

We continue to ask the same questions that were asked by

Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and others.

We may not accept their answers and it's very likely that we do

not, but their questions are often put with a kind of

unrivaled clarity and insight. The fact is that there are

still people in the world, many people,

who regard themselves as Aristotelians,

Thomists, Lockeans, Kantians, even the occasional

Marxist can still be found in Ivy League universities.

These doctrines have not simply been refuted,

or replaced, or historically superceded;

they remain in many ways constitutive of our most basis

outlooks and attitudes. They are very much alive with

us today, right. So political philosophy is not

just some kind of strange historical appendage attached to

the trunk of political science; it is constitutive of its

deepest problems. If you doubt the importance of

the study of political ideas for politics, consider the works of

a famous economist, John Maynard Keynes,

everyone's heard of him. Keynes wrote in 1935.

"The ideas of economists and political philosophers,

both when they are right and when they are wrong,

are more powerful than is commonly understood....Practical

men," Keynes continues, practical men "who believe

themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual

influences, are usually the slave of some

defunct economist. Madmen in authority,

who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy

from some academic scribbler of a few years back" .

So this course will be devoted to the study of those "academic

scribblers" who have written books that continue to impress

and create the forms of authority with which we are

familiar. But one thing we should not do,

right, one thing we should not do is to approach these works as

if they provide, somehow, answers,

ready-made answers to the problems of today.

Only we can provide answers to our problems.

Rather, the great works provide us, so to speak,

with a repository of fundamental or permanent

questions that political scientists still continue to

rely on in their work. The great thinkers are great

not because they've created some set of museum pieces that can be

catalogued, admired, and then safely

ignored like a kind of antiquities gallery in the

Metropolitan Museum of Art; but rather because they have

defined the problems that all later thinkers and scholars have

had to use in order to make sense of their world at all.

Again, we still think in terms of the basic concepts and

categories that were created for us long ago.

Okay?

So one thing you will quickly note is that there are no

permanent answers in a study of political philosophy.

A famous mathematician once said, "Every question must have

a correct answer, for every question one answer."

That itself is an eminently contestable proposition.

Among the great thinkers there is profound disagreement over

the answers to even the most fundamental questions concerning

justice, concerning rights,

concerning liberty. In political philosophy,

it is never a sufficient answer to answer a question with a

statement "because Plato says so,"

or "because Nietzsche says so." There are no final authorities

in that respect in philosophy because even the greatest

thinkers disagree profoundly with one another over their

answers, and it is precisely this

disagreement with one another that makes it possible for us,

the readers today, to enter into their

conversation. We are called upon first to

read and listen, and then to judge "who's

right?" "how do we know?"

The only way to decide is not to defer to authority,

whoever's authority, but to rely on our own powers

of reason and judgment, in other words the freedom of

the human mind to determine for us what seems right or best.

Okay?

But what are these problems that I'm referring to?

What are these problems that constitute the subject matter of

the study of politics? What are the questions that

political scientists try to answer?

Such a list may be long, but not infinitely so.

Among the oldest and still most fundamental questions are:

what is justice? What are the goals of a decent

society? How should a citizen be

educated? Why should I obey the law,

and what are the limits, if any, to my obligation?

What constitutes the ground of human dignity?

Is it freedom? Is it virtue?

Is it love, is it friendship? And of course,

the all important question, even though political

philosophers and political scientists rarely pronounce it,

namely, quid sit deus, what is God?

Does he exist? And what does that imply for

our obligations as human beings and citizens?

Those are some of the most basic and fundamental problems

of the study of politics, but you might say,

where does one enter this debate?

Which questions and which thinkers should one pick up for

oneself? Perhaps the oldest and most

fundamental question that I wish to examine in the course of this

semester is the question: what is a regime?

What are regimes? What are regime politics?

The term "regime" is a familiar one.

We often hear today about shaping regimes or about

changing regimes, but what is a regime?

How many kinds are there? How are they defined?

What holds them together, and what causes them to fall

apart? Is there a single best regime?

Those are the questions I want us to consider.

The concept of the regime is perhaps the oldest and most

fundamental of political ideas. It goes back to Plato and even

before him. In fact, the title of the book

that you will be reading part of for this semester,

Plato's Republic, is actually a translation of

the Greek word politea that means constitution or

regime. The Republic is a book

about the regime and all later political philosophy is a series

of footnotes to Plato, and that means that it must

provide a series of variations, so to speak,

on Plato's conception of the best regime.

But what is a regime? Broadly speaking,

a regime indicates a form of government, whether it is ruled

by the one, a few, the many,

or as more common, some mixture,

a combination of these three ruling powers.

The regime is defined in the first instance by how people are

governed and how public offices are distributed by election,

by birth, by lot, by outstanding personal

qualities and achievements, and what constitutes a people's

rights and responsibilities. The regime again refers above

all to a form of government. The political world does not

present itself as simply an infinite variety of different

shapes. It is structured and ordered

into a few basic regime types. In this, I take it to be one of

the most important propositions and insights of political

science.

Right? So far?

But there is a corollary to this insight.

The regime is always something particular.

It stands in a relation of opposition to other regime

types, and as a consequence the possibility of conflict,

of tension, and war is built in to the very structure of

politics. Regimes are necessarily

partisan, that is to say they instill certain loyalties and

passions in the same way that one may feel partisanship to the

New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox,

or to Yale over all rival colleges and institutions,

right? Fierce loyalty,

partisanship: it is inseparable from the

character of regime politics. These passionate attachments

are not merely something that take place, you might,

say between different regimes, but even within them,

as different parties and groups with loyalties and attachments

contend for power, for honor, and for interest.

Henry Adams once cynically reflected that politics is

simply the "organization of hatreds,"

and there is more than a grain of truth to this,

right, although he did not say that it was also an attempt to

channel and redirect those hatreds and animosities towards

something like a common good. This raises the question

whether it is possible to transform politics,

to replace enmity and factional conflict with friendship,

to replace conflict with harmony?

Today it is the hope of many people, both here and abroad,

that we might even overcome, might even transcend the basic

structure of regime politics altogether and organize our

world around global norms of justice and international law.

Is such a thing possible? It can't be ruled out,

but such a world, I would note--let's just say a

world administered by international courts of law,

by judges and judicial tribunals--would no longer be a

political world. Politics only takes place

within the context of the particular.

It is only possible within the structure of the regime itself.

But a regime is more than simply a set of formal

structures and institutions, okay?

It consists of the entire way of life, the moral and religious

practices, the habits, customs, and sentiments that

make a people what they are. The regime constitutes an

ethos, that is to say a distinctive

character, that nurtures distinctive human types.

Every regime shapes a common character, a common character

type with distinctive traits and qualities.

So the study of regime politics is in part a study of the

distinctive national character types that constitutes a citizen

body. To take an example of what I

mean, when Tocqueville studied the American regime or the

democratic regime, properly speaking,

in Democracy in America, he started first with our

formal political institutions as enumerated in the Constitution,

such things as the separation of powers, the division between

state and federal government and so on,

but then went on to look at such informal practices as

American manners and morals, our tendency to form small

civic associations, our peculiar moralism and

religious life, our defensiveness about

democracy and so on. All of these intellectual and

moral customs and habits helped to constitute the democratic

regime. And this regime--in this sense

the regime describes the character or tone of a society.

What a society finds most praiseworthy,

what it looks up to, okay?

You can't understand a regime unless you understand,

so to speak, what it stands for,

what a people stand for, what they look up to as well as

its, again, its structure of institutions and rights and

privileges.

This raises a further set of questions that we will consider

over the term. How are regimes founded,

the founding of regimes? What brings them into being and

sustains them over time? For thinkers like Tocqueville,

for example, regimes are embedded in the

deep structures of human history that have determined over long

centuries the shape of our political institutions and the

way we think about them. Yet other voices within the

tradition--Plato, Machiavelli,

Rousseau come to mind--believed that regimes can be

self-consciously founded through deliberate acts of great

statesmen or founding fathers as we might call them.

These statesmen--Machiavelli for example refers to Romulus,

Moses, Cyrus, as the founders that he looks

to; we might think of men like

Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the like--are shapers

of peoples and institutions. The very first of the

Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton even begins

by posing this question in the starkest terms.

"It has been frequently remarked," Hamilton writes,

"that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this

country, by their conduct and example,

to decide the important question, whether societies of

men are really capable or not of establishing good government

from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever

destined to depend for their political constitutions on

accident and force." There we see Hamilton asking

the basic question about the founding of political

institutions: are they created,

as he puts it, by "reflection and choice,"

that is to say by a deliberate act of statecraft and conscious

human intelligence, or are regimes always the

product of accident, circumstance,

custom, and history?

But the idea that regimes may be created or founded by a set

of deliberate acts raises a further question that we will

study, and is inseparable from the

study of regimes. N'est pas?

Who is a statesman? What is a statesman?

Again, one of the oldest questions of political science,

very rarely asked by the political science of today that

is very skeptical of the language of statesmanship.

In its oldest sense, political science simply was a

science of statecraft. It was addressed to statesman

or potential statesmen charged with steering the ship of state.

What are the qualities necessary for sound

statesmanship? How does statecraft differ from

other kinds of activities? Must a good statesman,

as Plato believed for example, be a philosopher versed in

poetry, mathematics, and metaphysics?

Or is statesmanship, as Aristotle believed,

a purely practical skill requiring judgment based on

deliberation and experience?

Is a streak of cruelty and a willingness to act immorally

necessary for statecraft, as Machiavelli infamously

argued? Must the statesman be capable

of literally transforming human nature, as Rousseau maintains,

or is the sovereign a more or less faceless bureaucrat in

manner of a modern CEO, as, for example,

someone like Hobbes seems to have believed?

All of our texts that we will read--the Republic,

the Politics, the Prince,

the Social Contract--have different

views on the qualities of statecraft and what are those

qualities necessary to found and maintain states that we will be

considering. All of this,

in a way, is another way of saying, or at least implying,

okay, that political philosophy is an

imminently practical discipline, a practical field.

Its purpose is not simply contemplation,

its purpose is not reflection alone: it is advice giving.

None of the people we will study this semester were

cloistered scholars detached from the world,

although this is a very common prejudice against political

philosophy, that it is somehow uniquely sort of "pie in the

sky" and detached from the world.

But the great thinkers were very far from being just,

so to speak, detached intellectuals.

Plato undertook three long and dangerous voyages to Sicily in

order to advise the King Dionysius.

Aristotle famously was a tutor of Alexander the Great.

Machiavelli spent a large part of his career in the foreign

service of his native Florence, and wrote as an advisor to the

Medici. Hobbes was the tutor to a royal

household who followed the King into exile during the English

Civil War. And Locke was associated with

the Shaftsbury Circle who also was forced into exile after

being accused of plotting against the English King.

Rousseau had no official political connections,

but he signed his name always Jean Jacques Rousseau,

"citizen of Geneva," and was approached to write

constitutions for Poland and for the island of Corsica.

And Tocqueville was a member of the French National Assembly

whose experience of American democracy deeply affected the

way he saw the future of Europe. So the great political thinkers

were typically engaged in the politics of their times and help

in that way to provide us, okay, with models for how we

might think about ours.

But this goes in a slightly different direction as well.

Not only is this study of the regime, as we've seen,

as I've just tried to indicate, rooted in, in many ways,

the practical experience of the thinkers we'll be looking at;

but the study of regime politics either implicitly or

explicitly raises a question that goes beyond the boundary of

any given society. A regime, as I've said,

constitutes a people's way of life, what they believe makes

their life worth living, or to put it again slightly

differently, what a people stand for.

Although we are most familiar with the character of a modern

democratic regime such as ours, the study of political

philosophy is in many ways a kind of immersion into what we

might call today comparative politics;

that is to say it opens up to us the variety of regimes,

each with its own distinctive set of claims or principles,

each vying and potentially in conflict with all the others,

okay? Underlying this cacophony of

regimes is the question always, which of these regimes is best?

What has or ought to have a claim on our loyalty and

rational consent? Political philosophy is always

guided by the question of the best regime.

But what is the best regime?

Even to raise such a question seems to pose insuperable

obstacles. Isn't that a completely

subjective judgment, what one thinks is the best

regime? How could one begin such a

study? Is the best regime,

as the ancients tended to believe, Plato,

Aristotle, and others, is it an aristocratic republic

in which only the few best habitually rule;

or is the best regime as the moderns believe,

a democratic republic where in principle political office is

open to all by virtue of their membership in society alone?

Will the best regime be a small closed society that through

generations has made a supreme sacrifice towards

self-perfection? Think of that.

Or will the best regime be a large cosmopolitan order

embracing all human beings, perhaps even a kind of

universal League of Nations consisting of all free and equal

men and women?

Whatever form the best regime takes, however,

it will always favor a certain kind of human being with a

certain set of character traits. Is that type the common man,

is it found in democracies; those of acquired taste and

money, as in aristocracies; the warrior;

or even the priest, as in theocracies?

No, no question that I can think of can be more

fundamental. And this finally raises the

question of the relation between the best regime or the good

regime, and what we could say are

actually existing regimes, regimes that we are all

familiar with. What function does the best

regime play in political science?

How does it guide our actions here and now?

This issue received a kind of classic formulation in

Aristotle's distinction of what he called the good human being

and the good citizen. For the good citizen--we'll

read this chapter later on in the Politics--for the

good citizen you could say patriotism is enough,

to uphold and defend the laws of your own country simply

because they are your own is both necessary and

sufficient. Such a view of citizen virtue

runs into the obvious objection that the good citizen of one

regime will be at odds with the good citizen of another:

a good citizen of contemporary Iran will not be the same as the

good citizen of contemporary America.

But the good citizen, Aristotle goes on to say,

is not the same as the good human being, right?

Where the good citizen is relative to the regime,

you might say regime-specific, the good human being,

so he believes, is good everywhere.

The good human being loves what is good simply,

not because it is his own, but because it is good.

Some sense of this was demonstrated in Abraham

Lincoln's judgment about Henry Clay, an early idol of

Lincoln's. Lincoln wrote of Clay,

"He loved his country," he said, "partly because it was his

own country"--partly because it was his own

country--;"but mainly because it was a free country."

His point, I think, is that Clay exhibited,

at least on Lincoln's telling, something of the philosopher,

what he loved was an idea, the idea of freedom.

That idea was not the property of one particular country,

but it was constitutive of any good society.

The good human being, it would seem,

would be a philosopher, or at least would have

something philosophical about him or her,

and who may only be fully at home in the best regime.

But of course the best regime lacks actuality.

We all know that. It has never existed.

The best regime embodies a supreme paradox,

it would seem. It is superior in some ways to

all actual regimes, but it has no concrete

existence anywhere. This makes it difficult,

you could say and this is Aristotle's point,

I think, this makes it difficult for the

philosopher to be a good citizen of any actual regime.

Philosophy will never feel fully or truly at home in any

particular society. The philosopher can never be

truly loyal to anyone or anything but what is best.

Think of that: it raises a question about

issues of love, loyalty, and friendship.

This tension, of course, between the best

regime and any actual regime is the space that makes political

philosophy possible. In the best regime,

if we were to inhabit such, political philosophy would be

unnecessary or redundant. It would wither away.

Political philosophy exists and only exists in that...

call it "zone of indeterminacy" between the "is" and the

"ought," between the actual and the ideal.

This is why political philosophy is always and

necessarily a potentially disturbing undertaking.

Those who embark on the quest for knowledge of the best regime

may not return the same people that they were before.

You may return with very different loyalties and

allegiances than you had in the beginning.

But there is some compensation for this, I think.

The ancients had a beautiful word, or at least the Greeks had

a beautiful word, for this quest,

for this desire for knowledge of the best regime.

They called it eros, or love, right?

The quest for knowledge of the best regime must necessarily be

accompanied, sustained, and elevated by eros.

You may not have realized it when you walked in to this class

today, but the study of political philosophy may be the

highest tribute we pay to love.

Think of that. And while you're thinking about

it you can start reading Plato's Apology for Socrates

which we will discuss for class on Wednesday.

Okay? It's nice to see you back,

and have a very good but thoughtful September 11^(th).