Search results

THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT HEGEL'S CONCEPT OF MONARCHY, FAR FROM BEING MORE EVIDENCE OF HIS SUPPOSED ABSTRACT RATIONALISM OR DEFERENCE TO PRUSSIA, IS THE MOST COMPLETE MODERN ACCOUNT OF THE NECESSARY POLITICAL CONDITIONS OF A RATIONAL STATE.

Examines civic nationalism, which is particularly attractive to many Americans whose peculiar national heritage encourages the delusion that their mutual association is based solely on consciously chosen principles. It is argued that this idea misrepresents political reality as surely as the ethnonationalist myths it is designed to combat; propagating a new political myth is considered an inappropriate way of defending the legacy of Enlightenment liberalism from the dangers posed by the growth of nationalist political passions. 26 References. Adapted from the source document.

THE AUTHOR PRESENTS AND DEFENDS REINTERPRETATION OF ARISTOTLE'S DISTINCTION BETWEEN NATURAL AND CONVENTIONAL RIGHT IN THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS IN FIRST SECTION OF THE ARTICLE. IN THE SECOND SECTION, HE DISCUSSES OTHER PASSAGES OF HIS WORKS THAT COMMENTATORS HAVE USED TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS THAT ARISTOTLE CONCEIVES OF NATURAL RIGHT AS A HIGHER STANDARD OF ADJUDICATION. IN THE THIRD SECTION OF THE ARTICLE, HE LOOKS AT THE RELATIVELY RARE CASES IN WHICH ARISTOTLE REFERS TO NATURE TO DETERMINE THE JUSTICE OF ACTIONS AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS. ARGUE THERE THAT WE SHOULD NOT IDENTIFY THESE JUDGMENTS - FOR EXAMPLE, ABOUT THE NATURALNESS OF SLAVERY, PATERNALISM, AND THE SHARING OF POLITICAL POWER AMONG FREE AND RELATIVELY EQUAL MALES - WITH THE CONCEPTION OF NATURAL RIGHT DEVELOPED IN THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS. THEY REPRESENT, INSTEAD, JUDGEMENTS ABOUT WHICH INDIVIDUALS ARE EQUIPPED BY NATURE TO PARTICIPATE IN, JUDGMENTS ABOUT NATURAL RIGHT. IN THE CONCLUDING SECTION, HE TRIES TO SHOW HOW ARISTOTLE CAN JUSTIFY HIS FREQUENT DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPERLY ENACTED LAWS AS UNJUST WITHOUT INVOKING A HIGHER STANDARD OF NATURAL RIGHT.

Argues that despite Aristotle's reputation as a founder of natural right and natural law theory, he does not claim that the nature of things provides an absolutely correct standard of justice. To Aristotle, argument regarding the intrinsic merits of actions is an inescapable and central element of political life. (SJK)

Two major critiques support most romantic and historicist attacks on modern theory. Blumenberg develops an original and fascinating response to both critiques, and seeks to identify, account for, and correct assumptions that have unnecessarily weakened Enlightenment arguments. Explicates his arguments and considers their implications. Suggests ways in which attention to his claims and method might improve contemporary studies of moral and political thought. (Abstract amended)