I. Introduction This paper discusses the political ideology of Thomas Hobbes, which had resulted from the civil war and its aftermath during the mid-17th-century England. Hobbes contributed his basic theoretical argument that there is no such thing as society with a collective interest, but rather a number of egoists and selfish human beings. Thomas Hobbes is assuredly one of the most controversial and frequently contested political philosophers of modern times. Although Hobbes is sometimes called the founder of the twentieth-century totalitarianism, Kleinerman believes him to be more a founder of liberalism (Kleinerman, 2006).
Marx believed instead that liberal democracy does not represent the best type of government since it does not correspond to a natural order but rather reflects a very human abstract view of society. Marx identifies two main “defects” in liberal democracy. Liberal democracy holds that all citizens are free and equal before politics and the law. Marx believes that this statement is partially correct. He asserts that liberal democracy makes men “politically emancipated” (Marx.
While both men come from different sides of the political spectrum—Edmund Burke is from the conservative right and Karl Marx is from the liberal/socialist left—they both disagree with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen in their writing. As a conservative, Burke claims, “the very idea of the fabrication of a new government is enough to fill us with disgust and horror.” From there, one can comprehend Burke’s main argument and his love of tradition, which ultimately explains why he is against the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and the French Revolution. Burke does not believe in replacing an institution that has existed for decades. Instead of having a revolution and tearing down the principles that guide society, Burke would argue for gradual reform. Burke believes that “when antient options and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated.” Although
Broken into two sections, the book’s first is of a theoretical approach and the second analyses instances of political structures, treaties, and international relations that support his theoretical assertions’. Carr, as is evident early on in the book, is highly critical of the idealist approach in world politics, referring to it as utopianism, labelling those with “the inclination to ignore what was and what is in contemplation of what should be” as utopians. Carr’s disdain for Utopianism and advocacy for Realism is a common thread throughout the book as it’s believed Carr’s original motivation in writing it was to debunk the pretentions of Liberalism not to become a pivotal work in the establishment of IR as an academic discipline, however he achieved both. The strong views which Carr demonstrates with
Nietzsche ideas about these two types of morality, at their core, relate back to origin, mindset, and action in variety of evident ways that clearly illustrate his mental landscape on the matter. A massively important aspect of Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideology about master and slave morality comes from the information frequently relayed about the history of morality, along with the ignorant perceptions of English philosophers. He mentions that these philosophers create their ideas from unhistorical standpoints, and “…it is certainly a shame that they lack the historical sense itself, that they themselves have been
The Modern Dialectic Modern dialectic can be seen as a response to the contradictions in these methods and in society form which these arose. The first champion of modern dialectic is the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel, as the others of his times was deeply influenced by the values of Enlightenment but at the same time, before Marx, its greatest critic. Early in his life, Hegel saw himself working, albeit critically, within the Kantian philosophical tradition.
To think in materialist terms instead, is to understand the world in it 's clearest capacity. While you think in idealist terms, and see “spirit” as driving history, you are indulging unnecessary mystification. That superfluous curtain is obscuring to you the truth of humanity, and our physical actions that shape the world. Hegelianism has thus far kept the movement of reality is standing on its head, we must now set it upon its feet. The view of historical materialism has been set apart from many contemporary philosophies by my use of critical method in the study of social sciences.
According to Michael Freeden (Emeritus Professor of Politics, Oxford University)”political ideology is a set of related beliefs about political theory held by a group of individuals”. In my analysis of the political philosophy of ideologies I am going to analyse why the concept of ideology often carried negative association, the reason why Anarchies demand the impossible and the extent at which feminism and fundamentalism has grown and if they have the potential to displace conventional thought. The concept ideology can be coined back to Count Antoine Destutt de Tracy (French materialist) who defined ideology as a ‘’science of ideas’’ but it was Karl Marx (social scientist) who exposed the true hidden meaning of ideology (‘’false consciousness’’)
The point is simple and obvious enough, but the American writer, responding to a sense of the fatality of society, wanted to write about society itself, the whole complex structure of relationships rather than about a single human being, a hero had no developed tradition at hand to assist him in the technical problem of organizing his fiction. Dos Passos’s attack on the power and corruption of business is essentially based on moral indignation. It is his whole presentation of American society in U.S.A. His rationale may have been economic and political. His impetus, however closely identified with the rationale, was moral and
But we need not be provoked to reach the assumption that Nietzsche tried to justify the importance of a leader to command the people. On the contrary he deemed that the greatest danger in the contemporary world is existence of the leaders who stand aloof from the political world and instrumentally manipulate it for their own aims and ends. That the moral and ethical claims cannot provide the grounding for a society and leaders should break the barriers of slave morality to follow the strides of master morality, is a recurrent theme in Nietzsche’s opus because he argued that moral systems are based on and derive fro power relations, from politics itself. Tracy B. strong in her essay Nietzsche’s Political Misappropriation