While both philosophers’ writing can be very useful to the government in some ways. The leader should not be cruel or mean to the people but should know when to tough. The big difference is how they disagree most strongly on how a government should run and how they believe in war. They also disagree on when mercy should be given and how the money they own should be spent. Neither one of the ideas that they have for the government will work for the world today, because the world is not as good and peaceful as Lao-tzu describes in Tao-Te Ching, and not as chaotic or mean as Machiavelli says in The Prince.
The behavioralists ought to incorporate in the field of political science research methods, techniques and tools in order to procure accurate and precise data to obtain relative facts. More so, they disregard the philosophical identity of political science that led to its deviation from describing and defining the political in terms of values and judgments. Furthermore, Gunnell (1986) attributed Stephen Toulmin’s argument that philosophers are of no relevance in the study of politics for they are incapable of dictating the principles to which scientists ought to conform in their theorizing. However, the world is governed by the political and it is impossible for political science to be value free. Strauss (2011), it is impossible to define the political without reference to its
They touch upon the consequences, but the true core of discord that influences the interpretation of Kant 's ideas stems from the dissociation in the understanding of human nature. When interpreting Kant, scholars already have a formed vision of human nature that affects their way of reading the Perpetual Peace. View on human nature is a veritable crux, a starting point of the distinction within the liberal tradition. Optimistic assumptions about human goodness and progress underpin the idea of easy political transformation endorsing military intervention to spread democracy. Contrarily, if one believes in a "cautious if not dark, human nature" but remains optimistic about man 's ability to evolve through reason ,then "individual reason and political institutions develop slowly" , through a gradual evolution thus ,accordingly, military intervention cannot "hasten democratic governance" .
Machiavelli and Hobbs denied this vision and preferred to operate with reality and facts. They believed that the goal of the state is oriented toward maintaining the peace and establishing social order. Moreover, Plato and Aristotle focused a lot in their works on different forms of government. Plato argued that the in the ideal state the power should be controlled by specially trained elite Guardians which consist of philosophers, who know what is better for the rest of people. Aristotle discussed six forms of government and concluded that the best form is politeia , which in modern world can be understood as “constitutional government” where citizens run the state together
He thought that induction was not a valid proof technique. Scientists should be critical and skeptical. Trying to reach the truth was ”one of the strongest motives for scientific discovery”. But ’the truth’ does not exist according to Popper. We only get closer to it.
IN his quote "no society can predict its own future states of knowledge" he factual out a justification to Marx concept of 'historicism '. Popper 's great works in defense of the liberal society were the open society and its enemies and the poverty of historicism. Whatever many be the form of government, security is that the one important factor that we as citizens expect from the society that we live in. Pooper critics clearly specifies that unlimited tolerance in a society mostly lead to the disappearance of tolerance. On the prospect of tolerance if we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant and if we are not prepared enough to defend a tolerant society
Plato was looking at justice starting from the individual and then, to make things clearer, in the state. He seems to invert the usual relationship: rather than seeing our ideas as arising out of social discourse, he treats the state as an illustration of the mind. In The Republic, Plato’s conventional definition: “to pay everyone what is owed to him” is promptly deconstructed by “Socrates”, who points out that according to this, one should harm one’s enemies and help one’s friends, but “it can never be just to harm anyone. (Plato, 1974) Socrates insists that one cannot base justice on self-interest or convention. Glaucon instinctively feels that justice must be one of those qualities which are loved both for their beneficial consequences and for their own sake.
The Primary objective of all leaders should be to control citizens. A society that allows authority to be challenged will never succeed. This source depicts an authoritarian or totalitarian view of what a governing body should look like. The author suggests that the primary objective of government should be the “control of the citizens”, and therefore that the individuals should entirely obey said government. This ideology is counter to that of liberalism as it infringes on the natural rights of its citizens, and it is undemocratic as this society would not have the consent of the governed as a whole.
Theories of comparative politics analyse the domestic politics of individual nations in an attempt to explain how and why certain political outcomes occur. These theories are concerned with the inner-workings of political institutions and the long-term patterns of political behaviour within the state boundary. Ultimately, theories of comparative politics aim to explain how and why a political system functions in the way that it does. However, owing to the multitudes of conceptions that have been put forward, a consensus on which theory offers up the best analysis of the performance of political systems has not been reached. As a result of this factor, major debates have arisen.
What caused the progression of political philosophy are the different events and experiences which shaped the kind of political discipline we have now, but still traces its roots to political philosophy. The study of politics has evolved because of different events adding to the development of the discipline. The methods and approaches used by political philosophers reflect the general philosophical tendencies of their period in history. In the beginning, political philosophy was the sole basis of the study of politics because it provides wisdom. As knowledge advanced and different events occurred, political philosophy and political science diverged further and further from each other, bringing us to the situation today.