The concept of the public realm is the most fundamental of all political concepts because it is only the shared relationship it constitutes between rulers and ruled that makes government more than mere domination. It is therefore not surprising that the question of how the public realm is to be defined has been a central concern of political thinkers from Plato to more recent philosophers like Hannah Arendt. Although the answers they have given have of course varied greatly, what is (...) relevant in the present context is simply the assumption, for well over two thousand years, that there could be an answer. What is novel today, by contrast, is the increasing realization that political theory cannot in principle provide philosophical guidance of any kind about how the public realm can be finally and definitively identified, in a way which would clearly distinguish it from the private realm and thereby enable an incontestable limit to be set to the proper scope of politics and of state action. The present essay considers how some leading contemporary political thinkers have responded to this situation. (shrink)

Conservative ideology in its moderate form is inspired by opposition to belief in radical political and social change on the ground that it rests on several mistaken assumptions, of which the most important are that human nature is highly malleable; that human will can refashion history in whatever ways human ideals may require; that society is the artificial product of a contract between autonomous individuals; and that evil is an eliminable feature of human existence. The unifying theme of conservative ideology, (...) by contrast, is a defence of limited politics, although different schools of conservatism have theorized the concept of limit in ways that are incompatible and even incoherent. Of these, the four principal schools are the reactionary, the radical, the moderate, and, more recently, the New Right. This chapter examines the degree of coherence achieved by each of these schools of thought. (shrink)

Het moderne leven wordt beheerst door drie tegenstellingen, die overwonnen moeten worden: de neiging in het westerse denken om het ik gelijk te stellen aan de rede, de vrees voor isalement van het individu, dat tot cosiaal conformisme leidt en de door de mens geschapen technologie, die een wereld tot stand brengt, waarin het scheppende vermogen wordt verstrikt. Een echte uitweg geeft hij niet en ook zijn tragisch socialisme komt niet goed uit de verf. Hij wil wel een klassenloze maatschappij, (...) maar dan in een paternalistisch-individualistisch kader. (shrink)

Santayana trok in zijn filosofie ten strijde tegen het realisme, het moralisme en rationalisme. De hubris van de moderne mens is de oorzaak van zijn ongebreideld egoïsme en consumentisme, die alleen een halt kunnen worden toegeroepen door een terugkeer naar intuïtieve bescheidenheid.

First published in 1987. This study is an attempt to distinguish the problem of political obligation as it was formulated in the ancient world from the problem as it has presented itself in the modern world, and assesses the idealist achievement in the philosophical treatment of the problem of political obligation. This title will be of interest to students of philosophy and politics.

This important book is an essential guide to the most recent work on ideology - a concept central to social and political theory. It offers a critical reassessment across the entire spectrum of different intellectual traditions ranging from conservatism to Marxism.