Abstract
Recent essays in political philosophy have embraced certain kinds of reflectiveness, while largely ignoring others. One example of the latter comes to the fore when we ask whether the answer to the question just posed is the same as the answer to the question, ‘What makes political philosophy political?’ In post-Rawlsian mode the core project has been taken to be the application of normative arguments to politics — for example, working up intuitions about justice into general distributive principles, while failing to ask how that project itself stands in relation to politics. The issue, roughly, is whether the nature of the philosophical project, as currently conceived within liberalism, is such as to make it no longer recognisably ‘political’.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Chapter 2
See W.B. Gallie, ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1955–6), pp. 167–98; for others see below, note 7.
See J. Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press 1993 )
C. Larmore, Patterns of Moral Complexity ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987 )
B. Barry, Justice As Impartiality (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1995)
T. Scanlon, What We Owe To Each Other ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1999 )
J. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, trans. W. Rehg ( Cambridge: Polity Press 1996 )
B. Barber, The Conquest of Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1988), especially Chapter 5.
M. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1996), makes this point, p. 55f.
L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations trans. and ed. G.E.M. Anscombe (Oxford: Blackwell 1953), § 241.
R. Alejandro, ‘What is Political about Rawls’s Political Liberalism?’, Journal of Politics 58 (1996), pp. 1–24, p. 2.
G. Kavka, ‘Why Even Morally Perfect People Would Need Government’ in E. Paul, F. Miller and J. Paul (eds), Contemporary Political and Social Philosophy ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1995 ). The main reasons Kavka gives are that such beings would display cognitive limitations and reasonable differences in moral beliefs, and would face coordination problems.
N. Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. G. Bull ( Harmondsworth: Penguin 1961 ), p. 91.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2001 Glen Newey
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Newey, G. (2001). Philosophy, Politics and Contestability. In: After Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333977873_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333977873_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-41776-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-333-97787-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)