Skip to main content

Philosophy, Politics and Contestability

  • Chapter
After Politics
  • 44 Accesses

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’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Chapter 2

  1. See W.B. Gallie, ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1955–6), pp. 167–98; for others see below, note 7.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See J. Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press 1993 )

    Google Scholar 

  3. C. Larmore, Patterns of Moral Complexity ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987 )

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. B. Barry, Justice As Impartiality (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1995)

    Google Scholar 

  5. T. Scanlon, What We Owe To Each Other ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1999 )

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, trans. W. Rehg ( Cambridge: Polity Press 1996 )

    Google Scholar 

  7. B. Barber, The Conquest of Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1988), especially Chapter 5.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1996), makes this point, p. 55f.

    Google Scholar 

  9. L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations trans. and ed. G.E.M. Anscombe (Oxford: Blackwell 1953), § 241.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. Alejandro, ‘What is Political about Rawls’s Political Liberalism?’, Journal of Politics 58 (1996), pp. 1–24, p. 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  12. N. Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. G. Bull ( Harmondsworth: Penguin 1961 ), p. 91.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics