Customer Reviews

History of Political Philosophy

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Be careful with this book! The "History of Political Philosophy" is not a reference volume in the encyclopedic sense, with glib, editorial-style entries that can be read in five minutes or less. The essays herein tend to be heuristic treatments of the great philosophers of the West, elucidating the basic political questions as each philosopher understood them. It does not attempt to answer those questions for the reader. I have owned this volume for seven years, so I can point out things that tend to get missed at first glance:

1) A & B reading lists at the end of each chapter--- The A readings give an idea of what's required for basic exposure with the political thinker's thought, while the B readings are for extended study. A wonderful time-saving tool, especially for the classroom.

2) Notes at the end of each entry--- As many of the essays are meant to get the reader to ask questions regarding a certain thinker's intentions, they are not always clear until you compare the essay with the noted passages. Remember that the essays are not to be read in isolation; the notes almost always refer to the primary sources of a philosopher and are usually limited to his general corpus (ex. Plato's "Republic", Rousseau's "Social Contract", Hobbes "Leviathan", etc.). Read the notes to understand the essays as much as the essays to understand the notes.

3) The index--- Almost every theme, idea, and subject touching upon political thought is listed here. You will be surprised at how comprehensive it is, although this index's main virtue is in forcing you to pay attention to the overall essays, which in turn force you to pay attention to the primary sources.

Although most of us will never be specialists in political theory, going through the essays and the "A" readings in "History of Political Philosophy" can be a great substitute. Read to be informed, yes, but also read with an eye towards good living, which is political philosophy's constant study.

Leo Strauss' and Joseph Cropsey's "History of Political Philosophy" is a great way to start learning about "Western political philosophy." The essays, which describe the Greek classical philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, are especially lucid and well written. Not surprising since Strauss spent his life teaching the virtues of "classical philosophy." Strauss points out that classical political philosophy predominated until the 16th century. Modern philosophy was an out growth of the revolution that takes place in the natural sciences during the Enlightenment. The purpose of science is the conquest of nature man is in control of human life. Philosophers from Machiavelli on become sectarian. "Everything good is due to man's labor rather than to nature's gift." Men who rely on education and modern philosophical principles alone to build a better society wind up following the path of Marx, i.e. Communism, and Nietzsche and Heidegger, i.e. Fascism. Strauss, in the aftermath of WWII, spends his life touting the virtues of classical philosophy as a way to turn back some of the harm done by modern philosophers. I especially found the A & B reading lists at the end of each chapter quite useful. The A readings give one an idea of what's required for basic understanding of the political thinker's thought, while the B readings are for in depth study.

As a retired Army officer and graduate student of political philosophy, I found this to be a great textbook to start one's journey into political philosophy.

On the surface this book introduces the major political philosophers of the Western Tradition in historical order, Thucydides, Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle are the ancients, and the final moderns considered are Husserl and Heidegger (an epilogue dedicated to Leo Strauss is included; however, it is not particularly well written, Strauss's own writing is vastly superior). Between these two historical poles many great thinker's political works are considered discretely in independently crafted essays by world-reknown scholars. This means a student interested in Rousseau can usefully derive profit from the essay on Rousseau without necesserily reading about Machavelli, or Hobbes or Plato, for example, since each is, on the surface, wholly unto itself. Moreover, the talented student can begin to fathom out her own 'connections' in her own mind about how each philosopher may be linked to earlier or later authors (The editors never do this for you). Consequently, this book is richly superior to the standard texts that treat the 'History of Political Philosophy' like a sociological event, an event Hegel and Marx participated in but did not cause. To be overly simplistic here, this text argues that Hegel and Marx caused the sociological events. However, because this stance is explained elegantly to the reader by the editor, Leo Strauss, in the excellent 'Introduction', it would be unfair to call this an academic prejudice. Unlike the sociological approach, Strauss is able to explain himself and hence his manner of insight, which gives the reader/student/teacher an advantage in coming to their own conclusions about complex issues. One complaint I have is that there is an American bias, being Canadian I feel compelled to say that the inclusion of 'The Federalist' and 'John Dewey' depreciate the work. As well, a young reader might be bewildered and/or angered by the manner in which some philosophers are presented, most notably Struass's own treatment on Machavelli(When I first read it I thought it said next to nothing). Neverthless, as Strauss says bewilderment is the first stage of learning. Personally, after many years acquaintence with this edition, I have recently come back to discover how fruitful the essays on Husserl and Heidegger are, especially Husserl who is often overlooked. You could own this book and use it for many years, continually refreshing yourself in it's clean waters.

This book was wonderful. I highly suggest buying it.

One of this books main strengths lie in its atomized considerations of political philosophers- Strauss attempts no overarching theory, but keeps his comments and observations close cropped and relevant, making most of his characterizations accurate and excellent introducations in and odf themselves. I first came upon this book as a treaching tool as an intro book, but have since realized I liked it myself, meaning this book has much to give nearly everyone who reads it.

I agree with the person below that ceretain areas were perfunctory (Machiavelli is not a philosopher to consider without much commentary, and Angelo Codevilla does a better job), but other parts I diosagree with (I had the exact opposite problem with the American considerations, and thought them perfunctory and too brief), but these are very limited criticisms of a book that was exemplary in most every other case.

Get this book and give another to an intelligent friend. It is fascinating and engaging.

While written as a textbook, this is a good guidebook for the person who needs an introduction to western political thought. It is a most effective tool if you actually have access to the writings of the philosophers discussed in the book. I followed the footnotes to the original writings, and it helped me understand the topic more thoroughly. For someone who lacks a formal education in philosophy or political science, this book offers such a strong foundation that a thorough "self-education" is quite possible.

This is the best philosophy (not just political) overview I have found. The essays for each philosopher are several pages long and cover all aspects of the philosopher's thought. I have owned this book for years, and I still find myself going back to it over any other philosophy book.

So apparently there is a great deal of controversy surrounding this book, at least according to those who have deigned to write a review about it. I myself had no idea until I read some of them, but only after I have read the book its self. I find it amusing the charges that a certain political bias is presented in this collection of essays, but only because it seems that particular bias comes at the expense of another. Most curious. At any rate, if you, like me, would like to have a resource that covers most of the great political thinkers of Western civilization, who's names you will discover when you read any of the other reviews, then this might well be the tome you are seeking. If the essays are presented in conservative terms here, then it should balance nicely the liberal terms in which they were originally presented in your classroom (I am after all making the presumption...). I have found this book to be highly useful in my continuing study of political philosophy, and reach for it more often than say, my copy of Das Kapital, or The Wealth of Nations. This could well be a function of my laziness, but I like to think it is because of the utility of History of Political Philosophy, and not just the defense of the ramparts of a particular ideology that is not embraced by all. You have a mind, so use it. If you need a quick and rich resource into western political thought, this book may well be of use to you. If, on the other hand, you are afraid that the supposedly conservative tones of this collection of essays might threaten your outlook, then by all means avoid it, and write disparaging reviews for it.

I am an adult returning to college and taking Philosophy 100, which includes study of Plato, Hobbes, Mill, and Aristotle. Can be rough going to interpret writings such as these and professor recommended this book as secondary source. It has been a terrific complement to the course and will serve me in good stead as I continue to study other philosophers.

Most of the political philosophy surveys I've found tend to revolve around around subject matters and will tell you how all the major players thought about that particular issue. This book feels more old school in the sense that the editors chose to show the major players' most influential ideas in political philosophy (to show all their ideas would produce a book at least ten times as big), in chronological order. You will not learn everything there is to know about political philosophy from this book, but I believe that it will give you the most bang for you're buck if you only plan on reading one or two books on the subject, or if you are looking for an amazing introduction to get you started. Biggest problem with it that anyone can see off the bat is that there are a few people in the book that could have been taken out and replaced by some more notable and influential players, at least Rawls and Nozick should have made it.

Leo Strauss' and Joseph Cropsey's "History of Political Philosophy" is a great way to start learning about "Western political philosophy." The essays, which describe the Greek classical philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, are especially lucid and well written. Not surprising since Strauss spent his life teaching the virtues of "classical philosophy." Strauss points out that classical political philosophy predominated until the 16th century. Modern philosophy was an out growth of the revolution that takes place in the natural sciences during the Enlightenment. The purpose of science is the conquest of nature man is in control of human life. Philosophers from Machiavelli on become sectarian. "Everything good is due to man's labor rather than to nature's gift." Men who rely on education and modern philosophical principles alone to build a better society wind up following the path of Marx, i.e. Communism, and Nietzsche and Heidegger, i.e. Fascism. Strauss, in the aftermath of WWII, spends his life touting the virtues of classical philosophy as a way to turn back some of the harm done by modern philosophers. I especially found the A & B reading lists at the end of each chapter quite useful. The A readings give one an idea of what's required for basic understanding of the political thinker's thought, while the B readings are for in depth study.

As a retired Army officer and graduate student of political philosophy, I found this to be a great textbook to start one's journey into political philosophy.