On the Political: A Comparative Political Thought Speculation

Catus Brooks
{"title":"On the Political: A Comparative Political Thought Speculation","authors":"Catus Brooks","doi":"10.4172/2151-6200.1000354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When reflecting on the political in comparative political thought (CPT), it is unnecessary “to define just what ‘the political’ actually is”. For, \"the question 'what is the political?'\" can be best answered with a treatise, which is beyond our present inquiry. What progress can be made, we argue, lies in inductively analyzing the political phenomenon of pacifism. For, by specifically analyzing pacifism, we may draw generalizations relevant to sovereign decisionmakers. We used the term sovereign because questions regarding violence belong especially to sovereigns over a state, for rest content that a state has the monopoly over violence.Further, by making pacifism the subject of this speculation, assumptions regarding militarization become questionable. If political science’s foremost purpose is to regulate matters of war and the use of force, questions of pacifism must follow and assumptions of militarism must be suspected. In this inquiry, it will suffice to only go over theories of pacifism from Greek and Indian political thought. We are shooting to juxtapose pacifism from Greek ourthology and Mahatma Gandhi's Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. For, at the very least, this will assist sovereigns in deciding upon political questions, like the appropriate spirit towards violence. To begin, we must define the meanings of pacifism, militarism, and the use of force. But, it is not enough to merely touch on pacifism in the context of Greek ourthology and Gandhi’s political thought, we must also compare the two in hope of better informing sovereign decision-makers. The above-said will serve as a plan for this essay.","PeriodicalId":161420,"journal":{"name":"Arts and social sciences journal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arts and social sciences journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2151-6200.1000354","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

When reflecting on the political in comparative political thought (CPT), it is unnecessary “to define just what ‘the political’ actually is”. For, "the question 'what is the political?'" can be best answered with a treatise, which is beyond our present inquiry. What progress can be made, we argue, lies in inductively analyzing the political phenomenon of pacifism. For, by specifically analyzing pacifism, we may draw generalizations relevant to sovereign decisionmakers. We used the term sovereign because questions regarding violence belong especially to sovereigns over a state, for rest content that a state has the monopoly over violence.Further, by making pacifism the subject of this speculation, assumptions regarding militarization become questionable. If political science’s foremost purpose is to regulate matters of war and the use of force, questions of pacifism must follow and assumptions of militarism must be suspected. In this inquiry, it will suffice to only go over theories of pacifism from Greek and Indian political thought. We are shooting to juxtapose pacifism from Greek ourthology and Mahatma Gandhi's Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. For, at the very least, this will assist sovereigns in deciding upon political questions, like the appropriate spirit towards violence. To begin, we must define the meanings of pacifism, militarism, and the use of force. But, it is not enough to merely touch on pacifism in the context of Greek ourthology and Gandhi’s political thought, we must also compare the two in hope of better informing sovereign decision-makers. The above-said will serve as a plan for this essay.
论政治:一种比较的政治思想思辨
在比较政治思想(CPT)中反思政治时,没有必要“界定‘政治’究竟是什么”。因为“什么是政治?”’”的问题可以用一篇论文来回答,这超出了我们目前的研究范围。我们认为,能够取得什么进展,在于归纳分析和平主义的政治现象。因为,通过具体分析和平主义,我们可以得出与主权决策者相关的概括。我们使用“主权者”这个词是因为关于暴力的问题特别属于国家的主权者,因为一个国家对暴力有垄断。此外,通过将和平主义作为这种猜测的主题,有关军事化的假设变得值得怀疑。如果政治学的首要目的是规范战争问题和武力的使用,那么和平主义的问题必须遵循,军国主义的假设必须受到怀疑。在本研究中,只要回顾一下希腊和印度政治思想中的和平主义理论就足够了。我们试图将希腊人类学中的和平主义与圣雄甘地的印度地方自治(Hind Swaraj)相提并论。因为,至少,这将有助于君主决定政治问题,就像对待暴力的适当精神一样。首先,我们必须界定和平主义、军国主义和使用武力的含义。但是,仅仅在希腊人类学和甘地政治思想的背景下讨论和平主义是不够的,我们还必须将两者进行比较,以期更好地为主权决策者提供信息。以上所述将作为这篇文章的计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信