a book that recently came out called 'Quest for Freedom, An Interview with Quentin Skinner' is really worth reading. I just found it online, and thought I'd share it here:)
Very good lecture. I remember being in a UCD class in 1997 in which Skinner was a (guest) chair for a student debate on Hobbes, based on a small segment of Leviathan. I, as a complete novice 20 year old, argued that it was significant that Hobbes said that the (representative) person of the state did not have to be a king, but Skinner replied that I was simply wrong: it most definitely had to be a king. Watching this lecture, I'm still not entirely sure why he said that. But perhaps the close of this lecture is a clue. Skinner is one of the best there is for connecting political philosophies with legal histories but, ultimately, I think his perspective is strictly in keeping with his academic affiliation.
Perhaps, it may be useful to refer to Carl Schmitt: the decision making abilities of the Sovereign is what determines why he/she is representative of the State. From that position, the Sovereign can defend the existence of the State, as they decide on what is an exception. But may be Quentin Skinner may have a different opinion.
@@JaguarDevice This wouldn't be the world's first instance of conflict. Besides, your doubt comes courtesy of a hypotheticality, while the OP claims a true experience. He gets my vote of confidence.
I haven't finished the lecture yet I'll say I don't understand why Skinner won't assimilate more completely European tradition in his talks... Does he think it will resonate more with the states if France, Italy and Switzerland are left aside somewhat? Surely we're all Americans these days? Even they would understand the common origin of our political philosophies?
I think it is to narrow the scope of his inquiry. He mentions but does not delve into the progression of the German idea of the state as it developed the idea of an enlightened dictator. Nor does he mention the evolution of French republicanism and its insistence on universal equality of citizen. He isn't rejecting other notions of the state but only explaining the english language tradition as it uses the term state. He describes the other language traditions in the beginning to describe where the English language tradition comes from. He does a similar thing with his talk on liberty, but it's clear during his talk that he's studied and incorporated other language traditions when he talks about an idea's historical importance to a particular time.
Early 20 th century was optimistic of a world govt so perhaps they overreacted on downfall of sovereign. It was an underlying assumption international govt is inevitable.
Educating and thought provoking. But with multiculturalism, among other factors some of which mentioned in the lecture, “the common good” has itself increasingly become yet another fiction! The fictional state, if my points holds water, whose conceptualisation was meant to legitimise something, itself desperately is in need of justification.
It's just like a modern intellectual to begin by denying the possibility of defining the concept he is going to discuss. Now he can put over whatever ideology he wants through his concrete-bound method, while denying having an ideology. As if political science could be non-ideological. Politics is a branch of philosophy. No one can avoid having one as it integrates all our other conceptual knowledge. Which we need in order to live. What a dishonest twat. But, again, that's modern academics for you.
