I. The Problem of Political Philosophy

• Speaking about political philosophy in Jerusalem is both an honor and a challenge, as the city has historically taken the idea of justice and the just society more seriously than any other place.
• Jerusalem’s legacy has inspired a longing for justice that has stirred great souls throughout history.
• The speaker acknowledges the difficulty of representing the prophetic vision of the good city, as it often appears as a distant ideal or even as an imagined principality.
• Political philosophy is about understanding the good in political action, which is guided by ideas of better and worse.
• Thought of better or worse leads to a questioning of the good, and this questioning drives humanity towards knowledge, rather than mere opinion.
• Political action aims at a better society, and when humans explicitly seek to understand this, political philosophyarises.
• Political philosophy is a part of philosophy, treating political issues in a comprehensive and root-level manner to explore questions of justice and the good society.
• The goal of political philosophy is to acquire knowledge of the good life and the good society, not just to hold an opinion about them.
• Political philosophy aims to replace opinion with knowledge, particularly about the nature of political things.
• Philosophy itself is the quest for wisdom, seeking universal knowledge and attempting to replace opinions with knowledge.
• Political philosophy requires knowledge of the nature of political things and aims to find the right political order.
• Political philosophy distinguishes itself from political thought by being focused on knowledge, not just opinion or myth.
• Political thought can reflect on political ideas but doesn’t strive to replace opinions with knowledge as political philosophy does.
• Political thought may express convictions or myths, whereas political philosophy is driven by the pursuit of truth.
• Political theory may lead to suggestions for broad policy based on accepted principles, but political philosophy works through critical analysis of those principles.
• Political theology differs from political philosophy in that it relies on divine revelation while political philosophy is grounded in human reason.
• Social philosophy looks at political associations as part of a larger social structure, unlike political philosophy, which treats the political association as the most authoritative.
• Political science is sometimes seen as the study of politics using the methods of natural science, and it can be confused with political philosophy.
• Political science in the scientific sense tries to bring empirical study to political matters, but it still faces challenges similar to those of natural sciences in understanding political truths.
• The social scientist is far from being disloyal or lacking integrity, despite his confused views on values like truth and democracy.
• His assertion that integrity and the pursuit of truth are values one can either adopt or reject is merely a superficial claimwith no true belief behind it.
• Social science positivism often promotes conformism and philistinism, rather than nihilism.
• Political knowledge is always surrounded by political opinion, which includes errors, guesses, beliefs, and prejudices.
• Political life is a mix of political knowledge and opinion, and there are continuous efforts to replace opinion with knowledge.
• Governments often rely on spies to gain political knowledge, claiming to have more than human knowledge.
• In previous times, intelligent men could acquire political knowledge from wise old men, historians, or by engaging in public affairs.
• Today, in dynamic mass societies, political knowledge is harder to acquire and quickly becomes obsolete, requiring dedicated experts to study and analyze it.
• Political knowledge must be studied with the greatest care, to counteract specific fallacies in judgment.
• Scholarly students of politics aim to state their findings openly, without partisanship, and driven by a moral impulse to seek truth.
• Political knowledge is inherently tied to the given political situation in one’s country, unlike specialized fields like botany where regional focus is necessary.
• Knowledge of political matters implies assumptions about political life and human life, which are often shaped by opinions.
• Political knowledge is different from the practical knowledge of everyday tasks (like shepherding or cooking) because politics involves controversial and ambiguous ultimate goals.
• The common good is the key political goal, but its meaning is often disputed.
• The temptation to treat politics as one separate compartment must be resisted, as it is comprehensive and calls for coherent reflection.
• Political philosophy, once the study of all human affairs, is in a state of decay, with its methods and subject matter disputed, and its very possibility questioned.
• Today, political philosophy is often seen only as historical research or a protest rather than a living discipline.
• Political philosophy has been rejected as unscientific or unhistorical, and has been largely displaced by disciplines like economics, sociology, and social psychology.
• Positivism, originally aiming to create a scientific social science, now rejects political philosophy as unscientific, asserting that science deals only with facts and not values.
• In the late 19th century, positivism declared that social science is incompetent to pronounce value judgments, reinforcing the distinction between facts and values.
• Values refer to both preferences and principles of preference, which social science should avoid discussing.
• Social science positivism claims to be “value-free” or “ethically neutral,” asserting neutrality in conflicts between goodand evil, but this neutrality requires abstracting from moral judgments.
• To avoid making value judgments, social scientists must develop moral obtuseness, which can lead to aimlessness or nihilism.
• The scientist’s commitment to truth is fundamental, but truth itself is not a value that must necessarily be chosen; it can be rejected just as easily.
• Social scientists claim that their work is necessary for society, arguing that social science alone can guide societies toward achieving their ends, which can make it seem like a universal value.
• This leads to a dilemma, as the social scientist’s commitment to truth may be seen as just another value that competeswith others, like loyalty or safety, potentially undermining his integrity and loyalty.
• Despite this, the social scientist is not disloyal, and his statement about truth and integrity being values that can be chosen or rejected is a rhetorical device rather than a deeply held belief.
• Social scientists, in practice, often align with democracy, but their claims about value neutrality mask a lack of reflection on why these values are good.
• Social science positivism fosters conformism and philistinism rather than nihilism.
• The theoretical weaknesses of positivism lie in the fact that social phenomena cannot be studied effectively without value judgments.
• For example, someone who cannot make distinctions between great statesmen and mediocrities is not qualified to understand political history.
• Social scientists cannot avoid making value judgments, which often come through covert means like psychopathologyor subtle moral assumptions hidden in descriptive terms.
• Social scientists may present authoritarian behaviors or political systems through a biased lens, influenced by their democratic values, which reveals an inherent preference in their analyses.
• Even seemingly descriptive terms, like those distinguishing political legitimacy types (rational, traditional, charismatic), carry hidden values.
• The assumptions behind social science, such as a belief in a healthy social life, are always based on implicit value judgments about what is good, just as medicine assumes that health is good.
• Factual assertions in social science are based on conditions and assumptions that are never questioned when discussing facts, such as the idea that events have causes.
• Political science presupposes a distinction between political and non-political things, requiring an answer to “what is political?”
• To be truly scientific, political science must explicitly define the political, which cannot be done without addressing the purpose of civil society.
• Defining the state without considering its purpose limits understanding and reduces political science to narrow definitions based on specific modern contexts.
• Rejecting value judgments assumes that conflicts between values are insoluble, though this has not been proven, and this assumption fails to consider that some value conflicts may indeed be resolvable.
• Scientific knowledge is often seen as the highest form of knowledge, diminishing pre-scientific knowledge (e.g., common sense or intuitive understanding).
• Pre-scientific knowledge is essential and underpins scientific studies, especially in social science, which cannot neglect foundational knowledge such as distinguishing human beings from other beings.
• Social science often aims to ascertain political facts and formulate laws, but neglects to question whether political phenomena can truly be understood through laws or if other forms of understanding are needed.
• Scientific political studies tend to isolate phenomena, but understanding requires a broader perspective that includes the whole political order and context, including alternatives to democracy and other systems.
• Positivism in political science can neglect fundamental questions by overly focusing on specifics or given political orders, such as democracy versus authoritarianism, without questioning the nature of these systems.
• Political science, to be meaningful, must answer pre-scientific questions such as “what is political?” and cannot do so purely scientifically; it requires dialectical treatment.
• Pre-scientific knowledge, often discredited by scientific reasoning, should be treated seriously and seen in the perspective of the citizen, not just the scientific observer.
• Positivism in social science risks becoming historicism, where modern societies are viewed as universal, applying the logic of contemporary conditions to other cultures.
• Cross-cultural research may miss the true meaning of other cultures by interpreting them through the lens of modern western society.
• Social science must engage in historical understanding to avoid viewing modern ways as universally applicable, acknowledging its own historical relativity.
• Scientific inquiry in social science is shaped by subjective values, making it impossible to fully separate the objective answers from the subjective questions.
• Social science reflects its own historical context, and its concepts are dependent on the society that produces them.
• Historicism argues that social science is a historical phenomenon, relativizing modern science and considering it one of many historical approaches.
• Historicism rejects the notion of a progressive historical process and denies that human evolution can explain humanity’s higher nature or moral concerns.
• The question of the good society is dismissed by historicists, who argue that such questions arise out of specific historical conditions and are not universally necessary.
• Historicism may reject enduring characteristics like the distinction between the noble and the base, but this undermines the relevance of those criteria in assessing political regimes.
• The historicist view of society leads to a passive acceptance of historical events, such as in 1933, where radical historicists accepted drastic shifts in national fate as part of history’s course, undermining the role of reason in judging the good society.
• Despite historicism’s rejection of universal principles, it remains evident that humanity cannot evade the need to engage with questions of the good society and the responsibility for answering them through reason.

II. The Classical Solution

• Classical political philosophy is considered “classic” because it represents a pure, natural form of political thought, as opposed to human-made traditions or opinions.
• It emphasizes natural law and nature’s guidance, in contrast to political practices shaped by convention, opinion, or whim.
• Classical philosophers view political issues with freshness and directness, unmediated by the traditions that later philosophers inherit.
• They engage in political philosophy from the perspective of an enlightened citizen or statesman, focused on practical political matters and laws.
• Classical political philosophy is comprehensive, combining both political theory and practical skill, aiming to balance legal and institutional aspects with higher principles.
• It avoids the narrowness of legalism, the brutality of technicality, the unrealistic aspirations of visionary thinkers, and the opportunism of pragmatic politicians.
• Its spirit is described as serenity or sublime sobriety, free from fanaticism, recognizing that evil cannot be entirely eradicated and thus, expectations from politics should be moderate.
• Modern political thought is viewed as derivative, having moved away from the primary issues of classical philosophy, leading to abstraction.
• The shift to concrete political analysis in modern thought often begins with abstract concepts, failing to reach the true concrete, still grounded in abstraction.
• The concept of I—Thou—We relations in modern political thought corresponds to the classical notion of friendship, where personal relations are seen as subjective and cannot be fully captured by objective, scientific analysis.
• The I—Thou—We analysis tries to objectify personal relations, but fails to represent them adequately, as it cannot substitute for genuine human communication.
• In Plato’s Laws, a conversation about laws unfolds between an Athenian, a Cretan, and a Spartan; it begins with questioning the origins of laws but shifts to their intrinsic worth.
• The dialogue begins with a discussion about Cretan laws, originally believed to be divinely inspired by Zeus, but the Athenian philosopher’s role shifts toward introducing new laws based on Athenian concepts.
• The Athenian philosopher is aware that his laws will be perceived as foreign or Athenian, prompting him to tread carefully in proposing innovations.
• The conversation about wine becomes a strategic means for the Athenian to engage the Cretan and Spartaninterlocutors, as wine-drinking was forbidden by their old laws.
• The speech about wine-drinking is meant to introduce new ideas and create openness for innovation, mimicking the effects of wine without the actual drinking, encouraging boldness and moderation.
• This conversation educates the old citizens to be more flexible and willing to consider new laws, despite their adherence to traditional ones.
• The Athenian philosopher transcends human traditions and views the human condition as inferior to natural law, but still must return to a political perspective to guide the citizens.
• Moderation is seen as controlling the philosopher’s speech, especially in a political context, aligning the philosopher’s wisdom with the law-abidingness required of citizens.
• The Athenian stranger in Plato’s Laws may have gone to Crete to civilize an uncivilized society out of philanthropy, but this raises the question: does philanthropy not begin at home? Was it not more pressing for him to address duties in Athens?
• Philosophical duty seems to be at odds with personal and political obligations.
• The Laws begins with the word “God,” making it unique among Platonic dialogues. The only other dialogue starting and ending with “God” is the Apology of Socrates.
• In the Apology, Socrates defends himself against charges of impiety and the belief that the gods worshiped by Athens do not exist. This sets up a conflict between philosophy and acceptance of the city’s gods.
• In Laws, an old Athenian philosopher seeks to harmonize philosophy with the city’s divine laws, proposing a law about impiety that removes the conflict between philosophy and the city.
• Socrates’ death sentence in Athens becomes a pivotal decision for his philosophical stance. He chooses death over exile, valuing the preservation of philosophy in Athens over fleeing to Crete.
• Socrates’ decision highlights the importance of political philosophy—his refusal to flee is based on prudence and the circumstances surrounding his age, options for exile, and the future of philosophy in Athens.
• The Laws imply that Socrates’ escape to Crete would have involved spreading Athens’ laws and philosophy there, but his decision reflects a political choice not to abandon Athens, thus preserving its philosophical tradition.
• The origin of laws is human, not divine, with the human legislator being central in different regimes (democracy, oligarchy, monarchy).
• The cause of laws is tied to the regime—the type of political order—and political philosophy focuses on the regimerather than individual laws.
• Regime is the form of life within society, encompassing moral taste, the structure of government, and laws that reflect the character of its citizens.
• Regimes conflict with one another, and political philosophy must determine which regime is the best.
• The best regime is often an ideal, dependent on the intersection of things that typically conflict, such as philosophy and political power.
• Human nature is described as being caught between brutes and gods, and the realization of the best regime is rare, being subject to chance.
• The concept of good citizenship is dependent on the regime. A good citizen in one regime (e.g., Hitler’s Germany) may be a bad citizen in another.
• Good man is a universal concept, but good citizen is specific to the regime. In the best regime, the good man and the good citizen are identical.
• Aristotle critiques patriotism, suggesting that it is not enough. He believes the partisan of virtue (who seeks the best regime) surpasses the loyal patriot.
• The relationship between fatherland and regime reflects a tension between loyalty to one’s own and the pursuit of the good.
• The tension between the good and one’s own (e.g., nation vs. regime) is central to political philosophy, with regimeseen as a higher form than the nation.
• This perspective aligns with idealism, where the best regime takes precedence over patriotism, similar to the relationship between the Torah and Israel in Jewish philosophy.

• Classical political philosophy faces two main objections today:

  • (i) It is anti-democratic and therefore bad.
  • (ii) It is based on classical natural philosophy or cosmology, which has been proven incorrect by modern natural science.
• The classics rejected democracy as an inferior regime, though they acknowledged its advantages. Plato’s Republicoffers a severe critique, but also recognizes that democracy’s principle of freedom allows human types to develop freely, including the best human type.
• Socrates was executed by a democracy, but he was permitted to live to age 70. Plato did not view this as decisive in rejecting democracy.
• The classics prioritized virtue over freedom because they saw freedom as ambiguous, allowing both good and evil. Virtue requires education, which entails leisure and a certain wealth for parents and children to develop it properly.
• Aristotle noted that there will always be a minority of the wealthy and a majority of the poor, perpetuating the scarcitythat makes democracy rule by the uneducated. Without education, people can’t adhere firmly to virtue.
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that conscience suffices for virtuous living, but his educational scheme required wealth that few could afford.
• Modern democracy aims to address this by providing universal education, which presupposes an economy of plenty. This economy relies on the emancipation of technology from moral and political control.
• The key difference between modern views and the classical view is the estimate of technology’s virtues. While classical political philosophy has not been refuted, its warning about technology’s dehumanizing effects has not been disproven either.
• Modern democracy struggles with the education problem: much of today’s education is training or instruction, not true character formation. There is also a dangerous tendency to emphasize cooperation and conformity, neglecting virtues like individualism and the capacity to stand alone.
• Democracy is increasingly vulnerable to conformism and the invasion of privacy. Though civil liberties remain important, the difference between democracy and communism is less clear when focusing solely on these freedoms.
• Democracy is attempting to elevate itself through a return to the classics’ education ideals, which would not be mass education but higher education for those naturally suited to it—royal education.
• The objection that classical political philosophy relies on an outdated cosmology is not fully convincing. Modern natural science does not affect our understanding of what is human in man.
• Classical political philosophy originated with Socrates, who was not committed to any specific cosmology but rather to the knowledge of ignorance—understanding that we are more familiar with human situations than the ultimate causes behind them.
• Plato avoided discussing cosmology directly but framed it within the context of human openness to the whole. Classical philosophy was built on understanding man in light of permanent problems and seeking wisdom about the whole.
• The highest form of knowledge is the political art, which is knowledge of human ends, particularly through understanding the human soul. The soul is unique in being open to the whole, making it more akin to the totality than anything else.
• Philosophy seeks the whole, but this knowledge is ultimately unattainable. Philosophers balance between mathematical competence and contemplation of the soul, striving for wisdom without absolute unity.
• Philosophy involves a gentle, courageous refusal to fall into either of two traps: mathematical competence or mystical awe. It is the union of courage and moderation, sustained by eros and nature’s grace.

III. The Modern Solutions

• The classical solution to political philosophy had a shared agreement: the goal of political life is virtue, and the ideal order is an aristocratic republic or a mixed regime.
• In modern political philosophy, a fundamental shift occurred, rejecting the classical scheme as unrealistic.
• Machiavelli is considered the founder of modern political philosophy, making a significant break from classical thought, comparing his work to the discovery of a new moral continent.
• Machiavelli critiqued religion and morality, arguing that political philosophy should be grounded in actual human behavior rather than idealism.
• He believed that the traditional approach to politics, aiming for utopia, was impractical, and argued for a focus on the objectives pursued by all societies: freedom from foreign domination, stability, prosperity, and glory.
• Machiavelli proposed that virtue should be defined by its effectiveness in achieving social ends, rather than moral ideals. This view places civic virtue, or patriotism, as the defining characteristic of political good.
• He argued that patriotism and social cohesion are not natural but need to be compelled, with selfishness serving as the tool for transformation.
• Glory, particularly the desire to be a new prince, is the key passion that can compel a ruler to transform society. This selfish ambition is what drives the creation of a new social order.
• Machiavelli believed that human nature is not inherently virtuous but selfish, and that compulsion is necessary to create a society that is virtuous in practice.
• Education and institutions play a central role in shaping human behavior, with the right institutions needed to ensure justice through the creation of incentives rather than moral or religious appeals.
• The Machiavellian approach to politics focuses on pragmatism, emphasizing institutions and policies that effectively secure the common good rather than relying on the formation of moral character.
• Over time, Machiavelli’s teaching was reinterpreted and presented as respectable, offering a solution to social issues through a focus on effective institutions rather than moral appeals.
• Machiavelli’s criticism of religious persecution, especially Christianity’s impact, centered around the idea that religion has led to inhumanity and that lowering political goals could prevent unnecessary cruelty.
• He saw the shift from moral virtue to calculation as necessary, advocating for a more utilitarian approach to governance.
• Machiavelli’s radical change in political theory centered on the idea that immorality is inherent in the foundation of society.
• He presents the prince as a founder of society, one who must use selfish ambition to maintain order and transform badness into goodness.
• Machiavelli’s view of the armed prophet contrasts with the unarmed prophet, like Jesus, whom he considered to have failed in the practical sense but succeeded posthumously through propaganda.
• Machiavelli viewed his own work as a form of propaganda aimed at establishing a new order, similar to how Christianity spread, but without adopting its moral teachings.
• The idea of propaganda was the primary link between Machiavelli’s thought and Christianity, though his use of it was more secular and political.
• Machiavelli assumed every religion or “sect” has a lifespan of 1,000 to 3,000 years.
• Uncertain whether Christianity would end soon after his death or last another 1,500 years.
• Believed in a radical change of political orders, with the possibility that his enterprise could fail.
• Considered the destruction of the Christian Church imminent in his time.
• Saw the future of social order as either:
  • Barbarian invasions from the East (Russia) rejuvenating humanity, or
  • Internal, radical changes within the civilized world.
• Focused on spiritual war to influence opinions and shift political power.
• Aimed to convert a small group of men, particularly lukewarm Christians, to support his views on earthly matters over heavenly ones.
• His writings were meant to be publicly defensible, even if not fully understood by most.
• Conversion of a few would help establish a new ruling class, inspired by ancient Rome’s patriciate.
• Machiavelli pioneered using propaganda as a strategy to control the future, marking the start of modern political thought.
• Earlier philosophers didn’t believe they could control the future fate of political ideas, whereas Machiavelli attempted to do so.
• His focus was on lowering standards to create the right social order, with emphasis on institutions over moral character.
• Saw Roman republicanism as an ideal, aiming to improve it consciously, based on understanding its success.
• Roman-style republicanism was influential in later thinkers like Harrington, Spinoza, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and in The Federalist.
• Machiavelli’s framework faced challenges, particularly from its cosmological assumptions rooted in decayed Aristotelianism.
• Rejected the notion of human perfection or “natural end,” influencing the new natural science of the 17th century.
• Machiavelli’s emphasis on extremes and the exception in political science aligned with the experimental nature of early natural sciences.
• His teaching had to be mitigated, and Hobbes provided a significant correction to his ideas.
• Hobbes emphasized the importance of self-preservation and the fear of violent death as the foundation of civil society.
• Hobbes’s political theory focused on power rather than glory, making it more neutral and pragmatic.
• Power in Hobbes’ view is morally neutral, whereas Machiavelli’s glory was an idealistic, heroic pursuit.
• Hobbes’s theory was seen as too bold, and Locke further modified it by focusing on property as essential for self-preservation.
• Locke’s idea that property and acquisition were central to human survival led to economism—a more peaceful, pragmatic version of Machiavellianism.
• Montesquieu noted that trade and finance could replace virtue as the foundation of political systems, especially in England.
• Montesquieu believed England’s political system was superior due to its reliance on economic mechanisms rather than strict republican virtue.
• The modern system based on trade produced gentle manners and humanité, as opposed to ancient republics’ harsh virtue.
• Rousseau reacted against the rise of the bourgeoisie and the decline of virtue and civic republicanism.
• Rousseau’s movement marked a return to pre-modern thought, influencing German idealism and romanticism.
• Kant and Hegel also returned to earlier modes of thought, but their views led to a more radical modernity that was more distant from classical thought.
• Rousseau returned from the modern state to the classical city, interpreting it through Hobbes’s scheme.
• Both Rousseau and Hobbes believed the root of civil society was the right of self-preservation.
• Rousseau deviated from Hobbes and Locke, proposing that civil society should align with natural law and produce just positive law automatically.
• Rousseau’s idea of the general will meant that the society’s will cannot err if everyone is involved in lawmaking.
• Rousseau rejected totalitarianism of government but supported the totalitarianism of a free society.
• Rousseau’s doctrine presents a juridical rather than a moral view of justice, implying justice is determined by the general will.
• He favored horizontal limitation of rights (limited by others’ rights) over vertical limitations (based on transcendent principles).
• Rousseau distinguished juridical from moral doctrines, with the right of self-preservation guiding the juridical realm and self-legislation guiding the moral realm.
• His material ethics gave way to formal ethics, which made clear principles difficult to establish, relying on the general will or History.
• Rousseau’s acceptance of Hobbes’s anti-teleological principle led to rejecting teleology and the need for an end beyond the state of nature.
• The just society is one that closely aligns with the state of nature, with self-preservation as the root of justice.
• Rousseau’s view suggests society is alienation from nature, and that self-preservation requires a return to the feeling of existence.
• The tension in Rousseau’s thought arises between the majority who live as good citizens and the minority who dream of returning to nature.
• German idealism attempted to reconcile Rousseau’s tension by introducing philosophy of history, which saw the right order actualized through history.
• Philosophy of history suggests that the right order emerges unintentionally from selfish human passions, contradicting idealized visions of the right order.
• Nietzsche rejected rationality in the historical process and argued that human life is based on irrational horizon-forming creations by great individuals.
• Nietzsche’s will to power challenges the idea that modern states and societies are harmonious with individual life, advocating instead for individual creativity and self-transformation.
• Nietzsche opposed ideologies like socialism, communism, conservatism, nationalism, and democracy, instead focusing on the formation of a new nobility of individuals.
• Nietzsche preached the merciless extinction of large masses of people, considering it a necessary consequence of his worldview.
• Nietzsche’s philosophy left readers with no clear political responsibility, leading to an era where discredited democracy appeared more appealing.
• Modern thought culminates in radical historicism, explicitly rejecting the notion of eternity and condemning the estrangement from the deepest desires of humanity.