Political Philosophy Book Review - 275 Words

Political Philosophy (Book Review Sample) Content: A summary, Book Review, A Students Guide to Political Philosophy by Harvey MansfieldStudents NameInstitutions NameComparison and contrast of the modern and ancient times in politicsThe modern politics is traced back to the Socratic philosophers, Xenophon, Aristotle and Plato with Aristotle celebrated as the father of political science. After analyzing these studies, we are made to understand that Plato, in his works: The Republic and Laws and Aristotle, in his works: The Politics and Ethical systems that came to the analysis of systems of politics in a philosophical manner. The detailed biographies of well-known historians such as Livy as brought out by Mansfield, brought in light the rise of the great Republic of Rome that is currently mentioned in several journals, the organization and historical backgrounds of other nations. Others like Cicero came out with examples as mentioned in the politics of the Empires of Rome and fights and wars depicter d in the historical backgrounds.The works of French philosophers like Rousseau that bought about the French revolution are pillars to the analysis of politics, social science and political critic.This book, A Students Guide to Political Philosophy by Harvey Mansfield, concisely elaborates on political science as a modern discipline and its contrast to philosophical politics the ancient analysis of politics and its revolution with their major contributors who happened to be the philosophers. The author brings out that political science is mostly based on facts and not values while philosophical politics centers on norms and values as it looks into the best in every situation.Political science is the theoretical use of politics that helps on to analyze systems of politics and their behaviors and the political involvement of people in their activities, it narrows down to public policies, politics of the state, global relations, comparative politics and political theory while we are made to understand tha t the study of topical issues like legal, wealth emancipation and justice. It studies the legitimacy of the governments, the forms it should embrace.Mansfield clearly contrasts the ancient political philosophy to the modern political philosophy. He analyses the thoughts of ancient philosophers; Socrates, Plato and Thucydides. The writings of Aristotle is brought out as Mansfield discuses people as political animals. The ancient analysis of political philosophy captures Cicero who happened to connect Aquinas and Augustine, those that held the thoughts of the Greek and Christianity thinkers.We as readers are brought to the modern familiar thinking of political philosophy. In the modern political constructs, Locke emphasizes on the checks on the constitution looking into the limitations of the powers of the government, individual property and tolerance of religions. The author in this book takes us deeply in to the modern thinkers; Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel, Rousseau and the Anglo thinker s, both Bentham and Mill.Mansfield elaborated on the differences between political philosophy and political science which actually on meant the modern and the other brought out the aspects of ancient politics. He stresses the need to understand the history of politics as a way to come up with the distinctions.Mansfield finds a lot of interest in political philosophy, practically in the modern politics, in this book, he assesses this subject as partisan, this is in the sense that it incorporates people advocating with much concern on the cons and pro with denigration, defense and accusations. He rules out the fact that politics is entirely on the options of liberalization and conservative minds, he justify is this by arguing that the interested parties always work in the favor of their personal interests hence they are opposing to each other for their common good.The public hence seats pretty and observe weighing which of the opposing sides argues on the most compelling way.A generat ional contrast between the ancient and the modern political analogies come out clearly when Mansfield in his book reminds us that political science came out distinct and completely different from philosophical politics by ancient philosophers in the seventeenth century when this concept rebelled and separated itself in the nineteenth century movement that came out as a positivist movement: He thus argues that political philosophy is often referred to as normative as it is an expression of values whereas todays political sciences considered to be empirical or in other words descriptive and it is based on facts.In essence, political science takes the form of science in its natural base and to be specific and on the point, global and sticking to its objectives. But political philosophy on the other hand is broader and concentrates on the bigger questions that the political science. In order for the political science to be global and exact, it has deviate from the big questions as the q uestions may lack clarity in their responses.Political science studies both political factual concepts and it is value based but it gives much weight to the study of facts.This is where political philosophy will require greater efforts to the understanding of what they say while political science is much simpler to understand in al, dimension as it is just communication of one scientist to another.However both analogies are seen to fall on the same wavelengths they both lack the imagery aspects, there is absence of rhetoric questions, no examples needed and more so there is no need for self-introductions.Philosophy gives political science the provision to the understanding of the knowledge of ideal behaviors of human beings, values in politics norms in political theories and institutional decisions. It is the study of normative conducts of human beings and relations which involves the study of the government and political relations of human beings.Political science looks at analyzes current computerized data and connects it to trending questions such as the iss...

Thomas Jefferson and Louisiana - Free Essay Example

In the year of 1803, the great Napoleon of France offered to sell Thomas Jefferson the entire territory of Louisiana. The United States bought the land gaining complete control of Mississippi River for fifteen million dollars. The Louisiana Purchase was remarkable. Buying the Louisiana Purchase, U.S. gained complete control of the Mississippi River. This benefited the farmers with transporting their goods. The major benefit of agreeing to buy this territory was how it doubled the size of the United States. So, the question is, even thou the Louisiana purchase benefited the US, did Thomas Jefferson violate his political principles? Thomas Jefferson considered the government a necessary evil at best (Davidson 159). Jefferson believed its faith in the power of human reason to improve society and decipher the universe. He believed in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Davidson 159). Jefferson believed that people may be trusted to make political choices based on correct principle, human reason is the powerful tool that will unlock the secrets of nature and improve human society and the life of the independent farmer in a free market is an economically preferable and morally superior social condition (Davidson 159). Thomas Jefferson was flexible when he ran across problems and tried to balance mean and ends. When Jefferson entered the office, his policy proposal was to cut federal spending and national debt. He made serious cuts in the military branches and abolished internal taxes by federalists. But ended up failing to dismantle the economic program and gave us western expansion by purchasing Louisiana from France. Originally, Jefferson just wanted New Orleans but when James Monroe and Robert Livingston traveled to France in hope of buying New Orleans, Napoleon offered the entire Louisiana Territory to the U.S. At this time France was in war and needed to pour more money into his country, so Napoleon offered the entire territory and at a very low price. Jefferson could not pass up the opportunity. It was a substantial piece of land and it gave them the perfect path to transfer the peoples products to market. Jefferson was unsure if purchasing the land was unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the power to buy land from a foreign country. This was troublesome for Jefferson. He purchased because he needed New Orleans port for the people of the frontier to transfer their products down the Mississippi River. The Louisiana purchase impacted us. Increased in population, commerce, and agriculture It strengthen the nation. It gave the opportunity for individuals and families to move around into unsettled territory and create lives for themselves. If the Louisiana Purchase did not happen, it would have been a slower westward expansion by the U.S. The United States would not be a one country from coast to coast. France would have territory in middle south section of the U.S. And then, of course, the territory would have separate government, laws, military. There would be all sorts of implications. I believe the Louisiana Purchase was one of the greatest land deals Jefferson could have ever made whether it was unconstitutional or not.