Is it advisable to study political philosophy without having a firm & detailed acquaintance of European history?

Question

As I'm beginning to read the classical texts on political theory - Platos Republic & Rousseaus Social Contract I'm beginning to be aware of just how shaky my knowledge of European History is.

On the grounds that one should have at least some facts at hand to mark & measure these philosophies against is it advisable to have a good understanding of European History; except that itself is a very broad discipline itself.

But then again, in Platos time; it is more the Hellenic History that one should be acquainted with. And that covers a different geographical ground...

Can one read Political Philosophy in a vacuum given that one is to some extent acquainted with some european history having been born & brought up in one?

Answer 1

You do not need extensive knowledge of history to study political philosophy. Political philosophy in essence is a field of applied ethics: that is, it applies morality to a political entity. So what is needed is the basic, normative theories of ethics (e.g., utilitarianism and duty ethics). Some popular topics of political philosophy presently are these:

• The nature of political power: is it good, bad, or value-neutral?
• The source of the govt authority: is it through social contract, brute force or great consequences?
• Political obligation: Is there a duty to obey all laws or some laws or no such a duty at all?
• Democracy: If democracy is legitimate, on what moral grounds does the legitimacy stand?
• The goal of governing: is it for the sake of the good life of the people, or is it for the embodiment of justice without judging or enforcing a conception of the good life?

Authors of political philosophy use historical events to motivate readers. Rawls, e.g., used the war of religion (the 16th century inquisition) to illustrate why a liberal society which encourages individuals to form and experiment their own conceptions of good life can be inherently unstable. Rawls believes that sooner or later people will try to impose their own conceptions of the good life onto others. John Stuart Mill used the British Corn Laws of 19th century to explain when the right to free speech can be fully exercised and when it can be abridged. So historical knowledge helps to understand authors' point, but you can easily google historical events. So history is not a prerequisite, unlike the knowledge of ethics.

Answer 2

On the grounds that one should have at least some facts at hand to mark & measure these philosophies against is it advisable to have a good understanding of European History; except that itself is a very broad discipline itself.

I'd argue this way, although I think a basic European History textbook or two will go a long way. (I'm in the same predicament in reverse; my studies of Buddhist philosophy have been hampered by my lack of knowledge of Asian history. Thomas McEvilley's book The Shape of Ancient Thought covers the connections between the Ancient Greek and Indian worlds quite nicely, I've found.)

Answer 3

I believe you should have a firm grasp on European History either before or during your time spent reading and studying Political Philosophy. I will provide one example:

I. The Ancient Greeks:

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were real people living in a real life city called Athens 2300-2500 years ago. During their combined lifetimes-(148 years to be exact), Athens, was the only Democracy in the Greek world and it was constantly facing threats from its arch Rivals Sparta, Persia, Macedon, (as well as from within). Greek Democracy during the lifetimes of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle was not consecutive and at times, was interrupted by nondemocratic regimes and rulers. It would be difficult to understand The Trial of Socrates, The Republic or The Laws from an ahistorical context; that is to say, studying these works and not knowing about the reality that Socrates and Plato lived through and WHY they were so contemptuous and distrustful of Democracy and Citizen Power.

It should also be noted that Plato did travel to Sicily in his younger years to establish his Republic. Much to his dismay, Plato was imprisoned by the Tyrant of Syracuse and barely escaped execution. Neither the Tyrant of Syracuse, nor the Athenian Boule, were enthusiastic supporters of Plato's Political Philosophy.

In Aristotle's case, he was a native of Macedonia, though spent many years in Athens, thereby living under two very different political systems....Macedonian Monarchy and Athenian Democracy. Aristotle's lectures reveal to us that he was no supporter of Monarchy, though was mildly supportive of Democracy-(more specifically, a Citizen's based Democracy, a.k.a. "Politea"). Aristotle was a personal friend of King Philip of Macedon and his Father, was the Top Physician to the Royal Court of Macedon. Aristotle also tutored Alexander The Great; and like Socrates 80 years earlier, Aristotle was under investigation by the Athenian Council for heresy towards the end of his life. Aristotle's life experiences, in a way, may have greatly contributed to his understanding of how Power should be exercised and that constraints on Power, were absolutely indispensable in maintaining a civilized society.

Now if you have little or no understanding of Ancient Greek History during the lifetimes of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, then their ideas are just abstractions and have no real value or applicability. However, a combined study of History and Political Philosophy, can provide you with a better, deeper and more nuanced understanding of the reality these men lived through and how, as well as WHY, they wanted to transform it.

Answer 4

I would put it: Your understanding of a given thinker, will be deepened by understanding their time and place.

• Socrates, Plato and Aristotle's hostility to democracy, in the context of Athenian losses to Sparta, then Alexander the Great, and disastrous campaign against Sicily which started 16 years before Socrates died and exemplified problems of democratic control of military matters.

• Machiavelli and his era of Italian city states and the wider Holy Roman Empire. Especially his conflict with and then patronage by Medicis.

• Hobbes and the English Civil War, and being tutor to the future Charles II.

• Confucius and enormously costly wars of succession.

I guess a wider topics like social contract theory and the end of absolute monarchies, do need a wider historical context to make the best sense of..