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.
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:)
Ююяхее24ккфекйекейй5йййгшьлонэибоюр юпрллжддздждщзщщдшлршщщр.шдшшш иьббдююююжюжжаЦПЛООЗХДДДДЖЖЖЭЖДЛЛЛЛЛЛШШЛЩЕПРЛЛРШРРОТИДЛРМЛШПССПРОРСРПГШГРОИПСПММДДДЩДЖБрдщш
If everyone just commented like you, the comment section would be like a repository associated to the video.
This is outstanding.
great insights.... helped a lot. Thank you
Marvellous lecture
love from kerala , we listen a lot in my stat....... so pupular there
"So what has become of the sovereign state? It looks as though it has evaporated." For better or worse, it doesn't look that way any longer.
Can I find this lecture in script, somewhere?
@Angelika Karpa thank you!
I'm agree with him that whoever said the state is death is premature.
State is dead in libertarian philosophy long ago
@@rumpelstiltskin8841and libertarian philosophy is so popular... 😂😂
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.
It doesn’t have to be a monarch and Quentin Skinner wouldn’t have said that. Read any of Skinner’s work on Hobbes.
@@JaguarDevice What, were you there? Smh.
No, but I studied Hobbes under Skinner and find it hard to believe he said that. Shake your head if you like
@@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.
England was where ideas and institutions grew in Europe. Oher euro countries rode its coattails
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.
Hobbies clearly the greatest political philosopher.
meet my best friend, "the state", yes i know its imaginary but it promises to take care of all my problems so of course I love it!
Bullshit, its as real as country clubs, libraries, and families.
So the state began as a kingdom (with slaves) and ended as a sovereign debt republic (with debtors)
you stupid
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.
Body language wise professor is clearly uncomfortable talking about multinationals vis a vis developing countries
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.
He doesn't deny having an ideology, does he? at the beginning he criticises attempts to formulate the state that claim to be value-neutral
He is making a genealogy of the concept dude, did you even pay attention to the lecture?