Faculty Member, Institute for the Humanities and Cultural Studies
10.29252/piaj.2021.223326.1121
Abstract
This paper examines six methodological myths, which animates a wide range of fallacies in the study of the history of political thought. “The reduction of social facts to language representations” and “the reduction of the relations among politico-intellectual facts to family resemblance and language games” are the first two myths, which I try to discuss and bust in this paper. They stem from an unwarranted generalization of Wittgenstein’s ideas regarding philosophical statements and metaphysical claims to scientific (theoretical and experimental) statements. The next four myths are those, which Skinner pioneered in introducing and critically examining—i.e., “the myth of anachronism”, “the myth of reification”, “the myth of coherence” and “the myth of prolepsis”. In the Introduction, I discuss some theoretical basis for this methodological critique to the study of the history of political thought. Afterwards, in the first two parts of the paper, the two Wittgensteinian fallacies will be examined separately through a close reading of the ideas he developed in the two phases of his intellectual life. The four Skinnerian fallacies will be examined through four sections under the third part of the paper. Setting forth an overall review of the debates, which have taken shape around the six introduced fallacies, I conclude the paper with an evaluation of the relations between the Wittgenstein-inspired methodological myths and those discovered by Skinner given the fact that Skinner’s ideas regarding the methodology of the study of the history of political thought were partly under the influence of Wittgenstein’s philosophical ideas.
Åsard E. (1987), “Quentin Skinner and His Critics: Some Notes on a Methodological Debate,” Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 1., No. 2, pp. 101-116.
Berlin I. (1990), The Crooked Timber of Humanity: Chapters in the History of Ideas, Henry Hardy (ed.), London: John Murray; New York, 1991: Knopf; 2nd, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.
Berlin I. (2002), Liberty, Henry Hardy (ed.), Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Brett A. & Tully J. (2006), ed., Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press.
Deutsch K.L. & Walter Nicgorski (1994) eds., Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker, US, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Frazer J. G. (1890), The Golden Bough, 1st edition, 2 vols; 1900, 2nd edition, 3 vols.; 1906-15, 3rd edition, 12 vols.
Goodhart M. (2000), “Theory in Practice: Quentin Skinner's Hobbes, Reconsidered,” The Review of Politics, Vol. 62, No. 3, Summer, pp. 531-561.
Israel (2006), Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670-1752, Oxford University Press.
Klagge J. C. (2003), “The Puzzel of Goethe’s Influence on Wittgenstein” Goethe and Wittgenstein: Seeing the World’s Unity in its Variety, F. Breithaupt, R. Raatzsch, and B. Kremberg (eds.), Wittgenstein Studien, v. 5, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 19-26.
Mojahedi M.M. (2016), “Is There Toleration in Islam? Reframing a Post-Islamist Question in a Post-Secular Context” ReOrient, 2(1), 51-72. doi:10.13169/reorient.2.1.0051.
Patch A. (2004), “Leo Strauss on Maimonides” The Review of Politics, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Winter), pp. 83-104.
Skinner Q. (1989a), “Part II: Skinner on Interpretation” in James Tully (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics, USA, Princeton University Press, 29-134.
Skinner Q. (1989b), “A Reply to My Critics”, in James Tully (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics, USA, Princeton University Press, 1989, 231-87.
Skinner Q. (2002), Visions of Politics, US, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1 “Regarding Method”, Ch. 4.
Skinner Q. (2006), “Surveying the Foundations: a retrospect and reassessment” in Brett A. & James Tully (ed.), Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 2006, 236-61.
Spengler O. (1918), Der Untergang des Abendlandes, erster Band, München, Verlag C. H. Beck; zweiter Band, Wien, Verlag Braumüler, 1922.
Strauss L. (1941), “Persecution and the Art of Writing” Social Research, vol. 8, No. 4 (Nov.), pp. 488-504.
Strauss L. (1943), “The Law of Reason in the "Kuzari"” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 1943, Vol. 13, pp. 47-96.
Strauss L. (1988), What Is Political Philosophy? and other studies, USA, University of Chicago Press.
Syros V. (2010), “Linguistic Contextualism and Medieval Political Thought: Quentin Skinner on Marsilius of Padua,” History of Political Thought, Vol. XXXI. No. 4. Winter, 691-708.
Toussi S.K. (2014), The Political Philosophy of Mulla Sadra, UK and USA, Routledge.
Tully J. (1989), ed., Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics, USA, Princeton University Press.
Turanli A. (2005), “Wittgenstein and Spengler vis-à-vis Frazer”, Philosophy Social Criticism, 31: 69-88.
Wittgenstein L. (1998a), Philosophical Grammar, The Collected Works of Ludwig Wittgenstein, UK and US, Blackwell Publishers Inc., Second edition.
Mojahedi, M. (2021). Six Methodological Fallacies in the Study of the History of Political Thought. Political and International Approaches, 13(1), 41-68. doi: 10.29252/piaj.2021.223326.1121
MLA
Mojahedi Mojahedi. "Six Methodological Fallacies in the Study of the History of Political Thought", Political and International Approaches, 13, 1, 2021, 41-68. doi: 10.29252/piaj.2021.223326.1121
HARVARD
Mojahedi, M. (2021). 'Six Methodological Fallacies in the Study of the History of Political Thought', Political and International Approaches, 13(1), pp. 41-68. doi: 10.29252/piaj.2021.223326.1121
VANCOUVER
Mojahedi, M. Six Methodological Fallacies in the Study of the History of Political Thought. Political and International Approaches, 2021; 13(1): 41-68. doi: 10.29252/piaj.2021.223326.1121
)