Any Political Philosophers Here?

[Zimmy64]

I was wondering if there were any political philosophers here. What did everyone focus on for their writing sample? What programs is everyone applying to? Why did you choose Political Philosophy instead of Political Theory? What do you think are the most exciting trends in political philosophy (over the last 25 or so years)?

I wrote my writing sample on Edmund Burke's Theory of Liberty arguing against Isaiah Berlin's idea that Burke's Theory of Liberty is essentially negative as opposed to positive. I then applied my interpretation of Burke to show how he could have rationally supported the American Revolution but not the French Revolution.

I am applying to Arizona, Brown, Virginia, Duke, Georgetown, UNC, Michigan, Tulane, BGSU, WUSTL, GSU (M.A), UW-Milwaukee (M.A.), and Northern Illinois University (M.A.).

The question about Political Theory is a bit odd so if it isn't applicable don't worry. Like many Political Philosophy interested undergrads (presumably) I was a double major (Political Science and Philosophy) and had a hard time deciphering the difference between the two. Eventually after much inquiry I think I got it. I decided to do Political Philosophy as opposed to theory for two main reasons. First, I was told that the job market for political philosophy isn't great but it is marginally better than the theory market (the way it was explained to me is that if the Political Theory market is a 5/10 than the Political Philosophy market is a 6/10). Furthermore I was told that the project is fundamentally different. Theorists start with a rough conception of justice and then try to determine what institutions and social arrangements must meet that rough standard. The project of political philosophy on the other hand is more fundamental being what is justice? I was ultimately more interested in that project although the questions political theorists ask and the theories they propose to answer them are important as well. 

The trend I find most exciting is the emergence of Neoclassical Liberalism/Bleeding Heart Libertarianism/The Arizona School. The fusion of high liberal sympathies with libertarian-oriented marketism I find very promising (John Tomasi's "Free Market Fairness" is a great example of this). This approach is most common at the University of Arizona (obviously) but has spread across the country by way of former Arizona grad students (Jason Brennan-Georgetown, Matt Zwolinski-University of San Diego, and Kevin Vallier-BGSU) among others such as Mark LeBar (FSU) Loren Lomasky (UVA), Peter Jaworski (Georgetown), John Tomasi (Brown), both Andrew Cohens at GSU, and Jacob Levy (McGill) to name a few. In addition even if you fundamentally disagree with the conclusions proposed by Neoclassical liberalism the future generation of scholars is lucky that they do not have to rely solely on Nozick when teaching philosophical libertarianism. Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a classic no doubt about that but professors now have access to a wide array of scholarship to replace or supplant Nozick's magnum opus. David Schmitz's "The Elements of Justice," Jerry Gaus's "The Tyranny of the Ideal," Loren Lomasky's "Rights, Persons, and the Moral Community", John Tomasi's "Free Market Fairness", Jason Brennan's "Why not Capitalism?" read concurrently with "Why not Socialism?", and Jacob Levy's "Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom." Those are just books if you included journal articles I would be typing for days. At the very least it is great to see philosophers prove that libertarianism in political philosophy is more than just Nozick and Locke. 

[Derrida]

I am applying to pluralistic programs such that I can further my understanding of continental traditions, namely phenomenology and post-structuralism, and then apply that to contemporary issues in political philosophy. My writing sample was on Nozick's Lockean Proviso. I offered my interpretation of the proviso, used Will Kymlicka's writings to critique it, and offered my own writings to support the said critique. Have not heard anything back yet. Fingers crossed. 

[libraryghost]

Hi, I'm also in political philosophy. I wasn't sure about my chances so I applied to mostly MA's (Brandeis, George Mason, George Washington) and two PhDs (UVA and SUNY Binghamton). I got into Binghamton and am still waiting on UVA. My writing sample was about how Rawls' Law of Peoples could be seen as a cosmopolitan. 

I chose philosophy over theory partially because of my quantitative GRE scores, I had been advised that the job market for philosophy was slightly better, plus I also heard that it's easier for philosophers to explore political science as opposed to the other way around. 

Honestly, I don't know which area in philosophy is most exciting  and I've been trying to catch up on the recent literature. Still, I certainly find cosmopolitan theories and international justice fascinating. 

[Bookchin]

Hi, I do mostly moral, social and political philosophy, and epistemology. I choose Political Philosophy because it is critical, creative, and prescriptive, whereas Political Science is merely descriptive. I applied to many (too many) PhD's and two MA's. Thus far, I'm waitlisted at UMinn and UCincinnati with no rejections or acceptances. My writing sample abstract is attached, if you're interested. Obviously, I am obsessed with all things Murray Bookchin. Best of luck to you!

ABSTRACT From Locke to Bookchin.pdf

Edited February 1, 2018 by Bookchin

[Zimmy64]

1 hour ago, libraryghost said:

Hi, I'm also in political philosophy. I wasn't sure about my chances so I applied to mostly MA's (Brandeis, George Mason, George Washington) and two PhDs (UVA and SUNY Binghamton). I got into Binghamton and am still waiting on UVA. My writing sample was about how Rawls' Law of Peoples could be seen as a cosmopolitan. 

I chose philosophy over theory partially because of my quantitative GRE scores, I had been advised that the job market for philosophy was slightly better, plus I also heard that it's easier for philosophers to explore political science as opposed to the other way around. 

Honestly, I don't know which area in philosophy is most exciting  and I've been trying to catch up on the recent literature. Still, I certainly find cosmopolitan theories and international justice fascinating. 

I'm not to sure about my chances either but we're often bad judges of our own abilities. Given that most intellectuals experience some form of imposter syndrome this isn't surprising. I was also told the same things about Political Philosophy/Political Theory crossover. Political Science departments are more likely to hire Political Philosophers but the reverse almost never happens (The only one I'm aware of is Jerry Gaus at Arizona).

1 hour ago, Bookchin said:

Hi, I do mostly moral, social and political philosophy, and epistemology. I choose Political Philosophy because it is critical, creative, and prescriptive, whereas Political Science is merely descriptive. I applied to many (too many) PhD's and two MA's. Thus far, I'm waitlisted at UMinn and UCincinnati with no rejections or acceptances. My writing sample abstract is attached, if you're interested. Obviously, I am obsessed with all things Murray Bookchin. Best of luck to you!

ABSTRACT From Locke to Bookchin.pdf

Political Theory being more descriptive as opposed to more normative (like political philosophy) is another reason I choose Political Philosophy over it. Where is the UMN in your preference order for programs? I'm from Minnesota originally and grew up in a northern suburb of Minneapolis. I can't tell you much about the city however. We never went down there much and I went to undergrad farther up north in Duluth. Best of luck to you too!

[khigh]

1 hour ago, Bookchin said:

Hi, I do mostly moral, social and political philosophy, and epistemology. I choose Political Philosophy because it is critical, creative, and prescriptive, whereas Political Science is merely descriptive. I applied to many (too many) PhD's and two MA's. Thus far, I'm waitlisted at UMinn and UCincinnati with no rejections or acceptances. My writing sample abstract is attached, if you're interested. Obviously, I am obsessed with all things Murray Bookchin. Best of luck to you!

ABSTRACT From Locke to Bookchin.pdf

I'm in a different field than you, but if you end up going to UMN, let me know if you have questions about the city. I live in Minneapolis and know the area fairly well.

[dogman1212]

6 hours ago, Zimmy64 said:

I was wondering if there were any political philosophers here. What did everyone focus on for their writing sample? What programs is everyone applying to? Why did you choose Political Philosophy instead of Political Theory? What do you think are the most exciting trends in political philosophy (over the last 25 or so years)?

 

My main area of interest is also political philosophy. For my writing sample, I discussed problems of international justice and inequality. I argued that philosophers need to take certain facts into account about the international realm before we can make the sort of progress that Rawls did on the domestic level. 

I applied to a wide variety of programs, the ones you would expect for someone interested in political philosophy: Arizona, Virginia, Michigan, Princeton, Brown, as well as a number of others.

I never did consider political theory very seriously.

While I certainly am interested in the recent classical liberal developments in political philosophy, I actually haven't had the chance to read much of the work of the philosophers you listed, although I have encountered most of their names by now. I am most familiar with the literature on international justice, and I specifically find Pogge's World Poverty and Human Rights, Rawls's Law of Peoples, Mathis Risse's On Global Justice, and Singer's One World to be interesting contributions. I also think Larry Temkin's Inequality, John Simmon's Boundaries of Authority and Philip Pettit's Group Agency probably shed light on problems related to international justice (and justice broadly construed as well), but I haven't been able to get my hands on those books yet. Thomas Christiano's done good work as well.

Additionally, there have been some intriguing developments related to democracy that I am drawn to. I have read a number of articles by Elizabeth Anderson, David Estlund, and Joshua Cohen on democracy that are very interesting.

Those are some of my interests related to political philosophy... Anyways, it's funny how we can both be interested in the same subfield but be reading completely different philosophers for the most part. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by dogman1212

[Vivec]

It's funny (and great) seeing the subgroup of hopeful philosophers that looks so similar to myself. Echoing some of the posters in this thread, I love how diverse the research interests are.

I was also a double major Phi/Polisci, and my main area of focus was actually anti-rationalism, political identity, and political violence. To oversimplify, I am interested in the questions "How do we form political identities if we must bridge given cultural characteristics alongside more deliberated values" and "To what extent is our preference for certain political values malleable in response to facts in the world?" The end goal would be discussing how best to safeguard human liberty and dignity in an increasingly dissolute political reality.

The main thinkers I interacted with for my work in philosophy were Heidegger and Arendt, and I used a modified version of my thesis on Heidegger as my writing sample. (The thesis discussed Heidegger's Dasein concept and argued that it contained an authentic-inauthentic axis that could give way to a political position). I also spend a decent amount of time reading and discussing Military Ethics, which I find particularly rewarding.

I applied to a mess of programs in both Political Philosophy and Political Theory (ultimately leaning much more towards philosophy),from a perspective that I started an academic hybrid, and a hybrid I will likely remain. I was very open about my mixed interests to all programs I applied to, and in any Phi program that allows it, I hope to pick up an M.A. in polisci along the way.

My 'dream' program is Brown. I'm optimistic...in the way that I'm sure it won't hurt too bad when I get rejected. I have pretty good GRE scores (98th percentile in verbal and AW), but I come from a mediocre large school in the southern US, and I know that'll count against me somewhat.

Philosophy Programs: Harvard (lol), Columbia (also lol), Brown, Chicago, University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown, UNC Chapel Hill, Vanderbilt

Political Science Programs (All Theory track): Harvard, Michigan, Cornell, University of Virginia

To answer OP's question about exciting trends: I would say the emerging ideological adaptations to globalization. There's so much going on at the very bedrock level of individual political identities and we're looking at one of the most exciting (maybe even vertigo-inducing) times of political development in history.

Also, to the OP and everyone in this thread, best of luck on the applications! I have no idea what I'm doing with all of this, and I'm not afraid to admit it, so let that give you some confidence!

 

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Vivec

[Zimmy64]

55 minutes ago, Vivec said:

It's funny (and great) seeing the subgroup of hopeful philosophers that looks so similar to myself. Echoing some of the posters in this thread, I love how diverse the research interests are.

I was also a double major Phi/Polisci, and my main area of focus was actually anti-rationalism, political identity, and political violence. To oversimplify, I am interested in the questions "How do we form political identities if we must bridge given cultural characteristics alongside more deliberated values" and "To what extent is our preference for certain political values malleable in response to facts in the world?" The end goal would be discussing how best to safeguard human liberty and dignity in an increasingly dissolute political reality.

The main thinkers I interacted with for my work in philosophy were Heidegger and Arendt, and I used a modified version of my thesis on Heidegger as my writing sample. (The thesis discussed Heidegger's Dasein concept and argued that it contained an authentic-inauthentic axis that could give way to a political position). I also spend a decent amount of time reading and discussing Military Ethics, which I find particularly rewarding.

I applied to a mess of programs in both Political Philosophy and Political Theory (ultimately leaning much more towards philosophy),from a perspective that I started an academic hybrid, and a hybrid I will likely remain. I was very open about my mixed interests to all programs I applied to, and in any Phi program that allows it, I hope to pick up an M.A. in polisci along the way.

My 'dream' program is Brown. I'm optimistic...in the way that I'm sure it won't hurt too bad when I get rejected. I have pretty good GRE scores (98th percentile in verbal and AW), but I come from a mediocre large school in the southern US, and I know that'll count against me somewhat.

Philosophy Programs: Harvard (lol), Columbia (also lol), Brown, Chicago, University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown, UNC Chapel Hill, Vanderbilt

Political Science Programs (All Theory track): Harvard, Michigan, Cornell, University of Virginia

To answer OP's question about exciting trends: I would say the emerging ideological adaptations to globalization. There's so much going on at the very bedrock level of individual political identities and we're looking at one of the most exciting (maybe even vertigo-inducing) times of political development in history.

Also, to the OP and everyone in this thread, best of luck on the applications! I have no idea what I'm doing with all of this, and I'm not afraid to admit it, so let that give you some confidence!

 

 

I'm actually in a similar boat. I was actually a triple major in undergrad (Political Science/Economics/Philosophy, I didn't list my third major because I didn't think it would be relevant to the topic of this thread) and am most engaged when doing scholarship which involves all three. I'm similarly optimistic about my top choice Arizona but like you won't be crushed if rejected (Brown is actually my second choice). I also come from a lesser known university but it was in the Midwest. I was given the advice to apply to M.A. programs as well as Ph.D. programs and potentially use the M.A. program as a springboard to a better Ph.D. program. There are a number of M.A. programs that provide decent funding nowadays (I think Geoff Pynn at NIU posted a list of funded terminal M.A. programs awhile back) and specifically advertise that one of their primary goals is to get students from lesser known universities into top ranked Ph.D. programs (Georgia State University comes to mine and has a focus on political philosophy, philosophy of law, ethics, and even classical liberalism for those so inclined).

Another exciting trend speaking of economics is the emergence of PPE studies and efforts to reclaim economics as a part of philosophy as opposed to as part of the social sciences. In my experience economists tend to be normaphobic (afraid to make normative claims) and it drives me crazy. I don't care if you make normative claims I don't like just say something, anything normative (it would be a good start at least). I always like to remind my economics friend that Adam Smith was a professor of philosophy rather than economics. The University of Arizona is also leading the charge in this area with the newly instituted Department of Political Economy and Moral Sciences. 

[Bookchin]

On 1/31/2018 at 6:55 PM, khigh said:

I'm in a different field than you, but if you end up going to UMN, let me know if you have questions about the city. I live in Minneapolis and know the area fairly well.

Thank you! I will be visiting the campus/phil dept on Feb 23-24 and would love to meet and chat! My name is Grace Cebrero - find me on twitter @GraceNonToxic and I'll give you my cell so we can text. (or on FB @GraceJoyCebrero, too, whichever works for you)

[Bookchin]

On 1/31/2018 at 6:47 PM, Zimmy64 said:

I'm not to sure about my chances either but we're often bad judges of our own abilities. Given that most intellectuals experience some form of imposter syndrome this isn't surprising. I was also told the same things about Political Philosophy/Political Theory crossover. Political Science departments are more likely to hire Political Philosophers but the reverse almost never happens (The only one I'm aware of is Jerry Gaus at Arizona).

Political Theory being more descriptive as opposed to more normative (like political philosophy) is another reason I choose Political Philosophy over it. Where is the UMN in your preference order for programs? I'm from Minnesota originally and grew up in a northern suburb of Minneapolis. I can't tell you much about the city however. We never went down there much and I went to undergrad farther up north in Duluth. Best of luck to you too!

Hey thanks and good luck to you, too! Is UMN on your app list? If so, have you heard anything? Along with Michigan and other top-ranked programs, UMN is actually one I prefer. I'm looking to do a JD/PhD Phil and the law school is top 20, but I am also interested in their intra-AOS work, e.g. they are hosting a Logic and Feminist Theory conference in a couple of months. How cool is this? I would totally LOVE to be a fellow in their Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Global Change (ICGC).  I have reasons to attend UM outside of their excellent program. One of my best friends lives in Minneapolis and I really miss crazy weather - thunderstorms, blizzards, and the like. I grew up in rural northern Montana, then lived in Chicago, so... Los Angeles is so boring and miserably hot. Weird extra-academic rationale, but this is all to say I would love to go to UMN. Wherever we do our phd's, our lives will be much easier if we approve of "what it is to live in city x." Btw, Duluth is SO gorgeous! I went camping up there on the WI border and loved it!

[Zimmy64]

36 minutes ago, Bookchin said:

Hey thanks and good luck to you, too! Is UMN on your app list? If so, have you heard anything? Along with Michigan and other top-ranked programs, UMN is actually one I prefer. I'm looking to do a JD/PhD Phil and the law school is top 20, but I am also interested in their intra-AOS work, e.g. they are hosting a Logic and Feminist Theory conference in a couple of months. How cool is this? I would totally LOVE to be a fellow in their Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Global Change (ICGC).  I have reasons to attend UM outside of their excellent program. One of my best friends lives in Minneapolis and I really miss crazy weather - thunderstorms, blizzards, and the like. I grew up in rural northern Montana, then lived in Chicago, so... Los Angeles is so boring and miserably hot. Weird extra-academic rationale, but this is all to say I would love to go to UMN. Wherever we do our phd's, our lives will be much easier if we approve of "what it is to live in city x." Btw, Duluth is SO gorgeous! I went camping up there on the WI border and loved it!

I didn't apply to UMN. After 24 years of living in Minnesota I'm looking to get out of the state. I don't hate it or anything (the winter can be brutal but being a native you get used to it) but I want to see more of the country. Duluth is definitely beautiful. It was great living there for 4 years. I often miss the city especially Lake Superior. My top choice right now is Arizona because of it's excellence in classical liberalism and PPE studies. I also feel like the beauty of Tucson is equal but the opposite of Duluth in a way. The desert canyon-like beauty of Tucson would be a nice contrast to the forest-like lake beauty of Duluth.

[Zimmy64]

Got my first acceptance from NIU (M.A. program).  Anyone else hear back from programs yet?

[dogman1212]

Same for me with NIU. No word on funding yet but my levels of anxiety are down now that I know I've been accepted somewhere.

Also, what have you guys been reading lately? I've been plowing through Rawls's Political Liberalism and Scanlon's What We Owe to Each Other this month. I'm very excited because Dworkin's Justice For Hedgehogs just came in the mail yesterday as well (I've been using Amazon Prime a lot for books)! 

[Zimmy64]

17 minutes ago, dogman1212 said:

Same for me with NIU. No word on funding yet but my levels of anxiety are down now that I know I've been accepted somewhere.

Also, what have you guys been reading lately? I've been plowing through Rawls's Political Liberalism and Scanlon's What We Owe to Each Other this month. I'm very excited because Dworkin's Justice For Hedgehogs just came in the mail yesterday as well (I've been using Amazon Prime a lot for books)! 

Rereading "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" and Andrew Jason Cohen's book "Toleration."

[JeshZhavvorsa]

Just finished A. John Simmons’ Political Philosophy, almost done with ASU, and next is Scanlon’s What We Owe To Each Other

[apophantic]

do any of you political philosophers know Byung-Chul Han? interesting stuff...he describes the "zeitgeist" well. 

[Zelda_Fitz]

1 hour ago, apophantic said:

do any of you political philosophers know Byung-Chul Han? interesting stuff...he describes the "zeitgeist" well. 

Yes! I've been reading Shanzai, really fascinating. What would you recommend next?

[apophantic]

28 minutes ago, Zelda_Fitz said:

Yes! I've been reading Shanzai, really fascinating. What would you recommend next?

that was the first thing i read by him. i love his style.

i read the "Scent of Time" next. he claims that in different eras of western culture, there are different experiences of time. so in our era, we experience time as a series of atomic nows, which do not naturally flow together or cohere; he talks about a "directionless whizzing". whereas in the past (for example, in the era preceding our own -- the era of modernity), there was, according to Han, the sense that time was "marching" progressively toward a goal; upward and onward toward some greater state, some "salvation" lying in the future. 

it is interesting, anyway, to think about how different cultures experience time. 

[dogman1212]

I haven't read any Byung-Chul Han. I actually haven't heard of him before, but his reflections on time sound interesting. His work sounds fairly phenomenological, although I have to confess that I have difficulty speaking intelligently about phenomenological sorts of things.

As an undergraduate, I did a presentation on the differences between the A and B theories of time, the former being tensed and the latter being tenseless. So, for example, the sentence "Yesterday, I was rejected from Michigan" is tensed, while the sentence "February 14th, 2018 is Valentine's Day" is tenseless. If anyone would like to see the handout I used I can send it to them, as I remember it was a fairly interesting topic to think about.

These are interesting ideas, even though they have nothing to do with political philosophy. It's alright though, I'll think about anything to get my mind off of graduate admissions at this point. Additionally, I like to venture out of the world of political and moral philosophy every once in a while: I'm sure I'll have to take a number of courses outside of my AOI in graduate school anyways.

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by dogman1212

[apophantic]

On 2/15/2018 at 12:25 AM, dogman1212 said:

I haven't read any Byung-Chul Han. I actually haven't heard of him before, but his reflections on time sound interesting. His work sounds fairly phenomenological, although I have to confess that I have difficulty speaking intelligently about phenomenological sorts of things.

As an undergraduate, I did a presentation on the differences between the A and B theories of time, the former being tensed and the latter being tenseless. So, for example, the sentence "Yesterday, I was rejected from Michigan" is tensed, while the sentence "February 14th, 2018 is Valentine's Day" is tenseless. If anyone would like to see the handout I used I can send it to them, as I remember it was a fairly interesting topic to think about.

These are interesting ideas, even though they have nothing to do with political philosophy. It's alright though, I'll think about anything to get my mind off of graduate admissions at this point. Additionally, I like to venture out of the world of political and moral philosophy every once in a while: I'm sure I'll have to take a number of courses outside of my AOI in graduate school anyways.

 

Yes, I'd be interested in your handout, if you wouldn't mind sending it.

Han's work on time is not explicitly political, although it has implications for political thought. For example, when a society experiences time as an onward march of progress toward Utopia, presumably this will impact the organization of the state. Other works by Han are explicitly political, such as "Transparency Society", "Psychopolitics", and "The Burnout Society". I mentioned the work on time because Zelda_Fitz asked for a recommendation.

[dogman1212]

On 2/16/2018 at 9:36 AM, apophantic said:

Yes, I'd be interested in your handout, if you wouldn't mind sending it.

Han's work on time is not explicitly political, although it has implications for political thought. For example, when a society experiences time as an onward march of progress toward Utopia, presumably this will impact the organization of the state. Other works by Han are explicitly political, such as "Transparency Society", "Psychopolitics", and "The Burnout Society". I mentioned the work on time because Zelda_Fitz asked for a recommendation.

I just sent you the notes I made.

And yes, I may have been too hasty when I suggested that time has nothing to do with political philosophy; thanks for pointing that out. A society's perception of time certainly may have an impact on political thought. One potential (although difficult) way of explaining this connection may be to show that a group of people's perception of time entails certain beliefs or doctrine, which may be a part of a society's "philosophical, religious, and moral doctrine," if we wanted to use Rawlsian terminology. The main difficulty is that you would somehow have to make the argument that the way people experience something (in this case, the passage of time) impacts their beliefs or doctrine, or else explain how people's subjective experience of time can impact political thought in some other way.

I think it's common knowledge, however, that certain religious doctrines have a close connection with political thought. For example, historically, we know of many examples of societies where people believed that their political leaders had a divine right to rule. The Zhou Dynasty convinced their subjects that they had a Mandate from Heaven, which entailed that they could only be one legitimate ruler of China at the time. This religious belief justified their rule and was closely connected with their political thought. I think one could give similar examples for the connection between philosophical and moral doctrines with political thought as well. However, this is different from connecting people's experience to political thought though.

In the end, it's still unclear to me how our subjective experience impacts political life. I will grant that this connection may be possible, the difficulty for me comes in seeing the connection. Again, this probably is related to my difficulty working with phenomenological ideas. Maybe there are other people on this forum who would be better suited to take a crack at the question of whether or not there is such a relation between phenomenology of time and political thought.

[apophantic]

4 hours ago, dogman1212 said:

I just sent you the notes I made.

And yes, I may have been too hasty when I suggested that time has nothing to do with political philosophy; thanks for pointing that out. A society's perception of time certainly may have an impact on political thought. One potential (although difficult) way of explaining this connection may be to show that a group of people's perception of time entails certain beliefs or doctrine, which may be a part of a society's "philosophical, religious, and moral doctrine," if we wanted to use Rawlsian terminology. The main difficulty is that you would somehow have to make the argument that the way people experience something (in this case, the passage of time) impacts their beliefs or doctrine, or else explain how people's subjective experience of time can impact political thought in some other way.

I think it's common knowledge, however, that certain religious doctrines have a close connection with political thought. For example, historically, we know of many examples of societies where people believed that their political leaders had a divine right to rule. The Zhou Dynasty convinced their subjects that they had a Mandate from Heaven, which entailed that they could only be one legitimate ruler of China at the time. This religious belief justified their rule and was closely connected with their political thought. I think one could give similar examples for the connection between philosophical and moral doctrines with political thought as well. However, this is different from connecting people's experience to political thought though.

In the end, it's still unclear to me how our subjective experience impacts political life. I will grant that this connection may be possible, the difficulty for me comes in seeing the connection. Again, this probably is related to my difficulty working with phenomenological ideas. Maybe there are other people on this forum who would be better suited to take a crack at the question of whether or not there is such a relation between phenomenology of time and political thought.

 

thank you for sending your notes. 

"It's unclear to me how our subjective experience impacts political life". here is a way of drawing the connection, in terms of beliefs. perhaps you could tell me if you think it makes sense:

 if a society is democratic (not just in name, but actually), and the majority through election stands behind the legality of gay marriage, then the society's law will be pro gay marriage. assuming non-coercion, the reason the majority is behind gay marriage is because the majority believes in gay marriage. why does the majority believe in gay marriage? it could objectively be the case that gay marriage is more reasonable than anti-gay marriage, i.e., that someone thinking rationally will support gay marriage. but belief X being objectively rational is not sufficient for some agent believing X. for an agent to believe anything, the agent must experience/cognize the belief as rational; for any agent to affirm a belief, the belief must appear to the agent as worthy of affirmation, i.e., rational. so that would be one way experience connects to politics. beliefs are beliefs in virtue of the way in which the propositional content appears to the thinking-agent.

imagining a concrete connection between time phenomenology and politics is trickier. i'll get back to you if i think of something

Edited February 20, 2018 by apophantic