Strauss versus Skinner: a Dispute over Machiavelli
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11230%2F18%3A10380407" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11230/18:10380407 - isvavai.cz</a>
Result on the web
<a href="http://www.cejop.cz/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2018_Vol-04_No-02_Art-02_Halamka_FINAL-CEJOP.pdf" target="_blank" >http://www.cejop.cz/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2018_Vol-04_No-02_Art-02_Halamka_FINAL-CEJOP.pdf</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
—
Alternative languages
Result language
čeština
Original language name
Strauss versus Skinner: spor o Machiavelliho
Original language description
This comparative case study investigates the approaches of Leo Strauss and Quentin Skinner to the interpretation of texts as well as the political significance they ascribe to them. Following the brief general introduction to both approaches the article concentrates on both thinkers' interpretation the work of Niccolo Machiavelli. The article then compares both interpretations, tracks how the theoretical and methodological assumptions influenced the respective interpretations of Machiavelli's work and discusses the mutual relation between the two accounts. Finally, the article focuses on the implications of identified differences and their impact on how research in political thought and political science is conducted. The findings assert that both interpretations, while not being entirely antithetic, provide us with insights to different dimensions of Machiavelli's work. The article thus concludes that any hasty rejection of either of the presented approaches (as sometimes done by hardline followers on both sides) might impoverish our understanding of the text and make us ignorant to its important aspects.
Czech name
Strauss versus Skinner: spor o Machiavelliho
Czech description
This comparative case study investigates the approaches of Leo Strauss and Quentin Skinner to the interpretation of texts as well as the political significance they ascribe to them. Following the brief general introduction to both approaches the article concentrates on both thinkers' interpretation the work of Niccolo Machiavelli. The article then compares both interpretations, tracks how the theoretical and methodological assumptions influenced the respective interpretations of Machiavelli's work and discusses the mutual relation between the two accounts. Finally, the article focuses on the implications of identified differences and their impact on how research in political thought and political science is conducted. The findings assert that both interpretations, while not being entirely antithetic, provide us with insights to different dimensions of Machiavelli's work. The article thus concludes that any hasty rejection of either of the presented approaches (as sometimes done by hardline followers on both sides) might impoverish our understanding of the text and make us ignorant to its important aspects.
Classification
Type
J<sub>ost</sub> - Miscellaneous article in a specialist periodical
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
50601 - Political science
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach
Others
Publication year
2018
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
Central European Journal of Politics [online]
ISSN
2464-479X
e-ISSN
—
Volume of the periodical
4
Issue of the periodical within the volume
2
Country of publishing house
CZ - CZECH REPUBLIC
Number of pages
18
Pages from-to
25-42
UT code for WoS article
—
EID of the result in the Scopus database
—