Strauss versus Skinner: spor o Machiavelliho

Kód výsledku v 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>

Výsledek na webu

<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

—

Jazyk výsledku

čeština

Název v původním jazyce

Strauss versus Skinner: spor o Machiavelliho

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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&apos; 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&apos;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&apos;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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Strauss versus Skinner: a Dispute over Machiavelli

Popis výsledku anglicky

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&apos; 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&apos;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&apos;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.

Druh

J_ost - Ostatní články v recenzovaných periodicích

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50601 - Political science

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Rok uplatnění

2018

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Central European Journal of Politics [online]

ISSN

2464-479X

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

4

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

18

Strana od-do

25-42

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—