Strauss versus Skinner: spor o Machiavelliho
Identifikátory výsledku
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
—
Alternativní jazyky
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' 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.
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' 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.
Klasifikace
Druh
J<sub>ost</sub> - Ostatní články v recenzovaných periodicích
CEP obor
—
OECD FORD obor
50601 - Political science
Návaznosti výsledku
Projekt
—
Návaznosti
S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach
Ostatní
Rok uplatnění
2018
Kód důvěrnosti údajů
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku
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
—