Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Introduction
ThislittlebooktriestomakethecaseforthecentralityofwhatAristotle
calleduthepoliteiaandcontemporarypoliticalscientistscallutheregime”
inanyattempttohaveascienceofpolitics.Forthepastdecade,Ihave
beenengagedinanefforttoclarifytheconceptofsovereignty,itsorigins,
anditsevolutioninthehistoryofpoliticalthought.Theconceptofsov-
ereigntyisamodernonethat,nevertheless,cantracesomeofitsorigins
fromthenatureandcharacterofmedievalkingship.Sovereigntyplays
acentralroleinhowthemodernstateoperatesintheworld,aswellas
playingakeyroleintherelationsamongnations.
Nowmanyscholarsdealingwiththeissueofsovereigntyhave
notbeenhappytoacceptthisideaasaproductofthemedievaleraand
insteadhavesoughttofinditsoriginsinGreekpoliticalthought,ifnot
inthepoliticsoftheGreekpolis.Alltoooftentheytrytoconnectitwith
theconceptofthekryos,orthepoliteuma.Thishasbeenassistedbythe
trendfromthe17thcenturyontotranslatepolisasustate”orucity-state.”
Itookupthisissueinmyearlierbook,Aristotle’sBestRegime(Bates2003,
17-26).AndIagreedthatitisanachronistictodothisbecausethevery
natureofthestate,aconceptcreatedbyMachiavelliandperfectedby
thosefollowinginhisfootsteps,Hobbes,Locke,Rousseau,Kant,Hegel,
etal.,isfundamentallydifferentfromtheconceptofthepolis.Itistrue
thatboththepolisandthestateareinstrumentsofpoliticalcommunity,
butthestateisthemodernonewiththemodernphilosophicalassump-
tionsaboutnature’sdefectivenessandtheneedformantoconquerit,
whilethepolisistheancientonewiththeancient,classicalphilosophical
assumptionthatnatureisthegroundthatnotonlysustainsthelifeof
man,butalsoscopesoutthepotentialitiesofman’sexcellences(a.k.athe
virtuesofman).
ButmyeurekamomentcamewhenIrealizedthatthestate’srela-
tionshipmaynotbeatthelevelofthepoliticalcommunity,i.e,itsbody,
butmayinsteadbeinitsform;thatthestateisthetoolthatgivesform
tothemodernpoliticalcommunity;andthatthosewhosaythatMachia-