basis to a secular one. In addition, considering these virtues for the great king has been an influential factor in justifying his absolute power because Ahuramazda’s does not bestow these virtues to all humans, but a number of selective ones like Darius the great. On the other hand, we can mention that the principal motif for the great king to consider the gods’ attributes (e.g. wisdom and legislation) for him originates from the historical competi- tions between warriors and priests. In the older period during which the king-priests ruled over Aryan’s tribes, they never claimed their own “law” and “command”. They believed that they had the ability to communicate with gods and observe the rules created by legisla- tor gods like Mitra-Varuna. In contrast, as the historical trend of achieving the political rul- ing by warriors like Darius the great was based on force and power; therefore, they could not gain legitimacy over priests whose ruling was based on their spiritual roles. Due to the historical trend of king-warriors’ achievement of political ruling did not match people’s worldview. They had to base their ruling legitimacy on religious beliefs. Howev- er, unlike priests, they could not claim sha- manic ability for themselves because of their social origin. Therefore, they tried to enhance their spiritual status in competition with the priests. As a result, they called themselves selected persons and gods’ representatives on earth. They also considered gods’ attributes, such as wisdom, legislation and absolute pow- er, for themselves. The peak of king-warriors’ attempts to compete against the old history of king-priests’ political ruling is when they de- pict their faces and figure similar to those of their chief god in their reliefs. As Darius, the great depict his face like Ahuramazda’s in his reliefs.
Dari us I accept ed represent at i on of al l count ri es of hi s great ki ngdom . They provi ded t hat t he best gi f t s f rom t hei r l ands f or dedi cat ed t o t he ki ng . The meet i ng st art ed wi t h Medes and El ami t e peopl e i n t he upper row . At t he end , t he l ow row bel onged t o I ndi ans . They were weari ng j ust a wrapper . The f i rst I ndi an person who carri es t he gi f t has a hori zont al st i ck on hi s shoul der on whi ch a basket i s hangi ng on each si de of i t . There are t wo cl osed bags i n each basket t hat cont ai ned t he gol den powder of I ndus . Al so , I ndi ans brought an ass wi t h t hemsel ves . Wit h t he f i gures of I ndi ans , ends t he l ong l i ne of f i gures f rom i mperi al t ri bes . The order of l ocat i on of t hese t ri bes i s t he same order whi ch Dari us account s i n hi s grave i n Naghsh - e - Rost am near Persepol i s , but wi t h some smal l di f f erences . The document s of t he pl aques several t i mes , t he sat raps who were t ravel l i ng , have been ment i oned i n t he rel i c , whi ch exi st ed i n t he rui ns of Persepol i s and Shush However t here are no det ai l s about t he durat i on of t hei r mi ssi ons and port i ons . However , t he name of I ndi an person i s ment i oned .
chiavelli‘s thoughts. Patricia Vishless‘ book is a volume of his collected papers on Machiavelli‘s thoughts and works and is a perfect exemplar of the interdisciplinary approach. Vishless, the editor of this collection, holds that the sexuality/gender analysis which is one the strengths of his theories, is well applicable to Machiavelli today and through this analysis the role and position of mas- culinity and femininity could be implied (Vish- less, 2007: x). In Vishless‘ view, a sound and cor- rect understanding of Machiavelli‘s thoughts, par- ticularly the central concepts of virtue and provi- dence, and of power and freedom, is essentially interdisciplinary. Machiavelli should be studied under the achievements of political science, phi- losophy, history, literature, linguistics, play and literary criticism (Ibid: ix). His book is compiled on the axis of government, society and thematic classification of reception in Machiavelli‘s works. The third domain means that Machiavelli had been seeking to influence and delve into those properties and forces that impacted the process of shaping the society. Machiavelli is the pungent critic of society and this aspect of his thought has had great influence on the Anglo-Saxon world and American literary traditions in the twentieth cen- tury (Ibid, xi, x). From this vantage, there is an emphasis on the influence of Machiavelli‘s works through their literary quality. The king overflows with such characteristics. In this regard, the paper ‗Machiavelli: king as a Literary Text‘ is interest- ing and reading-worthy (Ibid, 43).
Through the use of traditional kingship motifs and inscriptions from Egypt and Persia, Darius was presented visually and in writing as both the Egyptian Pharaoh and, at the same time, the Achaemenid warrior king. Upon examination of the blending of the two iconographies, it becomes clear that they are more similar than their divergent ideologies might imply. Unless a viewer was well acquainted with both traditions, she would not necessarily recognize the subtle differences in iconographies. These three objects were initiated and designed by different strata of society such as the Achaemenid royal court – either by Darius himself or more likely one of his satraps on his orders – or by local Egyptian priests. These social groups each used motifs from different iconographic traditions to send a curated message to the intended audience. In this way, images of the Great King Darius in Egypt were deliberately multivalent, communicating with different populations throughout Egypt.
All historians learn these days that the past is another country; and many great medievalists have insisted that we fully register the strangeness of the medieval world. If the Middle Ages look too familiar, we fear a lapse into our cardinal sin.... In the end, though, it should be possible to make that world, and the workings of power within it, intelligible to, say, a student of modern politicalthought, or a political scientist wishing to learn something s/he can relate to, and compare with, other ideologies and systems. For such a non-expert or non-insider, Canning's book may make the Middle Ages look stranger, odder, more baffling, than they need or should. For this is the effect not only of Canning's Ullmannesque focus on 'legal and especially juristic sources', but of his Ullmannesque prioritising of church-state relations, and his insistence that from the Carolingian period on, 'a central and defining problem for the rest of medieval politicalthought [was] the relationship between temporal and spiritual power, and in particular that between the papacy and the empire', and, further, that '[i]t was the prominence of this question which above all was to single out the politicalthought of the Middle Ages as being different from that of subsequent periods' (p. 74). Of course these were important issues; and, yes, they generated political thinking because—and Canning could have said this louder and more clearly—they were essentially struggles about power and property. But in towns and villages, in castles and courts, in counsels and councils, power and property were discussed, negotiated and argued over: the idiom was in part distinctively of its time (privileges might, for instance, be credited to half mythical kings; saints might be invoked as protectors) and place (the king might be Athelstan, or
Unlike the explicitly textualist New Critics, intellectual biographers associate a variety of texts, e.g. books, manuscripts, letters and other personal documents, around the figure of an author, and place this figure in a variety o f personal, social and political contexts. This looks like the sort o f enterprise which would meet Skinner's criteria for a proper history. Similarly, histories o f ideas necessarily group texts by a variety of authors, rather than taking an individual text in isolation, so once again it is hard to see how they might be thought o f as 'textualist' in the requisite sense. A. O. Lovejoy is repeatedly censured by Skinner, but he explicitly criticised the idea that a work o f art should be considered as a 'self contained kind of thing', calling it a 'psychological absurdity'.49 His 'unit ideas' are in fact complexes, and in the case of the Great Chain of Being, this complex comprises 'plenitude', 'continuity' and 'linear gradation'. The history of the Great Chain of Being is the history of the way different authors combined these ideas, not only with each other but also with other ideas.50 Nonetheless, it is clear that Skinner thinks that 'textualism' must fail because to confine one's investigations to a single text will most likely prevent one from correctly identifying the arguments contained in it. These derive their identity from their use by particular authors, in particular contexts, with particular intentions. It is the author's intentions which constitute the identity of the arguments concerned, arguments which will be misidentified if we do not concern ourselves with these intentions.
Still, Darius was not ready to surrender. He spotted places where his men could outflank the Greeks, sneaking around behind the enemy ranks. Some enemy units met the fate that Darius had intended, that of being run over by the Persian chariots. None of this, however, seemed to faze Alexander the Great.
In point of view of current Christianity, re- version of Jesus is too closed to resurrection and Final judgment, so that it seems that his reversion will not occurred in the world. However, appearance of versus in New Tes- tament is in conflict with and someone, in particular in first decades, entitles the expec- tations for this world. It is clear that Father of Church assure about his reversion soonest. The God has said that believers must always be waiting and the Church supposed that Je- sus will be returned over that period and said so to others. In this case, that was the only Father of Alexandrians who has rejected some of other basic doctrines. It could be said that first Church has been continuously in hope of Jesus return and for that, in literature of Fathers of Church, there are not many pointing out to Great disaster. In addition, it is not surprising that scholars in middle age keep silence in this respect. While, Constan- tine believed in Christianity and admission of Christianity as formal religion, Church inter- pret versus from Bible those related to return of Jesus free of charge, meanwhile through
This commitment to taking seriously the opinions of our fellow citizens has wide- ranging implications for our reflexive understanding of political theory itself. Williams stresses that taking our fellow citizens seriously as opponents is not some kind of imperfect compromise with injustice, in the way the ‘ideal’ theorists might imply. Rather, considering which policies people will actually find acceptable, rather than those which further one’s favoured philosophical principles, can be a principled position because the question ‘how will it play in Peoria ... can involve a consideration of political right, as well as of expediency’ (IBWD, p. 151). The corollary of this is that if we genuinely want to move people to act in a particular way we must take seriously the need to speak to them in terms that they can embrace, a reminder which ties in with Williams’s belief that that ethical and political arguments will fail to guide action if they offer the sort of (conventional) philosophical theory which systematises ethical thought and reduces it to some basic principles. As we saw in Chapter One, Williams laments this modern turn to thin concepts for related reasons, primarily because they are ‘inadequate to provide any great substance to personal ethical experience’ (IBWD, p. 49). As Geoffrey Hawthorn notes, this leads Williams to malign the sort of abstract, thin and general theoretical political arguments that many political moralists articulate because they fail to offer a ‘full and satisfactory account of how we should go on … now and around here’ (IBWD, p. xiii). In what ‘What Might Philosophy Become?’ Williams develops this line of thought to make a point about the style of moral and political philosophy. He claims that ‘a philosopher may need to give us a picture of life and society and the individual, and to give it in a way that integrates it with what he or she cares about. If a philosophical writer does not solve
ambassador to Britain (1876-1878). Kuo kept close contact with the Chinese naval students, and had a special friendship with Yen Fu. According to Kuo's account, the subject of Yen Fu's study in the Royal Naval College was naval command. His curriculum included mechanics, chemistry, physics, mathematics, navigation, and current international military affairs, such as the German-French war and the Russian- Turkish war.*^ According to Kuo, Yen Fu was very impressed by the depth and richness of Westem science and technology,'^ by the physical strength of Westerners in contrast to the Chinese,"* and above all, by the social, economic and political ideas and systems of Britain. Yen seemed to have paid a great deal of attention to the general social, economic and political situation in Britain, and tried to understand the differences between Britain and China. He 'often spent whole days and nights discussing differences and similarities between Chinese and Westem thought and political institutions' with the Ambassador Kuo Sung-t'ao.*^ He visited the British law courts and remarked to Kuo that the reason why England and other countries of Europe are wealthy and strong is that impartial justice is daily extended. Here is the ultimate source.'*^ By contrasting Britain with China, Yen Fu developed very critical attitudes towards the current Chinese situation. In a conversation with Kuo Sung-t'ao, Yen criticized the conservative attitudes of Chinese officials as demonstrated by their opposition to everything from the West, e.g. railways, ships and technology alike.'^ He also criticized arguments used by some Chinese scholar-officials to suggest that
In this key passage, Spinoza confirms his naturalism from Ethics, meaning that everyone does whatever he or she wants. Society is a condition of “natural rights”, meaning power or lack of power. Several commentators have interpreted this naturalism as a form of Stoicism, which is erroneous. Spinoza declines every theory of human rights as natural legal rights. Spinoza speaks of “natural rights” without any legal connotation, as simply natural capacities to safeguard what- ever interests a human being may have. We are far from Stoicism and its natural rights conception, as a matter of fact much closer to Epicurism of the two great ethical theories during the Ancient period.
No doubt, in presenting the thought of this great teach er, all of Niebuhr’s reviewers have had to wrestle with the problem of whether to deal with his theology (Logos) first, and then his concept of man (Nous), or whether to reverse the or der. That is, insofar as it is Important in discussing any thinker, to understand which attitudes are derived from which, this sequential symbolism attains a level of meaning transcend ing mere literary style. Is Niebuhr’s God derived from Nie buhr’s man, or vice-versa? It must suffice to say that Niebuhr countenances no such distinction as far as derivation is con cerned. Indeed to do so would lay him open to the charge of having short-changed one or the other, and while Niebuhr prides himself on his "realism” in his concept of man, it would be dif ficult for him to admit that he has thereby rendered God a lit-
Based on what has been mentioned, Motaha- ri’s concern was answering the questions of his own era, which were mostly circulated around the realm of religion. Now, the ques- tion, which is posed, is to know whether he made a logical order among those “great amount of questions”. In response, we can say that although Motahari did his best to do so but he did not find a chance to elaborate on them 12 . In addition, the nature of those questions cannot also help to facilitate the logical order through the answers provided. Third, on his own way, Motahari faced some complicated questions and many issues which made it more difficult for him. When publishing the fifth volume of the book series of Osul-e Falsafe VA Ravesh-e Realism (phi- losophy principles and the method of real- ism) became postponed for 15 years, he pointed to an issue, which in our investiga- tion includes all his works:
through, continuous progress in science and technology. All sources of public wealth will gush forth abundantly and the great principle "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” will be implemented. Communism is a highly organized society of free, socially conscious working people in which public self government will be established, society will become a prime vital requirement of everyone, a necessity recognized by all, and the ability of each person will be employed to the greatest benefit of the people. See A Dictionary of the Social Sciences, editors Julius Gould and William L.Kolb, compiled under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Though it initially struggled to travel from its German bases to the Anglophone academy, 85 reception theory has now been used extensively across numerous fields, 86 but it has not had much success in IR despite the existence of a handful of works that directly examine the reception of certain great thinkers. 87 These few forays have emerged in the context of the aforementioned turn towards the study of international politicalthought, but they very much remain the exception in a field that continues to acclaim and appropriate original texts without examining how these texts came to form part of the disciplinary canon in the first place. The neighboring field of HPT has a longer and more sustained tradition of engaging with these questions in practice, but as Armitage argues, it has not explicitly theorized how to study context in diachronic terms either. The extensive literature on the reception of classical thinkers in the medieval and the early modern period 88 – with Aristotle and Tacitus being two of the most famous cases – is an obvious testament to this substantive engagement, while the literature on the reception of late medieval and early modern thinkers in the nineteenth and twentieth century, though noticeably slimmer, is another promising avenue of research in the dis- cipline. In another closely related though much younger field – the history of international law – some work has notably emerged on the revival of Vitoria by James Brown Scott in the late nineteenth century, 89 with Anne Orford making an explicit call for the wider study of the anachronistic revival of great thinkers in international law, a call that is now beginning to be applied in practice. 90
Bland, although not simply a student of public administration, did indeed devote a great deal of energy to the study of the organisation and the functioning of departments of state. His writings on the civil service display a considerable continuity, and themes to be found in his earliest articles and books recurred in his last works. He had great faith in the ability of public service departments to function as expert and impartial devices for the implementation of government policy, and was very much influenced by the ideas on civil service organisation which dated from the famous Northcote-Trevelyan Report. Nonetheless, he recognised that there were ways in which the ideal of an expert and impartial civil service could be undermined in practice, and he advanced detailed proposals designed to prevent this from happening. In doing so, he was able to draw not only on the works of earlier writers, but on his own lengthy experience as a public servant concerned with public service recruitment and operations. His writings on the civil service provide perhaps the best example of his attempt to specify institutions through which his values could be realised and illuminate his enterprise as a practical political thinker.
distribute money to poorer citizens. 63 While this makes warfare appear beneficial, Hobbes cautions that “as a means of gain, military activity is like gambling; in most cases it reduces a person's property; very few succeed.” 64 Even if wars for gain do not carry a direct security risk, great losses might ultimately endanger the sovereign’s self-preservation. As was mentioned above, a lack of public funds encourages foreign enemies to invade. Hence, it seems that rulers might lose more than they could
lectual conditions of the Muslim’s society in recent century. Although we do not seek to search for exact causes of this phenomenon, it is hardly necessary to point out three issues about it: First, this dualism does not represent an apparent contradiction or a paradox, since it isn’t rationally acceptable that Imam Kho- meini, as a prominent Shia theologian, or other scholars have understood a contradic- tion and did not avoid it. Second, this seem- ingly contradiction cannot be attributed to application of contradictory statements in different contexts so as to increase the domi- nance over all strata of society, because these statements and quotations could be find in any condition and its basically impossible to distinguish application cases of discussed views (divine legitimacy and popular legiti- macy) according to contexts and conditions. Third, it will be a great mistake to assume that what really has validity and should be considered as the main criteria for analyzing Imam’s view on legitimacy are exclusively the contents of his systematically structured published works in the field of Fiqh; in other words, all of his speeches, quotations, state- ments or interviews are entirely invalid and worthless because these are especially context based and related to temporary conditions of society, while organized works such as books are virtually associated with general/permanent aspects of political life. However, this argument is incomplete, as all of Imam’s works are at- tributed to him and must be relied upon equally in the analysis (Jamshidi, 2005: 643).
Citoyen, Suivi d'un Plan de Constitution juste, sage & libre, of August 1789 . In this pamphlet, he declared Montesquieu "la.plus grand homme qu'ait produit le siècle.(...) Le premier parmi nous, il osa désarmer la superstition, arracher le poignard au fanatisme, réclamer les droits de l'homme, attaquer la tyrannie. Ehî dans quel teras? Dans un tems où personne en France n'osoit élever la voix contre un Ministre, dans un tems où les François étoient esclaves par principes." And finally, for ail those who would see Marat's admiration for Rousseau as bound less, Marat offered the ensuing analogy of the two great thinkers of the eighteenth century: "Enfin, on reproche à Montesquieu d'avoir quelquefois manqué d'energie, & on l'oppose a Rousseau. Quelle diffé rence entre ces deux hommes célèbres! Rousseau n'a pas craint de soulever contre lui l'autorité, j'en conviens: mais il n'avoit rien a perdre a la persecution, il portoit par-tout avec lui son genie, sa célébrité; & sa gloire ne pouvoit qu'y gagner. Mais Montesquieu avoit une grande fortune en fonds de terre, il tenoit a une famille notable, il avoit femme & enfans : que de liens! Et toutefois il ne craignit pas d'attaquer l'autorité arbitraire, les vices du Gouvernement, les prodigalités du Prince" (Projet ..., pp. 2-5).
If we embarked on studying Quran and Sunna with large-scale issues such as “politics and governance in Islam” in mind, we would find precious information and we would have a rich discussion ahead of us, but that discussion would not be of research value and would be probably devoid of innovation, production of knowledge, or presentation of scientific solutions. Today, it is clear that subject of a research should be accurate and to the point, such as, “freedom under government of Imam Ali (AS)” and, of course, such topics as “political freedom under Imam Ali (AS)”, “political freedom of opposition under Imam Ali (AS)” and “limits of political freedom of opposition under Imam Ali (AS)” will be more accurate. If a researcher studies “politics and government of Imam Ali (AS)” there is no doubt that one of its ramifications will be freedom, but such a discussion cannot include a detailed explanation on “freedom”. Another important problem is that researchers in this field do not refer to Quran and Sunna for any independent research. For example, if a researchers is studying “political freedom in Islam”, and he has reviewed related verses of Quran one or more times that researcher should not rely on the same mentality or information when conducting an independent research on “political justice”, or “political man” in the Quran, because each of those topics calls for a special mentality and new reference to the main text. When a researcher solely focuses on “political freedom of opponents” in Islam, certain issues are reviewed in his mind and he takes advantage of special parts of Quran and Sunna which will not be available to him under other conditions. To focus on the topic of “political justice”, he should review Quran or Sunna again and thoroughly. Then, he would see that his mind finds new issues about political justice and can discover hidden aspects to it, which he could not have imagined the last time that he was reading Quran during his research on freedom. Therefore, if a researcher intends to study ten different issues in Quran and Sunna, he should refer to Quran and Sunna ten different times with renewed mentality as if he is studying that text for the first time.