2026-09-19T06:29:25Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/requestoai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/176472026-06-10T13:14:11Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131022
Joshua Cohen.
Flaherty, Joshua, 1973-
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
2009-01-23T16:42:42Z
2009-01-23T16:42:42Z
2003
2003
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/17647
54909476
Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, 2003.
Includes bibliographical references (p. 225-228).
This thesis examines and critically assesses five arguments for the autonomy of the political. The arguments I examine are those of Niccol6 Machiavelli, Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, Carl Schmitt, and John Rawls. After presenting what I believe to be the most plausible reconstructions of these arguments for the autonomy of the political, I conclude that none of these arguments succeed in their task. The arguments of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Bodin, and Schmitt each fail to establish an autonomous political account of justification or political legitimacy. Rawls' argument, on the other hand, succeeds in establishing a plausible and distinctively political standard of justification, but fails to establish that the political is autonomous. I conclude that there is an inescapable conflict between the thesis that the autonomy of the political and the idea that the state's actions could be acceptably justified or that the state could be legitimate.
by Joshua Flaherty.
Ph.D.
228 p.
eng
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
M.I.T. theses are protected by
copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but
reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written
permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
Linguistics and Philosophy.
The autonomy of the political
Thesis
application/pdf
false
Publication
unknown
unknown
<Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="c0548b42-e29a-4d0a-a424-5a6807d39de0">
<Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type>
<Language>eng</Language>
<Title>The autonomy of the political</Title>
<PublishedIn>
<Publication>
</Publication>
</PublishedIn>
<PublicationDate>2003</PublicationDate>
<Authors>
<Author>
<DisplayName>Flaherty, Joshua, 1973-</DisplayName>
<Affiliation>
<OrgUnit>
</OrgUnit>
</Affiliation>
</Author>
</Authors>
<Editors>
</Editors>
<Publishers>
<Publisher>
<DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName>
<OrgUnit />
</Publisher>
</Publishers>
<License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License>
<Keyword>Linguistics and Philosophy.</Keyword>
<Abstract>This thesis examines and critically assesses five arguments for the autonomy of the political. The arguments I examine are those of Niccol6 Machiavelli, Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, Carl Schmitt, and John Rawls. After presenting what I believe to be the most plausible reconstructions of these arguments for the autonomy of the political, I conclude that none of these arguments succeed in their task. The arguments of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Bodin, and Schmitt each fail to establish an autonomous political account of justification or political legitimacy. Rawls' argument, on the other hand, succeeds in establishing a plausible and distinctively political standard of justification, but fails to establish that the political is autonomous. I conclude that there is an inescapable conflict between the thesis that the autonomy of the political and the idea that the state's actions could be acceptably justified or that the state could be legitimate.</Abstract>
<Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right"
>
</Access>
</Publication>