No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Criticism of Concepts and the Concept of Criticism: A Rejoinder
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2009
Extract
Apart from the rather engaging phrasing of its title, Macpherson's reply to my criticisms of him must be judged a disappointment. For it either misses or entirely avoids their point.
I must remind Macpherson that it is he, not I, who conceives the task of political theory as one which deduces political obligation from the nature of man, or derives obligation from fact. Consequently, it is incumbent upon him to show how this is to be done. He now claims that it can be done and that it is not necessary to do it. In the former case it is a problem requiring resolution; in the latter a pseudo-problem which can be ignored.
- Type
- Notes
- Information
- Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 1972 , pp. 301 - 303
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1972
References
1 “C.B. Macpherson's Conceptual Apparatus,” this JOURNAL, IV, no 4 (Dec. 1971), 530.
2 “The Criticism of Concepts and the Concept of Criticism,” ibid., V, no 1 (March 1972), 141–5.
3 I suspect that Macpherson must somehow dimly feel this. His references to refute me are not to any of the first three passages from Hobbes but to the last two.
4 “Conceptual Apparatus,” 530.
5 “Criticism of Concepts,” 145, n. 12, 13.
6 See Hart, H.L.A., The Concept of Law (Oxford, 1961), p. 254.Google Scholar
7 “Conceptual Apparatus,” 532.
8 “Criticism of Concepts,” 143.
9 “Conceptual Apparatus,” 532, 533.
10 Ibid., 535.
11 “Criticism of Concepts,” 143.
12 See ibid., 143.
13 Ibid., 143.
14 Ibid., 142.
15 “Conceptual Apparatus,” 539. Although this point is originally made in the context of my discussion of Macpherson's distinction between the descriptive concept of powers and the ethical concept of powers, the criticism of his use of the ethical concept of powers still remains.
16 “Criticism of Concepts,” 143.
17 “Conceptual Apparatus,” 539, 540.