1,523
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 384:
Line 384: + + + + + + + +
→Another definition of liberal -2
So while you and/or your teachers are presenting this basic concept as a study in contrasts, it's really more of an historical progression or development. And using the term "realist" or "realism" creates added confusion; there is nothing wrong with the term ''Realpolitik'' and that is the term IP 101 should be studying. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:19, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
So while you and/or your teachers are presenting this basic concept as a study in contrasts, it's really more of an historical progression or development. And using the term "realist" or "realism" creates added confusion; there is nothing wrong with the term ''Realpolitik'' and that is the term IP 101 should be studying. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:19, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
:As far as Marxism goes, I really think you are reading your own views into the definition. How can the definitions of liberalism and realism promote Marxism, when Marxism, communisim and socialism are covered under an entirely different label altogether (radicalism)?
:*Kind of, only your version of the definition is circular. Liberalism isn't ''defined'' by institutions, it is ''characterized'' by the ''utilization'' of institutions.
:*We didn't use the term ''realpolitik'', because realist is a better term for modern political science. As I've said before, this wasn't a history class. Certainly you wouldn't want me to start using the modern defintion of liberal (big government, public welfare, income equality, gun control) to describe [[Thomas Jefferson]], would you? ''Realpolitik'' does not describe realism, though it is certainly a subset of realism. Where ''realpolitik'' takes a pragmatic and prescriptive, realism is more reactive and descriptive.
:I was reading through the chapter of RSK and I found this passage interesting and enlightening: "Thus, in a very basic way, the social scientific approach to the study of international relations can be distinguished from the study of international history and international law. Some critics, including some historians, believe that humanity is the least promising area for scientific study because social behavior events -- especially international events -- are too complex and singular. Denying the existence of regularities would leave us to study only specific cases or to produce detailed descruptions, with no cumulation of knowledge for the scholar or policy maker. If every historical event is truly unique, and thus incomparable, the gulf between the social scientist and [historian] is indeed unbridgeable."
:That quotation again brings to mind the usefulness of giving veto power to someone from another discipline, but I'm sure I'll get nowhere raising that question again. I will ask this though: without changing my definition (which is correct) is there anyway you would agree to add it to the article? In other words, is trying to explain it anymore an excercise in futility? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:08, 26 August 2007 (EDT)