Edited By Dilek Arlı Çil and Nihal Petek Boyaci
The social and technological developments, social movements, scientific discoveries, economic growth or diseconomies give rise to many problems for human beings. Many disciplines such as economics, political science, architecture, sociology and psychology discuss these problems and offer solutions from different perspectives. Philosophy has its own way of dealing with these problems. As opposed to the common belief, philosophy does not only deal with ideals independently of what is going on in real life. The problems of the contemporary philosophy are also the problems of the contemporary world. For this reason, this book aims to present and discuss certain philosophical problems in the contemporary world and to suggest solutions to them.
The Ontology of Politics in Hannah Arendt and Lying
If there is an acknowledgment that lying in politics can be a feature of political puissance, this reputation belongs to Machiavelli. In Prince (1985), Machiavelli’s suggestion for the owners of political power might be surprising for some of us, since he recommends “to lie” if there is a necessity for establishing peace and security in terms of sustaining sovereignty. The confusion here is not due to the fact that Machiavelli mentions lying rather he renders lying legal for politics. The important point here is Machiavelli’s consideration of lying as a tool if and only if there is a necessity for the sake of “common good” in terms of preventing state order or the existence of puissance. In other words, there are still separated natures of lying and politics in Machiavelli’s mind. For him, even the government lies, but it is still a lie.
Thomas Hobbes, who converted Machiavelli’s political realism into a systematic philosophy, removes all the barriers in front of the governments for lying and he absolutizes puissance. In that sense, Hobbes takes our attention in the 11th chapter of his masterwork, titled Leviathan, to the highest power of puissance that is capable to remove all truths:
For I doubt not, but if it had been a thing contrary to any mans right of domination, or to the interest of men that have domination, That the three Angles of a Triangle, should be equal to two Angles of Square; that...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.