feature of Asian Roman political thought?
Answers
Answer:
I HOPE THIS MAY HELP U.....................
Explanation:
After reading this article you will learn about the controversy regarding contribution of Romans to political thought.
There is a controversy about the contribution of Romans to political theory. Most of the scholars on this field generally agree that the Romans cannot be credited with any spectacular contribution to political thought. For example, Dunning says—the contribution of Rome to the literature of political theory was very slight.
Other thinkers say that the Romans were so much busy with building up a strong and powerful empire and with its administration that they got little time for building up theoretical analysis. But this is not the view of all thinkers.
Ebenstein is of opinion that it is wrong to say that Roman political thought does not exist at all. It is true that the professional thinkers and publicists have not systematically analysed various aspects of political theory and expressed them in formal treatises as Plato and Aristotle had done.
It is true that we do not find a single philosopher in Rome in the rank of Plato or Aristotle. Naturally Rome cannot boast of any clear and systematic political theory. But the absence of any systematic political theory does not imply the absence of political thought, and it is not surprising that Rome was really fortunate in having very rich sources of political thought. Legal, administrative and governmental system of Rome can be regarded as fertile sources of political thought.
Romans cannot be singularly blamed for their failure to contribute liberally and scholarly to the development of political thought. Only Britain and France can claim substantial credit in this field.
The American political thought has been enriched not by philosophers or first grade theoreticians, but by renowned judges of the Supreme Court. Besides Plato and Aristotle, only Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel and Marx have built up independent theoretical works.
Even Rousseau and Hegel are to a considerable extent indebted to Plato for their idealism and dialectic. Marx expresses his indebtedness to Hegel and his other predecessors including Utopian socialists. This does not imply that the intellectual world of the West during the last twenty centuries was quite barren.
Other thinkers say that the Romans were so much busy with building up a strong and powerful empire and with its administration that they got little time for building up theoretical analysis. But this is not the view of all thinkers.
Ebenstein is of opinion that it is wrong to say that Roman political thought does not exist at all. It is true that the professional thinkers and publicists have not systematically analysed various aspects of political theory and expressed them in formal treatises as Plato and Aristotle had done.
It is true that we do not find a single philosopher in Rome in the rank of Plato or Aristotle. Naturally Rome cannot boast of any clear and systematic political theory. But the absence of any systematic political theory does not imply the absence of political thought, and it is not surprising that Rome was really fortunate in having very rich sources of political thought. Legal, administrative and governmental system of Rome can be regarded as fertile sources of political thought.
Romans cannot be singularly blamed for their failure to contribute liberally and scholarly to the development of political thought. Only Britain and France can claim substantial credit in this field.
The American political thought has been enriched not by philosophers or first grade theoreticians, but by renowned judges of the Supreme Court. Besides Plato and Aristotle, only Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel and Marx have built up independent theoretical works.
Even Rousseau and Hegel are to a considerable extent indebted to Plato for their idealism and dialectic. Marx expresses his indebtedness to Hegel and his other predecessors including Utopian socialists. This does not imply that the intellectual world of the West during the last twenty centuries was quite barren.
Political thought of each country keeps conformity with the socio-economic-political milieu. This individualist progress sometimes has made slight aberrations from the main stream, but this does not mean an absence of contribution.
In the light of above analysis we can state some salient features of Roman political thought. Plato and Aristotle thought of an ideal state which was far away from real world. Polybius and Cicero, two Roman thinkers, although thought of the world- state, analysed the nature of state in the light of the extant Roman state. They did not try to idealize the state. The Romans had no intention to deify the state.
State, to them, was a political organization and its purpose was to fulfill certain definite purpose. The state to them was not an object of heaven, but an institution of the mortal world. This idea of Romans about the state is unique. In fact the Romans completely changed the Greek conception of state and introduced a new one which is modern.
The credit of completing the separation between ethics and politics should definitely to go the Roman thinkers. The Greek philosophers had put a garb of ethics and morality upon politics and made it an abstract concept. To them, the state was the highest manifestation of ethics and its purpose was to enrich the ethical and moral values of individuals.
As a result of this, politics, in the hands of the Greek philosophers, failed to establish its separate identity. On ethical and moral consideration the Greek philosophers demanded unconditional allegiance from the citizens. Roman thinkers supported the allegiance to the universality of law of nature and this was based on practical ground.
Please mark me as BRAINLIST