Talk:Classical republicanism

It is requested that an image or photograph of Classical republicanism be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

rewrote the some of opening paragraph

also 'civic humanism' vs. 'classical republicanism' paragraph for accuracy. footnoted most of the named authors. Stevewk 00:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classical republicanism and civic humanism are not, imo, the same thing. It is misleading to imply that only a minority of thinkers differentiate between the two. However, I do agree that the difference is subtle.

The best way I can think of explaining the difference is that classical republicanism and civic humanism refer to roughly the same thing, but have different connotations. Civic humanism brings to mind the humanist education, the desire to foster civic participation, and so on, and is fundamentally a historiographical term. Classical republicanism explicitly ties the thinkers in with the contemporary republican trend, and thus seems like a more political/philosophical term -- more separated from history.

These could just be the nuances that I have perceived and exaggerated in my mind, but I think a broad reading of the literature supports this distinction. It seems to me that the terms are not used interchangeably (unlike, for example, "freedom" and "liberty"). Terrencethetractor 21:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

________

I agree with the statement above, "classical republicanism and civic humanism are not the same thing" and it is not the poster's, nor my opinion, it is a well-established truth within the fields of political science and jurisprudence. The author (or supereditor) who decided that "Civic humanism" could be described as "Classical republicanism" should read the reference at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Really, a major problem for Wikipedia is due to "SuperEditors" who are quite ignorant of the areas for which they take, or are assigned, responsibility. It is no wonder that students today will use the word "Wikipedia-ed" as a verb describing a writing with apparent authority but which lacks substantive knowledge. My generation used to use "doing a Cliffy" (refering to an ignorant know-it-all on the "Cheers" TV program). It's such a shame because the original idea had great potential. LAWinans (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. You're right this article could be better, so feel free to improve it. That's the glory of Wikipedia, if you think something needs work, you can jump right in and start changing it. Also feel free to make a separate article on Civic humanism. Though the two concepts are so intertwined that they could still be covered in one article. - SimonP (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

monarchy

cr did not rejected monarchy. monarchy was one of the three main forms of the republic, aristocracy and democracy as well. i am going to change that assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.112.159.237 (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cato the Younger

doesn't Cato the Younger qualify as a "Classical republican"?J8079s (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of powers

Can someone please be bold and divide this up into sections? Right now it just looks like I'm staring at a wall of text. Thank you. --David Gardner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.243.75 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the basis for the work of the U.S. Founding Fathers???

I removed the un-sourced claim that classical republicanism was "the basis for the work of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and as such, was and remains the enduring basis of the national and state governments." This statement follows the extremely problematic statement associating "classical republicanism" with Hobbes and Locke. In the historiography of the American Revolution in recent decades, "classical republicanism" was invoked IN OPPOSITION to the dominant Lockean interpretation of American revolutionary ideology. This issue needs to be sorted out, with proper notice given to prominent disagreements among established scholars. My understanding is that "classical republicanism" in 18th-century England stressed CIVIC VIRTUE, which is not emphasized in the thought of Hobbes and Locke.

Beyond this issue is the question of the basis for the work of the Founding Fathers. Both Jefferson and Adams listed Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Sidney. That would seem to be a good starting point: Which (if any) of these writers is a "classical republican?"--Other Choices (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long debate in the scholarship. From Republicanism: "In recent years a debate has developed over the role of republicanism in the American Revolution and in the British radicalism of the 18th century. For many decades the consensus was that liberalism, especially that of John Locke, was paramount and that republicanism had a distinctly secondary role. The new interpretations were pioneered by J.G.A. Pocock who argued in The Machiavellian Moment (1975) that, at least in the early 18th century, republican ideas were just as important as liberal ones. Pocock's view is now widely accepted. Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood pioneered the argument that the American founding fathers were more influenced by republicanism than they were by liberalism." - SimonP (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this page for informational purposes and discovered a number of glaring grammatical mistakes. It could use some attention from someone more motivated than myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.57.98.131 (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]