Starting to see why Shestopal was purged from Shevchenko U for this book? The 60s in Ukraine apparently had a leftist slant as well.
I recently discovered the dissertation of that Alfarabi scholar Muhsin Mahdi who wrote one of my favorite books of all time, and it’s on one of the founders of historiography Ibn Khaldun, and I learned from the MENAnet that Mahdi shifted from one thinker to the other because he realized that the study of history is an offshoot of political science. So, he thought he was “learning the truth” studying Khaldun, then he thought “I want the whole enchilada”, and he does write that with his Alfarabi book on political philosophy in my opinion. All this to say that when I’m reading something like Jews in Ukraine (historical background) above, it’s in service of a higher discipline. All roads lead to political philosophy. Ideally anyway. This is one of the problems with the pedants of the academy, they don’t study for anything higher than their own discipline, and even political philosophers are (excuse the hubris) not even doing political philosophy due to the fact of their servility to the state. Political theology is what they do. Alfarabi will show you what political philosophy is, and you’re not going to see any trace of something like that in any of their journals. You might ask, why is it the highest discipline? Because morality is the most important thing in life and politics is macro-morality, morality as it pertains to a total society, and “political philosophy” is (ideally) the broadest conception of that macro-morality. I mentioned a while back that as much as I love certain poliphi people like Rosen and Lampert, they never apply their thinking to present-day politics. They wouldn’t be published if they did that. Ideal political philosophy discusses macro-morality of the present-day. If I had to play mind-reader, those two were probably pretty aware of how their ideas applied to the present-day, and knew that they could only avoid censors by being “too” abstract. By the way, Lampert’s next book has been postponed and that’s so upsetting. Anyway, this is another means through which “sneaky” types could approach musing on macro-morality without getting in trouble. Abstract vs. concrete political philosophy. Speaking concretely sets off too many “peasant-alarms” anyway, who wants to do that? Like I said, “awful” to philosophize in that way, only meant for hermetic order of the golden dawn type of setting after a selection process. I mean, then there’s the next level to this, which if you could forgive me for using the term so frequently- what do you think this very post is? That’s just philosophy. In order to discuss political philosophy one must philosophize. All in the service of that. Think I care about the history of Ukraine? No, it’s a means. I don’t want to tell you the answers, reread for yourself the initial quotation and wonder how that applies to both political philosophy and philosophy itself.