シャドーイング練習: 1. Introduction: What is Political Philosophy? - 動画で英語スピーキングを学ぶ

練習モードを選ぶ

各モードは全画面の練習ルームで開きます。

338 文

文が短すぎたり長すぎる場合は、Editをタップして調整してください。

Let me start today by asking the question, what is political philosophy?

Custom dictates that I say something about the subject matter of this course at its outset.

This in some ways might seem a case of putting the cart before the horse

or the the course maybe because how can you say,

how can we say what political philosophy is in advance of doing it?

Anyway, let me try to say something that might be useful.

In one sense, you could say political philosophy is simply a branch

or what we call a subfield of the field of political political science, yes, right?

It exists alongside of other areas of political inquiry like American government,

comparative politics, and international relations.

Yet in another sense, political philosophy is something much different than simply a subfield.

It seems to be the oldest and most fundamental part of political science.

Its purpose is to and lay bare, as it were, the fundamental problems,

the fundamental concepts and categories which frame the study of politics.

In this respect,

it seems to me much less like just a branch of political science than a foundation of the entire discipline.

The study of political philosophy often begins,

as this course will people do also with the study of the great books

or some of the great books of our field.

Political philosophy is the oldest of the social sciences

and it can boast a wealth of heavy hitters from Plato and Aristotle to Machiavelli,

Hobbes, Hegel, Tocqueville, Nietzsche and so on.

You might say that the best way to find out what political philosophy is,

is simply to study and read the works of those who have shaped the field, yes, right?

But to do that is, I recognize, not without dangers, often severe dangers of its own.

Why study just these thinkers and not others?

Isn't any so -called list of great thinkers

or great texts It's likely to be simply arbitrary

and to tell us more about what such a list excludes than what it includes.

Furthermore, it would seem that the study of the great books

or great thinkers of the past can easily degenerate into a kind of antiquarianism, into a sort of pedantry.

We find ourselves easily intimidated by a list of famous names and end up not thinking for ourselves.

Furthermore, doesn't this study of old books,

often very old books, risk overlooking the issues facing us today?

I mean, what can Aristotle or Hobbes tell us about the world of globalization,

of terrorism, of ethnic conflict and the like?

Doesn't political science make any progress.

After all, economists no longer read Adam Smith.

I hesitate to, but I don't hesitate to say

that you will never read Adam Smith in an economics course here at Yale,

and it is very unlikely that you will read Freud in your psychology classes.

So why then When does political science, apparently uniquely among the social sciences,

continue to study Aristotle, Locke, and other old books?

These are all real questions, and I raise them now myself

because they are questions I want you to be thinking about as you do your reading and work through this course course,

I want you to remain alive to them throughout the semester, yes?

Okay.

One reason I want to suggest that we continue to read these books is not

because political science makes no progress or that we are somehow uniquely fixated on an ancient past,

but because these works provide us with the most basic I'll see you next week questions that continue to guide our field.

We continue to ask the same questions that were asked by Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and others.

We may not accept their answers, and it's very likely that we do not,

but their questions are often put with a kind of unrivaled clarity and insight.

The fact is that there are still people in the world, world, many people who regard themselves as Aristotelians,

Thomists, Lockeans, Kantians, even the occasional Marxist can still be found in the Ivy League universities.

These doctrines have not simply been refuted or replaced or historically superseded,

they remain in many ways constitutive of our most basic outlooks and attitudes.

They are very much alive with us today, right?

So political philosophy is not just some kind of strange historical appendage attached to the trunk of political science.

It is constitutive of its deepest problems.

If you doubt the importance of the study of political ideas for or politics, consider the works of a famous economist,

John Maynard Keynes, everyone's heard of him.

Keynes wrote in 1935, the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong,

are more powerful than is commonly understood.

Practical men, Keynes continues,

practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt developed from any intellectual influence are usually the slave of some defunct economist.

Mad men in authority who hear voices in the air are

distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.

So this course will be devoted to the study of those academic mcScribblers who have written books that continue to impress

and create the forms of authority with which we are familiar.

But one thing we should not do, right, one thing we should not do is to approach these works as if they provide somehow answers,

ready -made answers to the problems of today only we can provide answers to our problems.

Rather, the great works provide us,

so to speak, with a repository of fundamental or permanent questions that political scientists still continue to rely on in their work.

The great thinkers are great, not because they've created some set of museum pieces that can can be cataloged,

admired, and then safely ignored like a kind of antiquities gallery in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,

but rather because they have defined the problems that all later thinkers

and scholars have had to use in order to make sense of their world at all.

Again, we still think in terms of the basic concepts and categories that were created for us long ago.

So one thing you will quickly note is that there are no permanent answers in a study of political philosophy.

A famous mathematician once said, every question must have a correct answer answer.

For every question, one answer.

That itself is an eminently contestable proposition.

Among the great thinkers, there is profound disagreement over the answers to even the most fundamental questions concerning justice,

concerning rights, concerning liberty.

In political philosophy, it is never a sufficient answer to answer a question with the statement,

because Plato says so, or because Nietzsche says so.

There are no final authorities in that respect in philosophy because even the greatest thinkers disagree profoundly with

one another over their answers, and it is precisely this disagreement with one another that makes it possible for us,

the readers today, to enter into their conversation.

We are called upon...

First, to read and listen and then to judge who is right.

How do we know?

The only way to decide is not to defer to authority,

whoever's authority, but to rely on our own powers of reason and judgment.

In other words, the freedom of the human mind to determine to determine for us what seems right or best, okay?

But what are these problems that I'm referring to?

What are these problems that constitute the subject matter of the study of politics?

What are the questions that political scientists try to answer?

100

such a list may be long, but not infinitely so.

101

Among the oldest and still most fundamental questions are, what is justice?

102

What are the goals of a decent society?

103

How should a citizen be educated?

104

Why should I obey the law?

105

And what are the limits, if any, to my obligation?

106

What constitutes the ground of human dignity?

107

Is it freedom?

108

Is it virtue?

109

Is it love?

110

Is it friendship?

111

And of course, the all -important question, even though political philosophers and political scientists rarely pronounce it,

112

namely, quid sit Deus?

113

What is God?

114

Does he exist? and what does that imply for our obligations as human beings and citizens?

115

Those are some of the most basic and fundamental problems of the study of politics.

116

But you might say, where does one enter this debate?

117

Which questions and which thinkers should one pick up for oneself?

118

Perhaps the oldest and most fundamental The fundamental question that I wish to examine in the course of this semester

119

is the question, what is a regime?

120

What are regimes?

121

What are regime politics?

122

The term regime is a familiar one.

123

We often hear today about shaping regimes or about changing regimes, but what is a regime? regime?

124

How many kinds are there?

125

How are they defined?

126

What holds them together and what causes them to fall apart?

127

Is there a single best regime?

128

Those are the questions I want us to consider.

129

The concept of the regime is perhaps the oldest and most fundamental of political ideas.

130

It goes back to Plato and even before him.

131

In fact, the title of the book that you will be reading part of for this semester, Plato's Republic, is actually a translation,

132

the title of it, of the Greek word politeia that means constitution or regime.

133

The Republic is a book about the regime

134

and all later political philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato

135

and that And that means that it must provide a series of variations, so to speak, on Plato's conception of the best regime.

136

But what is a regime?

137

Broadly speaking, the regime indicates a form of government, whether it is ruled by the one,

138

the few, the many, or as more common, some mixture or combination of these three ruling powers.

139

The regime is defined in the first instance by how a people are governed and how public offices are distributed by election,

140

by birth, by lot, by outstanding personal qualities and achievements and what constitutes a people's rights and responsibilities.

141

The regime again refers above all to a form of government.

142

The political world does not present itself as simply an infinite variety of different shapes.

143

It is structured and ordered into a few basic regime types.

144

And this I take it to be one of the most important propositions and insights of political science.

145

Right? So far?

146

But there is a corollary to this insight.

147

The regime is always something particular.

148

It stands in a relation of opposition to other regime types.

149

And as a consequence, the possibility of conflict,

150

of tension and war is built into the very structure of politics.

151

Regimes are necessarily partisan, that is to say they

152

install certain loyalties and passions in the same way

153

that one may feel partisanship to the New York Yankees

154

or the Boston Red Sox or to Yale over all rival colleges and institutions, right?

155

Fierce loyalty, partisanship.

156

It's inseparable from the character of regime politics.

157

These passionate attachments are not merely something that take place, you might say, between different regimes,

158

but even within them as different parties and groups with loyalties and attachments contend for power,

159

for honor, and for interest.

160

Christ.

161

Henry Adams once cynically reflected that politics is simply the organization of hatreds

162

and there is more than a grain of truth to this, right?

163

Although he did not say that it is also an attempt to channel

164

and redirect those hatreds and animosities towards something like a common good.

165

This raises a question.

166

Is it possible to transform politics, to replace enmity and factional conflict with friendship,

167

to replace conflict with harmony?

168

Today it is the hope of many people, both here and abroad, that we might even overcome,

169

might even transcend the basic structure of regime politics politics all together and organize our world

170

around global norms of justice and international law.

171

Is such a thing possible?

172

It can't be ruled out, but such a world, I would note, that is to say a world administered by international courts of law,

173

by judges and judicial tribunals,

174

would no longer be a political world politics only takes place within the context of the particular.

175

It is only possible within the structure of the regime itself.

176

But a regime is more than simply a set of formal structures and institutions, okay?

177

It consists of the entire way of life, of the moral and religious practices,

178

the habits, customs and sentiments that make a people what they are.

179

The regime constitutes an ethos, that is to say a distinctive character that nurtures distinctive human types.

180

Every regime shapes a common character, a common character type with distinctive traits and qualities studies.

181

So the study of regime politics is in part a study of the distinctive national character types that constitutes a citizen body.

182

To take an example of what I mean, when Tocqueville studied the American regime, or the democratic regime, properly speaking,

183

in Democracy in America, he started first with our formal political institutions as enumerated in the Constitution, such things as the separation of powers,

184

the division between state and federal government and so on, but then went on to look at such informal practices as American manners and morals,

185

our tendency to form small civic associations, our peculiar moralism and religious life, our defensiveness about democracy and so on.

186

All of these intellectual and moral customs and habits help to can constitute the democratic regime.

187

In this sense, the regime describes the character or tone of a society,

188

what a society finds most praiseworthy, what it looks up to, okay?

189

You can't understand a regime unless you understand, so to speak, what it stands for, what a people stand for,

190

what they look up to, as well as, again, its structure of institutions and rights and privileges.

191

This raises a further set of questions that we will consider over the term.

192

How are regimes founded?

193

The founding of regimes.

194

What brings them into being and sustains them over time?

195

For thinkers like Tocqueville, for example, regimes are embedded in the deep structures of human history

196

that have determined over long centuries the shape of our political institutions and the way we think about them.

197

Yet other voices within the tradition, Plato, Machiavelli, Rousseau come to mind,

198

believe that regimes can be self -consciously founded through deliberate acts of great statesmen or founding fathers as we might call them.

199

These statesmen, Machiavelli for example, refers to Romulus, Moses, Cyrus,

200

as the founders that he looks to we might think of men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the like,

201

are shapers of peoples and institutions.

202

The very first of the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton even begins by posing this question in the starkest terms.

203

It has been frequently remarked,

204

Hamilton writes, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this conduct and example to decide the important question,

205

whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice,

206

or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

207

There we see Hamilton asking the basic question about the founding of political institutions.

208

Are they created, as he puts it, by reflection and choice, that is to say by a deliberate act of statecraft and conscious human intelligence?

209

Or are regimes always the product of accident, circumstance, custom, and history?

210

But the idea that regimes may be created

211

or founded concluded by a set of deliberate acts raises a further question

212

that we will study and is inseparable from the study of regimes.

213

N 'est -ce pas? Who is a statesman?

214

What is a statesman?

215

Again, one of the oldest questions of political science, very rarely asked by the political science of today,

216

today that is very skeptical of the language of statesmanship.

217

In its oldest sense, political science simply was a science of statecraft.

218

It was addressed to statesmen or potential statesmen charged with steering the ship of state.

219

What are the qualities necessary for sound statesmanship?

220

How does statecraft differ from other kinds of activities? must the good statesman, as Plato believed, for example,

221

be a philosopher versed in poetry, mathematics and metaphysics, or is statesmanship,

222

as Aristotle believed, a purely practical skill requiring judgment based on deliberation and experience,

223

is a streak of cruelty and a the willingness to act immorally necessary for statecraft,

224

as Machiavelli infamously argued.

225

Must the statesman be capable of literally transforming human nature,

226

as Rousseau maintains, or is the sovereign a more or less faceless bureaucrat in the manner of a modern,

227

modern, say, a modern CEO as, for example, someone like Hobbes seems to have believed.

228

All of our texts that we will read, the republic, the politics, the prince, the social contract, have different views on the qualities of statecraft

229

and what those qualities necessary to found and maintain states that we will be considering.

230

All of this in a way is another way of saying, or at least implying, okay,

231

that political philosophy is an eminently practical discipline, a practical field.

232

Its purpose is not simply contemplation.

233

Its purpose is not reflection alone.

234

It is advice giving.

235

None of the people we will study this semester were cloistered scholars detached from the world,

236

although this is a very common prejudice against political philosophy,

237

that it is somehow uniquely sort of pie in the sky and detached from the world.

238

But the great thinkers were very far from being just, so to speak, Catholic, detached intellectuals.

239

Plato undertook three long and dangerous voyages to Sicily in order to advise the king Dionysius.

240

Aristotle famously was a tutor of Alexander the Great.

241

Machiavelli spent a large part of his career in the foreign service of his native Florence

242

and wrote as an advisor to the of the Medici.

243

Hobbes was the tutor to a royal household who followed the king into exile during the English Civil War.

244

And Locke was associated with the Shaftesbury Circle,

245

who also was forced into exile after being accused of plotting against the English king.

246

Rousseau had no official political connections, but he signed his name always, Jean -Jacques Rousseau, citizen of Geneva,

247

and was approached to write constitutions for Poland and for the island of Corsica.

248

And Tocqueville was a member of the French National Assembly

249

whose experience of American democracy deeply affected the way he saw the future of Europe.

250

So the great political thinkers were typically engaged in the politics of their times, and help in that way to provide us,

251

okay, with models for how we might think about ours.

252

Take a little break for refreshment.

253

But this goes in a slightly different direction as well.

254

Not only is this study of the regime as we've seen, as I've just tried to indicate, rooted in, in many ways,

255

the practical experience of the thinkers we'll be looking at,

256

but the study of regime politics either implicitly or explicitly raises a question that goes beyond the boundary of any given society.

257

A regime, as I've said, constitutes a people's way of life, what they believe makes their life worth living, or to put it, again,

258

slightly different, what a people stand for.

259

Although we are most familiar with the character of a modern democratic regime, such as ours,

260

The study of political philosophy is in many ways a kind of immersion into what we might call today comparative politics,

261

that is to say it opens up to us the variety of regimes, each with its own distinctive set of claims or principles,

262

each vying and potentially in conflict with all the others, okay?

263

Underlying this cacophony of regimes is the question always, which of these regimes is best?

264

What has or ought to have a claim on our loyalty and rational consent?

265

Political philosophy is always guided by the question of the best regime.

266

But what is the best regime?

267

Even to raise such a question seems to pose insuperable obstacles?

268

Isn't that a completely subjective judgment, what one thinks is the best regime?

269

How could one begin such a study?

270

Is the best regime as the ancients tended to believe,

271

Plato, Aristotle and others, is it an aristocratic republic in which only the few best habitually rule?

272

Or is the best regime, as the moderns believe,

273

a democratic republic where in principle political office is open to all by virtue of their membership in society alone?

274

Will the best regime be a small closed society that through generations has made a supreme sacrifice towards self -perfection?

275

Think of that.

276

Or will the best regime be a large cosmopolitan order embracing all human beings,

277

perhaps even a kind of universal league of nations consisting of all free and equal men and women.

278

Whatever form the best regime takes, however, it will always favor a certain kind of human being with a certain set of character traits.

279

Is that type the common man as found in democracies?

280

Those of acquired taste and money as in aristocracies?

281

The warrior or even the priest as in theocracies?

282

No question that I can think of can be more fundamental.

283

And this finally raises the question of the relation between the best regime

284

or the good regime and what we could say are actually existing regimes, regimes that we are all familiar with.

285

What function does the best regime play in political science?

286

How does it guide our actions here and now?

287

This issue received a kind of classic formulation in Aristotle's distinction of what he called the good human being

288

and the good citizen.

289

For the good citizen, we'll read this chapter later on in the politics, for the good citizen, you could say,

290

patriotism is enough to uphold and defend the laws of your own country simply

291

because they are your own is both necessary and sufficient.

292

Such a view of citizen virtue runs into the obvious objection

293

that the good citizen of one regime will be at odds with the a good citizen of another,

294

a good citizen of contemporary Iran will not be the same as the good citizen of contemporary America.

295

But the good citizen, Aristotle goes on to say, is not the same as the good human being, right?

296

Well, the good citizen is relative to the regime.

297

You might say regime specific.

298

The good human being, so he believes, is good everywhere.

299

The good human being loves what is good simply, not because it is his own, but because it is good.

300

Some sense of this was demonstrated in Abraham Lincoln's judgment about Henry Clay,

301

an early idol of Lincoln's.

302

Lincoln wrote of Clay, he loved his country, he said, partly because it was his own country, partly because it was his own country,

303

but mainly because it was a free country.

304

His point, I think, is that Clay exhibited, at least on Lincoln's telling, something of the philosopher.

305

What he loved was an idea, the idea of freedom.

306

That idea was not the property of one particular country, but it was constitutive of any good society.

307

The good human being, it would seem,

308

would be a philosopher, or at least would have something philosophical about him or her,

309

and who may only be fully at home in the best regime.

310

But, of course, the best regime lacks actuality.

311

We all know that.

312

It has never existed.

313

The best regime embodies a supreme paradox, it would seem.

314

It is superior in some ways to all actual regimes, but it has no concrete existence anywhere.

315

This makes it difficult, you could say, and this is Aristotle's point, I think.

316

This makes it difficult for the philosopher to be a good

317

citizen of any actual regime philosophy will never feel fully or truly at home in any particular society.

318

The philosopher can never be truly loyal to anyone or anything but what is best.

319

Think of that, raises a question about issues of love, loyalty, and friendship.

320

This tension, of course, between the best regime and any actual regime is the space that makes political philosophy possible.

321

In the best regime, if we were to inhabit such, political philosophy would be unnecessary or redundant.

322

It would wither away.

323

Political philosophy exists and only exists in that call it zone of indeterminacy between the is and the ought,

324

between the actual and the ideal.

325

This is why political philosophy is always and necessarily a potentially disturbing undertaking.

326

those who embark on the quest for knowledge of the best regime may not return the same people that they were before.

327

You may return with very different loyalties and allegiances than you had in the beginning,

328

but there is some compensation for this, I think.

329

The ancients had a beautiful word, or at least the Greeks had a beautiful word for this quest, for this desire for knowledge of the best regime.

330

They called it eros, or love, right?

331

The quest for knowledge of the best regime must necessarily be accompanied,

332

sustained, trained and elevated by eros.

333

You may not have realized it when you walked into this class today,

334

but the study of political philosophy may be the highest tribute we pay to love.

335

Think of that.

336

And while you're thinking about it, you can start reading Plato's Apology for Socrates, which we'll discuss for class on Wednesday.

337

Okay?

338

It's nice to see you back and have a very good but thoughtful September 11th.

アプリをダウンロード

流暢に話すために必要なすべて

AI発音採点文ごとに採点

IPA練習すべての音をマスター

単語学習自分の単語帳を作る

単語ゲーム遊びながら覚える

QRをスキャン

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

同じチャンネル

FOR YOU

このレッスンで学べること

政治哲学の入門講義を題材に、英語のリスニングとスピーキングを練習します。教授の話し方や論理的な展開を追いながら、「政治哲学とは何か」という問いについて考えると同時に、自然な英語のリズムやイントネーションを身につけましょう。動画で英語学習するメリットは、リアルな会話や講義の場面に慣れることで、IELTS スピーキング対策にも役立つ実践的なスキルが養えることです。

重要な語彙とフレーズ

political philosophy：政治哲学
subfield：亜領域、分科
antiquarianism：古物好き、古代研究の偏向
regime：政体、政権
fundamental questions：根本的な問い

シャドーイングのコツ

教授の話はゆっくりとした論理的な口調で、長い文が続きます。shadowspeak（シャドースピーク）の際は、文の途中で息を継ぐタイミングを覚えることが重要です。例えば「In one sense, you could say political philosophy is simply a branch...」のような文は、「sense」や「say」の後で少し止まりながら話すと、リズムがつかめます。また、「fundamental」「constitutive」などの長い単語は、発音を分解して練習し、英語の発音を良くすることがポイントです。何度も繰り返して、教授のイントネーションに合わせて声の高さや強弱を調整してみましょう。

この動画の文法

話し手がよく使っている文型を、動画の実際の表現とともに紹介します。

文型	動画での表現
現在完了形 have/has + 過去分詞 — 過去の出来事が今も関係している	have shaped · have not simply been refuted · have written
受動態 be + 過去分詞 — 誰がするかより、何が起きるかに焦点を当てる	were asked · are often put · be found
関係詞節 who / which + 節 — 人や物について情報を加える	those who have · people who regard · men who believe

シャドーイングとは？英語上達に効果的な理由

シャドーイング（Shadowing）は、もともとプロの通訳者養成プログラムで開発された言語学習法で、多言語習得者として知られるDr. Alexander Arguelles によって広く普及されました。方法はシンプルですが非常に効果的：ネイティブスピーカーの英語を聞きながら、1〜2秒の遅延で声に出してすぐに繰り返す——まるで「影（shadow）」のように話者を追いかけます。文法ドリルや受動的なリスニングと異なり、シャドーイングは脳と口の筋肉が同時にリアルタイムで英語を処理・再現することを強制します。研究により、発音精度、抑揚、リズム、連音、リスニング力、そして会話の流暢さが大幅に向上することが確認されています。IELTSスピーキング対策や自然な英語コミュニケーションを目指す方に特におすすめです。

シャドーイングのやり方: ステップ別の完全ガイドを読む →

シャドーイング練習: 1. Introduction: What is Political Philosophy? - 動画で英語スピーキングを学ぶ

練習モードを選ぶ

アプリをダウンロード

同じチャンネル

The Renovations of Notre-Dame | The Age of Cathedrals with R. Howard Bloch

2. Socratic Citizenship: Plato's Apology

Contract Law 1 Intro Hamer v Sidway (just say no)

2. Foundations: This Is Your Brain

1. Introduction

おすすめ動画

Plato’s Philosophy of Education

What is the role of emotion in political psychology?

What is History? E.H. Carr

Episode 1: "What is social ontology?" - Prof Brian Epstein

On freedom - Alan Macfarlane

Become a great strategic thinker | Ian Bremmer

Nietzsche’s Philosophy Of Destroying Yourself

World Order By Henry Kissinger

AI Will End Philosophy, Physicist Claims

Start With Dostoevsky

Why Are US Politics Today So Divisive?: Crash Course US Government #1

Both Russia and America only pursue power, not principle, argues Moosa Haraj

このレッスンで学べること

重要な語彙とフレーズ

シャドーイングのコツ

この動画の文法

シャドーイングとは？英語上達に効果的な理由