We often experience disappointment upon reaching the conclusion of a treatise on political philosophy. Too frequently the vigorous, forthright style and logic which an author employs during the first chapters in criticizing the "fatal errors" of preceding doctrines on his subject give way in the conclusion of the book to exactly the same type of errors when he attempts to build, however eclectically, a theory of his own. If the author has honestly attempted to meet his problem, we may well find that his approach, in attempting to be fair and to accord with common sense as well as logic, loses its vigor and becomes mincing and apologetic. On the other hand, if the author has made no attempt to carry over his ideas into the realm of actualities, we may feel that a tenable approach to the problems of morals and politics has been sacrificed to a too rigid exercise in logic...

 

Read the full article.