Asking what the question is, and why the question is asked, is always asking a pertinent question.

One way ... in which a political philosophy can be ideological is by presenting a relatively marginal issue as if it were central and essential.

Nietzsche seems sometimes to replace the transcendence which stands at the center of traditional accounts the existence of a transcendent God, or, failing that, a transcendental viewpoint with that of a continually transcending activity. ... There is no single, final perspective, but given any one perspective, we can always go beyond it.

We do not wish to judge or assess out surrounding merely as a kind of expressive activity carelessly projected onto the world, but we wish to evaluate the world correctly, i.e., in according with that it truly is, and the desire to know is directed at determining what the world truly is.

The idea that all problems either have a solution or can be shown to be pseudo-problems is not one I share.

The Kantian philosophy is no more than at best a half-secularized version of such a theocratic ethics, with Reason in the place of God. This does not amount to much more than a change of names.

A major danger in using highly abstractive methods in political philosophy is that one will succeed merely in generalizing one's own local prejudices and repackaging them as demands of reason. The study of history can help to counteract this natural human bias.