I think one of the hardest aspects of political theory to grasp is the beginnings of ideas of philosophers. It is hard to understand political theorist’s ideas unless you recognize where their thoughts are coming from and why they believe what they do. In order to understand ones ideas of political legitimacy we must look at their initial ideas of humans and how they have come to why a legitimate government looks the way it does. It is hard to tie the ideas of human behavior and how society is without government to how a political power becomes legitimate. Political theory can become really complex and it is hard to wrap our heads around abstract ideas that philosophers propose. In college writing it is hard to make specific connections between two philosophers and it is hard to go in depth with the ideas of political theory. I believe it is hard to fully understand the ideas of philosophers and why governments are legitimate because it is difficult getting to the root of why philosophers think the way they do. I think that one easy concept to grasp is how philosophers are similar and/or different in their beliefs. For example it is very easy to see differences as well as similarities in the ideas of Locke and Hobbes. Understanding the view of human nature by both theorists easily translates into why they believe a legitimate government looks the way it does. It is very easy to introduce the ideas of philosophers in essays and it is easy to compare philosophers.
Pingback: andrewc3