“scientific”and/or historical account not only of their world and its values, but of their own values
as well. They aim to demonstrate that the world of human activity, including political principles and
social norms, can be“objectively”examined in precisely the same manner as studying any other
phenomena of nature. These theorists presuppose the social world is both comprehensible and
susceptible to control (or manipulation) by knowledge or the rational faculties of human beings. To
acquire such knowledge does not consist in conceptualizing the best society or the best ruler, but,
first and foremost, in having scrutinized social institutions, the rise and fall of regimes, and, more
generally, human nature.
However, canonical thinkers who adopt an empirical approach to political inquiry do not
necessarily agree on how, (much less what), we can learn either from science or history and, con-
sequently, their methods for seeking knowledge and insight into the human condition vary widely.
Some political theorists aim to emulate the natural sciences in classifying various kinds of consti-
tutional regimes or, like Hobbes, they may invoke“the natural condition of mankind”–athought
experiment for identifying the human character traits that give rise to commonwealths, while still
others look to history for clues into what makes a Prince (and a princely loving people) exceptional.
Regardless of whether they draw upon a science of human behavior or historical inquiry, the
political thinkers engaged in knowledge-seeking often appear more concerned about predicting
what lies ahead than in changing it. They are seeking to uncover the laws of nature (fact) rather than
natural law (value), although few theorists–including Aristotle, Hobbes, Machiavelli, or Marx–
avoid mixing the two. Theirs is a search for predictable patterns in the behavior of rulers and ruled,
bourgeois and proletariat, along with the causal laws that will bring about a greater understanding of
human beings, which will bring about a lasting reform or transformation of society.
Implicitly, and often explicitly, in the knowledge-seeking theorists’inquiry is the notion that to
achieve political ends, e.g., civic virtue, justice, freedom, a glorious republic, requires a clear-eyed
account of human desires and interests. It is not, as Kant held, that“all politics must bend its knee
before the Right,”instead for the knowledge-seeking political theorist it is the right that must bend
its knee before Politics. For these thinkers“the politics which will succeed will be politics adjusted
to human nature and especially to the permanent (but not exclusive) egoism of human behavior.”^17
Without judging human desires, the knowledge-seeking political theorist is not only willing to
accept a world of self-interested and selfish individuals, but may even view competing interests as a
positive aspect of social life. Alternatively, a knowledge-seeking theorist will insist that the nature
of human beings is completely, or mostly, malleable, an empty vessel that can accommodate an
infinite variety of social customs, rules, or norms. Paradoxically, then, what is human nature is not
there, and, as a result,“it”can be molded into anything the theorist (or society) values. However
human nature is conceived, these theorists accept that political standards, including justice, are
meaningful only to the extent they are relevant to the world–as we know it. For these thinkers it is
only after having identified“the laws of nature”governing society that the possibilities (and
limitations) of finding a noble prince, instituting an effective Leviathan, or carrying out a proletariat
revolution, will become evident.
The mixing of fact and value is not confined to classical political theory, usually associated with
Plato’s justice-seeking. Underlying the (debatable) empirical findings of an Aristotle, a Machia-
velli, or a Marx is the unfolding of a great struggle between legitimate and perverted constitutions,
glorious and failed states, oppression and salvation. Only by understanding the natural origins of
political life, history,or economic development will human beings,paradoxically, be empowered to
choose the right kind of constitution, prince, or justice, and thus arrive at their‘inevitable’future.”
“Perhaps no one in the history of Western thought was as explicitly enthusiastic about facts as was
Karl Marx.”And yet, Thorson continues:
when he postulated his fundamental premise that the means of production is the controlling
force of history, he was not stating a fact (as such).:::What Marx is really telling us is that thisThe Socratic Method’s Search for Standards 157