Talk:International Relations/Classical Realism

I think several authors don't fit really well in that category : Zbigniew Brzezinski, Sun Tzu, Samuel Huntington. They are classics indeed, but hardly contributed to the classical realism thought. --CorentinB 18:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * classical realism is not just a theory but a wider stream of thought, please dont hesitate to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) - Aspiliotop 15:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Political - not classical - realism is a broad stream of thought, which includes Classical realism among tons of subcategories. If you check the page you mention - which I didn't know, thanks - Hungtington is not mentioned anywhere and Brzezinski is in the "Realism in Statecraft" subtitle, not the "Classical realism" one. I don't really understand why Sun Tzu is labelled a "Political realist" (surely that's part of the SunTzumania) but he's not introduced as a "Classical realist". Not more than Hobbes, Machiavelli, Clausewitz or Thucydides. They may be seen as spiritual fathers of Classical realism, bringing their philosophical background to Morgenthau and his colleagues (however, Thucydides' case is not that clear, check Richard Ned Lebow's work on that).


 * Classical realism appeared in reaction to the clear failures of the liberal and idealist endeavours initiated with the creation of the League of Nations. It laid down the bases of the realist theory of international politics, introducing (and, more rarely, creating) key concepts such as "anarchy", "self help", "balance of power", etc. So I don't know if what you want to talk about is classical realism or political realism, but my opinion is that something has to be changed, either in the title or in the contents... --CorentinB 15:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your valuable observations, according to E. Kouskouvelis in "International Relations:Introduction" Poiotita Editions 2004 page 59, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Clausewitz and Thucydides and Brzezinski gave the spirit to this theory meaning that they are not classical realists but some of the main ideas of classical realism can be found in their work, books..........That was what i meant by "derives from the thought".........But please dont be afraid to edit the page if you think its not clear enough.......


 * Thucydides is considered to be one of the "fathers" of classical realim and terms and ideas such as anarchy, survival of the state, state seeking security,national interest, state's need for military and economic power, balance of power can be found for the first time in Thucydides Peloponnesian War which is a great study of International Relations in a bipolar international system .....It would be interesting to study Thucydides from the original text in ancient Greek language because even the best translations are comfusing especally concerning ancient politics and international relations issues........


 * Kouskouvellis also in "International Relations:Introduction" states that classical realism and political realism are the one and the same....i agree only 50% because of the fact that classical realism is part of political realism but also embodies the most important common key assumptions of the realist theories and many other theories derive from classical realism theory.....for this reason its sometimes comfusing.........i think in order to make it clear it would be better to improve this page by editing it......and add or create a "political realism" part....please feel free to edit as much as you want, and thanks again .......--Aspiliotop 18:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these details, maybe I'll edit that page later if I find enough time and courage ! About what Kouskouvellis wrote in his book, well I totally disagree. I'm not an addict of abusive categorizing with which realism is particularly concerned (see how many theories have been labelled "something-realist" in these last 15 years), but there are distinctions which are obviously necessary and meaningful... CorentinB 19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with u about the "something- realist" theories, in the end i think they all belong to greater and larger categories and small differenses shouldnt justify a different naming, but thats a more general problem that has to do with the nature of International Relations Theories and Political Sciense......dont worry got problems finding time myself, i do find your interest very inspiring though....in case you do find some time please visit International Relations discussion page, there is a first draft of a table of contents.....--Aspiliotop 20:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Which page are you talking about, please ? I've checked International Relations and Introduction to International Relations but there were no discussion and no new table of contents... uh, did you mean Strategic Weapons and int'l system ? --CorentinB 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah sorry for putting you into so much trouble, thats what happens when working long hours.......you found it though......sorry again--Aspiliotop 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)