Abstract
In this paper we attempt to find an answer to the question – how can we revisit political theory? This question may seem apparently simple, but the moment one start exploring, the incongruities and complexities of politics make the undertaking question highly toilsome. It is impossible to completely reject the normative framework in political analyses as far as it deals with the human society. On the other side, the age of post-truth politics also creates a difficulty to find out the objective facts and truth. So rather than arguing which method of politics is more efficient to deal with the uncertainties of human political life today, we attempt to visualize politics from a new understanding i.e., politics as absence of general agreement beyond excessive empiricism and extreme normativism. It is the antagonistic nature of human beings what keep ‘the political’ alive, and constitute the factual practices known as ‘politics’.
Highlights
In order to find out the substance of politics and what are the prerequisite of a good political analysis, both political scientists and theorists made numerous attempts and their viewpoints and methodologies differ significantly from one another
In social sciences our focus should not be confined only to problems identification but solutions of these problems are essentially important one. It is often been said, political philosophy prescribes more than tries to identify the solutions of the problems but we should keep in mind when we problematise something we must have certain conceptions or theories, and we recommend some solutions with the help of ‘what ought to be’
The basic question that we explore and understand in this study is how to make political theory more practical as a discipline in contemporary times
Summary
In order to find out the substance of politics and what are the prerequisite of a good political analysis, both political scientists and theorists made numerous attempts and their viewpoints and methodologies differ significantly from one another. This essay focuses on the nature of ‘the political’ that demands a deeper understanding for explaining the empirical political reality, rather than merely explaining the fact and data collected and interpreted with the help of some ‘designated’ software. Since human beings are unpredictable social sciences should not be describing or explaining in method Indicating the limits of the translated works on Dilthey, Makkreel and Rodi (1996) prefaced in the ‘Selected Works of Wilhelm Dilthey’ as “Dilthey’s overall position was more flexible than has been realised His distinction between understanding (Verstehen) and explaining, for example, was not intended to exclude explanations from the human sciences, but only to delimit their scope If we are unable to evaluate adequately, as we very frequently are, we have not yet succeeded in understanding adequately” (Strauss, 1988, p. 21)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
