ABSTRACT In this paper we deal with Hobbes’s elucidation of the political conflict caused by rebellious groups. First of all, we attempt to prove that groups are important characters in Hobbesian antagonisms. Secondly, it will be argued that the isomorphic structure that underlies all associations is vital to account for these disputes. To wit, the fact that minor corporate bodies are ‘similar’ vis à vis the State leaves a lengthy flank open to rebellion, since this homology may encourage their leaders (...) to compare themselves with the sovereign and to challenge his or her power. Whereas the inclusion of this trait may seem at face value paradoxical to Hobbes’s absolute order project, we shall contend that it is actually a way of ascribing responsibility to the leaders of rebellious groups. Furthermore, as a subsidiary hypothesis, it will be claimed that the centrality of the theory of represented corporations is a result of Hobbes’s aim to erase, not rebellion as such, but only its tumultuous setup. (shrink)

En el presente trabajo se aborda el proyecto político hobbesiano a la luz de las críticas realizadas por Kant en Teoría y praxis. Específicamente, se considera en detalle la objeción contra el Gobierno despótico, según la cual, el soberano sitúa la felicidad del pueblo como la principal finalidad del Estado y, por ello, acaba fomentando involuntariamente la rebelión. Al respecto, se sostendrá que el planteamiento de Hobbes en el Leviatán evade el foco de los reproches kantianos, justamente porque su particular (...) noción de felicidad impide que esta pueda ser constituida como el objetivo de la sociedad política. A su vez, se arguye que existe una sugestiva modificación terminológica con relación al De Cive, que lleva a considerar la posibilidad de que Hobbes haya prefigurado las críticas reseñadas. (shrink)

In this article, we will examine a hermeneutical problem raised in Chapter XI of Hobbes’s Leviathan. Namely: Why does the author refrain from describing the attack led by Brutus against Julius Caesar as the result of a conspiracy? Why instead of talking about the collective action of an organized group does he refer to a “multitude of actions performed by a multitude of men”? In order to unravel this paradox, we will analyze the category of “faction” developed by Hobbes. After (...) confirming that the republican conspiracy is easily explained by this concept and that it adapts poorly to that of an irregular crowd, we shall inquire if the key to this curious reading can be found in Hobbes’s sources. While Plutarch is unequivocal about the conspiratorial status of the group, Shakespeare does indeed problematize the matter. Correspondingly, we will argue that Hobbes may have taken into account Shakespeare’s treatment for his denial of the collective nature of the organized action against Caesar. (shrink)

This work intends to demonstrate the existence of limits that hinder the absolute authority of the sovereign in Hobbes’s political theory. Particularly, I will try to identify the concept of honor as the paradigm of this limitation. The field of the manifestations of worth — it will be argued — operates within a logic that runs parallel to that of the State. Moreover, it engenders authorities with high degree of autonomy. To be sure, the sovereign power can intervene in this (...) field by means of persuasion and coercion, but it will never be able to erase the resistances and limitations imposed by signs of honor. (shrink)

RESUMEN En el presente trabajo se aborda el proyecto político hobbesiano a la luz de las críticas realizadas por Kant en Teoría y praxis. Específicamente, se considera en detalle la objeción contra el Gobierno despótico, según la cual, el soberano sitúa la felicidad del pueblo como la principal finalidad del Estado y, por ello, acaba fomentando involuntariamente la rebelión. Al respecto, se sostendrá que el planteamiento de Hobbes en el Leviatán evade el foco de los reproches kantianos, justamente porque su (...) particular noción de felicidad impide que esta pueda ser constituida como el objetivo de la sociedad política. A su vez, se arguye que existe una sugestiva modificación terminológica con relación al De Cive, que lleva a considerar la posibilidad de que Hobbes haya prefigurado las críticas reseñadas. ABSTRACT The article addresses Hobbes' political project in the light of Kant's critique as set forth in Theory and Praxis. Specifically, it carries out a detailed discussion of the objection to despotic government, in which the sovereign establishes the happiness of the people as the main objective of the State and, consequently, ends up involuntarily fostering rebellion. In this respect, the article argues that Hobbes' formulation in Leviathan manages to circumvent Kant's reproaches precisely because its peculiar notion of happiness prevents it from being construed as the objective of political society. Likewise, we argue that there is a significant modification of terminology with respect to De Cive, which leads us to consider the possibility that Hobbes may have anticipated the objections discussed. (shrink)