Thomas Hobbes

Para exponer el argumento político del Leviatán de Thomas Hobbes, se presenta una interpretación de su doctrina –desarrollada por Alfred Taylor, Howard Warrender y Michael Oakeshott. Según esta interpretación, la ética hobbesiana -desarrollada en la teoría de las leyes de naturaleza-, una vezseparada de su psicología egoísta, se manifiesta como una ética deontológica muy estricta, que se puede pensar muy cercana a la de Kant. En la segunda parte, se expone una interpretación de Hobbes con la que se busca señalar (...) los problemas de esta lectura del Leviatán. (shrink)

A critical interrogation of elements of Hobbes's political and natural philosophy and its capacity to enrich our understanding of the natural of democratic life.

O presente artigo tem por finalidade apresentar como a filosofia natural e política de Thomas Hobbes entende o homem e o cidadão no registro do mecanicismo moderno. Partindo de considerações gerais sobre o pensamento científico na modernidade, o trabalho busca mostrar também como Hobbes criticou a tradição aristotélica da filosofia medieval defendendo um caráter convencional das ciências e da política. No registro de uma modernidade heliocêntrica que racionaliza os mitos e as fábulas da antiguidade clássica para fundamentar o pensamento científico (...) da época, o artigo busca apresentar como os fundamentos da crítica hobbesiana à natureza política do homem passa tanto por uma ressignificação das obras de Aristóteles quanto por uma moderna racionalização dos mitos inaugurada por Francis Bacon. Nesse registro, o trabalho visa fomentar o debate sobre como o legado mecanicista da filosofia moderna parece ser ainda um dos grandes desafios a serem superados pelo pensamento filosófico contemporâneo. (shrink)

El artículo desentraña la relación entre Carl Schmitt y Jacob Taubes en sus interpretaciones sobre el Leviathan de Thomas Hobbes y la teología política. El jurista del nazismo y el rabino mantienen posiciones opuestas sobre el filósofo inglés hasta el punto de encontrar Taubes en Spinoza una alternativa aún por desarrollar. Frente a la interpretación de Schmitt que situaba a Spinoza como origen de la enfermedad que condujo a la muerte del Leviatán, Taubes lo sitúa en Pablo de Tarso y (...) la separación entre interino y externo en el mesianismo paulino. (shrink)

Entre las teorías de Thomas Hobbes y Baruch de Spinoza hay destacadas coincidencias y también importantes diferencias. Inician y revelan cambios en la teoría y la práctica políticas que ocurren en corto espacio de tiempo pero que son decisivos. Antecesores del positivismo, ambos compartieron bases ontológicas y metodológicas, lo que suele interpretarse, por razones cronológicas, como una influencia de Hobbes en Spinoza. Las diferencias entre ambos versan sobre el sentido de la religión en relación con su papel en la política; (...) las relaciones entre la revelación divina, la ley y la razón naturales y el orden moral; el iusnaturalismo como fundamento del sistema jurídico-político; el sentido y contenido del contrato social como fundamento de la obligación civil. Todas estas divergencias conducen a la más importante de todas, y es que Hobbes se enroca en un absolutismo que desconoce los derechos de la conciencia, mientras que Spinoza se erige en defensor del fuero interno. (shrink)

Soberanía y obediencia fueron dos nociones clave en las discusiones que se dieron en los albores de la modernidad. Parte de los debates se centró en la cuestión de la legitimidad del poder político y, en consecuencia, en por qué debemos obedecer, qué beneficios trae la obediencia y cuáles son sus límites. En todos estos casos, la noción de violencia aparece con diferentes rostros, y principalmente con la fisonomía de la guerra —punto de máxima expresión de la violencia explícita—, problema (...) que la autoridad política viene, de alguna manera, a resolver. El Estado soberano, sin embargo, lejos está de ser la representación del irenismo, se convierte en monopolio legítimo de la violencia. Este trabajo pretende abordar tales cuestiones desde las teorías de Hobbes y Harrington. Ambos justificaron la obligación de los súbditos a acatar la ley que se impone y que garantiza, por sobre todas las cosas, su vida. (shrink)

El objetivo de este artículo es sacar a luz las semejanzas entre un dramaturgo y un filósofo político, respecto de su uso del lenguaje y del fundamento antropológico de sus ideas políticas. Las metáforas se consideran inevitables en un poeta como Shakespeare, pero ellas son condenadas por Hobbes como un abuso retórico que el discurso político debe evitar. Se comparan sus enfoques pesimistas de la naturaleza humana y finalmente se pone acento en el contexto histórico, que marca el comienzo de (...) la época moderna.The aim of this paper is to bring out the similarities between a playwright and a political philosopher, both in their use of language and in the anthropological foundations of their political ideas. Emphasis is laid on metaphors, unavoidable in a poet like Shakespeare, but condemned by Hobbes as a rhetorical abuse that political discourse should avoid. After comparing their pessimistic approaches to human nature, stress is laid on the historical context, which marks the beginning of modern times. (shrink)

El espíritu científico del siglo XVII, inclinado a demostrar la verdadmore geométrico y a sostener el ideal de un conocimiento seguro que dé cuenta de la totalidad de lo real partiendo de principios evidentes, influye de manera deteminante sobre la justificación racional de las condiciones más adecuadas para la ordenación de la vida en sociedad. En esta línea se inscribe el ambicioso proyecto de Tomas Hobbes, al postular una filosofía práctica demostrativa capaz de articular definitivamente la naturaleza humana el "estado (...) natural" de la sociedad y el ideal de un orden jurídico-normativo cuya expresión máxima, el Estado como ente de razón, asume la forma de un "cuerpo artificial" construido técrucamente por los hombres. La contrastación con el pensamiento de Aristóteles, permite ver que con Hobbes no sólo nos encontramos frente auna original teoría del poder, sino ante la manifestación naciente de un movimiento cultural, filosófico, científico y político, cuyos efectos de sentido nos son hoy contemporáneos. (shrink)

This article argues that Hobbes can be considered Machiavellian, although not in the usual meaning of the term (a meaning to which Machiavelli himself did not adhere), that is the reduction of politics to the recourse to force and deceit. Hobbes’ Machiavellism is not to be found only where it would be expected (political realism, the need to use force and trickery) but also where it is not usually sought: in recognizing that the sovereign has to take his people into (...) account and to act in their favour, if only for self-serving reasons. (shrink)

This article examines the rise of modern secular, individualistic and rational legal thought from a historical point of view. It will be argued that the well known assumption needs to be critized, that the philosophical background of this development can only be traced back to Hobbes, Locke and Kant. Instead, the two authors of this article will point out that it was rather Ockham who first mentioned notions of modern liberal democracy in his philosophical opus. Furthermore, it will be shown (...) that the traditional interdisciplinary discourse on Thomas Hobbes falls short of a serious discussion of the most critical arguments. On a normative level it will be asked, what a Hobbesian (or for example Kantian discourse-ethical) conception can do for a normative justification of liberal democracy, nationally and transnationally. (shrink)

This study investigates Hobbe’s theory of natural rights. Hobbes conceived a natural right of every man to every thing that is necessary for his survival. This prima facie curious theory was consecutively attacked with conceptually illuminating arguments from the two main representatives of the next generation of natural lawyers, Pufendorf and Cumberland. Their objections and possible defences of Hobbe’s theory are reconstructed. Especially Pufendorf’s arguments help to understand Hobbe’s position in ascribing him a special concept of rights, namely non-obligatory rights. (...) This concept in turn was fully developed in Pufendorf’s extremely influential distinction of perfect and imperfect duties. (shrink)

Is the reference to the Book of Job sufficient to explain why Hobbes gave the name ‘Leviathan’ to the state he advocated? Had he not been aware of how maligned this name had been for centuries: that it not only referred to a monster, but soon became synonymous with the devil himself? - The “long shadow” that, according to Carl Schmitt, the name ‘Leviathan’ alone had cast on Hobbes’s work from the very beginning was first cleared somewhat in 2007 by (...) Noel Malcolm’s reference to Jacques Boulduc’s Job- commentary of 1619/37. As far as the “extraneous influence” in question is concerned, however, reference could also be made to the Job-commentary of a certain Joseph Caryl of 1643, which in turn took away some of the scandalous connotation of the biblical Leviathan. The real key to Hobbes’s naming, however, may lie with Jean Bodin, with whom Hobbes shares everything that the name ‘Leviathan’ stands for in his political philosophy. (shrink)

Michael Levin challenges the methodological soundness of Robert Nozick’s argument for the minimal state, but supports his final result: The exclusive aims of the state must be the “protection against force, theft, fraud, [and the] enforcement of contracts”. To replace Nozick’s, Levin builds a Hobbesian defense of the minimal state. He claims that the hypothetical rational choice of the less extensive bargain by the individuals in the state of nature morally justifies a minimal, but no other state. I analyze and (...) seek to improve upon this Hobbesian defense of the minimal state. While Levin’s arguments can support the claim that any justified state has to be at least as extensive as the ultraminimal state, they also provide ground, contrary to his intention, upon which to build more extensive states. (shrink)

This article analyzes the possibility of finding an approach favorable to religious tolerance in Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan. With this aim, I will first establish a contrast between two interpretative groups that have guided the discussion on the subject, focusing mainly on Leviathan. On the one side, there are more “traditional” commentators of Hobbes’s works, to whom the idea of religious tolerance in Hobbes’s texts makes little or no sense; on the other hand, there are academics who defend a “revisionist” reading, (...) maintaining that Hobbes was completely favorable to religious tolerance. Second, I propose a reading of the text from the Hobbesian concept of religion, reconstructing this concept with the characterizations present in Leviathan. Finally, the two lines of interpretation are contrasted with this Hobbesian concept of religion, determining in what sense it is possible to understand Hobbes’s work as favorable to religious tolerance. (shrink)

This essay aims to recover the conflictive nodes in T. Hobbes’ theory regarding language, science and truth. Revisiting the diverse and contradictory readings that have arisen around these areas of his work we intend to point out the tensions inherent to Hobbes’ scientific project. No definitive answer is given to close the discussion; instead we aim to offer hints to identify the author’s positions that are hard to reconcile. Thus we intend to contribute to a deeper understanding of the multiple (...) possibilities the Hobbesian text offers. (shrink)

The frontispiece of Hobbes's Leviathan is justly renowned as a powerful visual advertisement for his political philosophy. Consequently, its rich imagery has been the subject of extensive scholarly commentary. Surprisingly, then, its gendered dimensions have received relatively limited attention. This essay explores this neglected facet of the frontispiece. I argue that the image initially appears to present a hypermasculine sovereign. However, upon closer inspection, and considered alongside Hobbes's economic theory, it yields to a reading of the sovereign as an ambiguously (...) gendered figure. Reading the frontispiece through the prism of gender and the economy reveals not a static image of unwavering male power but rather one of an equivocally-sexed creature teeming with life, contradictions, and complexities worthy of continued examination. (shrink)

Political theory today has expanded its scope to debate business corporations, conceiving of them as political actors, not (just) private actors in the market place. This article shows the continuing relevance of Thomas Hobbes’s work for this debate. Hobbes is commonly treated as a defender of the so-called concession theory, which traces the legitimacy of corporations to their being chartered by sovereign state authorities for public purposes. This theory is widely judged to be anachronistic for contemporary business corporations, because these (...) can now be freely formed, on the basis of private initiative. However, a close reading of the crucial passages in Hobbes’s work reveals a more subtle view, which rejects this private/public dualism. Hobbes’s reflections on the companies of merchants of his day provide room for business corporations’ pursuit of private purposes, while keeping them embedded in a public framework of authority. Moreover, by criticizing the monopoly status of these companies, he opens up a way to integrate market failure arguments from modern economics into concession theory. The “neo-Hobbesian concession theory” emerging from this analysis shows how concession theory can accommodate private initiative and economic analysis, and thus be a relevant position in the debate about the modern business corporation. (shrink)

An impressive scholarly achievement, The Opinion of Mankind aims to highlight the depth and originality of David Hume and Adam Smith as political theorists by demonstrating how their respective wri...

The paper uses the controversy about liberty between the philosopher Thomas Hobbes and Archbishop John Bramhall to illustrate the conflict between the rhetoric of philosophy and the rhetoric of religion. The first part of the paper introduces initial definitions of these two types of rhetoric. The following three parts deal with three distinct parts of the controversy, as Hobbes and Bramhall define them: to the reader, arguments from scripture, and arguments from reason. The fact that Hobbes and Bramhall themselves divide (...) the arguments into those from scripture and those from reason makes this controversy a good illustration of the conflict between rhetoric of philosophy and rhetoric of religion. The rhetorical perspective exposes the epistemological conflict between philosophy and religion that the philosophical discourse often blurs. It is a conflict that concerns the basic attitude of an individual towards the truth as a believer or as a thinker. The rhetoric of philosophy assumes that human understanding defines the truth and therefore gives priority to arguments from reason as they address that understanding. The rhetoric of religion assumes that truth is beyond human understanding and can only be revealed by faith and therefore gives priority to arguments from scripture as they address human faith. The reader may join the opponents in asking whether human liberty is a philosophical issue and therefore subject to arguments from reason or a theological one, subject to arguments from scripture. (shrink)

The concept of equity is clearly important in Thomas Hobbes's philosophy. In his writings he repeatedly employs it in significant load bearing ways, particularly in the areas of civil law and governance. Equity is, however, not directly addressed in a sustained way in his core works and—perhaps even more frustratingly—it is often applied in ways which ask more questions about the concept than they answer. This presents an impediment to accurately understanding what equity really means to Hobbes. His late Dialogue (...) Between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Laws of England (1681) seems to offer a solution to this challenge. This work contains extensive discussion on equity, including on the application of equity in relationship to absolute rule. However, equity in the Dialogue is not always the same as what we see in Hobbes's core works. The question is, did Hobbes change his mind on equity? This article argues no. Hobbes did not change his mind on equity; rather, within the Dialogue he is engaging with a common understanding of the term as it existed in English law. Consequently, Hobbes's discussions here should not inform us about how equity fits into his philosophy. (shrink)

The concept of equity is clearly important in Thomas Hobbes's philosophy. In his writings he repeatedly employs it in significant load bearing ways, particularly in the areas of civil law and governance. Equity is, however, not directly addressed in a sustained way in his core works and—perhaps even more frustratingly—it is often applied in ways which ask more questions about the concept than they answer. This presents an impediment to accurately understanding what equity really means to Hobbes. His late Dialogue (...) Between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Laws of England (1681) seems to offer a solution to this challenge. This work contains extensive discussion on equity, including on the application of equity in relationship to absolute rule. However, equity in the Dialogue is not always the same as what we see in Hobbes's core works. The question is, did Hobbes change his mind on equity? This article argues no. Hobbes did not change his mind on equity; rather, within the Dialogue he is engaging with a common understanding of the term as it existed in English law. Consequently, Hobbes's discussions here should not inform us about how equity fits into his philosophy. (shrink)

Political philosophers often draw their conclusions on how political systems ought to be by first investigating human nature and then proposing recommendations extrapolating from those investigations. They attempt to do this by creating a hypothetical ‘state of nature’ where human beings would be unaffected by social, political, and cultural paradigms and can act freely in pursuit of their instincts, thereby revealing their true nature. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes followed this method of investigation and found that human beings are naturally violent, (...) individualistic, and warlike and therefore concluded that political theory ought to be as such to prevent human beings from acting out their baser impulses through draconian authoritative measures when necessary. In this paper, I challenge Hobbes’s claim on human nature by citing contemporary research on cognitive sciences which demonstrates that human beings have a natural predisposition to believe in supernatural agency (God/s) and therefore in the state of nature must behave in such a way as contemporary psychologists discovered investigating the effect of religiosity on human beings such as increased cooperation, selfless behavior towards genetically unrelated strangers, reduced crime rate deterred by supernatural punishment, etcetera. I argue that if we take into account the human propensity to believe in the supernatural agency then the state of nature hypnotized by Hobbes would need to be modified and therefore so would his political theory. Given the integration of cognitive science of religion into the state of nature, I conclude that the ideal political system must be centered around religion. Philosophy and Progress, Vol#67-68; No#1-2; Jan-Dec 2020 P 77-118. (shrink)

The conventional portrait of Thomas Hobbes that emerged in twentieth century histories of philosophy is that of the quintessential mechanical philosopher, who openly broke with philosophical tradition (together with René Descartes). Hobbes’s scholars depicted a more correct and detailed panorama, by analyzing Hobbes’s debt towards Aristotelian and Renaissance traditions, as well as the problematic nature of the epistemological status that Hobbes attributes to natural philosophy. However, Hobbes’s connection to modern Galilean science remains problematic. How and in what way did Hobbes (...) take inspiration from Galileo? In this article, I analyze Hobbes’s natural philosophy by addressing three topics: (1) his connection with some aspects of seventeenth-century Aristotelianism; (2) differences and analogies between Hobbes’s and Galileo’s epistemological approaches; and (3) the Galilean foundation of Hobbes’s philosophy. Through this analysis I want to show in which sense Hobbes can be properly defined a “Galilean philosopher”. (shrink)

Introduction -- Coercion, rational self-interest, and obligation -- The authority of law -- Political obligation -- Contractarianism -- The Hobbesian analysis of contracts under coercion : a critique -- Final remarks.