Behemoth und Leviathan. Rebellion und Friedensordnung, Bürgerkrieg und souveräne Staatsperson. Die politische Theorie kommt nicht los von den beiden biblischen Ungeheuern, in deren Bildern Thomas Hobbes die politische Moderne bannte. Am Beginn der neueren Deutungen steht Horst Bredekamps Geschichte jenes 'Urbilds des modernen Staates' und seiner Mutationen (Thomas Hobbes. Der Leviathan. Das Urbild des modernen Staates und seine Gegenbilder, 1651?2001. Berlin 1999, 2006). Doch der Leviathan lässt sich nicht ohne seinen Doppelgänger verstehen, das Landtier Behemoth, das politische Symbol der 'revolutionären (...) anarchischen Kraft des Naturzustandes' (Carl Schmitt), dessen Bildgeschichte nicht weniger verwickelt ist. In seinem neuen Buch setzt Horst Bredekamp die politische Geschichte der beiden Untiere fort, indem er den historischen Wandel des hiobschen Monstrums in den Mittelpunkt stellt. Es ist zugleich der Start der neuen Reihe 'Carl-Schmitt-Vorlesungen', in denen die von der Carl-Schmitt-Gesellschaft jährlich in Berlin veranstalteten Vorlesungen veröffentlicht werden. (shrink)

Behemoth, or The Long Parliament is essential to any reader interested in the historical context of the thought of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).

This essay advances the following set of arguments: First, that we must take seriously Hobbes's claim in Behemoth that "the science of just & unjust" is a demonstrable science, accessible to those of even the meanest capacity. Second, that Leviathan is the work in which this science, intended as a serious project in civic education, is set out. Third, that Hobbes is prepared to accept, like Plato & Aristotle, "giving to each his own," as a preliminary definition of justice, from (...) which however, he draws some very un-Aristotelian conclusions. Fourth, that though in Hobbes's theory "just & unjust" are equivalent of "lawful & unlawful," this is far from being a simple statement of legal positivism, but rather the conclusion of a practical syllogism. Fifth, that the impediments to this demonstrable science of justice being universally accepted, on Hobbes's account, are twofold, explained in terms of religion & the role of preachers & educators produced by the universities, on the one hand, & by the activity of "democratical gentlemen" & classical republicans dominating parliament, on the other. Sixth, that Hobbes's account of the transition from jus to lex, specified in terms of a transition from the state of nature to that of civil society, although Epicurean in origin, is much closer to a conventional civil law position. Adapted from the source document. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to review some implications of the work of the Frankfurt School theorist Franz Neumann, the author of Behemoth. The Structure and Practice of National Socialism (1942). Against the conception of National Socialism as a form of «state capitalism» (F. Pollock, M. Horkheimer), Neumann argues that German fascism should be read as a form of «totalitarian monopoly capitalism», that preserves the primacy of economic relations and threatens essential components of the modern idea of State. Neumann’s (...) study provides important insights into the current relationship between power, law and sovereignty. (shrink)

Behemoth is Thomas Hobbes's narrative of the English Civil Wars from the beginning of the Scottish revolution in 1637 to the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660, and is his only composition to address directly the history of the events which formed the context of his writings in Leviathan and elsewhere on sovereignty and the government of the Church. Although presented as an account of past events, it conceals a vigorous attack on the values of the religious and political establishment (...) of Restoration England. This is the first fully scholarly edition of the work, and the first new edition of the text since 1889. Based on Hobbes's own presentation manuscript, it includes for the first time an accurate transcription of the passages which Hobbes had deleted in the text, and notes made by early readers. (shrink)

Did Hobbes's political philosophy have practical intentions? There exists no "Hobbist" school of thought; no new political order was inspired by Hobbesian precepts. Yet in Behemoth Teaches Leviathan Geoffrey M. Vaughan revisits Behemoth to reveal hitherto unexplored pedagogic purpose to Hobbes's political philosophy.

Did Hobbes's political philosophy have practical intentions? There exists no 'Hobbist' school of thought; no new political order was inspired by Hobbesian precepts. Yet in Behemoth Teaches Leviathan Geoffrey M. Vaughan revisits Behemoth to reveal hitherto unexplored pedagogic purpose to Hobbes's political philosophy.

Behemoth is a history of the English Civil Wars and Interregnum written by England's most famous philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. It covers the events which were the background to his major philosophical writings, especially Leviathan, and is the only place where he discusses them directly.

Hobbes's _Behemoth_ has always been overshadowed by his more famous _Leviathan_, which is arguably his masterpiece and is one of the greatest works of political philosophy. _Behemoth_, Hobbes's "booke of the Civill Warr," on the other hand, is most often seen as little more than a history of the English Civil War and Interregnum. This volume contains analyses and interpretations of the _Behemoth_: the structure of its argument, its relation to Hobbes's other writings, and its place in its philosophical, theological, (...) political, and religious historical context. It also explores the implications of Hobbes's analysis of the "causes of the civil-wars of England and of the councels and artifices by which they were carried on". The contributions show Hobbes's relevance for today's debates about the decline of sovereignty and the state, and the rise of religious and democratic fundamentalisms. (shrink)

This essay explores the digital challenge, how to humanize technology, and the need to rethink the digital-human divide. This is imperative in view of superintelligent Al, which may escape human control. The information age poses quandaries regarding the uses and abuses of technology. A major critique concerns the commercial design of digital technologies that engenders compulsive behavior. All technologies affect humans in a reciprocal way. The new digital technologies-from smartphones to the Internet—where humans are tethered to machines, can impair our (...) autonomy, hijack attention, rewire the brain, and diminish concentration, empathy, knowledge, and wisdom. The remedy is to restore deep reading, human interactions, personal conversations, real friendships, and respect for autonomy and privacy, building a nurturing culture of tolerance, coupled with transcendent norms and ideals worthy of a creature created in the image and likeness of God. This aspiration should be at the center of a new interdisciplinary field of inquiry—a phenomenology of communications. (shrink)

Behemoth is traditionally read as supporting Hobbes's science from the treatises, but it also goes beyond the strict limitations of Hobbes's science. Understanding how Hobbes expands his approach requires that we examine how A's confidence in institutional reform is met by B's cynicism. Hobbes shifts from an analysis of general inclinations to an analysis of the particular strategies that skilful sovereigns use to acquire and maintain peace. The result is a theory of the state that relies less on> institutional arrangement, (...) and more on effective statesmanship, than we typically see when considering Hobbes's treatises alone. (shrink)

En el presente artículo nos proponemos explicitar cuáles son las principales características que Franz Neumann –autor del círculo “externo” de la primera Teoría Crítica– le atribuye a la dominación socio-política. Para abordar esta cuestión es necesario reseñar algunas de las principales tesis de su clásico libro sobre el nacional-socialismo titulado Behemoth, prestando especial atención a su análisis relativo a la destrucción de la racionalidad jurídica. Nos interesa, puntualmente, responder a la siguiente pregunta: ¿hay en su propuesta una concepción de dominación (...) que presuponga, además de coerción, consentimiento y participación de los grupos dominados? Para poder dar cuenta de las distintas aristas que detenta este interrogante, consideramos necesario retomar los aportes que hace Axel Honneth –uno de los tantos teóricos contemporáneos que instan a recuperar los estudios de Neumann– en su libro Crítica del poder, donde hace mención a la existencia de “relaciones bilaterales de dominio”. Aquí veremos que Neumann ofrece precisiones para responder al problema de la “dominación bilateral” –así lo llamaremos–, pero con limitaciones nada desdeñables. Limitaciones que, y ésta es una sugerencia que haremos al final del artículo, podrían sortearse a partir de un diálogo más abarcador que involucre a otros miembros del círculo “externo”. (shrink)

Because of its characterization of National Socialism as a form of 'totalitarian monopoly capitalism', many critics of Franz Neumann's pioneering book of 1942, Behemoth, have rejected what they see as a crude Marxist analysis of the subject. This not only does little justice to the richness of Neumann's book, it also distorts its central focus. By contrast, this paper suggests that a proper appreciation of the impact of Max Weber in general, and Carl Schmitt in particular, on the development of (...) Neumann's thought permits a more detailed assessment of both the merits and the shortcomings of his most famous analysis. (shrink)

By moving on from the findings of literature concerning the connections between the Leviathan and the Hobbesian translations of the Homeric poems, this article aims to problematize these relationships further with regard to the Behemoth. Three principal issues will be taken into account – the prophecy, the ruling over the Militia, and the mixed monarchy – given that, although themes typical of the philosopher’s political thought, their peculiarities in the Behemoth enable us to draw attention to possible significant political connections (...) between Hobbes’s translations of the Iliad and Odyssey and his narrative of the English Civil War. (shrink)

Reformation commentators were well aware of the allegorical referents for Leviathan and Behemoth in the book of Job, representing the powerful states of Ancient Egypt and Assyria, but played them down. Hobbes did not.

Parmi les nombreux problèmes que pose l’ouvrage de Carl Schmitt Le Léviathan dans la doctrine de l’État de Thomas Hobbes, il en est un, majeur, qui concerne l’utilisation de la « mythologie politique » pour expliquer la réalité ou les doctrines politiques. Il y a là, à n’en pas douter, l’expression de l’un des versants de l’irrationalisme de Schmitt. La thèse de l’auteur est très claire : parce que Hobbes ne possédait aucun « sens mythologique », il s’est trompé de (...) monstre biblique, appelant Leviathan son traité consacré au pouvoir d’État, alors qu’il aurait dû l’appeler plus adéquatement Behemoth, manquant du coup la Meeresbild caractérisant l’Angleterre de son temps. La thèse peut paraître séduisante, elle s’appuie néanmoins sur un présupposé fort contestable, car Hobbes ne vise nullement à créer des mythes. Il s’agit donc d’interroger la théorisation hobbesienne de la piraterie, d’une part, et de la dissidence religieuse « sauvage », d’autre part, afin de montrer que le choix par Hobbes des monstres du Livre de Job est un choix rationnellement assumé. (shrink)