SummaryThis article sheds light on intellectual politics under Nazism by looking at a crucial shift in the field of Hobbes studies that was marked in a congress celebrating the three hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Thomas Hobbes's birth, organised in Kiel, 1938. Before the congress, the decisive voice in Hobbes studies had for almost fifty years been that of Kiel University professor Ferdinand Tönnies. Tönnies was purged from the university upon the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 and died three (...) years later. At the opening of the Hobbes congress in Kiel, its convener, Cay von Brockdorff, declared that the phase of Hobbes studies shaped by Tönnies was ending and that a new phase, represented by Paul Ritterbusch and Carl Schmitt, had emerged. Against the background of a long tradition of Hobbes studies in Kiel, this article summarises Tönnies's contribution to Hobbes studies; analyses organisation and proceeedings of the congress, paying special attention to politico-theoretical disagreements between Ritterbusch and Schmitt and to von Brockdorff's exploitation of their rivalry; and contextualises Schmitt's interpretation of Hobbes published in the aftermath of the congress. (shrink)

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)

V prvem delu razprave je precizirano, kdaj, kje in kako se je v francoski revoluciji uveljavila delitev na levico in desnico. Levica je definirana z delitvijo političnega prostora v nasprotni in izključujoči se entiteti, med katerima ni posredovanj. V drugem delu razprave je oblikovanje take delitve političnega prostora ponazorjeno z intervencijami Robespierra in Saint-Justa, Sieyé-sa ter Marxa in Engelsa. V sklepnem delu je delitev na levico in desnico interpretirana kot vzpostavitev nadzorovanja političnega prostora. Pozicija levice nima avtonomne identitete, predpostavlja fiksno (...) referenčno točko in implicira zunanjega opazovalca. Strukturno vsebuje pogoj možnosti za izrinjenje vesti z zavestjo in ločitev politike od morale. (shrink)

The question of whether Spinoza's political philosophy is radical is explored in the paper by focusing on the question of how successfully Spinoza solved the troubling relation between religion and public authority in his work Tractatus theologico-politicus (TTP). This is a burning political issue today and was a pressing political concern in Spinoza's time as well as for Spinoza himself. After the examination of this problematic in TTP it is clear that Spinoza does not provide a coherent and compelling argument (...) against revealed religion having a role in the founding of the state and in statecraft. A minimalist conclusion would be that Spinoza allows for a role of revealed religion in democracy. A more daring conclusion would point at the affinity between republican democracy and theocracy. In either case, with the TTP's help, we cannot avoid either theological politics or political theology. (shrink)