Hobbes Research Articles

Hobbes against hate speech

ABSTRACT This article argues that Thomas Hobbes' analysis of insult or ‘contumely’ prefigures recent developments in moral and political philosophy in striking ways. Specifically, Hobbes's concerns about the dignitary harms in hate speech went well beyond ‘fighting words’ to the essential role played by expressions of hatred and contempt in making and unmaking social hierarchies. Hobbes’s sensitivity to contumely’s subtle power to constitute social in/equalities recalls recent work in feminist and critical race theory. Yet his expansive solutions – both negative and positive, legal and ethical – also shed light on the difficulties faced by aspirationally egalitarian societies in their efforts to eradicate contempt today.

The modern manual of authoritarian leadership

ABSTRACT The rise of modern authoritarianism is distinguished by its increasing sophistication in the techniques of authoritarian rule. Is it possible to comprehend these modern authoritarian techniques within a larger framework that accounts for their theoretical provenance, interrelationship and efficacy? This article argues that the nature and structure of the modern state has shaped the form and expression of authoritarian rule. More specifically, it shows how Thomas Hobbes, the influential theoretical founder of the modern state, can account for the modern “manual” of authoritarian leadership, with its distinctive use of rule of law and constitutions, voting and elections, and a free marketplace as means to enhance power and consolidate rule. Understanding the theoretical foundations of this modern manual is valuable for providing new insights into the efficacy of these techniques and thereby the dangers posed by modern authoritarians and the means to counter their threat.

The January 6, 2021 Riot, the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Controlling the Content of Extremist Material on the Internet

The purpose of this essay is to discuss the January 6, 2021 riot and its relationship to the USA FREEDOM Act and to how Thomas Hobbes and John Locke would react to the content of extremist material on the Internet. The paper argues that the January 6, 2021 riot could be construed as an example of extremist behavior that may be regulated on the federal level. The possible opinions of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are analyzed, demonstrating that in society, there is a wide range of opinions regarding how extremisms should be addressed. The answers are not clear-cut but require fine-tuning as high emotions dissipate and calmer minds prevail.

The January 6, 2021 Riot, the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Controlling the Content of Extremist Material on the Internet

The January 6, 2021 Riot, the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Controlling the Content of Extremist Material on the Internet

Hobbes and Spinoza on Sovereign Education

Most comparisons of Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza focus on the difference in understanding of natural right. We argue that Hobbes also places more weight on a rudimentary and exclusive education of the public by the state. We show that the difference is related to deeper disagreements over the prospect of Enlightenment. Hobbes is more sanguine than Spinoza about using the state to make people rational. Spinoza considers misguided an overemphasis on publicly educating everyone out of superstition—public education is important, but modes of superstition may remain and must be offset by institutions and a civil religion. The differences are confirmed by Spinoza’s interest in the philosopher who stands apart and whose flourishing may be protected, but not simply brought about, by rudimentary public education. Spinoza’s openness to a wisdom-loving elite in a democracy also sets up an interesting parallel with Thomas Jefferson’s own commitment to the natural aristocracy needed to sustain republicanism. In demonstrating the 17th century philosopher’s skepticism toward using the state exclusively to promote rationality, even as he recognizes the importance of a sovereign pedagogical role and the protection of philosophy, we move to suggest that Spinoza is relevant to contemporary debates about public education and may reinvigorate moral and political discourse in a liberal democracy.

How Many Types of Justice are in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan?

The article examines the problem of the multiplicity of justice in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. The Leviathan combines at least two understandings of justice; the civil one is connected with the keeping of covenants, while the natural one is a law of nature. We demonstrate that monistic views reducing civil justice to natural justice or natural justice to civil justice are as inadequately justified as denying justice at all. Hobbes uses two terms for justice, justice and equity. The latter is natural and binds the sovereign, while the former is created by the sovereign so that the sovereign is not accountable to the principle of justice. The natural poly-semantism of justice postulated in Leviathan finds its solution in the power of the sovereign, which sets the limits of semantic uncertainty and teaches his subjects what justice is. The case of Hobbes’ Foole shows that any definition of justice that goes against the definition of the sovereign will be interpreted as unacceptable. At the same time, there is a possibility for a number of other types of justice. Due to the introduction of the global and eschatological contexts, we get two types of natural justice (pre-civil and international), four types of civil justice (two local-civil and two global-civil), and one global theological (eschatological) justice. This number of conceptions can be considered in a contensive unity, because of the theological foundation of theorizing about justice in Leviathan due to the coincidence of natural and divine laws and the understanding of the commonwealth as a mortal God.

Domesticating Political Resistance: Rhetoric, Time, and (the Limits of) Settler Sovereignty in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

Domesticating Political Resistance: Rhetoric, Time, and (the Limits of) Settler Sovereignty in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

ІСТОРІОГРАФІЧНІ ТА МЕТОДОЛОГІЧНІ АСПЕКТИ ПОРІВНЯЛЬНОГО АНАЛІЗУ ПІДХОДІВ ФРАНЧЕСКО ГВІЧЧАРДИНІ І НІККОЛО МАКІАВЕЛЛІ У РАМКАХ ПРОБЛЕМАТИКИ «ДЕРЖАВНОГО ІНТЕРЕСУ» ТА ТЕОРІЇ АБСОЛЮТИЗМУ

In the presented article, the author defends the idea that the argumentation system of Quentin Skinner (Quentin Robert Duthie Skinner), Maurizio Viroli (Maurizio Viroli) regarding the methodological foundations of the origin of the political theory of Niccolo Machiavelli in The Sovereign cannot cast doubt on the approach of the German-American political philosopher Leo Strauss (Leo Strauss). The same emphasis is proposed to be used for the most part in the final value judgments regarding the meaning of the “Sovereign” within the framework of the problems of “state interest” (raison d’état) and the theory of absolutism. In addition, the strengths and weaknesses of the concept of the British historian Nicholas Henshall are comprehensively considered. It is argued, with the involvement of a wide background of historiographical assessments and methodological remarks, the productivity in the general historical context of a comparative analysis of the positions of Machiavelli and Guicciardini in the framework of the analysis of the theory of absolutism. The further development of the theory of absolutism, presented within the framework of social and political thought by the works of, first of all, Thomas Hobbes allows us to see a direct relationship with Machiavellianism as a phenomenon. The analysis of the positions of the representatives of British historiography on the studied issue shows the characteristic features of their evaluations of the interesting author of the issue. Thus, Nicholas Henschel in the work “The Myth of Absolutism” bypasses the analysis of “The Prince”, which would add an additional possibility in substantiating the insufficient character of the theory of absolute power. However, it seems to us that Henschel was perfectly aware in his work that it is difficult to blame the author of “The Sovereign” for the lack of justification of the goal in the expressed theory of absolute power. Turning to the comparative analysis of the positions of political thinkers of the Italian Renaissance is of significant interest for modern Ukrainian society in a practical sense. The Italian political crisis of the specified period was reflected in the persistent search by the best minds of the Renaissance era for ways out of it, a thorough understanding of the historical and political reality that surrounded Italians. The result was the emergence of impressive theoretical generalizations of key aspects of historical development. The author comes to the conclusion that without Machiavelli, the ideology of absolutism, which was further developed in the works of the same Thomas Hobbes, could not have received its inherent conceptual outlines. In order to accomplish this, Machiavelli had to make a break with the classical tradition of political philosophy, just as the formation of a centralized state required the concentration of political power in the hands of the monarch, that is, a break with the feudal tradition of political thinking in general.

Sprachbilder moderner Staatlichkeit: Emanzipatorische Rhetorik und souveräne Politik

In his article Dr. Laurin Mackowitz assumes that the inherent characteristics of language-based communication should be included in thinking about politics at the latest with the »Linguistic Turn«. Since then, there has been a fundamental skepticism about the notion that language is a transparent instrument for communicating reality. Instead, language is seen as an unavoidable constraint that structures all human searches for meaning and knowledge. Since reality cannot be perceived without language-dependent constraints, the focus of thought must be on language criticism. The author makes it clear that metaphors are more than mere descriptions, but seem to be actors in their own right, binding individual and collective subjects to language and leading people and peoples to see the world through their lenses. Dasein is to be understood as a "world-forming" and at the same time image-related being, which is why the imagination could be seen as decisive for the conditioning of social realities as power relations. The task that political philosophy faces as a result of the disenchantment of the world-forming dimension of language is to gain clarity about how the production and organization of knowledge, weapons and living space are given meaning by the linguistic images of modern statehood. The author continues to address the »state organism« (»body, sovereignty, fascism«). One of the dominant language images in modernity is the idea of the state as an organism. The body imagery that was already widespread in antiquity, which transferred the image of the living human body to inanimate things and above all to social structures, developed into an organism imagery. The »body metaphor« was already widespread in antiquity and fulfills many functions. The metaphor of the political body as a composite and self-sustaining organism finds a reconfiguration in modernity, which would find its most famous expression in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan on the title page. Using several examples, the author makes it clear that the metaphor of the modern political body would promise a rational organization of the complex social structure, a comprehensive presentation of the tasks and assigned social positions and decision-making power in a crisis.

Transcendent Unity and Common Home: Medieval Teachings for Today's Economy and Business

Transcendent Unity and Common Home:Medieval Teachings for Today's Economy and Business Giovanni Maria de Simone The pandemic has shown us that we live in one world. The themes of unity and diversity have emerged with even greater force, and social and economic interactions have made questions about the nature and purpose of corporations more urgent. A corporation is an organization involving human beings, but the differing ways of conceiving and fulfilling its purpose are rooted in a variety of anthropological conceptions. Of the theoretical orientations regarding ethics and human relationships, two have emerged that apply most clearly to our conception of a corporation. According to one, ethics concerns the relationship between human beings and is extrinsic to human nature. Among the proponents of this view is Thomas Hobbes, who considers the natural human condition to be one of mutual opposition.1 In this framework, human beings emerge from the state of nature through a contract that constitutes society. Among the sustainers of this contractualist view are John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Neoclassical economic theory takes up this view, and the same applies to various conceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility and to the shareholder theory proposed by Milton Friedman.2 In a now classic article that appeared in the New York Times in 1970, Friedman argued that in a system of free enterprise and private ownership, management's only responsibility is to act according to the wishes of property owners. Their wishes might also be to earn as much money as possible in compliance with the basic rules of society, both those embodied in the law and those embodied in ethical custom.3 According to Friedman, the doctrine of "social responsibility" makes all human activity political, and is therefore fundamentally subversive in a free society.4 William M. Evan and R. Edward Freeman, in A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism, introduce the idea of a transition to "Kantian capitalism."5 According to Kant, the only foundation of morality is duty, and the principle that every human [End Page 77] being must love God above all else and his neighbor as himself agrees with the moral law.6 For him, there is a clear contrast between duty and the goal of personal happiness.7 The second theoretical orientation, a different anthropological vision, holds that the ethical dimension is constitutive of human nature and as a result the flourishing of one human being not in fundamental opposition to the flourishing of others. This view, which developed especially during the Classical and Middle Ages, reflects the thoughts of Thomas Aquinas. Knowledge is viewed as articulated and unitary8 and the Philosophia prima, first philosophy, deals with first causes and provides general principles to all other parts of knowledge.9 This paper, most informed by the thought of Aquinas and some of his interpreters, will show that the transcendental unity of being, that is, indivision, finds its ultimate reason in the creation of everything by the Creator.10 The relationship of dependence on the Creator, which constitutes a form of unity, is not such as to absorb differences but presents a condition of being. This relationship grounds the natural love of every human for the Creator and every other creature. Corporate activity, as a human activity, is distinct but not isolated from other activities, and finds its meaning in light of these considerations. In order to ground corporate theory, this study will argue, influenced by gnoseology (intentional oneness), that being is transcendental, the relationship of all beings to being itself subsisting through itself, the common good and the virtues. Unity and Difference in Thinking: Intentional Oneness and Being Perfected In the context of the research related to unity, this first section considers oneness in relation to the intellectual operation. As highlighted by Aquinas, anyone who intends something knows that such a thing is manifest to him, and therefore knows that he intends.11 In the act of thinking, unity does not rule out differences. When thinking, I think the thing as thought by me and I know myself as a concrete real thinker.12 What is thought, even a mathematical formula, is thought in relation to me as thinker...

Wat van plekke, rolle en ampte? Want die reg gaan oor meer as individuele regte What about places, roles and offices? Because the law is about more than individual rights

Wat van plekke, rolle en ampte? Want die reg gaan oor meer as individuele regte What about places, roles and offices? Because the law is about more than individual rights

Politics in Muslim Countries Today between the Political Philosophies of Imam al-Māwardī, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke

Politics in Muslim Countries Today between the Political Philosophies of Imam al-Māwardī, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke

Nature and Norm: Judaism, Christianity, and the Theopolitical Problem

Nature and Norm: Judaism, Christianity, and the Theopolitical Problem

The Trouble with Literature

The Trouble with Literature

The State as a Personality: Tradition and Main Trends of Theoretical Interpretation

The article analyzes various aspects of the interpretation of the concepts of personification of the state in modern political philosophy and political science. In particular, it is emphasized that, in purely theoretical terms, the paradoxes associated with numerous theoretical attempts to identify a “political personality” with the state go back to the philosophy of the early modernity. In their original form, they were very clearly presented by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan and his other political writings. The immediate source of much of the theoretical debates in modern scientific and philosophical literature are the Hobbesian definitions of the personality and the state in chapters 16 and 17 of Leviathan. The authors examine in detail the complex process of analytics of the Hobbesian legacy in the works of M. Oakeshott, Q. Skinner, D. Runciman, F. Pettit, A. Abizadeh, D. Gauthier, B. Holland, S. Fleming and other scientists and political theorists, focusing especially on the continuity between Hobbesian political philosophy and ancient tradition (Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Roman Stoics). A number of complex issues related to the interpretation of the personification of the state in modern political philosophy and international political theory are studied in detail. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of theoretical discussions between supporters of political realism and constructivism (N. G. Onuf A. Wendt, F. Kratochwil, R. Schuett, R. Pettman, R. Oprisko, K. Kaliher, etc.).

Teorija društvenog ugovora Tomasa Hobsa i Žanžaka Rusoa - ujedinjeni ili suprotstavljeni?

Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are among the most important modern political philosophers, who base their theories on the idea of social contract. Both authors start from the natural equality of all people and the uncertainty of the natural state, but at first glance they end up with completely different perspectives on sovereignty and relations within a political society. Rousseau insists on the common sovereignty of all citizens, who have a guaranteed economic minimum and the inalienable authority to enact laws and care for the general will, by which they all together simultaneously constitute those who are governed. Hobbes, on the other hand, dictates that the people elect a sovereign who is always in their natural state and must have great power in order to fulfil their role as protector. Yet, the paper argues that their positions are not really that different, bearing in mind Rousseau's executive power and wise legislators, and Hobbes' strong rights of subjects. The thesis of the paper is that in both of them the people authorize and supervise, and someone else rules.

The idea of obligation according to the doctrine of Thomas Hobbes

The idea of obligation according to the doctrine of Thomas Hobbes

Robert Sanderson (1587–1663)

Over the course of the reigns of the last two Tudors and first three Stuarts – just in excess of a century – the national established Church of England was disestablished twice and re-established twice. Following the return to Rome under Mary, Elizabeth's settlement re-established the English Church under the royal supremacy, set down church doctrine and liturgy, embarked on a reform of canon law and so consolidated an ecclesial polity which many today see as an Anglican via media between papal Rome and Calvinist Geneva. However, as a compromise, the settlement contained in itself seeds of discord: it outlawed Roman reconciliation and recusancy; it extended lay and clerical discipline by the use of ecclesiastical commissioners; and it drove Puritans to agitate for reform on Presbyterian lines. While James I continued Elizabeth's policy, disappointing both Puritans and Papists, Charles I married a Roman Catholic, sought to impose a prayer book on Calvinist Scotland, asserted divine-right monarchy, engaged in an 11-year personal rule without Parliament and favoured Arminian clergy. With these and other disputes between Crown and Parliament, civil war ensued, a directory of worship replaced the prayer book, episcopacy and monarchy were abolished and a Puritan-style republic was instituted. The republic failed, and in 1660 monarchy was restored, the Church of England was re-established and a limited form of religious toleration was introduced under the Clarendon Code. In all these upheavals, understandings of the nature, source and authority of human law, civil and ecclesiastical, were the subject of claim and counter-claim. Enter Robert Sanderson: a life begun under Elizabeth and ended under Charles II, a protagonist who felt the burdens and benefits of the age, Professor of Divinity at Oxford and later Bishop of Lincoln, and a clerical-jurist who thought deeply on the nature of human law and its place in a cosmic legal order – so much so, he may be compared with three of his great contemporaries: the lawyer Matthew Hale (1609–1676), the cleric Jeremy Taylor (1613–1667) and the philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1678).

A Survey of the History of Western Political Thought on Political Authority

In the non-political field, authority is a social relationship based on personal needs and a psychological mechanism realized by respect. This determines that authority is characterized by fragmentation and potential (Chen, 2021). However, the inherent characteristics of authority are obviously disadvantageous to the rulers who pursue the general obedience of their subjects. Therefore, in the political field, authority must be transformed into a universal and unified political authority. Max Weber believes that authority is the possibility that a group of people will obey certain or all orders (Webber, 1978: p. 212). This also affected the academic research on political authority after the Second World War, which has never been divorced from Weber’s empirical research (for instance, Frank Furedi’s Authority: a Social Study and Richard Sennett’s Authority). In fact, reviewing the history of Western political thought, we can find that there are many political thinkers who try to think about political authority from a normative point of view, including Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and so on, but their understanding of political authority and the means of legalizing political authority are different. This paper believes that Hobbes’ understanding of political authority is closer to its essential attribute and plays an important role in the history of Western political thought, so it is necessary to focus on it. Of course, due to the limitations of the times, Hobbes’ view of political authority also has some defects, so it has been questioned by thinkers of different schools of contemporary thought. By examining Hobbes’ view of political authority, Yves Simon, the representative of Neo-Thomism, reconstructed the relationship between authority and liberty, and made a strong positive defense for political authority. Based on this, this paper has three purposes: first, by tracing back to the history of Western political thought, make a normative interpretation of political authority; second, to interpret the core meaning of Hobbes’ view of political authority; third, survey Yves Simon’s contemporary exposition of political authority.

The Theory of Absolute Governance Between Machiavelli and Hobbes

This research: (The theory of absolute governance between Machiavelli and Hobbes(. It consists of an introduction, two sections and a conclusion. The first section is devoted to the analysis (theory of absolute governance) from the point of view of Machiavelli's political philosophy. Machiavelli's life and development are described. Also: ("Human Nature, Morality, and Politics. Types of governance, Virtue and Fortuna's Concepts, President's Characteristics"), Analyzed. For this reason, benefit is taken from Machiavelli's masterpiece, entitled The Prince. Also, the second part of the study is devoted to discussing the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes about the theory of governance. Of course, Hobbes's views, in this regard, are still valuable. In this section, in the two main chapters, which we later divide into several different parts, we have tried to analyze the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Such as: ("Human nature and its characteristics. The state, types of state, Natural laws and social covenants, Rights and duties of leader and people." Finally, in addition to highlighting the results, we have tried to compare Machiavelli's and Hobbes' views.