[Recensão a] Samuel I. Mintz — The hunting of Leviathan-Seventeenth-century reactions to the materialism and moral philosophy of Thomas Hobbes

1977 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 517-518
Author(s):  
José Esteves Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Thomas Hobbes

Natural law

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annabel S. Brett
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Animal Behavior ◽  
Natural Law ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Social Perspective ◽  
Individual Agency ◽  
The Social ◽  
Do So ◽  
Scholastic Tradition

This chapter explores the concept of natural law, turning first to the Protestant milieu. Alterity—what would in the seventeenth century come to be theorized, and problematized, as “sociability”—is the dominant mood of the humanist and Protestant handling of natural law. It is there even in Thomas Hobbes, whose natural law coincides with moral philosophy and concerns the sphere of one's actions in respect of others. However, the Catholic scholastic tradition presents a very different framing of natural law, one that centers on individual agency and regulates the behavior of individual agents in their aspect as beings of a particular kind. While authors in this tradition grapple equally with the question of animal behavior in relation to law, they do not do so from the social perspective that characterizes Protestant humanist Aristotelians and jurists.

Seventeenth-Century Calvinism and Early Enlightenment Thought

2021 ◽  
pp. 375-392
Author(s):  
Aza Goudriaan
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
John Calvin ◽  
Sensus Divinitatis ◽  
Pierre Bayle ◽  
Philosophical Debates ◽  
Van Til

Analysing a number of interactions between Calvinists and Early Enlightenment philosophers—and the receptions of John Calvin in these—this chapter shows a complex and persistent presence of Calvin and Calvinists in philosophical debates during the early Enlightenment period. Among Calvinists, Descartes found both opponents and followers. Reformed Cartesians have occasionally appealed to Calvin (e.g. on accommodation and the sensus divinitatis), praised the Reformer (Heidanus, Burman), or neglected him (van Til). The philosopher Arnold Geulincx has been protected (Heidanus.) and published (van Til) by Calvinists, before they began to associate him with Spinoza (Tuinman, Andala, Driessen). Thomas Hobbes quoted Calvin incidentally, but Calvinists usually opposed his philosophy. Thus, the jurist Ulrik Huber used Calvin’s teachings on the testimonium Spiritus sancti against Hobbes—an appeal to Calvin that Huber repeated against another philosopher’s claim that reason alone was able to demonstrate the divinity of scripture. In order to refute Spinozists, Reformed minister Carolus Tuinman translated Calvin’s treatise against the libertines (1545). Responding to Huguenot Pierre Bayle, the Lutheran philosopher G. W. Leibniz wrote favourably about Calvin’s teachings on predestination and providence, as he had done also about Calvin’s views on the Eucharist.

scholarly journals Libertinism in English Restoration drama: a cognitive-pragmatic perspective

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
General Public ◽  
Role Models ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Restoration Drama ◽  
English Restoration ◽  
New Type ◽  
English Identity ◽  
Charles Ii

This paper aims to explore LIBERTINISM as a discourse-generative concept of the English Restoration and its manifestations in the 17th century drama. In the focus of attention are: the dramatic discourse of the seventeenth century and social and historical conditions that predetermined the origin and development of libertinism in the Restoration drama. In this article, I argue that during the Restoration LIBERTINISM thrived along with such concepts as EMPIRE, HONOUR, LOVE, MODE, SCIENCE, TRADE, and WIT. It is stated that after years of bans and prohibitions libertinism began to develop as a reaction against an overly religious dominant worldview that was imposed on the English people during the Interregnum. It is confirmed that libertinism was widely disseminated in the play-houses which were reopened by Charles II after almost a twenty-year break. In this article, I argue that libertinism takes its ideas from the teachings of René Descartes and Thomas Hobbes; it viewed as extreme hedonism and rejection of all moral and religious dogmas. Charles II himself set an example which was emulated by his courtiers and therefore libertine modes of behaviour were demonstrated to the general public as role models by the aristocracy which regained power with the Restoration. I also claim that as during the English Restoration many play wrights either were libertines or wrote about libertine behaviour and adventures in their plays, the dramatic discourse of the seventeenth century gave rise to a new type of English identity–the English Restoration libertine-aristocrat. Accordingly, the dramatic discourse and dramatic performances of the seventeenth century were the means of establishment, reiteration, and dissemination of the libertine ethos.

The Pope’s Right to Elect his Successor: The Criterion of Sovereignty?

1991 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 233-244
Author(s):  
Diana Wood
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Perfect Form ◽  
Form Of Government ◽  
The Right

One of the ‘Problems of Sovereignty’ addressed by Michael Wilks in his magisterial study is whether the pope can appoint his own successor.’ It was, of course, a particularly pressing problem for any prince who had no natural heir, either because of his own deliberate celibacy, or, if he had children, because there was no established rule of hereditary succession. In the seventeenth century Thomas Hobbes saw the right to appoint a successor, and thus to perpetuate what he calls the ‘artificial eternity’ of the commonwealth, as an essential attribute of sovereignty: There is no perfect form of government, where the disposing of the succession is not in the present sovereign. For if it be in any other particular man or private assembly, it is in a person subject, and may be assumed by the sovereign at his pleasure; and consequently the right is in himself.’ He also pinpointed the problems which would arise without this attribute: ‘If it be known who have the power to give the sovereignty after his [the ruler’s] death it is known also that the sovereignty was in them before; for none have right to give that which they have not right to possess, and keep to themselves, if they think good.’ Moreover, if the sovereign cannot appoint his successor ‘then is the commonwealth dissolved; and the right is in him that can get it.’

scholarly journals Making the States’ Translation (1637): Orthodox Calvinist Biblical Criticism in the Dutch Republic

2017 ◽  
Vol 110 (3) ◽  
pp. 440-463
Author(s):  
Dirk van Miert
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Dutch Republic ◽  
Biblical Text ◽  
Biblical Criticism ◽  
New Science ◽  
The Past ◽  
Biblical Scholarship ◽  
The Enlightenment ◽  
History Of

In the study of the history of biblical scholarship, there has been a tendency among historians to emphasize biblical philology as a force which, together with the new philosophy and the new science of the seventeenth century, caused the erosion of universal scriptural authority from the mid-seventeenth century onwards. A case in point is Jonathan Israel's impressive account of how biblical criticism in the hands of Spinoza paved the way for the Enlightenment. Others who have argued for a post-Spinozist rise of biblical criticism include Frank Manuel, Adam Sutcliffe, and Travis Frampton. These scholars have built upon longer standing interpretations such as those of Hugh Trevor-Roper and Paul Hazard. However, scholars in the past two decades such as Anthony Grafton, Scott Mandelbrote and Jean-Louis Quantin have altered the picture of an exegetical revolution inaugurated by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Spinoza (1632–1677), and Richard Simon (1638–1712). These heterodox philosophers in fact relied on philological research that had been largely developed in the first half of the seventeenth century. Moreover, such research was carried out by scholars who had no subversive agenda. This is to say that the importance attached to a historical and philological approach to the biblical text had a cross-confessional appeal, not just a radical-political one.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document