scholarly journals Potência de ação e ordem: o poder e a razão segundo Nicolau Maquiavel e Thomas Hobbes

2006 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Kersting

O autor apresenta aborda, primeiramente, a relação entre poder e razão no pensamento político de Maquiavel. Num segundo momento, apresenta, no pensamento de Hobbes, a trajetória que se estende da razão impotente do estado de natureza até à razão poderosa do Estado, dispensador de segurança. PALAVRAS-CHAVE – Maquiavel. Hobbes. Poder. Razão. ABSTRACT The author analyses in a first moment the relationship between power and reason in the political thought of Machiavelli. In a second moment, he exposes, according to Hobbes’s political philosophy, the path to be gone through from the powerless reason of the state of nature towards the powerful reason of the State, which grants security. KEY WORDS – Machiavelli. Hobbes. Power. Reason.

Author(s):  
John P. McCormick

This chapter traces Carl Schmitt’s attempt, in his 1932 book The Concept of the Political, to quell the near civil war circumstances of the late Weimar Republic and to reinvigorate the sovereignty of the German state through a reappropriation of Thomas Hobbes’s political philosophy. The chapter then examines Schmitt’s reconsideration of the Hobbesian state, and his own recent reformulation of it, in light of the rise of the “Third Reich,” with particular reference to Schmitt’s 1938 book The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes.


2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-34
Author(s):  
Maximilian Jaede

This article argues that the artificiality of Hobbesian states facilitates their coexistence and eventual reconciliation. In particular, it is suggested that international relations may be characterised by an artificial equality, which has a contrary effect to the natural equality of human beings. Unlike individuals in Hobbes’s account of the state of nature, sovereigns are not compelled to wage war out of fear and distrust, but have prudential reasons to exercise self-restraint. Ultimately rulers serve as disposable figureheads who can be replaced by a foreign invader. Thus, this article highlights the implications of Hobbes’s views on sovereignty by acquisition, which allow for states to be decomposed and reassembled in order to re-establish lasting peace. It is concluded that these findings help to explain why Hobbes does not provide something akin to modern theories of international relations, as foreign affairs appear to be reducible to a matter of either prudence or political philosophy.


1995 ◽  
Vol 16 (01) ◽  
pp. 17-38
Author(s):  
Robert Stern

Of all the major episodes in Hegel's Rezeptionsgeschichte, British Hegelianism can seem the most foreign and outmoded, to have the least relevance to our current understanding of Hegel's thought. Even today, we are lead back to the Young Hegelians for the problems they pose in reading his work; we can sympathise with the concerns of Peirce, Royce and Dewey that drew them to him, and the interpretative picture they developed; we can take seriously the attempts by Croce and Gentile to bring about their “reforms”, given our contemporary ambivalence to his project; and we can see how in different ways the influence of Hegel on Kojève, Sartre, Lukács and the Frankfurt School have made some of his ideas central to our times. But few feel this sense of identification and illumination on encountering the work of Hegel's British interpreters from the turn of the century; rather, in their writings we seem to find a Hegel that is darker, more distant, more difficult for us to relate to contemporary concerns. This is not true in every respect, of course. In particular, several recent commentators have stressed how far it is possible to find here a reading and assessment of Hegel's political thought that does connect directly with many current issues, and that in this respect the thought of T H Green, Bernard Bosanquet and Henry Jones is not dead, either as a tradition within political philosophy, or as an interpretative approach to Hegel's theory of the state. Nonetheless, even those who seek to defend the importance of British Hegelianism in this regard clearly recognize that this is a fairly modest claim: for it fails to resurrect and revitalize the more fundamental aspect of the their encounter with Hegel, which was with his metaphysics – on which, as for Hegel, their political theories were based, rather than being primary in themselves. Those concerned with the political thought of the British Hegelians have not tried to take on this wider issue, leaving unchallenged the assumption that in their appropriation of his metaphysics, the British Hegelians have little to offer us either interpretatively or philosophically.


Author(s):  
Karl Widerquist ◽  
Grant S. McCall

Because this book involves two very different academic disciplines, political philosophy and anthropology, some background about the relevant topics in each one is helpful. In this chapter, Section 1 introduces the relevant political theory. Section 2 discusses some of the anthropological methods and conceptual issues involved in the examination of the evidence relevant to these philosophical arguments. Section 3 discusses how the state and the state of nature are defined in relation to each other. Section 4 addresses some responses this book is likely to receive. Section 5 discusses the relationship between this book and modern indigenous peoples.


Dialogue ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 674-689
Author(s):  
Thomas Scally

Chapter fifteen of Leviathan is concerned with what Hobbes calls “the laws of nature”; however, it is evident from the start that justice is the central problem of the chapter. Hobbes demonstrates a rather subtle sensitivity to a possible misunderstanding of his views on the state of nature and the function of natural reason by inventing the character of the fool who purports to use Hobbes' own principle of self-interest to deny the existence of justice. The fool may finally be a “straw man” who proposes precisely that argument which Hobbes can quickly refute, but even if this is so, the straw man has Hobbes' face, or one like it, because the line between the views of the fool and those of Hobbes himself is very fine indeed. This section of Leviathan is more significant than it would seem at first glance because it provides an avenue by means of which one can distinguish the political philosophy of Hobbes from that of classical “individualists” such as Callicles and Thrasymachus. It is all too easy to read Hobbes as an elaborate restatement of the sophistic position of Socrates' famous opponents; the example of the fool belies this facile identity and to a certain extent constitutes a refutation of the classical power theorists.


2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 158-169
Author(s):  

AbstractLloyd's book, Morality in the Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, correctly stresses the deductive element in Hobbes's proofs of the laws of nature. She believes that “the principle of reciprocity” is the key to these proofs. This principle is effective in getting ego-centric people to recognize moral laws and their moral obligations. However, it is not, I argue, the basic principle Hobbes uses to derive the laws of nature, from definitions. The principle of reason, which dictates that all similar cases be treated similarly, is. It is important not to diminish the centrality of reason for Hobbes because it is essential to understanding his reply to “the fool” and understanding why the state of nature cannot be a continuum.


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 81
Author(s):  
Eriseld Kalemaj

This paper has in its focus the notion of 'Sovereign'. The discussion will be conducted within the "School of Natural Law", which we will focus on two representatives; Thomas Hobbes and Samuel Pufendorf. Through a comparative philosophical analysis, we are going to stop on the basics, the genesis of sovereign power. Political philosophy in the context of finding the source of sovereign power is a problem in the landmark of the unsolvable. ” Scool of Natural Law” referring to the natural condition has the solution to this problem. Compare lines will start from this premise, to know after, how the reason goas towards two different concepts of “Social Contract”. Contract which generates sovreigen person, it defines the nature and content of the power of this person. At this discourse, social contract as the core hub of transition, conversion to the state of nature in a civil context is rolling between the political and juridical character. Discussion, which essentially make us know the nature of the relationship between the Sovereign and members of society, sovereign and state, the member of society between each other. In other words, we will see how the political - legal forms of organization, the way of governing is determined by the nature of initial social contract


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (02) ◽  
pp. 170-193
Author(s):  
Stenly Djatah

In International Relation theory discourse, Classical Realism has some typical characteristics that differentiate it from other theories. The typical characteristics can be indicated by the ideas of Anarchy and Conflict. The two ideas in Classical Realism theory refers to Thomas Hobbes� Political Philosophy on the State of Nature. Considering that the two ideas are only two of the entire ideas of Thomas Hobbes� Political Philosophy, the State of Anarchy and Conflict in Classical Realism theory needs to be completed with other ideas. The writing has been made to show the function of ratio as a reason to seek peace in a hierarchical relation through Leviathan�s power. Therefore, it can be seen that Thomas Hobbes discusses not only about the state of anarchy but also the fact of hierarchical system urgency to avoid conflict.


2021 ◽  
pp. 030437542110086
Author(s):  
Maximilian Lakitsch

The theoretical work of Thomas Hobbes marks the dawn of political modernity and thus also the beginning of modern reasoning about governing. In his Leviathan, Hobbes creates the modern space of the political through the exclusion of the world’s social and natural abundance. This crossroads of political thinking might not least be of relevance for the Anthropocene. After all, affirming the Anthropocene returns mankind to a cosmos of infinite human–nature interrelationships, which strongly resembles Hobbes’s conceptual depiction of the premodern state of nature and its incomprehensible, contingent, and precarious world, a world that Hobbes had intended to ban for good. In this context, this article reconsiders the state of nature’s internal dynamics in its relevance for governing in the Anthropocene—at the expense of the normative claims of modernist governing. After all, embracing the complex ontologies of the Anthropocene and the state of nature disperses agency among the human and nonhuman world, which questions the idea of ethical and political accountability. Without such a reference, governing runs the risk of becoming arbitrary and thereby another shallow projection of modernist conceptions. This article develops an interpretation of political subjectivity as a reference for governing, deriving from the materialistic world of the Hobbesian state of nature. On this foundation, the article elaborates on how this reading of subjectivity reconfigures the conception of political space and how this shift affects the scope of governing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document