Resenha do Livro A Direita Intransigente Chega aos Trópicos: sobre Leo Strauss e Eric Voegelin e a Busca de uma Ordem Pós-Liberal

Quando formulou o termo direita intransigente o lendário editor da New Left Review, o historiador e ensaísta inglês Perry Anderson, argumentava que se quiséssemos compreender parte da política nas chancelarias no contexto europeu e norte-americano no fim do século XX deveríamos voltar nossas atenções para a obra de quatro figuras intelectuais decisivas no debate de ideias deste período. Como o próprio Anderson afirmara (Boitempo, 2002), vindos de disciplinas diferentes (história, filosofia, direito e economia), Michael Oakeshott, Leo Strauss, Carl Schmitt e Friedrich Von Hayek dedicaram um espaço fundamental em seus pensamentos e reflexões sobre os problemas políticos enfrentados pelas modernas sociedades ocidentais – para eles em processo de declínio. Transformaram-se ao longo do tempo em eruditos teóricos da política. Se Carl Schmitt e Friedrich Von Hayek já são pensadores conhecidos em profundidade em nosso debate acadêmico e público; Leo Strauss, Oakeshott e Eric

Download Full-text

Defence, Civil Honour, and Artificial Will

Hobbes Studies ◽

10.1163/18750257-02801004 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 28 (1) ◽

pp. 35-49 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Boyd Jonathan

Keyword(s):

Carl Schmitt ◽

The Political ◽

Leo Strauss ◽

Michael Oakeshott

Three influential interpreters – Michael Oakeshott, Leo Strauss, and Carl Schmitt – note that Hobbes’s sovereign is tasked with containing the natural wills of subjects for the sake of civil peace. Yet Hobbes’s sovereign also has a mandate to govern or use his subjects for collective defence, and each suggest that the political-psychological means to ensure submission preclude and prevent the contribution of subjects towards collective ends, which would render Hobbes’s commonwealth near indefensible. This paper will argue instead that Hobbes does envision a way his sovereign could harness potentia publica: the sovereign must also instil an artificial will through civil honour, an artificial will that is necessary for the defence of the commonwealth.

Download Full-text

Appropriating Hobbes

10.1093/oso/9780198817215.001.0001 ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

David Boucher

Keyword(s):

International Relations ◽

Carl Schmitt ◽

Historical Understanding ◽

Main Claim ◽

The World ◽

Michael Oakeshott ◽

Eighteenth And Nineteenth Centuries

The aim of this book is not to trace the changing fortunes of the interpretation of one of the most sophisticated and famous political philosophers who ever lived, but to glimpse here and there his place in different contexts, and how his interpreters see their own images reflected in him, or how they define themselves in contrast to him. The main claim is that there is no Hobbes independent of the interpretations that arise from his appropriation in these various contexts and which serve to present him to the world. There is no one perfect context that enables us to get at what Hobbes ‘really meant’, despite the numerous claims to the contrary. He is almost indistinguishable from the context in which he is read. This contention is justified with reference to hermeneutics, and particularly the theories of Gadamer, Koselleck, and Ricoeur, contending that through a process of ‘distanciation’ Hobbes’s writings have been appropriated and commandeered to do service in divergent contexts such as philosophical idealism; debates over the philosophical versus historical understanding of texts; and in ideological disputations, and emblematic characterizations of him by various disciplines such as law, politics, and international relations. The book illustrates the capacity of a text to take on the colouration of its surroundings by exploring and explicating the importance of contexts in reading and understanding how and why particular interpretations of Hobbes have emerged, such as those of Carl Schmitt and Michael Oakeshott, or the international jurists of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries.

Download Full-text