Leo Strauss’s Olympian Interpretation

A. Martinich
{"title":"Leo Strauss’s Olympian Interpretation","authors":"A. Martinich","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The author’s thesis is that Leo Strauss’s view is fundamentally mistaken about the foundational concepts of Hobbes’s political philosophy in De cive, namely, Hobbes’s concepts of right, self-preservation, and law. Concerning rights, Strauss’s claim that they are normative is mistaken. For Hobbes, rights exist where no law excludes them, that is, in the state of nature. They contribute to conflict; but no one violates another person’s right in that state. As for self-preservation, it is a desire and does not mean that humans have to use reason. Finally, as for law, Strauss is mistaken in thinking that Hobbes was an innovator in understanding it in terms of will. God’s laws in the Bible are laws because God wills them. And Hobbes’s laws depend primarily on reason and authority.","PeriodicalId":320802,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes's Political Philosophy","volume":"74 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hobbes's Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The author’s thesis is that Leo Strauss’s view is fundamentally mistaken about the foundational concepts of Hobbes’s political philosophy in De cive, namely, Hobbes’s concepts of right, self-preservation, and law. Concerning rights, Strauss’s claim that they are normative is mistaken. For Hobbes, rights exist where no law excludes them, that is, in the state of nature. They contribute to conflict; but no one violates another person’s right in that state. As for self-preservation, it is a desire and does not mean that humans have to use reason. Finally, as for law, Strauss is mistaken in thinking that Hobbes was an innovator in understanding it in terms of will. God’s laws in the Bible are laws because God wills them. And Hobbes’s laws depend primarily on reason and authority.
利奥·施特劳斯的奥林匹克诠释
笔者的论点是,施特劳斯的观点对霍布斯政治哲学的基本概念,即霍布斯的权利、自我保护和法律概念,存在根本性的误解。关于权利,施特劳斯关于权利是规范性的主张是错误的。对于霍布斯来说,权利存在于没有法律排斥它们的地方,也就是说,存在于自然状态中。它们助长了冲突;但在那个州,没有人侵犯他人的权利。至于自我保护,这是一种欲望,并不意味着人类必须使用理性。最后,就法律而言,施特劳斯错误地认为霍布斯在从意志的角度理解法律方面是一个创新者。圣经中神的律法之所以是律法,是因为神的旨意。霍布斯的法则主要依赖于理性和权威。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信