How Sincere Was Leibniz’s Criticism of Hobbes’s Political Thought?

Fiorenza Manzo
{"title":"How Sincere Was Leibniz’s Criticism of Hobbes’s Political Thought?","authors":"Fiorenza Manzo","doi":"10.5840/LEIBNIZ2020302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper focuses on Leibniz’s engagement with Thomas Hobbes’s political anthropology in the Mainz-period writings, and demonstrates that Leibniz tried to construct an alternative to the English philosopher by conceiving of a physically- and ontologically-grounded psychology of actions. I provide textual evidence of this attempt, and account for Leibniz’s rejection of Hobbes’s political theory and anthropological assumptions. In doing so, I refer to diverse aspects of Leibniz’s work, thereby highlighting his aspiration to congruity and consistency between different areas of investigation. Furthermore, Leibniz’s political writings and letters will reveal another—sometimes neglected—aspect of the issue: his concern to defend and legitimize the existence of pluralist and collective constitutional political systems like the Holy Roman Empire by providing the theoretical ground of their ability to last.","PeriodicalId":137959,"journal":{"name":"The Leibniz Review","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Leibniz Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/LEIBNIZ2020302","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

This paper focuses on Leibniz’s engagement with Thomas Hobbes’s political anthropology in the Mainz-period writings, and demonstrates that Leibniz tried to construct an alternative to the English philosopher by conceiving of a physically- and ontologically-grounded psychology of actions. I provide textual evidence of this attempt, and account for Leibniz’s rejection of Hobbes’s political theory and anthropological assumptions. In doing so, I refer to diverse aspects of Leibniz’s work, thereby highlighting his aspiration to congruity and consistency between different areas of investigation. Furthermore, Leibniz’s political writings and letters will reveal another—sometimes neglected—aspect of the issue: his concern to defend and legitimize the existence of pluralist and collective constitutional political systems like the Holy Roman Empire by providing the theoretical ground of their ability to last.
莱布尼茨对霍布斯政治思想的批判有多真诚?
本文主要关注莱布尼茨在美因茨时期的著作中与托马斯·霍布斯的政治人类学的接触,并证明莱布尼茨试图通过设想一种基于物理和本体论的行为心理学来构建一种替代英国哲学家的选择。我提供了这种尝试的文本证据,并解释了莱布尼茨拒绝霍布斯的政治理论和人类学假设的原因。在这样做的过程中,我提到了莱布尼茨工作的不同方面,从而突出了他对不同研究领域之间一致性和一致性的渴望。此外,莱布尼茨的政治著作和信件将揭示这个问题的另一个有时被忽视的方面:他关注通过提供其持续能力的理论基础来捍卫和合法化像神圣罗马帝国这样的多元化和集体宪政政治制度的存在。
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
CiteScore
0.10
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信