Hobbesova literární technologie závaznosti rozumu

J. Maršálek
{"title":"Hobbesova literární technologie závaznosti rozumu","authors":"J. Maršálek","doi":"10.46938/tv.2017.389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Does a perfectly established proof also imply, for its beholder, a commitment to account for the proof's conclusion in further reasoning and action? In the herein presented study, I treat Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan as a “literary technology” that seeks to position the reader into the role of the author in Leviathan’s argumentation. The interpretations of Hobbes's scientific style offered by S. Shapin and S. Schaffer are thus critically developed alongside Q. Skinner’s analysis of Hobbes’s rhetorical practice. It is suggested that, with regard to his readers, Hobbes does not content himself with merely demonstrating a scientific proof, but strives to involve his readers in his argumentation and make them participate in the creation of scientific arguments and their conclusions.","PeriodicalId":349992,"journal":{"name":"Teorie vědy / Theory of Science","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teorie vědy / Theory of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46938/tv.2017.389","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

Does a perfectly established proof also imply, for its beholder, a commitment to account for the proof's conclusion in further reasoning and action? In the herein presented study, I treat Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan as a “literary technology” that seeks to position the reader into the role of the author in Leviathan’s argumentation. The interpretations of Hobbes's scientific style offered by S. Shapin and S. Schaffer are thus critically developed alongside Q. Skinner’s analysis of Hobbes’s rhetorical practice. It is suggested that, with regard to his readers, Hobbes does not content himself with merely demonstrating a scientific proof, but strives to involve his readers in his argumentation and make them participate in the creation of scientific arguments and their conclusions.
一个完全建立的证明是否也意味着,对于观察者来说,有义务在进一步的推理和行动中解释证明的结论?在本文提出的研究中,我将托马斯·霍布斯的《利维坦》视为一种“文学技术”,它试图将读者定位为利维坦论证中的作者角色。因此,S. Shapin和S. Schaffer对霍布斯科学风格的解释与Q. Skinner对霍布斯修辞实践的分析是批判性发展的。有人认为,对于读者,霍布斯并不满足于仅仅展示科学证据,而是努力让读者参与他的论证,让他们参与到科学论证和结论的创造中来。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信