{"title":"Hobbes on Sovereignty by Acquisition in Leviathan","authors":"A. Martinich","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780197531716.003.0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780197531716.003.0010","url":null,"abstract":"Hobbes describes two ways in which sovereignty comes to exist, sovereignty by institution and sovereignty by acquisition. Sometimes in Leviathan it seems that sovereignty by institution consists of a covenant among all and only the subjects of a commonwealth and that sovereignty by acquisition does not. If this interpretation were correct, then several unfortunate consequences follow: (1) Commonwealths could have two kinds of sovereigns governing the same territory, with different kinds of subjects with different obligations. (2) The kind of commonwealth that occurs most frequently in history, sovereignty by acquisition, would have a less prominent place in his political philosophy and be less clearly described. And (3) sovereignty by acquisition would lack Leviathan’s two most innovative aspects, authorization and representation. The author’s alternative interpretation of sovereignty by acquisition offered here contains the essential features of sovereignty by institution; and the unfortunate consequences are eliminated or mitigated.","PeriodicalId":320802,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes's Political Philosophy","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129366390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Author of Sin and Demoniacs","authors":"A. Martinich","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0012","url":null,"abstract":"The view that Hobbes was an English Calvinist is supported by considering his positions on two issues, the author of sin and demoniacs. Hobbes’s debate with Bishop John Bramhall is structurally similar to two other debates in seventeenth-century England between Calvinists and Arminians. Hobbes, along with William Barlee and William Twisse, claimed that God is the cause of evil but not its author. Bramhall, Thomas Pierce, and Thomas Jackson accused the Calvinists of holding that God is not only the cause but also the author of sin. On the issue of demoniacs, Hobbes follows the great biblical scholar Joseph Mede, who had support from important English Calvinists, in holding that demoniacs were madmen, and the idea that they were possessed by the devil was imported from pagan religions.","PeriodicalId":320802,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes's Political Philosophy","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121563660","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Hobbes’s Political-Philosophical Project","authors":"A. Martinich","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"The appropriate theory to guide interpretations of Hobbes’s philosophy is both intentionalist and historical. Intentionalism is the search for what he intended to communicate. What he meant to communicate was conditioned by his historical circumstances. Conceiving of his political philosophy as a science on the model of geometry, Hobbes identified its two methods and its goal. The first method consists of beginning with definitional causes and deducing their effects; the second consists of beginning with effects and hypothesizing possible causes. The goal of philosophy is to improve the quality of human life. As for his subversion, he wanted to subvert the mistaken religio-political views that led to the English Civil War, the belief in limited sovereignty, the practice of superstitions, and the pretension that religion should be independent of the sovereign.","PeriodicalId":320802,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes's Political Philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128079648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Sovereign-Making and Biblical Covenants in On the Citizen","authors":"A. Martinich","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0014","url":null,"abstract":"In On the Citizen, Hobbes describes two kinds of covenants. The first are covenants among human beings, most importantly sovereign-making covenants. The second are the major biblical covenants. Hobbes follows the traditional interpretation of biblical covenants, according to which God is a party to them with Abraham, the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, and all humanity. His political theory had the resources to give a single account of both kinds of covenants. He could have said that God accepted the transfer of rights from humans. So, he could have given a unified account of covenants. He does not say why or discuss any relationship that may exist between the two kinds. A significant element common to ordinary sovereign-making covenants and the central biblical ones is faith.","PeriodicalId":320802,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes's Political Philosophy","volume":"101 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134524723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"On the Proper Interpretation of Hobbes’s Philosophy","authors":"A. Martinich","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter responds to Edwin Curley’s criticisms of the author’s interpretation of Thomas Hobbes’s philosophy. The author discusses the importance of the intellectual context for understanding an author’s thought. Hobbes’s context is the political and religious doctrines of King James I. The key issue raised by Curley in his article concerns the conditions under which it is appropriate to interpret a text ironically. For example, he thinks that Hobbes’s defective theory of the Trinity is evidence of atheism. But in the seventeenth century, a botched theory of the Trinity cast doubt on the theory, not the doctrine, which Christians held tenaciously. Also, many of Hobbes’s biblical interpretations that seemed false to his contemporaries are not presented ironically. They were novel theories that biblical scholars today largely accept. Some other views that may seem today to be irreligious, such as that miracles no longer occur, were standard views in the seventeenth century.","PeriodicalId":320802,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes's Political Philosophy","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129066482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Laws of Nature Are the Laws of God in Leviathan","authors":"A. Martinich","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"The standard interpretation that the laws of nature in Leviathan are not laws because he calls them theorems is mistaken. The theorems, or “dictates of reason,” are the propositions that Hobbes proves. But they need the force of a command to be, as he says “properly called Lawes.” Hobbes uses reason to prove them, and reason is the “undoubted word of God.” The author argues against John Deigh’s ingenious defense of the standard view. Deigh maintains that words in phrases that are technical terms do not retain their meaning outside of the phrase. But if that were true, then “civil laws” and “natural liberty” would not be laws or liberty respectively. Also, if they were not laws, Hobbes’s division of two kinds of law, civil and natural, would be absurd.","PeriodicalId":320802,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes's Political Philosophy","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125443021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Leo Strauss’s Olympian Interpretation","authors":"A. Martinich","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0009","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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121134521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Interpretation and Hobbes’s Political Philosophy","authors":"A. Martinich","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"The persistent debate over Hobbes’s political and religious views may be explained by the fact that scholars come to their texts with different networks of beliefs, arising from different experiences and dispositions. Although the networks of people overlap, especially those from the same culture, they may not overlap with regard to the beliefs relevant to the interpretation of crucial passages. These differences are not overcome even when an interpretation has substantial interpretive virtues such as conservatism, frugality, palpability, and generality. Other properties, such as simplicity, consistency, completeness, connectedness, and defensibility, are more successful in this regard. The author refers to them to defend his interpretation of Hobbes as a Jacobean, that is, as a supporter of absolute sovereignty, episcopacy, high liturgy, orthodoxy, and English Calvinism.","PeriodicalId":320802,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes's Political Philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131756198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Hobbes’s Erastianism and Interpretation","authors":"A. Martinich","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0013","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter is a response to Jeffrey Collins, who maintains that Hobbes was Erastian and promoted Independency and irreligious views. The author agrees that Hobbes was an Erastian; the Act of Supremacy made Erastianism law. Hobbes’s support for Independency was hedged at best. Some of his other views are original and non-standard but not intended to be irreligious. The author shows that Collins sometimes omits crucial evidence or draws the wrong inference from the evidence. Hobbes worshipped according to the rite of the Church of England, and his justification for the unity of religion and government was in line with the ideal of ancient Israel taught in the Old Testament. Hobbes argued that Christianity is not politically destabilizing and tried to reconcile Christian doctrine with modern science. The author’s reply to Collins is guided by the idea that interpretation is a form of inference to the best explanation.","PeriodicalId":320802,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes's Political Philosophy","volume":"140 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131810901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Law and Self-Preservation in Leviathan","authors":"A. Martinich","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"Quentin Skinner’s principle that a philosopher’s contemporaries have a privileged perspective on his doctrine is tested. This chapter shows that Hobbes’s contemporaries misinterpreted him on many important issues. The examples used to disconfirm Skinner’s principle have to be ones that have strong textual support and are not currently interpreted by scholars today as being ironic, skeptical, or misleading. Thomas Hobbes’s views about self-preservation and law satisfy the criteria. Contrary to the view of his contemporaries, self-preservation is a desire, a physiological condition, not a law or command. The concept of self-preservation is an important part of the definition of “law of nature.” But the definition is no more a law of nature than the definition of an elephant is an elephant. The content of the laws of nature are deduced from the definition of “a law of nature.”","PeriodicalId":320802,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes's Political Philosophy","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127865200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：