{"title":"Four Senses of “Meaning” in the History of Ideas","authors":"A. Martinich","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197531716.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"At least four senses of “meaning” need to be kept distinct when describing the proper way to discuss the history of ideas. The first sense, communicative meaning, relies on the communicative intentions of the author and is very close to H. P. Grice’s “nonnatural meaning.” The second sense, meaning as significance or importance, is close to Grice’s “natural meaning,” and the author focuses on a type that depends on human interests; in this sense, meaning is always relative to a person or group and changes as the events or the interests of the person or group change. The author shows that Quentin Skinner in his classic article, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” confuses these senses. While historians of ideas often focus on identifying communicative meaning, what historians care most about is the significance or importance that something had or has for people in the past or present.","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":"121728125","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":"Natural Sovereignty and Omnipotence in Hobbes’s Leviathan","authors":"A. Martinich","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198803409.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198803409.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"According to Hobbes, God is a natural sovereign because of his omnipotence, not because of his goodness or creation. The relation between power and kingship is also expressed in the idea of Yahweh as a warrior god, for example in Deuteronomy and the Book of Psalms. Kings, “mortal gods,” need power to protect their subjects and could only do so if they had properties similar to those attributed to God. In the seventeenth-century, intellectuals sometimes made God the model for human sovereigns, and sometimes the reverse. Since both God and human sovereigns are owed obedience, a troubling question arises: “Should human beings obey God or their sovereign if there is a conflict?” Hobbes has an easy answer. God commands people to obey their human sovereign. Arash Abizadeh’s interpretation that God is a person by fiction is refuted.","PeriodicalId":320802,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes's Political Philosophy","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125622446","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 Interpretation of Covenants in Leviathan","authors":"A. Martinich","doi":"10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199264612.003.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199264612.003.0011","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter is a reply to criticisms by Edwin Curley. An important reason that scholars do not agree about the correct interpretation of a text is that they have different networks of beliefs arising from different experiences and different affective states. For similar reasons, evaluations of interpretations will vary. Nonetheless, we can agree about properties of good interpretation, such as conservatism, generality, simplicity, coherence, completeness, and proportionality. But good interpretations may be strong in some virtues and weak in others. If the presence of perceived absurdities or contradictions were good grounds for thinking that the author was not serious in presenting them, then there would be good grounds for doubting that Hobbes took political philosophy seriously. These deficiencies are not signs of insincerity. A similar judgment should be made about perceived deficiencies of his religious views.","PeriodicalId":320802,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes's Political Philosophy","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133514506","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：