现代政治与权力的巨大鸿沟:霍布斯与国家理性

Y. Zarka
{"title":"现代政治与权力的巨大鸿沟:霍布斯与国家理性","authors":"Y. Zarka","doi":"10.36253/rifp-1436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern political thought is crossed by a fundamental divide. This divide opposes the theorists of sovereignty since Bodin, on one side, and the current of conceptions about the reason of state since Botero, on the other. The two currents were born practically at the same time, in the last quarter of the sixteenth century. On the side of the thinkers on sovereignty, it is a question of thinking about political autonomy in relation to all other orders of society (religion, economy, various legal bodies, police, public order, etc.). Here the principal question concerns the formation and exercise of political will and its relation to the citizens. On the side of the thinkers on the reason of state, it is no longer political autonomy which is at the centre of reflection, but the relationship between politics and religion. On the other side, the political problem is centred on the question of the preservation of the state (more than the conditions of its acquisition or its growth) and the rules of government practice likely to lead to it. These are not only different but divergent visions of politics and the exercise of power, the implications of which are felt even in contemporary democracies.","PeriodicalId":151072,"journal":{"name":"Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Politica","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"La grande fracture de la politique moderne sur le pouvoir: Hobbes et la raison d’Etat\",\"authors\":\"Y. Zarka\",\"doi\":\"10.36253/rifp-1436\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Modern political thought is crossed by a fundamental divide. This divide opposes the theorists of sovereignty since Bodin, on one side, and the current of conceptions about the reason of state since Botero, on the other. The two currents were born practically at the same time, in the last quarter of the sixteenth century. On the side of the thinkers on sovereignty, it is a question of thinking about political autonomy in relation to all other orders of society (religion, economy, various legal bodies, police, public order, etc.). Here the principal question concerns the formation and exercise of political will and its relation to the citizens. On the side of the thinkers on the reason of state, it is no longer political autonomy which is at the centre of reflection, but the relationship between politics and religion. On the other side, the political problem is centred on the question of the preservation of the state (more than the conditions of its acquisition or its growth) and the rules of government practice likely to lead to it. These are not only different but divergent visions of politics and the exercise of power, the implications of which are felt even in contemporary democracies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":151072,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Politica\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Politica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36253/rifp-1436\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Politica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36253/rifp-1436","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现代政治思想存在着根本的分歧。这种分歧一方面反对自博丹以来的主权理论家,另一方面反对自波特罗以来的国家理性概念的潮流。这两股思潮几乎同时产生,都是在16世纪的最后25年。在主权思想家方面,这是一个思考政治自治与所有其他社会秩序(宗教,经济,各种法律机构,警察,公共秩序等)的关系的问题。这里的主要问题涉及政治意愿的形成和行使及其与公民的关系。在国家理性思想家方面,政治自治不再是反思的中心,而是政治与宗教的关系。另一方面,政治问题集中在维护国家的问题上(而不是其获得或发展的条件),以及可能导致这一问题的政府实践规则。这些不仅是不同的,而且是对政治和权力行使的不同看法,甚至在当代民主国家也能感受到其影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
La grande fracture de la politique moderne sur le pouvoir: Hobbes et la raison d’Etat
Modern political thought is crossed by a fundamental divide. This divide opposes the theorists of sovereignty since Bodin, on one side, and the current of conceptions about the reason of state since Botero, on the other. The two currents were born practically at the same time, in the last quarter of the sixteenth century. On the side of the thinkers on sovereignty, it is a question of thinking about political autonomy in relation to all other orders of society (religion, economy, various legal bodies, police, public order, etc.). Here the principal question concerns the formation and exercise of political will and its relation to the citizens. On the side of the thinkers on the reason of state, it is no longer political autonomy which is at the centre of reflection, but the relationship between politics and religion. On the other side, the political problem is centred on the question of the preservation of the state (more than the conditions of its acquisition or its growth) and the rules of government practice likely to lead to it. These are not only different but divergent visions of politics and the exercise of power, the implications of which are felt even in contemporary democracies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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