霍布斯、洛克与基督教联邦

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY
Timothy Stanton, Tim Stuart-Buttle
{"title":"霍布斯、洛克与基督教联邦","authors":"Timothy Stanton, Tim Stuart-Buttle","doi":"10.1163/18750257-bja10074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Locke refrained from engaging explicitly with Hobbes in any of his writings. Locke’s policy of non-engagement should be interpreted, we argue, neither as evidence of his lack of interest in (or ignorance of) Hobbes’s arguments, nor as an attempt to conceal from the uninitiated Locke’s covert Hobbesian commitments. Locke’s silence reveals rather than conceals. What it reveals is an absolute determination to “distinguish between the business of civil government and that of religion, and to mark the true bounds between them”. Approached in this way, precisely because Locke’s account of the “business of civil government” says nothing about ecclesiastical government, the second of <em>Two Treatises</em> can be read, in its entirety, as a powerful critical response to Hobbes. To see why, it is necessary to grasp that Part <span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">iii</span> of <em>Leviathan</em> (“Of a Christian Common-wealth”) is integral to Hobbes’s positive argumentative purposes in the work.</p>","PeriodicalId":42474,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes Studies","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hobbes, Locke, and the Christian Commonwealth\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Stanton, Tim Stuart-Buttle\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18750257-bja10074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Locke refrained from engaging explicitly with Hobbes in any of his writings. Locke’s policy of non-engagement should be interpreted, we argue, neither as evidence of his lack of interest in (or ignorance of) Hobbes’s arguments, nor as an attempt to conceal from the uninitiated Locke’s covert Hobbesian commitments. Locke’s silence reveals rather than conceals. What it reveals is an absolute determination to “distinguish between the business of civil government and that of religion, and to mark the true bounds between them”. Approached in this way, precisely because Locke’s account of the “business of civil government” says nothing about ecclesiastical government, the second of <em>Two Treatises</em> can be read, in its entirety, as a powerful critical response to Hobbes. To see why, it is necessary to grasp that Part <span style=\\\"font-variant: small-caps;\\\">iii</span> of <em>Leviathan</em> (“Of a Christian Common-wealth”) is integral to Hobbes’s positive argumentative purposes in the work.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":42474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hobbes Studies\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hobbes Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18750257-bja10074\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hobbes Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18750257-bja10074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

洛克在其任何著作中都没有与霍布斯进行明确的交流。我们认为,洛克的不参与政策既不应该被解释为他对霍布斯的论点缺乏兴趣(或无知)的证据,也不应该被解释为洛克试图向不了解霍布斯的人掩盖其隐秘的霍布斯承诺。洛克的沉默是揭示而不是掩盖。它所揭示的是一种绝对的决心,即 "区分文官政府的事务与宗教的事务,并在两者之间划出真正的界限"。正因为洛克关于 "文官政府的事务 "的论述对教会政府只字未提,所以《两论》的第二部分可以作为对霍布斯的有力批判性回应来整体解读。要了解其中的原因,就必须了解《利维坦》第三部分("关于基督教的公有制")是霍布斯在这部著作中积极论证目的的组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hobbes, Locke, and the Christian Commonwealth

Locke refrained from engaging explicitly with Hobbes in any of his writings. Locke’s policy of non-engagement should be interpreted, we argue, neither as evidence of his lack of interest in (or ignorance of) Hobbes’s arguments, nor as an attempt to conceal from the uninitiated Locke’s covert Hobbesian commitments. Locke’s silence reveals rather than conceals. What it reveals is an absolute determination to “distinguish between the business of civil government and that of religion, and to mark the true bounds between them”. Approached in this way, precisely because Locke’s account of the “business of civil government” says nothing about ecclesiastical government, the second of Two Treatises can be read, in its entirety, as a powerful critical response to Hobbes. To see why, it is necessary to grasp that Part iii of Leviathan (“Of a Christian Common-wealth”) is integral to Hobbes’s positive argumentative purposes in the work.

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
Hobbes Studies
Hobbes Studies PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
33.30%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Hobbes Studies is an international peer reviewed scholarly journal. Its interests are twofold; first, in publishing research about the philosophical, political, historical, literary, and scientific matters related to Thomas Hobbes"s own thought, at the beginning of the modern state and the rise of science, and also in a comparison of his views to other important thinkers; second, because of Hobbes"s enduring influence in stimulating social and political theory, the journal is interested in publishing such discussions. Articles and occasional book reviews are peer reviewed. The International Hobbes Association is associated with the journal but submissions are open.
×
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