霍布斯的生物学修辞与盟约

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 0 LITERATURE
Gonzalo Bustamante Kuschel
{"title":"霍布斯的生物学修辞与盟约","authors":"Gonzalo Bustamante Kuschel","doi":"10.5325/philrhet.54.3.0289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"abstract:For Victoria Kahn, Hobbes' argument that fear of violent death is \"the passion to be reckoned upon\" in explaining what inclines men to peace must be interpreted as a mimetic argument. However, Kahn then notes a paradox that makes Hobbes' thinking problematic: whereas love and the desires are appetites that produce an imitative effect, fear is different. Though also a passion, fear lacks that capacity to produce a mimetic effect or, therefore, to generate a contract. My hypothesis is that resolving the dilemma presented in Kahn's interpretation of Hobbes requires a shift in attention from mimesis to rhetoric and, more specifically, to biological rhetoric as defined by Nancy Struever. This approach to Hobbes makes it possible to understand the rhetorical role of fear in generating and maintaining the social contract, and how the problem that Kahn signals—the impotence of fear in relation to mimesis—can be resolved.","PeriodicalId":46176,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hobbes' Biological Rhetoric and the Covenant\",\"authors\":\"Gonzalo Bustamante Kuschel\",\"doi\":\"10.5325/philrhet.54.3.0289\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"abstract:For Victoria Kahn, Hobbes' argument that fear of violent death is \\\"the passion to be reckoned upon\\\" in explaining what inclines men to peace must be interpreted as a mimetic argument. However, Kahn then notes a paradox that makes Hobbes' thinking problematic: whereas love and the desires are appetites that produce an imitative effect, fear is different. Though also a passion, fear lacks that capacity to produce a mimetic effect or, therefore, to generate a contract. My hypothesis is that resolving the dilemma presented in Kahn's interpretation of Hobbes requires a shift in attention from mimesis to rhetoric and, more specifically, to biological rhetoric as defined by Nancy Struever. This approach to Hobbes makes it possible to understand the rhetorical role of fear in generating and maintaining the social contract, and how the problem that Kahn signals—the impotence of fear in relation to mimesis—can be resolved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.54.3.0289\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.54.3.0289","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对维多利亚·卡恩来说,霍布斯关于对暴力死亡的恐惧是解释什么使人倾向于和平的“不可忽视的激情”的论点,必须被解释为一种模仿论点。然而,卡恩随后指出了一个悖论,使霍布斯的思想有问题:爱和欲望是产生模仿效果的欲望,恐惧是不同的。恐惧虽然也是一种激情,但却缺乏产生模仿效应的能力,因此也无法产生一种契约。我的假设是,要解决卡恩对霍布斯的解释所呈现的困境,需要将注意力从模仿转向修辞学,更具体地说,转向南希·斯特鲁弗所定义的生物修辞学。这种对霍布斯的研究使我们有可能理解恐惧在产生和维持社会契约中的修辞作用,以及卡恩所指出的问题——与模仿相关的恐惧的无能——如何得到解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hobbes' Biological Rhetoric and the Covenant
abstract:For Victoria Kahn, Hobbes' argument that fear of violent death is "the passion to be reckoned upon" in explaining what inclines men to peace must be interpreted as a mimetic argument. However, Kahn then notes a paradox that makes Hobbes' thinking problematic: whereas love and the desires are appetites that produce an imitative effect, fear is different. Though also a passion, fear lacks that capacity to produce a mimetic effect or, therefore, to generate a contract. My hypothesis is that resolving the dilemma presented in Kahn's interpretation of Hobbes requires a shift in attention from mimesis to rhetoric and, more specifically, to biological rhetoric as defined by Nancy Struever. This approach to Hobbes makes it possible to understand the rhetorical role of fear in generating and maintaining the social contract, and how the problem that Kahn signals—the impotence of fear in relation to mimesis—can be resolved.
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
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Philosophy and Rhetoric is dedicated to publication of high-quality articles involving the relationship between philosophy and rhetoric. It has a longstanding commitment to interdisciplinary scholarship and welcomes all theoretical and methodological perspectives that advance the journal"s mission. Philosophy and Rhetoric invites articles on such topics as the relationship between logic and rhetoric, the philosophical aspects of argumentation, philosophical views on the nature of rhetoric held by historical figures and during historical periods, psychological and sociological studies of rhetoric with a strong philosophical emphasis, and philosophical analyses of the relationship to rhetoric of other areas of human culture and thought, political theory and law.
×
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