斯宾诺莎的“民主”与霍布斯的“民主”有何不同?

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY
J. Israel
{"title":"斯宾诺莎的“民主”与霍布斯的“民主”有何不同?","authors":"J. Israel","doi":"10.1163/18750257-bja10033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nField focuses on the role in political theory of the concept of potentia of the people—power understood as the informal, natural power of the people—as distinct from potestas understood as the formal arrangement of power under the constitution of a given state. In a close analysis of the arguments of Hobbes and Spinoza on popular power and sovereignty, the book critiques democratic interpretations of both theories. While correct about that, the book neglects fundamental dissimilarities in their views of popular power. Of profound importance is the meaning of the concept “multitude”: unlike Hobbes, Spinoza distinguishes between the great mass of individuals and “the wise,” seeing the “multitude” as encompassing most kings. Also, there is a great gulf between their understandings of the “common good.” For Spinoza, obedience to the sovereign, Hobbes’s desideratum, is only compatible with freedom in the context of a state directed to the common good.","PeriodicalId":42474,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How does Spinoza’s “Democracy” differ from that of Hobbes?\",\"authors\":\"J. Israel\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18750257-bja10033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nField focuses on the role in political theory of the concept of potentia of the people—power understood as the informal, natural power of the people—as distinct from potestas understood as the formal arrangement of power under the constitution of a given state. In a close analysis of the arguments of Hobbes and Spinoza on popular power and sovereignty, the book critiques democratic interpretations of both theories. While correct about that, the book neglects fundamental dissimilarities in their views of popular power. Of profound importance is the meaning of the concept “multitude”: unlike Hobbes, Spinoza distinguishes between the great mass of individuals and “the wise,” seeing the “multitude” as encompassing most kings. Also, there is a great gulf between their understandings of the “common good.” For Spinoza, obedience to the sovereign, Hobbes’s desideratum, is only compatible with freedom in the context of a state directed to the common good.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hobbes Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-22\",\"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-bja10033\",\"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-bja10033","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

菲尔德专注于人民潜能概念在政治理论中的作用——权力被理解为人民的非正式、自然的权力——与被理解为特定国家宪法下权力的正式安排的潜能者不同。在仔细分析霍布斯和斯宾诺莎关于民众权力和主权的论点时,本书批评了对这两种理论的民主解释。虽然这一点是正确的,但这本书忽略了他们对大众力量的看法的根本不同。极其重要的是“大众”概念的含义:与霍布斯不同,斯宾诺莎区分了大量的个人和“智者”,认为“大众”涵盖了大多数国王。此外,他们对“共同利益”的理解之间存在着巨大的鸿沟。对斯宾诺莎来说,服从君主,即霍布斯的欲望,只有在一个致力于共同利益的国家的背景下才与自由兼容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How does Spinoza’s “Democracy” differ from that of Hobbes?
Field focuses on the role in political theory of the concept of potentia of the people—power understood as the informal, natural power of the people—as distinct from potestas understood as the formal arrangement of power under the constitution of a given state. In a close analysis of the arguments of Hobbes and Spinoza on popular power and sovereignty, the book critiques democratic interpretations of both theories. While correct about that, the book neglects fundamental dissimilarities in their views of popular power. Of profound importance is the meaning of the concept “multitude”: unlike Hobbes, Spinoza distinguishes between the great mass of individuals and “the wise,” seeing the “multitude” as encompassing most kings. Also, there is a great gulf between their understandings of the “common good.” For Spinoza, obedience to the sovereign, Hobbes’s desideratum, is only compatible with freedom in the context of a state directed to the common good.
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