Some Remarks on the Political Science of Hobbes

British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 2017

Philosophy Study, 2019

And in the same epistle, where I say of the civil philosophy: "It is no ancienter than my book De Cive"; these words are added: "I say it provoked, and that my detractors may see they lose their labour". But that which is truly said, and upon provocation, is not boasting but defence. A short sum of that book of mine, now publicly in French, done by a gentleman I never saw, carrieth the title of Ethics Demonstrated. The book itself translated into French, hath not only a great testimony from the translator Sorberius, but also from Gassendus, and Mersennus, who being both of the Roman religion had no cause to praise it, or the divines of England have no cause to find fault with it. ("Six Lessons", 1656, p. 333; the French In an age when political thinkers were writing books full of quotations of ancient and modern authors, Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (1588-1679) developed a philosophical system which was based on scientific method rather than on the authority of books. He emphasized that the absurdities that philosophers fall into are actually due precisely to a lack of method and to the habit of quoting other thinkers as if the truth was to be found in their words. It is certainly not inappropriate to read what philosophers, historians, and poets wrote, whether for pure amusement or to find intellectual spurs useful for one's own research and speculation; but the written word should not be confused with the truth. In the investigation aimed at discovering the truth in political matters, the philosopher must use his own intellect, relying on the strength of reasoning. Thus, political philosophy becomes a science: the science of "consequences from the accidents of politic bodies". With his reflections on scientia civilis, Thomas Hobbes may be considered the inventor of political science.

2017

In the course of knowledge, the aspect that gives enlightenment about a state, government, politics, liberty, justice and authority by exploring the question that come up in any of these aspects and tries to come up with recommendations to minimize friction and conflict in a state is commonly referred to as Political Philosophy. Overtime, the definition of political philosophy has been modified to suit different eras and epochs but it remains unchanged on the premise that it gives stance to how a state should be set up, what system of government minimizes conflict and ensures inclusiveness within a polity as well as summarize the rights and duties of individuals within the state. Many scholars have been brought to limelight through their ideological stance on what is or what ought to be in a state, before it can said to enjoy governance and authority and the boundary between the right of the governed and the governor and some of these ideals have been criticized on various ethical, moral philosophical and religious grounds but these scholars have made their mark as far as the field of Political philosophy by bringing forth their ideological thoughts, one of such scholar is Thomas Hobbes.

The Historical Journal, 1966

T H E modern reputation of Hobbes's Leviathan as a work' incredibly overtopping all its successors in political theory' 1 has concentrated so much attention on Hobbes's own text that it has tended at the same time to divert attention away from any attempt to study the relations between his thought and its age, or to trace his affinities with the other political writers of his time. It has by now become an axiom of the historiography 2 that Hobbes's 'extraordinary boldness' 3 set him completely 'outside the main stream of English political thought' in his time. 4 The theme of the one study devoted to the reception of Hobbes's political doctrines has been that Hobbes stood out alone ' against all the powerful and still developing constitutionalist tradition', 6 but that the tradition ('fortunately') 6 proved too strong for him. Hobbes was 'the first to attack its fundamental assumptions ', 7 but no one followed his lead. Although he 'tried to sweep away the whole structure of traditional sanctions', 8 he succeeded only in provoking 'the widespread re-assertion of accepted principles', 9 a re-assertion, in fact, of 'the main English political tradition'. 10 And the more Leviathan has become accepted as 'the greatest, perhaps the sole masterpiece ' u of English political theory, the less has Hobbes seemed to bear any meaningful relation to the ephemeral political quarrels of his contemporaries. The doctrine of Leviathan has come to be regarded as 'an isolated phenomenon in English thought, without ancestry or posterity'. 12 Hobbes's system, it is assumed, was related to its age only by the 'intense opposition' which its 'boldness and originality' were to provoke. 13 The view, however, that Hobbes 'impressed English thought almost entirely by rousing opposition', 14 and that consequently 'no man of his time

Springborg, “The Paradoxical Hobbes: A Critical Response to the Hobbes Symposium, Political Theory, 36 2008”, Political Theory, 37, 5 (2009), 676-688; to which Deborah Baumgold responds in the same issue, Political Theory, 37, 5 (2009), pp. 689-94.

Attention has turned from Hobbes the systematic thinker to his inconsistencies, as the essays in the Hobbes symposium published in the recent volume of Political Theory suggest. Deborah Baumgold, in “The Difficulties of Hobbes Interpretation,” shifted the focus to “the history of the book,” and Hobbes’s method of serial composition and peripatetic insertion, as a major source of his inconsistency. Accepting Baumgold’s method, the author argues that the manner of composition does not necessarily determine content and that fundamental paradoxes in Hobbes’s work have a different provenance, for which there are also contextual answers. Hobbes was a courtier’s client, but one committed early to a materialist ontology and epistemology, and these commitments shackled him in treating the immediate political questions with which he was required to deal, leading to systemic paradoxes in his treatment of natural law, liberty, authorization, and consent. Keywords: Hobbes’s paradoxes; materialist ontology; politics

Philosophies, 2022

This paper re-examines the dispute concerning Hobbes’s religious beliefs in light of his natural philosophy. First, I argue that atheistic readings of Hobbes can be more plausibly defended provided interpreters make use of a methodological unity thesis. Second, I suggest that theistic readers of Hobbes have good reason to favor the autonomy thesis. I conclude by highlighting how a re-examination of the theism dispute motivates reconsideration of the role of Hobbes’s natural philosophy and scientific methodology vis à vis politics. Maintaining the unity thesis as a methodological device can shed important light on the politics and methods of Leviathan. More importantly, this analysis motivates consideration of De Corpore in any serious study of Hobbes.

The paper means to propose a comprehensive understanding of Hobbes' Political-philosophy connecting the political works of the same Author with those regarding his scientific activity. Hobbes, in his political philosophy, produces, as rational deduction and definition, concepts constituting the paradigm of the modern political theory, as those of individuals, power, sovereignty, State, etc. The one approached by Hobbes is a vision of the human being and of the relations among them that actually represents the canonic and generally accepted dimension of the human relations. His philosophy has in sé the paradigm of the modernity. A conflictual modernity, that leaves the man alone with himself, an independent microcosm in which the principle of the desire does not find any interpersonal pre-existing limitation. In this sense the Hobbes' political philosophy represents at the same time a starting and an arrival point for all the students of this subject. However, he was not only a political philosopher, but also a scientist (half of his works are about science). So, to holistically understand of of the major Author of the Modernity, and at the same time the period and the institutions we are living in, it is important to read together the political and the scientific works. The society must be analyzed via basic concepts that constitute the natural world in general. Society, human being and nature are not completely divisible one from each other, being ontologically similar. The project is constituted essentially by two moments: on one hand there is the rational reconstruction of the natural sciences, while on the other the one of the ethics and politics. These aims, just apparently far from each others, are connected by a specific element, the explanation of everything: the movement. The works taken into consideration are: De Corpore, Elements of Philosophy, De Cive, De Homine, Leviathan. The main focus regards the definition of " Time " given by Hobbes in the De Corpore, considered as a key concept to understand the human experience, so the institutions deriving from this.

"This paper seeks to trace the ways in which Christianity, in particular 17th century Calvinist theology, influenced and shaped the thinking and writings of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. The writings of Hobbes, especially the Leviathan, continue to be highly influential texts for political theory and thought today, especially as it informed the emergence of modern secular states, the development of social contract theory, natural law, and the rise of political rights and responsibilities of citizens in a liberal state. Most of this Hobbesian influence on contemporary politics is derived from readings of Hobbes as a secular political theorist (either areligious or an atheist) who initiated a critical break from earlier theories of religious and monarchical rule, and opened the way for the emergency of modern political systems rooted in republican and parliamentarian principles of citizenship. “For the truth is that the way modern liberal democracies approach religion and politics today is unthinkable without the decisive break made by Thomas Hobbes” (Lilla 88). On this reading, the Leviathan is seen as the political handbook par excellence for modern secular and liberal state. I argue that this assertion, however, is a fundamental misreading of Hobbes and his writings. Not only should Hobbes be seen as a powerful Christian political theologian, but the entire project of Leviathan is one of reconciling religious and civil rule under the control of a Christian commonwealth (hence the subtitle: “The matter, forme, & power of a common-wealth ecclesiasticall and civill”). To read Hobbes as a secular theorist unconcerned or hostile to religion requires not only ignoring the historical context in which Hobbes was writing during and responding to in his works, but even more, to ignore his own words. While many of Hobbes's ideas about theology were certainly heterodox for his time, this very heterodoxy strengthens the case for Hobbes as a deeply committed political theologian."

2020

2014