02 PARSONS.pdf

Thought and Practice: A Journal of the Philosophical …, 2010

Central to most intellectual debates on political organization is the issue of human nature, for one's understanding of it influences one's prescriptions on how best society can be governed. This paper examines the contractarian theories of Hobbes and Locke in their attempts to identify the conditions for social order. Deploying a critical and comparative method, the paper identifies the failure of the two theories to recognize the complexity of human nature, a complexity which forecloses the plausibility of a descriptive straitjacket. The paper further argues that contrary to Hobbes' pessimism and Locke's optimism towards human nature, the individual has qualities which point to a delicate balance of both. Consequently, the paper highlights the imperatives of social order in a manner that accommodates the complexity of human nature. It concludes that it is on the basis of the appreciation of these dimensions of human nature that we can hope to evolve an enduring social order.

Hobbesian Problematique is an issue raised by a great British philosopher Thomas Hobbes in the 16th century. He raised the issue on how social order is possible that became a Central focus of sociological theorizing. Hobbes postulates what life will be without a government a condition he called the state of nature with a negative conception about human to be wicked and selfish. From the stand point of his postulation, there is suppose to be a mechanism for social order. The state therefore emerges to establish social order with the view of ameliorating the human condition. Inherent in the formation of the state is the notion of social contract. The paper links the ability of the state to perform its responsibility and its acceptability by the populace and the failure of the state to perform its responsibilities that would lead to legitimation crisis.

3. Irrera, E. (2017): Human Interaction in the State of Nature: Hobbes on Respect for Persons and Self-Respect, in G. Giorgini-Elena Irrera (eds.), The Roots of Respect. A Historic-Philosophical Itinerary, cit., pp. 109-130., 2017

Qui autem est fidens,i sp rofecto non extimescit; discrepant enim at imendo confidere (Buth ew ho is full of faith is certainly under no fear; for there is an inconsistency between faith and fear). Abstract: In this chapter Is halla ttempt to identity different forms of respect in Hobbes' state of nature, by wayofanidentification and critical engagement with some of the key notions which, as Ib elieve, inform his views of the mechanism of human interaction: power,r ecognition, honor,e steem and fear.M yg eneral contentionisthat the philosophicalissues of respect for persons and self-respect offer alens through which Hobbes can: (1) describe some features of the state of nature and the aspects which elicit atransition from such astate to the creation of ac ommonwealth; (b)s ome prescriptive indications on how human beings ought to behave towards each other with aview to ac ondition of peace and security .Iwill identify four kinds of respect: esteem, honor,anequalrespect based on fear and one grounded in recognition of each other'sl egitimate needsa nd interests. 1I ntroduction Hobbes'sreflection on human nature and the mechanisms of the constitution of political government exhibits ar ich array of interrelated themesa nd philosoph-icallyproblematic issues. Amongthem, the nature of the epistemic and the agen-tial powers that human beingspossess by nature or acquire over their lifetimes, the individual psychological motivesi nspiring their pursuits, and the strategies of reciprocal interaction thatt hey usuallye nact to prevent conflict.H obbes ex-aminest hese issues and situates them in an elaborate philosophicale difice, set up with the following aim: as ystematic discussion and ar econstruction of the conceptual mechanics that,i nh is view,e nervatet he transition from as up-posedlypre-political condition of human coexistence (which Hobbes notoriously calls the "state of nature")t oacivil society bereft of inner strife.

The purpose of this article is to analyse Hobbes's understanding of democracy. The first part of the article analyses the role of democracy in the social contract. It aims to show how there exists a democratic element at the beginning of the process of social contract, in which the multitude is transformed into a people. However, after the first social contract is made, Hobbes aims to reduce the power of the people by leading the process of social contract on to another level, on which the power of the people is assigned to a representative of the sovereign power, for example a monarch. The second part of the article aims to explain the practical reasons, provided by Hobbes in different parts of his political theory, for his aversion to a democratic form of government. Main reason for this, it is argued, is that democratic government is closest to the unwanted multitude. Thus, in his political theory Hobbes uses democracy to build sovereign power, but does not trust it as a form of government. RESUMEN El propósito de este artículo es analizar la comprensión de Hobbes de la democracia. La primera parte del artículo analiza el papel de la democracia en el contrato social. Su objetivo es mostrar cómo existe un elemento democrático al comienzo del proceso de contrato social, en el que la multitud se transforma en pueblo. Sin embargo, después de que se realiza el primer contrato social, Hobbes pretende reducir el poder del pueblo dirigiendo el proceso del contrato social a otro nivel, en el cual

Forum Philosophicum, 2010

Thomas Hobbes bequeathed to us a comprehensive system, the interpretation of which remains a matter of disagreement even today. In his political theory, he pays most attention to the state community. He deliberates over the reasons for its origin, its decline and fall. Among the more detailed issues dealt with in his reflections, the more important ones are the following: the concept of the state of nature, human motivation, the state of war and peace, as well as considerations concerning the social contract. In order to be consistent in his argument, Hobbes also deals with the analysis of the structures of the state, the division of power and with the functions a state should perform. Due to these deliberations, he finally arrives at the secret of the state's durability. Though it is certainly the case that, since his times, the socio-political situation and circumstances have changed, many of the solutions postulated by Hobbes have not lost their value.

Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 2020

Purpose. The purpose of the study lies in critical reconstruction of Thomas Hobbes's social contract theory as an important principle not only of modern political anthropology, but also of modern and postmodern social projects. As well as, in the unfolding of the fundamentally important both for the newest social-philosophical and philosophical-anthropological discourses of the thesis that each individual is the origin of both personal and institutional freedom and justice, making the contract first of all with himself, with his desires and sorrows and then with other people and the state. Theoretical basis. The principle of social contract offered by Hobbes became a new social, methodologically significant and relevant principle of regulation of activity, which indicates essential for the modern political philosophy and the philosophy of law transition from teleological (ancient and medieval) to legal (modern) ideas of justice. For an in-depth study of the philosophical and anthropological aspects of Hobbes's contractualism, we used the historical-comparative and contextualization method, as well as the works of leading native and foreign researchers of Hobbes, who uphold the provisions on the organic affiliation of fundamental sociophilosophical and philosophical-anthropological questions about the nature of man, the relation of coercion, freedom and justice with the discourse of social contract. Originality. On the basis of a consistent analysis of the anthropological component of Hobbes's theory of social contract, an in-depth understanding of modern contractualism and contemporary discussions in the field of its existential and anthropological component is offered, as well as the thesis that political anthropology is the core of the philosophical anthropology because it makes possible the methodologically important understanding of the basic problems of human existence-the interaction of justice and freedom, self-interest and public good, as well as it quite clearly outlines the ways to overcome the dilemmas of liberalism and communitarianism, individualism and holism. Conclusions. Political anthropology of T. Hobbes constructed in the context of a modern social project, justified the issue of interaction between freedom and justice, which is fundamentally important to nowadays, through the search for such a way of social relations, in which an individual, being in the realm of social existence, would seek to limit his own selfishness and freedom for the sake of the common will of the majority. Thanks to Hobbes, the idea of external humility in disobedience to the inner, of freedom of conscience as a "human and citizen", of an understanding of individual independence, which is not just a permissible but accepted by state power, has been acquired with exceptional theoretical and practical meaning. Thanks to Hobbes's works, the essence (and the falsity of simplified interpretations of the latter's heritage) was revealed by the relationship between the cooperative and the conflicted vision of man.

This article explores the concept and function of power in the philosophy and politics of Thomas Hobbes and the ways in which he has subsequently been read and used. We look at how fear of violent death structures the contract model and how Hobbes mobilizes a spectacle of fear, a 'lesson of fear', to legitimate his system and convince his readers and we discuss his political psychology and the anthropological foundation of his thinking situating man as the eminently dangerous and killable being. Man is basically exposed and vulnerable and this is both the foundation and the selling point of his system. We then move onto his nominalism and the right of interpretation and naming as the premier attribute of sovereignty. It is a monopoly on decision and interpretation rather than violence which preoccupies Hobbes and defines his sovereign. Just like the fragility of flesh is used creatively so is religion both the problem and the solution. Hobbes develops a political theology using a minimalist and politicized definition of religion to block the attempts of religious scholars and proselytes to use religion against the sovereign but he also acknowledges the power of religion to persuade and legitimate so he inscribes the sovereign, the Leviathan, the mortal God, within a religious vocabulary and mysticism. Deep within his mechanistic philosophy a mystic religious core pulses. Hobbes' solution throughout is to turn the problem and source of disorder into the solution and foundation of order. This article explores how he did that.

2007

Hobbes deals mainly with these fundamental problems: how does the state originate and what constitutes its legitimacy? And in dealing with these problems he shows that the civil state originates from the state of nature through a social contract and that its legitimacy rests on the consent of the people. The people agree to lay down their natural “right of all to all” and the right to be ones’ own judge and to transfer it to one man or an assembly of men called the sovereign. By so doing, they give the sovereign legal power to lead the state. Hobbes’ political philosophy has some good insights but there are some doctrines which are not so good, for example, the doctrine that the sovereign does not take part in the contract, and as such, since the people transfer their natural right to him so much so that he makes the law, he is not bound by the law. He has absolute power so much so that whatever he does, he can do no injury to his subjects and his subjects have no right to rebel against him or to remove him from sovereignty. Hobbes’ doctrine on civil society or the state, that the state is created to restrain the passions of man by laying down what is to be followed, is very significant because certainly without the state, men would be doing whatever they feel pleasing to themselves and whatever they feel is suitable for their self-preservation. This would result in a state of anarchy because there would be no one to control anyone and when left to himself, man’s antisocial instincts would make him unable to enjoy even the minimum of peace. He would be at the mercy of fear, vanity, and a lust for power. He would be eternally at war with others, never safe, never sure, haunted by suspicion and hence always ready to strike first