No description available.

Thomas Hobbes first law of nature states that 'each rational man shall and ought to endeavor peace'. Simultaneously, Hobbes first law of nature is perhaps the antithesis of his conception of man in nature (homo naturalis), where man is simply defined as an animal residing in an amoral and arbitrary environment in which every notion of "right and wrong" are connected to the individual's capacity for self-maximizing rationality. In turn, the social creature - zoon politikon - is the contradiction of Hobbes' homo naturalis: he is the impersonated restraint of the impulses and passions that leads him away from a life of an unending state of war into a moral and social community. Hobbes' social and moral creature is the result of a transition involving the creation of a social contract between an arbiter and the masses, binding them together in a shared fate: the excommunication of war and fear into the installment of peace and security. This essay addresses the transition of Hobbes conception of homo naturalis to his implicit understanding of zoon politikon; the transition from the amoral to the moral man. What implications does such a transition have for the egoistic-rational creature? What political and moral obligations are to be found between man and man, and between man and state? Finally, what is rational for the social creature to demand of the state?

No description available.

To the author's knowledge, this is the first systematic study of the concept of enmity in the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Examining this important category does not only elucidate the concept itself, but also provides an opportunity to reconnect fragments of Hobbes's thought that are increasingly being treated as disparate subjects. It is suggested that the notion of enmity can shed further light on related aspects of his political philosophy, including human competitiveness, the roles of fear and trust, the evil of violent death, the status of rebels, and his theory of international relations. In addition, the subject invites a rethinking of Hobbes's place in the history of political thought. It is argued that he was among the first to make enmity a central subject of political philosophy. This seems to be related to Hobbes's break with the traditional notion of natural sociability, as a consequence of which he describes the natural condition of mankind as a war of all against all. Although Hobbes depicts human beings as natural enemies, he holds that enmity does not exclude the possibility of reconciliation; individuals can supposedly overcome their hostility through subjection to a sovereign. These views give rise to a dynamic distinction between public and private enmity, according to which outright hostility can be transformed into private rivalry if human beings renounce their natural right of war. Conversely, subjects become public enemies if they rebel against the sovereign. Hobbes's views on natural enmity and reconciliation also have important implications for his theory of international relations. This thesis particularly highlights the possibility that states can be decomposed and reassembled after a foreign invasion, which precludes wars of annihilation.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.

La thèse porte sur le statut du corps dans la philosophie de Spinoza. Une première partie de la thèse reconstruit la façon dont Spinoza thématise la corporéité, à partir du Court Traité et du problème de l’attribution à Dieu d’une nature étendue. En outre, on démontre aussi que la position qu’on trouve dans l’Ethique est le résultat d’un travail intellectuel qui n’était pas encore accompli au début de l’itinéraire de Spinoza. En particulier, on souligne qu’une meilleure réflexion sur les concepts de partie et du tout, sur la nature des passions et sur le concept de détermination sera essentielle à ce développement. Dans la deuxième partie de la thèse, on considère trois milieux de référence pour situer la pensée spinozienne par rapport aux enjeux de la nouvelle philosophie de la nature de la seconde moitié du XVIIe siècle. D’abord, on reconsidère le statut de la seconde partie des Principes de la philosophie de Descartes et on montre l’infidélité de Spinoza à Descartes sur plusieurs points. Il s’agit d’une infidélité systématique qui témoigne de l’effort spinozien pour donner une cohérence à l’usage du concept cartésien le plus ambigu, celui de détermination. Ensuite, on montre que tout en essayant de poursuivre dans cette ligne, Spinoza peut avoir trouvé chez Hobbes des instruments intellectuels importants. Il s’agit surtout de l’usage que Hobbes fait du concept de mouvement comme véritable essence de tout phénomène physique, dont résulte sa conception du conatus. Cependant, on démontre aussi le désaccord entre la conception hobbesienne de la causalité et la position définitive de Spinoza. A ce propos, on propose de reconsidérer la pensée de Robert Boyle comme l’autre source décisive qui permet à Spinoza de développer sa réflexion physique plutôt du coté de l’activité des corps. Ce faisant, on souligne – en troisième lieu – que Spinoza va s’opposer au développement majeur du cartésianisme de ces années, c’est-à-dire l’occasionalisme, surtout dans la forme que lui avait donnait Arnold Geulincx. / My dissertation examins Spinoza’s account of bodies. I devote the first part of my dissertation to investigating how and why issues linked to the concept of body and, more generally, to physics, become real problems for Spinoza. This leads to the important result of reevaluating the first steps of Spinoza’s philosophical career. I stress the theological context in which, in the Short Treatise (1661 c.a.), the concept of body appeared for the first time as a challenge. How is it possible to demonstrate that the extension is an attribute of God and thus that finite bodies are modifications of God’s infinite substance? In order to answer this question, Spinoza will be forced to work out different further conceptual tools, most notably the mereological part/whole distinction, the status of natural law and the conatus doctrine. My chronological approach shows that the achievements we find in the Ethics (1675) are only the last and most consistent version of Spinoza’s philosophy, which underwrite several major changes through his development. This methodological approach allows us to appreciate several key shifts in Spinoza’s position and thus to frame in a more determinate way the problem of his sources. Firstly, I address the highly debated question of the dependence of Spinoza’s physics on Descartes’ own project. I focus on Spinoza’s attempt to make coherent Descartes’ use of the concept of determination, which turns to be crucial for Spinoza’s own account of physical interactions. As a second step, I explore Spinoza’s relationship with two key figures of the English Modern culture in the pre-Newtonian period: Thomas Hobbes and Robert Boyle. I stress Spinoza’s debt with Hobbes but also the discrepancies between their accounts of causal interactions. In that view, I underline that Robert Boyle provides an important framework to understand Spinoza’s ontology of activity. As a third and final step, I compare Spinoza’s own evolution with the rise of Occasionalism, which was at the same time a chronologically parallel, but philosophically opposite development of Descartes’ project.

Thomas Hobbes é considerado o pai do conceito moderno de Estado. O núcleo de seu pensamento nasce do esforço de construir as bases da convivência a partir da demonstração dos fundamentos racionais da autoridade política. O liame entre o debate contemporâneo, polarizado entre interpretativistas e positivistas, e o pensamento moderno, simbolizado pelo pensamento hobbesiano, identifica-se com a seguinte pergunta: sob qual justificativa devemos obedecer os mandamentos da autoridade ainda que eles nos pareceram injustos? / Thomas Hobbes is considered the father of the modern concept of state. The core of his thinking arises from the effort to build the foundations of acquaintanceship from the demonstration of the rational foundation of political authority. The link between the contemporary debate which is polarized between positivists and interpretativists and the modern thought, which is symbolized by hobbesian thinking relates to the following question: \'Under which justification must we obey the commandments of the authority even if they seemed unfair to us ?

O presente estudo parte da proposta de um pacto narrativo com o leitor, envolvendo uma dupla operação: renunciar, provisoriamente, o formato usual de uma tese dirigida contra ou a favor do pensamento conservador (sem perder de vista o posicionamento político e filosófico em questão), e assumir, enquanto isso, a complexidade da perspectiva de autores que se apropriaram e polemizaram questões políticas e temas filosóficos tendo em vista o seu tempo. Quanto ao gênero em questão, a proposta de desenvolver uma reunião de ensaios procura delimitar as configurações teóricas que permitiram o incremento de um pensamento conservador. A partir das leituras que Carl Schmitt e Leo Strauss estabeleceram sobre a filosofia de Thomas Hobbes, uma das principais problematizações tratadas aqui é a que vê na filosofia hobbesiana a fundação do liberalismo. Para tanto, a questão da adesão ou da separação entre a filosofia política e a filosofia natural torna-se bastante polêmica no tratamento que ambos os intérpretes dão a Hobbes. Como críticos dos rumos da política contemporânea, Schmitt e Strauss entenderam a instauração filosófica do racionalismo moderno como a base teórica que permitiu, a um só tempo, a consolidação de um Estado político que superou a ordem passada, o incremento de um regime absoluto de dominação da sociedade e a abertura que viabilizou, pelo desenvolvimento técnico da nova ciência da natureza e pelo rebaixamento moral da finalidade da vida humana, a ascensão liberal. Como uma tentativa de compreensão da força e das consequências que tais intérpretes tiveram, o presente estudo ainda explora uma recepção crítica brasileira da obra de Strauss que questiona e limita a interpretação da fundação hobbesiana do liberalismo. / This study proposes a narrative pact with the reader, involving a double operation: a temporary renouncement of the usual format of a thesis directed against or in favour of conservative thinking (without losing sight of the political and philosophical positioning in question), and assuming, meanwhile, the complexity of the perspective of authors who take political issues and philosophical subjects aiming at polemizing and debating problems that belong to their own times. As to the literary genre, the proposal of making up a set of essays aims to delimit the theoretical settings that enabled the development of a conservative thought. Considering the interpretations that Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss set out concerning the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, a major question treated here is that which sees the Hobbesian philosophy as the foundation of liberalism. For this purpose, the issue of adherence or separation between political philosophy and natural philosophy becomes quite provocative in the way both authors treat Hobbes. As critics of the contemporary political directions, Schmitt and Strauss consider the settlement of modern philosophical rationalism as the theoretical basis that made at the same time possible the consolidation of a political State that overcame the former order of politics, the instauration of an absolute regimen of domination of the society and, finally, the breach which, through the technical improvement of the new science of nature and the debasement of the moral purpose of human life, made the liberal ascension feasible. As an attempt to understand the strength and the consequences that such interpreters had, this study also explores the Brazilian critical reception of the works of Strauss, which discusses and delimits the interpretation of the Hobbesian foundation of liberalism.

Thomas Hobbes é considerado o pai do conceito moderno de Estado. O núcleo de seu pensamento nasce do esforço de construir as bases da convivência a partir da demonstração dos fundamentos racionais da autoridade política. O liame entre o debate contemporâneo, polarizado entre interpretativistas e positivistas, e o pensamento moderno, simbolizado pelo pensamento hobbesiano, identifica-se com a seguinte pergunta: sob qual justificativa devemos obedecer os mandamentos da autoridade ainda que eles nos pareceram injustos? / Thomas Hobbes is considered the father of the modern concept of state. The core of his thinking arises from the effort to build the foundations of acquaintanceship from the demonstration of the rational foundation of political authority. The link between the contemporary debate which is polarized between positivists and interpretativists and the modern thought, which is symbolized by hobbesian thinking relates to the following question: \'Under which justification must we obey the commandments of the authority even if they seemed unfair to us ?

Thomas Hobbes está preocupado com as consequências do desacordo moral que, segundo ele, impedem as sociedades de viverem em paz, a qual é condição necessária para a garantia uma vida confortável a todos. Para apresentar uma solução a esse problema, o autor começa estudando a condição natural dos humanos, que, sem um poder soberano, vivem em condição de guerra. Depois de alcançar essa conclusão, Hobbes nos mostra como é possível constituir corretamente uma república. Apesar de apresentar o argumento do estado de natureza como sendo o ponto de partida para a instituição da soberania, ele está focado principalmente no seu significado para a estabilidade da república. Hobbes afirma, assim, estar consciente de que as pessoas sempre desejam viver juntas e de que elas têm vivido assim desde sempre. Seu principal interesse está, na verdade, em demonstrar como as pessoas podem viver juntas em paz ao longo do tempo. Hobbes mostra aos seus leitores que a paz só é possível quando os cidadãos conhecem as leis de natureza e estão corretamente motivados a segui-las. Essa tese tem dois objetivos principais: (i) discutir como Hobbes desenvolve sua teoria moral, e como ele conecta essa teoria à lei civil, e (ii) debater sua teoria sobre a natureza humana e a possibilidade de ensinar os cidadãos sobre a necessidade de obedecer ao soberano. Os principais tópicos discutidos e as contribuições que essa tese pode proporcionar estão relacionados à questão da normatividade das leis de natureza e ao impacto que ela pode ter no restante da teoria política de Hobbes, com particular destaque à relação, em uma república, entre moralidade e educação, pois a segunda motiva os cidadãos a seguirem a primeira. / Thomas Hobbes is concerned with the consequences of moral disagreement as, according to him, they prevent societies from living in peace, which is a necessary condition to guarantee a comfortable life to everyone. In order to present a solution to this problem, Hobbes starts studying the natural condition of humans, who, in the absence of a sovereign power, live in a state of war. After reaching this conclusion, Hobbes shows us how it is possible to correctly institute a commonwealth. Despite presenting the argument concerning the state of nature as a starting point to the institution of the sovereignty, he is focused mainly on the state of nature’s meaning to the stability of the commonwealth. Hobbes hence asserts that he is aware that people always desire to live together and have always lived like that. His main interest is actually to demonstrate how people can live together in peace over time. Hobbes shows his readers that peace is only possible when citizens know the laws of nature and are correctly motivated to follow them. This paper has two main aims (i) to discuss how Hobbes advances his moral theory and how he connects it to the civil law, and (ii) to reflect his theory about human nature and the possibility of teaching citizens about the need of obeying the sovereign. The main topics discussed and the contributions this paper may make concern the normativity of the laws of nature and the impact it may have on the rest of Hobbes’s political theory, with particular emphasis on the relation, in a commonwealth, between morality and education, as the latter motivates citizens to follow the former.