“‘King Hereafter’” posits Shakespearean theater as a gateway between Reformation England’s suppressed desire to rid itself of monarchy and that desire’s expression in the 1649 execution of King Charles I. Specifically, I argue that Macbeth darkly manifests a latent Protestant fantasy in which the kings of the earth are toppled in a millenarian coup. Revolution- and Restoration-era writers John Milton and William Davenant attempt to liberate or further repress Macbeth’s apocalyptic republicanism when they invoke the play for their respective causes. Shakespeare’s text resists appropriation, however, pointing up the blind spots in whatever form of sovereignty it is enlisted to support. I first analyze Macbeth (1606) in its original historical context to show how it offers an immanent critique of James I’s prophetic persona. Macbeth’s tragic foreknowledge of his own supersession by Banquo’s heirs mirrors James’s paradoxical effort to ground his kingship on apocalyptic promises of the demise of earthly sovereignty. Shakespeare’s regicidal fantasy would be largely repressed into the English political unconscious during the pre-war years, until John Milton drew out the play’s antimonarchical subtext in The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates (1649). Yet the specter of an undead King Charles, I argue in chapter two, haunts Milton just as Banquo’s ghost vexes Macbeth because Milton’s populist theory of legitimate rule continues to define sovereignty as the right to arbitrary violence. In chapter three, I show how Sir William Davenant’s Restoration revision of Macbeth (c.1664) reclaims the play for the Stuart regime by dramatizing Hobbes’s critique of prophetic enthusiasm. In enlarging upon Macduff’s insurgency against the tyrant Macbeth, however, Davenant merely displaces the rebellious potential of the rogue prophet onto the deciding sovereign citizen. Finally, my fourth chapter argues for Milton’s late-career embrace of Shakespearean equivocation as a tool of liberty in Samson Agonistes (1671). Samson’s death “self-killed” and “immixed” among his foes in a scene of apocalyptic destruction challenges the Hobbesian emphasis on self-preservation and the hierarchical structures on which sovereignty itself depends for coherence. Milton’s mature eschatological vision of the end of sovereignty coincides with his artistic acceptance of the semantic and generic ambiguities of Shakespearean drama. / text

Contemporary Hobbesian contractarianism began in the wake of John Rawls' revitalization of contractarianism in A Theory of Justice and the subsequent body of critical literature which has grown up around it. Philosophers have been impressed with Rawls' powerful application of a contractarian framework to traditional issues in moral and political philosophy but dismayed at the extensive normative precommitments of his particular contractarian theory. They have thus sought an equally powerful contractarian approach unwed to strong normative precommitments. Of all extant contractarian theories, Thomas Hobbes' theory in Leviathan uniquely constitutes such an approach. Like all contractarians, Hobbes specifies a hypothetical choice problem consisting of a choice environment, a choice problem, and a method of resolution. But Hobbes' choice environment purports to make virtually no substantive normative precommitments. The strength of Hobbesian contractarianism is that it seeks to generate substantive normative conclusions from premises established in a normatively minimalistic theoretical framework, and thus promises not to beg any fundamental normative questions. This dissertation considers in detail three comprehensive and game-theoretically sophisticated books which are central to the current corpus of contemporary Hobbesian contractarianism. These are Jean Hampton's Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition, Gregory Kavka's Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory, and David Gauthier's Morals by Agreement. We explain the common denominators and points of divergence among these theories while undertaking an extensive critical investigation of each. Two fundamental themes emerge from these investigations. First, Hobbesian contractarianism tends to run afoul of collective action problems at various levels of its overall argument. Collective actions problems arise when the requirements of individual and collective rationality diverge. Second, the normative minimalism which is heralded as the primary virtue of Hobbesian contractarianism is also revealed as one of its fundamental problems. By minimalizing its normative precommitments, Hobbesian contractarianism undermines its ultimate goal of generating powerful normative conclusions.

本文檢閱霍布斯與洛克兩人政治理論的政治與宗教背景，以幫助理解他們的政治理論與神學教義之間的相互影響。在當時的智識脈絡中，兩人各自擁有對於自然狀態和自然法的不同看法。對於自然法的看法與盟約神學結合，影響到兩位的盟約論或契約論。本文的核心則是這些神學議題如何影響他們對於主權者或是政府的看法。最後，討論兩人所密切關懷的宗教容忍議題，以及往後學者所延伸出的現代性議題。 身為一位虔誠的安立甘宗教徒，霍布斯使用《聖經》以及神學教義來補充並闡明其政治理論。他使用該隱的《聖經》例子說明自然狀態的意義。霍布斯的自然法理論繼承唯意志論傳統，而非唯理智論傳統。這說明他的自然狀態與自然法都與希臘哲學的自然概念大相逕庭。此外，唯意志論也說明自然權利出自於上帝的命令，即自然法。唯意志論和盟約論神學一起塑造出霍布斯的主權者概念。因為主權者具有政治的身體，所以他是人世間的中保，也是國家意志的代表。霍布斯強調得救唯一所需的是相信耶穌是基督，但是他也強調基督的王國不在此世。主權者必須同時作為國家與教會的元首，以避免因神學爭執所引發對於和平與秩序的威脅。 身為一個清教徒，洛克結合他的信仰發展出一種為人民主權和革命權利辯護的政治理論。這造就了他獨特的神學政治觀。首先，他藉由基督教神學家的自然法理論說明人的天(神)賦政治權利。而且為了避免唯意志論和唯理智論的極端，他採取一種中間路線的托瑪斯主義。第二，洛克的盟約神學和奧體概念強調人民的「同意」。人民同意組成一個「政治的身體」。洛克認為律法和恩典具有同等重要性，相應地，他也主張政治體的法律體現了形塑政治體的契約。最後，洛克的宗教寬容觀念以及政教關係理論也支持著人民的天賦政治權利理論。 霍布斯與洛克都示範了：如何能夠獨立思考《聖經》，並且以一套神學政治論述來同時實現屬世與屬靈的美好生活。每個人都必須同時面對自己的政治身份，也要思考自己在宗教中的生命意義。當兩者和諧地結合時，一個人才能真正獲得和平與幸福。霍布斯和洛克的神學政治觀值得我們參考與借鏡。 / This paper reviews the political and religious background of theory introduced by Thomas Hobbes and Locke, to realize the interplay between their political theory and theological doctrine. They hold distinct viewpoints upon state of nature and natural law in the intellectual context at that time, and the combinations of natural law concepts and covenant theology influenced their covenant theory and contract theory. The focus of this paper is how these theological issues influenced their viewpoints about sovereign or the government. At last, this paper discusses the issue of religious tolerance they both concern closely, and the issue of modernity extended by the successive scholars. As a devout Anglican, Thomas Hobbes supplements and clarifies his political theory by the Bible and theological doctrine. He cites the story about Cain in the Bible to explain the state of nature. Rather than intellectualism, the theoretical basis of Hobbes’ natural law follows that of conventional voluntarism, which implies that the state of nature and natural law are widely distinct from the concept of nature in Greek philosophy. In addition, voluntarism proposes that natural right comes from the command of God, i.e.,natural law. Voluntarism and covenant theology together constitute Hobbes’ conceptualization of sovereign. Since the sovereign possesses “body politic”, he is the “mediator” of the world and the representative of state will. Hobbes emphasizes the unum necessarium (sole necessity) of salvation is to believe in that “Jesus is the Christ”, but also that “the kingdom of Christ is not of this world.” The sovereign serves as the head both of church and state in order to avoid the threat against peace due to theological controversy. As a Puritan, Locke intends to develop a political theory apologized by popular sovereignty and right of revolution, which forms his unique viewpoint of theological politics. He firstly illustrates the inborn political right of human beings through the natural law theory, and to avoid the extremes of voluntarism or intellectualism, he adopts the hybrid Thomism with compromise. In addition, the concept of covenant theology and mystical body introduced by Locke emphasizes the “consent” of the people that sets the basis for body politic. Locke considers that the law and grace of the God are equivalently important, accordingly, he suggests that the law of body politic concretizes the contract shaping the body politic as well. Furthermore, the concept of religious tolerance and theory of relationship between religion and politics support the inborn political right of the people. Hobbes and Locke demonstrate: How to independently reflect on “Bible”, and simultaneously actualize the beautiful life of worldliness and spiritualism by the discourse of theological politics. Everyone has to think of the political identity, and the meaning of life in religions as well. When the two parts combine harmoniously, one can truly gain sense of peace and happiness. The viewpoints of theological politics done by Hobbes and Locke are worth to be referred.

One of the most important factors for creating the sustainable society is that the individuals in that society behave in an environmentally sustainable fashion. Yet achieving appropriate behavior in any society is difficult, and the challenge is no less with regards to sustainability. Three of the most important factors for determining behavior have recently been highlighted by psychologists: personal efficacy, social influence, and internal standards. Because these three factors play a prominent role in behavior, it is necessary to examine what role they play in creating sustainability and how they may be utilized to achieve optimal behavior patterns. Ultimately, in order to achieve sustainability solutions must focus on individual action, realistic governmental regulation, and sustained, direct encounters with the natural world. While much time and energy has been spent on social influence and personal efficacy, less has been devoted to internal standards and this area needs more attention if there is to be any realistic attempt at creating proper behavior patterns.

It is a topos of postmodern law and political philosophy to speak about the "change" of the concept of sovereignty, and to put the current forms of state existence in opposition to the "classical" theory of sovereignty. The theoretical content of this "classical" doctrine is too easy identified with the empirical reality of the Westphalian state system and understood as an apotheosis of the autonomous, independent states and legal systems. In this thesis I have therefore tried to investigate the logical core of the doctrine of sovereignty of two important political philosophers of the 17th century, Thomas Hobbes and Samuel Pufendorf. Based on the analysis of the central works of both authors, in the light of the latest research, the work shows that their understanding of sovereignty can only be understood with the help of the analysis of the concept of fictitious (or fictitiously) created artificial (moral) person. Sovereignty is no term for an empiricial force or violence, but the name for an imaginative absolute power that is connected to the artificial sphere of fictitious legal reality which is radically separated from the empirical world. The "sovereign power of the Commonwealth" is related to the fictional character of the state, which is identical to the concept of people (populus). The...

Orientador: Ricardo Monteagudo / Banca: Yara Frateschi / Banca: Marcos Tadeu Del Roio / Resumo: O objetivo desse trabalho é entender a presença da ciência hobbesiana de matriz mecânicofisica na constituição das paixões humanas no interior da filosofia de Thomas Hobbes, em outras palavras, trata-se de compreender em que medida a filosofia natural pode auxiliar na melhor compreensão da filosofia política. A partir disso, procurar entender o posicionamento de alguns intérpretes que são críticos dessa abordagem. E finalmente, dessa consideração da relação entre ciência e moral, mostrar o papel que duas paixões em especial, a saber, o medo e a esperança, possuem no processo que afasta a guerra de todos e constrói a paz política. / Abstract: This work aims at understanding the presence of a mechanically and physically-based hobbesian science the constitution of human passions within the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. In other words, we look for understanding how the natural philosophy can enable a better comprehension of political philosophy. As a consequence, we intend to understand the positions taken by some interpreters who are critical of such approach. Finally, from the considerations regarding the relationship between moral and science, we try to show the roles which two passions in particular, i.e., fear and hope, play in the process of natural war abandonment and of political peace construction. / Mestre

Hobbes opera um arranjo argumentativo de forma a estruturar um novo esqueleto conceitual dos termos principais do seu original projeto politico-filosófico. O presente trabalho pretende dar conta de percorrer o labirinto argumentativo, que envolve a inclusao e a exclusao dos ambitos de validade entre lei natural e lei positiva. A trajetória intelectual hobbesiana é permeada por definições contrastantes entre termos e atua na direção de fazer com que uma possvel contenda sobre a extensao ou preeminencia entre os termos se dissipe, afrouxando a contraposição entre eles. Imagina-se ter um ganho de compreensao desse n6 com que amarra a lei natural e a lei civil, atendo-se a s suas articulaC6es. A exposição visa apontar alguns elementos-chaves da tessitura fina da relação entre lei natural e lei positiva, como, por exemplo, razão natural, razão soberana, ação e intenção, direito de resistência,"silencio da lei". Utiliza-se de partes da peça Antígona de Sófocles para ilustrar alguns dos seus pontos, somando a ela interpretações modernas que podem ser sugestivas do movimento teórico hobbesiano. Identifica-se, ao final, na literatura crtica, várias afirmações dos interpretes quanto a s reconciliações conceituais com que Hobbes opera e sugere-se que esse pode tambem ser o caso na relação entre lei natural e lei civil. Alem disso, propõe-se que esses elementos-chaves podem ser as pistas para percorrer esse labirinto argumentativo. / Hobbes makes a theoretical arrangement in order to structure a new skeleton of conception from main terms of his political and philosophical original project. The present text intends to search his theoretical labyrinth, which involves the spheres of inclusion and the exclusion between law of nature and civil law. The Hobbes~ way of argue is building with contrast definitions, but he pleads they are no antagonism. The author seeks understand how the links between right of nature and civil right are articulated. For this, he exposes key elements as natural right, reason of commonwealth, action and intention, right of self-defence, "silence of law". He lays hold of Antigone by Sofocles and modern interpretations hereof illustrate points of this presentation. In the end, it is showed opinions of specialists, who mention conceptual reconciliations in his system. It is suggested that conceptual reconciliation meet the case to describe the relationship between law of nature and civil law and also, the key elements are the traces to roam about his theoretical labyrinth.

This thesis examines the question of how primitive states form. The first part of the thesis defines a state. I then analyse Hobbes�s Theory of the Commonwealth by Acquisition (TCA), expounded in Leviathan. I conclude that this theory fails as an answer to the question of how primitive states form as it suffers from at least five major flaws. I go on to explain, modify and correct Hobbes�s TCA through techniques that have been used in modern critiques of Hobbes�s Theory of the Commonwealth by Institution. The result is the strongest possible answer that Hobbes can give to the question of how primitive states form. I conclude that his attempt fails as even if the technical aspects of his theory can be fixed, the overall problem of empirical falsification occurs. I then put forward my own theory, based on the modified Hobbesian theory. The major innovation is the replacement of individuals with groups in the Hobbesian State of Nature. This move answers the problem of empirical falsification, at least initially. The theory also helps to explain several of the more technical problems with Hobbes�s theory. The resulting theory is a Hobbesian theory of primitive state formation. The next step in the thesis is to match the Hobbesian theory of primitive state formation to the empirical evidence of primitive state formation, represented by anthropology. I analyse the anthropological literature and put forward that at least one recent research program in anthropology matches my Hobbesian theory of primitive state formation. I conclude that Hobbesian theory, based on the TCA can be successfully modernised into a plausible answer to the question of how primitive states formed.

The period of English history between the second Civil War and the Restoration opened up seemingly unlimited possibilities for shaping the country�s future. The period likewise witnessed an unprecedented surge of political imagination, a development which is particularly visible in Interregnum utopianism. More than ever before, utopianism orientates itself to a hopeful and expectant reality. It is no longer fictional or contemplative. Its ambitions and fulfilment are political; there is a drive towards active political participation. Utopianism reshapes its former boundaries and reinvents itself as reality utopianism. Considering this new reality-orientated identity, the utopias of the 1650s are especially useful in providing an insight into the political imagination of this period. This thesis studies three reality utopias of the 1650s: Winstanley�s The Law of Freedom, Harrington�s Oceana and Hobbes�s Leviathan. Each work represents a uniquely different utopian vision: Winstanley imagines an agrarian communism, Harrington revives classical republicanism, and Hobbes stresses absolute sovereignty. These three different utopian visions not only illustrate the range of the political imagination; they provide an opportunity to examine different ways to deal with the existing political and social concerns of the Interregnum and different perspectives for ideal solutions. Interregnum utopianism is shaped by the expectations and violence of the English Revolution and accordingly it is characterised by the heightened hopes and fears of its time. Despite substantial differences in the three utopias, the elemental hopes and fears expressed in these works remain similar. The hope for change and a better future is negotiated textually with a fear of anarchy and violence. In the end a compromise between opportunity and security has to be found. It is this compromise that shapes the face of Interregnum utopianism and reflects a major aspect of the post-revolutionary political imagination in England.

Notion irréductible de notre univers politique, la souveraineté semble aujourd’hui dépassée, et appelée à céder sa place à d’autres modes de représentation de l’État et de la collectivité. Pourtant, les difficultés liées à son dépassement recèlent le fait que ce concept n’a rien en réalité rien d’évident : abstraite et mystérieuse, la souveraineté l’est par nécessité. Le cœur de cette abstraction, fossile théologico-politique, fonde sa légitimité. Ainsi, la souveraineté est surtout le produit d’un refoulement des sources et de la nature violente de l’autorité vers le Tiers autoritaire, notion médiane caractérisant la nécessaire conceptualisation de l’autorité légitime comme troisième terme institutionnalisé de la relation entre celui qui exerce l’autorité et celui qui la subit. Ce Tiers, au sortir de la théologie médiévale, s’est d’abord incarné dans le concept de Corps ; le corps de l’État dérive en droite ligne du corps du Christ d’abord, de celui de l’Église ensuite, et a offert à l’autorité, alors pensée sur un registre hétéronome, divin et naturel, un écrin la liant à une légitimité et une nécessité naturelles. Le mythe du Corps, pourtant, va petit à petit devenir celui du Père au fur et à mesure de la constitution de l’État, et singulièrement de la monarchie absolue. Le Père campe alors le caractère nécessaire de l’autorité devant être exercée par le créateur sur sa chose créée, mais permet de continuer dans le même temps à faire bénéficier les structures existantes de l’empreinte théologique représentée sur terre par des mandataires héréditaire – les princes. L’institutionnalisation de l’État, et la relative stabilité qui va en découler, va toutefois fournir le cadre apte à permettre à une pensée du sujet d’émerger, faisant naître des concepts qui, tels la multitude et le peuple, posent de plus en plus directement la question de la légitimité par la prise en compte de la volonté de ceux sur lesquels elle s’exerce. C’est ainsi que naîtront les théories du pacte social, qui tentent chacune à leur manière de concevoir un moment méthodologique où l’octroi du pouvoir soit a été cédé dans le passé, soit est toujours exercé par le peuple à chaque instant. Le mythe du contrat, ainsi, est celui par lequel la légitimité de l’autorité est conciliée avec l’origine du pouvoir. Cette liaison est rendue possible par le meurtre du Père, c’est-à-dire la suppression de l’autorité naturelle et nécessaire au profit d’une autorité conventionnelle et contingente. Or, le mythe du contrat est fragile ; il nécessite, pour juguler le flux de contingence qui émerge dès lors que la question de la légitimité se pose, que la question de la nature du pouvoir soit dûment maîtrisée. Cela demande que l’autorité ne prenne pas sa source dans le repli sur le présent permanent, c’est-à-dire sur le peuple, mais sur un critère de représentativité. Cela nécessite surtout un refoulement conscient de la nature et de l’origine de l’autorité vers un sur-moi qui constituera, à l’apogée de la modernité, le cœur abstrait de la notion de souveraineté. Or cette conception de l’autorité se fissure elle-même sous le poids d’une contingence qui, comme flux permanent, tend par nature à excéder son cadre. A terme, ainsi, l’étiolement de la souveraineté coïncide-t-il avec l’avènement du dogme des droits de l’homme, appelés sur un registre immanent à compenser la perte de sens induite par l’insuffisance de verticalité assumée par la modernité.