This paper is a case study on Bradley E. Manning, famous for leaking classified intelligence to media, or in the charge sheet’s words: “knowingly give intelligence to the enemy, through indirect means.” My opinion is that this sort of dilemma is a question of values, how you view the world and, most important of all, human rights and the philosophy of rights. Therefore I decided to sort out the arguments regarding the issue of freedom of speech versus the state’s need for protection. To do this I performed a pro et contra analysis from John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, this building my theory on which I lean my other work upon. Furthermore, I performed a case study on Manning where I compared the charges and the defense with the arguments of Mill and Hobbes. Ergo: I applied my theory on an existing conflict between freedom of speech and the state’s need for protection to see which arguments that are used in the charge against Manning and if one could derive this from the argumentation analysis consistent of Mill and Hobbes.   Words: 11474

Orientador: Yara Adario Frateschi / Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-26T09:21:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Silva_LuizCarlosSantosda_D.pdf: 1871671 bytes, checksum: 4e4eb0be592c737ddc209125531b3a81 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 / Resumo: No presente trabalho procuro apresentar como o método resolutivo-compositivo ou geométrico estabelece uma relação fundamental entre filosofia natural e política nas bases do pensamento hobbesiano mais sistemático. Nesse registro, busco mostrar como Hobbes entende que as definições geométricas não seriam apenas descritivas ou especulativas, mas também prescritivas e práticas. Por isso, as definições da geometria euclidiana não apenas descreveriam a forma de uma figura estática, mas também prescreveriam um possível modo de geração ou de construção desses objetos. Da perspectiva hobbesiana os axiomas fundamentais da geometria euclidiana podem ser demonstrados, por isso estes postulados devem ser entendidos como princípios de construção ou de autoridade, mais do que de conhecimento. Desse prisma, a geometria euclidiana poderia ser entendida como uma ciência capaz de orientar tanto o entendimento quanto as ações humanas. Com base nisso, procuro mostrar como a filosofia natural e política de Hobbes se funda sobre uma aplicação desse método a uma mesma matéria: os homens e suas paixões. É nesse registro que, no decorrer de todo o presente trabalho, procuro elucidar como as paixões humanas (matéria tanto da filosofia natural quanto da política) são vistas por Hobbes sob a ótica do mesmo método geométrico, mas ora como efeito (do movimento externo que afeta os sentidos humanos) e ora como causa (do movimento voluntário dos homens no mundo). Sob esta perspectiva, procuro evidenciar de que modo o caráter convencional do método hobbesiano se aplica aos termos do contrato social constitutivo de um Estado civil soberano, presente nas bases de uma filosofia que entende as ciências e o próprio conhecimento como sinônimos de poder / Abstract: In this thesis I try to present as the resolutive-compositive or geometric method establishes a fundamental relationship between natural philosophy and policy on the fundamental principle of hobbesian thought. In this sense, I try to show how Hobbes believes that the geometric definitions would not only descriptive or speculative, but also prescriptive and practices. Therefore, the geometry definitions describe not only the form of a static picture but also prescribe a possible way of generation or building these objects. For the Hobbesian perspective the fundamental axioms of Euclidean geometry can be demonstrated, so these postulates must be understood as principles of construction or authority rather than knowledge. From this angle, Euclidean geometry could be understood as a science capable of guiding both the understanding and human actions. These actions regarded both as a knowledge and authority. Based on this, I seek to show how natural philosophy and policy is based on an application of this method to the same matter: men and their passions. In this way, throughout this work I try to elucidate how human passions (matter of natural philosophy and politics) are seen by Hobbes from the perspective of the same geometric method, but sometimes as the effect (of the external movement affects the human senses) and sometimes as cause (the voluntary human movement in the world). From this perspective, I try to show how the conventional character of the Hobbesian method applies to the terms of the constitutive social contract of a sovereign civil State that are present on the basis of a philosophy that understands the science and knowledge itself as power synonymous / Doutorado / Filosofia / Doutor em Filosofia

Justice, and what is just, have been discussed by many with no true definition to go by and both political and moral theories alike have tried to find the right definition of what justice is supposed to be. This study will use three political theories to tackle the question if the american election system can be considered just or unjust. The three theories are John Rawls’s Justice as fairness, Thomas Hobbes and the social contract and lastly Robert Nozick’s libertarianism. To analyse the framing of question a normative ‘givet-att’ analyse method will be used, to form arguments from the values presented in the three different theories of justice. The conclusions drawn from the analysis are in the cases of Rawls and Hobbes theories quite similar, on how the election system should be interpreted. Nozick’s theory on the other hand gives a different conclusion compared to the other two. However, the goal of this study is not to find one true answer to whether the election system can be called just or not, but rather to show it from different perspectives of justice and how that can affect the view of the election system.

In recent years, The Swedish Moderate Party have repeatedly used the term social contract. What do they mean by this concept that has its roots in the philosophers during the Enlightenment? These thinkers lived in a different time with political problems of ther time. To answer the reserach question, the Moderates' new proposal for an idea program has acted as a research object and a discriptive idea analysis have been done on the text. To then analyze this material, different Ideal types have been used that have been inspired by Enlightenment philosophers and given diffrent types of contract theories. Central points of the social contract theory have been examined and similair ideas as to the philosophers has been found in the idea proposal, some more than others. New ideas have also been seen that can be linked to the social contract. Finally, it is discussed whether the concept has to some extent lost its meaning or whether it is relevant that the concept does not mean the same thing today as three hundred years ago.

Deprivation of citizenship is currently used in democratic states to combat international terrorism and constitutes ‘the securitisation of citizenship’. The usage of which is often justified by states as assuring national security. Among scholars, there seem to be a conflict between a perspective of rights and security, where critics usually come from the former. Can citizenship deprivation be justified from a security perspective as a counter-terrorism tool? That question is asked in this thesis. By conducting an interpretative analysis of Hobbes, the question is assessed from a security perspective and the answer is not clear cut. The research shows that even when practices are investigated through a lens of security, they are problematic as they currently stand.

Responde a la siguiente interrogante: ¿Cuáles son los fines que debiera conseguir el Estado desde la perspectiva de Thomas Hobbes? Como se hará patente, tal cuestión resulta profundamente problemática cuando se tienen en consideración los dos escritos políticos hobbesianos anteriores a Leviatán: Elementos de Derecho Natural y Político y De Cive. Sucede que en ambos Hobbes emplea (junto con el concepto de seguridad pública) una serie de categorías de origen greco-latino, tales como las de bien común, felicidad, libertad, ciudad y ciudadano, para establecer los alcances y límites del aparato estatal. No obstante, se defenderá la tesis de que en los tres escritos mencionados es posible identificar (aunque con distintos matices debido a las diferentes estrategias discursivas adoptadas por el autor de Leviatán) una centralidad de la seguridad pública como único objetivo legítimo del Estado, motivo por el cual también resulta posible sostener que Hobbes tiene entre sus pretensiones fundamentales llevar a cabo un desplazamiento de otras metas o fines políticos en tanto que estos resultan ser, desde su perspectiva, meras utopías o amenazas para la paz. Sobre la base de lo anterior, también se explorarán la refutación hecha por Hobbes de las ideas de parlamentaristas, republicanos, niveladores y cavadores; el carácter expansivo adoptado por su aparato estatal en lo que concierne únicamente a la seguridad pública; su abordaje de la guerra y el colonialismo como medios para garantizar la seguridad externa; y la posible conexión que se puede establecer entre las formas de legitimarse tanto del Estado hobbesiano como de los Estados neoliberales contemporáneos. / Tesis

No description available.

Abstract: The purpose of this essay is to analyze how populist parties argue for state authority in a way that resembles Thomas Hobbes’s arguments in Leviathan. Moreover, the essay analyzes the characteristics of human nature studied by Thomas Hobbes connecting it to the importance of the National State. The parties analyzed are Sweden Democrats from Sweden, VOX from Spain and Jobbik from Hungary. The research questions are: 1)How do populist parties argue for state authority?  2) How do their arguments resemble Thomas Hobbes’s arguments for state authority in Leviathan? The theories used are related to the study of Thomas Hobbes described in Chapter 13 and 29 in Leviathan related to human nature and state of authority. Moreover, Cas Mudde and Hellström’s theories are used related to populist parties on the right. The method used is a qualitative method which includes an argumentative analysis which aims to explain the essay’s purposes. In conclusion, the analyzed populist parties share the ideas of Thomas Hobbes related to the state of authority and the decrease of corporations in the National State. In other words, the populist parties argue that the national state must be unity and solid in order to defend its own interest and citizens’ interests.

This thesis has three main aims. The first is to clarify Hobbes's contractualism and to derive the nature, origins and solutions of war from key concepts in Hobbes's theory. The second aim is to analyze whether there is any connection between Hobbes' contractualism and civil war or conflict given that Hobbes grew up when there was civil war in his homeland and he expressed his views on civil war in the book Leviathan. A third aim is to use Hobbes' contractualism to illuminate and try to explain civil conflict in Afghanistan, a country that has been marked by civil conflicts for almost five decades.  For a civil conflict to be classified as an armed conflict, at least one of the parties must be a non-state actor, and Afghanistan is a country where the Taliban is classified as a non-state actor whose aim is to seize state power by force. Afghanistan is a country that is known for its civil conflicts therefore it will be interesting to prefer that country as an example in this work.  When analyzing Hobbes' contractarianism and civil war, Hobbes' book Leviathan was used to explain Hobbes' view on civil war and how the inhabitants can cooperate and sacrifice their natural rights to form a society with a sovereign who can keep peace and make laws that can be beneficial for all the people. The conclusion is that Hobbes makes good arguments in the book Leviathan for how to resolve civil conflicts and how citizens benefit from making peace with each other through a sovereign.

Debatterna om Hobbes och Rousseaus politiska ståndpunkter är långvariga och välpublicerade. Min ambition i denna mylla har varit att koncentrera mig på en fixerad och konstitutiv fråga, nämligen hur deltagande respektive författare tyckte att folket borde vara i fattandet av politiska beslut - sådana svaren formuleras i Leviathan och The Social Contract. Den kontextualistiska metoden synes naturlig för historisk idéanalys, i synnerhet som en betydande del av undersökningen kommer behöva ta itu med hermeneutiska problem: för att ge förståelse åt Hobbes och Rousseaus politiska filosofier är det nämligen nödvändigt att ha kännedom om de kontexter i vilka de formades. Teorin som appliceras är Kuhns teori om paradigm, kompletterad med Foucaults koncept om episteme. Med paradigm respektive episteme menar Kuhn och Foucault ett temporärt a priori-förhållande som definierar den intellektuella räckvidden inom en specifik disciplin. Bakgrunden mot vilken Hobbes Leviathan tolkas är således det stormiga engelska 1600-talet, Richelieus Frankrike (där Hobbes residerade under nästan hela det decennium som föregick skrivandet av Leviathan), hans personliga biografi etc. Kontextualiseringen av The Social Contract inkluderar bl.a. Machiavellis inflytande, Rousseaus personliga biografi, och upplysningen. Hobbes och Rousseau är överens om att suveränen bör ha absolut makt över alla medborgare. Med denna premiss blir frågan hur de definierar suveräniteten central. För Hobbes är suveränen samtliga medborgare sammanfogade till “one and the same Person” i ett förbund där envar avsäger sig sin “Right of Governing” sig själv och transfererar “thy Right to him, and Authorise all his Actions”. Emellertid  tillägger han att folket endast är “made One Person, when they are by one man, or one Person, Represented [...] For it is the Unity of the Representer, not the Unity of the Represented, that maketh the Person One.”  Rousseaus definition av suveräniteten är allmänviljan omsatt i praktik. Skillnaden mellan allas vilja och allmänviljan är att “while the former considers private interest and is merely a sum of particular wills” exkluderar allmänviljan “the pluses and minuses, which mutually cancel each other out” tills endast det gemensamma intresset återstår.  Efter att suveränen etablerats är alla medborgare, enligt Hobbes, förpliktigade att agera unisont i enlighet med de beslut suveränen fattar. I samma anda är suveränen “the sole Legislator”. Sammantaget är Hobbes mening att en person (eller församling) bör vara enväldig beslutsfattare, och att folket, således, inte bör ha något inflytande i politiska frågor. Det är sant att suveränen beskrivs som samtliga medborgare sammanfogade till “one and the same Person”, men då det är tydligt att denne är en faktisk person (eller församling av faktiska personer) och det är “the Unity of the Representer, not the Unity of the Represented, that maketh the Person One” förefaller detta vara av metafysisk innebörd. Övervägande Hobbes svar på frågan - hur deltagande folket borde vara i fattandet av politiska beslut - är det således tydligt att medborgarna inte vid något skede (efter upprättandet av en “commonwealth”) bör vara delaktiga i den politiska beslutsprocessen.  I kontrast till Hobbes menar Rousseau att suveräniteten inte kan representeras. Vidare anser han att “The people subject to the laws should be their author”. Som vi sett är suveräniteten hos Rousseau identisk med allmänviljan omsatt i handling. När allmänviljan ska definieras i en specifik fråga föreslår Rousseau en “assembly of the people” varpå en motion presenteras och var och en “expresses his opinion on this by voting, and the declaration of the general will is taken from the counting of the votes”. Medelst detta system menar han att varje enskild medborgares makt är lika med suveräniteten delat med antalet medborgare. I The Social Contract argumenterar Rousseau följaktligen för att alla medborgare (endast vuxna män) bör vara jämlika i fattandet av politiska beslut. Ställd inför frågan föreslår Rousseau direktdemokratiska och bindande omröstningar - där alla medborgare tillåts rösta och alla röster är likvärdiga.