Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T17:27:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Marcelo Martins Bueno.pdf: 642296 bytes, checksum: f5683cd88801763d6a1fe266d2de9a1d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-05-21 / We intend with this work to offer an analysis and an interpretation of the origin of the concept of freedom in Thomas Hobbes's thought, at the beginning of science in the 17th century. The text gives a scenery of the history of science, distinguishing the Aristotelian physics main ideas that will be the objective of the new science, going by the medieval age up to the Scientific Revolution. In this aspect, we will analyze exclusively in the physics field and, more precisely, in the movement as understood in Galileu Galilei's thought and Descartes that Hobbes will take as paradigm for his philosophy. Our work will start with the appropriation of the tradition of the modern science, more specifically the reflections on the movement that resulted in the inertia principle and we will identify the main ideas in the English philosopher's political theory, mainly the ones which refer to the conception of freedom, as being shaped in the ideals of that new way of facing knowledge. For that reason we begin with the reading of the author's commentators to verify, in a first moment, if Hobbes was influenced or not by the new discoveries of the science of that period and with this premise we try to understand how the problem of freedom was treated in the theoretical English politician's works. With the new science as paradigm, we will show how the concept of freedom is in syntony with the conception of movement of that period, as freedom, for Hobbes, means the absence of opposition, identifying in this way, the genesis of this concept as a result of the reflections that happened in the movement in the 17th century. Distinguishing the concept of freedom and understanding it as a complex theme, we intend to understand as the author will deal with men's life in society, with all limitations imposed by a State that necessarily needs to have its unlimited power to guarantee peace and safety and even so assure the individual freedoms. With this view in mind we try to understand that, for Hobbes, State is a human creation, that is, artificial and necessarily needs to have its power so that society is organized and the freedom guaranteed. Then, the monarchic and unlimited power proposed by Thomas Hobbes should be understood as a result of a general will, that is, it is not treated here the individuals' will, but that the political representatives acted to accomplish the will of the individuals, in other words, State should be understood as the individuals' creation for their representation. Therefore, the political theory proposed by the thinker should be understood not only in an absolutist manner, but as a true theory of supreme power / Pretende-se, com o presente trabalho, oferecer uma análise e uma interpretação da origem do conceito de liberdade no pensamento de Thomas Hobbes, à luz da ciência nascente do século XVII. O texto se inicia dando um panorama da história da ciência, destacando os principais pontos da física aristotélica, que será o grande alvo da nova ciência, passando pelos medievais até culminar com a Revolução Científica. Neste aspecto, realizar-se-á um recorte exclusivamente no campo da física e, mais precisamente ainda, na conceituação de movimento no pensamento de Galileu Galilei e Descartes que Hobbes tomará como paradigma para sua filosofia. Da apropriação da tradição da ciência moderna, mais objetivamente das reflexões sobre o movimento que resultou no princípio de inércia, serão identificados os principais pontos na teoria política do filósofo inglês, principalmente no que se refere à concepção de liberdade, como sendo moldada nos ideais daquela nova maneira de encarar o conhecimento. Para tanto, a partir da leitura de comentadores do autor, verificar-se-á, num primeiro momento, se Hobbes foi ou não influenciado pelas novas descobertas da ciência setecentista, que em tese admite-se que sim, e desta premissa compreender como foi tratado o problema da liberdade nas obras do teórico político inglês. Tendo a nova ciência como paradigma, será demonstrado como o conceito de liberdade está em sintonia com a concepção de movimento daquele período, uma vez que liberdade, para Hobbes, significa a ausência de oposição, identificando, desta forma, a gênese deste conceito como resultado das reflexões que ocorreram sobre o movimento no século XVII. Destacando o conceito de liberdade e entendendo-a como um tema complexo, objetivase compreender como o autor dará conta da vida dos homens em sociedade, com todas as limitações impostas por um Estado, que necessariamente precisa ter seus poderes ilimitados para garantir a paz e a segurança e mesmo assim assegurar as liberdades individuais. E nesta perspectiva, compreender que, para Hobbes, o Estado é fruto da criação humana, ou seja, artificial, e necessariamente precisa-se ter um poder maior para que de fato a sociedade seja organizada e a liberdade garantida. Assim, o poder monárquico e ilimitado proposto por Thomas Hobbes deve ser entendido como resultado de uma vontade geral, isto é, não se trata aqui de realizar a vontade dos indivíduos, mas que os representantes políticos agissem para realizar a vontade da unidade dos indivíduos, ou seja, o Estado deve ser compreendido como criação dos indivíduos para sua representação. Por isso, a teoria política proposta pelo pensador deve ser entendida não simplesmente como absolutista, pois trata-se de uma verdadeira teoria da soberania

當今現實主義理論學派正面臨著一種淺碟化的危機，伴隨而來的是現實主義深遠的傳統根基遭受簡化以及忽視。本文企圖藉由重新檢驗現實主義傳統的古典文獻，提出在現實主義中的許多被忽略的問題。本文重新定位與評析現實主義之主要理論傳統，包括修昔底德傳統、奧古斯丁傳統、馬基維利傳統、以及霍布斯傳統等四大傳統。此外，本文亦將討論上述四項傳統理論的遺緒。吾人以為，當今現實主義學派的主流理論途徑，存在著嚴重的內在邏輯問題，同時這些問題影響著當代的國關研究。主流學者過度關注於特定版本的霍布斯傳統，因而輕視其它於此理論學派中同等重要的途徑之可能性。同時，透過本文對於現實主義理論傳統多元性與豐富性之展現，本文也指出部分擁簇常識現實主義(commonsense Realism)的學者們，事實上已模糊化現實主義的理論本質。針對上述各種內在的理論問題，作者冀望以本文採一種重新詮釋、重新定位現實主義理論根基的途徑來展現並反省。 / Political Realism is suffering from a crisis of superficialization. The profound traditional roots of Political Realism are being simplified or ignored. This thesis attempts to re-examine the classical texts of Political Realism’s traditions and thus raise questions about some problems in this theoretical programme. Four major traditions which are the Thucydidesian, the Augustinian, the Machiavellian, and the Hobbesian tradition will be re-envisioned and re-appreciated, and their legacies to modern Realists will also be expounded. As this thesis would show, serious inherent logical problems exist in the dominant theoretical approach to Political Realism, which has become pertinent to international relations theory study. Mainstream scholars put too much undue attention on a certain version of the Hobbesian tradition and thus overlook other possibilities which are equally important in formatting this vast theoretical school. By showing the richness and diversity of Political Realism’s tradition, this thesis also suggests that the nature of this theoretical programme is being obfuscated by commonsense scholars. All these inherent theoretical problems will be exhibited in this thesis with an approach to re-appreciate and re-envision the traditional roots of Political Realism.

No description available.

Sur le rapport de Hobbes au monarchisme, les études hobbesiennes font largement consensus : tout au long de sa vie, le théoricien du Léviathan aurait été, disent-elles, un monarchiste convaincu, fidèle à la dynastie anglaise des Stuart. Or le présent travail cherche à ébranler la rigueur de cette thèse traditionnelle. Acquis aux recherches contextualistes de J. Collins, qui ont déjà montré les affinités hobbesiennes à l’égard des politiques anticléricales de Cromwell, il souhaite montrer que de telles affinités dissimulent une intention politique beaucoup plus profonde, celle de la réalisation politique des principes moraux de la loi naturelle. Dans cette perspective, Hobbes serait, sous l’impulsion de la méthode résolutive-compositive, non seulement l’inventeur du premier droit naturel subjectif dans l’histoire de la philosophie politique, mais aussi le théoricien d’une loi naturelle inédite, édifiée sur la rationalité des volontés individuelles. Ainsi, par la publication du Léviathan en 1651, Hobbes n’aurait pas exprimé ses affinités politiques pour la monarchie anglaise renversée : il aurait plutôt dévoilé son projet politique d’instituer une souveraineté politique qui repose sur le consentement rationnel de tous les sujets. Monarchiste dans sa jeunesse, Hobbes serait alors devenu, en élaborant sa science politique, partisan d’un régime politique que l’on pourrait nommer démocratie de la raison positive. / On Hobbes’s relationship to the monarchy, Hobbes Studies make a general consensus: throughout his life, the theorist of the Leviathan would have been a convinced monarchist, faithful to the English dynasty of the Stuart. This work seeks to undermine the rigor of this traditional thesis. Inspired by the contextualist research of J. Collins, which have already shown the Hobbesian affinities towards the anticlerical policies of Cromwell, it wants to show that such affinities hide a much deeper political intention: the political realization of the moral principles of natural law. In this perspective, Hobbes would be, at the instigation of the resolutive-compositive method, not only the inventor of the first subjective natural right in the history of political philosophy, but also the theorist of a new natural law, built on the rationality of all individual wills. So, with the publication of the Leviathan in 1651, Hobbes would not have expressed his political affection for the overthrown English monarchy: he would rather have revealed his political project to establish a political sovereignty based on the rational consent of all subjects. Monarchist in his youth, Hobbes would then have become, with the elaboration of his political science, a supporter of a political system that could be named democracy of the positive rationality.

O trabalho procura analisar o sentido de história no Behemoth ou Longo Parlamento de Thomas Hobbes a partir das referências aos antigos. Para isso, o pensador é colocado em seu contexto social, político e cultural. Com o objetivo de perceber as redes de leitura que atravessam a obra, são contrapostos autores modernos e antigos, assim como os discursos – humanista, religioso e político - que permeiam a obra. Como um autor político, preocupado com seu tempo, o discurso da guerra e do medo iminente da volta ao estado de natureza estão presentes em sua narrativa. Entre o contingente da história e o universal da ciência civil, o uso dos antigos deve servir à paz do Estado. / The work analyzes the meaning of history in the Behemoth or the Long Parliament by Thomas Hobbes from references to the ancients. For this, the thinker is placed in its social, political and cultural. In order to understand the reading networks that permeate the work, are contrasted ancient and modern authors, as well as the speeches - humanist, religious and political - that permeate the work. As a political writer, concerned with their time, the discourse of war and fear of imminent return to the state of nature is in his narrative. Among the contingent and the universal history of civil science, the use of the ancients serve the peace of the State.

O trabalho procura analisar o sentido de história no Behemoth ou Longo Parlamento de Thomas Hobbes a partir das referências aos antigos. Para isso, o pensador é colocado em seu contexto social, político e cultural. Com o objetivo de perceber as redes de leitura que atravessam a obra, são contrapostos autores modernos e antigos, assim como os discursos – humanista, religioso e político - que permeiam a obra. Como um autor político, preocupado com seu tempo, o discurso da guerra e do medo iminente da volta ao estado de natureza estão presentes em sua narrativa. Entre o contingente da história e o universal da ciência civil, o uso dos antigos deve servir à paz do Estado. / The work analyzes the meaning of history in the Behemoth or the Long Parliament by Thomas Hobbes from references to the ancients. For this, the thinker is placed in its social, political and cultural. In order to understand the reading networks that permeate the work, are contrasted ancient and modern authors, as well as the speeches - humanist, religious and political - that permeate the work. As a political writer, concerned with their time, the discourse of war and fear of imminent return to the state of nature is in his narrative. Among the contingent and the universal history of civil science, the use of the ancients serve the peace of the State.

O trabalho procura analisar o sentido de história no Behemoth ou Longo Parlamento de Thomas Hobbes a partir das referências aos antigos. Para isso, o pensador é colocado em seu contexto social, político e cultural. Com o objetivo de perceber as redes de leitura que atravessam a obra, são contrapostos autores modernos e antigos, assim como os discursos – humanista, religioso e político - que permeiam a obra. Como um autor político, preocupado com seu tempo, o discurso da guerra e do medo iminente da volta ao estado de natureza estão presentes em sua narrativa. Entre o contingente da história e o universal da ciência civil, o uso dos antigos deve servir à paz do Estado. / The work analyzes the meaning of history in the Behemoth or the Long Parliament by Thomas Hobbes from references to the ancients. For this, the thinker is placed in its social, political and cultural. In order to understand the reading networks that permeate the work, are contrasted ancient and modern authors, as well as the speeches - humanist, religious and political - that permeate the work. As a political writer, concerned with their time, the discourse of war and fear of imminent return to the state of nature is in his narrative. Among the contingent and the universal history of civil science, the use of the ancients serve the peace of the State.

Libertines Real and Fictional in Rochester, Shadwell, Wycherley, and Boswell examines the Restoration and eighteenth-century libertine figure as it appears in John Wilmot, Second Earl of Rochester's Satyr against Mankind, "The Maim'd Debauchee," and "Upon His Drinking a Bowl," Thomas Shadwell's The Libertine, William Wycherley's The Country Wife, and James Boswell's London Journal, 1762-1763. I argue that the limitations and self-contradictions of standard definitions of libertinism and the ways in which libertine protagonists and libertinism in general function as critiques of libertinism. Moreover, libertine protagonists and poetic personae reinterpret libertinism to accommodate their personal agendas and in doing so, satirize the idea of libertinism itself and identify the problematization of "libertinism" as a category of gender and social identity. That is, these libertines misinterpret-often deliberately-Hobbes to justify their opposition and refusal to obey social institutions-e.g., eventually marrying and engaging in a monogamous relationship with one's wife-as well as their endorsement of obedience to nature or sense, which can include embracing a libertine lifestyle in which one engages in sexual encounters with multiple partners, refuses marriage, and questions the existence of God or at least distrusts any sort of organized religion. Since any attempts to define the word "libertinism"-or at least any attempts to provide a standard definition of the word-are tenuous at best, it is equally tenuous to suggest that any libertines conform to conventional or standard libertinism. In fact, the literary and "real life" libertines in this study not only fail to conform to such definitions of libertinism, but also reinterpret libertinism. While all these libertines do possess similar characteristics-namely affluence, insatiable sexual appetites, and a rebellion against institutional authorities (the Church, reason, government, family, and marriage)-they often misinterpret libertinism, reason, and Hobbesian philosophy. Furthermore, they all choose different, unique ways to oppose patriarchal, social authorities. These aberrant ways of rebelling against social institutions and their redefinitions of libertinism, I argue, make them self-satirists and self-conscious critics of libertinism as a concept.

Governmental sovereignty is created and maintained by mutual respect for the rule of law by the government and citizens. To maintain legitimacy, a government must act within the bounds of the contract that created it. Otherwise, the relationship founded by said contract would be nullified, as would the duties and obligations that flow from that relationship. Torture exemplifies an ultra vires act used by the United States to show the consequences of over-extended authority on political legitimacy and the rule of law. Founded on the philosophies of Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, and Christine Korsgaard, this research investigates the nature of a government, its authority, and the laws that it must obey. By considering the role of a government as an artificial man or a representative agent, I argue that regardless of the limits or lack thereof for governmental power, the self-interest of a government illegalizes any action that violates its founding documents. If a government does commit such an act, the rule of law is negatively affected, and political legitimacy and authority are damaged. This behavior, when repeated and unamended, will destroy the relationship between the people and their government, diminish the contract, and return the people to a state of nature.

Although the natural philosophy of Margaret Cavendish is eclectic and uncustomary, it offers an important critique of contemporary scientific methods, especially mechanism and experimentalism. As presented in Observations upon Experimental Philosophy and Blazing World, Cavendish's natural philosophy incorporates rationalistic and subjective elements, urging contemporary natural philosophers to recognize that pure objectivity is unattainable through any method of inquiry and that reason is essential in making sense and use of scientific observation. In addition to its scientific implications, Cavendish's three-tiered model of matter presents interesting sociopolitical associations. Through her own use of metaphor and her theoretical fusion of matter and motion, Cavendish confronts the masculinist metaphors and implications of mechanism. Through the dramatization of her model of matter in the narrative Blazing World, Cavendish exposes the theoretical failings of contemporary methods and legitimizes her alternative to pure experimentalism. By envisioning a new planet to place the utopia of Blazing World, Cavendish actively uses the rational functions of the mind, showing that reason and rational matter are above all else in natural philosophy. Although Cavendish's scientific theory in some ways promotes the participation of women in natural philosophy, it becomes complicated as she simultaneously reinforces her social biases and urges a traditional class system with a monarchical government. Cavendish actively separates the gender constraints in philosophical inquiry from the social limitations placed on the lower classes to promote herself and other aristocratic women in the pursuit of natural philosophy, urging that the rational realm, where all sexes are equal, should govern scientific investigation.