O presente estudo, que antecede a tradução, procura mostrar como a arte retórica de Thomas Hobbes está presente em toda sua filosofia. Esta presença vai além da utilização de tropos e figuras, conduz o pensamento hobbesiano em suas idéias acerca do homem, das suas paixões, de seu movere, do Estado e de sua manutenção. A arte retórica parece figurar também em sua filosofia natural. O método, que fundamenta todo seu pensamento, deita suas raízes na arte retórica de Aristóteles. O comentário ressalta, sobretudo, a relevância dos textos sobre retórica de Thomas Hobbes para a história da filosofia política moderna, até então pouco pesquisados. / This study, which precedes the translation, intended to show how the art of rhetoric Thomas Hobbes is present throughout his philosophy. This presence goes beyond the use of tropes and figures, leads the hobbesian thought in their ideas about the man, in their passions, in its movere, in the state and its maintenance. The rhetoric art seems also to figure in its natural philosophy. The method, which is the base upon all its thinking, lay down their roots in the rhetoric art of Aristotle. The commentary stands out, over all, the relevance of texts on rhetoric of Thomas Hobbes in the history of modern political philosophy, so far little studied.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-14T12:12:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 1176471 bytes, checksum: df631317a0817981773dca56516fc277 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-12-06 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The primary objective of this study is to define aggression and violence in human beings. Studying aggression and violence philosophically demands a wide range of disciplines such as biology, sociology, and neuroscience as concepts migrating from the biological to the social aspect in order to achieve broad and deep knowledge of the theme. When relating to aggression, we focus on a biological, corporal, genetic and neurobiological dimension; while referring to violence, we address to an exclusively human dimension concerning the language, culture, and society symbols. The study was based on the researcher´s career as a juvenile psychiatrist and his everyday professional experiences with cases involving violence, bullying, psychological and sexual harassment which have affected individuals at that age. Philosophy and other sciences were taken as resources to help to get answers to the following questions: are aggression and violence part of human nature or human condition, or are they historical and social construction? Is there human nature biologically determined? Is it product of human sociogenesis? This is a bibliographic research starting with thoughts of philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau to interact with biological sciences and then return to the two classics of the political philosophy attempting a further synthesis of the theme which incorporates the contributions of sciences. The study consisted of a critical, analytical and systematic reading of biological sciences focusing on etiology, genetics, and neuropsychiatry. The research aims to define and sort out concepts of violence and aggression by counting on the contribution of social sciences as well as some currents of psychoanalysis. It was guided by a mediation between two opposing trends: on the one hand, tending to adopt both concepts; on the other hand, tending to neglect biological conditionings and accept socialization as the only factor leading to violence. According to this perspective, we migrate between philosophy and science with empirical views that highlight the contribution of biology and neuropsychiatry to the study. The purpose of the study is to point out ways and sort out concepts not very well defined in order to determine what is essentially human in the scope of violence and aggression. The study is not expected to give determined answers, but it is believed to have made the topic clear, supporting the thesis that violence is part of human sociogenesis and that it is exclusive to human species and not entirely determined by biological factors, being possibly controlled and administered by the society. Aggression, in turn, is part of our biological inheritance, and its main function is the species survival. Violence is a human product that comprises the society. It has positive aspects as it limits and develops social cohesion; it has negative aspects as it causes human exploitation, generates inequality, and leads to physical and psychological damages restricting freedom. As human production, violence can be both the cause of social problems and their solution. / O estudo tem como objetivo definir agressividade e violência na espécie humana. Estudar a agressividade e a violência do ponto de vista filosófico é uma tarefa que requer a colaboração de várias disciplinas como a biologia, a sociologia e as neurociências, para alcançar a abrangência e a profundidade que o tema merece, porque são conceitos que transitam do biológico ao social. Ao falar de agressividade, entra-se numa dimensão biológica, corporal, genética e neurobiológica enquanto que, ao falar de violência entra-se numa dimensão exclusivamente humana, que remete à linguagem, à cultura e aos símbolos da sociedade. A pesquisa foi motivada pelo fato do pesquisador ser psiquiatra da infância e adolescência e ter vivido em seu cotidiano profissional situações de violência, bullying, abuso sexual e psicológico que atingem esta faixa etária. Esta sua experiência o motivou para procurar na filosofia e nas ciências a resposta a perguntas tais como: a agressividade e a violência fazem parte da natureza ou da condição humana ou são uma construção histórica e social? Existe uma natureza humana determinada biologicamente ou ela é produto da sociogênese humana? Nesse contexto trata-se de uma pesquisa de caráter bibliográfico, que parte do pensamento dos filósofos Thomas Hobbes e Jean-Jacques Rousseau, para dialogar com as ciências biológicas e posteriormente retornar aos dois clássicos da filosofia política e tentar uma nova síntese sobre o assunto que incorpore as contribuições da ciência. O pesquisador buscou fazer uma leitura crítica, analítica e sistemática das ciências biológicas, com relevo para a etologia, a genética e a neuropsiquiatria. A pesquisa pretende definir e separar melhor os conceitos de violência e agressividade, contando com a contribuição das ciências sociais e de algumas correntes da psicanálise. A pesquisa se orientou por uma mediação entre duas tendências opostas: de um lado a tendência à naturalização de ambos os conceitos; do outro, uma negação dos condicionamentos biológicos e o reconhecimento da socialização como único fator que acarreta a violência. Dentro desta perspectiva, não se deixa de transitar entre a filosofia e a ciência, com momentos de empirismo que ressaltam a contribuição da biologia e da neuropsiquiatria para o estudo. O objetivo é apontar caminhos e separar conceitos que não estão bem definidos, pois, assim sendo, pode-se delimitar o que é propriamente humano dentro da esfera da violência e da agressividade. Não pretende-se dar respostas definitivas, porém, acredita-se que o estudo trouxe mais clareza ao tema em questão, ao defender a tese de que a violência faz parte da sociogênese humana, sendo exclusiva de nossa espécie e não sendo totalmente determinada por fatores biológicos, ela pode ser controlada, administrada, pela sociedade. A agressividade faz parte de nossa herança biológica e tem como uma das principais funções a sobrevivência das espécies. A violência é produto humano, instaurando a sociedade. Tem seus aspectos positivos, quando coloca limites e faz funcionar a coesão social; ou aspectos negativos, quando instaura a exploração do homem, gera desigualdades e provoca danos físicos, psicológicos e de limitação de liberdade do outro. Como produção humana, a violência pode ser causa de males sociais, assim como a solução para esses males.

Submitted by Renata Lopes (renatasil82@gmail.com) on 2016-10-06T11:51:10Z No. of bitstreams: 1 rodrigochavesdemellorodriguesdecarvalho.pdf: 375865 bytes, checksum: 02416ee6051281383449855f83e6d645 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Diamantino Mayra (mayra.diamantino@ufjf.edu.br) on 2016-10-06T12:31:40Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 rodrigochavesdemellorodriguesdecarvalho.pdf: 375865 bytes, checksum: 02416ee6051281383449855f83e6d645 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-10-06T12:31:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 rodrigochavesdemellorodriguesdecarvalho.pdf: 375865 bytes, checksum: 02416ee6051281383449855f83e6d645 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-03-18 / A partir da leitura das obras de Thomas Hobbes e Baruch Spinoza, o presente trabalho tem por objetivo refletir sobre a relação entre apropriação do mundo e realização da liberdade humana, vendo-a como uma relação fundamental ao desenvolvimento da filosofia política moderna. Mais especificamente, objetivamos visualizar como uma problemática historicamente secular - a que correlaciona homem, liberdade e desejo (cupiditas) –apresentou-se de forma central no debate filosófico do século XVII, levando-o a solucionar-se em sentidos ontológicos diametralmente opostos. / From the readings of the works of Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza, this MA thesis aims at the analysis of the relation between the appropriation of the world and the realization of human freedom, understanding this relation as a fundamental aspect to the development of modern political philosophy. More specifically, we aimed at seeing how a historically secular problem – related to man, freedom and desire (cupiditas) – is presented in the centre of the philosophical debate from the seventeenth century, leading it to ontological resolutions diametrically opposite.

Thomas Hobbes’s knowledge of religious doctrine, typology, and use religious rhetoric in his writings is often glossed over in an over-eager attempt to establish his preeminence as a founder of modern political theory and the social contract tradition. Such action, however is an injustice to Hobbes himself, who recognized that in order to establish a new, and arguably radical, political position founded upon reason and nominalist materialism he had to reform people’s understanding of religious revelation, and Christianity specifically. Rather than merely move to a new epistemological foundation, Hobbes was aware that the only way to ensure religion does become a phoenix was to examine and undermine the foundations of religious thought in its own terms. This reformation of religious language, critique of Christianity, and attempt to eliminate man’s belief in their obligation to God was done in order to promote a civil society in which religion was servant of the state. Through reforming religious language, Hobbes was able to demote religion as a worldview; removing man’s fear of the afterlife or obligation to obey God over a civil sovereign. Religious doctrine no longer was in competition with the civil state, but is transformed into a tool of the state, one which philosophically founds the modern arguments for religious toleration.

[pt] Thomas Hobbes, ao enunciar, no Leviatã, que a riqueza e prosperidade de todos os membros individuais são a força da república, toma o termo riqueza sob dois sentidos distintos: o de uma coleção de bens — sentido substantivo — e o de poder de obtenção de bens futuros — sentido transitivo. Embora o último, ao longo dos séculos desde Hobbes, tenha-se eclipsado pelo primeiro, a importância fundamental do conceito de crédito no jogo das trocas sociais aponta que uma análise da riqueza que enfatize seu caráter transitivo, em sua relação com a expectativa quanto ao tempo futuro, é necessária para que se possa entender, em toda a sua complexidade, a atribuição de valor aos bens, bem como para realinhar a análise econômica à finalidade da Política. A riqueza, enquanto signo de expressão do poder, refaz, assim, o entendimento da ideia de pobreza, que deixa de denotar essencialmente um estado de escassez material, para ser entendido sobretudo como estado de miséria e servidão. / [en] Thomas Hobbes, when enunciating, in Leviathan, that wealth and riches of all the particular members are the strenght of the Commonwealth, takes the term riches in two distinct senses: that of a collection of goods — a substantive sense — and that of power of obtaining future goods — a transitive sense. Although the latter, over the centuries since Hobbes, has been eclipsed by the former, the fundamental importance of the concept of credit in the dynamic of social exchanges points out that an analysis of riches that emphasizes their transitive character, its relation to the expectation of future time, is necessary in order to understand, in all its complexity, the attribution of value to the goods, as well as to realign the economic analysis to the purpose of the Policy. Riches, as signs of power expression, transform, thus, the understanding of the concept of poverty, which ceases to denote essentially a state of material scarcity, to be understood above all as a state of misery and servitude.

No description available.

En traitant de la recherche personnelle de l'utile propre des individus, Spinoza semble s'inscrire dans une tradition philosophique égoïste, où l'intérêt pour soi empêche d'avoir un véritable souci pour l'autre. Pourtant, cette lecture de Spinoza entre en contradiction avec l'idée de générosité, generositas , telle que décrite au scolie de la proposition 59 de la troisième partie de l'Éthique. "Par générosité, j'entends un Désir par lequel un individu s'efforce en vertu du seul commandement de la raison à assister les autres hommes et à établir entre eux et lui un lien d'amitié. Je rapporte donc à la fermeté ces actions qui ont pour but l'utilité de l'agent seulement, et à la générosité celles qui ont aussi pour but l'utilité d'autrui." Cette définition nous apprend que le sage désire ce qui est utile pour l'autre. Cela pose de nombreuses questions : comment le conatus apparemment égoïste produit-il le désir qui vise l'utilité d'autrui? Comment le désir, individuel d'exister peut-il mécaniquement produire le désir d'aider les autres? Comment la générosité peut-elle venir de la Raison sans pour autant être le fruit d'un calcul égoïste? Quelle forme prendra la générosité spinoziste? Dans ce mémoire, nous avons fait une recherche systématique des occurrences du terme"générosité", recherché les sources de cet affect actif dans l'anthropologie spinoziste en l'opposant à la conception hobbesienne et expliqué comment l'homme généreux interagit avec son environnement.

This thesis will inquire into the practicable strategies that Thomas Hobbes described in his major works of political philosophy, on the one hand, to allow his sovereign to ensure civil peace, and on the other, to enable his sovereign to defend the commonwealth. In terms of civil peace, the exercise of Hobbes's sovereign's 'absolute' authority is tempered by, and contingent on, its practical efficacy for securing and maintaining a peaceful commonwealth. To that end, I will argue that Hobbes's sovereign is obliged to rule according to the natural laws, and entailed in this obligation are coinciding liberties which Hobbes believed that subjects must perceive themselves to possess, and which sovereigns must respect, in order for peace to be realised. However, rather than situating the purpose of Hobbes's project in terms of civil peace alone—as the vast majority of his interpreters have—I consider alongside the purpose of civil peace, and contrast it with, the purpose of defence. Evident from this comparison is that the means by which Hobbes's sovereign must ensure the capability of the commonwealth to defend itself from foreign nations simultaneously undermines and counteracts his otherwise proto-liberal system. Distinct from other prominent interpretations, I will argue that this ambivalence is not a result of an imbalance between subjects' rights contra sovereign's rights, nor yet of an unsupervised agonistic counter-balance between the two. Instead, the affirmation of subjects' inalienable rights are depicted by Hobbes as a practically ineffective means by which to ensure defence. There exists a necessary ambivalence within Hobbes's theory of sovereignty itself and is to be managed solely according to the sovereign's ideally prudent and practicable judgment. Ultimately, I will characterize Hobbes as arguing that the unfortunate necessity of preparedness for foreign defensive wars is best mitigated by the sovereign's prudent and minimal exercise of the commonwealth's power in carrying out this intended purpose.

Thesis advisor: Richard Cobb-Stevens / The right of revolution in the social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke is a curious topic. This paper discusses the differences and similarities between the two philosophers’ discussions of this topic. It is argued that Hobbes and Locke differ most drastically on the notion of who the sovereign is. While Hobbes prefers to establish the sovereign as a demigod, Locke understands the sovereign as a mortal, and thus fallible, man. It is because of this distinction that Hobbes and Locke disagree on the notion of the right of revolution. Furthermore, the American Founding Fathers, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, inherited Locke’s perspective on this matter when arguing for the independence of the colonies. Finally, it is the conclusion of this paper that this notion of the right of revolution continues today, when observing the numerous political revolutions around the world. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2011. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: College Honors Program. / Discipline: Philosophy.

Thesis advisor: Christopher Constas / Philosophers throughout the ages have grappled with the concept of glory-seeking and have offered many different references, analyses, insights, and explanations. Three great thinkers in particular stand out above the rest: Plato, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Paul Sartre. While these three minds span from circa 420 BC all the way up to 1980 AD, they all would agree that glory-seeking certainly matters – they would most likely argue over the following: In what way? For Plato, glory-seeking is an inherent part of the human soul. It matters because it is an essential part of our being. Plato’s model for the soul found in The Republic as well as a comparable illustration in the Phaedrus expresses this claim most thoroughly. Additional support for the idea of glory-seeking being an existing precondition of humanity can be found in other ancient works as well, most notably Homer’s Iliad. A current example is professional athletes in the NFL risking their earning potential in order to play injured. For Hobbes, glory-seeking is a tool to be used for social advantage. It matters because it can be used it for advantage and power. Chapters X and XIII in The Leviathan most critically highlight this sentiment. Further support for the idea of glory-seeking being a weapon in the self-made man’s arsenal can be found in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. The largest modern-day example is celebrity culture: the news and entertainment factory so woven into current American culture, which is particularly embodied by the public behavior and lyrics of hip-hop artist Kanye West. For Sartre, glory-seeking provides an answer to existential angst. It matters because it helps us believe that we matter. The Sartre’s philosophical work, Being and Nothingness, as well as his existential novel, Nausea, provide ample evidence of this notion. More support for the idea of glory-seeking as a method of coping with the awareness one’s own existence can be found in Søren Kierkegaard’s The Present Age. Contemporary manifestations include the incessant self-promotion and self-presentation found on social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. The goal of this work is to first investigate glory-seeking for Plato, Hobbes, and Sartre and analyze what each thinker has to say on the matter. After that, modern examples and additional input from other relevant philosophers will be assessed within the overall context of glory-seeking for Plato, Hobbes, and Sartre. Finally, after everything has been considered, I will attempt to synthesize all that has been presented thus far while answering the question: Why does glory-seeking matter? / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2014. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: College Honors Program. / Discipline: Philosophy Honors Program. / Discipline: Philosophy.