Submitted by Mariana Dornelles Vargas (marianadv) on 2015-05-13T14:38:02Z No. of bitstreams: 1 dinastia_solipsismo.pdf: 1241002 bytes, checksum: 4e91919775f9f37d4453e52f880c5f9d (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-13T14:38:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 dinastia_solipsismo.pdf: 1241002 bytes, checksum: 4e91919775f9f37d4453e52f880c5f9d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-03-25 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / A proposta de abordagem do presente estudo pretende analisar o solipsismo soberano na sociedade internacional através das premissas político-jurídicas de Thomas Hobbes no contexto contemporâneo relativo à manutenção da paz e da segurança internacionais, sobretudo na análise do mundo pós Segunda Guerra Mundial, da Carta das Nações Unidas de 1945 e, por consequência, do principal órgão da referida instituição, o Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas (CSNU). A partir da análise temporal centrada na passagem do jusnaturalismo à instituição de um sistema internacional de dominação política, demonstrar-se-á a estabilização do sistema político-internacional por meio das Resoluções e a manutenção do status quo mundial pela regra de unanimidade das grandes potências (direito de veto), apresentando as dimensões de instrumentalização do poder nas relações internacionais, inseridos claramente na perspectiva hobbesiana. Em tal concepção, o Direito Internacional Público assume mínimas funções instrumentais de garantia de paz e de segurança, com vistas à salvaguarda da temporalidade estável do Leviatã mundial hobbesiano. Além disso, demarcando os Direitos Humanos como legitimação por eloquência, a retórica jurídico-minimalista apresentada pelos discursos contemporâneos na política global resta constatada, o que torna a pesquisa, muito além de uma observação e de uma descrição do sistema político-internacional a partir de categorias de Thomas Hobbes, uma articulação perceptiva e reflexiva do despotismo e das controvérsias arrojadas nos processos de manutenção da paz e da segurança internacionais. / The main approach of this study intends to analyze the sovereign solipsism in the international society through the political and legal premises of Thomas Hobbes, in the contemporary context related to the maintenance of international peace and security, particularly in the analysis of the post World War II scenario, as well as the Charter of the United Nations (1945) and, moreover, the main body of that institution: the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). From the temporal analysis focused on the passage of natural law to the establishment of an international system of political domination, it will be demonstrated that the stabilization of the international-political system occurs through Resolutions and the maintenance of the global status quo through the great owers’ unanimity rule (veto right), showing the dimensions of the instrumentalization of power in the international relations field, clearly inserted in a Hobbesian perspective. In this conception, Public International Law assumes minimal and instrumental functions of maintaining peace and security, in a stable temporal safeguarding view of the Hobbesian Leviathan. Moreover, marking Human Rights as a legitimation for eloquence, the rhetoric presented by legal and minimalist contemporary discourses on global politics remains questioned, making the research a perceptive and thoughtful articulation of despotism and the controversies found within the process of maintaining peace and international security, well beyond the observation and description of the political-international system through Thomas Hobbes categories.

State responsibility is central to modern politics and international relations. States are commonly blamed for wars, called on to apologize, punished with sanctions, admonished to keep their promises, bound by treaties, and held liable for debts and reparations. But why, and under which conditions, does it make sense to assign responsibilities to whole states rather than to individual leaders and officials? The purpose of this thesis is to resurrect and develop a forgotten understanding of state responsibility from the political thought of Thomas Hobbes. Chapters 1 and 2 examine the two dominant theories of state responsibility and propose a Hobbesian alternative. According to the agential theory, states can be held responsible because they are moral agents like human beings, with analogous capacities for deliberation and intentional action. According to the functional theory, states can be held responsible because they act vicariously through their organs, much as principals act vicariously through agents. What makes Hobbes unique is that he considers states to be 'persons'-entities to which actions, rights, and responsibilities can be attributed-even though they are neither agents nor principals. Hobbes' idea of state personality relies on the concepts of authorization and representation, not of agency and intentionality, nor of functions and organs. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 develop the Hobbesian theory of state responsibility and apply it to three sets of problems. Chapter 3 addresses problems of attribution, such as whether the actions of dictators count as acts of state and whether states can commit crimes. Chapter 4 addresses problems of identity, such as whether revolutions and annexations negate the state's identity and hence its responsibilities. Chapter 5 addresses problems of distribution, such as whether the subjects of the state ought to bear the costs of debts and reparations that their state incurred before they were born. I argue that the Hobbesian theory provides better answers to each set of problems than the agential and functional alternatives.

Cette thèse vise à cerner les raisons historiques, intellectuelles et affectives de l’importance que reçoit le problème de la vulnérabilité individuelle dans la culture politique des sociétés modernes. Il s’agit de tenter de comprendre pourquoi et par le concours de quelles transformations normatives et structurelles nous en sommes venus, comme citoyens, à attendre de l’État qu’il nous protège des affres de l’existence. L’oeuvre philosophique de Thomas Hobbes, fondée sur une anthropologie individualiste où l’homme apparaît mû par deux affects, le désir et la crainte, nous paraît être la première formulation théorique de ce problème de la vulnérabilité, et à ce titre, nous posons qu’elle a été déterminante pour l’institutionnalisation d’une rationalité politique proprement moderne. De manière à saisir quelles ont pu être les conditions de possibilité de la philosophie de Hobbes, de même que son influence sur l’imaginaire politique occidental, il nous faut tenter de comprendre non seulement pourquoi l’affectivité humaine a pu se trouver ainsi posée comme enjeu du gouvernement, mais comment elle est aussi liée, de manière générale, au fonctionnement des institutions sociales, lequel est historiquement contingent. Il en va ainsi d’une interrogation, que nous poursuivrons dans un relevé des principaux concepts à l’aide desquels Sigmund Freud, Norbert Elias, Max Weber et Michel Foucault ont pensé les modalités du façonnement social et historique de la subjectivité, et par le biais de laquelle nous espérons expliquer pourquoi le « type d’homme » sur lequel s’appuie le régime libéral moderne implique le vécu d’une expérience affective marquée par un rapport tendu entre le désir et le sentiment de la vulnérabilité.

The Anglo-Dutch philosopher Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) was among the most controversial figures writing in English in the eighteenth century. His satirical exploration of the nature of human sociability and economic prosperity infuriated his contemporary critics and deeply influenced the ideas of later Enlightenment philosophes. One of the most persistent questions about Mandeville's work concerns the sincerity of his declarations of Christian piety. Mandeville is commonly identified as a deist. This thesis explores the possibility that he was an atheist. The question is examined through an analysis of Mandeville’s major influences, most notably French Jansenism, Epicureanism, Scepticism, erudite libertinism, and Dutch republicanism. Key figures that Mandeville engaged with in his writings include Pierre Bayle, René Descartes, Shaftesbury, Thomas Hobbes, Pierre Nicole, and Pierre Gassendi. In the process of discussing Mandeville’s putative atheism, the methodological problem of researching and identifying atheism in early-modern Europe is explored. / Graduate

Zugl.: Basel, Universiẗat, Diss., 2006.

Univ., Diss.--Hannover, 2003.

This thesis explores the disciplinary relationship between natural philosophy (the study of nature or body) and theology (the study of the divine) in seventeenth-century England. Early modern disciplines had two essential functions. First, they set the rules and boundaries of argument – knowledge was therefore legitimised and made intelligible within disciplinary contexts. And second, disciplines structured pedagogy, parcelling knowledge so it could be studied and taught. This dual role meant disciplines were epistemic and social structures. They were composed of various elements, and consequently, they related to one another in a variety of complex ways. As such, the contestability of early modern knowledge was reflected in contestability of disciplines – their content and boundaries. Francis Bacon, Thomas White, Henry More and John Locke are the focus of the four chapters respectively, with Joseph Glanvill, Thomas Hobbes, other Cambridge divines, and a variety of medieval scholastic authors providing context, comparison and reinforcement. These case studies offer a cross-section of seventeenth-century thought and belief; they embody different professional and institutional interests, and represent an array of philosophical, theological and religious positions. Nevertheless, each of them, in different ways, and to different effect, put the relationship between natural philosophy and theology at the heart of their intellectual endeavours. Together, they demonstrate that, in seventeenth-century England, natural philosophy and theology were in flux, and that their disciplinary relationship was complex, entailing degrees of overlap and alienation. Primarily, natural philosophy and theology investigated the nature and constitution of the world, and, together, determined the relationship between its constituent parts – natural and divine. However, they also reflected the scope of man’s cognitive faculties, establishing which bits of the world were knowable, and outlining the grounds for, and appropriate degrees of, certainty and belief. Thus, both disciplines, and their relationship with one another, contributed to broad discussions about, truth, certainty and opinion. This, in turn, established normative guidelines. To some extent, the rightness or wrongness of belief and behaviour was determined by particular definitions of, and relationship between, natural philosophy and theology. Consequently, man’s place in the world – his relationship with nature, God and his fellow man – was triangulated through these disciplines.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-06-02T20:12:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 3334.pdf: 1496166 bytes, checksum: 3a4eedb248ddf40e227470438e4e94f5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-09-21 / The work of Thomas Hobbes, based on the Renaissance concepts, builds a new political philosophy which results in original concepts of the state, rights and justice. This thesis focus on Thomas Hobbes most relevant political works: The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic; De Cive and Leviathan to show that the use of a contract, or an agreement enforceable by law, results in a new law concept which the sovereign power is established by the wishes of the individuals. The analysis starts with Hobbes ideas as opposed to the Aristotelic thinking of the politics and the human nature. A critical examination is performed on how Hobbes thinking approached the mechanistic theses, the actual need of these theses to the foundation of his work and finally the main impacts of Hobbes s political works. The examination also explores the concept of honor, prudence, the individual-state relationship and the controversies about justice in the Theory of Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes and Christian. It is concluded that Hobbes's work is among the greatest legacy to the modern States and has a deep influence on the political organizations. / Neste trabalho são desenvolvidas algumas considerações acerca da obra de Thomas Hobbes, e como ela, rompendo com o modelo aristotélico, constroi a filosofia política sob um novo modo de pensar, embuindo-a dos caracteres da filosofia renascentista, resulta numa nova concepção do Estado, do direito e da justiça. Tomando como foco as três principais obras políticas de Thomas Hobbes, a saber, os Elementos de Lei Natural e Política , Do Cidadão e o Leviatã , procurase mostrar que na construção da sociedade política, a utilização do artifício do contrato, resultará numa nova concepção do direito, que se reduzirá aos comandos editados pelo poder soberano, instituído por meio das vontades dos indivíduos. Desta forma, tomando como paradigma, mostra-se inicialmente o entendimento fundamental de Aristóteles acerca da política, considerada, especialmente a natureza humana; depois mostra-se a oposição de Hobbes às teses aristotélicas. Para tanto, empreende-se uma análise da aproximação de Hobbes das teses mecanicistas, a real necessidade dessas teses para a fundamentação e desenvolvimento da obra e, por fim, quais foram as principais implicações da obra política de Hobbes. São explorados aqui também os conceitos de honra, prudência, relação Indivíduo-Estado e das controvérsias sobre justiça nas na Teoria de Platão, Aristóteles, Cristã e de Hobbes. Conclui-se que se obra de Hobbes está entre os maiores legados a serem aproveitados pelos Estados modernos, ela está entre aquelas que mais lançaram influências para os rumos da humanidade, pensada esta enquanto composta por organizações políticas.

Cette thèse vise à cerner les raisons historiques, intellectuelles et affectives de l’importance que reçoit le problème de la vulnérabilité individuelle dans la culture politique des sociétés modernes. Il s’agit de tenter de comprendre pourquoi et par le concours de quelles transformations normatives et structurelles nous en sommes venus, comme citoyens, à attendre de l’État qu’il nous protège des affres de l’existence. L’oeuvre philosophique de Thomas Hobbes, fondée sur une anthropologie individualiste où l’homme apparaît mû par deux affects, le désir et la crainte, nous paraît être la première formulation théorique de ce problème de la vulnérabilité, et à ce titre, nous posons qu’elle a été déterminante pour l’institutionnalisation d’une rationalité politique proprement moderne. De manière à saisir quelles ont pu être les conditions de possibilité de la philosophie de Hobbes, de même que son influence sur l’imaginaire politique occidental, il nous faut tenter de comprendre non seulement pourquoi l’affectivité humaine a pu se trouver ainsi posée comme enjeu du gouvernement, mais comment elle est aussi liée, de manière générale, au fonctionnement des institutions sociales, lequel est historiquement contingent. Il en va ainsi d’une interrogation, que nous poursuivrons dans un relevé des principaux concepts à l’aide desquels Sigmund Freud, Norbert Elias, Max Weber et Michel Foucault ont pensé les modalités du façonnement social et historique de la subjectivité, et par le biais de laquelle nous espérons expliquer pourquoi le « type d’homme » sur lequel s’appuie le régime libéral moderne implique le vécu d’une expérience affective marquée par un rapport tendu entre le désir et le sentiment de la vulnérabilité.

No description available.