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.

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.

To the author's knowledge, this is the first systematic study of the concept of enmity in the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Examining this important category does not only elucidate the concept itself, but also provides an opportunity to reconnect fragments of Hobbes's thought that are increasingly being treated as disparate subjects. It is suggested that the notion of enmity can shed further light on related aspects of his political philosophy, including human competitiveness, the roles of fear and trust, the evil of violent death, the status of rebels, and his theory of international relations. In addition, the subject invites a rethinking of Hobbes's place in the history of political thought. It is argued that he was among the first to make enmity a central subject of political philosophy. This seems to be related to Hobbes's break with the traditional notion of natural sociability, as a consequence of which he describes the natural condition of mankind as a war of all against all. Although Hobbes depicts human beings as natural enemies, he holds that enmity does not exclude the possibility of reconciliation; individuals can supposedly overcome their hostility through subjection to a sovereign. These views give rise to a dynamic distinction between public and private enmity, according to which outright hostility can be transformed into private rivalry if human beings renounce their natural right of war. Conversely, subjects become public enemies if they rebel against the sovereign. Hobbes's views on natural enmity and reconciliation also have important implications for his theory of international relations. This thesis particularly highlights the possibility that states can be decomposed and reassembled after a foreign invasion, which precludes wars of annihilation.

Thomas Hobbes é considerado o pai do conceito moderno de Estado. O núcleo de seu pensamento nasce do esforço de construir as bases da convivência a partir da demonstração dos fundamentos racionais da autoridade política. O liame entre o debate contemporâneo, polarizado entre interpretativistas e positivistas, e o pensamento moderno, simbolizado pelo pensamento hobbesiano, identifica-se com a seguinte pergunta: sob qual justificativa devemos obedecer os mandamentos da autoridade ainda que eles nos pareceram injustos? / Thomas Hobbes is considered the father of the modern concept of state. The core of his thinking arises from the effort to build the foundations of acquaintanceship from the demonstration of the rational foundation of political authority. The link between the contemporary debate which is polarized between positivists and interpretativists and the modern thought, which is symbolized by hobbesian thinking relates to the following question: \'Under which justification must we obey the commandments of the authority even if they seemed unfair to us ?

La clásica argumentación hobbesiana a favor de la necesidad de establecer un Estado soberano, dotado de plenas atribuciones para disponer de la suerte, los recursos e incluso la vida de sus ciudadanos, caracterizados como súbditos, tiene, aunque resulte paradójico, un núcleo originariamente liberal. En efecto, el punto de partida del razonamiento filosófico-político hobbesiano es la libertad de los individuos, concebidos capaces de decidir en términos propios, al margen de cualquier predeterminación exterior del sentido de su querer y su acción. Este punto de partida, sin embargo, termina completamente ensombrecido por la ulterior legitimación de la autoridad socialmente irrestricta de la instancia soberana de gobierno bajo el ordenamiento dado en el Estado civil. / Tesis

Thomas Hobbes é considerado o pai do conceito moderno de Estado. O núcleo de seu pensamento nasce do esforço de construir as bases da convivência a partir da demonstração dos fundamentos racionais da autoridade política. O liame entre o debate contemporâneo, polarizado entre interpretativistas e positivistas, e o pensamento moderno, simbolizado pelo pensamento hobbesiano, identifica-se com a seguinte pergunta: sob qual justificativa devemos obedecer os mandamentos da autoridade ainda que eles nos pareceram injustos? / Thomas Hobbes is considered the father of the modern concept of state. The core of his thinking arises from the effort to build the foundations of acquaintanceship from the demonstration of the rational foundation of political authority. The link between the contemporary debate which is polarized between positivists and interpretativists and the modern thought, which is symbolized by hobbesian thinking relates to the following question: \'Under which justification must we obey the commandments of the authority even if they seemed unfair to us ?

Submitted by Cleide Dantas (cleidedantas@ufpa.br) on 2014-03-13T15:42:22Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 23898 bytes, checksum: e363e809996cf46ada20da1accfcd9c7 (MD5) Dissertacao_EloquenciaPensamentoPolitico.pdf: 543088 bytes, checksum: 82226d4c6a3aaf8e7fe9397ea9c4151d (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Ana Rosa Silva (arosa@ufpa.br) on 2014-05-15T14:11:35Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 23898 bytes, checksum: e363e809996cf46ada20da1accfcd9c7 (MD5) Dissertacao_EloquenciaPensamentoPolitico.pdf: 543088 bytes, checksum: 82226d4c6a3aaf8e7fe9397ea9c4151d (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2014-05-15T14:11:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 23898 bytes, checksum: e363e809996cf46ada20da1accfcd9c7 (MD5) Dissertacao_EloquenciaPensamentoPolitico.pdf: 543088 bytes, checksum: 82226d4c6a3aaf8e7fe9397ea9c4151d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 / SEDUC/PA - Secretaria de Estado de Educação / A presente pesquisa propõe-se a analisar os pressupostos teóricos que servem de apoio para Hobbes fundamentar a sua ciência civil, a qual aparentemente denotaria certa contradição quanto ao fato de ele lançar mão da eloquência enquanto arte da retórica implicitamente nos Elementos da Lei e no Do cidadão ao alinhar parte da bíblia sagrada à obediência civil. Ao mesmo tempo em que claramente o autor nas obras citadas acima condena o referido aspecto da eloquência, paradoxalmente, nas suas duas obras políticas posteriores, Leviatã e Behemoth, Hobbes lança mão explicitamente desta, chegando à conclusão de que ela é necessária como força coadjuvante da razão para conformar as paixões humanas na obediência civil. / This study aims to examine the theoretical assumptions which underpin their support for Hobbes civil science, which apparently denotes some conflict as to whether he make use of eloquence as an art of rhetoric implicitly in the Elements of Law and Do citizen to align part of the holy bible to civil obedience. While clearly the author in the works cited above condemns such aspect of eloquence, paradoxically, in its two political works later, Leviathan and Behemoth, Hobbes explicitly makes use of this and concluded that it is needed as a force supporting the reason to conform the human passions in civil obedience.

Thomas Hobbes está preocupado com as consequências do desacordo moral que, segundo ele, impedem as sociedades de viverem em paz, a qual é condição necessária para a garantia uma vida confortável a todos. Para apresentar uma solução a esse problema, o autor começa estudando a condição natural dos humanos, que, sem um poder soberano, vivem em condição de guerra. Depois de alcançar essa conclusão, Hobbes nos mostra como é possível constituir corretamente uma república. Apesar de apresentar o argumento do estado de natureza como sendo o ponto de partida para a instituição da soberania, ele está focado principalmente no seu significado para a estabilidade da república. Hobbes afirma, assim, estar consciente de que as pessoas sempre desejam viver juntas e de que elas têm vivido assim desde sempre. Seu principal interesse está, na verdade, em demonstrar como as pessoas podem viver juntas em paz ao longo do tempo. Hobbes mostra aos seus leitores que a paz só é possível quando os cidadãos conhecem as leis de natureza e estão corretamente motivados a segui-las. Essa tese tem dois objetivos principais: (i) discutir como Hobbes desenvolve sua teoria moral, e como ele conecta essa teoria à lei civil, e (ii) debater sua teoria sobre a natureza humana e a possibilidade de ensinar os cidadãos sobre a necessidade de obedecer ao soberano. Os principais tópicos discutidos e as contribuições que essa tese pode proporcionar estão relacionados à questão da normatividade das leis de natureza e ao impacto que ela pode ter no restante da teoria política de Hobbes, com particular destaque à relação, em uma república, entre moralidade e educação, pois a segunda motiva os cidadãos a seguirem a primeira. / Thomas Hobbes is concerned with the consequences of moral disagreement as, according to him, they prevent societies from living in peace, which is a necessary condition to guarantee a comfortable life to everyone. In order to present a solution to this problem, Hobbes starts studying the natural condition of humans, who, in the absence of a sovereign power, live in a state of war. After reaching this conclusion, Hobbes shows us how it is possible to correctly institute a commonwealth. Despite presenting the argument concerning the state of nature as a starting point to the institution of the sovereignty, he is focused mainly on the state of nature’s meaning to the stability of the commonwealth. Hobbes hence asserts that he is aware that people always desire to live together and have always lived like that. His main interest is actually to demonstrate how people can live together in peace over time. Hobbes shows his readers that peace is only possible when citizens know the laws of nature and are correctly motivated to follow them. This paper has two main aims (i) to discuss how Hobbes advances his moral theory and how he connects it to the civil law, and (ii) to reflect his theory about human nature and the possibility of teaching citizens about the need of obeying the sovereign. The main topics discussed and the contributions this paper may make concern the normativity of the laws of nature and the impact it may have on the rest of Hobbes’s political theory, with particular emphasis on the relation, in a commonwealth, between morality and education, as the latter motivates citizens to follow the former.

<p>The question this essay sets out to answer is what role God plays in Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan, in the book “Of a Christian Common-wealth”, in relationship to humans as moral beings. The question is relevant as the religious aspects of Hobbes’s thinking cannot be ignored, although Hobbes most likely had rather secular and sceptical philosophical views. In order to answer the research question Leviathan’s “Of a Christian Common-wealth” will be compared and contrasted with two contextual works: the canonical theological document of the Anglican Church, the Thirty-Nine Articles (1571), and Presbyterian-Anglican document the Westminster Confession (1648). Also, recent scholarly works on Hobbes and more general reference works will be employed and discussed. Hobbes’s views provide a seemingly unsolvable paradox. On the one hand, God is either portrayed, or becomes by consequence of his sceptical and secular state thinking, a distant God in relationship to moral humans in “Of a Christian Common-wealth”. Also, the freedom humans seem to have in making their own moral decisions, whether based on natural and divine, or positive laws, appears to obscure God’s almightiness. On the other hand, when placing Hobbes in context, Hobbes appears to have espoused Calvinist views, with beliefs in predestination and that God is the cause of everything. Rather paradoxically it not unlikely that Hobbes espoused both the views that appear to obscure the role of God, and his more Calvinistic views.</p>