Thesis (M.A.)--Mississippi State University. Department of English. / Title from title screen. Includes bibliographical references.

O trabalho pretende demonstrar como Rousseau concebe a passagem do estado natural rumo à situação civil, tomando-se o corpo humano como uma perspectiva privilegiada para a descrição de tal processo. Nessa direção, serão assinaladas as consequências advindas ao homem nessa mudança, mostrando-se de que maneira, originariamente, ele é concebido, para ressaltar como o seu corpo, sua saúde e seu vigor são afetados. A partir dessa caracterização do homem no estado de natureza, tornar-se-á possível constatar a força ou a fraqueza do homem no estado civilizado, além do que foi acrescido ou subtraído em sua constituição original. Uma vez abandonada essa situação inicial, será ressaltada a importância do desenvolvimento de novas faculdades no homem, que lhe permitirão confeccionar ferramentas e facilitarão sobremaneira a sua subsistência, mas que trarão profundas consequências para o seu corpo e influirão decisivamente no surgimento de novas ideias. Igualmente novos sentimentos serão despertados e, com isso, o corpo será encarado de maneira diferente do seu semelhante daquele estado natural e esse quadro conduzirá ao aparecimento do estado civil. Finalmente inseridos nesse estado, importa expor como o pensador genebrino compreenderá o que seja um corpo político e a relação entre os homens e esse corpo maior do qual fazem parte. Assim, será estudado de que modo o comportamento dos indivíduos refletirá diretamente na própria manutenção do estado civil: serão analisadas as atividades propostas por Rousseau que, ao mesmo tempo em que conferem saúde e vigor aos corpos dos cidadãos, igualmente contribuirão de modo decisivo para a conservação (ou saúde) do próprio corpo político. / This work intends to demonstrate how Rousseau conceives the passage from the natural state to the civil situation, taking the human body as a privileged perspective to the description of such process. In this direction, the consequences of this change to man will be assigned, showing in which way he is originally conceived in order to point out how his body, his health and his strength are affected. By this characterization of the man in the state of nature, it will become possible to find the force or the weakness of the man in the civilized state and, besides, what was added to his original constitution or subtracted from it. Once abandoned this initial situation, it will be pointed out the importance of the development of new faculties in man, which will allow him to build tools and will much ease his subsistence, but will cause deep consequences to his body and will influence decisively in the arising of new ideas. New feelings will also arise and, with this, the body will be faced in a different way compared to his equal from that natural state and this situation will lead to the arising of the civil state. Finally inserted in this state, it is also important to expose how the genevian thinker will understand what a body politic is and the relationship between men and this bigger body where they are. Then, it will be studied in which way the behavior of individuals will directly reflect in the maintenance of the civil state itself: the activities proposed by Rousseau will be analyzed which, by the time they provide health and strength to the citizen\'s bodies, will also contribute in a decisive way to the conservation (or health) of the body politic itself.

O presente trabalho busca analisar as obras de Rousseau Discurso sobre a Origem e os fundamentos da desigualdade entre os homens (Segundo discurso) e Emílio ou da Educação de forma a apresentá-las como obras complementares no que se refere aos conceitos de Natureza e educação. A hipótese central repousa na ideia de que Rousseau encontra, no Segundo discurso, um problema no desenvolvimento social da humanidade e busca, a partir da construção de um homem adequadamente educado no Emílio, concertar o erro cometido pela espécie no passado. Essa leitura nos leva a compreensão de que existe uma natureza humana dada pela natureza e uma segunda natureza construída pelo homem, a qual deve ser construída de forma a não prejudicar a primeira. A pesquisa é bibliográfica com caráter teórico e, subsidiariamente histórico. Foram consideradas em especial as duas obras clássicas tomadas como objeto de estudo. / This study seeks to analyze the works of Rousseau\'s Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of inequality among men (Second Discourse) and Emile, or on Education in order to present them as complementary works in relation to the concepts of life and education. The central hypothesis rests on the idea that Rousseau finds in his Second Discourse an issue in the social development of mankind and seek, troughout the construction of a properly educated man Emile , to fix the error comitted by our species in the past. This reading leads us to understand that there is a human nature given by Nature and a second nature built by man, which must be constructed so as not to undermine the first. This paper is based on bibliographic research with theoretical foundation and historical elements. Especial consideration was given to the two classical works subject of this study.

Submitted by Caroline Falcao (caroline.rfalcao@ufpe.br) on 2017-06-07T18:01:12Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 811 bytes, checksum: e39d27027a6cc9cb039ad269a5db8e34 (MD5) 2011-Dissertacao-Romana-Maria-Moreira.pdf: 779519 bytes, checksum: 2e030c35ceb4096f16254e8501bbb0cd (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-07T18:01:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 811 bytes, checksum: e39d27027a6cc9cb039ad269a5db8e34 (MD5) 2011-Dissertacao-Romana-Maria-Moreira.pdf: 779519 bytes, checksum: 2e030c35ceb4096f16254e8501bbb0cd (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 / Esta pesquisa expôs as reflexões antropológicas do filósofo Jean Jaques Rousseau em debate com as do naturalista George Louis Leclerc de Buffon. Tomamos como objeto de análise a réplica da matéria Animaux carnassierscontida na L’ Histoire naturellede autoria de Buffon.Nela, identificamos a tese do homem frugívoro como objeção fundamental da réplica, cujo texto possibilitou a reconstituição de movimentos do traçado estrutural das ideias naturalistas do filósofo genebrino, o que nos propiciou visualizá-las e reacendê-las. Observamos a pertinência da crítica fornecida por Buffon ao detectar problema relacionado ao método e à inconsistência do suposto caráter científico da tese rousseauniana. Destarte, emerge a possibilidade de compreender a tese de Rousseau através do método da “hermenêutica filosófica” desenvolvida por Hans Gadamer (1900-2002). Concluímos então, na nossa interpretação e compreensão, que o sentimento de piedade foi causa de discussão,e projetou-se enquanto principio moral emprol do desenvolvimento humano,motivado pelo seu significado ético na formação humana. A tais reflexões de Rousseau designamos de antropofilosóficas, e julgamos como indispensáveis e diligentes ao presente e futuro do homem. / This research set out the anthropological reflections of the philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau in discussion with the naturalist George Louis Leclerc de Buffon. We take as object of analysis the reply Animaux carnassiers matter contained in L 'Histoire naturelle authored by Buffon. Here, we identify the thesis of man as frugivorous fundamental objection to the reply, the text of which allowed the reconstruction of movements of the tracing structural naturalistic ideas of the philosopher Geneva, which gave us view them and relight them. We note the relevance of the criticism given by Buffon to detect problems related to the method and the alleged inconsistency of a scientific theory of Rousseau. Thus emerges the possibility of understanding the theory of Rousseau by the method of "philosophical hermeneutics" developed by Hans Gadamer (1900-2002). We conclude, in our interpretation and understanding, that the feeling of pity was the cause of discussion and was projected as a moral principle in favor of human development, motivated by its ethical significance in the human formation. Such Rousseau’ reflections we named of anthropophilosophicals,and arebelieved to be necessary and diligent to present and future of man.

L'état de nature de Thomas Hobbes repose sur une étude des limites de la connaissance de l'être humain. Ces limites sont considérables, si bien qu'il est selon Hobbes impossible pour le genre humain de naturellement instaurer un système de vérité commun à l'espèce. L'homme est à l'état de nature dans une situation que nous qualifions « d'anarchie épistémologique » ce qui se traduit dans le Léviathan de Hobbes comme étant une situation de guerre de chacun contre chacun. Ce n'est que par l'institution d'un souverain tout puissant que l'homme peut espérer dépasser la condition de misère qui caractérise sa situation à l'état de nature. Le projet philosophique et politique de Hobbes concerne donc essentiellement l'être humain dans sa situation politique domestique. Hobbes ne consacre effectivement rien de substantiel à l'analyse des relations internationales. Pourtant, le nom de Thomas Hobbes revient souvent à ce niveau d'analyse, particulièrement lorsqu'il s'agit de conceptualiser les rapports interétatiques comme étant analogues à ceux des hommes à l'état de nature. Cette transposition est à notre avis problématique plutôt que constructive puisqu'elle ne reflète en rien les analyses du philosophe. Nous proposons de démontrer ce point par le biais d'une étude exégétique de la pensée de Hobbes. / Hobbes's state of nature rests upon an epistemological study of human nature. It reflects important limits on the human capacity for establishing objective truths. In the state of nature then, mankind will never be able to naturally and collectively institute an epistemological system. Mankind is in the state of nature in a situation that we qualify as an '' epistemological anarchy '', which in Hobbes's Leviathan is a situation of war of all against all. It is only through the institution of a all-powerful sovereign that man can hope to free himself from the dire situation of the state of nature. Hobbes's philosophical and political project then, concerns only human activity on a domestic scale. Indeed, the english philosopher does not provide substantial analytical material concerning international relations. However, the name of Thomas Hobbes is a common one in discussions of international relations, specially when the conceptualisation of interstate relations is understood as being analogous to that of man in the state of nature. We consider that this analogy is not constructive, but problematic since it does not reflect Hobbes's analyses at all. We will show that this is the case through an exegetic study of Hobbes's arguments concerning human nature.

The world’s human population is presently politically organized into an international system of territorially-defined nation-states. Each nation-state claims sovereign rights to non-interference and self-determination which minimize the legitimate influence of all other nation-states on the conduct of its internal affairs. International political discourse using the concept of human rights has become increasingly influential in addressing the regulation and restrictions of coercive activity that governing institutions can exact upon citizen populations. If there are universal human rights that all persons possess regardless of national affiliation, does this include basic economic rights that should insure all persons the basic economic goods necessary for healthy subsistence? Philosophers working within the state of nature contractual theory of government philosophical tradition, including Hobbes, Locke, Nozick, and Rawls, reach contradictory conclusions regarding the existence of universal basic economic rights. More recently, Shue has provided arguments affirming the existence of universal basic economic rights.

CoordenaÃÃo de AperfeÃoamento de Pessoal de NÃvel Superior / O objetivo deste trabalho à discutir a concepÃÃo de homem em Thomas Hobbes nos trÃs pilares que compÃe sua teoria: o estado natural, o contrato e o Estado. Em primeiro lugar, se analisa a igualdade entre os homens, as trÃs causas da guerra de todos contra todos, e como compreender a relaÃÃo entre a teoria do autor e o momento histÃrico em que ele viveu. Em segundo lugar, mostra-se a concepÃÃo de contrato como produto da capacidade humana de transformaÃÃo da realidade e, ainda, a relaÃÃo entre a mecÃnica e a moral, e a uniÃo de razÃo e paixÃes em sua antropologia. Por fim, destaca-se o Estado como detentor de uma autoridade divina e, em virtude disto, a possibilidade do descumprimento, por parte do poder soberano, com a razÃo de ser do pacto entre os indivÃduos, a preservaÃÃo da vida. Pretende-se demonstrar que o pensador seiscentista concebe a condiÃÃo humana como uma trajetÃria agÃnica, na qual atà mesmo a maior garantia de paz, o Estado, apresenta a possibilidade de sÃrios inconvenientes. / The aim of this work is to discuss the concept of man on Thomas Hobbes in the three pillars that make up your theory: the state of nature, the contract and the State. First, it discusses the equality of men, the three causes of war of all against all, and how to understand the relationship between your theory and the historical moment in which he lived. Secondly, it is shown the concept of contract as a product of human capacity to transform the reality, and also the relationship between the mechanical and the moral, and the union of reason and passion in your anthropology. Finally, it analyzes the divine authority of the state and, because of this, the possibility of failure on the part of sovereign power with the rationale of the pact between individuals, which is the preservation of life. It intend to demonstrate that the seventeenth-century thinker sees the human condition as an agonizing journey, in which even the best guarantee of peace, the State, presents the possibility of serious drawbacks.

Rousseau conteste la théorie aristotélicienne de la sociabilité naturelle à laquelle il supplée sa doctrine de l’asociabilité naturelle. Il rejette du même coup la conception hobbesienne de l’homme naturellement insociable et s’oppose également au dogme du péché originel auquel il oppose sa théorie de la bonté originelle qui n’est, en réalité, qu’une apologie de la justice et de la toute-puissance divine ce qui nous a conduit à la question de la théodicée inspirée par Saint-Augustin, théorisée par Leibniz, contestée par Voltaire et par lui défendue. En rejetant le péché originel et en proclamant la bonté naturelle de l’homme, il disculpe Dieu mais aussi l’homme avant son intégration à la vie sociale. C’est donc pour lui, les liens sociaux qui corrompent l’homme et le rendent mauvais. Il fait découler cette corruption de l’inégalité créée par la propriété car à l’état de nature où il n’y avait pas de propriété, où tout était commun à tous, l’homme n’était pas méchant et c’est pour tenter de revenir à l’état d’égalité naturelle qu’il a institué la loi. Mais il a remarqué qu’une fois entré dans la vie sociale, la propriété est devenu un droit sacré, indispensable. Un revirement s’est donc opéré chez lui. De pourfendeur du droit à la propriété, il en est devenu le défenseur. Aussi, certains commentateurs l’ont-ils classé dans la catégorie des individualistes. D’autres le rangent parmi les communistes et d’autres le rattachent à la doctrine socialiste. Afin de mieux pouvoir le situer, nous avons choisi de confronter ses idées et prises de position avec les tenants de ces différents courants idéologiques : Proudhon pour l’individualisme, Baboeuf pour le communisme et Marx pour le socialisme. / Rousseau disputes the Aristotelian theory of natural sociability to which he supplements his doctrine of natural asociability. At the same time, he rejects the Hobbesian conception of man, which is naturally unsociable, and is also opposed to the dogma of original sin to which he contrasts his theory of original goodness which is, in reality, only an apology for justice and The divine omnipotence which led us to the question of the theodicy inspired by St. Augustine, theorized by Leibniz, contested by Voltaire and forbidden. By rejecting original sin and proclaiming the natural goodness of man, he exculpates God but also man before his integration into social life. It is therefore for him that social bonds corrupt man and make him bad. He causes this corruption to flow from the inequality created by property, for in the state of nature, where there was no property, where everything was common to all, man was not wicked and it was for Attempt to return to the state of natural equality that he instituted the law. But he noticed that once he entered social life, property became a sacred right, indispensable. A reversal has thus taken place in him. As a defender of the right to property, he became its defender. Also, some commentators have classified it in the category of individualists. Others rank him among the Communists and others connect him with the socialist doctrine. In order to better situate him, we chose to confront his ideas and positions with the supporters of these different ideological currents: Proudhon for individualism, Baboeuf for communism and Marx for socialism.

<p><strong> </strong></p><p>Dissertation in political science, C-level by Niklas Andersson, Spring Semester 2009. Tutor: Arne Larsson</p><p>“The Treaty of Lisbon – The Defence against Globalization?”</p><p>In the modern world globalization have undermined the nation-state and left it without the right measurements to adequately deal with the social and economic unrest that follows in its way. The states, built on contract theories, have an obligation to protect its citizens from the state of nature which seems to have failed as globalization has changed the rules.</p><p>The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the contract theories of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Rawls to identify the elements of a state and create a modern and ideal contract theory. The treaty shall then be used on the Treaty of Lisbon as it can be seen as a contract between the European states to create an entity in the shape of the European Union with the power to defend Europe from the unrest created by globalization.</p><p>My question for this was as follows:</p><p>Is the new treaty for the European Union acceptable as a new social contract according to the social contract theories?</p><p>During my research the following criteria’s for a social contract was found:</p><p>1. A legislative branch 2. An executive branch 3. A judicial branch 4. The Right to taxation</p><p>5. A centralized educational system 6. The right to property 7. Equalizing redistribution system 8. The right to leave the contract.</p><p>The first four is essential in creating a state and are the primary criteria’s for its existence while the other four is determining the character of the state that is created and are therefore not essential in the creation of the state and are consequently secondary criteria’s in a states creation.</p><p>The answer to the question is no, as the Treaty of Lisbon first of all don’t give the Union the right of taxation on its citizens and secondly, the Union are not given the mandate to act for an educational or an equalizing redistributive system. Without these criteria’s the EU don’t have the possibility to quickly act on its own to deal with urgent problems that rises from the negative aspects of globalization.</p> / <p>Statsvetenskaplig uppsats, C-nivå av Niklas Andersson, Vårterminen 2009. Handledare: Arne Larsson</p><p>"Lissabonfördraget - Försvaret mot Globaliseringen?"</p><p>I den moderna världen har globaliseringen underminerat nationalstaten och lämnat dem utan verktyg för att kunna ta hand om den sociala och ekonomiska oron som följer i dess väg på ett adekvat sätt. Staterna, byggda på kontraktsteorierna har en ansvar för att skydda sina medborgare från naturtillståndet, men som nu har misslyckats i och med att globaliseringen ändrat spelreglerna.</p><p>Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka kontraktsteorierna av Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau och John Rawls för att identifiera beståndsdelarna för en stat och utifrån det skapa en modern idealbild av kontraktsteorin. Kontraktet ska sedan jämföras med Lissabonfördraget då de i viss mån kan ses som ett kontrakt mellan Europas stater för att skapa en enhet utifrån den Europeiska Unionen med makten att skydda Europa mot oron skapad av globaliseringen.</p><p>Min fråga var följande:</p><p>Är det nya fördraget för den Europeiska Unioen acceptabel som ett nytt socialt ontrat enligt de gamla kontraktseorierna?</p><p>Under mon undersökning kom jag fram till följande kriterier för ett socialt kontrakt:</p><p>1. En lagstiftande instans 2. En verkställande instans 3. En lagstiftande instans 4. Rätten att beskatta</p><p>5. Ett centraliserat utbildningssystem 6. Rätten till ägande 7. Utjämnadne omfördelningssystem 8. Rätten att lämna kontraktet.</p><p>De första fyra är essentiella i skapandet av en stat och de primära kriterierna för dess existens medan de övriga fyra bestämmer karaktäen på staten som skapats och är ärmed inte avgörande och är därmed sekundära kriterier.</p><p>Svaret till frågan är nej, eftersom Lissabonfördraget först av allt inte ger Unionen möjligheterna till beskattning och för det andra , Unionen har inte fått madatet till att agera för ett utbildningssystem eller omfördelande ujämningssytem. Utan dessa kriterier har inte EU möjligheten att snabbt agera av egen kraft för att ta hand om brådskande problem som uppståt från globaliseringens negativa sidor.</p>

Over the course of four sections this PhD examines the ways in which the Aristotelian, Stoic and Epicurean philosophers portray bodily activity. In particular, it argues that their claims regarding bodies' natural tendency to preserve themselves, and seek out the goods capable of promoting their well-being, came to influence Hobbes's and Spinoza's later accounts of natural, animal and social behaviour. The first section presents the ancient accounts of natural and animal bodily tendencies and explores the specific ways in which the Aristotelian, Stoic and Epicurean views on animal desires came to complement and diverge from each other. After investigating the perceived links between natural philosophy, psychology and ethics, the section proceeds to consider how the ancients used this 'unified' view of nature to guide their accounts of the soul's primary appetites and desires. Also examined is the extent to which civil society is portrayed as a means of securing the individual against others, and how Aristotelian philia, Theophrastian oikeiotês and Stoic oikeiōsis came to stand in opposition to the fear-driven and compact-based accounts of social formation favoured by the Epicureans. The second section considers how the ancient accounts of impulsive behaviour and social formation were received and diffused via new editions of ancient texts, eclectic readings of Aristotle, and the attempts of Neostoic and Neoepicurean authors to update and systematise those philosophies from the late sixteenth century onwards. The particular treatments of Hellenistic thought by authors such as Justus Lipsius, Hugo Grotius and Pierre Gassendi are considered in detail and are placed within the context of the growing trend to use Stoic and Epicurean thought to replace the authority of Aristotle in the areas of science, psychology, and politics. The final two sections are devoted respectively to considering the ways in which Hobbes and Spinoza encountered the Hellenistic accounts of bodies and demonstrating how these earlier accounts came to feature in each of their own discussions of bodily tendencies. Engaging with a wide range of their texts, each section develops the many nuances and contours that emerged as both writers developed and fine-tuned their accounts of bodily actions. This reveals the many ways in which the ancient accounts of self-preservation helped to unify large aspects of Hobbes's and Spinoza's own philosophical corpus, while equally showing how a well-developed account of bodily tendencies might challenge the scholastic worldview and expand further the boundaries of the so-called 'New Science'.