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.

Made available in DSpace on 2017-07-10T18:26:24Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Gerson V Luz.pdf: 667107 bytes, checksum: e0c2e837a6a24ae66c214d67327b7507 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-12-01 / This study aims to investigate the problem of human freedom in the design of state in Thomas Hobbes. The starting point is to understand the concept of freedom that in he system of Hobbes means the absence of external impediments to the movement of any body type. From this, we discuss the meaning of freedom in the absence of a political condition. For Hobbes, man is an animal apolitical in nature and as such prefers the freedom and dominion over others to life in civil society. But the man's state of nature would be really free? The duty on all things results in benefit? Hobbes is an advocate of the idea that every man naturally want to keep alive the flame of life and live comfortably. In view of the philosopher, a free man is one in which about the actions that will have to practice or deny is not prevented from doing as you wish. Given this, it is assumed that in the absence of state power can have unlimited freedom in all things. However, this presentation of the law is misleading and results in a contradiction with regard to the march of human desire. The right to everything is as it were useless to carry out the desire for comfortable living and interest in self-preservation. For every man is all yours. But the effects contained in the interest of every man to understand that everything belongs to him (including the body of another) are devoid of sucess. With this in mind, the first chapter we examine the hypothesis that, first, the freedom afforded by the natural conditions does not negate the right to biological existence, on the other, then impedes or obstructs the individuals receive the necessary resources to the expectation comfortable life. In the second chapter will maintain the assumption that the State consists of a suitable mechanism for the implementation and realization of human freedom, that the state (and only it) is better living conditions. Based on these two interests, the men build the Great Mortal God, Leviathan, to protect themselves from themselves. To build this argument, we must have first of all understood what the author meant by human nature and state of nature - the hypothetical situation in which humans live in a state of war of all against. / O presente trabalho tem como objetivo investigar o problema da liberdade humana na concepção de Estado em Thomas Hobbes. O ponto de partida está na compreensão do conceito de liberdade, que, no sistema de Hobbes, significa ausência de impedimentos externos ao movimento de quaisquer tipos de corpos. A partir disso, procuramos discorrer sobre o significado de liberdade na inexistência de uma condição política. Para Hobbes, o homem é um animal apolítico por natureza e, enquanto tal, prefere a liberdade e o domínio sobre os outros à vida em sociedade civil, mas o homem do estado de natureza estaria de fato livre? O direito sobre todas as coisas resulta em benefício? Hobbes é defensor da ideia de que todo homem naturalmente deseja manter acesas as chamas da vida e viver confortavelmente. Na visão do filósofo, homem livre é aquele que, em relação às ações que tem vontade de praticar ou de negar, não é impedido de fazer como deseja. Diante disso, pressupõe-se que, na ausência do poder estatal, os indivíduos têm liberdade ilimitada a todas as coisas. Tal apresentação do direito é, porém, especiosa e resulta em uma contradição em relação à marcha do desejo humano. Ora, o direito a tudo é como se fosse algo inútil para a realização do desejo de vida confortável e do interesse pela autoconservação. Para cada homem tudo é seu, mas os efeitos contidos no interesse de todo homem ao entender que tudo lhe pertence (inclusive o corpo do outro) são desprovidos de êxitos. Tendo isso em vista, no primeiro capítulo examina-se a hipótese de que, se, por um lado, a liberdade permitida pelas condições naturais não nega o direito à existência biológica, por outro, acaba por impedir ou obstruir que os indivíduos obtenham os recursos necessários à expectativa de vida confortável. No segundo capítulo sustenta-se a hipótese de que o Estado consiste em um mecanismo adequado para a realização e a efetivação da liberdade humana; que no Estado (e tão somente nele) se encontram melhores condições de vida. Com base nesses dois interesses, os homens constroem o Grande Deus Mortal, o Leviatã, para se protegerem de si mesmos. Para construirmos essa argumentativa, é preciso que tenhamos antes de tudo compreendido o que o autor entende por natureza humana e por estado de natureza a situação hipotética na qual a espécie humana vive em estado de guerra de todos contra todos.

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.

Ce mémoire vise à élargir, à l'aune d'une approche herméneutique jaussienne, l’interprétation de deux tableaux de Goya portant des titres qui leur ont été donnés a posteriori : "Cannibales montrant des restes humains" (1800-1808?) et "Cannibales préparant leurs victimes" (1800-1808?). Notre analyse se fonde en premier lieu sur une description de la matérialité des œuvres ; nous fournissons la première lecture de la relation entre ces tableaux et en défendons par ailleurs le statut de diptyque. Nous proposons ensuite une analyse critique de la réception des deux tableaux. Puis, dans la mesure où ces œuvres sont les premiers exemples où apparaissent en peinture des « sauvages » cannibales, nous explorons l'horizon iconographique du cannibalisme afin d'y chercher des images comparables. Cette tradition figurative paraît se réduire à trois catégories, à savoir: l’image coloniale, la caricature et la peinture mythologique. Ensuite, en partant de l'hypothèse répandue et héritée du romantisme que ces œuvres constituent des représentations de la nature humaine, nous tentons de les réinscrire dans l'horizon historique et philosophique dont est issue cette notion. Nous nous penchons tout spécifiquement sur les pensées philosophiques de Thomas Hobbes et de Jean-Jacques Rousseau, qui articulent des conceptions contraires de la nature humaine : si pour l’un, celle-ci est cruelle, pour l’autre elle est fondamentalement bonne. Ainsi, pourrons-nous mieux situer ces deux tableaux par rapport à cette notion à l’aune de son contexte d’émergence spécifique, notion que Goya a certainement découvert à travers les Ilustrados qui incarnent la philosophie des Lumières en Espagne. Nous désirons démontrer de quelle manière ces œuvres pensent et comment, par l'entremise de leurs propres moyens, elles en viennent à se distancier, en les dépassant, les horizons iconographique et philosophique dont elles participent. / The present research project aims to broaden the interpretations of two paintings of Francisco de Goya, whose titles were attributed to them a posteriori: "Cannibals Gazing at their Victims" (1800-1008?) and "Cannibals Preparing their Victims" (1800-1008?). The analysis begins with a description of the materiality of the paintings. This section represents the first reading of the works’ structural connections, and suggests that the two images are in fact two parts of a diptych. We will then delve into a critical exploration of their reception. Since these images are the two first examples of cannibal figures inspired by colonial imagery to appear in the Western art historical tradition of painting, we explore the iconographical horizon of cannibalism in order to find comparable images, the likes of which are divided into three categories: colonial images, caricature, and mythological paintings. Afterwards, considering the widespread and romantic interpretation of these paintings as representations of human nature, we will attempt to reinscribe them within the historical and philosophical spheres from which this notion derives. We focus on the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose conceptions of human nature are contradictory towards each other. While Hobbes suggests that the nature of humanity is cruel, Rousseau deems it fundamentally good. This notion is one that Goya probably encountered himself while frequenting the Ilustrados – or, the more prominent figures of the Spanish Enlightenment. As a result, we will be able to situate the two paintings with respect to their specific context of emergence. Through the examination of these horizons, we aim to demonstrate the ways in which these two paintings think, and how, through their own resources, they deviate from – or even surpass – the iconographical and philosophical situations from which they hail, and to which they respond.

No description available.