{"title":"Przemiany tradycji zen na Zachodzie (rec.: Agnieszka Kozyra. Neo-zen? Filozofia zen a racjonalizm, libertynizm i hedonizm)","authors":"Maksymilian Roszyk","doi":"10.18290/rf23711.30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf23711.30","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44634785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Badacze od dawna zwracali uwagę na głębokie przekonanie szlachty Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów o wyjątkowości jej kraju i jej swobód. Wbrew temu, co się czasem sądzi, nie był to wyraz sarmackiej megalomanii, która dała o sobie znać w wieku XVII i na początku XVIII, opinię tę głoszono co najmniej od połowy wieku XVI. Nie była to też jakaś polska osobliwość, podobnie mówili i zapewne myśleli o swoich swobodach obywatele innych wolnych rzeczy-pospolitych. Już w XV wieku mieszkańcy Florencji uważali swoją republikę za jedyną i nadzwyczajną, właśnie z racji panującej w niej wolności. Podobnie swój kraj i panującą w nim wolność oceniali Wenecjanie, a później Holendrzy, a także Anglicy. Zdanie: „jest tylko jedno królestwo na ziemi, gdzie wolność znalazła mieszkanie” wbrew pozorom nie odnosi się do sarmackiej Rzeczypospolitej, ale do hanoweriańskiej Anglii, a jego autor sądził, iż to jego ojczyzna jest jedynym krajem, a Brytyjczycy są jedynym ludem, który prawdziwie może o sobie powiedzieć: „jesteśmy wolni”. Szlacheccy obywatele Rzeczypospolitej wcześnie wpisali się w ten dyskurs, jeszcze przed pierwszą wolną elekcją. Autorka omawia dzieje owego dyskursu w czasach Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów, stwierdzając, że w przeciwieństwie do odwołań w wieku XVI, a nawet w początkach wieku XVII pojawiające się później wzmianki o innych niż własna rzeczpospolita bądź niż republiki antyczne (szczególnie Rzym) były niezbyt liczne i dość powierzchowne, ich autorzy na ogół nie wiedzieli zbyt wiele o przywoływanych krajach, nie mieli jednak wątpliwości, że łączy je z Rzecząpospolitą pewne podobieństwo, które można by określić jako wspólnotę wolności. Bo też ten właśnie motyw, ważny także wcześniej, w wieku XVII i pierwszej połowie wieku XVIII stał się dominujący. Kryzys i skostnienie refleksji politycznej w połączeniu ze spadkiem zainteresowania światem zewnętrznym spowodował, że w szlacheckich dyskusjach politycznych nie pojawiały się już bardziej rozbudowane odwołania do innych krajów i ich rozwiązań ustrojowych. Ich uczestnicy jednak w dalszym ciągu włączali swój kraj w dość elitarną wspólnotę republik europejskich i w dalszym ciągu, nie bacząc na wszelkie różnice społeczne, wyznaniowe, polityczne, z których zresztą często nie zdawali sobie sprawy, uważali je za swoje „towarzyszki”.
{"title":"Samotna wyspa czy wolni wśród wolnych? Obraz wolnych republik w dyskursie politycznym Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów","authors":"A. Grześkowiak-Krwawicz","doi":"10.18290/rf23711.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf23711.4","url":null,"abstract":"Badacze od dawna zwracali uwagę na głębokie przekonanie szlachty Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów o wyjątkowości jej kraju i jej swobód. Wbrew temu, co się czasem sądzi, nie był to wyraz sarmackiej megalomanii, która dała o sobie znać w wieku XVII i na początku XVIII, opinię tę głoszono co najmniej od połowy wieku XVI. Nie była to też jakaś polska osobliwość, podobnie mówili i zapewne myśleli o swoich swobodach obywatele innych wolnych rzeczy-pospolitych. Już w XV wieku mieszkańcy Florencji uważali swoją republikę za jedyną i nadzwyczajną, właśnie z racji panującej w niej wolności. Podobnie swój kraj i panującą w nim wolność oceniali Wenecjanie, a później Holendrzy, a także Anglicy. Zdanie: „jest tylko jedno królestwo na ziemi, gdzie wolność znalazła mieszkanie” wbrew pozorom nie odnosi się do sarmackiej Rzeczypospolitej, ale do hanoweriańskiej Anglii, a jego autor sądził, iż to jego ojczyzna jest jedynym krajem, a Brytyjczycy są jedynym ludem, który prawdziwie może o sobie powiedzieć: „jesteśmy wolni”. Szlacheccy obywatele Rzeczypospolitej wcześnie wpisali się w ten dyskurs, jeszcze przed pierwszą wolną elekcją. \u0000Autorka omawia dzieje owego dyskursu w czasach Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów, stwierdzając, że w przeciwieństwie do odwołań w wieku XVI, a nawet w początkach wieku XVII pojawiające się później wzmianki o innych niż własna rzeczpospolita bądź niż republiki antyczne (szczególnie Rzym) były niezbyt liczne i dość powierzchowne, ich autorzy na ogół nie wiedzieli zbyt wiele o przywoływanych krajach, nie mieli jednak wątpliwości, że łączy je z Rzecząpospolitą pewne podobieństwo, które można by określić jako wspólnotę wolności. Bo też ten właśnie motyw, ważny także wcześniej, w wieku XVII i pierwszej połowie wieku XVIII stał się dominujący. Kryzys i skostnienie refleksji politycznej w połączeniu ze spadkiem zainteresowania światem zewnętrznym spowodował, że w szlacheckich dyskusjach politycznych nie pojawiały się już bardziej rozbudowane odwołania do innych krajów i ich rozwiązań ustrojowych. Ich uczestnicy jednak w dalszym ciągu włączali swój kraj w dość elitarną wspólnotę republik europejskich i w dalszym ciągu, nie bacząc na wszelkie różnice społeczne, wyznaniowe, polityczne, z których zresztą często nie zdawali sobie sprawy, uważali je za swoje „towarzyszki”.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43035612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper analyses and criticizes Locke’s arguments for religious toleration presented in his Letter concerning Toleration. The author argues that the epistemology Locke developed in his Essay concerning Human Understanding made a more constructive contribution to the case for toleration.
{"title":"Locke on Religious Toleration","authors":"E. Curley","doi":"10.18290/rf2204.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf2204.6","url":null,"abstract":"The paper analyses and criticizes Locke’s arguments for religious toleration presented in his Letter concerning Toleration. The author argues that the epistemology Locke developed in his Essay concerning Human Understanding made a more constructive contribution to the case for toleration.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45366948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
My title is “Arguing for Freedom of Religion,” not for “Toleration,” because I follow the eighteenth-century writer Christoph Martin Wieland in taking “toleration" to connote a gift or indulgence from a majority to a minority, whereas true freedom of religion would put everybody on the same plane to believe and practice religion as they see fit, or not at all. I consider three historically distinct ways of arguing for freedom of religion: from a premise held by one religion that requires freedom from others (the strategy of Locke, Madison, and Mendelssohn); from a premise about the uncertainty of all religious beliefs which calls for equal freedom (Bayle and Wieland); or from a fundamental requirement of equal freedom for all, with no premise about religion although it entails freedom in religious matters as in other things (Hutcheson, Meier, Kant). The latter approach may be most appealing from a purely philosophical point of view, but the former styles of argument have obviously had much to recommend them in historical contexts, and may still be useful.
{"title":"Arguing for Freedom of Religion","authors":"P. Guyer","doi":"10.18290/rf2204.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf2204.13","url":null,"abstract":"My title is “Arguing for Freedom of Religion,” not for “Toleration,” because I follow the eighteenth-century writer Christoph Martin Wieland in taking “toleration\" to connote a gift or indulgence from a majority to a minority, whereas true freedom of religion would put everybody on the same plane to believe and practice religion as they see fit, or not at all. I consider three historically distinct ways of arguing for freedom of religion: from a premise held by one religion that requires freedom from others (the strategy of Locke, Madison, and Mendelssohn); from a premise about the uncertainty of all religious beliefs which calls for equal freedom (Bayle and Wieland); or from a fundamental requirement of equal freedom for all, with no premise about religion although it entails freedom in religious matters as in other things (Hutcheson, Meier, Kant). The latter approach may be most appealing from a purely philosophical point of view, but the former styles of argument have obviously had much to recommend them in historical contexts, and may still be useful.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44387204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, we set out to show that the relationships between individuals, including the intersubjectivity inherent to the body politic, are also affective relationships, so as to reconstruct Spinoza’s minimalist theory of tolerance. According to Spinoza’s concept of affectivity and bodily life, affection refers to a state of the affected body and implies the presence of the affecting body, while affect refers to the transition from one state to another, taking into account the correlative variation of affective bodies, that is, the affect is always a passage or variation in the intensity of our power to exist and act — the increase or decrease, the favoring or the restraint of our power to exist and act. We argue that Spinoza’s geometry of affective relations decisively contributes to a political theory of democracy, insofar as it anticipates modern, liberal conceptions of tolerance.
{"title":"Spinoza’s Geometry of Affective Relations, the Body Politic, and the Social Grammar of Intolerance: A Minimalist Theory of Toleration","authors":"Elainy Costa Da Silva, Nythamar de Oliveira","doi":"10.18290/rf2204.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf2204.9","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we set out to show that the relationships between individuals, including the intersubjectivity inherent to the body politic, are also affective relationships, so as to reconstruct Spinoza’s minimalist theory of tolerance. According to Spinoza’s concept of affectivity and bodily life, affection refers to a state of the affected body and implies the presence of the affecting body, while affect refers to the transition from one state to another, taking into account the correlative variation of affective bodies, that is, the affect is always a passage or variation in the intensity of our power to exist and act — the increase or decrease, the favoring or the restraint of our power to exist and act. We argue that Spinoza’s geometry of affective relations decisively contributes to a political theory of democracy, insofar as it anticipates modern, liberal conceptions of tolerance.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46337619","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The term “tolerance”, strictly speaking, does not belong to Spinoza’s vocabulary, and the notion of “tolerance”, in its modern sense, is not part of his concepts either. However, the separation of theology and politics, which is the subject of the Theological-Political Treatise, envelops an even more radical separation between immanence and transcendence. An entirely immanent policy would be indifferent to “values” and “justifications” of any kind (moral, religious, rational). It would be based only on the “accounts” of individual “preferences”. We show that Spinoza’s philosophy can help us conceive (perhaps one day achieve) such a form of radical, or “absolute” democracy.
{"title":"Beyond Tolerance? Spinozist Proposals on Preferences and Justifications","authors":"Charles Ramond","doi":"10.18290/rf2204.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf2204.10","url":null,"abstract":"The term “tolerance”, strictly speaking, does not belong to Spinoza’s vocabulary, and the notion of “tolerance”, in its modern sense, is not part of his concepts either. However, the separation of theology and politics, which is the subject of the Theological-Political Treatise, envelops an even more radical separation between immanence and transcendence. An entirely immanent policy would be indifferent to “values” and “justifications” of any kind (moral, religious, rational). It would be based only on the “accounts” of individual “preferences”. We show that Spinoza’s philosophy can help us conceive (perhaps one day achieve) such a form of radical, or “absolute” democracy.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49564130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ali Abedi Renani, Saleh Hasanzadeh, Seyed Ebrahim Sarparast Sadat
In MacIntyre’s view, the agent in order to have a consistent identity should be able to narrate a story about her life, which relates the different episodes of her life together. This story should explain the transition between these episodes. This story is based on the notion of the good of human beings. A notion of the good should be present in the agent’s life to give a direction to her life. This integrity forms an identity for the agent. We intend to challenge this narrative view of identity in this paper. We will argue in this paper that though identity is formed in the eye of others, it does not need to be constituted in a unified narrative form, i.e., the agent does not need to place all episodes of her life in narrative order and have a consistent and unified account of her life, which includes her life from birth to death. Rather, shorter-term episodes of time suffice for identity formation. We will appeal to some findings of empirical psychology and neuroscience to support our claim.
{"title":"A Criticism of Alasdair MacIntyre’s Account of Narrative Identity. A Neuro-philosophical Perspective","authors":"Ali Abedi Renani, Saleh Hasanzadeh, Seyed Ebrahim Sarparast Sadat","doi":"10.18290/rf2204.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf2204.15","url":null,"abstract":"In MacIntyre’s view, the agent in order to have a consistent identity should be able to narrate a story about her life, which relates the different episodes of her life together. This story should explain the transition between these episodes. This story is based on the notion of the good of human beings. A notion of the good should be present in the agent’s life to give a direction to her life. This integrity forms an identity for the agent. We intend to challenge this narrative view of identity in this paper. We will argue in this paper that though identity is formed in the eye of others, it does not need to be constituted in a unified narrative form, i.e., the agent does not need to place all episodes of her life in narrative order and have a consistent and unified account of her life, which includes her life from birth to death. Rather, shorter-term episodes of time suffice for identity formation. We will appeal to some findings of empirical psychology and neuroscience to support our claim.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43553480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article investigates the contribution of Spinoza and authors of his circle (Antistius Constans, Van den Enden and Koerbagh) on the modern conception of tolerance. In his Tractatus theologico-politicus (1670), Spinoza launches the libertas philosophandi-question integrating two kinds of freedom between which there is a tension: freedom of thought and speech and freedom of religious conscience. As freedom means living and acting in society in light of one’s own interests, tolerance becomes a political issue that depends from political perspectives and priorities. This insight leads Spinoza to bringing together the control of political authority on religious affairs and a political regime of religious plurality and toleration. These ideas seem to be reminiscent of texts published in his immediate circle: the anonymus De jure ecclesiasticorum (1665); the political pamphlets Kort verhael (1662) and Vrye Politijke Stellingen (1665) of his teacher Van den Enden; the subversive dictionary Een Bloemhof (1668) and the systematic philosophical Een Ligt (1668) of Koerbagh. In these texts the question of religion and religious authority shifts to the question of the nature and origin of political authority. The authors all criticize the abuse of power in light of the idea that there is no freedom without equality and no equality without freedom. Together with Spinoza’s Tractatus politicus (1677), they thereby form an anomaly within the anomaly of the Calvinist Low Countries that regards specifically this radical democratic view. They are not so much talking about tolerance but about everyone’s active participation in political life which is necessary for the rescue of the republic.
{"title":"Passive Tolerance versus Political Engagement. Antistius Constans, Koerbagh, Van den Enden, and Spinoza","authors":"S. Lavaert","doi":"10.18290/rf2204.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf2204.11","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates the contribution of Spinoza and authors of his circle (Antistius Constans, Van den Enden and Koerbagh) on the modern conception of tolerance. In his Tractatus theologico-politicus (1670), Spinoza launches the libertas philosophandi-question integrating two kinds of freedom between which there is a tension: freedom of thought and speech and freedom of religious conscience. As freedom means living and acting in society in light of one’s own interests, tolerance becomes a political issue that depends from political perspectives and priorities. This insight leads Spinoza to bringing together the control of political authority on religious affairs and a political regime of religious plurality and toleration. These ideas seem to be reminiscent of texts published in his immediate circle: the anonymus De jure ecclesiasticorum (1665); the political pamphlets Kort verhael (1662) and Vrye Politijke Stellingen (1665) of his teacher Van den Enden; the subversive dictionary Een Bloemhof (1668) and the systematic philosophical Een Ligt (1668) of Koerbagh. In these texts the question of religion and religious authority shifts to the question of the nature and origin of political authority. The authors all criticize the abuse of power in light of the idea that there is no freedom without equality and no equality without freedom. Together with Spinoza’s Tractatus politicus (1677), they thereby form an anomaly within the anomaly of the Calvinist Low Countries that regards specifically this radical democratic view. They are not so much talking about tolerance but about everyone’s active participation in political life which is necessary for the rescue of the republic.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46615718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article presents a new interpretation of Spinoza’s account of religious intolerance. According to Rosenthal and Steinberg Spinoza explains the origins of religious intolerance in two ways. The first is in the Ethics, which is grounded on the affect of ambition; the second in the Theological-Political Treatise, which is based on the opposed affects of fear and hope. I agree with this interpretation, yet I considerably modify and supplement this account. The interpretation I propose rests on the observation that in order to understand Spinoza's view we need to draw the subtle distinction between the explanation of the psychological causes of religious intolerance and the elucidation of why religious intolerance appears to appeal so much. First, I shall discuss Spinoza’s account of the origin of religious intolerance. Second, I shall consider the measures which, in his view, should be taken in order to curb religious intolerance effectively.
{"title":"Spinoza’s Critique of Religious Intolerance","authors":"P. Gut","doi":"10.18290/rf2204.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf2204.12","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents a new interpretation of Spinoza’s account of religious intolerance. According to Rosenthal and Steinberg Spinoza explains the origins of religious intolerance in two ways. The first is in the Ethics, which is grounded on the affect of ambition; the second in the Theological-Political Treatise, which is based on the opposed affects of fear and hope. I agree with this interpretation, yet I considerably modify and supplement this account. The interpretation I propose rests on the observation that in order to understand Spinoza's view we need to draw the subtle distinction between the explanation of the psychological causes of religious intolerance and the elucidation of why religious intolerance appears to appeal so much. First, I shall discuss Spinoza’s account of the origin of religious intolerance. Second, I shall consider the measures which, in his view, should be taken in order to curb religious intolerance effectively.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48585308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper seeks to examine Hobbes’s credentials as a defender of religious freedom along three dimensions. The first section analyzes what might be called Hobbes’s core position on freedom of conscience and worship; it is shown how, by means of a characteristically reductionist strategy, he seeks to persuade the reader that the absolute state allows room for freedom of conscience and worship in all ways that they have reason to care about. The second section turns to Hobbes’s praise of Independency and addresses the issue whether it is consistent with his core position; it is argued that though it supplements this position it does not represent a fundamental departure from it. The final section takes up the perennially fascinating issue of the relationship between Locke’s mature defence of religious toleration and the teachings of his great precursor in the social contract tradition. Without seeking to minimize the differences I argue that Locke is able to adapt Hobbesian themes to his own distinctive purposes.
{"title":"Hobbes and Religious Freedom","authors":"N. Jolley","doi":"10.18290/rf2204.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf2204.7","url":null,"abstract":"This paper seeks to examine Hobbes’s credentials as a defender of religious freedom along three dimensions. The first section analyzes what might be called Hobbes’s core position on freedom of conscience and worship; it is shown how, by means of a characteristically reductionist strategy, he seeks to persuade the reader that the absolute state allows room for freedom of conscience and worship in all ways that they have reason to care about. The second section turns to Hobbes’s praise of Independency and addresses the issue whether it is consistent with his core position; it is argued that though it supplements this position it does not represent a fundamental departure from it. The final section takes up the perennially fascinating issue of the relationship between Locke’s mature defence of religious toleration and the teachings of his great precursor in the social contract tradition. Without seeking to minimize the differences I argue that Locke is able to adapt Hobbesian themes to his own distinctive purposes.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43595033","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：