囚犯、水手、士兵、间谍:霍布斯论胁迫与同意

IF 0.6 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS Pub Date : 2024-05-03 DOI:10.1353/jhi.2024.a926146
Daniel Luban
{"title":"囚犯、水手、士兵、间谍:霍布斯论胁迫与同意","authors":"Daniel Luban","doi":"10.1353/jhi.2024.a926146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Abstract:</p><p>This article examines Thomas Hobbes’s notorious claim that “fear and liberty are consistent” and therefore that agreements coerced by threat of violence are binding. This view is to a surprising extent inherited from Aristotle, but its political implications became especially striking in the wake of the English Civil War, and Hobbes recast his theory in far-reaching ways between his early works and Leviathan to accommodate it. I argue that Hobbes’s account of coercion is both philosophically safe from the most common objections to it and politically superior to the seemingly commonsensical alternatives that we have inherited from Hobbes’s critics.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":47274,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS","volume":"130 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prisoner, Sailor, Soldier, Spy: Hobbes on Coercion and Consent\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Luban\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/jhi.2024.a926146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Abstract:</p><p>This article examines Thomas Hobbes’s notorious claim that “fear and liberty are consistent” and therefore that agreements coerced by threat of violence are binding. This view is to a surprising extent inherited from Aristotle, but its political implications became especially striking in the wake of the English Civil War, and Hobbes recast his theory in far-reaching ways between his early works and Leviathan to accommodate it. I argue that Hobbes’s account of coercion is both philosophically safe from the most common objections to it and politically superior to the seemingly commonsensical alternatives that we have inherited from Hobbes’s critics.</p></p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47274,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS\",\"volume\":\"130 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/jhi.2024.a926146\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jhi.2024.a926146","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文探讨了托马斯-霍布斯臭名昭著的主张,即 "恐惧与自由是一致的",因此,以暴力相威胁的协议具有约束力。这一观点在令人惊讶的程度上继承自亚里士多德,但其政治影响在英国内战之后变得尤为突出,霍布斯在其早期作品和《利维坦》之间以影响深远的方式重塑了自己的理论,以适应这一观点。我认为,霍布斯关于强制的论述既在哲学上避免了最常见的反对意见,又在政治上优于我们从霍布斯的批评者那里继承的看似符合常理的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Prisoner, Sailor, Soldier, Spy: Hobbes on Coercion and Consent

Abstract:

This article examines Thomas Hobbes’s notorious claim that “fear and liberty are consistent” and therefore that agreements coerced by threat of violence are binding. This view is to a surprising extent inherited from Aristotle, but its political implications became especially striking in the wake of the English Civil War, and Hobbes recast his theory in far-reaching ways between his early works and Leviathan to accommodate it. I argue that Hobbes’s account of coercion is both philosophically safe from the most common objections to it and politically superior to the seemingly commonsensical alternatives that we have inherited from Hobbes’s critics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1940, the Journal of the History of Ideas has served as a medium for the publication of research in intellectual history that is of common interest to scholars and students in a wide range of fields. It is committed to encouraging diversity in regional coverage, chronological range, and methodological approaches. JHI defines intellectual history expansively and ecumenically, including the histories of philosophy, of literature and the arts, of the natural and social sciences, of religion, and of political thought. It also encourages scholarship at the intersections of cultural and intellectual history — for example, the history of the book and of visual culture.
期刊最新文献
Antiquarianism, Local Traditions, and Urban Identity in the Early Modern Netherlands: The Controversy about the City of the Nervii Marcia L. Colish (1937–2024) Sieyès's Constitutional Jury, the Pennsylvania Council of Censors, and the Debate on the Conservative Power in the French Revolution Seeing the Future through a Kaleidoscope: Uses of Morphological Type in Michelet's National and Natural Histories Women and Intellectual History in the Twentieth Century, Part One: Rethinking the "Origins" of US Intellectual History
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1