霍布斯的责任论对萨默维尔反对霍布斯赞同独立论的支持

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY Hobbes Studies Pub Date : 2022-03-10 DOI:10.1163/18750257-bja10039
S. Lloyd
{"title":"霍布斯的责任论对萨默维尔反对霍布斯赞同独立论的支持","authors":"S. Lloyd","doi":"10.1163/18750257-bja10039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nJust as some types of philosophical analysis are more useful than others to historians or political scientists, so, I find, are some sorts of historical research more useful to philosophers than are other sorts. Sommerville makes history useful to non-historians by clarifying the large-scale historical background against which his investigative questions are posed, and then separating out crucial figures, ideas, and events from arcana of interest primarily to specialist historians. His interpretations are relatively neutral, striking a welcome balance between mere reporting of events or textual ideas on the one hand, and on the other, accounts so theoretically laden that they prejudge or foreclose promising interpretive possibilities.","PeriodicalId":42474,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hobbes’s Theory of Responsibility as Support for Sommerville’s Argument Against Hobbes’s Approval of Independency\",\"authors\":\"S. Lloyd\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18750257-bja10039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nJust as some types of philosophical analysis are more useful than others to historians or political scientists, so, I find, are some sorts of historical research more useful to philosophers than are other sorts. Sommerville makes history useful to non-historians by clarifying the large-scale historical background against which his investigative questions are posed, and then separating out crucial figures, ideas, and events from arcana of interest primarily to specialist historians. His interpretations are relatively neutral, striking a welcome balance between mere reporting of events or textual ideas on the one hand, and on the other, accounts so theoretically laden that they prejudge or foreclose promising interpretive possibilities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hobbes Studies\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hobbes Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18750257-bja10039\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hobbes Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18750257-bja10039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

正如某些类型的哲学分析对历史学家或政治学家来说比其他类型的更有用一样,我发现,某些类型的历史研究对哲学家来说比其他类型的更有用。萨默维尔澄清了他的调查问题所依据的大范围历史背景,然后将关键人物、思想和事件从主要是专业历史学家感兴趣的神秘事物中分离出来,从而使历史对非历史学家有用。他的解释是相对中立的,一方面是单纯的事件报道或文本思想,另一方面是理论上的叙述,它们预先判断或排除了有希望的解释可能性,在这两者之间取得了令人欢迎的平衡。
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
Hobbes’s Theory of Responsibility as Support for Sommerville’s Argument Against Hobbes’s Approval of Independency
Just as some types of philosophical analysis are more useful than others to historians or political scientists, so, I find, are some sorts of historical research more useful to philosophers than are other sorts. Sommerville makes history useful to non-historians by clarifying the large-scale historical background against which his investigative questions are posed, and then separating out crucial figures, ideas, and events from arcana of interest primarily to specialist historians. His interpretations are relatively neutral, striking a welcome balance between mere reporting of events or textual ideas on the one hand, and on the other, accounts so theoretically laden that they prejudge or foreclose promising interpretive possibilities.
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
Hobbes Studies
Hobbes Studies PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
33.30%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Hobbes Studies is an international peer reviewed scholarly journal. Its interests are twofold; first, in publishing research about the philosophical, political, historical, literary, and scientific matters related to Thomas Hobbes"s own thought, at the beginning of the modern state and the rise of science, and also in a comparison of his views to other important thinkers; second, because of Hobbes"s enduring influence in stimulating social and political theory, the journal is interested in publishing such discussions. Articles and occasional book reviews are peer reviewed. The International Hobbes Association is associated with the journal but submissions are open.
期刊最新文献
Archibald Campbell, Critic of Hobbes Transubstantiation, Absurdity, and the Religious Imagination: Hobbes and Rational Christianity Hobbes, Locke, and the Christian Commonwealth Hobbes and Locke: Meaning, Method, Modernity: Introduction A Note from the Editor
×
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