从拉斯利特到瓦尔德曼:施特劳斯对洛克的再思考

Q3 Social Sciences Review of Politics Pub Date : 2022-09-06 DOI:10.1017/S0034670522000730
Nasser Behnegar, D. Stauffer, Rafael Major, C. Nadon
{"title":"从拉斯利特到瓦尔德曼:施特劳斯对洛克的再思考","authors":"Nasser Behnegar, D. Stauffer, Rafael Major, C. Nadon","doi":"10.1017/S0034670522000730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The denial of Locke's debt to Hobbes has long been characteristic of many scholars of Locke influenced by the Cambridge School. Peter Laslett was the first to argue for this view, and he did so in conscious opposition to Leo Strauss and his interpretation of Locke. The recent discovery by Felix Waldmann of a memoir that confirms Locke's deep interest in Hobbes as well as his prudent concealment of that interest has undermined Laslett's case against Strauss. Waldmann's discovery, moreover, comes in the wake of other historical work, by Jeffrey Collins and others, that has provided further grounds for abandoning the Cambridge view of Locke. These developments have yet to lead to a serious reengagement with Strauss's interpretation of Locke, but they should, because his controversial claim about Locke's debt to Hobbes has been vindicated.","PeriodicalId":52549,"journal":{"name":"Review of Politics","volume":"84 1","pages":"570 - 591"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Laslett to Waldmann: The Case for Reconsidering Strauss on Locke\",\"authors\":\"Nasser Behnegar, D. Stauffer, Rafael Major, C. Nadon\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0034670522000730\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The denial of Locke's debt to Hobbes has long been characteristic of many scholars of Locke influenced by the Cambridge School. Peter Laslett was the first to argue for this view, and he did so in conscious opposition to Leo Strauss and his interpretation of Locke. The recent discovery by Felix Waldmann of a memoir that confirms Locke's deep interest in Hobbes as well as his prudent concealment of that interest has undermined Laslett's case against Strauss. Waldmann's discovery, moreover, comes in the wake of other historical work, by Jeffrey Collins and others, that has provided further grounds for abandoning the Cambridge view of Locke. These developments have yet to lead to a serious reengagement with Strauss's interpretation of Locke, but they should, because his controversial claim about Locke's debt to Hobbes has been vindicated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Politics\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"570 - 591\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670522000730\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670522000730","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要长期以来,受剑桥学派影响,许多洛克学者一直否认洛克对霍布斯的亏欠。彼得·拉斯利特是第一个支持这一观点的人,他这样做是有意识地反对利奥·施特劳斯和他对洛克的解释。费利克斯·瓦尔德曼最近发现了一本回忆录,证实了洛克对霍布斯的浓厚兴趣,以及他对这种兴趣的谨慎隐瞒,这削弱了拉斯利特对施特劳斯的指控。此外,瓦尔德曼的发现是在杰弗里·柯林斯和其他人的其他历史著作之后发现的,这些著作为放弃剑桥对洛克的看法提供了进一步的依据。这些发展还没有导致对施特劳斯对洛克的解释的严重重新介入,但他们应该这样做,因为他关于洛克欠霍布斯的债务的有争议的说法已经得到了证实。
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
From Laslett to Waldmann: The Case for Reconsidering Strauss on Locke
Abstract The denial of Locke's debt to Hobbes has long been characteristic of many scholars of Locke influenced by the Cambridge School. Peter Laslett was the first to argue for this view, and he did so in conscious opposition to Leo Strauss and his interpretation of Locke. The recent discovery by Felix Waldmann of a memoir that confirms Locke's deep interest in Hobbes as well as his prudent concealment of that interest has undermined Laslett's case against Strauss. Waldmann's discovery, moreover, comes in the wake of other historical work, by Jeffrey Collins and others, that has provided further grounds for abandoning the Cambridge view of Locke. These developments have yet to lead to a serious reengagement with Strauss's interpretation of Locke, but they should, because his controversial claim about Locke's debt to Hobbes has been vindicated.
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
Review of Politics
Review of Politics Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
期刊最新文献
Any Time, Any Place, Any Way, Any Pace: Markets, EdTech, and the spaces of schooling. Ethical Growth in History: Good News and Bad Eric MacGilvray: Liberal Freedom: Pluralism, Polarization, and Politics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. xvi, 221.) Ben Jones: Apocalypse without God: Apocalyptic Thought, Ideal Politics, and the Limits of Utopian Hope. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. xiv, 225.) Jean-Yves Frétigné: To Live Is to Resist: The Life of Antonio Gramsci. Translated by Laura Marris. Foreword by Nadia Urbinati. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021. Pp. xxii, 306.)
×
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