Odi et Amo? Hobbes on the state of nature

Very few-if any-will doubt Hobbes's aversion to the state of nature and sympathy for civil society. On the other hand, it is not quite news that it would be inaccurate to claim that Hobbes rejected the state of nature entirely. Indeed, he embraced or at the very least tolerated the state of nat...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Rosler, A.
Formato:	JOUR
Materias:	civil war negative association State of nature war
Acceso en línea:	http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12110/paper_09215891_v24_n1_p91_Rosler
Aporte de:	Biblioteca Digital - Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales (UBA) de Universidad de Buenos Aires

id	todo:paper_09215891_v24_n1_p91_Rosler
record_format	dspace
spelling	todo:paper_09215891_v24_n1_p91_Rosler2023-10-03T15:45:38Z Odi et Amo? Hobbes on the state of nature Rosler, A. civil war negative association State of nature war Very few-if any-will doubt Hobbes's aversion to the state of nature and sympathy for civil society. On the other hand, it is not quite news that it would be inaccurate to claim that Hobbes rejected the state of nature entirely. Indeed, he embraced or at the very least tolerated the state of nature at the international level in order to escape from the individual state of nature. Hobbes's recommended exchange of an individual state of nature for an international one does seem to have a smack of contradiction, arguably first noted by Rousseau. There is yet another charge of contradiction lurking around Hobbes's account of the state of nature. Hobbes's political thought would still reflect an ambivalent attitude towards a third instantiation of the state of nature, i.e. civil war. This is one of the main reasons why the political allegiance of Thomas Hobbes has been an issue ever since the publication of De Cive at the very least. This paper deals with Hobbes's differential treatment of the original and the international states of nature and discusses the source of Hobbes's somewhat ambivalent attitude towards civil war. It is here argued that Hobbes can fairly hold his ground vis-à-vis Rousseau's criticism, in spite of the normative resemblance between the international state of nature and the initial state of nature, and that Hobbes ambivalent attitude of attraction and repulsion towards civil war is actually due not so much to opportunism on his part as to the normative autonomy he has granted to the state of nature. © 2011 BRILL. JOUR info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12110/paper_09215891_v24_n1_p91_Rosler
institution	Universidad de Buenos Aires
institution_str	I-28
repository_str	R-134
collection	Biblioteca Digital - Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales (UBA)
topic	civil war negative association State of nature war
spellingShingle	civil war negative association State of nature war Rosler, A. Odi et Amo? Hobbes on the state of nature
topic_facet	civil war negative association State of nature war
description	Very few-if any-will doubt Hobbes's aversion to the state of nature and sympathy for civil society. On the other hand, it is not quite news that it would be inaccurate to claim that Hobbes rejected the state of nature entirely. Indeed, he embraced or at the very least tolerated the state of nature at the international level in order to escape from the individual state of nature. Hobbes's recommended exchange of an individual state of nature for an international one does seem to have a smack of contradiction, arguably first noted by Rousseau. There is yet another charge of contradiction lurking around Hobbes's account of the state of nature. Hobbes's political thought would still reflect an ambivalent attitude towards a third instantiation of the state of nature, i.e. civil war. This is one of the main reasons why the political allegiance of Thomas Hobbes has been an issue ever since the publication of De Cive at the very least. This paper deals with Hobbes's differential treatment of the original and the international states of nature and discusses the source of Hobbes's somewhat ambivalent attitude towards civil war. It is here argued that Hobbes can fairly hold his ground vis-à-vis Rousseau's criticism, in spite of the normative resemblance between the international state of nature and the initial state of nature, and that Hobbes ambivalent attitude of attraction and repulsion towards civil war is actually due not so much to opportunism on his part as to the normative autonomy he has granted to the state of nature. © 2011 BRILL.
format	JOUR
author	Rosler, A.
author_facet	Rosler, A.
author_sort	Rosler, A.
title	Odi et Amo? Hobbes on the state of nature
title_short	Odi et Amo? Hobbes on the state of nature
title_full	Odi et Amo? Hobbes on the state of nature
title_fullStr	Odi et Amo? Hobbes on the state of nature
title_full_unstemmed	Odi et Amo? Hobbes on the state of nature
title_sort	odi et amo? hobbes on the state of nature
url	http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12110/paper_09215891_v24_n1_p91_Rosler
work_keys_str_mv	AT roslera odietamohobbesonthestateofnature
_version_	1782025929689661440

Odi et Amo? Hobbes on the state of nature

Ejemplares similares