Book Information Death and Philosophy. By Jeff Malpas and Robert C. Solomon. Routledge. London. 1998. Pp. xii + 211. Paperback.

Patriarcha -- The freeholder's grand inquest touching the king and his parliament -- Observations upon Aristotle's politiques touching forms of government -- Directions for obedience to government in dangerous or doubtful times -- Observations concerning the originall of government -- The anarchy of a limited or mixed monarchy -- The necessity of the absolute power of all kings.

This volume contains the political writings of Sir Robert Filmer (1588-1653), an acute defender of absolute monarchy and perhaps the most important patriarchal political theorist of the seventeenth century. The recent explosion of interest in women's history and the history of the family has greatly enhanced the audience for Filmer's work, and in this new edition Johann Sommerville provides accurate and accessible texts of his principal writings, accompanied by all the standard series features, including a concise introduction, chronology, (...) guide to further reading and notes on Filmer's own text. (shrink)

Dance is addressed as making significance for what Elias terms the civilizing process of early modernity through its contribution to the ennoblement of warriors and the pacification of merchants. The grounds for this are drawn from McNeill's contention that expenditure of muscular energy rhythmically in dance, as in military drill, but with different sociocultural consequences, is a fundamental human device for consolidating community feeling by facilitating cooperation by arousing a warm sense of togetherness. The significance of dance as a sociocultural (...) practice in early modernity is discussed critically through contemporary writings from the 16th and 17th centuries, with particular consideration given to the description of dance as an allegory for moral order in Elyot's manual on the education of the ruler. (shrink)

Each title in the "Key Issues" series aims to set the work in its historical context. In this collection of contemporary responses to "Leviathan", attention is focused on its critics who attacked Hobbes's moral, political and religious ideas in a series of pamphlets and short books.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Aristotelianism of Locke's PoliticsJ. S. MaloyThose, then, who think that the positions of statesman, king, household manager, and master of slaves are the same are not correct. For they hold that each of these differs not innly in whether the subjects ruled are few or many... the assumption being that there is no difference between a large household and a small city-state.... But these claims are not true.Aristotle, (...) Politics, 1252a1The Power of a Magistrate over a Subject may be distinguished from that of a Father over his Children, a Master over his Servant, a Husband over his Wife, and a Lord over his Slave. All which distinct Powers happening sometimes together in the same Man, if he be considered under these different Relations, it may help us to distinguish these Powers one from another, and show the difference betwixt a Ruler of a Common-wealth, a Father of a Family, and a Captain of a Galley.Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 2.22 [End Page 235]When the political theory of John Locke first appeared in print in 1689, the imposing authority of Aristotle stood ready to defeat it. So believed many of Locke's critics, at any rate. After his death in 1704, when it was confirmed that the internationally renowned author of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding had also written the anonymously published Two Treatises of Government, Locke was widely taken to represent a distinctive type of political theory based on individual rights and the social contract. Learned opposition to this sort of voluntaristic account of politics has often rested on Aristotle, "the Philosopher," the ancient authority on the human instinct for sociability and the hierarchal communities arising therefrom. Within the modern academy "liberals," "communitarians," and "republicans" have again made a habit of pronouncing the names of Locke and Aristotle in tones of antagonism. In broad outline the reasons have not changed in two or three centuries ago: the first stands for natural-rights individualism and the second for an organic conception of community.3What are we to make of this conventional opposition in light of the awkward fact that the second of Locke's Two Treatises, "Of Civil Government," takes the reclamation of the Aristotelian conception of political power as its principal purpose? Locke announced in the opening chapter of that essay that his chief target, Robert Filmer, had misunderstood the nature of distinctively political relationships, mainly by ignoring the differences between authority in political society and authority within the family (L 2.1–2). Locke alleged that this basic conceptual mistake of the Filmerian theory of "absolute" and "arbitrary" government was the source of its disastrous practical ramifications, which he had summed up in the first Treatise as "Chains for all Mankind" (L 1.1). Filmer, in turn, had taken Plato's side in the debate about political and familial rule which Aristotle had joined in the opening lines of his Politics (A 1252a). Though a perceptive reader long ago noticed the Aristotelianism of Locke's response to Filmer—Locke and Algernon Sidney were the "two famous men" to whom Rousseau alluded as having defended Aristotle against Filmer's Platonic notions of power—no modern scholar has attempted a full explanation of the significance of Locke's intervention in this debate.4 [End Page 236]The analysis below will show that Aristotle was the classic source for both the principal theoretic argument of Locke's second Treatise and the method employed to pursue it, i.e. using analogies of power for conceptual comparison and distinction. But my argument for the Aristotelianism of Locke's politics will rest on contextual as well as textual grounds. Not only was Locke pursuing an evident variation on the central theme of bk. 1 of Aristotle's Politics; he was far from alone in doing so. This sort of project was by the 1680s typical of radical constitutionalist writing in Europe, including not only English Whigs like Sidney and James Tyrrell but also a long line of writers on both sides of the English Channel, stretching back at least a century, who deployed a particular interpretation of Aristotle in the service... (shrink)

The article presents the political thinking of Suárez’s De opere sex dierum, a literary work which as yet does not count on a translation into Spanish. The article is divided into two parts. The first one describes and analyses the political thinking of this work, reaching the conclusion that the central theme is that of the distinction between economic and political power, carried out in order to save –faced with the theory of the divine right of kings– the liberty and (...) equality of all men and the contractual character of the State. The second part covers the relation of this work with Filmer’s Patriarcha, as well as the inspiration found in Suárez’s writing upon which to base the themes of liberty and equality found in Locke’s second Treatise on Government. (shrink)

This article sets out a novel analysis of Sir Robert Filmer's (1588-1653) well-known but often misread Patriarcha (1620s-30s). Claiming that a preoccupation with John Locke's criticism of Filmer has had distorting effects on modern historiography and has prevented an appropriate contextual approach to the work. The article proceeds along four lines. Firstly, drawing on the discovery of a manuscript note it re-maps the configuration of its arguments, aims and intellectual milieu. Secondly, it presents the treatise as the powerful (...) articulation of the patriarchalist paradigm deployed to attack the emerging language of county patriotism and the theory of papal deposing power formulated by Jesuit thinkers like Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez. Thirdly, it places Patriarcha in the context of the late 1620s' parliamentary debates from which emerged the Petition of Right (1628) illuminating the reasons why Filmer made use of the notion of the king as pater patriae with the aim of opposing (quasi)-republican defenders of the so-called `common people'. Finally, the article reshapes the role of patriarchalism in the history of early modern European political thought, especially with regard to the centrality of the idea of `arbitrary' power. (shrink)

Richard Cumberland, the Anglican divine, concludes his anti-Hobbesian work, Treatise of the Laws of Nature, with the following remarkable observation: ‘Hobbes, whilst he pretends with one hand to bestow gifts upon princes, does with the other treacherously strike a dagger to their hearts.’ This remark sums up a dominant theme of seventeenth-century reactions to Hobbes's political theory; a host of similar complaints could be marshalled from among the ranks of secondary figures such as Clarendon, Filmer and Pufendorf. Today, however, (...) Cumberland's criticism has a relatively unfamiliar ring. Following the lead famously given by John Locke, we are much more likely to be impressed by the totalitarian features of Hobbes's political philosophy than by its subversive character. To preclude initial objections, there is of course a relatively uncontroversial sense in which Hobbes's thought is subversive; in metaphysics, ethics and theology Hobbes's daggers are deliberately aimed at the hearts of the Schoolmen and the Puritans. But Cumberland's concern in the quotation is with Hobbes's theory of sovereignty: the thrust of his criticism is that the theory is top-heavy, and this issue has not received much attention in recent years. One notable exception is David Gauthier who writes that ‘from unlimited individualism only anarchy follows. The theory is a failure.’ Gauthier, however, argues tht Hobbes's presentation of his theory in Leviathan marks a major advance over the earlier De Cive, and if our criterion of success is the strength of the sovereign's position, then this claim seems highly suspect. In the first part of this paper I shall argue that the sovereign of Leviathan is a more vulnerable figure than the sovereign of the earlier De Cive. In the second part of the paper I take up the problem posed by military service for a Hobbesian theory of political obligation. Employing a distinction between act- and rule-prudentialism, I shall argue that here again the position of Leviathan is in some ways less satisfactory than that of the earlier works. (shrink)

There is as yet no general agreement about exactly when Locke's Second Treatise of Government was written. Primarily as a result of Peter Laslett's arguments, the old assumption that it was written after the Revolution of 1688 has been abandoned, and it is almost universally agreed that both of the Two Treatises were written (apart from a small number of additions made in 1689) in the period between Locke's return to England from France at the end of April 1679 and (...) his departure for Holland in August 1683. An earliest possible date for the First Treatise can be established without difficulty. It cannot have been started before Filmer's Patriarcha was published in the winter of 1679-80, and probably not before Locke bought his own copy on 22 January 1680. Theories about the composition of the Second Treatise may therefore be divided into two classes: those which suppose, with Laslett, that it was begun in 1679, before Patriarcha was published, and therefore before Locke could have formed any intention of writing the First Treatise; and those which hold that it was not started until Locke had written at least the main part of the First. The second is of course the traditional view, and one that was taken for granted before Laslett's work; its most notable defender has been Richard Ashcraft, who has accepted Laslett's demolition of the 1689 dating, but has diverged from him in ascribing the Second Treatise to the period after the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament in March 1681. Ashcraft's criticisms of Laslett have been accepted by several recent writers, notably David Wootton, Mark Goldie and John Marshall, but they themselves have not agreed with each other or with Ashcraft in their positive claims. The whole question is therefore worth examining again. (shrink)

The idea of an original contract is, ironically, inherently narrative in form; although tautological in essence, it nevertheless portrays events occurring in sequence. In response to Filmer's provocations that the idea of an original contract lacks historical veracity, Locke tries and repeatedly fails to establish a direct historical substantiation of his position in the early chapters of the Second Treatise. The most important of these various miscalculations concern the role of consent in his account of the origins of government, (...) the tension between logical and historical evidence in describing the development of prerogative in the English monarchy, and the inescapable conclusion that conquest and not consent was the likely origin of most states. In these places, the Locke's deductive argument is forced to slow, hesitate, and change direction. The general concept of individual transgression, as it emerges from Locke's depiction of the state of nature, war, and slevery, later transforms itself into the basis of governmental injustice and tyranny. These, in turn, work to generate a sort of secondary and “political” state of nature in which now “historical” people, by means of concrete acts of resistance and revolution, enact the hypotheses of the consensual theory in their own actual time and place. (shrink)

Recent interpretation stresses the narrow role of consent in locke: it is a ground, Not of legitimacy but of legitimate revolt. Locke is less precise. In rejecting filmer's claim that birth imposes absolute political obligations locke implicitly denies its determination of the locus as well as the degree of those obligations. Using consent to limit political absolutism, Thus inadvertently raised the question of its direct link with citizenship, Hence locke's confused discussion of tacit and express consent. Locke leaves the (...) issue unresolved, Making the common patriarchal assumption that the location, If not the degree of political obligation, Can be inferred from birth. (shrink)

Disney's animated film canon offers two contrasting visions of marriage and parenthood, which correspond to two rival portrayals of family life. The first vision of the family is what people can call the Irrational Matriarchy and Patriarchy (IMP) model. The second is what they can call the Family Unity Model. Disney's IMP families often recapitulate an old debate in political philosophy – that between Robert Filmer and John Locke. According to Locke, the most promising argument for the patriarchist position (...) is that parents give their children life and therefore have a power over their lives. In contrast with the Lockean vision of marriage, the author considers the marriage vows between Pongo and Perdita. In the Family Unity Model, having and rearing children is not to be feared as a threat to one's liberty, success, and happiness. Indeed, The Incredibles turns Beauvoir's critique of the family on its head in several ways. (shrink)

This article uses the methods that Locke advocated in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding to evaluate manuscript evidence from five different schemes and two drafts of the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, to thereby determine what role, if any, John Locke had in writing it, and in advocating for slavery and absolutism. It focuses on the influential claims put forward by David Armitage 20 years ago, that Locke was responsible for actively promoting slavery in Carolina’s Fundamental Constitutions. It enables the reader (...) to view, and judge, the relevant evidence. The author concludes, and invites the reader to conclude, that Armitage’s main claims lack foundation in the manuscript evidence. That evidence instead points towards the legal power of those who owned Carolina, the Lords Proprietors, and to the crown, which granted Carolina’s charter, and to the logic of a different theory of government, patriarchalism, for the rationale behind both slavery and absolutism. The central ideas behind slavery and colonization were epitomized, as Locke understood, by Sir Robert Filmer, who wrote the book to which Locke responded in his Two Treatises of Government. Filmer’s ally, Sir Henry Spelman, like Filmer a deeply committed royalist who believed in the king’s unlimited prerogatives, composed the original 1629 Carolina charter that shaped the Fundamental Constitutions. Misattributing the authorship of particular clauses to Locke is a symptom of a larger failure to distinguish the impact of momentous debates over authority and race in the seventeenth century. Locke’s theories did, in practice as well as principle, reject the theory of domination put forward by Filmer, and argued instead for human rights and democracy that were inclusive and capacious. The manuscript evidence has the potential to reshape how modern democratic theory is understood in the present. (shrink)

Legal and political theorist, common lawyer and parliamentary leader, historian and polyglot, John Selden was a formidable figure in Renaissance England, whose real importance and influence are now being recognized once again. John Selden and the Western Political Tradition highlights his important role in the development of such early modern political ideas as modern natural law and natural rights, national identity and tradition, the political integration of church and state, and the effect of Jewish ideas on Western political thought. Selden's (...) political ideas are analysed in the context of his contemporaries Grotius, Hobbes and Filmer. The book demonstrates how these ideas informed and influenced more familiar works of later thinkers like Burke. (shrink)

This article offers a rejoinder to Felix Waldmann. In a critical note published in Locke Studies, Waldmann challenges our recent reconstruction of Locke’s thesis, developed across the Second Treatise of Government, that humans cannot possibly agree to subject themselves to absolute rule. Call this thesis No Contractual Absolutism. Our reconstruction, Waldmann objects, “neglects a basic datum of scholarship”: i.e., that Locke’s Second Treatise intended to counter Filmer’s political theory. Our reply is two-pronged. First, we argue that No Contractual Absolutism (...) cannot plausibly be construed as an attack on Filmer, since it challenges a thesis that he did not hold. Indeed, as for him no form of government can be contractual in origin, Filmer would have agreed with Locke that absolute rule cannot be instituted by agreement. As our initial article suggested, the standard view about whom the polemical target is of the Second Treatise requires qualification with respect to No Contractual Absolutism. Second, we contend that Waldmann’s concerns rest on discipline-specific methodological assumptions, which are unhelpful for the kind of analytical reconstruction we advanced. We conclude with a plea for methodological pluralism in the study of Locke’s thought. (shrink)

Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan is the greatest work of political philosophy in English and the first great work of philosophy in English. In addition, it presents the fundamentals of his beliefs about language, epistemology, and an extensive treatment of revealed religion and its relation to politics. Beginning with premises that were sometimes controversial, such as that every human action is caused by the agent's desire for his own good, Hobbes derived shocking conclusions, such as that the civil government enjoys absolute control (...) over its citizens and that the sovereign has the right to determine which religion is to be practiced in a commonwealth. Hobbes's contemporaries recognized the power of the arguments in Leviathan and many of them wrote responses to it. Selections from books by John Bramhall, Robert Filmer, Edward Hyde, George Lawson, William Lucy, Samuel Pufendorf and Thomas Tenison are included in this edition. Leviathan is divided into four parts: In the first part, Of Man, Hobbes presents a view of human beings and of the natural world in general that is materialistic and mechanistic. In the second part, Of Commonwealth, he defends the theory of absolute sovereignty, the view that the government has all the political power and has the right to control any aspect of life. In the third part, Of a Christian Commonwealth, he critiques concepts like revelation, prophets, and miracles in such a way that it becomes doubtful whether they can be rationally justified. In the fourth part, Of the Kingdom of Darkness, he explains various ways in which priestly religion has corrupted religion and transgressed the rights of the sovereign. In this revised edition of Hobbes's classic work, A.P. Martinich improves Hobbes's punctuation for the sake of clarity. He has also added new notes for readers, extensive cross references, and substantial part of Hobbes's reply to Bramhall's The Catching of Leviathan. (shrink)

Parry’s volume is not an elementary book, but it is apparently intended as an introduction to Locke’s political thought for students. While he definitely has a point of view of his own, he attempts to draw together much of the recent critical thought on Locke. Parry’s volume differs from much of the recent work on Locke in being, one might say, "sweet-tempered." He is sweet-tempered in the first place toward Locke. Unlike so much of the recent scholarly-historical literature, he clearly (...) respects Locke. In a field marked by acrimony among scholars, Parry is also remarkably sweet tempered toward other Locke scholars; he builds on the work of others where possible, rather than emphasizing his own novelty and uniqueness. He thus produces a far more balanced treatment than most. For example, he accepts willingly the Laslett-sponsored arguments that the Second Treatise is aimed against Filmer as was the First, but he refuses to toss out entirely the older view that it is aimed in some measure against Hobbes. Although Parry is probably least tolerant towards the Strauss approach to Locke, he is even able to find large areas where he endorses moderate versions of that position, for example, on the important range of similarities between Hobbes and Locke. Parry’s "harmonizing approach" shows up also in the unusually wide range of Lockean sources from which he draws. He uses not only the standard fare of the Second Treatise and the Essays on the Law of Nature, but also the works on education, toleration, and economics to good effect. Disappointingly scanty, however, is the place of the First Treatise and even the Essay. His harmonizing approach shows up most importantly, however, in his attempt to combine the two chief sorts of attention Locke has received in recent years. On the one hand, there is the Locke scholarship properly so-called. While there are several varieties and orientations within this literature, no doubt the leading one has taken a very historical approach—attempting to understand Locke in his historical context and deploying religious or theological categories as the chief means for doing so. This approach shuns "present-mindedness" above all other intellectual vices. While Parry announces his general adherence to this approach he attempts to take account of the other main sort of interest in Locke today—as a source and inspiration for a very live contemporary tradition of political thinking, represented by Nozick and Rawls. Parry uses these contemporary "Lockeans" to help interpret the Second Treatise, leaning for example on Rawls’s formulation of the problem social contact theory attempts to answer, and Nozick’s doctrine of "entitlements." Parry’s refusal to be terrified by the strictures against "present-mindedness" produce some of the best and most valuable features of the book, as when he seriously asks what Locke means today, or how other contemporary political views differ from Locke’s. On the other hand, his reading of Locke on political economy suffers a bit perhaps from over-domination by Nozick’s restatement. Parry attempts to give both devils their due by agreeing with the historical school that Locke’s thought must be read historically, as Christian or theological, in a form that could hardly be acceptable to any contemporary political thinkers, and agreeing with the contemporary Lockean tradition that "to a very considerable extent" Locke’s position "can and must be…assessed and understood apart from its theological substructure." Those theological foundations are, Parry admits, very problematical. In fact, with a post-Humean eye, "it can become difficult to persuade oneself even that Locke could have found his position consistent." Yet Parry affirms "there is no doubt that Locke found the argument satisfying." But he supplies no reason—other than the fact that Locke deployed such arguments on more than one occasion—for this conclusion. Surely gross inconsistencies in argument are grounds for doubt. Parry should have at the least entertained Leo Strauss’s hypothesis about Locke’s manner of expression in light of his own views that Locke’s expressed theological underpinnings are unacceptable philosophically, and that Locke’s position can rest on altogether independent nontheological grounds. Moreover, Parry’s concession that Locke cannot move successfully from those religious underpinnings to the all-important content of the law of nature supplies further grounds for considering the same hypothesis. Parry’s treatment shares with most of the historical approaches to Locke the defect of "slackness"—when we come to something inconsistent or difficult to understand, we write it off as the product of Locke’s faith, internally meaningful, believable to him. Only in Parry’s case this is more problematical yet, for he rightly insists that we see Locke’s position as nonarchaic, and thus makes the reader eager for probing analysis and justification rather than loose appeals to Locke’s times. In order to connect the theological underpinnings to the political arguments, Parry is driven to some most un-Lockean notions such as the duty of "an individual to stretch himself to the full." For a similar reason, we suspect, freedom, which plays an extremely large part in Parry’s exposition, nowhere receives an adequate rooting in Locke’s discussion in the Essay, nor does Locke’s hedonism play a sufficient part in Parry’s interpretation.—M.Z. (shrink)

Thomas Hobbes’s _Leviathan_ is the greatest work of political philosophy in English and the first great work of philosophy in English. Beginning with premises that were sometimes controversial, such as that every human action is caused by the agent’s desire for his own good, Hobbes derived shocking conclusions, such as that the civil government enjoys absolute control over its citizens and that the sovereign has the right to determine which religion is to be practiced in a commonwealth. Hobbes’s contemporaries recognized (...) the power of arguments in _Leviathan_ and many of them wrote responses to it; selections by John Bramhall, Robert Filmer, Edward Hyde, George Lawson, William Lucy, Samuel Pufendorf, and Thomas Tenison are included in this edition. This revised Broadview Edition of Hobbes’s classic work of political philosophy includes the full text of Part I, Part II, and the Review and Conclusion. The appendices, which set the work in its historical context, include a rich selection of contemporary responses to _Leviathan_. Also included are an introduction, explanatory notes, and a chronology of Hobbes’s life. (shrink)

Thomas Hobbes’s _Leviathan_ is the greatest work of political philosophy in English and the first great work of philosophy in English. Beginning with premises that were sometimes controversial, such as that every human action is caused by the agent’s desire for his own good, Hobbes derived shocking conclusions, such as that the civil government enjoys absolute control over its citizens and that the sovereign has the right to determine which religion is to be practiced in a commonwealth. Hobbes’s contemporaries recognized (...) the power of arguments in _Leviathan_ and many of them wrote responses to it; selections by John Bramhall, Robert Filmer, Edward Hyde, George Lawson, William Lucy, Samuel Pufendorf, and Thomas Tenison are included in this edition. _Leviathan _is divided into four parts: In the first part, Of Man, Hobbes presents a view of human beings and of the natural world in general that is materialistic and mechanistic. In the second part, Of Commonwealth, he defends the theory of absolute sovereignty, the view that the government has all the political power and has the right to control any aspect of life. In the third part, Of a Christian Commonwealth, he critiques concepts like revelation, prophets, and miracles in such a way that it becomes doubtful whether they can be rationally justified. In the fourth part, Of the Kingdom of Darkness, he explains various ways in which priestly religion has corrupted religion and transgressed the rights of the sovereign. (shrink)

The paper examines Robert Filmer’s arguments in defence of the divine right of kings in Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings. Filmer argues that human beings are not born free by nature and, as a result, are expected to obey the kings/monarchs absolutely with­out questioning, due to the arbitrary power and the divine right bestowed upon the kings. This position defended by Filmer is antithetical to the notion of natural freedom of mankind defended by John Locke (...) and other social contract theorists. Contrary to Filmer’s view, this paper suggests that Filmer exaggerated the power of kings. In this paper, I wish to critically examine Filmer’s arguments with which he supported his claim. The paper argues against Filmer’s divine right monarchy for the following reasons: (i) it lacks rational justification, (ii) it was founded on misinterpretation of the scriptures, and (iii) it fails to address the athe­ists’ question. In the final analysis, the paper concludes with the argument that the question of mutual exclusivity of the concepts in the discussion rests upon manifest misinterpreta­tions of divine right and the natural freedom of mankind. (shrink)

Dans les Deux traites du gouvernement, Locke poursuit des fins polemiques, politiques et philosophiques. Le Premier traite s'oppose a la theorie du droit divin des rois lie a la primogeniture, theorie dont Filmer s'etait fait le protagoniste. Les arguments du Deuxieme traite doivent leur validite a l'effort dont ils procedent: l'effort de progres de la raison politique en general. Locke y defend son appui a la cause de la religion constitutionnelle de religion reformee. Il affirme que le gouvernement legitime (...) ne peut se fonder ni sur la conquete, ni sur l'usurpation pas plus que sur la tyrannie. (shrink)

There exists a fundamental convergence between some major trends of modern epistemology—as outlined, for instance, by Filmer Northrop and Henry Margenau—and the theories actually developed within sciences of the human mind where two types of thought—one implicit and, the other, explicit—tend to refer to two different lines of development. Moreover, these theories can find in the psychology of Lev Vygotsky some seminal hypotheses of a major importance. In order to highlight this convergence, we parallel the role played by structured (...) conceptual systems in Vygotsky’s conception of intellectual development and Northrop’s epistemology. We show how these conceptual systems account for the notion of causality and can explain the success of scientific thought, i.e. its possible match with the real world, while this match falsely justified an overall biological model of intellectual development in Jean Piaget’s work. We conclude that dual process theorists should no longer neglect cognitive tools, and especially conceptual systems, which underpin the awareness and mastery of thought that are characteristic of type 2 processes. This whole analysis leads us to maintain that human psychology is not characterized in the first instance by a need to act, but a quest for meaning. (shrink)

This thesis is an investigation of the feasibility of a micropolitical analysis as an evaluative scheme for the analysis of property. The limitations of historical and normative frameworks are discussed. The ontological features of power as understood by Filmer and Locke are compared, and these, to a Foucauldian view of power. The Foucauldian view of power is a better tool of analysis since it reveals and explains more features of "property", including the way that a Lockean conception of property (...) and power, as a point of authority, affects the discourse of property itself. Using a personal and an historical example of the private/public distinction, I establish that these are relational terms built up by various rules of inclusion and exclusion, not upon any prior ground. In particular, I highlight how the production of knowledge functions as one of the conduits in or out of domains; that is, the public and the private are domains of expertise or authority on property. Individuals occupy subjectivities available within the discourse of property which position them, or allow them to position others, as having legitimate or illegitimate relations to property. I show how these subjectivities are the central functional feature of the possibility of normativity. That is to say, whether and how forms of property relations can be evaluated depends on the production of forms of judgment which a subject position makes possible, in form and in content. I ask how present subject positions within the domains of tangible and intangible property work to extend or delimit these domains as moral, political or economic ones. The possibilities of judgment and of freedom from judgment as formal strategies of 4 distinct regimes of power are enumerated, offering an evaluative framework. I ask what, in the domain of property, these 4 regimes offer as formal possibilities for freedom, fairness, and equality. Lastly, I explore Deleuze's concepts of the rhizome and the arborescent with a similar view to reading property as a question of one kind of line rather than another. Finally, I generate from this critical cartography, and bearing in mind the examples of pregnancy and potlatch, a number of responsible strategies one could make from the subject positions identified. (shrink)

The idea of an original contract is, ironically, inherently narrative in form; although tautological in essence, it nevertheless portrays events occurring in sequence. In response to Filmer's provocations that the idea of an original contract lacks historical veracity. Locke tries and repeatedly fails to establish a direct historical substantiation of his position in the early chapters of the Second Treatise. The most important of these various miscalculations concern the role of consent in his account of the origins of government, (...) the tension between logical and historical evidence in describing the development of prerogative in the English monarchy, and the inescapable conclusion that conquest and not consent was the likely origin of most states. In these places, the Locke's deductive argument is forced to slow, hesitate, and change direction. The general concept of individual transgression, as it emerges from Locke's depiction of the state of nature, war, and slavery, later transforms itself into the basis of governmental injustice and tyranny. These, in turn, work to generate a sort of secondary and “political” state of nature in which a now “historical” people, by means of concrete acts of resistance and revolution, enact the hypothesis of the consensual theory in their own actual time and place. (shrink)

Well-known for his work on absolutism, divine right theory, and his contextual reading of Hobbes’ ideas, Sommerville also published successful critical editions of Sir Robert Filmer and King James vi and I’s political writing. Sommerville’s engagement in key historiographical debates on early- modern British history, involving “opposing camps” of revisionists and post-revisionists, is less explored. Here, I focus on the question whether pre-Civil War England was immune to ideological conflict or, instead, featured a confrontation between King and Parliament based (...) on ideas of power, liberty and obedience. I also highlight the continued relevance of Sommerville’s innovative account of English political thought as deeply shaped by European theories. His work reminds us of the role of the history of political thought in rectifying false claims and unchecked opinions, so commonly expounded in our divided world. In conclusion, I advance my own critical interpretation of Sommerville’s views on absolutism and patriarchalism. (shrink)

Resumo O objetivo deste texto é cotejar as concepções de liberdade natural e de liberdade civil de John Locke e de Algernon Sidney. Se ambos escreveram seus tratados em resposta ao panfleto de Robert Filmer, Patriarcha, or the naturall power of kings defended against the unnatural liberty of the people, com críticas muito parecidas, as concepções de liberdade apresentadas, apesar das semelhanças, revelam nuanças significativas, com relevantes implicações em alguns casos, como na possibilidade de o governo deter a prerrogativa (...) de agir em casos não previstos pelas leis civis ou de maneira contrária às leis civis, em situações de emergência. A intenção é mostrar que essas diferenças resultam em duas perspectivas distintas de pensar a relação entre governo e lei civil.: The purpose of this paper is to compare the conceptions of natural liberty and civil liberty of John Locke and Algernon Sidney. Both wrote their treatises in response to Robert Filmer’s pamphlet, Patriarcha, or the naturall Power of kings defended against the unnatural liberty of the people. However, their conceptions of liberty, despite similarities, present significant nuances. These have important implications in some cases, for example, with regard to the government’s prerogative to act in cases not provided for by civil laws, or to act contrary to civil law in emergency situations. It is argued that these differences result in two different perspectives for thinking about the relationship between government and civil law. (shrink)

This work provides the first full-scale study of Anthony Ascham's political thought. During the crucial period between the Second Civil War and the aftermath of the abolition of monarchy and the establishment of the English Republic, when he served as official pamphleteer of the Parliament and the republican government, the arguments exposed in Ascham's works paved the way for much of contemporary political discussion. Ascham put forward a complex argument in support of Parliament's claims for obedience which drew on the (...) political thought of Grotius, Hobbes, Selden, Filmer and Machiavelli. He combined ideas taken from these authors and turned them into a powerful instrument of propaganda to be deployed to the service of the political agenda of his Independent patrons in Parliament. (shrink)

La Construction du bonheur est, à la fois, un livre et un film... Les deux objets sont, ici, matériellement présents. Mais les deux peuvent être pris séparément. Dans l'un comme dans l'autre y apparaît Robert Misrahi sous des éclairages et des angles changeants. A l'écrit, Robert Misrahi, s'il commence par revenir sur son oeuvre livresque, consacré au bonheur et au philosophe eudémonique Spinoza, c'est afin de planter le décor. Très vite il en arrive à l'image. Car c'est là le sujet. (...) Doublement. Voilà qui est nouveau. Il y consacre quatre chapitres : La fascination de l'image ; La mise en chantier ; Les premiers tournages ; La création. Ce court texte est des plus réjouissants. Il témoigne du courage d'un homme, philosophe de son état, qui n'hésite pas à se prêter à une expérience phénoménologique d'un genre particulier où champ et hors-champ, d'écriture et d'images, se mêlent. Robert Misrahi, même s'il bouge beaucoup, n'est pas un philosophe de l'action : la grande action de sa vie a été d'enseigner, ce qui n'est pas rien, mine de rien. L'oeoeuvre d'un philosophe, c'est avant tout de la pensée, et cette pensée produit d'abord des livres. Un philosophe, c'est un livre au milieu de la route, au milieu des gens. Répétons-le : le philosophe est quelqu'un qui pense. D'où : filmer la pensée est-ce que cela peut faire un film? Un vrai film s'entend. Avec de vraies images, avec de la vraie musique, avec de vrais lieux, avec du concret donc et de vraies abstractions aussi. Nous avons tenté, avec ce film, une narration filmique. L'image devenant le miroir des mots et les mots devenant générateurs d'images. C'est une expérience particulière à laquelle, à 86 ans, Robert Misrahi a bien voulu se prêter. Nicolas Martin a été très soucieux de parvenir à un "point d'équilibre" dans ce mariage à trois : la pensée, la parole et l'image... Car le difficile est bien de représenter le bonheur. Le malheur, la douleur, la souffrance c'est facile : c'est une sorte de pot commun où tout le monde peut se reconnaître. La mort est toujours la même, partout dans le monde. Mais le bonheur? Le bonheur est individuel. Le bonheur de l'un ne ressemble pas au bonheur de l'autre. Quelles images pour le bonheur? Mais il s'agit, dans ce film, avant tout, d'accompagner les propos d'un philosophe sur la construction du bonheur. (shrink)

This paper intends to analyze the basic assumptions that sustain John Locke’s refutation of patriarchalism. It will be shown that neither his idea of paternal power, nor his notion of family, departs from the lockean idea of human freedom. Against our expectations, these arguments go through a different path, departing from those two aspects of human life (dependency and weakness) that do not match with the image of an independent and capable man. Considering this, it will be possible to conclude (...) that some of Locke’s most important arguments are based on the presumption of the existence of childhood. It will be shown how childhood acquires a theoretical and practical status similar to that of the principles of human freedom and equality. Like these, the principle of childhood will also reveal to be capable of fulfilling the purpose that seems to go through the Two Treatises, namely to limit political authority. (shrink)

A brief presentation of the major conclusions contained in the recently published monograph entitled "The Ascent to Law: Searches and Solutions," written over a period of many years. Chapter headings are: The law - an objective reality. The dogma of the law. The drama of scholarship. Searching. "The entire" substance of the law. Juridical constructs. The logic of laws. The secret of the law. Law - the highest purpose. Law in the life and fate of mankind.

Gottfried Martin has recently reminded us of a useful distinction between two possible ways of doing metaphysics. We may proceed by framing a “theory of principles” or by proposing a “theory of being”. Aristotle explicitly formulates both possibilities as the task of metaphysics, formulating a theory of principles in his doctrine of the four types of causal explanation in the first book of the Metaphysics, while exploring the theory of being in a number of other passages, such as Book I, (...) chapters 6 and 9; Book X, chapter 2; and Book XIII. These passages do not elaborate principles whereby we can analyze the structure of certain entities, be they causes, substances or forms, but rather concern themselves with the ontological status of these entities—in what sense can they be said to be? In Plato this distinction is more implicit, but we may contrast the theory of forms developed in the Phaedo and the Republic with the subsequent probing investigation of the being of these forms in the Parmenides and the Sophist. Kant “explicitly claims to have discovered and presented a complete and necessary system of the basic concepts and principles. The proof of the completeness and necessity of this system is the aim of the middle part of the Critique of Pure Reason, the Transcendental Analytic.” Yet. (shrink)

The purpose of the present study was to address the shortcomings of Cronbach’s alpha concerning the semantic overlap between items. Using an example from a motivational measure, the correction of Cronbach’s alpha was applied by partialing out the effects due to conceptual overlap. The significance of Cronbach’s alpha was tested using simulated random data derived from the measure and by estimating the confidence intervals with known and unknown distributions. The results indicated that the uncorrected conceptual overlap coefficient alpha was equal (...) to 0.89 and 0.66 following the correction. After simulating the corrected statistical results, the distribution of alpha with random numbers had an estimate of 95%, equal to 0.41. The lower bound of the corrected alpha distribution was equal to 0.41, suggesting that the corrected alpha could easily belong to the distribution of alpha developed from simulated random numbers. Thus, the semantic overlap between items on a measure represents a significant threat to the validity of the alpha coefficient. (shrink)

Part of the accepted scholarly lore about Kierkegaard is that he holds that “existence”—human existence—and “the System” are mutually incompatible. For Kierkegaard, human being cannot be understood in terms of a nice, neat, complete systematic package; he shows, on this view, that the Hegelian attempt to grasp all of reality in terms of a philosophical system will always fail to grasp the reality of at least one thing: the concrete, living, existing individual human being.