Auch wenn man davon ausgehen kann, dass Tocqueville von Hobbes gehört hatte und dass er auch zumindest die vom englischen Philosophen vertretenen Hauptthesen kannte – etwa über Arthur de Gobineau –, so ist nicht ganz klar, ob er ein Werk von Hobbes gelesen hatte. In der ersten Démocratie erwähnt er zwar ausdrücklich den homo puer robustus, der im De Cive von Hobbes auftaucht, aber es scheint eher so zu sein, dass Tocqueville diese Hobbessche Charakterisierung des Menschen nur (...) indirekt über Rousseaus zweiten Discours kannte – er selbst hat keine Quelle angegeben. In einem Brief an Sedgwick aus dem Jahr 1856 schreibt er allerdings ausdrücklich, dass, aus der Sicht der Europäer, die Amerikaner „den puer robustus von Hobbes“ darstellen (OC VII, 177). (shrink)

Behemoth, or The Long Parliament is essential to any reader interested in the historical context of the thought of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), whose current reputation rests largely on his political philosophy, was a thinker with wide ranging interests. In philosophy, he defended a range of materialist, nominalist, and empiricist views against Cartesian and Aristotelian alternatives. In physics, his work was influential on Leibniz, and lead him into disputes with Boyle and the experimentalists of the early Royal Society. In history, he translated Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War into English, and later wrote his own history of the (...) Long Parliament. In mathematics he was less successful, and is best remembered for his repeated unsuccessful attempts to square the circle. But despite that, Hobbes was a serious and prominent participant in the intellectual life of his time. (shrink)

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) toplum sözleşmesi teorisinin kurucusu olarak kabul edilen önemli bir siyaset kuramcısıdır. Hobbes’un doğal durumu tanımlaması, toplumun oluşmasındaki nedenleri belirtmesi, yetkiye ve siyasi yükümlülüklere dair fikirleri siyasi düşünce tarihinde dikkat çeker. Düşünür, özellikle yaşadığı yüzyılda monarşiyi güçlendirmek adına siyasal itaati meşrulaştırmanın gerekliliği üzerinde durmuş, dönemin koşullarından dolayı Tanrı fikrini tamamıyle dışlayamamıştır. Bu yüzden toplum sözleşmesi fikrini temellendirdikten sonra ahlaki yasalar ve yükümlülükler aracılığı ile Tanrı kavramını teorisine dahil etmeyi seçmiştir. Bununla birlikte, kendisinden önceki düşünürlerin aksine (...) Tanrı’ya siyasal ve toplumsal düzeni sağlama hususunda ancak ikincil bir görev vermiştir. Tanrı kavramını ve yazılı olmayan kuralların yükümlülüğünü dışlaması, söz konusu dönemde Hobbes’un ateist olduğuna dair tartışmalara yol açsa da, kendisi bunu kabul etmemiştir. Bizim kanaatimiz, Hobbes’un aslında bir ateist olduğu ve Tanrı fikrini sadece toplumun düzenini sağlamak için siyasi bir araç olarak kullandığı yönündedir. Bir başka deyişle, argümanımız; Hobbes’un dini ve Tanrı korkusunu, bireyleri yazılı yasalara uymaları yönünde zorlamak için kullandığı şeklindedir. Bu argümanın haklılığını gösterebilmek için makalemizde Hobbes’un De Cive ve Leviathan kitaplarındaki argümanları analiz edilmiş ve geliştirmiş olduğu kuramda dinin ve Tanrı’nın yeri incelenmiştir.Özet: Thomas Hobbes, İngiltere’de sosyal ve siyasi düzenin tehlike altında olduğu ve egemen gücün meşrulaştırılması gerektiği bir dönem olan onyedinci yüzyılda yaşamıştır. Doğal bilimlerdeki ilerlemeler ve felsefik düşünce yapısındaki değişimler, rasyonaliteyi önemli kılarak, söz konusu dönemde egemenin gücünün ve bireylerin özgür istencinin sorgulanmasına olanak vermiştir. Bu yüzden, Tanrı, din ve siyasi yükümlülükler ile ilgili sorunlar da yeni bir boyut kazanmıştır. Hobbes’un esas felsefesi Aristoteles teleolojisini çürütmek ve sonrasında da onu mekanik yaklaşım ile değiştirmekti. Hobbes’un modern doğal bilimlere olan yaklaşımı, siyaset felsefesini de mekanik bir yaklaşımla temellendirmeye itmiştir. Bu sebeple, Tanrı’nın birincil rolünü siyaset felsefesinden çıkarmış, ama bunu yaparken de Tanrı’nın varlığını inkar etmemiştir. Hobbes’un bu makalede tartışılan kitapları; De Cive ve Leviathan’da, bireylerin toplumun önemli parçaları olduğundan ama doğal olarak siyasi birer varlık olmadıklarından bahsedilir. Hobbes’a göre bireyler hayatta kalmak için siyasi bir kurumun altına girmek durumundadırlar. Bir başka deyişle, insanın zayıflığı, siyasi toplumun kurulmasını gerekli kılmıştır. İnsan doğal olarak siyasi bir varlık olmasa dahi, siyasi bir kurum altında yaşamak insan doğasına aykırı bir durum değildir. Hobbes’un üzerinde durduğu temel nokta, sivil toplumun yapay bir ürün olsa dahi bireylerin refahı için gerekli olduğudur. Yazılı yasaların ve bir otoritenin, kısacası zorlayıcı bir gücün olmaması halinde, insanlar tehlike altında olacaktır. Bu koşullar altında, bir kişinin kendisini koruması için ne gerekiyorsa yapacağı şaşırtıcı bir durum değildir. Böylesi bir savaş durumunu engellemek için, kişiler doğal durumdaki sınırsız özgürlüklerini bırakarak, egemen bir gücün altında yaşamayı tercih edeceklerdir. Aslında Hobbes’a göre, insanın güvenliğini sağlayan siyasi toplumun varlığı değil, zorlayıcı bir gücün varlığıdır. Bu güç, insanların barış içerisinde yaşaması için gereken koşuldur. Bir başka deyişle, bireyler önce toplumu oluşturmak için sonra da o toplumun devamlılığını sağlamak için bir güçten korkmalıdırlar. Korku kavramı olmadan Hobbes’un bahsettiği siyasi güce bir temel bulmak zor olacaktır çünkü korku faktörü bireylerin kişisel çıkarları ile toplumsal iyinin karşı karşıya geldiği durumlarda, bireyi korkutarak siyasi güce uymayı zorlayacak ve böylece toplumsal refahı sağlayacaktır. Bu noktada, Hobbes’un kuramına Tanrı kavramı dahil olur. Bu makalede, Hobbes’un kuramında dinin rolü olmadan siyasi yükümlülük kavramının eksik kalacağı tartışılmıştır. Bireyler birbirlerinden korktukları için ve güvenliğe ihtiyaçları oldukları için bir toplumun altında yaşamayı tercih ederler. Hobbes’a göre bu ihtiyaç Tanrı korkusuyla desteklenmelidir. Fakat, Hobbes ne Tanrı korkusunu ne de ahlaki yasaların varlığını doğal durumda kullanmıştır. Bunun yerine, sonrasında siyasi düzen için gerekli olan yükümlülüklere bir temel bulmak için, Tanrı kavramını kullanmayı seçmiştir. Hobbes, burada analiz edilen kitaplarında doğal yasalar, ahlaki yasalar ve ilahi yasalar kavramlarını açıklar. Ona göre, doğal yasalar ahlaki yasalardır ve aynı zamanda ilahi yasalar olarak da adlandırılabilirler. Bu yüzden üçü de aynı görünür ve hepsi de Tanrı tarafından verilir. Tanrı her bireye akıl verdiğinden, herkes bu yasalara akılları aracılığı ile ulaşabilir. Hobbes’un kuramında bu noktaya kadar, sadece sivil toplumda değil, doğal durumda da ahlaki yükümlülüklerin olmasına imkan veriliyordu. Fakat, Hobbes insanların doğal durumda ahlaki bilinçlerinin olmadığını ve ahlaki yasalara uymak zorunda olmadıklarını söyler. Ona göre doğal yasalar, ahlaki yasalar ya da Tanrı’nın yasaları, adına her ne dersek diyelim, yükümlülük yaratan yasalar olmaları için bir sivil otoritenin yaptırımında olması gerekir. Her ne kadar da doğal durumda ahlaki yasaların varlığından söz etse de, söz konusu yasaların insanların toplum altında yaşamaya geçmeden önce yükümlülüğe yol açmadığını da ekler.Doğal yasalar sadece insanları toplum altında birleştirmeye zorlayacak bir güç olması halinde, Tanrı’nın buyrukları olarak zorunluluğa dönüşürler. Bu demektir ki; ahlaki ilkeler siyasi bir güç olmadığı sürece anlamsızdırlar. Hobbes’un felsefesinde aklın buyrukları ve Tanrı’nın yasaları iki farklı kavram olarak ortaya çıkar; bu durum da bizi Hobbes’un aslında Tanrı’ya inanmadığını savunmaya kadar götürebilir. Halbuki, Hobbes’un yükümlülükleri meşrulaştırmak için dinin gücüne ihtiyacı vardır. Bu sebeple, Tanrı’yı bir araç olarak kullanmayı seçmiştir. Böylece, egemenin mutlak gücünü de sınırlamış ve yükümlülükler için de bir temel bulabilmiştir. Bir başka deyişle, Tanrı’nın varlığının dini açıdan meşrulaştırmasını yapmak yerine, egemen gücün eline dini ve Tanrı’yı siyasi ve sosyal düzene ulaşmak için bir araç olarak vermiştir. Hobbes’un göstermeye çalıştığı, Leviathan diye adlandırdığı toplumun bireylerden oluştuğu ve bu bireylerin egemen güce biat etme sebeplerinin, kendilerinin vermiş olduğu rıza ve yetki olduğudur. Kısacası, Hobbes siyaset felsefesinin temeline Tanrı’yı değil, öznelerin özgür iradelerini koyar. Bireyler doğal durumdaki sınırsız özgürlüklerinden feragat ederek bir egemen altında yaşamaya rıza göstermişlerdir, çünkü karşılığında güvenliklerini sağlayacaklardır. Bu anlaşma gereği egemene itaat etmeyi kabul ederler. Böylece siyasal olarak bireyin bağlı bulunduğu yükümlülükler Tanrı kavramı ile sınırlandırılmış olan egemenin gücü ile meşrulaştırılmış olur. Bu makalede, Hobbes’un egemenin mutlak gücünü ilahi irade olan Tanrı ile sınırlandırmış olduğu gösterilir. Aslında Hobbes’un yapmaya çalıştığı, egemenin gücüne mutlakiyet sağlayarak, onu ne dünyevi ne de ilahi bir güce karşı sorumluluk altına sokmaktır. Bunu nasıl başardığı ise bu makalede, Hobbes’un De Cive ve Leviathan kitaplarının analiz edilmesi ile detaylı olarak gösterilmiştir. (shrink)

In the mid seventeenth century, European scholars on the frontline of philosophical discussions corresponded and exchanged their works in manuscript or in print, as they had always done, but a strong trend towards publishing their work in the vernaculars and towards translating each other’s works between vernaculars was building up. The French mathematician Guillaume du Verdus had become friends with the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, and ambitioned to translated the latter’s English Leviathan into French. In spite of all (...) his endeavours and of Hobbes’s friendly support, he could not become proficient enough in English to safely translate the book, hence his decision to translate the Latin De Cive, an earlier work of political philosophy by Hobbes. What can explain this choice? How were modern languages taught in early modern Europe? Was Du Verdus’s decision to translate Hobbes mainly due to philosophical or ideological reasons? How can we contextualise such choices from internal and external evidence? (shrink)

The text deals with the concept of representation in its relation to the concept and sovereignty, in Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). The work studied is Leviathan, of 1651. The research presents that sovereignty is founded through the original legal act, which establishes an artificial person to represent everyone. This artificial thing is the State. The political society, however, is different from its government, although they are functionally the same.

Avec sa succession de bouleversements institutionnels, le dix-septième siècle anglais fut un fabuleux terrain d'expérimentation et de réflexion politique d'où surgirent les grandes théories modernes. A cette période, philosophes et acteurs engagés tentèrent de penser, avec une acuité particulière liée aux événements (guerres civiles, régicide, république, dictature), les tensions inhérentes au pouvoir, tout à la fois perçu comme contraignant, tyrannique et libérateur. Quatre d'entre eux ont été retenus : Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), le théoricien de l’absolutisme, James Harrington (1611-1677), (...) le républicain classique, Algernon Sidney (1623-1683), le martyr whig, John Locke (1632-1704), le père du libéralisme. Le propos de l’ouvrage est de montrer que, par-delà leurs différences, ces quatre penseurs partagent une approche qui constitue le socle commun d’une théorie de l’Etat moderne. Leur doctrine s’affranchit de l’exercice utopique comme de la théorie de la raison d’Etat et se conçoit comme une anatomie du corps politique. Par un examen minutieux des textes, l’auteur cherche à s’écarter de l' interprétation trop « idéologique » sans doute accentuée par les combats de l’histoire. Elle met en évidence un objet philosophique commun aux quatre auteurs, que l’on retrouve au cœur de toute conception moderne du pouvoir. (shrink)

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was the first great English philosopher and one of the most important theorists of human nature and politics in the history of Western thought. This superlative introduction explains Hobbes's main doctrines and arguments, covering all of Hobbes's philosophy. A.P.Martinich begins with a helpful overview of Hobbes's life and work, setting his ideas against the political and scientific background seventeenth century England. He then introduces and assesses, in clear chapters, Hobbes's contributions to (...) fundamental areas of philosophy: * Epistemology and metaphysics, in particular Hobbes's materialism and determinism and his relation to Descartes * Ethics and political philosophy, concentrating on Hobbes's most famous work, Leviathan and the theory of the social contract it advances * Philosophy of science, logic and language, considering Hobbes's theory of nominalism and his writing on rhetoric and the uses of language; * Religion, examining Hobbes's analyses ofrevelation, prophets and miracles. The final chapter considers the legacy of Hobbes's thought and his influence on contemporary philosophy. Additional features * Chapter summaries * Annotated further reading. (shrink)

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) - Mathematiker, Staatstheoretiker und Philosoph - gilt als der Begründer des aufgeklärten Absolutismus. Als Wunderkind hochgelobt, studierte Hobbes in Oxford Logik und Physik. Auf mehrfachen Auslandsreisen machte er unter anderem mit einflussreichen und wichtigen Persönlichkeiten wie Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Marin Mersenne und Pierre Gassendi Bekanntschaft. Ferdiand Tönnies (1855-1936), ein deutscher Soziologe und Philosoph, beleuchtet in diesem Werk das eindrucksvolle Leben und Werk eines Mannes, der die politische Ideengeschichte maßgeblich prägte.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was the first great English political philosopher, and his book Leviathan was one of the first truly modern works of philosophy. Richard Tuck shows that while Hobbes may indeed have been an atheist, he was far from pessimistic about human nature, nor did he advocate totalitarianism. By locating him against the context of his age, we learn that Hobbes developed a theory of knowledge which rivaled that of Descartes in its importance for the (...) formation of modern philosophy. (shrink)

This encyclopedia entry surveys the moral and political thought of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Hobbes's vision of the world is strikingly original and still relevant to contemporary politics. His main concern is the problem of social and political order: how human beings can live together in peace and avoid the danger and fear of civil conflict. He poses stark alternatives: we should give our obedience to an unaccountable sovereign (a person or group empowered to decide (...) every social and political issue). Otherwise what awaits us is a “state of nature” that closely resembles civil war – a situation of universal insecurity, where all have reason to fear violent death and where rewarding human cooperation is all but impossible. (shrink)

Alors que plus d’un siècle sépare Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) et Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), leurs philosophies respectives entretiennent des rapports étroits qui, bien qu’ils aient souvent retenu l’attention des historiens de la philosophie et commentateurs, n’ont jamais été étudiés spécifiquement. On cherche ici à pallier ce manque par une étude des rapports entre Hobbes et Bentham dans le champ de la philosophie politique, juridique et morale. On espère ainsi expliquer les points communs, influences, réappropriations, différences et oppositions existant (...) entre ces deux pensées et contribuer par là à faire mieux comprendre leur rôle dans l’histoire de la philosophie moderne anglaise. (shrink)

English summary: Benoit Spinosa presents a much needed French biography and study of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Spinosa discusses Hobbes controversial Leviathan and his unique understanding of the political machine in the Early Modern period. French description: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), philosophe anglais, doit sa celebrite au Leviathan, a une conception de la souverainete politique longtemps jugee monstrueuse. Par-dela contresens et accusations, Hobbes est bien le premier penseur de la modernite a avoir voulu (...) maitriser la machination politique comme la science galileenne controlait les mecanismes naturels. Il eut l'idee d'un systeme global, allant du corps en general, chose physique, au corps politique engendre par la puissance humaine d'artifice, en passant par le corps humain, objet d'une anthropologie nouvelle qui s'appuie sur une vision originale du desir. Sans le langage, la science des corps serait pourtant impossible. C'est par l'imposition de noms, que les hommes peuvent se soustraire aux aleas de l'experience, construire des chaines de raisonnement et envisager ainsi les choix politiques que la necessite laisse ouverts. Dans un monde expose aux violences de la revolution et des conflits religieux, Hobbes a cherche les moyens rationnels de resister aux folies de l'histoire. La question n'est visiblement pas close. (shrink)

Political and social thoughts of Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabāṭabāʼī and Thomas Hobbes,1588-1679.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Ideas 63.4 (2002) 677-696 [Access article in PDF] Bentham and Hobbes:An Issue of Influence James E. Crimmins Historians of political thought commonly assume that the similarities in the thought of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) are the product of Bentham's reading of Hobbes and infer that Bentham was in a certain sense a disciple of Hobbes. 1 (...) This has been generally true through the past one hundred years of scholarship, from the commentator writing at the end of the nineteenth century who had no doubt that Bentham's "chief ideas and methods are to be found in Hobbes," to the end of the last century when Gerald Postema insisted that Bentham was "a careful student of Hobbes." 2 In between George Sabine argued that Hobbes's political philosophy "affected the whole later history of moral and political thought," but its powerful "positive influence" was most fully felt in the nineteenth century when his ideas were incorporated into the thinking of the utilitarians. 3 The implication of Sabine's comment [End Page 677] was that Hobbes's influence was not always of the positive sort. In other words, if one can conceive of influence being positive then it can also be negative, and Hobbes had just such an influence on many who read him until his ideas became respectable in the hands of Bentham and his associates. 4 John Plamenatz concurred. Bentham, he wrote, "lived in the shadow of Hobbes" and, together with James Mill, came close to "an uncritical acceptance" of Hobbes's doctrines. 5 Because Bentham abandoned Hobbes's "vocabulary" (laws of nature, natural rights, covenant, and so forth) "the difference between them appears so much greater than it is," claimed Plamenatz. But eliminate the troublesome phrases from Hobbes's writings and what remains, save for Hobbes's extravagant fear of anarchy, is strikingly similar to the fundamental political doctrines of Bentham. 6At the heart of the syndrome of ideas that the utilitarians are assumed to have inherited from Hobbes is the belief that the methods of physical science were the proper models for political explanation. 7 William Bluhm wrote that the mechanistic and naturalistic framework in which Hobbes couched his theory was not to be approached in the literature of political theory until Bentham set forth his felicific calculus. Since the time of Hobbes, Bluhm argued, Bentham stands out as the great exception to the history of neglect that has been the general fate of mathematical forms of analysis in the study of politics (until the second half of the twentieth century). 8 Moreover, in postulating man as a rational actor motivated by selfish interest and in suggesting that it is in the interest of the ruler to govern in the majority interest as the best way of preserving his own power, Bluhm argued that Hobbes provided "an interesting echo... of a central Benthamic principle, [and thus] good evidence that Hobbes is the forerunner of Utilitarianism." 9 The views of Sabine, Plamenatz, and Bluhm found an impressive echo in John Bowle's influential Hobbes and his Critics, where Hobbes is described as "a forerunner of the Benthamite school of political thought." 10 It is with this kind of understanding in mind, that W. H. Greenleaf [End Page 678] commented, "it is no accident that the modern revival of interest in Hobbesian ideas is associated with the utilitarians...." 11Oddly, these commentators have remarkably few references to Hobbes in Bentham's writings to work with. This paucity of textual evidence was noted by an early reviewer of the first edition of Bentham's works, who chose rather to speak of the "coincidences" between the thought of Hobbes and Bentham, only pausing to note that such is the "slippery" nature of general reasonings of the kind Hobbes and Bentham attempted that it should not startle us to find one a monarchist and the other a republican. 12 Nevertheless, it is generally assumed that Bentham did read Hobbes and that much of what he read he assimilated into his... (shrink)

In 2022, the Brazilian Armed Forces reaffirmed an old interventionist ideology that marked the history of the Republic of Brazil. The text seeks to show that such military ideology does not find a pretext in the history of modern political ideas. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), at first, and then Benjamin Constant (1767-1830), two ideologists who shaped today's understanding of the State, understand representative institutions in disagreement with any non-submission of the FFAA to Political Power. In this way, the ideology (...) of military intervention is, according to the history of ideas, incompatible with the modern conception of the State. (shrink)

The idea that the Leviathan frontispiece offers a visual summary of the contents of the work is widespread. However, the analysis of the frontispiece often under-explores Leviathan's text or leaves certain iconographic elements aside. In discussions of the Scholastics ‘Dilemma’ emblem, for instance, the image is commonly reduced to a representation of ‘logic’ or ‘scholasticism’, leaving aside the intricate interrelationship between the objects present in the image and their connection with the content of the book. This paper argues that this (...) image helps understanding Hobbes’ critique of Scholastic doctrines and their political effects in Leviathan. For Hobbes, these supposedly pure philosophical concepts either in logic (trident of the ‘Syllogism’) or metaphysics (‘Real/Intentional’ bident) hide a central part of Scholastic thought: a ‘seditious’ political conception claiming that the Pope has an indirect right to temporal power in affairs concerning spiritual matters theory (‘Spiritual/Temporal’ and ‘Direct/Indirect’ bidents). The Scholastic model made the common people believe that the Pope would have at least as much authority as the Sovereign. When faced with the choice between obeying either the Pope or their Civil Sovereign the subjects would find themselves in a dangerous ‘Dilemma’. (shrink)

The nearly omnipotent character known only as “Q” dramatically enters the Star Trek universe when he puts all humanity in the person of Captain Jean‐Luc Picard, on trial in the first episode of TNG. Acting as self‐professed prosecutor, judge, and jury, Q promises Picard an “absolutely equitable” trial, only to coerce Picard into pleading “guilty” by threatening to kill his crew. Q could be like the “Leviathan” of Thomas Hobbes (1588‐1679), an absolute sovereign who has the power to (...) keep people from warring with each other, but who can't be held accountable or subject to any civil law in the use of that power. Enlisting Hobbes and Locke, this chapter examines the motives behind Q's enigmatic actions and sees what Q, deep down, might believe about justice. Hobbes begins with a basic right of nature that all people possess: our liberty to ensure the preservation of our own life. (shrink)

Dramatic changes in the understanding of nature and turbulent debates in religion marked seventeenth century moral philosophy. Many of the most important works of the century were attempts to defend new moral concepts or to recast old ones, as a way of responding to new doctrines in religion, epistemology, ad metaphysics. Many others were attempts to show that traditional conceptions of value, or elements of them, did not after all require revision. Moral concepts depend, or might be taken to depend, (...) upon our conception of the world in various ways. The first section of this chapter presents a basic form of a challenge to traditional views arising from new conceptions of God and the world in the seventeenth century together with four basic questions that arise out of this challenge. The second and third sections present responses to these questions drawn from the most revisionary and systematic moral doctrines of the century, those of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Benedictus Spinoza (1632-1677). The final sections uses these philosophers as points of reference for the understanding of major trends of seventeenth century moral philosophy. Very roughly, moral philosophy in the century presents an arc of radicalism, with earlier figures such as Grotius and Descartes building toward criticism of traditional views, Hobbes and Spinoza presenting the most biting and direct revisions, and later figures such as Cumberland, Pufendorf, and Locke working to reconcile traditional views and new scientific and theological doctrines. (shrink)

Breaking with a Puritan past -- A mother's concern -- Turmoil and diversity in the English Reformation -- The influences and the options available in English -- Reformation theology -- Intellectual trends : patristics and hebrew -- Millennialism and the belief in a providential age -- Bacon's break with the godly -- Bacon's turn toward the ancient faith -- The formative years -- Bacon and Andrewes -- The Meditationes sacrae and Bacon's turn away from calvinism -- Bacon's confession of faith (...) -- In the beginning : the creation of nature and the nature of the fall the instauration as an event in sacred history -- The ages of the world and the chain of causes -- Creation as a pattern for human learning -- Humanity in the garden -- Knowledge and the fall -- Knowledge as a support for the faith -- Human effort as the key to recovery -- On the way of salvation : Bacon's twofold via salutis -- Bbacon and original sin -- Patterns in divine action and prophecies of instauration -- The instauration in the history of providence -- Bacon's providential age -- The conditions for instauration -- In the autumn of the world : features of the age of instauration -- Irenaeus and Francis Bacon on the golden age -- Inaugurated eschatology in Bacon's instauration -- Laborers in the fields of instauration : orders and offices -- Rebuilding the temple of nature -- Human agency and the instauration -- The problem of confusing the two books -- The possibility of immortality -- Bacon's circle and his legacy -- Bacon's literary circle -- Tobie Matthew (1577-1655) -- William Rawley (1588-1667) -- Henry Wotton (15681639) -- Thomas Bushell (1594-1674) -- John Selden (1584-1654) -- George Herbert (1593-1633) -- Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) -- Thomas Bodley (1545-1613) -- Conclusions regarding Bacon's literary circle -- The reform of learning in the Civil War and the commonwealth the restoration and the Royal Society -- The Enlightenment transformation of Bacon's memory. (shrink)

Introduction: The empiricists and their context -- Empiricism and the empiricists -- The intellectual background to the early modern empiricists -- Martin Luther and the Reformation -- Aristotelian cosmology and the scientific revolution -- Aristotelian/scholastic hylomorphism and the rise of mechanism -- The Royal Society of London -- Francis Bacon (1561-1626) -- The natural realm : the idols of the mind -- Idols of the tribe -- Idols of the cave -- Idols of the marketplace -- Idols of the theatre (...) -- Knowledge and experience : induction introduced -- Aristotelian/scholastic syllogisms : deductions dismissed -- Baconian empiricism : induction introduced -- Conclusion: Bacon the empiricist -- Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) -- The natural realm : Hobbes's materialistic mechanism -- The importance of motion -- Sensation and the mind -- Knowledge and experience : definitions and the euclidean method -- Two kinds of knowledge and proper ratiocination -- The method of analysis and the method of synthesis -- Conclusion: Hobbes, the empiricist -- Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655) -- The natural realm : Gassendi's atomism -- The basic principles of Gassendi's atomism -- Atomistic sensation -- Knowledge and experience : the middle way to knowledge -- The sceptics are partly correct -- Knowledge regained? -- Conclusion: Gassendi. the empiricist -- Robert Boyle (1627-1691) -- The natural realm : Boyle's mechanism (corpuscularianism) -- The basic principles of Boyle's mechanism (or corpscularianism) -- Sensation and the mind -- Knowledge and experience : mechanism and the cautious experimenter -- The excellency of mechanism -- Experimentation and the status of mechanism -- Conclusion: Boyle, the empiricist -- John Locke (1632-1704) -- The natural realm : Locke's mechanism -- Against innatism -- Ideas and the tabula rasa -- Primary and secondary qualities, and our confused idea of substance -- Locke on power -- Knowledge and experience : Locke's epistemology -- Indirect realism, or the representational theory of perception -- The certainty of knowledge -- The origin of knowledge -- The extent of knowledge -- Conclusion: Locke, the empiricist -- Isaac Newton (1642-1727) -- The natural realm : Newton's principia -- A world of forces : universal gravitation -- What kind of quality is gravity? -- Mechanism and action at a distance -- Knowledge and experience : rules for the study of natural philosophy -- The four rules -- Whither natural philosophy -- Conclusion: Newton, the empiricist -- George Berkeley (1685-1753) -- The natural realm : Berkeley's idealism -- The world contains only souls and ideas -- Esse est percipi : two arguments for idealism/immaterialism -- Against the primary/secondary quality distinction -- Knowledge and experience : Berkeley's common sense epistemology -- Against the representational theory of perception -- Defeating the skeptic, and returning to common sense -- Mechanism, newtonianism, and instrumentalism : Berkeley on the new science -- Responses to popular objections -- Conclusion: Berkeley, the empiricist -- David Hume (1711-1776) -- The natural realm : Hume's psychological approach -- Ideas and impressions -- The principles of association -- Knowledge and experience : Hume's semi-scepticism -- Relations of ideas vs. matters of fact -- From matters of fact to cause and effect : Hume's first question -- Knowledge of cause and effect : Hume's second question -- The problem of induction : Hume's third question -- Hume's positive account of causation : induction regained -- Conclusion: Hume, the empiricist -- Empiricism and the empiricists : summary and conclusion. (shrink)

Die Serie "Meisterwerke der Literatur" beinhaltet die Klassiker der deutschen und weltweiten Literatur in einer einzigartigen Sammlung für Ihren eBook Reader. Lesen Sie die besten Werke großer Schriftsteller,Poeten, Autoren und Philosophen auf Ihrem Reader. Dieses Werk bietet zusätzlich * Eine Biografie/Bibliografie des Autors. Vorländer Werk gehört auch heute noch zu den Referenzbüchern. Inhalt: Karl Vorländer – Biografie und Bibliografie Geschichte der Philosophie Vorwort zur 1. Auflage. Aus dem Vorwort zur 2. Auflage. Vorwort zur 3. Auflage. Zur fünften Auflage. Einleitung. 1. (...) Philosophie. Ihr Name und Begriff. 2. Die Geschichte der Philosophie. Ihre Methode, Quellen und Hilfsmittel. Einteilung des Stoffes. 3. Verhältnis der orientalischen Völker zur Philosophie. 4. Selbständigkeit der griechischen Philosophie. Quellen und Hilfsmittel zu ihrer Geschichte. Die Philosophie des Altertums Erste Periode. Vorsokratische Philosophie. Kapitel I. Anfänge der Reflexion über den Kosmos. Kapitel II. Anfänge der Reflexion über das Denken vom Kosmos. Sein und Werden (die Eleaten und Heraklit). Kapitel III. Die jüngeren Naturphilosophen: Empedokles, Anaxagoras u. a. Kapitel IV. Zweite Periode. Sokrates und die Sophisten. Kapitel V. Die sophistische Aufklärung. Kapitel VI. Sokrates. Kapitel VII. Die sokratischen Schulen. Dritte Periode. Die klassische Philosophie der Griechen: Plato und Aristoteles. Kapitel VIII. Plato. Kapitel IX. Aristoteles. Vierte Periode. Die hellenistisch-römische Philosophie. A. Hellenistische Periode. Kapitel X. Die Stoiker. Kapitel XI. Die Epikureer. Kapitel XII. Die Skeptiker. B. Die Philosophie auf dem Boden des römischen Weltreichs. Kapitel XIII. Die Philosophie bei den Römern. Kapitel XIV. Vorläufer des Neuplatonismus. Kapitel XV. Die Neuplatoniker. Die Philosophie des Mittelalters. Erster Abschnitt. Die Philosophie der Kirchenväter (Patristik). Kapitel I. Ältere Patristik. Kapitel II. Jüngere Patristik Zweiter Abschnitt. Die Scholastik. Kapitel III. Die Anfänge der Scholastik. Kapitel IV. Die Glanzzeit der Scholastik. Kapitel V. Ausgang der Scholastik. Zunehmender Zwiespalt zwischen Glauben und Wissen. Blüte der deutschen Mystik. Die Philosophie der Neuzeit Übergangsperiode. Kapitel I. Die Philosophie der Renaissance. Kapitel II. Die Begründung der modernen Naturwissenschaft. Erste Periode. Die Zeit der grossen Systeme. Kapitel I. Descartes (1596-1650). Kapitel II. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Kapitel III. Spinoza (1632-1677). Kapitel IV. Leibniz (1646-1716). Zweite Periode. Die Philosophie der Aufklärung. A. England und Schottland. Kapitel V. Locke (1632-1704). Kapitel VI. Weitere Entwicklung der Aufklärungsphilosophie in England. B. In Frankreich. Kapitel VII. Die französische Aufklärungsphilosophie von Bayle bis Rousseau. C. In Deutschland. Kapitel VIII. Die deutsche Aufklärungsphilosophie. Dritte Periode.Die Neubegründung der Philosophie durch Immanuel Kant Kapitel IX. Einleitung. Kapitel X. Kants Neubegründung der Wissenschaft. Kapitel XI. Die regulativen Prinzipien der Erfahrung oder die Ideen. Kapitel XII. Kants Neubegründung der Ethik. Kapitel XIII. Die Begründung der Ästhetik. Vierte Periode. Die Systeme der nachkantischen Philosophie von Fichte bis Schopenhauer. Kapitel XIV. Einleitung: Von Kant zu Fichte. Kapitel XV. Fichte. Kapitel XVI. Schelling. Kapitel XVII. Hegel. Kapitel XVIII. Kritische Nebenströmungen. Schleiermacher, Herbart, Beneke. Kapitel XIX. Schopenhauer. Fünfte Periode. Die Philosophie der Gegenwart. Kapitel XX. Der Positivismus. Kapitel XXI. Materialismus und Spiritualismus. Kapitel XXII. Die moderne Entwicklungsphilosophie: Darwin, Spencer. Kapitel XXIII. Idealistische Systembildungen auf naturwissenschaftlicher Grundlage. Kapitel XXIV. Die Erneuerung des Kritizismus. Kapitel XXV. Sozialismus und Individualismus. Kapitel XXVI. Sonstige philosophische Erscheinungen der Gegenwart. Zeittafel zur Geschichte der neueren Philosophie. Fußnoten. (shrink)

Botero’s Della Ragion di Stato has a monarchical character that has been overlooked or taken for granted. This is due to the successful reception of the reason of state formula, which justifies any kind of political regime, including principalities, republics, and monarchies, regardless of the author’s preferences. However, there is a clear distinction between monarchy and reason of state that requires further discussion. Botero not only uses Machiavellian language when referring to a political community (as res publica) or the prince (...) (as a metaphor for centralized monarchies), but also reappropriates it. In addition, he goes beyond this to explain a non-legal path to absolute sovereignty, which differs from Jean Bodin’s (1530–96) idea of the king as being above the law and Thomas Hobbes’ (1588–1679) theory of authorization and the social contract. This paper argues that Botero’s concept of reason of state can be understood as a complex process of reduction to unity, similar to God’s creation and the functioning of the natural world. Despite its contradictions and limitations, it grants the prince an unusual supremacy and control over society. (shrink)

The freedom, in Latin libertas, is the object of philosophical reflection since Plato. Yet as the determined philosophical direction it took the form of the „liberalism” on the turning point of the sixteenth and seventeenth century, represented by two philosophers: Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778). Among contemporary scholars Isaiah Berlin is standing out. From his point of view the philosophical problem of the freedom should be examined in two aspects: the negative freedom i.e. the attribute (...) of not hindered freedom in making choices and the positive freedom as opportunity of being the master of one’s own fate. The author of the article, after critical demonstrating the conception of liberalism, sketches the theory of freedom from the position of Christian ethics. As a starting point he takes the conception of man as a person whose rational activities take on the form of twofold freedom of choice. In the psychological aspect, this freedom assumes the ambivalent form of doing good or evil, however in the moral aspect it turns out to be freedom put in order by the hierarchy of objective moral values. In this meaning the freedom also organizes the whole free man's activity and becomes creative strength of his moral personal perfection. It also defines the crucial sense of Christian philosophical science of truth about freedom. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Reforming the Law of Nature: The Secularization of Political Thought, 1532–1689 by Simon P. KennedyFrancis J. BeckwithKENNEDY, Simon P. Reforming the Law of Nature: The Secularization of Political Thought, 1532–1689. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2022. ix + 125 pp. Cloth, $110.00In this monograph Simon P. Kennedy offers an account of the desacralization of politics in the West by critically examining the works of five central figures in the (...) Protestant Reformed tradition: John Calvin (1509–64), Richard Hooker (1554–1600), Johannes Althusius (1557–1638), Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), and John Locke (1632–1705). He dedicates a chapter to each thinker. The core of Kennedy's thesis is that desacralization is the result of a shift in the way modern thinkers like Hobbes and Locke reimagined the nature of natural law. The medieval tradition, having found its fullest expression in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, saw natural law as one of four different types of law: eternal law (the eternal plan of creation in the mind of God), natural law (the rational creature's participation in the eternal law), human law (civil laws that are derived from the natural law), and divine law (the Old and New Testaments). According to Kennedy, the eventual desacralization of politics was set in motion with the development of arguments for natural rights that relied on a natural law that was in [End Page 553] practice severed from eternal law. But in that case, our political institutions—which are founded on the natural law—are purely human constructions and thus entirely secular.The usual story is that the Protestant Reformation constituted the decisive break with the medieval tradition and that it was the political theology of the reformers and their immediate successors that made the secularization of politics nearly inevitable. Kennedy wants to push back against that story. He argues, quite convincingly, that Calvin, Hooker, and Althusius, all Reformed Protestants, were in continuity with their medieval predecessors. Although Calvin is often depicted by his contemporary followers—especially among American Evangelicals—as hostile to the natural law tradition, Kennedy marshals an impressive case that shows that classical natural law seemed almost second nature to Calvin. My own sense is that the confusion over Calvin is the result of his contemporary readers expecting him to use the vocabulary of an Aquinas or a Duns Scotus. But not finding that vocabulary, they conclude that he rejected the natural law. Kennedy dispels that confusion by showing that Calvin in fact was fully committed to the four types of law absent the technical jargon of medieval scholasticism.Hooker and Althusius, writes Kennedy, continue in that tradition, though with a bit of a twist that some argue portends to Hobbes and Locke. Hooker and Althusius use the language of contract to account for the origin of certain aspects of political life. But Kennedy insists that it is a mistake to interpret them as proto-contractarians (as one finds in Hobbes and Locke), for they still held that the natural law participates in the eternal law, and that any agreements employed in the service of political life are under the authority of, and guided by, the natural law. One could argue, then, that these "contracts," like constitutions and treaties, are nonstatutory manifestations of the human law, which is perfectly consistent with classical natural law. So like Calvin before them, Hooker and Althusius were, as Kennedy puts it, theistic political naturalists.Hobbes and Locke are a different story. According to Kennedy, they both defended desacralized views of politics, with Hobbes being the more extreme of the two. Although I think he is correct in that assessment, I am not sure he locates the cause of the desacralization in the right place. For example, he says that because for Locke politics is artificial and not natural—that is, it is the result of a social contract to insulate members of society from the instability of a state of nature—politics is desacralized, even though God is the ultimate source of the natural law. But it is not clear how that in and of itself desacralizes politics. After all, Aquinas, the paradigm case of a classical natural lawyer, held... (shrink)

Die Serie "Meisterwerke der Literatur" beinhaltet die Klassiker der deutschen und weltweiten Literatur in einer einzigartigen Sammlung für Ihren eBook Reader. Lesen Sie die besten Werke großer Schriftsteller,Poeten, Autoren und Philosophen auf Ihrem Reader. Dieses Werk bietet zusätzlich * Eine Biografie/Bibliografie des Autors. Vorländer Werk gehört auch heute noch zu den Referenzbüchern. Inhalt: Karl Vorländer – Biografie und Bibliografie Geschichte der Philosophie Vorwort zur 1. Auflage. Aus dem Vorwort zur 2. Auflage. Vorwort zur 3. Auflage. Zur fünften Auflage. Einleitung. 1. (...) Philosophie. Ihr Name und Begriff. 2. Die Geschichte der Philosophie. Ihre Methode, Quellen und Hilfsmittel. Einteilung des Stoffes. 3. Verhältnis der orientalischen Völker zur Philosophie. 4. Selbständigkeit der griechischen Philosophie. Quellen und Hilfsmittel zu ihrer Geschichte. Die Philosophie des Altertums Erste Periode. Vorsokratische Philosophie. Kapitel I. Anfänge der Reflexion über den Kosmos. Kapitel II. Anfänge der Reflexion über das Denken vom Kosmos. Sein und Werden (die Eleaten und Heraklit). Kapitel III. Die jüngeren Naturphilosophen: Empedokles, Anaxagoras u. a. Kapitel IV. Zweite Periode. Sokrates und die Sophisten. Kapitel V. Die sophistische Aufklärung. Kapitel VI. Sokrates. Kapitel VII. Die sokratischen Schulen. Dritte Periode. Die klassische Philosophie der Griechen: Plato und Aristoteles. Kapitel VIII. Plato. Kapitel IX. Aristoteles. Vierte Periode. Die hellenistisch-römische Philosophie. A. Hellenistische Periode. Kapitel X. Die Stoiker. Kapitel XI. Die Epikureer. Kapitel XII. Die Skeptiker. B. Die Philosophie auf dem Boden des römischen Weltreichs. Kapitel XIII. Die Philosophie bei den Römern. Kapitel XIV. Vorläufer des Neuplatonismus. Kapitel XV. Die Neuplatoniker. Die Philosophie des Mittelalters. Erster Abschnitt. Die Philosophie der Kirchenväter (Patristik). Kapitel I. Ältere Patristik. Kapitel II. Jüngere Patristik Zweiter Abschnitt. Die Scholastik. Kapitel III. Die Anfänge der Scholastik. Kapitel IV. Die Glanzzeit der Scholastik. Kapitel V. Ausgang der Scholastik. Zunehmender Zwiespalt zwischen Glauben und Wissen. Blüte der deutschen Mystik. Die Philosophie der Neuzeit Übergangsperiode. Kapitel I. Die Philosophie der Renaissance. Kapitel II. Die Begründung der modernen Naturwissenschaft. Erste Periode. Die Zeit der grossen Systeme. Kapitel I. Descartes (1596-1650). Kapitel II. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Kapitel III. Spinoza (1632-1677). Kapitel IV. Leibniz (1646-1716). Zweite Periode. Die Philosophie der Aufklärung. A. England und Schottland. Kapitel V. Locke (1632-1704). Kapitel VI. Weitere Entwicklung der Aufklärungsphilosophie in England. B. In Frankreich. Kapitel VII. Die französische Aufklärungsphilosophie von Bayle bis Rousseau. C. In Deutschland. Kapitel VIII. Die deutsche Aufklärungsphilosophie. Dritte Periode.Die Neubegründung der Philosophie durch Immanuel Kant Kapitel IX. Einleitung. Kapitel X. Kants Neubegründung der Wissenschaft. Kapitel XI. Die regulativen Prinzipien der Erfahrung oder die Ideen. Kapitel XII. Kants Neubegründung der Ethik. Kapitel XIII. Die Begründung der Ästhetik. Vierte Periode. Die Systeme der nachkantischen Philosophie von Fichte bis Schopenhauer. Kapitel XIV. Einleitung: Von Kant zu Fichte. Kapitel XV. Fichte. Kapitel XVI. Schelling. Kapitel XVII. Hegel. Kapitel XVIII. Kritische Nebenströmungen. Schleiermacher, Herbart, Beneke. Kapitel XIX. Schopenhauer. Fünfte Periode. Die Philosophie der Gegenwart. Kapitel XX. Der Positivismus. Kapitel XXI. Materialismus und Spiritualismus. Kapitel XXII. Die moderne Entwicklungsphilosophie: Darwin, Spencer. Kapitel XXIII. Idealistische Systembildungen auf naturwissenschaftlicher Grundlage. Kapitel XXIV. Die Erneuerung des Kritizismus. Kapitel XXV. Sozialismus und Individualismus. Kapitel XXVI. Sonstige philosophische Erscheinungen der Gegenwart. Zeittafel zur Geschichte der neueren Philosophie. Fußnoten. (shrink)

Pre-Socratic -- Socrates (469-399 B.C.) -- Plato (429-347 B.C.) -- Existentialism -- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) -- The ship of Theseus -- Francis Bacon (1561-1626) -- The cow in the field -- David Hume (1711-1776) -- Hedonism -- Prisoner's dilemma -- St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) -- Hard determinism -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) -- The trolley problem -- Realism -- Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) -- Dualism -- Utilitarianism -- John Locke (1632-1704) -- Empiricism versus Rationalism -- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) -- (...) René Descartes (1596-1650) -- A-Theory -- The liar paradox -- Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) -- Philosophy of language -- Metaphysics -- Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) -- Free will -- Philosophy of humor -- The Enlightenment -- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) -- The Sorites paradox -- Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) -- Aesthetics -- Philosoph of culture -- Epistemology -- Twin Earth -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) -- Karl Marx (1818-1883) -- Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) -- Voltaire (1694-1778) -- Relativism -- Eastern philosophy -- Avicenna (980-1037) -- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) -- Phenomenology -- Nominalism -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) -- Ethics -- Philosophy of science -- Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) -- Philosopy of religion. (shrink)

I begin by noting the disparate legacies of Thomas Hobbes (1588?1679) and Bishop Joseph Butler (1692?1752). I suggest that part of the reason Butler's arguments in Fifteen Sermons Preached at Rolls Chapel (2nd ed. 1729) have been comparatively neglected by contemporary philosophers is due to the genre in which they are presented, i.e. the sermon. Like other non-standard genres of philosophical writing (dialogue, disputatio, meditation, etc.) both the genre and the purpose towards which Butler puts it have become (...) unfashionable in contemporary philosophy, and, as a result, the subtlety of Butler's arguments are not fully appreciated. I attempt to rectify this situation by, first, explaining the general, complex purpose of Fifteen Sermons, and, second, by explaining the specific purpose of Sermon XI, ?Upon the Love of Our Neighbour? (the one sermon that has attracted sustained attention). In the first section of the paper I argue that the general purpose of Fifteen Sermons is as much rhetorical as it is philosophical, and that these are subsidiary to Butler's pastoral function first in relation to his congregation at Rolls Chapel and second to his readers. In particular, Butler portrays reflection as an essential condition for human virtue, and the sermons, which contain a theory of deliberation (or conscience) and virtue, are intended to encourage autonomous agency and guide it around certain traps of specious reflection. In the second section, I argue that the most serious trap is identified in Sermon X, ?Upon Self-Deceit,? the sermon prior to Sermon XI. In particular, the arguments in Sermon XI that are directed against universal selfishness are designed primarily to critique specious forms of practical deliberation, not theoretical accounts of psychological egoism. And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs. The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth. The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgement, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil (Ecclesiastes 12, 9?14). (shrink)

From philosophy's founding fathers - Thales, Socrates, Plato... to great minds of the post-modern era - Satre, Ayer, Feyerabend... this concise new guide presents 100 of the world's most influential thinkers. Arranged from the ancient world to the present day, each philosopher's key ideas, notable works and pronouncements are encapsulated in a series of succinct biographies, accompanied by illustrations, at-a-glance fact panels and thought-provoking quotations. Philosophy: A Beginner's Guide uncovers the fundamental concepts of this fascinating discipline, explaining the diverging schools (...) of thought and revealing the universal aim of philosophy throughout the ages - to push back the boundaries of human knowledge in order to understand the fundamental nature of human existence. THE ANCIENT WORLD: Thales (c.635-c.543 BCE); Buddha (c.563-483 BCE); Confucius (c.55-479 BCE); Socrates (470-399 BCE); Plato (427-347 BCE); Aristotle (384-322 BCE). THE MIDDLE AGES: Avicenna (Ibn Sina) (980-1037); Peter Lombard (c1100-1160); Averroes (Ibn Rushd) 1126-1198); Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274); William of Ockham (1285- 1349). THE EARLY MODERN ERA: Machiavelli (1469-1527); Hobbes (1588-1679); Descartes (1596-1650); Locke (1632-1704); Voltaire (1694-1778). THE MODERN ERA: Fichte (1762-1814); G W F Hegel (1770-1831); Schopenhauer (1788-1860); Marx (1818-1883); Engels (1820-1895); Nietzsche (1844-1900); Dewy (1859-1952); Max Weber (1864-1920); Gasset (1883-1955); Heidegger (1889-1976). THE POST-MODERN ERA: Marcuse (1898-1979); Karl Popper (1902-1994); Sartre (1905-1980); Arendt (1906-1975); de Beauvoir (1908-1986); A J Ayer (1910-1989); Feyerabend (1924-1994); Rorty (1931-2007). And many more... (shrink)