List of Articles Hobbes

• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  1 - Comparison of Authoritarian Government and the Relationship of People with Government in Ghazali and Hobbes
  mohamad ali tavana farzad azarkamand
  This article studies the basics of forming powerful government and the relationship between people with government in Ghazali and Hobbes thought. Special view of both of the thinkers to nature of human is intellectual foundation of forming authoritative government. Acco More

  This article studies the basics of forming powerful government and the relationship between people with government in Ghazali and Hobbes thought. Special view of both of the thinkers to nature of human is intellectual foundation of forming authoritative government. According to the four human traits, Ghazali tries to educate the divine human that acts passively under divine governance. Since religion and politics don’t separate from each other in Ghazali’s view, so in government, divinity of these traits joins to politics and powerful government. But Hobbes believed that human have power demand and warrior nature in addition, in primary and natural human condition, the war has been going on against each other. And human try to rescue themselves according to their wisdom. So, they established an authoritative government with their foresight. Therefore, the subject of both of them is largely same, but their processing is different. It means that both of these intellectuals lived in restless period, and the necessity of security causes them to resort to authoritative government. On the other hand, both of these intellectuals assign passive roles for people; however, Ghazali’s argumentation method is canonical and Hobbes’s method is rational. Moreover it seems that the rational theory of Hobbes – accepting the possibility of insurgence-paves the way for going beyond the authoritative government, although the canonical theory of Hobbes leads to one type of reproduction of authoritative government. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  2 - The Relationship between the Concept of Judgment in Christian Theology and the Theory of Modern Sovereignty
  kamyar safaei Saiedalireza Hosseinibeheshti
  20.1001.1.20085796.1399.12.28.5.6
  The concept of "sovereignty" is one of the key concepts of modern political philosophy. This concept, systematically explained for the first time in the modern age by Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes, implies the meanings like absolute and legitimate power over the legislat More

  The concept of "sovereignty" is one of the key concepts of modern political philosophy. This concept, systematically explained for the first time in the modern age by Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes, implies the meanings like absolute and legitimate power over the legislation process. The prevailing attitude in political thought, due to the very pioneering of Bodin and Hobbes in explaining the meaning of sovereignty, views this concept as an innovative concept which is discovered in the modern age. This article tries to demonstrate, however, the concept of sovereignty is raised from Christian theology and one of its main topics: The concept of "judgement". Therefore, the systematization of the term "sovereignty" by Bodin and Hobbes never means that they invented this concept as a wholly modern one. For this purpose, this article searches for the meaning of the term "judgement" in the Old Testament and the New Testament, and, on the basis of the prominent commentaries of the Scriptures, seeks to show that this concept has three relatively distinct but intertwined meanings. These three meanings are "Legislation", "Judgement in legal and judicial sense" and "Sovereignty", all of which accords with the features of the notion of sovereignty in the modern sense of the word. Consequently, it can be said that, the formation of modern sovereignty has not happened in discontinuity with Christian theology, but in continuity with it. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  3 - Liberal-Democratic Theology and the New Political Science: A Reflection on Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Spinoza Theological-Political Efforts as Pioneers of the New Political Science
  Shervin  Moghimi Zanjani
  The question of “what is the good?” was the main characteristic of the Socratic political philosophy. However, the modern political philosophy had to pass this question and like its enemy (namely revealed theology) present a definite and tangible definition of “the goo More

  The question of “what is the good?” was the main characteristic of the Socratic political philosophy. However, the modern political philosophy had to pass this question and like its enemy (namely revealed theology) present a definite and tangible definition of “the good”. In other words, they had to show that philosophy, in addition to being the authoritative source of knowledge, can and must be the basis for promoting human life and a guide for attaining the good in practice. The role of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Spinoza from this point of view is so prominent. It seems that the good they defended, was the true origin of the values of a liberal democratic regime. These philosophers recognized that the necessity of the dogmatic definition of the good necessitates a theological-rhetorical expression to persuade the addresses. Therefore, without comprehending this theological-rhetorical backbone, the values of a liberal democratic regime cannot be understood completely. The modern political philosophy, on other hand, is the forbear of modern political science that its main subject is behavior and action of the citizens in a liberal democratic regime. Therefore, we can say that modern political science cannot be comprehended completely without contemplating on the ambivalent effort of these philosophers: on the one hand, their theological defense of the liberal democratic values, and on the other hand, their defense of a new scientific politics distinguished radically from ancient political knowledge. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  4 - The Concept of Katechon and the Foundation of Modern Political Thought (A theological-political debate between Hobbes, Schmitt and Agamben)
  mostafa ensafi Shoja  Ahmadvand
  20.1001.1.20085796.1400.16.30.1.2
  In the twentieth century, with the publication of the works of Max Weber, Schmitt, Löwith, Voegelin, and Blumenberg, there was a great deal of interest in exploring the theological roots of modernity and modern political thought, and many of the leading texts of the ear More

  In the twentieth century, with the publication of the works of Max Weber, Schmitt, Löwith, Voegelin, and Blumenberg, there was a great deal of interest in exploring the theological roots of modernity and modern political thought, and many of the leading texts of the early modern period were reinterpreted. This article seeks to highlight the importance of this concept in the history of political thought by addressing the theological foundations of the figure of "Katechon", first mentioned in Paul's Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. The main premise of the article is that modern political thought has always been rooted in Christian theology and has sought to legitimize itself by secularizing theological ideas. In the meantime, under the influence of Karl Schmitt and his particular and authoritarian reading of the concept of Katechon, political theology is often seen as blocking the project of liberation, but thinkers such as Agamben interpret the concept of Katechon under the concept of salvation. It paves the way for the democratic formulation of political theology. Manuscript profile