Понятие войны в “Левиафане” Томаса Гоббса
Tomas Hobbes’ conception of language can not be described in common terms of conventionalism and nominalism. Language plays a very important role in the Hobbes’ thought, therefore, we should pay careful attention to it. What can the language says about distinction between natural and political philosophy? Has the sovereign the power over the language of his subjects? Can we distinguish the language in the commonwealth and the language in the natural state? Searching answers to these questions is important not only in the context of the history of philosophy, but allows us to include Hobbes’ ideas in modern political and philosophical discourse.
Late in life, William F. Buckley made a confession to Corey Robin. Capitalism is "boring," said the founding father of the American right. "Devoting your life to it," as conservatives do, "is horrifying if only because it's so repetitious. It's like sex." With this unlikely conversation began Robin's decade-long foray into the conservative mind. What is conservatism, and what's truly at stake for its proponents? If capitalism bores them, what excites them? Tracing conservatism back to its roots in the reaction against the French Revolution, Robin argues that the right is fundamentally inspired by a hostility to emancipating the lower orders. Some conservatives endorse the free market, others oppose it. Some criticize the state, others celebrate it. Underlying these differences is the impulse to defend power and privilege against movements demanding freedom and equality. Despite their opposition to these movements, conservatives favor a dynamic conception of politics and society--one that involves self-transformation, violence, and war. They are also highly adaptive to new challenges and circumstances. This partiality to violence and capacity for reinvention has been critical to their success. Written by a keen, highly regarded observer of the contemporary political scene, The Reactionary Mind ranges widely, from Edmund Burke to Antonin Scalia, from John C. Calhoun to Ayn Rand. It advances the notion that all rightwing ideologies, from the eighteenth century through today, are historical improvisations on a theme: the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.
The collection of papers written by Slavic philologists, (cultural and art) historians, philosophers is devoted to the 100th anniversary of WWI and traces its reflections and references in European culture of the XX-XXI c.
Collected papers of Alexander Filippov for the recent 25 years. Two volumes combine the works on sociological theory and political philosophy. The set of the texts makes a point on the paticular scientific concerns of the author in sociology of space, sociology of event, mobilities and solidarities research,history and theory of sociology, and his notorious topics on Schmitt and Hobbes. The prospectives of the tentative theory oriented research by the author areconsidered as well.
In the Social Science, as different from the history of ideas, the steady preconception of viewing Hobbes as the philosopher who considered human to be a rational and selfish being exists. Such human beings in their natural condition set the war of all against all, but only the strong power can preserve them in the condition of peace. However true Hobbesian views as to the human relationships have almost nothing in common with these trivial suggestion. The article deals with some aspects of Hobbesian anthropology and his doctrine of the virtue. It is argued that the social order is represented by Hobbes as very agile and complex in its structure. At the first glance his philosophy could seem very legible and solely constructivist, designed as the triumph of coherence and implacable logic. At depth - it is not even contradictory, but the terrain of the questions without any answers.
Hobbesian philosophy holds the attention of the researches up to now. The most discussable questions are the following ones: 1. Whether the philosophy of Hobbes is to be considered in relation to his physics and metaphysics or it is an autonomous area of contemplation? 2. Is the philosophy of Hobbes immanently intelligible, as a system of interrelated suppositions or it is to be interpreted out of the historical context of his published works? 3. Is his bellum omnium contra omnes merely an intellectual construction or this notion can be referred to the historical and universal facts of social life design?
In the last 100–150 years not only has the uniform understanding of Hobbes failed to prevail, but moreover, the stable tendency of permanently rethinking his doctrine has emerged. Today this tendency is only becoming stronger. A.Philippov thinks that the never-ceasing interest in Hobbes can be primarily explained by the fact we are still occupied with the same problems that occupied the mind of the philosopher who lived several centuries ago. In the second part of his article published in this issue (for the first part see Politeia, 2009, № 2) Philippov demonstrates that most questions arising while one is reading Hobbes are left without answers in the works by Hobbes himself. Reading his works thoroughly we come across a rather curios phenomenon. The whole construction erected by Hobbes is sort of vibrating, but doing it latently. On the surface one can see clear, easily understandable constructions thought out as triumph of coherence and inexorable logic, but going deeper one will find not so much inconsistency as exactly a field of questions left without answers. According to the author’s conclusion, the dynamic unstable world described by Hobbes is different from what it seems to be. It fascinates an observer and demands new research studies.