Al Martinich

Bernard Gert’s distinctive interpretation of the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes in his recent book may be questioned in at least three areas: (1) Even if Hobbes is not a psychological egoist, he seems to be a desire egoist, which has the consequence, as he understands it, that a person acts at least for his own good in every action. (2) Although there are several senses of reason, it seems that Hobbes uses the idea that reason is calculation of means to ends; while such calculation sets intermediate goals, reason itself does not set ultimate ends. (3) Hobbes’s political theory is best understood as a form of social contract theory because subjects covenant among themselves to authorize the sovereign to protect them; authorization has the consequence that subjects give some of the their rights to the sovereign; but this gifting of rights is not the essence of the origin of the civil state

Lloyd's book, Morality in the Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, correctly stresses the deductive element in Hobbes's proofs of the laws of nature. She believes that “the principle of reciprocity” is the key to these proofs. This principle is effective in getting ego-centric people to recognize moral laws and their moral obligations. However, it is not, I argue, the basic principle Hobbes uses to derive the laws of nature, from definitions. The principle of reason, which dictates that all similar cases be treated similarly, is. It is important not to diminish the centrality of reason for Hobbes because it is essential to understanding his reply to “the fool” and understanding why the state of nature cannot be a continuum.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Taming the Leviathan: The Reception of the Political and Religious Ideas of Thomas Hobbes in England 1640–1700A. P. MartinichJon Parkin. Taming the Leviathan: The Reception of the Political and Religious Ideas of Thomas Hobbes in England 1640–1700. Ideas in Context, 82. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pp. xi + 449. Cloth, $115.Parkin’s book covers the same period and much of the same material as John Bowle’s Hobbes and his Critics (1951) and Samuel Mintz’s The Hunting of Leviathan (1962), but his scholarship is more extensive and significantly better than that of the earlier books. The scholarship is similar to that of Jeffrey Collins in Hobbes’s Allegiance and belongs to the same school of Cambridge contextualism. Parkin’s book contains good summaries of the books and pamphlets that were published about Hobbes’ political and religious philosophy from 1640 until 1700. While much of this material is known to Hobbes scholars, Parkin has discovered or brought into play a large number of other works. It is good to have all of this material discussed in one place.The book contains, in addition to an Introduction and Conclusion, seven chapters: 1. Reading Hobbes before Leviathan (1640–1651); 2. Leviathan (1651–1654); 3. The Storm (1654–1658); 4. Restoration (1658–1666); 5. Hobbes and Hobbism (1666–1675); [End Page 142] 6. Hobbes and the Restoration Crisis (1675–1685); and 7. Hobbes in the Glorious Revolution (1685–1700).Parkin’s explications of the arguments of Hobbes’ contemporaries, his judgments about their criticisms of Hobbes, and the nature of Hobbes’ own work are too often unsuccessful. He usually does not discuss the structures of the arguments at all, as if narrative is incompatible with analysis, and he often uses tendentious language where argumentation is needed. Parkin uncritically uses “success” words where a hedged phrase is needed. It is quite doubtful that “[Samuel] Ward showed that reason and philosophy” did not subvert “traditional natural ethics” (167; my italics) rather than only trying or purporting to show that. Also, Parkin rarely notices that Hobbes’ critics often misunderstood him. For example, they all think that Hobbes claims that the whole world was in the state of nature at one time. Parkin gives little or no indication that he understands that the state of nature is primarily a concept in a thought experiment (167). The primary lesson of the reception of Hobbes’ philosophy between 1640 and 1700 was that his critics thoroughly misunderstood it, but Parkin ultimately does not appreciate it (e.g., 411; cf. 2, 5, 9). Some critics thought that Hobbes was a republican. There is good evidence that some of his critics never read Hobbes. William Sherlock, for example, writing after the Glorious Revolution, rejects Hobbes’ imagined de facto-ism to embrace a supposedly non-Hobbesian consent theory. In the 1690s, Hobbes the atheist was a convenient bogy. Ironies abound. The nonjurors who railed against Hob-bes, now over a decade dead, and deplored the Toleration Act, were in fact supporting his preference for a strong national church. A good book could be written with the title From Hobbes to Hobbism (cf. 3–4). Parkin does not emphasize that Hobbes’ critics “often absorbed his ideas at the same time as they attacked him” (412).As for his interpretation of Hobbes’ philosophy, Parkin seems uncritically to accept the interpretations of Quentin Skinner, even where they are fairly obviously mistaken. For example, following some of Skinner’s early essays on Hobbes, Parkin says that Leviathan defended de facto theory (193), although later in the book, he seems not to accept this position (e.g., 362, 373). What Skinner ignored is a central feature of Hobbes’ philosophy, namely that no obligation is incurred except through some act of one’s own. This feature is incompatible with a central feature of de facto theory, namely, that a government is legitimate when it has the power to coerce. Parkin thinks that consent theory is a form of de facto theory (387, 412). Even Skinner in his collected essays, Visions of Politics, has backed off somewhat from his earlier view.Parkin writes, “One of the aims of this study has been...

A. P. Martinich's The Two Gods of Leviathan appeared in 1992, and J. R. Collins's The Allegiance of Thomas Hobbes in 2005. Martinich offered a revisionist interpretation of Thomas Hobbes's religious commitments. He rebuked the conventional view that Hobbes was an atheist and placed him within particular traditions of reformed Christian theology. Collins's book strongly differed from these conclusions, and reasserted Hobbes's hostility to traditional Christianity as part of a general contextualization of his writings within the period of the English Revolution. The following exchange between Martinich and Collins was first aired in 2007 as a debate at the Southwestern Political Science Association's Annual Conference.

The main purpose of this article is to show that the essence of Mozi’s political theory, namely that a civil state is in its best or ideal condition when each citizen exercises universal care, is more defensible than it is usually thought to be. Doing this will require an exposition of the main features of his theory and occasionally reference arguments and considerations outside of Mozi’s text. We interpret the disagreement between Mozi and his alleged Confucian opponents as a disagreement about the nature of political obligation: Confucians regard political service as a kind of noncontractual role obligation, while Mozi regards it as an obligation derivable from universal and impartial moral principles

Sharon Lloyd's new book on Hobbes is one of the most significant in the last twenty-five years. She presents an original thesis about the foundation of Hobbes's moral philosophy, namely, that his basic moral principle is what she calls the "reciprocity theorem": "From our common definition of man as rational, Hobbes argues that we won't count a person as rational unless he can formulate and is willing to offer, at least post hoc, what he regards as justifying reasons for his conduct " . Three features of this explanation should be highlighted. The first is that she appreciates the role of definition in Hobbes's scientific moral philosophy; scientific propositions are theorems deduced from definitions. The second is that rationality is an important component of these deductions. The third, and the crucial one for her book, is that moral reasoning is essentially first-person reasoning. More needs to be said about the second and third features. I begin with the third

This book in effect consists of two parts. The first part contains seven chapters on Historia Ecclesiastica Carmine and related topics, written by Patricia Springborg over many years. While valuable, they will not be discussed here because these have been previously published. The second part is a critical text and translation, on facing pages, of Historia Ecclesiastica by Springborg, Patricia Stablein, and Paul Wilson, accompanied by extensive explanatory and interpretive notes by the same scholars. The work shows prodigious effort and scholarship. This book, a large part of which, it seems, will also be published in the Collected Works of Thomas Hobbes , is a welcome addition to recent scholarship on the works of Hobbes.Hobbes' poem is a selective, static, ill-proportioned, and repetitious history of religious belief, practice, and abuse from the ancient Near East to the Reformation of Martin Luther. Much of the same history appears in the appendix to the Latin Leviathan and in An Historical Narration Concerning History. A problem with Hobbes' views stands out in Historia

It has often been charged that the doctrine of papal infallibility is either false or incoherent. These charges stem, I believe, from a misunderstanding of the logical character of infallible papal utterances, a misunderstanding shared alike by friends and foes of the doctrine. In this paper, I shall argue that the doctrine is both coherent and correct. I devote section I to uncovering some of the sources of this misunderstanding and thereby defending what might be called my negative thesis, namely, that infallible papal utterances are not statements. In section II, I continue defending my negative thesis, not now as an end in itself, but rather as a means of advancing my positive thesis that infallible papal utterances are declarations and have the same logic as other declarations. The latter thesis requires a discussion of the difference between statements and declarations. Section III contains a formal speech act analysis of successful and non-defective statements and declarations with some additional explanatory notes. In section IV, I speak rather generally about the task of philosophical theology in the light of the results and procedures of sections I–III

THE MAJOR PREMISE OF DUNS SCOTUS'S IMPRESSIVE PROOF FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD HAS BEEN NEGLECTED. THAT PREMISE, "THE MOST PERFECT BEING IS INFINITE," IS ESTABLISHED IN TWO WAYS. THE KEY PREMISE IN EACH WAY IS THE PROPOSITION, "POSSIBLY, SOME BEING IS INFINITE." THIS PROPOSITION CANNOT BE PROVEN TO BE TRUE, NOT BECAUSE IT IS IN ANY WAY DUBIOUS OR LACKING IN EVIDENCE, BUT BECAUSE ITS TERMS ARE SIMPLE AND NOT SUBJECT TO PROOF OR FURTHER ANALYSIS. BEING IS THE SIMPLEST AND MOST IMMEDIATE OF CONCEPTS; AND BEING INFINITE IS SIMPLY THE NEGATION OF BEING FINITE. INSTEAD OF PROOF, SCOTUS PRESENTS "PERSUASIONES", SKETCHES OF LANGUAGE-GAMES TO SHOW THAT THE PROPOSITION IS TRUE

A. P. Martinich aims at explaining Hobbes’s criticism of Republicanism. Trying to adopt a middle position between subjection and liberty, Hobbes develops a theory of natural liberty which is compatible with both fear and necessity and civil liberty. He thus defines civil liberty as the extent to which a subject is free from laws and obligations, the degree of freedom not being determined by the kind of government a citizen is obliged to. As far as the liberty of states is concerned, Hobbes establishes that there is no more liberty in the one than in the other. Martinich’s demonstration draws very much on §§ 14 and 15 of chapter 21 of Leviathan, that is, on Hobbes’s theory of political obligation, because in those paragraphs Hobbes answers the objections made by republicans to the theory of alienation which he expounded in his Elements of Law and De cive. In Leviathan, Hobbes has abandoned this former theory in seeking to generate obligation out of authorization