Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:01:18.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Of Darkness from Vain Philosophy”: Hobbes's Critique of the Classical Tradition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2016

DEVIN STAUFFER
DEVIN STAUFFER*
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Austin
*
David Stauffer is Associate Professor of Government at the University of Texas ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The early modern revolution in political philosophy not only transformed political philosophy itself; it also played a crucial role in shaping the character of modern politics. This article contributes to our understanding of that revolution through an examination of Thomas Hobbes's critique of the classical tradition. Although it is well known that Hobbes was a critic of that tradition, the details of his critique have not been sufficiently uncovered. Hobbes's key target was Aristotle, whom he regarded as the most important source of the tradition he opposed. Hobbes's critique of Aristotle consists of two main lines of argument—one moral-political, the other metaphysical—that ultimately prove to be connected. An examination of Hobbes's twofold critique can help us understand what was at stake in the reorientation of political philosophy that eventually gave rise to modern liberalism.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 110 , Issue 3 , August 2016 , pp. 481 - 494
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author thanks the Carl Friedrich von Siemens Foundation for its support.

Devin Stauffer's name was incorrectly listed as David Stauffer in the affiliation footnote of his article in the August 2016 issue of American Political Science Review. Errata for this and other errors within the article have been published.

References

REFERENCES

Ahrensdorf, Peter. 2000. “The Fear of Death and the Longing for Immortality: Hobbes and Thucydides on Human Nature and the Problem of Anarchy.” American Political Science Review 94 (3): 579–93.Google Scholar
Aubrey, John. 1996. Aubrey's Brief Lives, ed. Dick, Oliver Lawson. Jaffrey, NH: Nonpareil Books.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1894. Nicomachean Ethics, ed. Bywater, Ingram. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1924. Aristotle's Metaphysics, ed. Ross, W. D.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1957. Politica, ed. Ross, W. D.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis. 2000. The New Organon, eds. Jardine, Lisa and Silverthorne, Michael. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brandt, Frithiof. 1927. Thomas Hobbes’ Mechanical Conception of Nature. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Bruell, Christopher. 2014. Aristotle as Teacher: His Introduction to a Philosophic Science. South Bend: St. Augustine's Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Jeffrey. 2005. The Allegiance of Thomas Hobbes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cropsey, Joseph. 1964. “Hobbes and the Transition to Modernity.” In Ancients and Moderns: Essays on the Tradition of Political Philosophy in Honor of Leo Strauss, ed. Cropsey, Joseph. New York: Basic Books, 213–37.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. 1996. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, ed. Weissman, David. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Evrigenis, Ioannis. 2014. Images of Anarchy: The Rhetoric and Science in Hobbes's State of Nature. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forde, Steven. 2014. Locke, Science and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Gillespie, Michael. 2008. The Theological Origins of Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, M. M. 1966. Hobbes's Science of Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2010. An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Herbert, Gary. 1989. Thomas Hobbes: The Unity of Scientific and Moral Wisdom. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas:Google Scholar
A Dialogue = A Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Laws of England , ed. Joseph Cropsey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1971).Google Scholar
Anti-White = Critique du De Mundo de Thomas Hobbes , eds. Jean Jacquot and H. W. Jones. Paris: Vrin (1973).Google Scholar
Behemoth = Behemoth, or The Long Parliament , ed. Ferdinand Tönnies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1990).Google Scholar
De Cive = De Cive, Latin Version , ed. Howard Warrender. Oxford: Clarendon Press (1983).Google Scholar
De Corpore = De Corpore, Elementorum Philosophiae Sectio Prima , ed. Karl Schuhmann. Paris: Librairie Philosophique (1999).Google Scholar
De Homine, in Thomae Hobbes Malmesburiensis: Opera Philosophica quae Latina Scripsit , vol. 2, ed. Sir William Molesworth. 5 vols. London: John Bohn, 1839–45.Google Scholar
Elements = The Elements of Law Natural and Politic, in Human Nature and De Corpore Politico , ed. J. C. A. Gaskin. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1994).Google Scholar
EW = The English Works of Thomas Hobbes , ed. Sir William Molesworth. 11 vols. London: John Bohn (1839-45).Google Scholar
Historia Ecclesiastica = Historia Ecclesiastica , eds. Patricia Springborg, Patricia Stablein, and Paul Wilson. Paris: Honoré Champion (2008).Google Scholar
Latin Leviathan = Leviathan , ed. Noel Malcolm. Oxford: Clarendon Press (2012).Google Scholar
Leviathan = Leviathan , ed. Noel Malcolm. Oxford: Clarendon Press (2012).Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Kinch. 2006a. “A Lion in the House: Hobbes and Democracy.” In Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought, eds. Brett, Annabel and Tully, James. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 191–218.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Kinch. 2006b. “The End of Philosophy (The Case of Hobbes).” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106: 25–62.Google Scholar
Jaume, Lucien. 2007. “Hobbes and the Philosophical Sources of Liberalism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes's Leviathan , ed. Springborg, Patricia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 199–216.Google Scholar
Johnson Bagby, Laurie. 2009. Thomas Hobbes: Turning Point for Honor. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Johnston, David. 1986. The Rhetoric of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes and the Politics of Cultural Transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kennington, Richard. 2004. On Modern Origins: Essays in Early Modern Philosophy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Kraynak, Robert. 1990. History and Modernity in the Thought of Thomas Hobbes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lilla, Mark. 2007. The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Lloyd, S. A. 2009. Morality in the Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lubienski, Z. 1932. Die Grundlagen des ethisch-politischen Systems von Hobbes. Munich: Verlag.Google Scholar
MacPherson, C. B. 1962. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malcolm, Noel. 2002. Aspects of Hobbes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Malcolm, Noel. 2012. Leviathan. Vol. 1: Introduction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Manent, Pierre. 1994. An Intellectual History of Liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Joshua. 2008. “Religion and the Fable of Liberalism: The Case of Hobbes.” Theoria (April): 1–15.Google Scholar
Owen, J. Judd. 2005. “The Tolerant Leviathan: Hobbes and the Paradox of Liberalism.” Polity 37 (1): 130–48.Google Scholar
Paganini, Gianni. 2007. “Hobbes's Critique of the Doctrine of Essences and Its Sources.” In The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes's Leviathan , ed. Springborg, Patricia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 337–57.Google Scholar
Pangle, Thomas, and Burns, Timothy. 2015. The Key Texts of Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Richard. 1967. Hobbes. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2008. Made with Words: Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, Alan. 1970. The Philosophy of the Social Sciences. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael. 1988. Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schuhmann, Karl. 2004. Selected Papers on Renaissance Philosophy and Thomas Hobbes. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 1996. Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 2008. Hobbes and Republican Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. 1980. Solzhenitsyn at Harvard. Ed. Berman, Ronald. Lanham, MD: University Press of University of America.Google Scholar
Sommerville, Johann. 1992. Thomas Hobbes: Political Ideas in Historical Context. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sorell, Tom. 1999. “Hobbes and Aristotle.” In Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, eds. Blackwell, Constance and Kusukawa, Sachiko. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 364–79.Google Scholar
Sorell, Tom. 2007. “Hobbes's Moral Philosophy.” In The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes's Leviathan , ed. Springborg, Patricia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 128–53.Google Scholar
Spragens, Thomas. 1973. The Politics of Motion. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
Strauss, Leo. 1953. Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Strauss, Leo. 1959. “On the Basis of Hobbes's Political Philosophy.” In What Is Political Philosophy? Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 170–96.Google Scholar
Strauss, Leo. 1963. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis. Trans. Elsa M. Sinclair. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Vickie. 2004. Machiavelli, Hobbes, and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tuck, Richard. 1988. “Hobbes and Descartes.” In Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes, eds. Rogers, G. A. J. and Ryan, Alan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 11–41.Google Scholar
Tuck, Richard. 1989. Hobbes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tuck, Richard. 1993. Philosophy and Government: 1572–1651. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weinberger, J. 1975. “Hobbes's Doctrine of Method.” American Political Science Review 69 (4): 1336–53.Google Scholar
Zuckert, Michael. 2002. Launching Liberalism: On Lockean Political Philosophy. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.