Do you want to stay informed about this journal? Click the buttons to subscribe to our alerts.
Hobbes, History, and Non-domination
In: Hobbes StudiesAbstract
Pettit's and Skinner's stimulating books are open to historically-minded objections. Pettit's reading of Hobbes is Rousseauian, but he rejects the Hobbesian/Rousseauian belief that some modern people are driven by amour-propre/“glory”. If Hobbes is right, there is, in Pettit's sense, no “common good”. Skinner's treatment of the neo-Roman “theorists” over-estimates their self-consciousness and their consistency. Leviathan chapter 21 is not a response to neo-Romanism; it treats civil liberty as non-obligation, not as non-interference.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 298 | 69 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 138 | 5 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 102 | 20 | 1 |
Abstract
Pettit's and Skinner's stimulating books are open to historically-minded objections. Pettit's reading of Hobbes is Rousseauian, but he rejects the Hobbesian/Rousseauian belief that some modern people are driven by amour-propre/“glory”. If Hobbes is right, there is, in Pettit's sense, no “common good”. Skinner's treatment of the neo-Roman “theorists” over-estimates their self-consciousness and their consistency. Leviathan chapter 21 is not a response to neo-Romanism; it treats civil liberty as non-obligation, not as non-interference.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 298 | 69 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 138 | 5 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 102 | 20 | 1 |