The roots of insecurity in modern political philosophy; Critical Reconstruction of Thomas Hobbes' Philosophical Anthropology

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

faculty member of acecr

Abstract

By asking about security in Hobbes's political philosophy, this article addresses why power and security are intertwined in the modern state and the virtuous role of human beings in providing and promoting security in society has been neglected. In other words, insecurity in the contemporary era, and especially in the wake of the formation of global experiences of Leviathan as the only legitimate and effective power structure in societies and international relations, rather than resulting from power struggles between states are rooted in Hobbes's anthropology, which is itself the theoretical foundation of the modern state. Using this theory of critical reconstruction based on Hobbes's internal logic of anthropology, this study tries to introduce insecure and insecure sources in Hobbes's view of human beings and Identity. The results of this study show that Hobbes's anthropology, as the theoretical basis of the structure of today's modern state, makes man an inherently dangerous, anxious, selfish, and at the same time legitimate and justified being in achieving all his desires. This type of anthropology is the main source of insecurity production, the consequences and effects of which are reflected in Leviathan.

Keywords

References

اشتراوس، لئو (1373)، فلسفه سیاسی چیست؟ ترجمه فرهنگ رجایی، تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
اشتراوس، لئو (1375)، حقوق طبیعی و تاریخ، ترجمه باقر پرهام، تهران: انتشارات آگاه، چاپ دوم.
برت، ادوین آرتور (1369)، مبادی مابعدالطبیعی علوم نوین، ترجمه عبدالکریم سروش، تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
برلین، آیزایا (1380)، چهار مقاله درباره آزادی، ترجمه محمدعلی موحد، تهران: انتشارات خوارزمی، چاپ دوم.
بکار، عثمان (1381)، طبقه‏بندی علوم از نظر حکمای اسلام؛ با مقدمه سیدحسین نصر، ترجمه جواد قاسمی، مشهد: بنیاد پژوهش‏های آستان قدس رضوی.
سبزه‏ای، محمدتقی (1386)، جامعه مدنی به مثابه قرارداد اجتماعی: تحلیل مقایسه‏ای اندیشه‏های‏‏ هابز، لاک و روسو، مجله پژوهش حقوق و سیاست، سال نهم، ش 22، صص 67- 98.
شاکری، سیدرضا (1385)، قدرت به مثابه امنیت؛ بازخوانی نظریه سیاسی مدرن، فصلنامه مطالعات راهبردی، شماره 34، صص 737-757.
لعل علیزاده، فرزانه (1395)، بررسی و مقایسه رابطه آزادی و امنیت در اندیشه سیاسی توماس‏‏ هابز و جان لاک، دو فصلنامه هستی و شناخت، ج 3، ش 2، صص 85-106.
‏هابز، توماس (1380)، لویاتان، ترجمه حسین بشیریه، تهران: انتشارات نی.
Arvan, Marcus (2014), Why Hobbes Cannot Limit the Leviathan: A Critical Commentary on Larry May's Limiting Leviathan, Hobbes studies, Volume 27 , Issue 2, pp 178–184.
Abbasi, Hina Qanber (2012), anthropology; an intellectual tradition and contemporary relevance, ABC Journal of advanced research, volume 1. No 1, ISSN 2304-2621, pp. 47-59.
Baía, Pedro(ed.) (2008), Ralph Stern, Berlin's "Critical Reconstruction" and the Politics of Memory and Identity, Berlin: Critical Reconstruction, Circo de Ideias press. See: https://www.circodeideias.pt/en/
Bassett C, B.issett J (2003), Reading and critiquing research. BrJ PerioperNriK 13(4): 162-4
-Bird. Colin (1999), The Myth of Liberal Individualism, Cambridge University Press.
Bowser Richard T. and J. Stanley McQuade (2006), Austin’s Intentions: A Critical Reconstruction of His Concept of Legal Science, Campbell Law Review, Volume 29 , Issue 1 Fall, pp 47-82.
Bruell, Christopher (2011), the question of nature and the thought of Leo Strauss, Klesis- revue philosophique, 19.
-Finn, Stephen j.(2006) Thomas Hobbes and the politics of natural philosophy, Continuum press, New York.
Gare, Arran(2009), philosophical anthropology, ethics and political philosophy in an age of impending catastrophe, Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 5, no. 2.pp 264-286.
Garrett, Don(2010), "promising" ideas: Hobbes and contract in Spinoza's political philosophy,  CUUK1157, Melamed, ISBN: 878 O 52188229  3, 20 July, p 9-19.
May, Larry (2013), Limiting Leviathan: Hobbes on Law and International Affairs, Oxford university press.
Oberto, Marrama (2016),  Language and Curiosity in Hobbes' Philosophical   Anthropology, Science et Esprit, 68(1), 71-81.
Odysseos, Louiza (2002), Dangerous Ontologies: The Ethos Of Survival Ethical, theorizing in international relations, review of international studies, volume 28, issue 02, pp 403-418.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart (2004), anthropology in theological perspective, translated by Matthew J.O`Connell, T&T Clark international, 3th edition.
Piotrowski, Robert (2009), physical anthropology of Thomas Hobbes, journal of studies in logic, grammar and rhetoric, 15(28) pp. 189-197.
Prokhovnik, Raia & Gabreilla Slomp (2010), Eds. International political theory after Hobbes: analysis, interpretation and orientation, Palgrave Macmillan.
Sytnichenkov. L.A. and Usov,D.V (2020), To the basics of Modern political anthropology: freedom and justice in the social contract theory of T. Hobbes, Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, NO 17, pp 76-87.
Taiaiake Alfred (2011), “Wasáse: Indigenous Resurgences”, in Jacob T. Levy & Iris M. Young (eds.) Colonialism and Its Legacies, Lexington books, Lanham, pp. 79-96
Thornton, Helen (2005), State of nature or Eden? Thomas Hobbes and his contemporaries on the natural conditions of human beings, the University of Rochester press, USA.
Yamaoka Ryuichi (1996), Morality and Politics of a Modern Self
A Critical Reconstruction of Lockean Liberalism, PH.D. Thesis, University of London.
Zuckert, Catherine & Michael (2006), the truth about Leo Strauss; political philosophy and American democracy, the University of Chicago press, Chicago and London.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 May 2022
  • Accept Date: 10 May 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics