Lloyd’s Interpretation of the Principle of Political Obligation of Thomas Hobbes

Authors

  • Oswaldo Plata Pineda Politécnico Jaime Isaza Cadavid

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.n54a06

Keywords:

Hobbes, Lloyd, conflict, prudential interests, transcendent interests

Abstract

This essay presents Sharon Ann Lloyd’s interpretation of Thomas Hobbes’s political theory and exposes the arguments that she offers to support the thesis that argues that the standard interpretation is unable to understand its real problem: the problem of establishing and maintaining social order.

|Abstract
= 451 veces | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))
= 198 veces| | HTML (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))
= 14 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Oswaldo Plata Pineda, Politécnico Jaime Isaza Cadavid

Facultad de Ciencias Básicas, Sociales y Humanas Politécnico Jaime Isaza Cadavid Medellín, Colombia

References

Carmichael. D. J. C. (1983). C. B. Macpherson’s “Hobbes”: A Critique, en: The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science. 16, 1, p. 61-80.

Darwall, S. (1994). Ideals as Interests in Hobbes’s Leviathan: The Power of Mind Over Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gauthier, D. (1969). The Logic of Leviathan: The Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes. London: Oxford Clarendon Press.

Gauthier, D. (1979). Thomas Hobbes: Moral Theorist, en: The Journal of Philosophy. 76, 10: p. 547-559.

Gauthier, D. (1987). Taming Leviathan Hobbes, en: Philosophy & Public Affairs. 16, 3 p. 280-298.

Hampton, J. (1986). Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hobbes, T. (1990). Behemoth, or the Long Parliament. Reprint of the 1889 Tönnies edition, with introduction by Stephen Holmes. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Hobbes, T. (1994). Leviatán: La materia, forma y poder de un estado eclesiástico y civil. Trad. Carlos Mellizo. Madrid: Alianza.

Hobbes, T. (2010). Behemoth. Clarendon Edition of the Works of Thomas Hobbes. Oxford University Press. Oxford. En castellano: Behemoth. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos, 1992.

Kavka, G. (1983). Hobbes’s War of All Against All, en: Ethics. 93, 2, p. 291-310.

Kavka, G. (1986). Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lloyd, S. (1992). Ideals as Interests in Hobbes’s Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lloyd, S. (2009). Morality in the Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes: Cases in the Law of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lloyd, S. (1945). The Two Gods of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on Religion and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Macpherson, C. (1945). Hobbes Today, en: The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science. 11, 4, p, 524-534.

Macpherson, C. (1970). La teoría política del individualismo posesivo. De Hobbes a Locke. Barcelona: Editorial Fontanella.

Malcolm, N. (1995). Hobbes and Spinoza. En: J. H. Burns (ed.). The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450-1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Malcolm, N. (2005). What Hobbes really said, The National Interest, Washington, pp. 81.

Malcolm, N. (2007). Reason of State, Propaganda and the Thirty Years’ War. An Unknown Translation by Thomas Hobbes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martinich A. P. (1994). The Philosophical Review, Vol. 103, No.4, pp. 748-752.

Rosler, A. (2009). Hobbes y la autonomía de la política, en: Doispontos, Curitiba, São Carlos, vol. 6, n. 3 – especial, pp.11-33.

Rosler, A. (2009). Hobbes y la autonomía de la política. En: Doispontos, Curitiba, São Carlos, vol. 6, n. 3.

Skinner, Q. (1997). Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Venezia, L. (2013). Lloyd’s Orthodoxy, en: Hobbes Studies, 6(2) 171-184.

Published

2016-09-18

How to Cite

Plata Pineda, O. (2016). Lloyd’s Interpretation of the Principle of Political Obligation of Thomas Hobbes. Estudios De Filosofía, (54), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.n54a06

Issue

Section

Original or Research articles

Categories