advocate
发表于 2025-3-21 16:58:08
书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject影响因子(影响力)<br> http://impactfactor.cn/if/?ISSN=BK0824050<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject影响因子(影响力)学科排名<br> http://impactfactor.cn/ifr/?ISSN=BK0824050<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject网络公开度<br> http://impactfactor.cn/at/?ISSN=BK0824050<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject网络公开度学科排名<br> http://impactfactor.cn/atr/?ISSN=BK0824050<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject被引频次<br> http://impactfactor.cn/tc/?ISSN=BK0824050<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject被引频次学科排名<br> http://impactfactor.cn/tcr/?ISSN=BK0824050<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject年度引用<br> http://impactfactor.cn/ii/?ISSN=BK0824050<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject年度引用学科排名<br> http://impactfactor.cn/iir/?ISSN=BK0824050<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject读者反馈<br> http://impactfactor.cn/5y/?ISSN=BK0824050<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject读者反馈学科排名<br> http://impactfactor.cn/5yr/?ISSN=BK0824050<br><br> <br><br>
文件夹
发表于 2025-3-21 23:20:23
The Political Context — Taking Sides? contested during this period, namely: sovereignty, law, equality and rights. What will become evident is that on at least two out of the four, Hobbes takes up positions closer to the parliamentarians than to the royalists.
改变
发表于 2025-3-22 01:25:42
Introductionshort book indeed. The received wisdom, that Hobbesian subjects give up all their rights to the sovereign or that any rights that are retained are retained in name only, is so entrenched that to question it may seem strange. And these assumptions are closely tied to other assumptions of Hobbesian or
Bridle
发表于 2025-3-22 06:50:58
Examining the Orthodoxy — Hobbes and Royalismbjects give up all their rights to the sovereign (except for the bare right to self-defence, which is rendered meaningless by the sovereign’s absolute power). He can be grouped together with other royalist thinkers and writers of his time, such as Sir Robert Filmer, Bishop Bramhall and Dudley Digges
grovel
发表于 2025-3-22 11:43:15
http://reply.papertrans.cn/83/8241/824050/824050_5.png
FANG
发表于 2025-3-22 14:59:58
Liberties and Claims — Rights and Dutiesns and even the Levellers. He makes certain rights inalienable and so subjects retain those rights into the commonwealth. This sets him apart from the royalists who insist that all natural rights are given up to the king in exchange for his protection. But what significance do these observations hav
Antioxidant
发表于 2025-3-22 18:08:54
The Full Right to Self-Preservation and Sovereign Dutieselves that comprises the aggregate right of nature. Then we conform to the second law of nature and go through the process of transferring and laying down those rights that we would not want others to hold against us. Where does this leave the Hobbesian individual with regard to her rights? She now
Ringworm
发表于 2025-3-22 23:31:35
The Natural Rights Tradition — With or Without Hobbes? the context of the Hohfeldian analysis that underlies much discussion of Hobbesian rights. And while I have argued that Hobbes’s theory of rights contains substantive rights for individuals, I have yet to examine in any detail the possibility that it is a . theory. In this chapter I want to examine
FLAT
发表于 2025-3-23 04:13:03
http://reply.papertrans.cn/83/8241/824050/824050_9.png
档案
发表于 2025-3-23 08:22:41
Conclusion: Towards a Hobbesian Theory of Rightsdian definitional scheme, then how are we to define it? If we look to modern rights theory could it be defined as a will or an interest theory of rights? Will theories may look promising at first glance because of their insistence that rights are under the control of the right-holder who may exercis