找回密码
 To register

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

扫一扫,访问微社区

Titlebook: Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject; Eleanor Curran Book 2007 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 20

[复制链接]
查看: 19712|回复: 41
发表于 2025-3-21 16:58:08 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject
编辑Eleanor Curran
视频video
图书封面Titlebook: Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject;  Eleanor Curran Book 2007 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 20
描述‘There are no substantive rights for subjects in Hobbes‘s political theory, only bare freedoms without correlated duties to protect them‘. Curran challenges this orthodoxy of Hobbes scholarship, and argues that Hobbes‘s theory is not a theory of natural rights but rather, a modern, secular theory of rights, with relevance to modern rights theory.
出版日期Book 2007
关键词law; natural law; political theory; Thomas Hobbes
版次1
doihttps://doi.org/10.1057/9780230592742
isbn_softcover978-1-349-27989-0
isbn_ebook978-0-230-59274-2
copyrightPalgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2007
The information of publication is updating

书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject影响因子(影响力)




书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject影响因子(影响力)学科排名




书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject网络公开度




书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject网络公开度学科排名




书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject被引频次




书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject被引频次学科排名




书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject年度引用




书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject年度引用学科排名




书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject读者反馈




书目名称Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject读者反馈学科排名




单选投票, 共有 1 人参与投票
 

1票 100.00%

Perfect with Aesthetics

 

0票 0.00%

Better Implies Difficulty

 

0票 0.00%

Good and Satisfactory

 

0票 0.00%

Adverse Performance

 

0票 0.00%

Disdainful Garbage

您所在的用户组没有投票权限
发表于 2025-3-21 23:20:23 | 显示全部楼层
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.
发表于 2025-3-22 01:25:42 | 显示全部楼层
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
发表于 2025-3-22 06:50:58 | 显示全部楼层
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
发表于 2025-3-22 11:43:15 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-22 14:59:58 | 显示全部楼层
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
发表于 2025-3-22 18:08:54 | 显示全部楼层
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
发表于 2025-3-22 23:31:35 | 显示全部楼层
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
发表于 2025-3-23 04:13:03 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-23 08:22:41 | 显示全部楼层
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
 关于派博传思  派博传思旗下网站  友情链接
派博传思介绍 公司地理位置 论文服务流程 影响因子官网 SITEMAP 大讲堂 北京大学 Oxford Uni. Harvard Uni.
发展历史沿革 期刊点评 投稿经验总结 SCIENCEGARD IMPACTFACTOR 派博系数 清华大学 Yale Uni. Stanford Uni.
|Archiver|手机版|小黑屋| 派博传思国际 ( 京公网安备110108008328) GMT+8, 2025-6-18 12:57
Copyright © 2001-2015 派博传思   京公网安备110108008328 版权所有 All rights reserved
快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表