David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Hobbes Studies 22 (2):208-218 (2009)
This reply argues five points, in response to the commentaries on my book, “Made with Words”. First, that Hobbes's theory of language may have supported his materialism, as his materialism supported the theory of language. Second, that for Hobbes legal penalties as such do not take from freedom, only legal obligations. Third, that his emphasis on maker's knowledge explains his theory of a priori demonstrable knowledge and, in particular, the importance he gives to definitions. Fourth, that Hobbes's theory of the desire for power suggests, against his own strategy, that people each ought to seek the equality that goes with others not having power over them; this is the next best to the inequality a person would enjoy in having power over others. And fifth, that Hobbes's theory of freedom is inferior in a number of respects to the republican theory of freedom as non-domination that he opposed
|Keywords||FREEDOM POWER EQUALITY LAW KNOWLEDGE LANGUAGE|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Daniel J. Boorstin (1941). The Mysterious Science of the Law: An Essay on Blackstone's Commentaries Showing How Blackstone, Employing Eighteenth Century Ideas of Science, Religion, History, Aesthetics, and Philosophy, Made of the Law at Once a Conservative and a Mysterious Science. University of Chicago Press.
Samuel M. Brown, C. Gregory Elliott & Robert Paine (2013). Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Withdrawal of Nonfutile Life Support After Attempted Suicide”. American Journal of Bioethics: 13 (3):W3 - W5.
Mark A. Rothstein & Abigail B. Shoben (2013). An Unbiased Response to the Open Peer Commentaries on “Does Consent Bias Research?”. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (4):W1 - W4.
J. G. Taylor (1998). Response to Commentaries. Consciousness and Cognition 7 (2):216-237.
Stephen E. G. Lea & Paul Webley (2006). Money: Motivation, Metaphors, and Mores. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (2):196-204.
Lloyd Fields (1996). Response to the Commentaries. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 3 (4):291-292.
Sean A. Spence (1996). Response to the Commentaries. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 3 (2):99-100.
Lennart Nordenfelt (1997). Response to the Commentaries. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 4 (4):305-306.
Susan Feigenbaum & David M. Levy (1993). Response to the Commentaries. Social Epistemology 7 (3):286 – 292.
K. W. M. Fulford & Mike Jackson (1997). Response to the Commentaries. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 4 (1):87-90.
Robert J. Levine, Judith B. Gordon, Carolyn M. Mazure, Philip E. Rubin, Barry R. Schaller & John L. Young (2011). Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Social Contexts Influence Ethical Considerations of Research”. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (5):W1-W2.
J. Kovacs (2013). Response to the Commentaries of Melissa S Anderson and Murray J Dyck. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):515-516.
Tim Connolly (2012). Learning Chinese Philosophy with Commentaries. Teaching Philosophy 35 (1):1-18.
Ian Wright, Aaron Sloman & Luc J. Beaudoin (1996). Response to the Commentaries. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 3 (2):137-137.
Added to index2012-03-15
Total downloads13 ( #333,252 of 1,926,197 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #453,421 of 1,926,197 )
How can I increase my downloads?