Kriterion: Journal of Philosophy 58 (136):23-43 (2017)

Abstract
RESUMO O texto propõe um retorno a alguns conceitos e filósofos relevantes para o debate sobre o contrato social no século XVII: a partir de certos princípios sobre os quais se assenta o alcance inovador e crítico da teoria hobbesiana, e vendo no contrato social um suporte causal para o entendimento e a intervenção política, procuro compreender em que sentido o conceito de transferência deve convir ao de poder absoluto do soberano e o que isso implica de crítica à ideia de direito de resistência, como o entendia Althusius, e de defesa de uma ruptura radical entre tempos de guerra e de paz. Reconstruo com essa crítica a tese hobbesiana da obediência como fundamento da permanência da Cidade - e algumas consequências disso; finalmente, proponho uma hipótese sobre a obra de Espinosa que permita a desconstrução das ideias de transferência e de contrato, dentro de um campo de causalidade que põe o conflito e a resistência como constitutivos da própria sociabilidade, sem o essencial recurso ao conceito althusiano de representação, e sem o fundo despolitizador presente na teoria de Hobbes. ABSTRACT The text proposes a return to some relevant concepts and philosophers to debate about the social contract in the XVII century: from certain principles on which is based the innovative and critical reach of Hobbes's theory, and seeing in the social contract a causal support for political understanding and intervention, I seek to understand in what sense the concept of transference must agree with to that of absolute sovereign's power and how it implies a criticism to the ideia of right of resistance, as understood Althusius, and how it implies a defense of a radical break between times of war and peace. I rebuild, with this critique, the hobbesian thesis of obedience as foundation of permanence of the City - and some consequences of it. Finally, I propose a hypothesis about Spinoza's work that allows the deconstruction of transfer ideas and contract, within a causal field that puts the conflict and the resistance as constitutive items of sociability itself, without the essential resource to the althusian concept of representation and without the depoliticized background present in Hobbes's theory.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1590/0100-512x2017n13602dss
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,645
External links

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

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Hobbes, Contractarians and Scepticism.Paul Dumouchel - 2002 - Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 58 (2):333 - 345.
Hume Crítico de Locke: Contrato Social E Whiggism.Eveline Hauck - 2017 - Kriterion: Journal of Philosophy 58 (136):87-100.
La representación del poder: las portadas del "De Cive" de Thomas Hobbes.David Jiménez Castaño - 2015 - Ingenium. Revista Electrónica de Pensamiento Moderno y Metodología En Historia de la Ideas 8:3-21.
A Coerência Da Reflexão Rousseauniana No Contrato Social.Renato Moscateli - 2006 - Cadernos de Ética E Filosofia Política 9:115-130.
Needed but Unwanted. Thomas Hobbes’s Warnings on the Dangers of Multitude, Populism and Democracy.Mikko Jakonen - 2016 - Las Torres de Lucca: Revista Internacional de Filosofía Política 5 (9):89-118.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-05-19

Total views
21 ( #472,915 of 2,349,084 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #512,311 of 2,349,084 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes