找回密碼
 To register

QQ登錄

只需一步,快速開始

掃一掃,訪問(wèn)微社區(qū)

打印 上一主題 下一主題

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

[復(fù)制鏈接]
查看: 19802|回復(fù): 41
樓主
發(fā)表于 2025-3-21 16:58:08 | 只看該作者 |倒序?yàn)g覽 |閱讀模式
書目名稱Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject
編輯Eleanor Curran
視頻videohttp://file.papertrans.cn/825/824050/824050.mp4
圖書封面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
關(guān)鍵詞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

書目名稱Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject被引頻次




書目名稱Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject年度引用




書目名稱Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject年度引用學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject讀者反饋




書目名稱Reclaiming the Rights of the Hobbesian Subject讀者反饋學(xué)科排名




單選投票, 共有 1 人參與投票
 

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

您所在的用戶組沒(méi)有投票權(quán)限
沙發(fā)
發(fā)表于 2025-3-21 23:20:23 | 只看該作者
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.
板凳
發(fā)表于 2025-3-22 01:25:42 | 只看該作者
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
地板
發(fā)表于 2025-3-22 06:50:58 | 只看該作者
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
5#
發(fā)表于 2025-3-22 11:43:15 | 只看該作者
6#
發(fā)表于 2025-3-22 14:59:58 | 只看該作者
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
7#
發(fā)表于 2025-3-22 18:08:54 | 只看該作者
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
8#
發(fā)表于 2025-3-22 23:31:35 | 只看該作者
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
9#
發(fā)表于 2025-3-23 04:13:03 | 只看該作者
10#
發(fā)表于 2025-3-23 08:22:41 | 只看該作者
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
 關(guān)于派博傳思  派博傳思旗下網(wǎng)站  友情鏈接
派博傳思介紹 公司地理位置 論文服務(wù)流程 影響因子官網(wǎng) 吾愛(ài)論文網(wǎng) 大講堂 北京大學(xué) Oxford Uni. Harvard Uni.
發(fā)展歷史沿革 期刊點(diǎn)評(píng) 投稿經(jīng)驗(yàn)總結(jié) SCIENCEGARD IMPACTFACTOR 派博系數(shù) 清華大學(xué) Yale Uni. Stanford Uni.
QQ|Archiver|手機(jī)版|小黑屋| 派博傳思國(guó)際 ( 京公網(wǎng)安備110108008328) GMT+8, 2025-10-23 16:27
Copyright © 2001-2015 派博傳思   京公網(wǎng)安備110108008328 版權(quán)所有 All rights reserved
快速回復(fù) 返回頂部 返回列表
陇南市| 沂南县| 南京市| 大田县| 东光县| 临朐县| 嘉定区| 彝良县| 昭通市| 湘潭市| 怀仁县| 玉林市| 和顺县| 包头市| 永城市| 桐梓县| 广宁县| 农安县| 江西省| 英德市| 尚义县| 无锡市| 阜平县| 栖霞市| 常宁市| 修武县| 曲麻莱县| 新乡县| 蒙自县| 施甸县| 吴桥县| 华亭县| 海原县| 贵德县| 湄潭县| 修文县| 四会市| 定远县| 宜黄县| 固安县| 聂荣县|