Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In this view, Hobbes claimed to be following Tertullian.) Like John Locke , he also stated that true revelation can never disagree with human reason and experience, [ 50 ] although he also argued that people should accept revelation and its interpretations for the same reason that they should accept the commands of their sovereign: in order to ...
Hobbes’s concept of moral obligation stems from the assumption that humans have a fundamental obligation to follow the laws of nature and all obligations stem from nature. [8] His reasoning for this is premised upon the beliefs of natural law; that the moral standards or reasoning that govern behaviour can be drawn from eternal truths ...
Hobbes supervised an English translation of De Corpore, which was published in 1656. There were some changes, and a provocative appendix Six Lessons to the Professors of Mathematics was added. [7] It has been claimed that the translation was vitiated by errors, undermining its usefulness as a guide to Hobbes's philosophy of language. [8]
Hobbes' materialistic presuppositions also led him to hold a view which was considered highly controversial at the time. Hobbes rejected the idea of incorporeal substances and subsequently argued that even God himself was a corporeal substance. Although Hobbes never explicitly stated he was an atheist, many allude to the possibility that he was.
In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), Thomas Jefferson uses the phrase bellum omnium in omnia ("war of all things against all things", assuming omnium is intended to be neuter like omnia) as he laments that the constitution of that state was twice at risk of being sacrificed to the nomination of a dictator after the manner of the Roman Republic.
Hobbes never denied the capacity for human beings to band together or even to care for one another as a community; he denied that humanity as a species could do so. The properties of oxytocin would seem to suggest Hobbes was correct, as does an even cursory knowledge of the history of human civilizations.
Hobbes replied with an idiosyncratic appeal to a form of dimensional analysis, where algebraic quantities are non-dimensional. [21] In general, his positions hardened after 1660. Wallis publicly refuted the solution, but Hobbes claimed the credit of it. He republished it (in modified form), with his remarks, at the end of the 1661 Dialogus ...
This view of the state of nature is partly deduced from Christian belief (unlike Hobbes, whose philosophy is not dependent upon any prior theology). Although it may be natural to assume that Locke was responding to Hobbes, Locke never refers to Hobbes by name, and may instead have been responding to other writers of the day, like Robert Filmer. [8]