홉스 철학 연구 목록

 

 

 

 

 

국내에 번역된 아래의 리바이어던은 인간관과 국가관을 번역한 것일 뿐이다. 이렇게 홉스의 철학을 좁게 보면, 오인할 가능성이 높을 수 있다.

 

진석용, "홉스의‘시민철학’의 과학적 기초", 한국정치연구 16(1) 2007, pp.35-58.

 

홉스의 정치철학에서 발견할 수 있는 중요한 특징 중의 하나는 정치현상 또는 국가현상에 대한 사고를‘과학적 지식’의 형태로 전개하고 있다는 점이다. 이글에서는 1) 홉스가 주장하고 있는‘과학적 지식(science)’은 무엇이며 2) 과학적 지식을 얻기 위한 추론과정에서 언어와 화법이 하는 역할은 무엇이며, 3) ‘시민철학(civil philosophy)’이 과학적 지식이 되기 위해 필요한 방법과 주제와 목적은 무엇인지에 대해 살펴본 다음 4) 홉스의 과학이론의 의의와 한계를 간략히 논의하였다. 홉스의 과학이론은 대체로 다음과 같이 요약할 수 있다. 1) 과학은 추론의 결과이다. 상상, 기억, 사려 등의 경험(적 지식)은 결코 과학이 될 수 없다. 추론은 사물의 이름, 즉 ‘언어’로써 이루어지며, 의사소통은‘화법’으로 이루어진다. 따라서 사물의 이름이나 화법이 분명하지 않으면‘불합리’에 빠지고 만다. 2) 과학은 대상의 생성과정을 이해하는 것이다. 어떤 것을‘과학적으로’안다는 것은 그 원인을 아는 것인데, 모든 원인은 운동(motion) 하나밖에 없다. 이것이 바로 홉스가 과학의‘통일성’을 믿은 이유다. 3) 과학은 실천적인 목적을 지닌다. ‘시민철학’의 목적은 인간으로 하여금(전쟁 없는) 평화로운 삶을 유지할 수 있도록 하는 것이다. 이것은 시민철학이 연역적 추론에 의해 얻어진 과학적 지식이 될 때에만 달성될 수 있다.

 

 

 

 

Leviathan: Hobbes, Thomas
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform 2011

 

 

홉스 관련 연구 목록

 

Blau, Adrian, "Hobbes on Corruption", History of Political Thought, Volume 30, Number 4, 2009, pp. 596-616(21)

 

Corruption is a more important idea for Hobbes than has been recognized: a state of nature can result from corruption of the people, corruption of counsellors and corruption of legal processes. Hobbes often uses a 'cognitive' conception of corruption — the distortion of mental processes, by faulty reasoning or improper attitudes. Corruption means that citizens think they benefit from sedition, counsellors advise with self-interested rhetoric rather than impartial logic, witnesses lie and judges settle cases by bribes or pity. Although corruption is often thought to involve the pursuit of private gain, Hobbes only talks about corruption in terms of misjudged private gain, where an individual is motivated by his apparent, short-tem self-interest, rather than his real, long- term self-interest. That is why corruption can lead to a state of nature.

Birmingham, Peg, "Arendt and Hobbes: Glory, Sacrificial Violence, and the Political Imagination", Research in Phenomenology41.1 (2011): 1-22.

 

The dominant narrative today of modern political power, inspired by Foucault, is one that traces the move from the spectacle of the scaffold to the disciplining of bodies whereby the modern political subject, animated by a fundamental fear and the will to live, is promised security in exchange for obedience and productivity. In this essay, I call into question this narrative, arguing that that the modern political imagination, rooted in Hobbes, is animated not by fear but instead by the desire for glory and immortality, a desire that is spectacularly displayed in the violence of the modern battlefield. I go on to argue that Hannah Arendt, writing in the ruins of the Second World War, rethinks the modern legacy of political glory. I claim that Arendts reflections on violence and glory, which she rethinks from her earliest writings on violence in the 1940s to her later reflections on war in the 1960s, offer the possibility of a new political imagination wherein glory and the desire for immortality is now rooted in the responsibility of bearing an enduring world

 

 

HAMILTON, JAMES J, "THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF HOBBES'S POLITICAL THOUGHT", Modern Intellectual History11.1 (Apr 2014): 1-29.

 

The social context of Hobbes's political thought is ripe for reassessment in light of advances in the social history of seventeenth-century England in the past half-century. The evidence does not support C. B. Macpherson's claim that England had a "possessive market society" which became the social model for Hobbes's political theory, nor the case that Hobbes was a bourgeois ideologist. A new examination of his social theory, his social identity, his social prejudices and his understanding of what we today call social class instead produces a picture of an intellectual of the "middle sort" with strong aristocratic, pro-court sentiments. A clearer understanding of his social views would probably have prevented the current controversy over his political sentiments or channeled it in a different direction. The issues make a strong case for more social contextualization at the macro level of analysis in intellectual history.

 

Paul Sagar, "Of mushrooms and method: History and the family in Hobbes’s science of politics",  European Journal of Political Theory,  January 2015;  vol. 14, 1: pp. 98-117.

 

Abstract
Hobbes’s account of the commonwealth is standardly interpreted to be primarily a theory of contract, whereby the archetypal manner of forming a political community is via an act of mutual agreement between suspicious individuals of equal power. By examining Hobbes’s theories of the pre-political family, and what he says about the role of real history in the development of political societies, I conclude that this standard interpretation is untenable. Rather, Hobbes’s conception of commonwealth ‘by institution’ is a hypothetical model used to illustrate the mechanics of sovereignty, and to reconcile men to the conditions of subjection to absolute political power. In practice, all sovereignty is originally by ‘acquisition’. Realizing this casts serious doubt on the possibility that Hobbes is a fundamentally democratic thinker. In turn, we are invited to reconsider the history of political thought after Hobbes, in particular by seeing his theory of the family and of history as a genealogical ancestor of Scottish Enlightenment political theory.

 

W.P. Grundy , "No Letters: Hobbes and 20th-Century Philosophy of Language", Philosophy of the Social Sciences December 2008   vol. 38  no. 4  pp.486-512

 

Abstract

The author argues that Thomas Hobbes anticipates a set of questions about meaning and semantic order that come to fuller ｅxpression in the 20th century, in the writings of W.V.O. Quine, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Donald Davidson, Jacques Derrida, and Richard Rorty. Despite their different points of departure, these 20th-century writers pose a number of profound questions about the conditions for the stability of meaning, and about the conditions that govern the use of the term “language” itself. Though the more recent debate benefits from a set of philosophical tools unavailable in the seventeenth century, the author further argues that Hobbes performs a number of maneuvers in his texts from which his 20th-century successors would profit.

Gary Wickham, "Hobbes’s commitment to society as a product of sovereignty: A basis for a Hobbesian sociology",  Journal of Classical Sociology,  May 2014;  vol. 14, 2: pp. 139-155.

 

Abstract
There is a commitment in Thomas Hobbes’s work which is largely neglected by sociology, a commitment to society as a product of sovereignty. Hobbes makes this commitment in line with his strident opposition to the scholastic idea of the dominance of reason in nature. For Hobbes, society is not based on natural reason. Drawing on his distinctive Epicurean anthropology, he argues that the small amount of reason that nature supplies to humans is enough to give them a limited capacity for sociability – enough, that is, to achieve a rudimentary level of self-preservation – but not nearly enough to produce society. He builds this argument directly against the scholastic argument that nature in fact supplies to humans so much reason that, were they to apply it in the manner in which nature intends, they would achieve a perfect society. In forging his particular direction against the scholastics, Hobbes draws mostly on his Epicurean political philosophy, whereby the rule of a strong authority, the sovereign, disciplines the wills of subjects in order to properly balance their passions, to the extent that a distinct domain of peace and security is created and maintained, a domain he mostly calls simply ‘society’. His account of society is normative in only one respect, a very important respect – its dedication to the fundamental importance of peace and security.

 

Johan Tralau, "Hobbes contra Liberty of Conscience",  Political Theory,  February 2011,  vol. 39(1), pp. 58-84.

 

Abstract
It has often been argued that, notwithstanding his commitment to the authoritarian state, Thomas Hobbes is a champion of the “minimal” version of liberty of conscience: namely, the freedom of citizens to think whatever they like as long as they obey the law. Such an interpretation renders Hobbes’s philosophy more palatable to contemporary society. Yet the claim is incorrect. Alongside his notion of “private” conscience, namely, Hobbes develops a conception of conscience as a public phenomenon. In the following, it is argued that this inconsistency serves the purpose of deception: it holds out the possibility of dissent while making it impossible to utilise. Arguably, moreover, this is the proper hermeneutical approach to take to Hobbes’s inconsistencies in general. Indeed, said inconsistencies ought to alert contemporary normative theorists to the instability of the “minimal” version of liberty of conscience attributed to Hobbes: Hobbes himself, namely, shows that it is insufficient.

Magnus Kristiansson and Johan Tralau, "Hobbes’s hidden monster: A new interpretation of the frontispiece of Leviathan", European Journal of Political Theory,  July 2014;  vol. 13, 3: pp. 299-320.

 

Abstract
In recent years, much work has been done on the role of images in Hobbes. But there is an unsolved riddle with regard to the famous frontispiece of Leviathan (1651). Why is there nothing monstrous in the sovereign body depicted, despite the fact that it is named for a Biblical sea monster? In this article it is argued that there is a monster just barely hidden in the image and that the iconographical tradition helps us rediscover this creature. We argue that this monstrosity serves a theoretical and political purpose pertaining to fear and imagery within Hobbes’s overall project and in the political context of his time. Moreover, we argue that the discovery of the hitherto unknown monster should make political theory and intellectual history sensitive to the role played by physical images in Hobbes as well as in political thought at large.

Luciano Venezia, "Hobbes’ two accounts of law and the structure of reasons for political obedience", European Journal of Political Theory,  July 2014;  vol. 13, 3: pp. 282-298.

 

Abstract
Thomas Hobbes’s political theory contains conceptual theses on law, including an analysis of the way legal requirements affect practical reasoning. However, Hobbes’ account of law and the structure of reasons for political obedience is extremely ambiguous. In this paper, I show that Hobbes develops not one but two different accounts. Also, I argue that the two theories are in tension, something that Hobbes himself seems to recognize to some extent.

W.P. Grundy, "No Letters: Hobbes and 20th-Century Philosophy of Language", 
 Philosophy of the Social Sciences,  December 2008,  vol. 38(4), pp. 486-512

 

The author argues that Thomas Hobbes anticipates a set of questions about
meaning and semantic order that come to fuller ｅxpression in the 20th century, in the writings of W.V.O. Quine, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Donald Davidson, Jacques Derrida, and Richard Rorty. Despite their different points of departure, these 20th-century writers pose a number of profound questions about the conditions for the stability of meaning, and about the conditions that govern the use of the term “language” itself. Though the more recent debate benefits from a set of philosophical tools unavailable in the seventeenth century, the author further argues that Hobbes performs a number of maneuvers in his texts from which his 20th-century successors would profit.

 

Daniel J. Kapust and Brandon P. Turner "Democratical Gentlemen and the Lust for Mastery: Status, Ambition, and the Language of Liberty in Hobbes’s Political Thought", Political Theory,  August 2013;  vol. 41, 4: pp. 648-675.

 

Abstract
Neorepublican treatments of Hobbes argue that his conception of liberty was
deliberately developed to counter a revived and Roman-rooted republican
theory of liberty. In doing so, Hobbes rejects republican liberty, and, with it,
Roman republicanism. We dispute this narrative and argue that rather than
rejecting Roman liberty, per se, Hobbes identifies and attacks a language
of liberty, Roman in character, often abused by ambitious persons. This is
possible because Roman liberty—and, by extension, Hobbes’s relationship to
it—is more complex than neorepublican authors have allowed. Drawing on
Roman sources, along with Hobbes’s major works, we argue that Hobbes’s
theory of liberty owes much to his engagement with Roman sources, and
that this theory speaks to the egalitarian elements in his political thought.

 

 

Tracy B Strong, "Glory and the Law in Hobbes", European Journal of Political Theory

 

Abstract
A central argument of the Leviathan has to do with the political importance of education. Hobbes wants his book to be taught in universities and expounded much in the manner that Scripture was. only thus will citizens realize what is in their hearts as to the nature of good political order. Glory affects this process in two ways. The pursuit of glory by a citizen leads to political chaos and disorder. on the other hand, God’s glory is such that one can do nothing but acquiesce to it. The Hobbesian sovereign shares some of the effects of glory that God has naturally; this, however, has to be supplemented by awe and that but fear.

 

Laura S. Reagan, "Mimesis in Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan (1651)", History of the Human Sciences,  October 2012;  vol. 25, 4: pp. 25-42.

 

Abstract
How can citizens construct the political authority under which they will live? I argue that Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan (1651) answers this question concerning the constitutive power of political and normative agency by employing four dimensions of mimesis from the Greek and Roman traditions. And I argue that mimesis accounts for the know-how, or power/knowledge, the general ‘man’ draws upon in constructing the commonwealth. Hobbes revalues poetic mimesis through his stylistic decisions, including the invitation to the reader to read ‘himself’ in the portrait of the general man depicted in the text. Hobbes aims for Leviathan to change the ethical dispositions of its readers, turning them from bad to good men as they witness the general man undergoing this ethical transformation in the transition from the state of nature to the civil state. He emphasizes the anthropological dimension of mimesis to explain political disorder since he argues that men assess the honor others attribute them by observing signs and gestures in others’ behavior. Hobbes employs the linguistic dimension of mimesis to describe how men acting as agents can build a normative consensus out of the state of nature. This article positions mimesis as a key term for understanding the intersection between aesthetics and politics before the term ‘aesthetics’ came into parlance.

 

Jörg Spieker, "Foucault and Hobbes on Politics, Security, and War", Alternatives: Global, Local, Political,  August 2011;  vol. 36, 3: pp. 187-199.

 

Abstract
This article engages and seeks to develop Michel Foucault’s account of the nexus between modern politics, security, and war. Focusing on his 1976 lecture series Society Must Be Defended, the article considers Foucault’s tentative hypothesis about how the logic of war becomes inscribed into modern politics through the principle of security. Contra Foucault, it is suggested that this nexus can already be found in the proto-liberal political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. In order to make this argument, the article focuses on the ontological dimension of Hobbes’ thought. It suggests that the relationship between the state of war and political order in Hobbes is more complex and more ambiguous than Foucault thought. Rather than being transcended, the Hobbesian state of war is appropriated by the state, and converted into the fundamental antagonism between reason and passion. The latter gives rise to a regime of security through which a relationship of war is inscribed into the Hobbesian commonwealth.

 

Summer  Federico Ferrara, "Why Regimes Create Disorder: Hobbes's Dilemma During a Rangoon", Journal of Conflict Resolution,  June 2003;  vol. 47, 3: pp. 302-325.

 

Research on protest and repression has shown that state coercion may result in increased mobilization or effectively deter further challenges. The nature of dissident responses to repression is largely context-based. In Burma, as the military regime faced a massive uprising, although brutal coercion failed to quell the rebellion in August 1988, it succeeded in suppressing the democratic movement only a few weeks later. Such a difference is explained in terms of contextual transformations resulting from the government’s strategic adaptation. Specifically, by suspending the supply of social order, the regime presented the population with Hobbes’s dilemma. Forced to choose between dictatorship and anarchy, the Burmese people overwhelmingly defected from the democratic movement and reluctantly accepted the reestablishment of a highly oppressive order. This analytic narrative seeks to contribute to the understanding of the relationship between protest and repression and enrich the literature on strategic adaptation.

 

Monicka Patterson-Tutschka, "Hobbes Smashes Cromwell and the Rump: An Interpretation of Leviathan", Political Theory, November 27, 2014

 

Abstract
Recent scholarship interprets Leviathan as subtly revealing Thomas Hobbes’s
allegiance to Cromwell, the Rump Parliament and (or) the Commonwealth. I, however, argue that Hobbes’s Leviathan intends to smash the religious principles underwriting Cromwell, the Rump and the new regime. I begin by situating Leviathan alongside the popular religious rhetoric favoring Cromwell, the Rump and their allies. I then proceed to reveal how Hobbes’s Leviathan subverts the popular religious opinions justifying their claims to authority. Hobbes’s politically subversive arguments are important because de facto power ultimately rests on the legitimizing public opinions that lead men to consent to obey and to support a particular man or an assembly of men. That is, right makes might, according to Hobbes. By subverting the powerful religious opinions legitimizing Cromwell’s and the Rump’s rise, Hobbes intends Leviathan to disempower Cromwell and the Rump Parliament.

Alexander F Filippov, "The other ‘Hobbes’ people’: An alternative reading of Hobbes", Journal of Classical Sociology,  February 2013;  vol. 13, 1: pp. 113-135.

 

Abstract
This paper argues that while Hobbes has been very influential in sociological thinking, in particular through the influence of Ferdinand Tönnies and Talcott Parsons, there is an important alternative reading of Hobbes that one might call the ‘real’ Hobbes, which has remained unknown to social theory. Because these classical readings of Hobbes still inform most social theory, sociologists are in effect trapped within them. Through a careful analysis of classic interpretations of Hobbes by Tönnies and Parsons, coupled with a close reading of Hobbes’ actual texts, and his criticisms of Aristotle, this paper will suggest that a different understanding of the ‘people’ who populate Hobbes’ social universe is possible. It will be suggested that this new understanding of Hobbes also makes the contemporary understanding of the history of political philosophy more fruitful for theoretical sociology.

Patricia Springborg, "The Paradoxical Hobbes: A Critical Response to the Hobbes Symposium", Political Theory,  October 2009;  vol. 37, 5: pp. 676-688.

 

Attention has turned from Hobbes the systematic thinker to his inconsistencies, as the essays in the Hobbes symposium published in the recent volume of Political Theory suggest. Deborah Baumgold, in “The Difficulties of Hobbes Interpretation,” shifted the focus to “the history of the book,” and Hobbes’s method of serial composition and peripatetic insertion, as a major source of his inconsistency. Accepting Baumgold’s method, the author argues that the manner of composition does not necessarily determine content and that fundamental paradoxes in Hobbes’s work have a different provenance, for which there are also contextual answers. Hobbes was a courtier’s client, but one committed early to a materialist ontology and epistemology, and these commitments shackled him in treating the immediate political questions with which he was required to deal, leading to systemic paradoxes in his treatment of natural law, liberty, authorization, and consent.

Deborah Baumgold, "The Difficulties of Hobbes Interpretation", Political Theory,  December 2008;  vol. 36, 6: pp. 827-855.

 

Idiosyncrasies of Hobbes’s composition process, together with a paucity of reliable autobiographical materials and the norms of seventeenth-century manuscript production, render interpretation of his political theory particularly difficult and contentious. These difficulties are surveyed here under three headings: (1) the process of “serial” composition (meaning the production of multiple, often expanded, versions of a work), which was common in the period; (2) the relationship between Hobbes’s three political-theory texts—the Elements of Law, De Cive, and Leviathan, which is basic to defining the textual embodiment of his theory, and controversial; and (3) his method of writing. I argue that Hobbes’s composition process undercut his intention to produce a deductive, logical theory of politics and opened the door to inconsistency and muddle in his arguments.

 

Jeffrey L. Morrow, "Leviathan and the Swallowing of Scripture: The Politics behind Thomas Hobbes' Early Modern Biblical Criticism", Christianity & Literature,  December 2011;  vol. 61, 1: pp. 33-54.

 

Abstract

The early modern political philosopher Thomas Hobbes played a foundational role in the emergence of modern biblical criticism. An examination of his work on the Bible in his Leviathan shows how his exegesis supported his political agenda. The political context to Hobbes' biblical criticism shaped the way in which he read the Bible, and the method he espoused was an attempt to politicize the modern biblical critical project. Specifically, Hobbes wished to take the Bible out ofthe hands ofthe theologians, and place it in the hands of state-appointed officials. Following Hobbes, early modern politics continued to shape modern biblical criticism in later centuries.

 

Love and the Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes's Critique of Platonic Eros 

 

Hobbes's understanding of love, and its significance for his political thought, has received insufficient attention. This essay contends that Hobbes has a consistent and comprehensive teaching on love that directly repudiates what he regards as the Platonic teaching on eros. In attacking the Platonic idea of eros, Hobbes undermines a pillar of classical political philosophy and articulates a significant aspect of his new understanding of the passions in terms of power, which is itself a critical part of his new political science most famously presented in Leviathan.

Haig Patapan and Jeffrey Sikkenga, "Love and the Leviathan Thomas Hobbes's Critique of Platonic Eros" Political Theory,  December 2008;  vol. 36, 6: pp. 803-826.

 

Hobbes’s understanding of love, and its significance for his political thought,
has received insufficient attention. This essay contends that Hobbes has a
consistent and comprehensive teaching on love that directly repudiates what
he regards as the Platonic teaching on eros. In attacking the Platonic idea of
eros, Hobbes undermines a pillar of classical political philosophy and articulates a significant aspect of his new understanding of the passions in terms
of power, which is itself a critical part of his new political science most
famously presented in Leviathan.

Robert R. Albritton, "Hobbes on Political Science and Political Order", Canadian Journal of Political Science / Vol.9(3) September 1976, pp 464-472

 

 

Stephen J. Finn, Thomas Hobbes and the Politics of Natural Philosophy, Continuum, 2006,

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/25142-thomas-hobbes-and-the-politics-of-natural-philosophy/

 

Gordon Hull, Hobbes and the Making of Modern Political Thought
Continuum International Publishing Group, 2009

 

Preston T. King, Thomas Hobbes: Critical Assessments, 1권 Routledge 1993

 

Susanne Sreedhar, Hobbes on Resistance:Defying the Leviathan, Cambridge University Press, 2013

 

George Klosko, History of Political Theory: An Introduction: Volume II: Modern Political Theory  Oxford University Press 2013

 

Conflicting Values of Inquiry: Ideologies of Epistemology in Early Modern Europe

 

Axel Gelfert, "The Birth of Epistemological Controversy from the Spirit of Conflict Avoidance: Hobbes on Science and Geometry"

Thomas (Hobbes's political philosophy has typically been discussed in isolation from his theoretical philosophy, which is marked by a decidedly mechanistic worldview. The present paper argues that the theoretical and practical parts of his philosophy are deeply intertwined, insofar as they reflect a deep concern for the management and, where necessary, suppression of disagreement and conflict. This manifests itself in (Hobbes's emphasis on demonstrative reasoning as a tool for commanding assent, which he hoped could be replicated also in the realm of civil philosophy. But, ironically, (Hobbes's own forays into the demonstrative sciences – notably, his repeated claims to have squared the circle – were marred by controversy and led to a longstanding feud between Hobbes and some of the leading mathematicians of his time. What explains (Hobbes's stubbornness in the face of severe criticism from established experts? As I shall argue, Hobbes could not easily have given up his core beliefs about geometry without, in his view, threatening its value as a methodological archetype of demonstrative reasoning. Yet, in conflating his own grasp of geometrical knowledge with his insight into the importance of the geometrical method, Hobbes came dangerously close to instantiating the very social condition he most deplored: when men that think themselves wiser than all others, clamor and demand right Reason for judge, yet seek no more, but that things should be determined, by not other mens reason but their own.

 

JAMESR . HURTGEN, "Hobbes's Theory of Sovereignty in Leviathan",  Reason Papers No. 5 (Winter 1979) 55-67.

 

Gregory Kavka, "‘Hobbes’s War of All Against All’", Ethics, 93 (1983), 291-310.

 

Pärtel Piirimäe, "The Explanation of Conflict in Hobbes’s Leviathan", TRAMES, 2006, 10(60/55), 1, pp.3–21.

 

K. Schuhmann, 'Hobbes and Renaissance Philosophy', in Hobbes oggi, ed. A. Napoli (Milan, 1990), pp. 331-49.

Tom Sorrell (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)

 

Parkin, Jon 2007, "The Reception of Hobbes's Leviathan", Springborg, Patricia(ed), The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes's Leviathan. Cambridge University Press, pp.441-459.

 

Delphine Thivet, "Thomas Hobbes: A Philosopher of War or Peace?", British Journal for the History of Philosophy 16(4) 2008, pp.701–721.

 

Laurence S. Moss, "Some Public-Choice Aspects of Hobbes's Political Thought",
History of Political Economy Summer 1977 9(2) pp.256-272.

 

Manfredi M.A. La Manna and Gabriella Slomp, "Leviathan:Revenue-Maximizer or Glory-Seeker?", Constitutional Political Economy, VOL. 5, NO. 2, 1994.

Ian Shapiro, "Reflections on Skinner and Pettit", Hobbes Studies 22 (2009) pp.185–191.

JOSEPH GRCIC, "Hobbes and Rawls on Political Power" Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, IX, 2007, 2, pp.371-392.

 

Marko Simendic, "Hobbes on Persona, Personation, and Representation-Behind the Mask of Sovereignty" 2011 학위논문

 

Vickie B. Sullivan, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England Cambridge University Press, 2001

Dorota I Pietrzyk, "Civil Society:Conceptual History from Hobbes to Marx",
Marie Curie Working Papers – No 1 (2001)

STEPHEN HEAD, "Two Responses to Utopian Thought-A Comparison of Augustine's and Hobbes's Critiques of Political 'Idealism'", 1999 학위논문

Philip Pettit, "Liberty and Leviathan", politics, philosophy & economics 2005  4(1) pp.131–151.

 

Arash Abizadeh, "Hobbes on the Causes of War: A Disagreement Theory", American Political Science Review Vol. 105, No. 2 May 2011 Vol. 105, No. 2, pp.298-315.

 

David Burchell, "The Disciplined Citizen: Thomas Hobbes, Neostoicism and the Critique of Classical Citizenship", Australian Journal of Politics & History
Volume 45, Issue 4, 1999, pp.506–524.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8497.00078/abstract

 

Jean Hampton, Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986),

 

R. W. SERJEANTSON, "‘Vaine Philosophy’- Thomas Hobbes and The philosophy of the schools"

Q. Skinner, "Thomas Hobbes and the nature of the early Royal Society", Historical Journal, 12 (1969), 217-39, revised and extended as ‘Hobbes and the politics of the early Royal Society’ in Skinner, Visions of politics, 3 vols, vol. III: Hobbes and civil science (Cambridge, 2002)

 

S. Shapin and S. Schaffer, Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life (Princeton, 1985), esp. p. 139;

 

M. Hunter, Science and society in Restoration England (Cambridge, 1981)

 

N. Malcolm, 'Hobbes and the Royal Society', in Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes, ed. G. A. J. Rogers and A. Ryan (Oxford, 1988), pp. 43-66,

reprint. in Malcolm, Aspects of Hobbes (Oxford, 2002), pp. 317-335.

C. Leijenhorst, The mechanization of Aristotelianism: the late Aristotelian setting of Thomas Hobbes’ natural philosophy (Leiden, 2002)

 

Hobbes, On the citizen, ed. R. Tuck, trans. M. Silverthorne (Cambridge, 1998),

 

Michael Hoelzl and Graham Ward, "Thomas Hobbes(1588-1674)", Religion and Political Thought, 2006, pp.102-117.

 
Quentin Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes Cambridge University Press, 2004.