راهنمای خواندن «لویاتان» هابز

by Laurie M. Johnson, مجتبی هاتف (translator)

This original book has been consistently cited by scholars of international relations who explore the roots of realism in Thucydides's history and the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. While acknowledging that neither thinker fits perfectly within the confines of international relations realism, Laurie M. Johnson proposes Hobbes's philosophy is more closely aligned with it than Thucydides's.

Genres: History

Paperback

First published May 1, 1993

About the author

Laurie Johnson is a Professor of Political Science and Swogger Chair of Primary Texts. She serves as the Director of the Primary Texts Certificate at Kansas State University. She is the author of seven books and numerous book chapters and articles. Most of her work has involved developing a thorough understanding and critique of classical liberal theory, and includes works on Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Alexis de Tocqueville. Her most recent book, Ideological Possession and the Rise of the New Right: The Political Thought of Carl Jung, was published in 2019 by Routledge. Her latest book, The Gap in God's Country: A Longer View on our Culture Wars, will be published in 2024 by Wipf & Stock. Her teaching includes courses on the history of political philosophy, ideologies, and environmental political thought. She also provides political philosophy and political theology content weekly on her Political Philosophy YouTube channel, which has over 22,000 subscribers and 1.6 million views, and its associated podcast.

Reviews

[Somayeh Fatemi · Rating 5 out of 5]

لویاتان فهم سختی نداره، البته اگر علاقه مند وتا حدودی با هابز آشنا باشید. اولین باره سراغ کتاب های راهنما می‌رم و متوجه شدم با خوندن این کتاب قبل از لویاتان یا همزمان با لویاتان فهم‌ش دیگه زیادی از حد راحت می‌شه. خلاصه و مفید و جامع .... کتاب خیلی خوبی بود و من میگم نقص نداشت. ممنون از زحمات آقای هاتف😃

[Abendstern Morgenstern · Rating 5 out of 5]

The basic thesis of this book is that Hobbes' claim to Thucydides as kindred spirit, and the same claim by political realists following Hobbes who draw their assumptions about reality from his work, might not be entirely justified, because the two principal men and their worldviews don't always align, especially in their assessment of man at his apex. For Hobbes, an avowed phobic of aristocracy, man ideally would be a docile subject of the Leviathan. For Thucydides, himself an aristocrat, the ideal man would have been a noble statesman, kalos kagathos, like his example in Pericles, for whom, like Plato or Machiavelli, he was principally writing for, and not men of the hoi polloi. The author makes a clear and concise case for Thucydides having the more nuanced portrait of human nature despite both subjects having lived through brutal civil wars (and perhaps, implied, that Hobbes was more negatively affected by witnessing violence and death than Thucydides was). Ultimately for a Hobbesian, any act of courage or generosity would be a pleasant surprise, where these are baseline traits for the Thucydidian man. Who ends up the more dour pessimist is an open question.