![]() ![]() To be sure, the term medieval political discourse is problematic. ![]() This chapter examines medieval political discourse in order to determine whether a similar spatial logic of higher and lower, inferior and superior, also underscored medieval ideas of sovereign-territoriality. We have established that the principle of hierarchy conditioned medieval ideas of place, space, and man’s being in them. Finally, he clarifies, though he does not clearly assess, John Locke’s thoughts on the appropriation of property and considers and rejects Jeremy Bentham’s view that law is the content of a sovereign will, arguing that the will theory cannot be squared with a thoroughgoing naturalism. Moreover, he clarifies the import of the concept of a person’s suum, or private sphere, in the works of the natural law philosophers Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf, and points out that this concept is needed to understand the important natural law precept, that one must never harm another. He also considers the Swedish medieval practice of adjudging someone a king, explaining that the act of adjudging someone a king was a magical rite, in which the court aimed to confer an ideal legal property, namely kinghood, on the person in question. Thus he considers the theory of the universitas, according to which a corporation is a type of composite entity that is neither fictional nor identical with its members, arguing that this theory correctly captures the Roman jurists’ understanding of the nature of corporations. ![]() naturalism, his meta-ethics, his critique of will theories of law, or his analysis of the concept of a rule. Olivecrona touches in these essays on questions that he had been, or would later be, concerned with when developing his own legal philosophy and although the essays concern rather different topics, they all illustrate some aspect or aspects of his legal philosophy, such as his. In this chapter, I consider Olivecrona’s treatment of certain topics in the history of legal and political philosophy. After the discussion of the three different forms and levels of rationality, the article concludes that Thomas Hobbes, instead of being primarily referred to as an advocate of autocratic regimes, should be considered, at the very beginning of the long history of rule of law, as one of the key authors of modern constitutionalism and democracy. Finally, the rationality of political power that imposes on Sovereignty binding rules for gaining and maintaining power. Second, individualism as a method for collective decision making, one that led to so-called “game theory” and moral individualism (quite significant in con- temporary political philosophy). hermeneutics used by medieval theologians. After a brief review of different interpretations of Hobbes relevant to the subject, I center the discussion on the reading advanced by Norberto Bobbio and the notion of three “different forms and levels of rationality”: First, Hobbes’ dichotomy-based reasoning that radically contended the Aristotelian tradition, as well as biblical. The article aims to assess Hobbes’ methodological legacy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |