Leviathan and Political Epicureanism: A Critical Discussion on Theological Reading of Hobbes

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 A PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

10.22059/jpq.2023.91501

Abstract

Interpreting the ideas of early modern philosophers through the lens of theology and secularization thesis has arguably been one of the controversial issues in contemporary political philosophy. Following this thesis, religion is not simply discarded; instead, it interacts with the worldly sphere, by which some of its transcendental components become immanent. It underscores theological reading of modern theories and undermines their legitimacy as modern. Thinkers like Carl Schmitt, Carl Löwith and John Milbank support this standpoint. The aim of this article is to provide a critical account on this interpretive horizon in the case of Thomas Hobbes and his concept of civil religion. Following Quentin Skinner’s methodological contextualism as method, this essay tries to defend what it calls political Epicureanism of Hobbes as a radically modern idea against theological readings of Hobbes. The main questions of this investigation are: What kind of relationship is there between Hobbes and Epicurus? and, What is the fundamental problem between theological reading of Hobbes and his political Epicureanism? This article assumes that Hobbes’s Epicureanism is fundamentally in contrast with Judo-Christian theology and thus, is broadly incompatible with theological readings of him. By investigating Hobbes’s philosophy and its context, its relationship with Epicurean philosophy, this article draws a conceptual association between Hobbes and Epicurus in terms of their ontology, epistemology, ethics and their attitude toward politics. It also distinguishes Hobbes’s Epicureanism by what is termed as theological lying and concludes that what appears to be Hobbes’s theological expression is in fact an Epicurean theological lie.

Keywords

References

  1. گیلسپی، مایکل الن. (۱۳۹۸) ریشه‌های الهیاتی مدرنیته، ترجمه زانیار ابراهیمی. تهران: انتشارات پگاه روزگارنو.

    2. لوویت، کارل. (۱۳۹۶) معنا در تاریخ، ترجمه سعید حاجی‌ناصری و زانیار ابراهیمی. تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.

    1. Arendt, Hanna. (1961) Between Past and Future. New York: Penguin Classics.
    2. Bakker, Frederic. (2019) “The End of Epicurean Infinity: Critical Reflections on the Epicurean Infinite Universe.” in Frederic Bakker, Delphine Bellis, Carla Palmerino eds. Space, Imagination and the Cosmos from Antiquity to the Early Modern Period. Springer. Available at: https://philpapers.org/rec/BAKTEO-18 (Accessed 4 Jan 2021).
    3. Berman, David. (1987) “Deism, Immortality, and the Art of Theological Lying,” in Joseph Leo Lemay, ed. Deism, Masonry and the Enlightenment. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press.
    4. ———. (1992) “Disclaimers as Offence Mechanisms in Charles Blount and John Toland,” in Michael Hunter and David Wootton, eds. Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    5. Calvin, John. (1960) Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2 Vol.
    6. Cole, Thomas. (1990) Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology. Cleveland, OH: Press of Western Reserve University.
    7. Cudworth, Rulph. (1678) The True Intellectual System of the Universe. London: Thomas Tegg.
    8. Curley, Edwin. (1996) “Calvin and Hobbes, or Hobbes as an Orthodox Christian,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 34, 257-71, .
    9. Dumouchel, Paul. (1995). “Hobbes & Secularization: Christianity and the Political Problem of Religion,” in Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture 2, 39-56. doi:10.1353/ctn.1995.0007.
    10. DeWitt, Norman W. (1954) Epicurus and His Philosophy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    11. Epicurus. (1926) “Letter to Menoeceus,” trans.; ed. Cyril Bailey, in Epicurus, the Extant Remains. London & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    12. Freehafer, John; and Earl Miner. (1973, October) “Stoicism and Epicureanism in England (1530-1700),” in PMLA (Modern Language Association of America) 88, 5: 1180-1182, .
    13. Gillespie, Stuart; and Philip Hardie. (2007) The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    14. Harrison, Charles. (1934) “The Ancient Atomists and English Literature of the Seventeenth Century,” in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 45: 1-79, .
    15. Hobbes, Thomas. (1991) “1668 Appendix to the Latin Leviathan,” Interpretation 18, 3: 323-413, trans., comments by George Wright. Available at: https://philpapers.org/rec/HOBAT (Accessed 6 Feb 2021).
    16. ———. (1651/2003) Leviathan, ed. Richard Tuck. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    17. ———. (2008) Historia Ecclesiastica, trans. Patricia Springborg and Paul Wilson. Paris: Honoré Champion Editeur.
    18. ———. (1840a) The English Works Of Thomas Hobbes, ed. Sir William Molesworth. London, UK: John Bohn, Vol. 4.
    19. ———. (1840b) The English Works Of Thomas Hobbes, ed. Sir William Molesworth. London: John Bohn, Vol. 7.
    20. Laertius, Diogenes. (1853) The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. trans. Charles Duke Yonge. London, UK: H. G. Bohn.
    21. Lucretius, Titus. (2001) De Rerum Natura, trans. Martin Ferguson Smith. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    22. Mayo, Thomas. (1934) Epicurus in England 1650–1725. Dallas, TX: Southwest Press.
    23. Michael, Fred S.; and Emily Michael. (1995) “Gassendi’s Modified Epicureanism and British Moral Philosophy,” in History of European Ideas 21, 6: 743-761, .
    24. Milbank, John. (1990) Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
    25. Miner, Earl. (1970) “Patterns of Stoicism in Thought and Prose Styles, 1530 – 1700,” Modern Language Association 85: 1023-34, .
    26. ———. (2008) “Religion and the Fable of Liberalism: The Case of Hobbes,” in Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 115: 1-16. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41802392 (Accessed 24 August 2020).
    27. Moltmann, Jürgen. (1994). “Covenant or Leviathan? Political Theology for Modern Times,” Scottish Journal of Theology 47, 1: 19-41, <DOI:10.1017/S0036930600045622>.
    28. Paganini, Gianni. (2003) “Hobbes, Valla and the Trinity,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 40, 2: 183-218, .
    29. Palaver, Wolfgang (1995) “Hobbes and the Katéchon: The Secularization of Sacrificial” in Contagion Journal of Violence Mimesis and Culture 2, 1: 57-74, .
    30. Philodemus; and Dirk Obbink. (1996) Philodemus on Piety. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
    31. Pocock, John Greville Agard. (1973) “Time, History, and Eschatology in the Thought of Thomas Hobbes,” in Politics, Language, and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History. New York, NY: Acheneum.
    32. Schlatter, Richard; and Thomas Hobbes. (1975) Hobbes's Thucydides. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
    33. Schmitt, Carl. (2005) Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    34. Southgate, Beverley. (1994) “A Medley of Both: Old and New in The Thought of Thomas White,” History of European Ideas 18, 1: 53-60, <DOI:10.1016/0191-6599(94)90146-5>.
    35. Springborg, Patricia. (2004) “Hobbes and Epicurean Religion,” in Gianni Paganini, et al., eds. Der Garten und die Moderne: Epikureische Moral und Politik vom Humanismus bis zur Aufklarung, 161-214. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/11683569/Springborg_Hobbes_and_Epicurean_Religion_2004 (Accessed 4 Jan 2021).
    36. Tuck, Richard. (1993) “The Civil Religion of Thomas Hobbes,” in Nickolas Phillipson; and Quentin Skinner, eds. Political Discourse in Early Modern Britain (Ideas in Context). New York & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    37. Tully, James. (1988) Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    38. Vlastos, Gregory. (1945) “Ethics and Physics in Democritus, (Part I),” The Philosophical Review 54, 6: 578-592, .
    39. Wilson, Catherin. (2013) Epicureanism at the Origins of Modernity. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
POLITICAL QUARTERLY
Volume 52, Issue 3
December 2022
Pages 742-717

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 30 May 2022
  • Revise Date: 26 October 2022
  • Accept Date: 14 November 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics