IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v110y2016i03p481-494_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Of Darkness from Vain Philosophy”: Hobbes's Critique of the Classical Tradition

Author

Listed:
  • STAUFFER, DEVIN

Abstract

The early modern revolution in political philosophy not only transformed political philosophy itself; it also played a crucial role in shaping the character of modern politics. This article contributes to our understanding of that revolution through an examination of Thomas Hobbes's critique of the classical tradition. Although it is well known that Hobbes was a critic of that tradition, the details of his critique have not been sufficiently uncovered. Hobbes's key target was Aristotle, whom he regarded as the most important source of the tradition he opposed. Hobbes's critique of Aristotle consists of two main lines of argument—one moral-political, the other metaphysical—that ultimately prove to be connected. An examination of Hobbes's twofold critique can help us understand what was at stake in the reorientation of political philosophy that eventually gave rise to modern liberalism.

Suggested Citation

  • Stauffer, Devin, 2016. "“Of Darkness from Vain Philosophy”: Hobbes's Critique of the Classical Tradition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(3), pages 481-494, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:110:y:2016:i:03:p:481-494_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055416000289/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anas Malik, 2017. "Covenant and Moral Psychology in Polycentric Orders," Advances in Austrian Economics, in: The Austrian and Bloomington Schools of Political Economy, volume 22, pages 107-132, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:110:y:2016:i:03:p:481-494_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.