Hobbes och Absolutismen

• Main Author: Reinick, Finn-Lysander
• Format: Others
• Language: Swedish
• Published: Umeå universitet, Institutionen för idé- och samhällsstudier 2015
• Online Access: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-107145

Abstract     While Thomas Hobbes´ theory of absolutism is in general considered to be one of the most influential theories of political philosophy, it at the same time seems to be widely misunderstood. Hobbes´ most famous work on absolutism Leviathan, is frequently falsely accused of promoting the ideas of despotism, tyranny and similar. The purpose of this essay is not only, to prove otherwise by showing that although some passages can be found in his works, that can be interpreted as pointing to the direction of the above mentioned ideas (this is nonetheless not what Hobbes´ theory really is about), but to show, that there are more arguments of greater weight supporting his thesis than there are arguments to suggest otherwise. This is done by comparing Hobbes´ thesis and arguments for and against it with the theories of his fellow social contract theorists (John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau) and their advantages and disadvantages. The essay then is not pleased with just proving there to be more arguments for Hobbes´ absolutism than against it, but goes so far, as to suggest that it could be favored over Locke´s and Rousseau´s theories by meeting a number of conditions.