Sir Robert Filmer: Patriarcha and Other Writings

Filmer, Robert

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511812644

Cited by 373 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We are not used to think that the power relationship between children and people who rear them is analogous to the power relationship between citizens and the state. Yet, the analogy dominated the imagination of ancient philosophers like Aristotle (1999) as well as early modern philosophers like Robert Filmer (1991) and, presumably, their contemporaries. More recently, Clayton (2006) argued that relationships between parents and children are like relationships between state institutions and citizens in three important respects: they are not voluntary at entry, involve coercion, and deeply influence the lives of the less powerful party.…”

Section: Republicans On Child-rearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Child-rearing With Minimal Domination: A Republican Account

Gheaus

2020

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parenting involves an extraordinary degree of power over children. Republicans are concerned about domination, which, on one view, is the holding of power that fails to track the interests of those over whom it is exercised. On this account, parenting as we know it is dominating due to the low standards necessary for acquiring and retaining parental rights and the extent of parental power. Domination cannot be fully eliminated from child-rearing without unacceptable loss of value. Most likely, republicanism requires that we minimise children’s domination. I examine alternative models of child-rearing that are immune to republican criticism.

show abstract

Section: Republicans On Child-rearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Child-rearing With Minimal Domination: A Republican Account

Gheaus

2020

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sir Robert Filmer, the best-known defender of divine right in early seventeenth-century England, begins his Patriarcha 33 by stigmatising as a dangerous heresy the belief that 'mankind is naturally endowed and born with freedom from all subjection, and at liberty to choose what form of government it please'. 34 What this argument fails to recognise, Filmer responds, is that rulers receive their authority not from the people but directly from 'the ordination of God himself'. 35 Kings are the Lord's anointed, the vicegerents of God on earth, and consequently enjoy supreme and unquestionable power over the body of the commonwealth or state.…”

Section: IImentioning

confidence: 99%

A Genealogy of the Modern State

Skinner¹

2009

Proceedings of the British Academy, Volume 162, 2008 Lectures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This lecture presents the text of the speech about the genealogy of the modern state delivered by the author at the 2008 British Academy Lecture. It explains that to investigate the genealogy of the state is to discover that there has never been any agreed concept to which the word state has answered. The lecture suggests that any moral or political term that has become so deeply enmeshed in so many ideological disputes over such a long period of time is bound to resist any efforts at definition.

show abstract

“…Não é para agradar ao príncipe que eles sustentam essa opinião, mas para a felicidade e a segurança dos súditos. Caso contrário, se eles limitassem e restringissem a soberania absoluta do monarca [...], a soberania não teria alicerces sólidos, e eles conseguiriam assim uma confusão popular ou uma miserável anarquia, que é a praga de todos os estados e repúblicas (Filmer, 1991:181; tradução minha).…”

Section: Premissas Teóricas Do Debate Setecentista: Síntese Dos Temasunclassified

Entre o Leviatã e o Beemote: soberania, constituição e excepcionalidade no debate político dos séculos XVII e XVIII

Lynch¹

2010

Dados

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUÇÃOÉ curioso que um autor como Thomas Hobbes, que, com tanta ênfa-se, sublinhava a necessidade de exprimir o pensamento de forma clara e direta, tenha batizado duas de suas principais obras com metá-foras extraídas de personagens-monstros descritos na Bíblia: o Leviatã (Leviathan) e o Beemote (Behemoth). Espécie de dragão ou de serpente, o primeiro deles, reinando sobre os filhos do orgulho (os homens), designaria o poder soberano do Estado; poder pacificador que, graças à reverência incutida por seu poder e autoridade, evitava o conflito que levava à guerra civil. O triunfo desta última era simbolizado pelo segundo monstro, o Beemote, espécie de hipopótamo cujo significado é, todavia, menos evidente. Seja como for, alude à eventual divisão e à fraqueza do poder soberano que, incapaz de conter o orgulho humano, abriria as portas para as facções, a fragmentação social e a guerra civil (Ribeiro, 2001:13). No entanto, o que os comentadores da obra de Hobbes deixam em segundo plano é que aquela fragmentação do poder soberano, que desaguaria na morte do Estado, tinha uma forma constitucional. É para esse fato que quero chamar a atenção neste artigo.Sempre presente no discurso das facções estaria a reivindicação de um modo distinto de distribuir o poder e que passaria por desconcentrá-lo em proveito de outros corpos representativos da comunidade, para 55 DADOS -Revista de Ciências Sociais,

show abstract

Sir Robert Filmer: Patriarcha and Other Writings

Cited by 373 publications

References 0 publications

Child-rearing With Minimal Domination: A Republican Account

Child-rearing With Minimal Domination: A Republican Account

A Genealogy of the Modern State

Entre o Leviatã e o Beemote: soberania, constituição e excepcionalidade no debate político dos séculos XVII e XVIII

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About