Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T17:24:53.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply: Macpherson Versus the Text of Leviathan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

D. J. C. Carmichael
D. J. C. Carmichael
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As C. B. Macpherson allows in his comment, my critique of his interpretation is based upon “minute” reasoning and textual analysis. It would not be appropriate (or even possible) to reproduce that analysis here, or to defend it in detail against Macpherson's rebuttal. The best response to his remarks, therefore, is the critique itself, as originally stated: I can only hope that those who are interested in these issues will read it with care. Here, I will confine myself to a few general observations.

Type
Comment/Commentaire
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 1983 , pp. 807 - 809
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Carmichael, D. J. C., “C. B. Macpherson's ‘Hobbes’: A Critique,” this JOURNAL 16 (1983), 61–80.Google Scholar

2 Macpherson seems concerned to interpret Hobbes, whereas my interest lies more specifically with Leviathan. The difference may be important.

3 3 Macpherson's discussion of the invasive society, in part 2 of his reply, is an interesting and possibly major restatement of his interpretation. If I read him aright here, he is foregoing any claim to base the invasive society logically upon the universal opposition postulate. The case for the invasive society postulate is now “found” in the text, as implied in Hobbes's discussion of valuing and honouring. If so, the resoluto-compositive method is a secondary issue; what must be shown is that the text entails an invasive, market model of society.