title: THOMAS HOBBES ON BETRAYAL OF THE FATHERLAND (IN WAR)
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: BOJANIĆ, PETAR
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2022-07-07T20:36:57Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2022-07-07T20:36:57Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2022-03
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: BOJANIĆ P. THOMAS HOBBES ON BETRAYAL OF THE FATHERLAND (IN WAR). Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology, 2022, vol. 11 issue 1, pp. 421–440.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/2226-5260-2022-11-421-440
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/37094
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: My intention is to demonstrate how Hobbes’ attempts to adapt two ancient institutions from Roman
  Law to his own time and knowledge of theology and philosophy. Treason (and the figure of the traitor)
  could be quite significant within the context of Hobbes’ (but not only his) understanding of the figure
  of the sovereign and sovereignty. The central part of the text is an endeavor to ascertain the source and
  unconditional condition for treason as such, within the framework of Hobbes’ theory of representation
  (representatio) which he writes about in Chapter 16 of the Leviathan. The act or performance in which we
  could perhaps recognize a traitorous gesture (or the dynamic of treason) could be found in the so-called
  paradox of representation. The “traitor” breaks the chain of the transfer of power and empowerment,
  thus stops representation, and puts an end to speaking in the name of the other. If it is possible to discover
  whether this is possible and whether speaking and acting in one’s own name always carries elements of
  treason, then we can conclude that differing forms of “direct” speech and action (“in one’s own name”)
  are “acts of treason.” In that case, what interests me is whether “treason” is found within the heart of representative democracy, and thus if it is de facto an integral part of a democratic order and society.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: en
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology;Volume 11; Issue 1
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: treason
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: betrayal
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: representation
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: sovereign
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: people
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Thomas Hobbes
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: homeland
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: THOMAS HOBBES ON BETRAYAL OF THE FATHERLAND (IN WAR)
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 19_Bojanic.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/37094/1/19_Bojanic.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 665,01 kB