dc.creatorVenezia, Luciano Javier
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-22T18:46:14Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-06T11:42:46Z
dc.date.available2017-08-22T18:46:14Z
dc.date.available2018-11-06T11:42:46Z
dc.date.created2017-08-22T18:46:14Z
dc.date.issued2013-02
dc.identifierVenezia, Luciano Javier; Crucial evidence: Hobbes on contractual obligation; Brill Academic Publishers; Journal of the Philosophy of History; 7; 1; 2-2013; 106-135
dc.identifier1872-261X
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/22793
dc.identifierCONICET Digital
dc.identifierCONICET
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1858281
dc.description.abstractIn this paper, I will introduce the notions of crucial argument and crucial evidence in the philosophy of intellectual history (broadly construed, including the history of political thought). I will use these concepts and take sides in an important controversy in Hobbes studies, namely whether Hobbes holds a prudential or a deontological theory of contractual obligation. Though there is textual evidence for both readings, I will argue that there is especially relevant evidence – crucial evidence – for interpreting Hobbes’s account in a deontological fashion.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherBrill Academic Publishers
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/18722636-12341246
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18722636-12341246
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.subjectUNDERDETERMINATION OF INTERPRETATION
dc.subjectCRUCIAL EVIDENCE
dc.subjectHOBBES
dc.subjectCONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION
dc.titleCrucial evidence: Hobbes on contractual obligation
dc.typeArtículos de revistas
dc.typeArtículos de revistas
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución