When we read Rousseau's Social Contract, we tend to focus on its explicit goal, which is to investigate and establish a safe and legitimate rule of administration for a single political community. In accordance with the abstract character of the work, we tend to see this community as something pre-existing and isolated, without asking what those individuals who decide to submit to the rule of his general will had initially in common, and how the political body thus formed is related (...) to those who are not they themselves, but "the others", i.e., with other societies among which they will inevitably have to live. Such issues were of great importance to Rousseau, and only the fragmentary and inconclusive nature of the Social Contract explains why they did not receive the detailed treatment that would be due to them. In this paper I intend to explore some aspects of the solutions Rousseau left sketched elsewhere, especially in Emile and in the Extract and Judgment of the the Abbé de Saint-Pierre's project of perpetual peace, which point to Rousseau's very lucid understanding of the problem of relations between nations, and to a solution that has, surprisingly, much in common with the one that he proposed, in the Social Contract, to the problem of relations between individuals. I Intend to show that there is, in Rousseau, the germ of a conception of international relations that do not reduce them to the mere play of forces proposed by Hobbesian "realism" and, at the same time, allows a regulated and civilized coexistence without imposing the uniformity of values and perspectives characteristic of Kantian cosmopolitanism.Ao ler o Contrato social de Rousseau, tendemos a nos concentrar em seu objetivo explícito, que é o de investigar e estabelecer uma regra de administração legítima e segura para uma comunidade política individual. Em conformidade com o próprio caráter abstrato da obra, somos levados a ver essa comunidade como alguma coisa pré-existente e isolada, sem perguntar o que já havia inicialmente de comum a esses indivíduos que decidem submeter-se à regra de sua vontade geral, e como esse corpo político assim constituído se relaciona com os que não são eles mesmos, mas "os outros", isto é, com as demais sociedades com as quais terá inevitavelmente de conviver. Tais questões tinham grande importância para Rousseau, e só o caráter fragmentário e inconcluso do Contrato social explica por que não receberam o tratamento aprofundado que lhes seria devido. Pretendo, em minha exposição, explorar alguns aspectos das soluções que Rousseau deixou esboçadas em outras obras, especialmente no Emílio e em seu Extrato e Julgamento, do projeto de paz perpétua do Abbé de Saint-Pierre, e que apontam para uma compreensão muito lúcida do problema das relações entre as nações, e para uma solução que tem, surpreendentemente, muito em comum com a que propôs, no Contrato social, para a questão das relações entre indivíduos. Pretendo mostrar que há, em Rousseau, o gérmen de uma concepção das relações internacionais que não as reduz ao mero jogo de forças proposto pelo "realismo" hobbesiano e, ao mesmo tempo, viabiliza a convivência civilizada e regulada, sem impor a uniformidade de valores e perspectivas característica do cosmopolitismo kantiano. (shrink)

Resumo: No início do capítulo XIII do Leviatã, Hobbes apresentou o princípio da igualdade original de poder entre homens como um princípio básico de seu sistema político, do qual todas as teses subseqüentes deveriam ser estritamente deduzidas como teoremas. Surpreendentemente, porém, quando Hobbes mais tarde chega à dedução da 9ª Lei de Natureza, ele parece estar tentando demonstrar o próprio princípio da igualdade a partir do qual todas as leis da natureza, inclusive a 9ª, devem ter sido supostamente derivadas. Meu (...) objetivo neste artigo é oferecer uma explicação para esta aparente circularidade, e meu ponto de partida é que devemos distinguir o papel do princípio da igualdade no capítulo XIII, que trata do estado de natureza, do contexto em que opera a 9ª Lei, que é o da sociedade civil. Mas embora esta distinção de contextos nos permita chegar, em cada caso, a diferentes medidas de desigualdade, vou argumentar que essa diferença situa-se inteiramente na métrica, e que a topologia básica da desigualdade na distribuição do poder original permanece a mesma em ambos os casos. Como resultado, vou propor que, ao contrário da opinião costumeira, a posição de Hobbes não difere essencialmente da de Aristóteles, quanto a serem os homens naturalmente desiguais quanto a suas capacidades mentais, embora as conseqüências políticas que cada filósofo extrai desta tese sejam radicalmente diferentes. Nesse sentido, para Hobbes, a 9ª Lei é o meio pelo qual esta desigualdade pode ser minimizada retoricamente para fins de estabilidade política.Palavras-chave: Hobbes - Desigualdade - Estado de natureza.: In the beginning of Chapter XIII of his Leviathan, Hobbes presented the principle of the original equality in power among men as a basic tenet of his political system, from which all the subsequent thesis were to be strictly deduced as theorems. Surprisingly, however, when Hobbes later arrives at deduction of the 9th Law of Nature, he seems to be trying to demonstrate the very principle of equality from which all laws of nature, including the 9th, should be purportedly derived. My aim in this paper is to offer an explanation of this apparent circularity, and my point is that we must distinguish the role of the principle of equality in the Chapter XIII, which deals with the state of nature, from the context in which the 9th Law operates, which is that of the civil society. However, although this distinction of contexts allows us to arrive at very different measures of inequality in each case, I will argue that this difference lays entirely in the metrics, and the basic topology of the inequality in the original distribution of power remains the same in both cases. As a result I will propose that, contrarily to the usual opinion, Hobbes's position doesn't differ essentially from Aristotle's as to men being naturally unequal as regards their mental abilities, though the political consequences that each philosopher extracts from this thesis are radically different. In this sense, for Hobbes, the 9th Law is the means by which this inequality can be rhetorically minimized for the purposes of political stability. (shrink)

ABSTRACT When Hume, in the Treatise on Human Nature, began his examination of the relation of cause and effect, in particular, of the idea of necessary connection which is its essential constituent, he identified two preliminary questions that should guide his research: For what reason we pronounce it necessary that every thing whose existence has a beginning should also have a cause and Why we conclude that such particular causes must necessarily have such particular effects? Hume observes that our belief (...) in these principles can result neither from an intuitive grasp of their truth nor from a reasoning that could establish them by demonstrative means. In particular, with respect to the first, Hume examines and rejects some arguments with which Locke, Hobbes and Clarke tried to demonstrate it, and suggests, by exclusion, that the belief that we place on it can only come from experience. Somewhat surprisingly, however, Hume does not proceed to show how that derivation of experience could be made, but proposes instead to move directly to an examination of the second principle, saying that, "perhaps, be found in the end, that the same answer will serve for both questions". Hume's answer to the second question is well known, but the first question is never answered in the rest of the Treatise, and it is even doubtful that it could be, which would explain why Hume has simply chosen to remove any mention of it when he recompiled his theses on causation in the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. Given this situation, an interesting question that naturally arises is to investigate the relations of logical or conceptual implication between these two principles. Hume seems to have thought that an answer to would also be sufficient to provide an answer to. Henry Allison, in his turn, argued that the two questions are logically independent. My proposal here is to try to show that there is indeed a logical dependency between them, but the implication is, rather, from to. If accepted, this result may be particularly interesting for an interpretation of the scope of the so-called "Kant's reply to Hume" in the Second Analogy of Experience, which is structured as a proof of the a priori character of, but whose implications for remain controversial. (shrink)