O conceito de liberdade em Hobbes: o Estado como mecanismo de limitação e de efetivação da liberdade humana

• Ano de defesa: 2010
• Autor(a) principal: Luz, Gerson Vasconcelos
• Orientador(a): Ames, José Luiz
• Banca de defesa: Antunes, Jadir , Limongi, Maria Isabel de Magalhães Papaterra
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Parana
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Filosofia
• Departamento: Filosofia Moderna e Contemporânea
• País: BR
• Palavras-chave em Português: Thomas Hobbes; Liberdade; Poder; Segurança; Proteção; Filosofia inglesa; Filosofia política; Estado; Ciência política - Filosofia; Hobbes, Thomas, 1588-1679 - Crítica e interpretação
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Liberty; Power; Security; Protection
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIA
• Link de acesso: http://tede.unioeste.br:8080/tede/handle/tede/2111

This study aims to investigate the problem of human freedom in the design of state in Thomas Hobbes. The starting point is to understand the concept of freedom that in he system of Hobbes means the absence of external impediments to the movement of any body type. From this, we discuss the meaning of freedom in the absence of a political condition. For Hobbes, man is an animal apolitical in nature and as such prefers the freedom and dominion over others to life in civil society. But the man's state of nature would be really free? The duty on all things results in benefit? Hobbes is an advocate of the idea that every man naturally want to keep alive the flame of life and live comfortably. In view of the philosopher, a free man is one in which about the actions that will have to practice or deny is not prevented from doing as you wish. Given this, it is assumed that in the absence of state power can have unlimited freedom in all things. However, this presentation of the law is misleading and results in a contradiction with regard to the march of human desire. The right to everything is as it were useless to carry out the desire for comfortable living and interest in self-preservation. For every man is all yours. But the effects contained in the interest of every man to understand that everything belongs to him (including the body of another) are devoid of sucess. With this in mind, the first chapter we examine the hypothesis that, first, the freedom afforded by the natural conditions does not negate the right to biological existence, on the other, then impedes or obstructs the individuals receive the necessary resources to the expectation comfortable life. In the second chapter will maintain the assumption that the State consists of a suitable mechanism for the implementation and realization of human freedom, that the state (and only it) is better living conditions. Based on these two interests, the men build the Great Mortal God, Leviathan, to protect themselves from themselves. To build this argument, we must have first of all understood what the author meant by human nature and state of nature - the hypothetical situation in which humans live in a state of war of all against.