근대 철학-Niccolò Machiavelli, Martin Luther, John

[dhleepaul]

근대 철학

철학

초기 근대 철학 (또한 고전 근대 철학) [1] [2] 철학의 초기 근대 시대는 정신과 물질과 같은 주제를 이론과 담론을 통해 탐구하는 서양 사상의 진보적 인 운동이었으며, 근대 철학으로 알려진시기의 시작과 겹치는 철학의 역사의시기입니다. 그것은 중세 철학 시대를 계승했습니다. 초기 근대 철학은 일반적으로 16 세기에서 18 세기 사이에 일어난 것으로 생각되지만, 일부 철학자와 역사가는이 기간을 약간 더 일찍 넣을 수 있습니다. 이 기간 동안 영향력 있는 철학자로는 데카르트, 로크, 흄, 칸트가 있었으며 모두 현재의 철학 이해에 기여했습니다.

개요[편집]

역사의 초기 근대는 c. 1500-1789 년경이지만, "초기 근대 철학"이라는 레이블은 일반적으로 더 좁은 기간을 지칭하는 데 사용됩니다. [3]

가장 좁은 의미에서,이 용어는 주로 17 세기와 18 세기의 철학을 지칭하는 데 사용되며, 일반적으로 르네 데카르트 (René Descartes)로 시작합니다. 이러한 분석에 전형적으로 포함되는 17세기 철학자들은 토마스 홉스, 블레즈 파스칼, 바뤼흐 스피노자, 고트프리트 빌헬름 라이프니츠, 아이작 뉴턴 등이다. 흔히 계몽주의 시대로 알려진 18세기에는 존 로크, 조지 버클리, 데이비드 흄과 같은 근대 초기 인물들이 살았습니다. [2]

이 용어는 니콜로 마키아 벨리 (Niccolò Machiavelli), 마틴 루터 (Martin Luther), 존 칼뱅 (John Calvin), 미셸 드 몽테뉴 (Michel de Montaigne), 프랜시스 베이컨 (Francis Bacon)과 같은 16 세기의 초기 사상가들을 포함하여 더 광범위하게 사용됩니다. [4] 일부 정의는 또한 Voltaire, Giambattista Vico, Thomas Paine과 같은 "초기 근대"별명에 포함 된 사상가의 범위를 넓힙니다. 가장 넓은 정의에 따르면, 초기 근대는 1804 년 임마누엘 칸트 (Immanuel Kant)의 죽음으로 끝났다고합니다. 이런 식으로 고려하면이 기간은 마지막 르네상스 철학자부터 계몽주의 시대의 마지막 날까지 이어집니다. 대부분의 학자들은 이 시기를 1641년 파리에서 르네 데카르트(René Descartes)의 《제1철학에 대한 명상(Meditationes de Prima Philosophiae)》으로 시작해 1780년대 독일 철학자 임마누엘 칸트(Immanuel Kant)의 《순수이성비판》(Critical of Pure Reason)으로 끝난다고 본다.[5]

크리스티나 여왕과 르네 데카르트 사이의 논쟁

당시 다양한 사상가들은 고전 아리스토텔레스 사상과 기독교 신학의 교리를 코페르니쿠스, 갈릴레오, 뉴턴의 뒤를 이은 새로운 기술 발전과 조화시키는 어려운 철학적 도전에 직면했습니다. [6] 수학적으로 정의 가능한 보편적 법칙이 비 물리적 인 것의 간섭없이 생명이없는 물체의 움직임을 지시하는 우주에 대한 현대의 기계적 이미지는 특히 마음, 몸 및 신에 대한 기존의 사고 방식에 도전했습니다. 이에 대응하여 많은 사람들이 실험적 발전에 참여한 철학자들은 인간과 우주의 관계에 대한 다양한 관점을 발명하고 완성했습니다. [7]

서양 사상에 깊은 영향을 미친 세 가지 중요한 역사적 사건은 발견의 시대, 현대 과학의 진보, 프로테스탄트 종교 개혁과 그로 인한 내전이었습니다. [8] 철학과 과학 연구의 관계는 복잡했는데, 많은 초기 근대 과학자들이 두 학문을 융합하여 스스로를 철학자로 생각했기 때문입니다. [9] 이 두 분야는 결국 분리될 것입니다. 과학적 확실성에 대한 현대 철학의 인식론적, 방법론적 관심은 그러한 분리와 상관없이 남아 있었다. [10]

근대 초기의 지적 시대는 또한 서양 철학의 발전에 기여했다. 형이상학적, 시민적 존재, 인식론, 합리주의적 사고와 같은 새로운 철학 이론이 확립되었습니다. [11] 현실을 추구하기 위해 합리성, 추론 및 발견을 중시하는 합리주의의 발전과 확장에 대한 강조가 강했습니다. [12]

계몽 시대[편집]

계몽주의 시대라고도 불리는 계몽주의는 18 세기 유럽의 아이디어 영역을 지배 한 철학적 운동이었습니다. 그것은 이성이 권력과 정당성의 근본적인 원천이라는 원칙에 기초를 두었으며 자유, 진보, 관용, 형제애, 헌법 통치 및 교회와 국가의 분리와 같은 원칙을 장려했습니다. 계몽주의는 과학과 환원주의에 대한 초점과 종교적 경직성에 대한 의심이 커지는 것으로 정의되었습니다. 계몽주의의 이상은 군주제와 교회에 도전하여 18세기와 19세기의 정치적 격변을 위한 토대를 마련했습니다. 프랑스 역사가들에 따르면 계몽주의 시대는 루이 14세가 사망한 해인 1715년에 시작되어 프랑스 혁명이 일어난 해인 1789년에 끝났습니다. 일부 현대 역사가들에 따르면 이 시대는 과학 혁명의 탄생과 함께 1620년대에 시작됩니다. 그러나 18 세기의 첫 10 년과 19 세기의 첫 10 년 동안 운동의 몇 가지 국가적 변형이 발전했습니다.

다양한 사상가들 사이의 계몽주의 토론

영국인 프랜시스 베이컨과 토머스 홉스, 프랑스인 르네 데카르트, 갈릴레오 갈릴레이, 요하네스 케플러, 고트프리트 빌헬름 라이프니츠 등 과학혁명의 저명한 자연철학자들은 17세기 계몽주의의 중요한 선구자였습니다. 계몽주의의 기원은 1680년대 영국으로 거슬러 올라가는데, 아이작 뉴턴(Isaac Newton)이 "수학의 원리(Principia Mathematica)"(1686)를 출간하고 존 로크(John Locke)가 "인간 이해에 관한 에세이(Essay Concerning Human Understanding)"(1689)를 썼는데, 이 두 작품은 과학, 수학, 철학 분야에서 계몽주의의 위대한 발전의 토대를 마련했습니다. [13]

계몽주의 시대는 빠르게 유럽 전역을 휩쓸고 있었습니다. 17세기 후반, 아이작 뉴턴과 같은 과학자들과 존 로크와 같은 작가들은 기존의 질서에 도전했다. 뉴턴의 중력과 운동의 원리는 어떤 영적 근원과도 무관한 자연적 원리로 우주를 정의했다. 로크는 영국의 정치적 불안정의 여파로 생명, 자유, 재산에 대한 고유한 권리를 옹호하지 않는 정부를 대체할 국민의 자유를 옹호했다. 사람들은 인간을 영원한 저주에 처하도록 예정하고 전제적인 통치자에게 통치할 권한을 부여할 수 있는 하나님의 가능성을 불신하기 시작했다. 이러한 이상은 유럽을 영구히 바꾸어 놓았다.

계몽주의의 주요 개념[편집]

유럽은 18세기 중반에 철학적, 과학적 활동이 폭발적으로 일어나 기존의 이론과 교리에 도전했습니다. [14] 볼테르와 장 자크 루소는 철학 운동을 이끌며 종교와 가톨릭 신학이 아닌 이성에 기반을 둔 사회, 자연법에 기반한 새로운 시민 질서, 실험과 관찰에 기반을 둔 과학을 주장했습니다. [15] 정치 철학자인 몽테스키외는 정부의 권력 분립이라는 개념을 제안했으며, 이는 미국 헌법의 입안자들에 의해 열광적으로 받아들여졌습니다. [16]

계몽주의 철학의 두 가지 별개의 학파가 존재했습니다. 스피노자의 이론에 영감을 받은 급진적 계몽주의는 민주주의, 개인의 자유, 언론의 자유, 종교적 권위의 폐지를 주장했습니다. [17] 르네 데카르트(René Descartes), 존 로크(John Locke), 크리스티안 울프(Christian Wolff), 아이작 뉴턴(Isaac Newton)이 주창한 두 번째 온건파는 개혁과 낡은 권력 및 종교 제도 사이의 균형을 맞추는 것을 목표로 했다. [18]

Science eventually began to dominate Enlightenment speech and thinking.[19] Numerous Enlightenment authors and intellectuals came from scientific backgrounds and equated scientific progress with the downfall of religion and conventional authority in favour of the growth of free speech and ideas.[20] In general, Enlightenment science placed a high premium on empiricism and logical reasoning, and was inextricably linked to the Enlightenment ideal of progression and development.[21] However, as was the case with the majority of Enlightenment ideals, the advantages of science were not widely recognized.[22]

The Enlightenment has traditionally been credited with laying the groundwork for current Western political and intellectual culture.[23] It ushered in a period of political modernization in the West, focused on democratic principles and institutions and resulting in the establishment of modern, liberal democracies. The fundamentals of European liberal thought include the individual right, natural equality of all men, separation of powers, the artificial nature of political order (which resulted in the later distinction between civil society and the state), the view that all legitimate political power must be "representative" and based on popular consent, and liberal interpretationism.[24]

Enlightenment-era criticism on religion was a reaction to Europe's previous century of religious turmoil.[25] Enlightenment intellectuals intended to limit organized religion's political dominance, so averting another period of intolerable religious violence.[26] Numerous unique concepts emerged, including deism (belief in God the Creator without reference to the Bible or other authoritative source) and atheism.[27] The latter was hotly debated but garnered few supporters. Many, like Voltaire, believed that without believing in a God who punishes wrong, society's moral order would be jeopardised.[28]

Characteristics[edit]

The early modern period arose from dramatic shifts in many fields of human endeavour. Among the most significant characteristics are the formalisation of science, the acceleration of scientific advancement, and the creation of secularised civic politics, law courts, and the nation-state.[29] There was some skepticism against traditional interpretive concepts associated with the modern era, such as the distinction between empiricists and rationalists, which represented a philosophical and historical shift away from ethics, political philosophy, and metaphysical epistemology.[30]

Individualism also emerged as a reaction to belief and authority, challenging the element of Christianity and Christianised philosophy united with whoever the desired political leader happened to be at the time.[31] The steady rise of the bourgeoisie would challenge the power of the Church and begin the journey towards the eventual separation of church and state. The political and economic situation of Modern Europe would have an influence on philosophical thought, mainly on ethics and political philosophy.[32]

The Scientific Revolution also gained legitimacy during this period. Early modern attempts to grapple with the philosophy of infinity focused on and discussed three fundamental disagreements about the infinite—differences that had their origins in the academic philosophical tradition.[33] Philosophers such as Leibniz and Spinoza used this distinction to distinguish God's qualitative infinity from the mathematically abstract concept of infinity.[34] Early modern thinkers differentiated between actual and potential infinity. Academic tradition has traditionally rejected the existence of actual infinities in the created world but has acknowledged potential infinities, following Aristotle's approach to Zeno's paradoxes.[35] Additionally, the advent of early modern thought was linked to changes in the period's intellectual and cultural context, such as the advancement of natural science, theological contradictions within and between the Catholic and Protestant churches, and the growth of the modern nation-state.[36]

Significant thinkers[edit]

Reńe Descartes amid philosophical discussion with several philosophers during the early modern philosophical period

Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, Hobbes, and Kant, as well as philosophers such as Hugo Grotius, Pierre Gassendi, Antoine Arnauld, Nicolas Malebranche, Pierre Bayle, Samuel von Pufendorf, and Francis Hutcheson are all recognised as significant figures in early modern philosophy, for their discourses and theories developed throughout the various philosophical periods.

The political philosophy of natural law, developed by John Locke, was a common and significant concept in early modern thought. Natural law evolved into individual rights and subjective claims. Adding to Aristotle's already known philosophy, Locke suggested that the government give its citizens what they believe are fundamental and natural rights.[37] Thomas Hobbes, alternatively, asserted that natural law has a finite scope. Unchecked liberty led to a state of war where everybody struggled for life.[38] Hobbes encapsulated this state of violence in one of philosophy's most famous passages: "And the life of man, solitary, bad, nasty, brutish, and brief".[39] Thomas Hobbes' worldview concentrated on social and political order and how humans could coexist without danger or risk of civil war.[40]

Thomas Hobbes[edit]

Hobbes' moral and political theory includes a consideration of natural rights. Hobbes' natural rights notion also included man in a "state of nature". As he saw it, the basic natural (human) right was to use his power, as he will, to preserve his nature, which is to protect his life.[41]

Natural liberty is distinct from universal laws, which Hobbes referred to as precepts, or rules discovered by reason, which ban a man from doing something that will destroy his life or deprives him of the means to retain it.[42]

In Hobbes' view, life comprised just of freedoms and nothing else "Because of that, everyone has the right to anything, even to one another's body. Because of this, though, as long as inherent human rights to every commodity remain in place, there can be no long-term security for anybody."[43]

This would result in the condition called the "war of all against all," in which humans murder, steal, and enslave each other to remain alive. Hobbes theorised that human existence would be lonely, poor, ugly, brutish, and short in a state of chaos generated by unrestricted rights. As such, people would agree to give up many of their basic rights to build a political and civil society. Social contract theory was first articulated using this early argumentation.[44]

Natural or institutional laws are useless without first being established by a sovereign authority. Before you can talk about right and unjust, some coercive authority must compel folks to keep their promises. There is no such coercive force before the establishment of the state.[45] This coercive State would, in Hobbes' view, have the right to confiscate property in return for a guarantee of citizens' safety from one another and from foreign intervention.

According to social contract theory, "inalienable rights" are those rights that can't be relinquished by people to the sovereign.[46] These inherent rights were believed to be law-independent. Only the strongest could use their privileges in the state of nature.[47] Thereby, individuals give up their natural rights to get protection, and thus have the legal rights conferred by the power to do so.[48]

Many historical justifications for slavery and illiberal governance include consensual arrangements to relinquish inherent rights to freedom and self-determination. De facto inalienability arguments supplied the foundation for the anti-slavery movement to argue against all involuntary enslavement, not only slavery explicitly defined as such. An agreement to unlawfully divide a right would be void of law. Similarly, the argument was used by the democratic movement to reject explicit or implicit social covenants of subjection (e.g., pactum subjectionis) that subjugate a people, for example, in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. According to Ernst Cassirer:

There is, at least, one right that cannot be ceded or abandoned: the right to personality...They charged the great logician [Hobbes] with a contradiction in terms. If a man could give up his personality he would cease being a moral being. … There is no pactum subjectionis, no act of submission by which man can give up the state of free agent and enslave himself. For by such an act of renunciation he would give up that very character which constitutes his nature and essence: he would lose his humanity.[49]

Influence[edit]

Until the twenty-first century, standard accounts of early modern philosophy and traditional survey courses in Anglo-Saxon universities—presented histories dominated by Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Spinoza, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant.[50]

Early modern theory has significantly impacted many modern developments, one of which is political philosophy. American political philosopher A. John Simmons examined two interrelated transitions in the early modern period. The first is a metaphysical contrast between political naturalism, which holds that human beings are political by birth, and political anti-naturalism, which holds that humankind's natural state is apolitical.[51] The second is the historical shift from "complex, bureaucratic systems with intertwined religious and contractual relationships" to political cultures that "take the form of independent, territorial states".[52] Observing how these transformations occur is important as the ideas advanced by early modern political theorists played an important role in the creation of political institutions that exist today.[53]

The evolution of early modern philosophy has been recognized as inextricably linked to developments in the period's intellectual and cultural environment through important developments in science, the Catholic and Protestant churches, and the rise of the new modern nation state.[54]

See also[edit]

• Late modern philosophy
• Phases of modernity

Citations[edit]

1. ^ Jeffrey Tlumak, Classical Modern Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. xi: "[Classical Modern Philosophy] is a guide through the systems of the seven brilliant seventeenth- and eighteenth-century European philosophers most regularly taught in college Modern Philosophy courses".
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Richard Schacht, Classical Modern Philosophers: Descartes to Kant, Routledge, 2013, p. 1: "Seven men have come to stand out from all of their counterparts in what has come to be known as the 'modern' period in the history of philosophy (i.e., the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries): Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant".
3. ^ Marshall Berman. 1982. All That Is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity. New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0-671-24602-X. London: Verso. pp. 16–17. ISBN 0-86091-785-1. Paperback reprint New York: Viking Penguin, 1988. ISBN 0-14-010962-5.
4. ^ Brian Leiter (ed.), The Future for Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 44 n. 2.
5. ^ Smith, Kurt (2018). "Descartes' Life and Works". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2021-05-19.
6. ^ Levers, Merry-Jo D. (2013-01-01). "Philosophical Paradigms, Grounded Theory, and Perspectives on Emergence". SAGE Open. 3 (4): 2158244013517243. doi:10.1177/2158244013517243. ISSN 2158-2440.
7. ^ Bica, Daian (2020-12-25). "Thinking with Mechanisms: Mechanical Philosophy and Early Modern Science". Journal of Early Modern Studies. 9: 133–141. doi:10.5840/jems2020916. S2CID 235002069. Retrieved 2021-05-19.
8. ^ Garber, Daniel; Rutherford, Donald, eds. (2018). Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy, Volume VIII. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829294.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-186788-0.
9. ^ Wu, Kun (December 2016). "The Interaction and Convergence of the Philosophy and Science of Information". Philosophies. 1 (3): 228–244. doi:10.3390/philosophies1030228.
10. ^ Garber, Daniel; Rutherford, Donald, eds. (2012). Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy Volume VI. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659593.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-174521-8.
11. ^ Beatty, Joy E.; Leigh, Jennifer S. A.; Dean, Kathy Lund (2009-02-01). "Philosophy Rediscovered: Exploring the Connections Between Teaching Philosophies, Educational Philosophies, and Philosophy". Journal of Management Education. 33 (1): 99–114. doi:10.1177/1052562907310557. ISSN 1052-5629. S2CID 146478936.
12. ^ Berchielli, Laura (2020). "Introduction: Ideas of Space and Their Relation to Experience in Early Modern Philosophy". In Berchielli, Laura (ed.). Empiricist Theories of Space. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Vol. 54. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–48. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-57620-2_1. ISBN 978-3-030-57619-6. S2CID 229272121. Retrieved 2021-05-19.
13. ^ Schmidt, James (January 2006). "What Enlightenment Was, What It Still Might Be, and Why Kant May Have Been Right After All". American Behavioral Scientist. 49 (5): 647–663. doi:10.1177/0002764205282215. hdl:2144/3877. ISSN 0002-7642. S2CID 144140862.
14. ^ Nickles, Thomas (2017). "Scientific Revolutions". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2021-05-27.
15. ^ "Enlightenment". encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 2021-05-27.
16. ^ Douglass, Robin (2012-10-01). "Montesquieu and Modern Republicanism". Political Studies. 60 (3): 703–719. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00932.x. ISSN 0032-3217. S2CID 142651026.
17. ^ Colilli, Julian (2016). "Jonathan Israel's Enlightenment: The Case of Giambattista Vico". Italica. 93 (3): 469–493. ISSN 0021-3020. JSTOR 44504589.
18. ^ Nicolaidis, Efthymios; Delli, Eudoxie; Livanos, Nikolaos; Tampakis, Kostas; Vlahakis, George (2016-09-20). "Science and Orthodox Christianity: An Overview". Isis. 107 (3): 542–566. doi:10.1086/688704. ISSN 0021-1753. PMID 28707856. S2CID 34598125.
19. ^ Domínguez, Juan Pablo (2017-05-19). "Introduction: Religious toleration in the Age of Enlightenment". History of European Ideas. 43 (4): 273–287. doi:10.1080/01916599.2016.1203590. ISSN 0191-6599.
20. ^ De Cruz, Helen (2019). "Religion and Science". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2021-05-27.
21. ^ Desai, Vandana; Potter, Rob (2014-03-21). The Companion to Development Studies. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-05159-5.
22. ^ Reiss, Julian; Sprenger, Jan (2020). "Scientific Objectivity". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2021-05-27.
23. ^ Zafirovski, Milan (2011). The Enlightenment and Its Effects on Modern Society. New York, NY: Springer New York. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7387-0. ISBN 978-1-4419-7386-3.
24. ^ Müßig, Ulrike (2018). "A New Order of the Ages. Normativity and Precedence". In Müßig, Ulrike (ed.). Reconsidering Constitutional Formation II Decisive Constitutional Normativity: From Old Liberties to New Precedence. Studies in the History of Law and Justice. Vol. 12. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–97. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73037-0_1. ISBN 978-3-319-73037-0.
25. ^ sydney.primo.exlibrisgroup.com https://sydney.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=cdi_jstor_primary_43572323&context=PC&vid=61USYD_INST:sydney&lang=en&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&adaptor=Primo%20Central&tab=Everything&query=any,contains,religious%20turmoil%20in%20europe%20during%20the%20early%20modern%20period&offset=0. Retrieved 2021-05-27. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
26. ^ Collins, Jeffrey R. (2009). "Redeeming the Enlightenment: New Histories of Religious Toleration". The Journal of Modern History. 81 (3): 607–636. doi:10.1086/599275. ISSN 0022-2801. JSTOR 10.1086/599275. S2CID 143375411.
27. ^ Draper, Paul (2017). "Atheism and Agnosticism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2021-05-27.
28. ^ "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Word-Gaudium et Spes". vatican.va. Retrieved 2021-05-27.
29. ^ "D. Rutherford (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Early Modern Philosophy". Theoria. 73 (4): 334–339. 2007. doi:10.1111/j.1755-2567.2007.tb01212.x. ISSN 1755-2567.
30. ^ Sellars, John (2020). "Renaissance Humanism and Philosophy as a Way of Life". Metaphilosophy. 51 (2–3): 226–243. doi:10.1111/meta.12409. ISSN 1467-9973.
31. ^ Ash, Eric H. (2010). "Introduction: Expertise and the Early Modern State". Osiris. 25 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1086/657254. ISSN 0369-7827. JSTOR 10.1086/657254. S2CID 144330049.
32. ^ "Hobbes, Thomas: Moral and Political Philosophy | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Retrieved 2021-05-19.
33. ^ Schmitt, C. B.; Skinner, Quentin; Kessler, Eckhard; Kraye, Jill, eds. (1988). The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521251044. ISBN 978-0-521-25104-4. S2CID 170086821.
34. ^ Schechtman, Anat (2019-10-01). "Three Infinities in Early Modern Philosophy". Mind. 128 (512): 1117–1147. doi:10.1093/mind/fzy034. ISSN 0026-4423.
35. ^ Huggett, Nick (2002-04-30). "Zeno's Paradoxes". Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
36. ^ Spruyt, Hendrik (2002-06-01). "The origins, development, and possible decline of the modern state". Annual Review of Political Science. 5 (1): 127–149. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.5.101501.145837. ISSN 1094-2939.
37. ^ Uzgalis, William (2001-09-02). "John Locke". Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
38. ^ Schmaltz, Tad M. (2002). Radical Cartesianism: The French Reception of Descartes. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-43425-6.
39. ^ Lloyd, Sharon A.; Sreedhar, Susanne (2002-02-12). "Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
40. ^ Hampton, Jean (1988). Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-58325-8.
41. ^ Carmichael, D. J. C. (March 1990). "Hobbes on Natural Right in Society: The Leviathan Account*". Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique. 23 (1): 3–21. doi:10.1017/S0008423900011598. ISSN 1744-9324. S2CID 154964034.
42. ^ Estrada, Fernando (2012). "El Leviathan de Thomas Hobbes (The Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes)". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2127939. ISSN 1556-5068.
43. ^ McCrudden, Christopher (2008-09-01). "Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights". European Journal of International Law. 19 (4): 655–724. doi:10.1093/ejil/chn043. ISSN 0938-5428.
44. ^ Minogue, K. R. (October 1970). "The Logic of Leviathan". Philosophical Books. 11 (3): 10–12. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0149.1970.tb00060.x.
45. ^ Skinner, Quentin (1966). "The Ideological Context of Hobbes's Political Thought". The Historical Journal. 9 (3): 286–317. doi:10.1017/S0018246X66000014. ISSN 0018-246X. JSTOR 2637983. S2CID 248825400.
46. ^ Scott, John T. (September 2000). "The Sovereignless State and Locke's Language of Obligation". American Political Science Review. 94 (3): 547–561. doi:10.2307/2585830. ISSN 0003-0554. JSTOR 2585830. S2CID 144108638.
47. ^ Bruner, Justin P. (2020-03-01). "Locke, Nozick and the state of nature". Philosophical Studies. 177 (3): 705–726. doi:10.1007/s11098-018-1201-9. ISSN 1573-0883. S2CID 171478513.
48. ^ Tuckness, Alex (2020). "Locke's Political Philosophy". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2021-06-02.
49. ^ Ellerman, David (September 2010). "Inalienable Rights: A Litmus Test for Liberal Theories of Justice". Law and Philosophy. 29 (5): 571–599. doi:10.1007/s10982-010-9076-8. ISSN 0167-5249. S2CID 52028430.
50. ^ Broad, Jacqueline (2020-10-21). "Early Modern Philosophy: A Perverse Thought Experiment". Blog of the APA. Retrieved 2021-05-19.
51. ^ Caro, Mario, 20 /21 Jh [Hrsg ] De; Caro, Mario De; Macarthur, David; Macarthur, Professor David; MacArthur, Douglas (2004). Naturalism in Question. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-01295-0.
52. ^ "The Making of the Modern World". E-International Relations. 2016-12-26. Retrieved 2021-05-19.
53. ^ Brooks, Thom (2013-05-01). "In Defence of Political Theory: Impact and Opportunities". Political Studies Review. 11 (2): 209–215. doi:10.1111/1478-9302.12007. ISSN 1478-9299.
54. ^ Loewenstein, David; Shell, Alison (2019-07-03). "Early Modern Literature and England's Long Reformation". Reformation. 24 (2): 53–58. doi:10.1080/13574175.2019.1665264. ISSN 1357-4175.

References[edit]

• Ash, E. (2010). Introduction: Expertise and the Early Modern State. Osiris, 25(1), 1–24.
• Allhoff, F., Martinich, A., & Vaidya, A. (2007). Early modern philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
• Arblaster, P. (2017). Early Modern English Catholicism: Identity, Memory and Counter-Reformation. Reformation, 22(2), 147–148.
• Beatty, J., Leigh, J., & Dean, K. (2008). Philosophy Rediscovered. Journal Of Management Education, 33(1), 99–114.
• Bica, D. (2020). Thinking with Mechanisms: Mechanical Philosophy and Early Modern Science. Journal Of Early Modern Studies, 9(1), 133–141.
• Bojanowski, J. (2017). Thinking about cases: Applying Kant's universal law formula. European Journal Of Philosophy, 26(4), 1253–1268.
• Broad, J. (2020). Early Modern Philosophy: A Perverse Thought Experiment | Blog of the APA. Retrieved 18 April 2021, from https://blog.apaonline.org/2020/10/21/early-modern-philosophy-a-perverse-thought-experiment/
• Brooks, T. (2013). In Defence of Political Theory: Impact and Opportunities. Political Studies Review, 11(2), 209–215.
• Carmichael, D. (1990). Hobbes on Natural Right in Society: The Leviathan Account. Canadian Journal Of Political Science, 23(1), 3–21.
• Colilli, Julian (2016). "Jonathan Israel's Enlightenment: The Case of Giambattista Vico". Italica. 93 (3): 469–493. ISSN 0021-3020.
• Dickason, O., & Ellingson, T. (2002). The Myth of the Noble Savage. The Journal Of American History, 88(4), 1499.
• Domínguez, Juan Pablo (2017-05-19). "Introduction: Religious toleration in the Age of Enlightenment". History of European Ideas. 43 (4): 273–287. doi:10.1080/01916599.2016.1203590. ISSN 0191-6599.
• Douglass, Robin (2012-10-01). "Montesquieu and Modern Republicanism". Political Studies. 60 (3): 703–719. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00932.x. ISSN 0032-3217.
• Desai, Vandana; Potter, Rob (2014-03-21). The Companion to Development Studies. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-05159-5.
• De Cruz, Helen (2019), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Religion and Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2021-05-27
• Early Modern Philosophy: Essential Readings with Commentary, ed. by Aloysius Martinich, Fritz Allhoff, Anand Vaidya (2006).
• Early Modern Philosophy: Mind, Matter, and Metaphysics, ed. by Christia Mercer and Eileen O'Neill (2005).
• "Enlightenment | Encyclopedia.com". www.encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 2021-05-27.
• Estrada, F. (2012). El Leviathan de Thomas Hobbes (The Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes). SSRN Electronic Journal.
• Garber, D., & Nadler, S. (2005). Oxford studies in early modern philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Huggett, N. (2018). Zeno's Paradoxes. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Stanford University.
• Joy, L., Copenhaver, B., & Schmitt, C. (1993). Renaissance Philosophy. The Philosophical Quarterly, 43(173), 537.
• KATEB, G. (1989). Hobbes and the Irrationality of Politics. Political Theory, 17(3), 355–391. doi:10.1177/0090591789017003001
• Lærke, M., Smith, J., & Schliesser, E. (2013). Philosophy and its history. London: Oxford University.
• May, L., & Kavka, G. (1989). Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory. Noûs, 23(4), 560.
• Matthew Hoye, J. (2019). Natural Justice, Law, and Virtue in Hobbes's Leviathan. Hobbes Studies, 32(2), 179–208.
• Lenz, M., & Waldow, A. (2013). Contemporary perspectives on early modern philosophy (1st ed., pp. 19–43). Sydney: The University of Sydney.
• Levers, M. (2013). Philosophical Paradigms, Grounded Theory, and Perspectives on Emergence. SAGE Open, 3(4).
• Lloyd, S., & Sreedhar, S. (2018). Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy. In Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Stanford University.
• Müßig, Ulrike (2018), Müßig, Ulrike (ed.), "A New Order of the Ages. Normativity and Precedence", Reconsidering Constitutional Formation II Decisive Constitutional Normativity: From Old Liberties to New Precedence, Studies in the History of Law and Justice, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–97, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73037-0_1, ISBN 978-3-319-73037-0, retrieved 2021-05-27
• Mori, N. (2017). David Hume on Morals, Politics, and Society ed. by Angela Coventry and Andrew Valls. Hume Studies, 43(2), 110–112.
• Murphy, B. (2010). RATIONALISM AND EMPIRICISM: WILL THE DEBATE EVER END?. Think, 9(24), 35–46.
• Nachtomy, O., & Reed, R. (2019). INFINITY IN EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY. [New York City]: SPRINGER.
• Nicolaidis, Efthymios; Delli, Eudoxie; Livanos, Nikolaos; Tampakis, Kostas; Vlahakis, George (2016-09-20). "Science and Orthodox Christianity: An Overview". Isis. 107 (3): 542–566. doi:10.1086/688704. ISSN 0021-1753.
• Nicolas Rasmussen, N.A, & Catherine Wilson, C.W. (1997). "The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy And The Invention Of The Microscope.". Contemporary Sociology 25 (1): 123.
• Nickles, Thomas (2017), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Scientific Revolutions", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2021-05-27
• Nimbalkar, N. (2011). John locke on personal identityFNx08. Mens Sana Monographs, 9(1), 268.
• Reiss, Julian; Sprenger, Jan (2020), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Scientific Objectivity", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2021-05-27
• Rutherford, D. (2007). The Cambridge companion to early modern philosophy (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rutherford, D. (2008). D. Rutherford (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Early Modern Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 73(4), 334–339.
• Salami, M. (2021). Philosophy has to be about more than white men. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/commentisfree/2015/mar/23/philosophy-white-men-university-courses
• 셀러스, J. (2020). 르네상스 인문주의와 삶의 방식으로서의 철학. 형이상철학, 51(2–3), 226–243.
• 슈미트, 제임스 (2006–01). "계몽이 무엇이었는지, 여전히 무엇인지, 그리고 왜 칸트가 결국 옳았는지". 미국 행동 과학자. 49 (5): 647–663.
• 스미스, K. (2018). 데카르트의 삶과 작품. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2nd ed.)에서. 로스 앤젤레스 : 스탠포드 대학.
• 스프루이트, H. (2002). 근대국가의 기원, 발전 및 가능성쇠퇴. 정치학연례논문집, 5(1), 127–149.
• 우즈갈리스, W. (2018). 존 로크. Stanford Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy (2판). 로스 앤젤레스 : 스탠포드 대학.
• 윌슨, M. (2016). 아이디어와 메커니즘 (2판). 뉴어크: 프린스턴 대학교.
• 우, K. (2016). 정보의 철학과 과학의 상호 작용과 융합. 철학, 1(3), 228–244.

외부 링크[편집]

• EarlyModernTexts.com

보이다

• 브이
• 티
• E

철학

카테고리 : 

• 초기 근대 철학

• 이 문서는 2024년 8월 26일 23:11 (UTC)에 마지막으로 편집되었습니다.