No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2009
As C. B. Macpherson allows in his comment, my critique of his interpretation is based upon “minute” reasoning and textual analysis. It would not be appropriate (or even possible) to reproduce that analysis here, or to defend it in detail against Macpherson's rebuttal. The best response to his remarks, therefore, is the critique itself, as originally stated: I can only hope that those who are interested in these issues will read it with care. Here, I will confine myself to a few general observations.
1 Carmichael, D. J. C., “C. B. Macpherson's ‘Hobbes’: A Critique,” this JOURNAL 16 (1983), 61–80.Google Scholar
2 Macpherson seems concerned to interpret Hobbes, whereas my interest lies more specifically with Leviathan. The difference may be important.
3 3 Macpherson's discussion of the invasive society, in part 2 of his reply, is an interesting and possibly major restatement of his interpretation. If I read him aright here, he is foregoing any claim to base the invasive society logically upon the universal opposition postulate. The case for the invasive society postulate is now “found” in the text, as implied in Hobbes's discussion of valuing and honouring. If so, the resoluto-compositive method is a secondary issue; what must be shown is that the text entails an invasive, market model of society.