Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Thomas Hobbes is notable as a philosopher not least for having grounded his political thought on his system of nature. Clearly, he thought that his civil philosophy could be taught with minimal reference to his natural philosophy–De Cive is evidence of this view–but the Leviathan shows that the spheres of nature (both human and non-human) and politics are connected. Hobbes’s theory of punishment is particularly demonstrative of his intent to integrate his investigations of natural and artificial bodies into one system. Some writers have argued that Hobbes’s mechanistic materialism may be dispensed with when considering his political ideas (see, for example, Strauss, 1936); but while it may be true that Hobbes is ultimately unsuccessful or misguided in the attempt, certain aspects of his account of punishment cannot be properly understood without reference to his conception of nature. In particular, his emphasis on deterrence as opposed to retribution in Chapter 28 of Leviathan is consistent with his understanding of natural liberty in several key respects: his denial of freedom of the will, the compatibility of freedom and necessity, and the notion that liberty applies solely to bodies in motion. By considering the materialist premises underlying his mechanistic conception of punishment, we may discern the secularizing consequences of this conception, and even his view that punishment is a necessary but not sufficient condition of political obedience. My purpose is not to provide a complete account of punishment in Hobbes’s thought. Certain interpretative questions will not be addressed, including the derivation of the sovereign’s right to punish, and his definition of liberty in all of its various senses.1 Rather, I shall focus on those aspects of freedom, necessity, and the will that pertain to questions concerning moral responsibility, God’s relation to the system of nature, and the justice and efficacy of punishment in a deterministic world. These considerations suggest that Hobbes’s mechanistic conception of punishment is more sophisticated and nuanced than his detractors
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle