The paper deals with the relationship between Emile Durkheim´s sociology and the contractualist tradition of political philosophy, represented here pricipally by Thomas Hobbles. Its aim is to show that Giddens´s strict rejection of Parsons´s claim according to which Durkheim has reopened in his work the "Hobbes´s problem of order", should not be accepted as such, because it´s radicality hides that what is the value in Parsons´s thesis. As we argue, Parsons has the merit of noticing that Hobbes and Spencer, who - in respect of their social philosophies - are usually seen as opposed, appear to be close to each other when they are considered by Durkheim as to the conception of the society their philosophies yield. Yet Durkheim´s sociology is an endeavour to conceive the society independently of the state, and thus, inversely, to emancipate the state from the society, so that it can be entrusted with a different function other than the guarantor of the social order. and Jan Maršálek.
Vyplývá z bezvadně provedeného důkazu také závazek počítat ve svém dalším rozvažování a jednání s jeho závěrem? V předložené studii se zabývám Hobbesovým Leviathanem coby "literární technologií", která čtenáře staví do role autora v Leviathanu rozvíjené argumentace. V tomto smyslu kriticky navazuji jednak na interpretaci Hobbesova vědeckého stylu, kterou nabízejí S. Shapin a S. Schaffer, jednak na výklad Q. Skinnera, který se podrobně zabývá Hobbesovou rétorickou praxí. Nabízím tezi, podle níž se Hobbes v kontaktu se svým publikem nespokojuje s předvedením vědeckého důkazu, nýbrž své čtenáře nechává na vytváření vědecké argumentace a jejím závěru osobně participovat., Does a perfectly established proof also imply, for its beholder, a commitment to account for the proof’s conclusion in further reasoning and action? In the herein presented study, I treat Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan as a “literary technology” that seeks to position the reader into the role of the author of Leviathan’s argumentation. The interpretations of Hobbes’s scientific style offered by S. Shapin and S. Schaffer are thus critically developed alongside Q. Skinner’s analysis of Hobbes’s rhetorical practice. It is suggested that, with regard to his readers, Hobbes does not content himself with merely demonstrating a scientific proof, but strives to involve his readers in his argumentation and make them participate in the creation of scientific arguments and their conclusions., Jan Maršálek., and Obsahuje bibliografii