論宗教脈絡在理解霍布斯政治義務理論中的角色：以「自由的恰當意涵」為例

On the Role of Religious Context in Understanding Thomas Hobbes' Theory of Political Obligation: In the Case of ‘The Proper Signification of Liberty'

究竟主權者的權威是來自事實權力抑或上帝授權？針對這個問題，本文首先要介紹史欽納（Quentin Skinner）對霍布斯的自由（liberty）此一概念的詮釋，其次討論羅伊德（Sharon Anne Lloyd）的論點，最後則根據史欽納的方法，對羅伊德的宗教性詮釋提出批評。若本文的論點得以成立，可以說明以下觀點:史欽納雖然說明某種科學脈絡影響了霍布斯的政治義務理論，但他卻忽略了宗教脈絡同樣也發生了效力。就這點而言，羅伊德的角度可以作為史欽納觀點的補充。 Does Thomas Hobbes think that the authority of the sovereign is generated from God or from its own plenary power? This article tries to approach this issue by comparing Quentin Skinners' conception of ‘proper signification of liberty' and S. A. Lloyd's religious interpretation of Hobbes' theory. I argue that although Skinner's interpretation of liberty can account for some philosophical parts of Hobbes' theory of political obligation, it fails to account for the other historical or religious parts of the theory. Apart from the philosophical or scientific context, the historical or religious context also plays a significant role, which is well demonstrated in Lloyd's theory. The combination of these two can lead to a better understanding of Hobbes' theory of political obligation.