This article, originally a preface to the French edition of Carl Schmitt’s book The Leviathan in the State theory of Thomas Hobbes, displays a critical analysis that not only puts the above work in context, but also raises a question about Schmitt’s appropriation of Hobbes, an author who was considered a beacon of light by the former during his whole lifetime. Thus, the article undertakes a reconstitution of Schmitt´s relevance for Political Theory and Philosophy in recent years, and then develops (...) the way Hobbes was analysed in Schmitt´s essay. The interpretation of the Jurist is not innocent at all, and the propinquity to the English author in some issues could have allowed the former to reinforce his own arguments by using the latter as a mere strategic tool. The key question the article tries to elucidate is whether this re-appropriation was successful or not. (shrink)

Aunque el uso no problematizado en el lenguaje ordinario de los términos "consenso" y "consentimiento" sugiere que debe haber alguna comprensión compartida de su significado, no hay un acuerdo generalizado sobre el uso de estos conceptos entre los filósofos políticos. De hecho, el significado filosófico de estos conceptos sigue siendo elusivo y controvertido; tal vez precisamente a causa de su amplitud y centralidad. Teniendo en cuenta los numerosos intentos de explicar satisfactoriamente consenso y consentimiento -que con el tiempo se han (...) vuelto más sofisticados-, este artículo recoge algunos usos filosóficos fundamentales de estos dos multifacéticos conceptos y sugiere una estrategia para bosquejar un mapa que parece un rompecabezas cuyas piezas están moldeadas de tal forma que se necesita un enfoque multidisciplinario para poder identificar adecuadamente sus significados e implicaciones. Although the unproblematic use of the terms "consensus" and "consent" in ordinary language suggests that there must be some shared understanding of their meaning, there is no widespread assent on the use of these concepts among political philosophers. In fact, the philosophical meaning of these concepts remains elusive and controversial, perhaps exactly because of their extension and centrality. Taking note of the numerous attempts to provide a satisfactory account of "consensus" and "consent" - that have become increasingly sophisticated in time - this article recollects some fundamental philosophical uses of the two many-faceted concepts, and suggests a strategy for delineating a map that looks like a puzzle, whose pieces are shaped in such a way that we need a multidisciplinary approach in order to adequately identify their meanings and implications. (shrink)