About

Al Martinich is the Roy Allison Vaughan Centennial Professor in Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, within the College of Liberal Arts. His academic focus includes the history of political philosophy, with particular expertise in the works of Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, as well as the philosophy of language. His scholarly contributions involve exploring foundational questions in political thought and language, contributing to the understanding of classical and modern philosophical ideas. As a distinguished faculty member, he engages in teaching, research, and mentorship within the Department of Philosophy, fostering a deeper comprehension of political and linguistic philosophy.

Research topics

• Political Science
• Epistemology
• Philosophy
• Theology
• Law
• History
• Linguistics

Selected publications

• The Covenant with Moses and the Kingdom of God: Thomas Hobbes and the Theology of the Old Covenant in Early Modern England, written by Martin, Andrew J.

  Hobbes Studies · 2024-10-03

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Hobbes’s Philosophy of Religion, Thomas Holden

  Philosophia Christi · 2024-01-01

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• P. F. Strawson and Connective Analysis

  2023-12-14

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract P.F. Strawson called his preferred method of philosophizing ‘connective analysis’. Its purpose is to reveal interconnections among several or even many concepts. Its goal may be described as clarification, elucidation, or illumination. Strawson’s and H.P. Grice’s defence of the analytic-synthetic distinction, Grice’s analyses of various kinds of meaning, and his other analyses in philosophical psychology are examples of connective analysis. Unlike conceptual analysis and reductive analysis, connective analysis allows the analyses of a cluster of analyses to be circular as long as the circularity is part of an overall clarification of the concepts. Connective analysis then needs to be distinguished from types of analysis that aim at (a) eliminating a broad range of concepts such as the materialist goal of eliminating non-material concepts or (b) identifying absolutely simple concepts.

  PublisherDOI

• Ideal Interpretation of Political Texts

  SUNY Press eBooks · 2022-03-01

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Preface

  2021-07-29

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  Extract Almost all of the chapters of this book were published in various books and journals over twenty-five years. The philosophical content of the chapters is the same as in their first publication. Typographical errors have been corrected; some mystifying phrases have been demystified; and some mental slips, such as writing "John Knox" for John Foxe, have been silently corrected. Because the editorial formats of the chapters in their original publication varied greatly from chapter to chapter, some uniformity has been imposed on the chapters—for example, changing all endnotes to footnotes. Two chapters appear here for the first time: "The Author of Sin and Demoniacs: Two Calvinist Issues in Thomas Hobbes and Some Contemporaries" was originally published in French; and "Hobbes on Sovereignty by Acquisition in Leviathan" was written expressly for this volume. The chapters are ordered according to overlapping themes, not chronologically. The chronological order is given in the List of Permissions.

  PublisherDOI

• Hobbes's Political Philosophy

  Oxford University Press eBooks · 2021 · 17 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Philosophy
  • Epistemology

  Abstract Hobbes’s Political Philosophy: Interpretation and Interpretations extends a position first explained in The Two Gods of Leviathan (1992). Hobbes presented what he believed would be a science of politics, a set of timeless truths grounded in definitions. In chapters on the laws of nature, authorization and representation, sovereignty by acquisition, and others, the author explains this science of politics. In addition to the timeless science, Hobbes had two timebound projects: (1) to eliminate the apparent conflict between the new science of Copernicus and Galileo and traditional Christian doctrine, and (2) to show that Christianity, correctly understood, is not politically destabilizing. The strategy for accomplishing (1) was to distinguish science from religion and to understand Christianity as essentially belief in the literal meaning of the Bible. The strategy for accomplishing (2) was to appeal to biblical teachings such as “Servants, obey your masters,” and “All authority comes from God.” Criticisms of the author’s interpretations are the occasion for (a) fleshing out Hobbes’s historical context and (b) describing the nature of interpretation in dialogue with opposing interpretations by scholars such as Jeffrey Collins, Edwin Curley, John Deigh, and Quentin Skinner. Interpretation is updating one’s network of beliefs in order to re-establish an equilibrium upset by a text. Interpretations may be judged according to prima facie properties of good interpretations such as completeness, consistency, simplicity, generality, palpability, and defensibility.

  PublisherDOI

• Dedication

  2021-07-29

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  Extract To some of my favorite editors and co-authors, whom I esteem and thank: Jeff Dean, Marissa Koors, S. A. Lloyd, Roger Louis, Peter Ohlin, Tom Palaima

  PublisherDOI

• Sovereign-Making and Biblical Covenants in <i>On the Citizen</i>

  2021-07-21

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract In On the Citizen, Hobbes describes two kinds of covenants. The first are covenants among human beings, most importantly sovereign-making covenants. The second are the major biblical covenants. Hobbes follows the traditional interpretation of biblical covenants, according to which God is a party to them with Abraham, the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, and all humanity. His political theory had the resources to give a single account of both kinds of covenants. He could have said that God accepted the transfer of rights from humans. So, he could have given a unified account of covenants. He does not say why or discuss any relationship that may exist between the two kinds. A significant element common to ordinary sovereign-making covenants and the central biblical ones is faith.

  PublisherDOI

• Copyright Page

  2021-07-29

  other1st authorCorresponding

  Extract Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2021 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form

  PublisherDOI

• Leo Strauss’s Olympian Interpretation

  2021-07-21

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract The author’s thesis is that Leo Strauss’s view is fundamentally mistaken about the foundational concepts of Hobbes’s political philosophy in De cive, namely, Hobbes’s concepts of right, self-preservation, and law. Concerning rights, Strauss’s claim that they are normative is mistaken. For Hobbes, rights exist where no law excludes them, that is, in the state of nature. They contribute to conflict; but no one violates another person’s right in that state. As for self-preservation, it is a desire and does not mean that humans have to use reason. Finally, as for law, Strauss is mistaken in thinking that Hobbes was an innovator in understanding it in terms of will. God’s laws in the Bible are laws because God wills them. And Hobbes’s laws depend primarily on reason and authority.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Siwing Tsoi

  The University of Texas at San Antonio

  2 shared

• Brian Battiste

  2 shared

• Stuart Gray

  Washington and Lee University

  1 shared

• M Simons

  1 shared

• S. A. Lloyd

  1 shared

• Avrum Stroll

  1 shared

• Stefan Dolgert

  1 shared

• Sungmoon Kim

  Cambridge University Press

  1 shared