究竟霍布斯的政治理論受到了懷疑主義(skepticism)多大的影響？Richard Tuck與Quentin Skinner分別從哲學上的皮浪主義(Pyrrhonism)與文藝復興時期修辭學(rhetoric)出發來討論。但不可否認的是，這二者基本上並沒有太大的差異：二者都認為這個世界本質上就是未決(indeterminate)的，任何事物的正反二面，在某種意義下，都能夠成立。若是如此，接下來要問的是：霍布斯何以需要接受這種懷疑主義的論調，並且進一步發展出一套政治哲學作為終結懷疑的方法？對於這個疑問，本次研究計畫準備從另一個觀點切入討論。霍布斯曾與國教派主教John Bramhall進行一次辯論，主題是關於人是否具有自由意志(free will)的問題。Bramhall，承襲基督教的信仰，認為人的行動(human actions)最終並非由其他先存因素(antecedent factors)所引發，而是由其自由意志所決定。霍布斯則是個決定論者，認為人的行動最終是由某些先存因素所引發。然而他卻又認為人的自由與必然性並不衝突，因此他被歸類為所謂的「相容主義」(compatibilism)。如果懷疑主義的意義在於知識是不可得的，公民科學的重要目的就是要終結這種不可知的局面，創造出一種確定而有秩序的狀態，那麼霍布斯對於自由意志（或者說人的行為必然性）的態度可能是連結這二者的關鍵。
What is the influence of skepticism in Thomas Hobbes’s political theory? Richard Tuck and Quentin Skinner discuss this issue from Pyrrhonism and rhetoric respectively. Nevertheless, both agree that to some extend everything can be argued that this world is fundamentally indeterminate: things themselves are no more good or bad. If this viewpoint constitutes Hobbes’s perception of the world, how did he develop his political theory out of it? This program tries to meet this question through a debate about free will between Hobbes and Bishop John Bramhall. Bramhall contends that human actions are triggered by free will rather than other antecedent factors. Hobbes, as a determinist, denies this. For him liberty and necessity is compatible. Consequently what is at issue is that how this compatibilism contributes to his civil science: if this compatibilist position a key to understand his civil science, since the end of it is to terminate the indeterminate situation and reach the tranquility? This program tries to figure out the relation between these concepts.
