:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:自由與共和:盧梭與康德政治理論之比較
作者:劉岫靈
作者(外文):Hsiu-Ling Liu
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:國家發展研究所
指導教授:李明輝
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2018
主題關鍵詞:自主自由/自律自由無支配自由民主共和憲政共和共和範式
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:12
盧梭與康德的政治理論是以自由概念與共和概念為核心所構成的理論,若以共和主義視角分析之,可以稱為盧梭式民主共和理論與康德式憲政共和理論。在整個共和主義的發展序列中,兩者的共和理論皆被視為古典共和主義轉向現代共和主義過程中的重要典範。本文旨在從共和主義視角分析盧梭與康德的政治理論,梳理民主共和理論與憲政共和理論的內在理路,進而做出比較。整個論證工作分為三個部分:首先,本文將以一組由共和範式與政治創建所構成的分析架構,分析盧梭與康德是如何以含括自由概念與共和概念在內的一系列共和主義式詞匯構成兩組不同的共和範式。其次,分析兩人的政治創建論述,說明兩組共和範式是如何在有限的時空中創造共和政體並維持其自身存在。最後,對兩組共和範式內含的諸概念與概念之間的連結關係進行比較,進而再對兩者的政治創建論述進行比較。通過對盧梭與康德的共和範式與政治創建的比較工作,我們將會發現,盧梭與康德的共和理論都是以自由為目的,並在這樣的目的上推導出共和制。然而,他們的自由概念都同時涉及內在自由(自主自由/自律自由)與外在自由(無支配自由)兩個面向,關鍵是,兩者都是從內在自由的概念出發而推導出共和制設計:盧梭是以經驗性自主自由推導出基進民主原則與民主共和制,康德則是以超驗性自律自由推導出共和主義政治原則與憲政民主制。這樣的結果標誌著,在理解盧梭與康德的共和理論時,必須從內在的積極自由出發而不是外在的無支配自由。
The political theory of Rousseau and Kant''s is based on the tow core concepts of freedom and republic. In the context of republicanism, these two republican theories are conflicting paradigms of Republicanism in the classical tradition turns to modem mode results. The paper is aimed at analyzing and comparing the republican theory from the republican perspective. The work of Argument can be divided into three parts: First, this paper will use a set of analytical frameworks consisting of republican scheme and political innovation to analyze how Rousseau and Kant use republican conceptual vocabularies to form two different republican schemes. Secondly, we analyze these two discourses of political innovation to explain how do they-these two schemes-create republic and maintain their own existence in a limited space-time-temporal finitude. In conclusion, through the above comparison we are realizing the differences between Rousseau and Kant. Through the comparison between Rousseau and Kant''s republican schemes and political innovation, we will find that Rousseau and Kant''s republican theory is with freedom as the end, and at this end, the republic is derived. However, their concept of freedom involves both “inner freedom”-freedom as autonomy-and “outer freedom”-freedom as non-domination. The key point is that both derive the republic constitution from the concept of “inner freedom: Rousseau derives the principles of radical democracy and democratic republicanism from empirical self-legislation, but Kant derives republicanism [political principles] and constitutional republicanism from transcendental self-legislation. Such a result indicates that in understanding the republican theory of Rousseau and Kant, it is necessary to proceed from the “inner freedom” rather than the “outer freedom”.
壹、中文
一、專書
吳豐維(2016)。《正義的激情》,臺北市:Airiti Press Inc。
陳思賢(1998)。《西洋政治思想史-近代英國篇》,臺北市:五南出版社。
陳思賢(1999b)。《西洋政治思想史-古典世界篇》,臺北市:五南出版社。
黃振華(2005)。《論康德哲學》。臺北市:時英出版公司。
蔡英文(2015)。《從王權、專制到民主:西方民主思想的開展及其問題》,臺北市:聯經出版公司。
蕭高彥(2013)。《西方共和主義思想史論》,臺北市:聯經出版公司。
二、期刊論文
方 博(2017)。〈自由、公意與社會契約-關於盧梭和康德的一個政治哲學的比較〉,《哲學研究》,10:102-110。
朱堅章(1972)。〈盧梭政治思想中自由觀念的分析〉,《國立政治大學學報》26:183-205。
李明輝(1995)。〈康德的「歷史」概念〉,《中國文哲研究集刊》7:157-182。
周家瑜(2012)。〈康德論政治自由:對政治式詮釋的修正〉,《政治與社會哲學評論》,43:81-116。
陳思賢(1999a)。〈近代自由主義政治的古典前驅:希臘化時代反城邦政治與自然法的興起〉,《政治科學論叢》10:195-225。
陳瑤華(1996)。〈康德的人權理念〉,《東吳政治學報》6:73-90。
陳嘉銘(2013)。〈盧梭推論戰爭權利的途徑—從共和自由到萬民法〉,《台灣民主季刊》10(4): 93-136。
陳嘉銘(2014)。〈「創造出公民,要什麼就都有了」?論盧梭的自由、愛國主義和實現共和的弔詭〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》26(6):175-218。
蔡英文(1999)。〈古典共和公民社會的理想與奧古斯丁政治神學之解釋〉,《台灣哲學研究》2:71-107。
賴賢宗(2001)。〈從「道德」到「法權」-從康德的令式倫理學到康德的法權哲學〉,《思與言》 39(2):165-191。
蕭高彥(2002a)。〈共和主義與現代政治〉,《政治與社會哲學評論》1:85-16。
蕭高彥(2002b)。〈史金納與當代古典共和主義典範之競爭〉,《東吳政治學報》15:33-59。
蕭高彥(2002c)。〈西塞羅與馬基維利論政治道德〉,《政治科學論叢》16:1-28。
劉創馥(2016)。〈康德的自由與自發性〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》28(1):105-132。
三、專書譯著
李明輝(譯注),Baumgartner, Hans Michael(原著)(1988),《康德「純粹理性批判」導讀》。臺北市:聯經出版公司。
李明輝(譯注),Kant, Immanuel(原著)(1990),《道德底形上學之基礎》。臺北市:聯經出版公司。
李明輝(譯注),Kant, Immanuel(原著)(2002),《康德歷史哲學論文集》。臺北市:聯經出版公司。
李明輝(譯注),Kant, Immanuel(原著)(2008),《一切能作為學問而出現的未來形上學之序論》。臺北市:聯經出版公司。
李明輝(譯注),Kant, Immanuel(原著)(2015),《道德底形上學》。臺北市:聯經出版公司。
牟宗三(譯注),Kant, Immanuel(原著)(1983),《康德的道德哲學》。臺北市:台灣學生。
何兆武(譯注),Rousseau, Jean-Jacques(原著)(2003),《社會契約論》。臺北:商務印書館。
魏肇基(譯註),Rousseau, Jean-Jacques(原著)(2016),《愛彌兒》,臺北:台灣商務。
苑舉正(譯注),Rousseau, Jean-Jacques(原著)(2015),《德行墮落與不平等的起源》。臺北:聯經出版公司。
四、編著論文
江宜樺(1995)。〈政治社群與生命共同體:亞里斯多德城邦理論的若干啟示〉,陳秀容、江宜樺(主編),《政治社群》,頁39-75。台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所專書。
貳、英文
一、專書
Arendt, Hannah (2005). The Promise of Politics. Jerome Kohn(ed.). New York: Schocken Books press.
Berlin, Isaiah (1969). Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University press.
Cassirer, Ernst (1989). The Question of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Charvet, John (1974). The Social Problem in the Philosophy of Rousseau. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cobban, Alfred (1964). Rousseau and the Modern State. London: Archon Books.
Cohen, Joshua (2010). Rousseau: A Free Community of Equals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hendel, C. W. (1962). Jean Jacques Rousseau: Moralist, Vol. II. Indianapolis: Bobb-Merrill.
Krieger, Leonard (1972). The German Ideal of Freedom. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Melzer, Arthur M. (1990). The Natural Goodness of Man: On the System of Rousseau’s Thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Paton, H. J. (1971). The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant''s Moral Philosophy. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press.
Pocock, John Greville Agard (1975). Machiavellian Moment- Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pettit, Philip (1993). The Common Mind: An Essay on Psychology, Society and politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pettit, Philip (1997). Republicanism—A Theory of Freedom and Government. New York: Oxford University Press.
Plattner, Marc F. (1979). Rousseau’s State of Nature:An Interpretation of the Discourse on Inequality. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
Ripstein, Arthur (2009). Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge/ Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Riley, Patrick (1982). Will and Political Legitimacy: A Critical Exposition of Social Contract Theory in Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Strauss, Leo (1953). Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Skinner, Quentin (1978). The Foundations of Modern Political Thought Volum One: The Renaissance, Cambridge University Press.
Skinner, Quentin (1998). Liberty before Liberalism, Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, Charles (1994). Multiculturalism: Examining The Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wood, Neal (1988). Cicero’s Social and Political Thought. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Wood, Allen (1999). Kant’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
二、期刊論文
Arena, Valentina (2011). “Roman Sumptuary Legislation: Three Concepts of Liberty.” European Journal of Political Theory 10(4): 463-489.
Asmis, Elizabeth (2004). “The State as Partnership: Cicero''s Difinition of res publica in his work on the State.” History of Political Thought 25(4): 569-599.
Bertram, Christopher (2012). “Rousseau ''s Legacy in Two Conceptions of the General Will: Democratic and Transcendent.” The Review of Politics 74(3): 403-419.
Bielefeldt, Heiner (1997). “Autonomy and Republicanism: Immanuel Kant''s Philosophy of Freedom.” Political Theory 25(4): 524-558.
Boyer, Alain (2001). “On the Modern Relevance of Old Republicanism. ” The Monist 84(1): 22-44.
Conklin, William (2010). “The Myth of Primordialism in Cicero''s Theory of Jus Gentium.” Leiden Journal of International Law 23(3): 479-506.
Costa, M. Victoria (2009). “Neo-republicanism, Freedom as Non-Domination, and Citizen Virtue.” Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8(4): 401-419.
Dent, N. (1992). “Absolute and Relative Existence: Man and Citizen in Rousseau.” Convivium: Revista de Filosofia 3(1992): 39-52.
Goodin, Rober E. (2003). “Folie Republicaine.” Annual Review of Political Science 6(3): 55-76.
Kaufman, Alexander (1997). “Reason, Self-Legislation and Legitimacy: Conceptions of Freedom in the Political Thought of Rousseau and Kant.” The Review of Politics 59(1): 25-52.
Kelly, G. A. (1969). “The Structure and Spirit of Legality in Kant. ” The Journal of Politics 31: 513-527.
Kolodny, Niko (2010). “The Explanation of Amour-Propre.” Philosophical Review 119(2): 165-200.
Maass, Richard W. (2012). “Political Society and Cicero’s Ideal State.” Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 45(2): 79-92.
Nelson, William (2008). “Kant’s Formula of Humanity,” Mind 117(465): 86-106.
Neuhouser, Frederick (2003) . “Rousseau on the Relation between Reason and Self-love (amour propre). ” International Yearbook of German Idealism 1: 221-240.
Nicgorski, W. (1991). “Cicero’s Focus: From the Best Regime to the Model Statesman.” Political Theory 19: 230-51.
Pojman, Louis P. (2005). “Kant''s Perpetual Peace and Cosmopolitanism.” Journal of Social Philosophy 36(1): 62-71.
Powell, J. G. .F. (2001). “Were Cicero’s Laws the Laws of Cicero’s Republic?.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 45(S76): 17-39.
Vatter, Miguel (2011). “The People Shall Be Judge Reflective Judgment and Constituent Power in Kant’s Philosophy of Law.” Political Theory 39(6): 749-776.
Williams, Howard (2001). “Metamorphosis or Palingenesis? Political Change in Kant.” The Review of Politics 63(4): 693-722.
三、專書譯著
Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1999). “On the Commonwealth.” In James G. Zetzel(ed.), On the Commonwealth. pp. 1-103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1913). Cicero XXI: On Duties. Trans. by Griffin&Atkins. Water Miller. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (1949). Critique of Practical Reason And Other Writings in Moral Philosophy. Trans. and ed. by Lewis White Beck. Chicago University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (1964). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Moral. Trans. and ed. by H. J. Paton. New York: Haper&Row Press.
Kant, Immanuel (1996). “Metaphysic of Morals.” In Mary J. Gregor(ed. ), Kant. Practical Philosophy, pp.353-603. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (1991a). “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose.” In Hans Reiss and H. B. Nisbet (eds.), Kant: Political Writings, pp.41-53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (1991b). “On the Common Saying: This May be True in Theory, but it does not Apply in Practice.” In Hans Reiss and H. B. Nisbet (eds.), Kant: Political Writings, pp.61-92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (1991c). “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophica Sketch.” In Hans Reiss and H. B. Nisbet (eds.), Kant: Political Writings, pp. 93-130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (1991d). “What is Enlightenment.” In Hans Reiss and H. B. Nisbet (eds.), Kant: Political Writings, pp. 54-60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques (1979). Emile, or On Education. Trans. by Allan Bloom. New York: Basic Books.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques (1997a). “Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men.” In Victor Gourevitch (ed.), The Discourses and Other Early Political Writings. pp.113-222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques (1997b). “Of the Social Contract.” In Victor Gourevitch (ed.), The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings. pp.39-152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques (1997c). “Considerations on the Government of Poland.” In Victor Gourevitch (ed.), The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings. pp.177-260. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques (2005). On the Origin of Inequality. Trans by G. D. H. Cole. London and New York: Dent.
四、編著論文
Barry, Norman (1995). “Hume, Smith and Rousseau on Freedom,” In Robert Wokler (ed.), Rousseau and Liberty, pp. 29-52. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Cranston, Maurice (1995). “Rousseau’s Theory of Liberty,” In Robert Wokler (ed.), Rousseau and Liberty, pp. 231–243. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Korsgaard, Christine (1989). “Morality as Freedom.” In Yirmiyahu Yovol (ed.), Kant’s Practical Philosophy Reconsidered, pp. 23-48. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Mason, John Hope (1995). “Forced to Be Free,” In Robert Wokler (ed.), Rousseau and Liberty, pp. 121–138. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Parry, Geraint (1995). “Thinking One’s Own Thoughts: Autonomy and the Citizen,” In Robert Wokler (ed.), Rousseau and Liberty, pp. 99–120. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Riley, Patrick (1995). “Rousseau’s General Will: Freedom of a Particular Kind,” In Robert Wokler (ed.), Rousseau and Liberty, pp. 1-28. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Schneewind, J. B. (1992). “Autonomy, Obligation, and Virtue: An Overview of Kant''s Moral Philosophy,” In Paul Guyer(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant, pp. 309-341. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skinner, Quentin (1990). “The Republican Ideal of Political.” In Quentin Skinner&Maurizio(eds.), Machiavell and Republicanism, pp. 293-309. Cambridge University Press.
Schofield, M. (1995). “Cicero''s definition of Res Publica. ” In J. G. F. Powell(ed.), Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve Papers, pp. 63-84. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taylor, Charles (1979). “What’s Wrong with Negative Liberty.” In Alan Ryan(ed.), The Ideal Of Freedom: Essays in Honour of Isaiah Berlin, pp. 175-193. Oxford University Press.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE