頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 論沈岱爾之行動性理論:一個哲學保守主義的重塑=On Michael Sandel's Theory of Agency: An Oakeshottian Re-construction |
---|---|
作 者 | 曾國祥; | 書刊名 | 政治與社會哲學評論 |
卷 期 | 6 2003.09[民92.09] |
頁 次 | 頁65-114 |
專 輯 | 公民與社群專輯 |
分類號 | 570.1 |
關鍵詞 | 沈岱爾; 行動性; 哲學人類學; 保守主義; 社群主義; 自由主義; Michael Sandel; Human agency; Philosophical anthropology; Conservatism; Communitarianism; Liberalism; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 從一九八○年代以來,所謂的社群主義思想便以卸除支撐自由主,義的人觀基礎而為我們所熟知。而照一般的理解,沈岱爾的處女作:,《自由主義與正義的侷限》,正是開啟當代自由主義與社群主義之爭的,關鍵因素,因為誠如沈岱爾在該書封面所言:其研究目標,無非即是,從作為自由主義之襯裡的人觀中,質問出正義理念的限制,並嘗試闡釋一種比起自由主義要深刻許多的社群論述。然而,對沈岱爾的讀者而言,一個容有探究之空間的議題是:究竟沈岱爾在對羅爾斯之《正,義論》提出嚴峻挑戰的過程裡,有沒有發展出他自己的一套不同於自由主義的人類行動性理論。為了填補學者研究沈岱爾的此一缺口,本文於是著手從某種 ( 歐克秀式的 ) 哲學保守主義基調,以重塑沈岱爾之行動性理論。藉此重塑,作者將有機會指出:究實而論,沈岱爾既,不是一位正統的亞里斯多德主義者,也不是一位教條的保守主義者,而是一位追隨著歐克秀、麥金泰爾與泰勒之步調的歷史性個人主義,者,亦即他雖然主張 ( 一 )、人類行動性的充足展現必須依靠社群或傳統的培基,因為唯有在黑格爾的Sittlichkeit之中個人的道德自律性,與自由才能獲得完全的實現:但他卻也同時認為 ( 二 )、那些形塑我,們對於社群或傳統之共同認識的善觀與忠誠,並不是由哲學家所預先決定的固定價值,而是通過歷史實踐而所完成的、居處於變遷之中的,生活方式:因此 ( 三 )、它們可以根據個人審慎領悟自其當下所面對之歷史條件的實踐理性,予以自由地肯認或是轉化。換個詞度看,這即是說,沈岱爾以及上述學者所探納的歷史性個人主義相信 ( 四 )、人必然是歷史性的存有者,而歷史與這種「詮釋學自我」所呈現出來的關係,則是一種開放性的對話過程,也就是涉及一場未被事前排演過的知性探索。 |
英文摘要 | Since the 1980s a great dea1 of communitarian thought has presented itself in terms that make explicit reference to the conception of the person underlying liberalism. And it may not be going too far to remark that it was the publication of Michael Sandel's debut work Liberalism and the Limits of Justice that initiated the conternporary liberal-∞rnrnunitarian debate. For, as Sandel clearly articulatesin the blurb, the aim of this book is nothing but to“trace the lirnits of liberalisrn to the conception of the person that underlines it, and argues for a ,deeper understanding of cornmunity than liberalism a1lows". What is far more ,unclear to Sandel's readers, however, is whether he has worked out an a1temative theory of human agency on his own, in the course of posing serious challenges to Rawls' A Theory of Justice. In order ti go sorne way to fulfilling this lacuna in Sandel Studies, this paper thus sets out to reonstruct Sandel’s theory of agency from an Oakeshottian point of view. By re-interpreting Sandel’s philosophical anthropology as such, the author will have an opportunity to argue that as a matter of fact, Sandel is not a doctrinal Aristotelian any more than a dogmatic conservative, but an historical ,individualist mainly following Michael Oakeshott, Alasdair MacIntyre and ,Charles Taylor to claim thus: (1) Although the full exercise of human agency must rely on the empowerment of cornmunity or tradition, in the sense that man's genuine moral autonomy and freedom can be achieved in Hegel's Sittlichkeit a1one;(2) the conception ofthe good and a1legiances that mold ,our sharing understanding regarding a certain community or tradition, ,nevertheless, are not fixed ends pre-determined by the philosopher but variable ,ways of living attained through historical practices, and thus, (3)they can be freely granted or removed in trems of the individual's “practical reasoning"”,emerging from a prudentia1 understanding of the historical conditions with ,which he is confronted in the present. Put differently, then, historical ,individua1ism actually believes that (4) man must have a history, and the ,relation of history to the hermeneutic-seif, so to speak, involves a conversation, ,i.e. an unrehearseed intellectual adventure. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。