頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | Confucian Self-Identity and Self-Realization in the Modern World=儒教的自己本體性、自己實現與現代社會 |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 李光世; | 書刊名 | 儒教文化研究 |
| 卷 期 | 12 2009.08[民98.08] |
| 頁 次 | 頁141-164 |
| 分類號 | 121.2 |
| 關鍵詞 | 儒教; 現代民主主義; 社會的個人; 道德的個人主義; 自己本體性; 自己實現; Confucianism; Modern democracy; Social individual; Moral individualism; Self-identity; Self-realization; |
| 語 文 | 英文(English) |
| 中文摘要 | 我在本論文中探討儒教與現代民主主義的關係。 現代民主主義對決定意見過程或政治性的生活, 不約束於社會身份地位或性、 宗族、 階級、 宗教、 肉體性障礙, 以及任何差別性因素, 追求盡可能最大的成員、 盡可能最高的參與。 現代民主主義所涵蓋的重要的概念之一就是關於個人的。 我據在儒教的多樣性以社會的個人 (social individual)的杜威哲學 (Deweyan) 的主題來, 對比探討現在已變為陳腐的現代西方傳統的自由主義者的概念。 作為社會性存在的個人是, 在社會的脈絡上能夠有負責的選擇的個人, 並且具有自己的自由與個人的權利相應的社會性責任。 作為社會性存在的個人經驗的自由 (freedom或liberty) 是, 我們借用深受康得 (Immanuel Kant) 影響的柏林 (Isaiah Berlin) 的話,那麼有多少否定性自由 (negative liberty),還有多少肯定性自由(positive liberty)。 我把柏林的肯定性自由與通過自己的努力自得的“道”和享受自己責任的自任的孟子的雙胞胎概念聯在一起。 在儒教中, 這個雙胞胎概念借用狄百瑞 (William de Bary) 的意思的話, 就是“道德性個人主義(moral individualism)”, 我認為, 由種種原因, 不稱之為“道德的個人主義 (moral individualism)”, 而稱之為“整體論的個人主義 (holistic individualism)”。 對於儒學者們來說, 真正的自由就在特定文化或歷史上、 社會性脈絡上, 意味著能夠做出負責行動的存在。 這就是使個人對未來的做出新的可能性, 即“溫故知新”。 “溫故知新”類似於海德格爾 (Heidegger) 的“時間性 (Zeitlichkeit)”或個人概念, 以杜威派的社會性存在。 我認為儒教的“德治”或“道德君子”概念與現代民主主義能夠聯在一起。 即參與政治的意思是照顧老百姓, 並且讓他們過得更好、 幫助他們受好教育, 讓自己提高自己的尊嚴, 給他們顯示出“仁”。 儒學的“正名論”相應于現代民主主義的權利分散理念。 在儒教社會當中, 禮先於法, 像這樣, 在任何市民社會當中, 個人的主張要隨著市民社會的高階層。 當今, 慣例(rites)與民權(rights)聯繫起來不是那麼不自然。 我認為在現代民主主義中能夠彌補儒教的德治概念, 以啟蒙的民權概念。尤其是與福利國家的理念相關能夠次序的探討馬歇爾 (T. H. Marshall) 的公民權 (civil rights)、 政治性權力 (political rights)、 社會性權力 (social rights)。 這三種權力不可分離。 公民權引導政治性權力, 再次露面社會性權力。 我把它們與傳統的儒教德治理念聯繫起來。 如依馬歇爾脫掉民主主義的模的民權, 不僅照顧教育傳統儒教的社會成員, 也讓他們過得更好、 提高尊嚴性, 助於他們自己盡可能實現人類的潛在能力, 就符合德治理念。 啟蒙的儒學者與啟蒙的自由主義者是相似的。 自己本體性是自己實現, 即完全性個人的人類潛在能力的實現。 儒教與現代民主主義是應當要見面的搭檔。 |
| 英文摘要 | In this paper I discuss the relevance of Confucianism to modern democracy. By modern democracy is meant the fullest possible participation of the greatest number of the people, regardless of their social origin, gender, race, class, religion, physical disability, and other differentiating factors, in the relevant decision-making procedures and processes of political life. One key concept integral to modern democracy is that of individual. I discuss the Confucian variation on the Deweyan theme of social individual as contrasted with the now antiquated notion of the classical modern Western libertarian concept of atomic individual. A social individual is an individual who can make responsible choice in social context; a social individual has social responsibilities commensurate with his/her freedom and individual rights. The sort of freedom (liberty) that social individuals exercise is positive liberty as well as negative liberty (to use the expressions coined by Isaiah Berlin as evidently inspired by Immanuel Kant). I relate Berlin’s positive liberty to the Mencian twin concepts of jadeuk (in Korean) or tzu te (in Chinese), that is, acquiring the Way by self-efforts and jaim (in Korean) and tzu jen (in Chinese), to wit, assuming one’s responsibility of one’s own accord. These twin concepts embody “moral individualism” (to use the expression invented by William de Bary) in Confucianism. In lieu of “moral individualism,” I use the expression “holistic individualism” for similar purposes. For Confucians, true freedom means being able to perform responsible action in specific cultural, historical, and social context. Which means that becoming thoroughly familiar with the old helps an enlightened individual to project new possibilities onto the future (onko chishin). Onko chishin has affinity with Heidegger’s Zeitlichkeit and the Deweyan concept of social individual. I discuss the relevance of the Confucian notion of rulership of virtue or virtuous statesmanship to modern democracy, that is to say, the relevance of practicing statesmanship to show humane care (in in Korean and ren in Chinese) for the people by nourishing them, furthering their well-being, helping them to be educated, and helping to enhance their dignity. The Confucian idea of rectification of names resonates with modern democracy’s idea of separation of powers. In Confucian society, for that matter in any civilized society, rituals (ye in Korean, li in Chinese) should have primacy over the law: self-assertion should yield to deference for pride of place in civilized society. Yet the coupling of rites/rights need not be an uneasy one. I submit that an enlightened concept of rights in modern democracy is complementary to the Confucian ideal of virtuous rulership. In particular, I discuss civil rights, political rights, and social rights as advanced by T. H. Marshall in relation to the idea of the welfare state. The three kinds of rights are inextricably interwoven with one another. Civil rights lead to political rights which in turn occasion the rise of social rights. I relate them to the traditional Confucian ideal of virtuous rulership. In fine, the rights as cast by Marshall in the mold of modern democracy resonate with the traditional Confucian ideal of virtuous rulership, that is to say, the ideal of nourishing and educating the people, furthering their well-being and dignity, and helping them realize their full human potentialities. For enlightened Confucians and enlightened liberals alike, self-identity is self-realization, that is, fully realizing one’s human potentialities. Confucianism and modern democracy are the twain that, pace Kipling, has met. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。