(3.220.231.235) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/09 07:00
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:劉志洋
研究生(外文):Chih-yang Liu
論文名稱:泰勒論自由
論文名稱(外文):Charles Taylor on Liberty
指導教授:曾國祥曾國祥引用關係
指導教授(外文):K. S. Roy Tseng
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中山大學
系所名稱:政治學研究所
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:政治學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:中文
論文頁數:88
中文關鍵詞:價值多元道德哲學人類學自由自我認同
外文關鍵詞:self-identitymoralvalue pluralismphilosophical anthropologyfreedom
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:259
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
  泰勒對於當代自由的討論與理解是以十七世紀以來知識論與道德重心的爭論與移轉作為開端,進而試圖尋求在當代價值多元的處境之下個人的自由如何可能。泰勒指出現代自由的樣貌是西方文明在啟蒙運動與浪漫主義的兩條思想潮流中所激盪出的產物,他提出一種複合的自由主義(complex liberalism)理論說明現代自由的內涵並不能被單一的發展脈絡與原則完全地壟斷。因為在本體論的層次,我們可以看到離根哲學的原子式個體與自我詮釋的歷史承載個體之間的差異;而在道德的精神性呼喚中,我們也感受到啟蒙的自我尊嚴與浪漫主義的自我實現同時作為我們追求自由實踐時的重要內在價值。
  因此要梳理這樣複雜的當代自由意涵,本篇論文相信泰勒是由一個哲學人類學的觀點作為基礎。從「人是什麼」的本體論層次出發,闡釋人的行動性條件,並以此將關於「我是誰」的問題放置在具有歷史實踐背景的道德空間中進行答覆,使自由成為一種追求良善生活理念。因為唯有在一個可信靠的道德自我認同中,人的自由才不會無所適從並侷限於貧乏的欲望滿足。本文的主要目的便是以泰勒所論述的哲學人類學做為理解與詮釋當代自由理論的基礎,期望能夠使現代人以自由作為核心價值的自我認同在當代價值多元的處境中具有更為豐厚的實踐視野。
The purpose of this thesis is to delineate Taylor’s reasoning on the concept of freedom. I start by explicating Taylor’s thesis of philosophical anthropology to illustrate how he answers the question: “what is human agency?” Based on this ontological condition, Charles Taylor begins his discussion of the predicament of modern freedom by tracing the transformation of moral and epistemological ideals since the seventeenth century. By picturing the trajectories of moral sources in Western modernity, he believes, it enables us to meaningfully reflect upon personal freedom in an age of pluralism. Taylor demonstrates how the Enlightenment and Romanticism have jointly shape the background understanding of modern freedom.

Based on his diagnosis of the ambivalent nature of modern freedom, Taylor contends classic liberalism for its universalist and atomist understanding of freedom. He proposes a “complex liberalism” that recognizes the “embededness” of freedom, on the one hand, and acknowledges the fact that the moral ideal of being free has its intrinsic worth, on the other hand. The ideal of freedom, therefore, must be understood as a distinctively modern phenomenon that is constitutive of modern self-identity, rather than a freestanding principle independent of any substantial conceptions of the good.
目次

前言 泰勒論自由:一個哲學人類學的提問……………………………..…………1

第一章 哲學人類學(一):自我詮釋的動物………………………………………..4
  第一節 自然主義的主體解放…………………………………………………6
  第二節 自我詮釋的動物……………………………………………………..10
  第三節 主體的著根與語言的表現…………………………………………..17

第二章 哲學人類學(二):行動性的根源與道德空間……………………………23
  第一節 自我認同與強評價…………………………………………………..25
  第二節 道德空間與善的實踐理論…………………………………………..29

第三章 現代自由認同的道德根源………………………………………………..38
  第一節 離根理性的自我尊嚴………………………………………………..41
  第二節 浪漫主義的自我實現………………………………………………..56

第四章 現代自由的實踐…………………………………………………………..64
  第一節 自由主義的主體修正:找尋「人之所是」的自由基礎………………65
  第二節 現代自由與善的多元:消極自由與積極自由………………………72

結論 ………………………………………………………………………………..77

參考文獻……………………………………………………………………………..79
參考文獻


外文文獻:

Abbey, Ruth
   2000. Charles Taylor. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   2002a “Pluralism in Practice: The Political Thought of Charles Taylor.”in
       Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy,
       Vol.5, no.3. p.98-123.
   2002b “Charles Taylor as a Postliberal Theorist of Politics.”
       in Perspectives on the Philosophy of Charles Taylor.Arto Laitinen
       and Nicholas H. Smith, eds. Helsinki, Acta Philosophica Fennica,
       vol. 71. p.165-81.

Berlin, I
  1999. The Roots of Romanticism. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press

Crittenden, Jack
   1992. Beyond Individualism. Oxford : OUP.
   1993. “The Social Nature of Autonomy.” in Review of Politics. Vol. 55,
       no.1. p. 35-65.

de Sousa, Ronald
   1994. “Bashing the Enlightenment: A Dicussion of Charles Taylor’s
       Sources of the Self.” in Dialogue Vol. 33. p.109-23.

Flathman, Richard E.
   1987. The Philosophy and Politics of Freedom. Chicago: The University of
       Chicago Press.

Gauthier, David
   1992. “The liberal individual” in Communitarianism and Individualism.
       Shlomo avineri and Avner De-Shalit, ed. Oxford:OUP. p. 151-164

Horton, John
   1998. “Charles Taylor: selfhood, community and democracy.” in Liberal
       Democracy and Its Critics. A. Carter & G. Stokes eds. p. 155-74.

Kerr, Fergus
   2004. “The Self and the Good: Taylor’s Moral Ontology.” in Charles
       Taylor. Ruth Abbey, ed. Cambridge: CUP.

Kitchen, Gary
   1999. “Charles Taylor: The Malaises of Modernity and the Moral Sources
       of the Self.” in Philosophy and Social Criticism, Vol25, no.3. p.
       29-55.

Kotkavirta, Jussi
   2002. “Charles Taylor and the Concept of a Person.”in Perspectives on the
       Philosophy of Charles Taylor. Arto Laitinen and Nicholas H. Smith,
       eds. Helsinki, Acta Philosophica Fennica, vol. 71p.165-81.

Kymlicka, Will
   1989. Liberalism, Community and Culture. Oxford : OUP.

Manicas, Peter T.
   1987. A History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Oxford: Basil
       Blackwell

Mulhall, Stephen
   2004. “Articulating the Horizons of Liberalism.”in Ruth Abbey (ed.)
       Charles Taylor. Cambridge: CUP. p. 105-125

Mulhall, Stephen & Swift, Adam
   1992. Liberals and Communitarians. Oxford: Blackwell.

Readhead, Mark
   2002. Charles Taylor: Thinking and Living Deep Diversity. Boston:
       Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC.

Sandel, Michael
   1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: CUP.
   1992. “The Procedural Republic and the Umencumbered Self.” in
       Communitarianism and individualism. Shlomo avineri, Avner
       De-Shalit, ed. Oxford:OUP. p. 12-28.
   
Seglow, Jonathan
   1996. “Goodness in an Age of Pluralism: on Charles Taylor’s Moral
       Theory.” in Res Publica Vol. II no.2. p.163-80

Smith, Nicholas H.
   1997. Strong Hermeneutics: Contingency and moral identity. London:
       Routledge.
   2002. Charle Taylor: Meaning, Morals and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity
       Press.
   2004. “Taylor and the Hermeneutic Tradition.” in Ruth Abbey (ed.) Charles
       Taylor. Cambridge: CUP. p. 84-104.

Taylor, Charles
   1964. The Explanation of Behaviour. London: Routledge.
   1979. Hegal and Modern Society. Cambridge: CUP.
   1985a. Philosophical Paper I: Human Agency and Language. Cambridge:
       CUP.
   1985b. Philosophical Paper II: Philosophy and Human Science.Cambridge:
       CUP.
   1985c. “The person.” in The Category of the Person. Michael Carrithers,
       Steven Collins and Steven Lukes, eds. N.Y.: CUP. p.257-281
   1988. “The Moral Topography of the Self.” In Hermeneutics and
       Psychological Theory. P.298-320
   1989. Sources of the Self. Cambridge: CUP.
   1991a. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge: CUP.
   1991b. “Hegel''s Ambiguous Legacy for Modern Liberalism.” in Hegel and
       Legal Theory, Drucilla Cornell, Michel Rosenfeld and David Gray
       Carlson, eds. New York: Routledge. p.64-77
   1991c. “The Dialogical Self.” in The Interpretive Turn: Philosophy, Science,
       Culture. David R. Hiley, ed. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. p.
       304-14.
   1992 “Inwardness and the Culture of Modernity.” in Philosophical
       Interventions in the Unfinished Project of Enlightenment, Axel
       Honneth et al, eds. Cambridge: MIT Press. p. 88-110.
   1994a “Charles Taylor Replies.” in Philosophy in an Age of Pluralism. J.
       Tully, ed. p.213-5
   1994b “The Modern Identity.” in Communitarianism: A New Public Ethics.
       Markate Daly eds. California: Wadsworth. p.55-71.
   1995. Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
       Press.
   1998. “From Philosophical Anthropology to the Politics of Recognition: An
       Interview with Charles Taylor.” in Thesis Eleven, No. 52. p. 103-112.
   2000. “What''s Wrong with Foundationalism: Knowledge, Agency, and the
       World.” In Heidegger, Coping, and Cognitive Science. Vol.2 Mark
       Wrathall and Jeff Malpas, eds. Boston: MIT Press. p.115-34
   2001. “Modernity and Identity.” in Schools of Thought: Twenty-five Years
       of Interpretive Social Science. Joan Scott eds. Princeton: Princeton
       University Press. p. 139-153.
   2005. “Can Liberalism be Communitarian?” in Critical Review Vol.8 no.2.
       p.257-62.

White, Stephen
   1997. “Weak Ontology and Liberal Political Reflection.” in Political
       Theory, Vol. 25, no. 4. p. 502-523.


中文文獻:

Aristotle
   2003. 《倫理學》,苗力田、徐開來譯,台北:昭明。

Berlin, I.
   1986. 《自由論》,胡傳勝譯。上海:譯林出版。
   2003. 《俄國思想家》,彭淮棟譯。上海:譯林出版。
   2004. 《現實意識》,彭淮棟譯。台北:臉譜出版。

Kymlica, Will
   2003. 《當代政治哲學導論》,台北:聯經。

Locke, John
   1997. 《人類理解論》,關文運譯。北京:商務。

Mouffe, Chantal
   2005. 《回歸政治》,孫善豪譯。台北:巨流。

Tamir, Yael
   1995. 《自由主義的民族主義》,陶東風譯,上海:上海世紀出版。

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》,台北:中央研究院社科所,
       頁,39-76。
   2001. 《自由民主的理路》,台北:聯經。

高宣揚
   1991. 《哲學人類學》,台北:遠流。

黃瑞祺
   2002. 《現代與後現代》,台北:巨流。

曾國祥
   2003. 〈論沈戴爾之行動性理論:一個哲學保守主義的重塑〉,《政治與
       社會哲學評論》,第六期,台北:巨流,頁65-113。
   2004a 〈現代性與自由主義的困境:泰勒的觀點〉,台南:成功大學政治
       系,中國政治學會年會暨學術研討會。
   2004b 〈自由主義與政治的侷限〉,《政治與社會哲學評論》,第八期,
       台北:巨流,頁79-120。

錢永祥 
   2001. 《縱慾與虛無之上—現代情境倫理裡的政治理論》,台北:聯經。

蕭高彥
   1998. 〈多元文化與承認政治〉,蕭高彥、蘇文流主編,《多元主義》,
       台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所,頁487-507。
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔