(44.192.112.123) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/04 05:01
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:鍾友全
研究生(外文):Yu-Chuan Chung
論文名稱:謹思慎行的改革抱負:大衛‧休謨對不列顛黨派的看法
論文名稱(外文):Aspiration for Reformation with Deliberation: David Hume on British Parties
指導教授:楊肅献楊肅献引用關係
指導教授(外文):Su-Hsien Yang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:歷史學研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:歷史學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2010
畢業學年度:98
語文別:中文
論文頁數:107
中文關鍵詞:休謨黨派經驗主義習慣信念懷疑主義保守主義
外文關鍵詞:HumePartyEmpiricismCustomBeliefSkepticismConservatism
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:231
  • 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:1
大衛‧休謨(David Hume,1711-1776)對不列顛的黨爭現象關注甚深,並以其經驗主義與懷疑主義哲學思想參與黨派論戰,平議黨派的政治原則,試圖塑造溫和折衷的共識,化解黨爭中的激烈敵對和偏執。在他人性科學中的心靈運作機制裡,理性只是觀念的連結關係,只有激情才會影響意志導致行動;信念來自習慣,是人們據以行動的理由。心靈運作機制的分析在社會與政治上的意義在於指出如何使其正常運作以服務於人類生存所必需的利益。休謨將這套理論應用在黨派問題的分析上。在他的黨派分類中,最爲重要的是在政治原則和擁護王室上有著對立立場的黨派。黨派問題起於不列顛融和君主制和共和制因素的體制,保王的朝廷黨和反王的在野黨的衍生是必然結果;在排除法案危機中誕生托利黨和輝格黨各有前後兩者的性質,但又加入了對特定王室效忠的因素,經歷光榮革命的衝擊可以看出,主導托利黨的特質是對斯圖亞特王室的愛戴,主導輝格黨的特質是對自由的嚮往。在黨派政治原則的論戰中,休謨最爲關切的是政府的本質、憲政體制的權力分配與王位繼承問題三者。在政府的本質上他反對托利黨的君權神授說以及輝格黨的契約論,主張政府的職務是爲了服務於保障社會必需的正義規則;絕大多數的政府都不是起於人民自願同意的契約,而是誕生於社群間戰爭的需求,透過篡奪和征服而建立,臣民因習慣而臣服,人民不能僭稱所謂主權在民而任意反對政府。在憲政體制的權力分配上他主張遠古憲法之說只是侵奪國王權力的藉口,於史無據;光榮革命後形成的混合政府是最佳體制,而憲政運作上在野黨攻擊的腐化是維繫國王權威的必要手段。在王位繼承問題上考慮到斯圖亞特王室的天主教信仰以及漢諾威王室已確立穩固統治,休謨主張應當擁戴漢諾威王室。對特定王室的效忠在休謨眼中只是無謂的偏執;政府只要能保障秩序的穩固和正義規則的施行即具有正當性。這些立場顯示他在政治光譜中的位置應當是漢諾威體制的辯護士。休謨認爲黨派間的衝突根源在於基督教迫害精神的遺毒,因而他的批判也涉及更深層的文化危機,即扭曲了人類心靈運作機制正常運作的宗教現象。休謨的改革良方在於他和緩而務實的懷疑主義,這種懷疑主義質疑人類憑藉先驗理性建構制度的能力,認爲制度的價值與有效性只能由經驗與時間進行檢驗和確認,因此改革只能是在經驗摸索中溫和漸進地根據習慣修改人民的政治信念;他的保守主義立場正來自對於人類是經驗與習慣的產物的深刻洞察。

David Hume (1711-1776) deeply concerned struggles of parties in Britain, participating in the debate with his empiricism and skepticism, and trying to comment principles of parties, forming moderate and eclectic consensus, reconciling intensive antagonism and bigotry between parties. His primary motive to write The History of England was to retrospect the phenomena of parties. In the mechanism of mind of Hume’s science of human nature, reason is nothing but the association of ideas, only passions would stimulate volition and bring about action, and belief which comes from custom is the reason why people act. The importance of the analysis of mechanism of mind is to point out how to let it work regularly in order to serve the interest of human beings. Hume applied this theory into the analysis of parties. In his classification, the most crucial ones are the parties hostile in political principles and affection to royal families. The controversy of parties originates in the institution of Britain which merged monarchial and republican ingredients which necessarily derives royalist court party and anti-monarchy country party; the Tory and Whig party which originated in the Exclusion Crisis had above-mentioned ingredients and appended affection to particular royal families; the clash of Glorious Revolution shows that the ruling ingredient of Tory party is affection to House of Stuart and that of Whig party is the aspiration for liberty. In the debate of political principles, Hume concerned the essential of government, the distribution of power within constitution and the succession mostly. About the essential of government, Hume maintains that the office of government is to serve to protect the rules of justice necessary to society; most governments originate not in the consent of people but wars between societies, which were built through conquest and usurpation, and attain subjects’ attachment through custom, hence people can’t presume sovereignty in people to overthrow them. About the distribution of power within constitution he maintain that the ancient constitution is nothing but a excuse to deprive the king of his power without historical foundation; the mixed government after the Glorious Revolution is the best constitution, the corruption attacked by the country party is necessary means to hold the authority of kings. About succession he considers Catholicism of House of Stuart and de facto settlement of Hannover family hence declares to support the latter; affection to particular royal family is only meaningless bigotry in his view, if only a government protects the rules of justice, it has legitimacy. This shows that Hume’s stance in politics is an apologist of Hanoverian establishment. Hume thought the opposition between parties comes from the persecution milieu of Christianity, hence his criticism extend to cultural crisis, namely the phenomena of religion which distort regular function of mechanism of mind. Hume’ prescription is his mitigated and practical skepticism which questions a prior ability to construct institutions, and he holds that the efficacy can only be affirmed and tested through time and experience, hence reformation could only be based on experience and tests, slowly adjustment alongside custom in order to change political belief. His conservatism just comes from his insight that human beings are the product of experience and custom.

口試委員審定書………………i
謝辭………....................... ii-iii
中文摘要……………iv
英文摘要…………v-vi
目錄…………vii-viii
緒論……………….1
第一章 人性:經驗與習慣…………5
  一、自然法、社會與人性………………5
    (一)蘇格蘭啟蒙運動的社會學轉向…….5
    (二)自然法與人性…………….6
    (三)經驗主義的觀察與實驗方法…………7
  二、心靈、行動與習慣………8
    (一)心靈運作的機制………........8
    (二)激情與利益……………………11
    (三)習慣與信念………………………12
第二章 不列顛黨派的形成:休謨的觀察………………….15
  一、人性與歷史………………………15
  二、黨派的性質………………………17
    (一)黨派系統…………………………..17
    (二)黨派與政府體制……………………….18
    (三)黨派的類型………………………21
  三、不列顛黨派的起源與流變……………………….22
    (一)從排除法案危機到詹姆士二世即位……………..…22
    (二)從詹姆士二世即位到光榮革命………………27
    (三)光榮革命的衝擊……………………….32
  四、歷史書寫的政治意涵……………………….38
第三章 政治行動的展開…………………….42
  一、改革的抱負………………………42
  二、政府的本質………………………44
    (一)社會形成與正義規則…………………….…44
    (二)契約的性質………………………46
    (三)政府的職務………………………48
    (四)政府的起源與效忠的限度……………….50
    (五)休謨的批評………………………55
  三、繼承問題…………………………..60
    (一)統治者轉移的原則…………………..60
    (二)不列顛的繼承問題…………………..62
  四、憲政體制…………………………66
    (一)混合政府的共識………….……………66
    (二)朝野黨派的立場……………………….67
    (三)休謨的看法………………………68
  五、政治立場…………………………..75
第四章 政治改革的視野…………………….82
  一、迷信與狂熱………………………82
  二、哲學的良方………………………88
  三、信念與行動………………………93
結論………………………………99
參考書目………………………………102

史料
Greig, J. Y. T. eds. The letters of David Hume. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932.
Hume, David. “My own life.” In Ernest Campbell Mossner, The life of David Hume. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980, pp.611-5.
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge, 2nd ed., P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
Hume, David. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, ed. Tom L. Beauchamp. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000.
Hume, David. The history of England: from the invasion of Julius Caesar to the revolution in 1688, ed. William B. Todd. Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1983.
Klibansky, Raymond and Ernest Campbell Mossner eds. New letters of David Hume. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954.
Mossner, Ernest Campbell and Ian Simpson Ross eds. The Correspondence of Adam Smith. New York, Oxford University Press. 1977.
Haakonsen, Knud ed. David Hume: Political Essays. Cambridge University Press, 1994.北京:中國政法大學出版社,2003。
休謨著,肖律譯,《休謨散文集》。北京:中國社會科學院,2006。

論文
Britton, Karl. “Hume on some non-natural distinctions.” In G. P. Morice eds., David Hume: Bicentenary Papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1977, pp.205-9.
Buckle, Stephen and Dario Castiglione, “Hume’s critique of the contract theory.” In History of Political Thought, 12:3 (1991), pp.457-80.
Capaldi, N. “Hume as social scientist.” In Stanley Tweyman eds., David Hume: critical assessments Vol.6. London: Routledge, 1995, pp.3-23
Clark, J. C. D. “A general theory of party, opposition and government.” In The Historical Journal, 21:2 (1980), pp.295-325.
Conniff, James. “Hume on Political Parties: The Case for Hume as a Whig.” In Eighteenth-Century Studies, 12:2 (1978-9), pp.150-73.
Dickinson, H. T. “The British constitution.” In H. T. Dickinson eds., A companion to eighteenth-century Britain. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002, pp.3-18.
Fania Oz-Salizberger. “The Political theory of the Scottish Enlightenment.” In Alexander Brodie eds., The Cambridge Companion to Scottish Enlightenment. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p.157-77.
Forbes, Duncan. “Hume’s science of politics.” In G. P. Morice eds., David Hume: bicentenary papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1977, pp.39-50.
Gorman, Michael M. “Hume’s theory of belief.” In Hume Studies, 19:1 (1993), pp.89-102.
Hayek, Frederick A. “Kinds of rationalism.” In Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967, pp.82-95.
Hayek, Frederick A. “The errors of Constructivism.” in New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978, pp.3-22.
Hayek, Frederick A. “The legal and political philosophy of David Hume.” In Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978, pp.106-121.
Hayek, Frederick A. “The results of human action but not of human design.” In Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967, pp.96-105.
Kalinowski, Franklin A. “David Hume on the philosophic underpinnings of interest group politics,” in Polity, 25:3 (1993), pp.355-74.
Livingston, Donald W. “On Hume’s conservatism.” In Hume Studies, 21:2 (1995), 151-64.
Marshall, Geoffrey. “David Hume and political skepticism.” In The Philosophical Quarterly, 4:16 (1954), pp.247-57.
Mossner, Ernest Campbell. “Was Hume a Tory Historian? Facts and reconsiderations.” In Journal of the History of Ideas, 2:2 (1941), pp.225-36.
Norton, David Fate. “Hume, human nature, and the foundations of morality.” In David Fate Norton eds., The Cambridge companion to Hume. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp.148-81.
Norton, David Fate. “Introduction to Hume’s thought.” In David Fate Norton eds., The Cambridge companion to Hume. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp.1-32.
Phillipson, Nicholas. “Propriety, property and prudence: David Hume and the defence of the Revolution.” in Nicholas Phillipson and Quentin Skinner eds., Political discourse in early modern Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp.302-20.
Phillipson, Nicholas. “The Scottish Enlightenment.” In Roy Porter and Mikulás̆ Teich eds., The Enlightenment in national context. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981, pp.19-40.
Robertson, John. “The Scottish contribution to the Enlightenment.” In Paul Wood eds., The Scottish enlightenment: essays in reinterpretation. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2000, pp.37-62.
Skinner, Andre S. “introduction.” In Andre S. Skinner eds., The origins and nature of the Scottish Enlightenment. Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers, 2003, pp.1-6.
Tuck, Richard. “The ‘modern’ theory of natural law.” In Anthony Pagden eds., The languages of political theory in early-modern Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp.99-119.
Wennerlind, Carl. “David Hume’s political philosophy.” In Hume Studies, 28:2 (2002), pp.246-70.
Wertz, S. K. “Hume, history and human nature.” in Donald W. Livingston and Marie Martin eds., Hume as philosopher of society, politics and history. New York: University of Rochester Press, 1991, pp.77-92.
Whelan, Frederick G. “Hume and Contractarianism.” In Polity, 27:2 (1994), pp.201-224.
William, Robert. “The origins of ‘Whig’ and ‘Tory’ in English political language.” In The Historical Journal, 17:2 (1974), pp.247-264.
Wolin, Sheldon S. “Hume and conservatism.” In Donald W. Livingston & James T. King eds., Hume: a re-evaluation. New York: Fordham University Press, 1976, pp.239-56.
楊肅獻,〈柏克思想與英格蘭啟蒙運動〉,《台大歷史學報》42。台北:台灣大學歷史系,2008。
專書
Dickinson, H. T. Liberty and property. New York: Homes & Meier Publisher, 1977.
Forbes, Duncan. Hume’s philosophical politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
Haakonsen, Knud. Natural law and moral philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Herman, Arthur. How the Scots invented the modern world. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2001.
Hirschman, Albert O. The passions and the interests. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1977.
Jones, J. R. Country and court. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Miller, David. Philosophy and ideology in Hume’s political thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.
Mossner, Ernest Campbell. The life of David Hume. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.
Rommen, Heinrich A. The natural law: a study in legal and social history and philosophy. Translated by Thomas R. Hanley. St. Louis: B. Herder Book, 1959.
Speck, W. A. Stability and strife. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977.
Stewart, J. B. Opinion and reform in Hume’s political philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

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