现代性的困境与卢梭的意图
|
摘要
卢梭认为,霍布斯的自然权利论存在着无法克服的内在困境,这一困境导致了现代性的困境,即自由政体的困境。为了化解这一困境,卢梭本可以从德性出发,在古典政治哲学的层次上批判现代自然权利论,但他对自然和自由的教条主义理解促使他重新把霍布斯的自然状态当作思考的起点,选择在现代自然科学的地基上创建自己的学说,从古典政治哲学的阵营回到现代政治哲学的阵营。卢梭从霍布斯的前提出发,彻底改造了"自然状态"概念的实质意涵,这不仅没有化解现代性的内在困境,反而使现代性离理性精神越来越远,从而更加激进地推进了现代性。
Rousseau believed that Hobbes' s teachings of Natural Rights had an unsolvable problem, which led to the dilemma of the modernity, namely, the dilemma of free government. In order to solve this problem, Rousseau should have started from the view of virtue, criticizing the modern natural rights, but his dogma about the nature and freedom prompted him to take Hobbes' the state of nature as the starting point of thinking, and to choose to establish his own theory on the basis of modern natural science, which means that Rousseau changed his standing from the classic political philosophy to the modern one. Starting from Hobbes' prerequisite, Rousseau completely changed the essential implication of the "state of nature." This, far from resolving the inherent dilemma of modernity, pushed instead modernity further and further away from rational spirit, hence promoting modernity in a more radical way.
Rousseau believed that Hobbes' s teachings of Natural Rights had an unsolvable problem, which led to the dilemma of the modernity, namely, the dilemma of free government. In order to solve this problem, Rousseau should have started from the view of virtue, criticizing the modern natural rights, but his dogma about the nature and freedom prompted him to take Hobbes' the state of nature as the starting point of thinking, and to choose to establish his own theory on the basis of modern natural science, which means that Rousseau changed his standing from the classic political philosophy to the modern one. Starting from Hobbes' prerequisite, Rousseau completely changed the essential implication of the "state of nature." This, far from resolving the inherent dilemma of modernity, pushed instead modernity further and further away from rational spirit, hence promoting modernity in a more radical way.
引文
[1]卡西勒.卢梭问题[M].王春华,译.南京:译林出版社,2009.
[2]李明坤.霍布斯与现代政治哲学的问题[J].学术月刊,2015,47(12):107.
[3]施特劳斯.自然权利与历史[M].彭刚,译.北京:三联书店,2006.
[4]施特劳斯.论卢梭的意图[A]//苏格拉底问题与现代性.冯克利,译.北京:华夏出版社,2008:69.
[5]卢梭.致博蒙书[M].吴雅凌,译.北京:华夏出版社,2014:30-31.
[6]霍布斯.论公民[M].应星,冯克利,译.贵阳:贵州人民出版社,2003.
[7]洛克.政府论:上[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳,译.北京:商务印书馆,2013:74.
[8]施特劳斯.什么是政治哲学?[A]//什么是政治哲学.李世祥,译.北京:华夏出版社,2001:41.
[9]奥克肖特.《利维坦》导读[A]//现代性与自然.应星,译.上海:上海人民出版社,2003:230.
[10]霍布斯.利维坦[M].黎思复,黎廷弼,译.北京:商务印书馆,2015:92-97.
[11]卢梭.卢梭全集:第5卷[M].李平沤,译.北京:商务印书馆,2013:482.
[12]方博.自由、公意与社会契约[J].哲学研究,2017:108.
[13]刘小枫.设计共和[M].北京:华夏出版社,2013:8.
[14]卢梭.论科学与艺术[M].何兆武,译.上海:世纪出版集团,2007.
[15]卢梭.论人与人之间不平等的起因和基础[M].李平沤,译.北京:商务印书馆,2015.
[16]普拉特纳.卢梭的自然状态[M].尚新建,余灵灵,译.北京:华夏出版社,2008:10.
[17]亚里士多德.政治学[M].吴寿彭,译.北京:商务印书馆,1983:14-15.
[18]亚里士多德.尼各马可伦理学[M].廖申白,译.北京:商务印书馆,2014:47-48.
[19]卢梭.社会契约论[M].何兆武,译.北京:商务印书馆,2014.
[20]GROTIUS H.The rights of war and peace[M].Indianapolis,Liberty Fund,Inc,2005:79-80.
[21]卢梭.卢梭全集:第3卷[M].李平沤,译.北京:商务印书馆,2016:105-106.
[2]李明坤.霍布斯与现代政治哲学的问题[J].学术月刊,2015,47(12):107.
[3]施特劳斯.自然权利与历史[M].彭刚,译.北京:三联书店,2006.
[4]施特劳斯.论卢梭的意图[A]//苏格拉底问题与现代性.冯克利,译.北京:华夏出版社,2008:69.
[5]卢梭.致博蒙书[M].吴雅凌,译.北京:华夏出版社,2014:30-31.
[6]霍布斯.论公民[M].应星,冯克利,译.贵阳:贵州人民出版社,2003.
[7]洛克.政府论:上[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳,译.北京:商务印书馆,2013:74.
[8]施特劳斯.什么是政治哲学?[A]//什么是政治哲学.李世祥,译.北京:华夏出版社,2001:41.
[9]奥克肖特.《利维坦》导读[A]//现代性与自然.应星,译.上海:上海人民出版社,2003:230.
[10]霍布斯.利维坦[M].黎思复,黎廷弼,译.北京:商务印书馆,2015:92-97.
[11]卢梭.卢梭全集:第5卷[M].李平沤,译.北京:商务印书馆,2013:482.
[12]方博.自由、公意与社会契约[J].哲学研究,2017:108.
[13]刘小枫.设计共和[M].北京:华夏出版社,2013:8.
[14]卢梭.论科学与艺术[M].何兆武,译.上海:世纪出版集团,2007.
[15]卢梭.论人与人之间不平等的起因和基础[M].李平沤,译.北京:商务印书馆,2015.
[16]普拉特纳.卢梭的自然状态[M].尚新建,余灵灵,译.北京:华夏出版社,2008:10.
[17]亚里士多德.政治学[M].吴寿彭,译.北京:商务印书馆,1983:14-15.
[18]亚里士多德.尼各马可伦理学[M].廖申白,译.北京:商务印书馆,2014:47-48.
[19]卢梭.社会契约论[M].何兆武,译.北京:商务印书馆,2014.
[20]GROTIUS H.The rights of war and peace[M].Indianapolis,Liberty Fund,Inc,2005:79-80.
[21]卢梭.卢梭全集:第3卷[M].李平沤,译.北京:商务印书馆,2016:105-106.