霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说的差异分析

On Difference between Hobbes and Rousseau's Theory of the State of Nature

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

行政法学院

作者:

刘军

导师:

姚荣茂

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

霍布斯;卢梭;自然状态;差异

摘要:

霍布斯与卢梭都以自然状态学说推演出他们的法哲学思想体系。然而,他们同途而殊归,相似的时代,法哲学理论都以自然状态学说为其基础,却走上理论发展的不同道路。卢梭在近代自然法传统方面没有紧紧追随霍布斯。他们的法哲学理论不同关键在于他们的自然状态学说不同,要对他们自然状态学说的差异做出有力的分析,我们应当从根本上弄清他们的问题意图. 在施特劳斯的解读基础上,本文认为霍布斯所针锋相对的是中古思想,作为现代政治哲学的奠基人霍布斯将政治与道德问题变为技术问题.霍布斯打破了古代先在秩序,用新的自然理念取代古代自然理念,引入自然状态学说为现代政治秩序提供正当性论证。卢梭的主要对话者是霍布斯。霍布斯将政治与道德问题技术化,给自然披上文明的外衣,科学进步而道德衰坏,人的道德问题被忽略,卢梭对霍布斯进行了批判,卢梭试图剥去自然的文明外衣,重新思考公民德性问题。由于霍布斯与卢梭所思考的问题不同,决定了他们自然状态学说及其基础上的法哲学理论的差异。 本文分三部分.第一部分概述一下霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说。内容包括:霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说产生的历史背景,霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说的问题意图,霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说的相同点。一切理论都脱离不了一定的历史语境。因此对他们的自然状态学说产生放在历史语境中考察。理论的发展也是传承的过程,霍布斯与卢梭的自然状态学说有一些相同之处。 第二部分论述霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说的差异,这是本文核心部分。这一部分从伦理基础,公民社会的建构方面来阐述霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说的差异。伦理基础方面主要以霍布斯自然恶与卢梭自然善以及他们的人性基础(即同情、自尊与竞争、猜忌、荣誉)为分析角度。公民社会建构是以自然法及自然状态向公民社会转变(包括社会契约和主权国家的提出)为分析角度.对霍布斯而言,自然状态转向公民社会是强大的利维坦的诞生,是新的法律权利秩序的形成。对卢梭而言,则公意和人民主权理论的形成,是公民道德的回归和道德人的塑造。 第三部分论述霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说差异的理论与现实影响。在理论上,洛克、孟德斯鸠、施密特多少都受到霍布斯的影响,特别是德国法学家施密特深入地吸收、改造了霍布斯的理论。康德、黑格尔的思想一定程度上都受到卢梭的影响。霍布斯的理论对英国政治现实几乎没有影响,带有理论的乌托邦色彩。卢梭的理论对政治现实造成深远影响,影响了法国大革命,特别是影响了革命者和政治理论家罗伯斯庇尔。 本文的结语部分概括、强调了全文主题,指出分析霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说的差异是以霍布斯与卢梭的问题与意图为角度,通过古代近代观念的对比,近代法哲学思想的分歧,彰显二者的差异。霍布斯与卢梭思想的差异仅是时代内部的差异,也就是说是近代思想家之间的差异。在反对中古思想上,他们是一致的。通过分析二者自然状态学说的差异,我们能更清楚地看出西方法哲学史的脉络以及他们自然状态学说的差异所形成的法哲学思想谱系。

学科:

政治学理论

提交日期

2018-01-11

引用参考

刘军. 霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说的差异分析[D]. 西南政法大学,2010.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说的差异分析
  • dc.title
  • On Difference between Hobbes and Rousseau's Theory of the State of Nature
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20070301010054
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 刘军
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2010
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 姚荣茂
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 霍布斯;;卢梭;;自然状态;;差异
  • dc.subject
  • Hobbes;;Rousseau;;The State of Nature;;Difference
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 霍布斯与卢梭都以自然状态学说推演出他们的法哲学思想体系。然而,他们同途而殊归,相似的时代,法哲学理论都以自然状态学说为其基础,却走上理论发展的不同道路。卢梭在近代自然法传统方面没有紧紧追随霍布斯。他们的法哲学理论不同关键在于他们的自然状态学说不同,要对他们自然状态学说的差异做出有力的分析,我们应当从根本上弄清他们的问题意图. 在施特劳斯的解读基础上,本文认为霍布斯所针锋相对的是中古思想,作为现代政治哲学的奠基人霍布斯将政治与道德问题变为技术问题.霍布斯打破了古代先在秩序,用新的自然理念取代古代自然理念,引入自然状态学说为现代政治秩序提供正当性论证。卢梭的主要对话者是霍布斯。霍布斯将政治与道德问题技术化,给自然披上文明的外衣,科学进步而道德衰坏,人的道德问题被忽略,卢梭对霍布斯进行了批判,卢梭试图剥去自然的文明外衣,重新思考公民德性问题。由于霍布斯与卢梭所思考的问题不同,决定了他们自然状态学说及其基础上的法哲学理论的差异。 本文分三部分.第一部分概述一下霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说。内容包括:霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说产生的历史背景,霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说的问题意图,霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说的相同点。一切理论都脱离不了一定的历史语境。因此对他们的自然状态学说产生放在历史语境中考察。理论的发展也是传承的过程,霍布斯与卢梭的自然状态学说有一些相同之处。 第二部分论述霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说的差异,这是本文核心部分。这一部分从伦理基础,公民社会的建构方面来阐述霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说的差异。伦理基础方面主要以霍布斯自然恶与卢梭自然善以及他们的人性基础(即同情、自尊与竞争、猜忌、荣誉)为分析角度。公民社会建构是以自然法及自然状态向公民社会转变(包括社会契约和主权国家的提出)为分析角度.对霍布斯而言,自然状态转向公民社会是强大的利维坦的诞生,是新的法律权利秩序的形成。对卢梭而言,则公意和人民主权理论的形成,是公民道德的回归和道德人的塑造。 第三部分论述霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说差异的理论与现实影响。在理论上,洛克、孟德斯鸠、施密特多少都受到霍布斯的影响,特别是德国法学家施密特深入地吸收、改造了霍布斯的理论。康德、黑格尔的思想一定程度上都受到卢梭的影响。霍布斯的理论对英国政治现实几乎没有影响,带有理论的乌托邦色彩。卢梭的理论对政治现实造成深远影响,影响了法国大革命,特别是影响了革命者和政治理论家罗伯斯庇尔。 本文的结语部分概括、强调了全文主题,指出分析霍布斯与卢梭自然状态学说的差异是以霍布斯与卢梭的问题与意图为角度,通过古代近代观念的对比,近代法哲学思想的分歧,彰显二者的差异。霍布斯与卢梭思想的差异仅是时代内部的差异,也就是说是近代思想家之间的差异。在反对中古思想上,他们是一致的。通过分析二者自然状态学说的差异,我们能更清楚地看出西方法哲学史的脉络以及他们自然状态学说的差异所形成的法哲学思想谱系。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Hobbes and Rousseau use the state of nature to deduce their theory of philosophy of law.However, they go with the passers-by, similar age, the philosophy of law theory in its basic doctrine of the natural state, but it took a different path of theoretical development. In terms of the modern natural law tradition, Rousseau dose not follow Hobbes. Their difference lies in the philosophy of law theory, the natural state of their doctrine is different from the state of nature to them to make a powerful difference between theory analysis, we must fundamentally understand the intention of their problems. Based on Strauss's interpretation, this paper argues that Hobbes is the medieval idea of the tit for tat, as the founder of modern political philosophy, Hobbes changes the political and moral problems into technical problems. Hobbes breaks first in the ancient order, with the new natural philosophy to replace the ancient natural philosophy, and introduce the state of nature theory to provide justification for the modern political order. Rousseau's main interlocutor is Hobbes. Hobbes technifies the political and moral issues, and put on the cloak of civilization to the nature .With scientific progress and moral deterioration , a person's moral issue is ignored.Rousseau was critical of Hobbes. He tried to strip the natural coat of civilization , re-thinking civic virtue question. Beacause of Hobbes and Rousseau’s thinking differently determines that their state of nature theory and the philosophy of law based on it is different. This paper divided into three parts. The first part outlines the state of nature theory of Hobbes and Rousseau.It includes: the historical background of Hobbes and Rousseau’s theory of the state of nature,the intention of Hobbes and Rousseau’s theory of the state of nature, the same point of Hobbes and Rousseau’s theory of the state of nature. All theories are inseparable from a certain historical context,so they are placed in the historical context in the study. As development of the theory is the process of transmission, Hobbes and Rousseau's natural state theory are some similarities. The second part discusses the difference of Hobbes and Rousseau's theory of the state of nature, which is a core part of this article. This section includes the ethical basis and the construction aspects of civil society to articulate the state of nature Hobbes and Rousseau's theory of differences. As for the ethical basis,it mainly analse Hobbes’s argument of nature evail and Rousseau's argument of nature good(ie, compassion, self-esteem and competition, suspicion, honor).On the part of the construction of civil society, it bases on natural law and natural state of transition to civil society (including the social contract and sovereign nation) for the analysis of point of view. As for Hobbes, the natural state of turning civil society is the birth of a powerful Leviathan, and is the new legal right to order. As forRousseau, they are the public will and the formation of the theory of popular sovereignty as well as the return of civic virtue and moral persons to shape. The third part discusses theoretical and practical impact of Hobbes and Rousseau's theory of the state of nature difference. In theory, Locke, Montesquieu, Hobbes Schmidt number are subject to the impact, particularly German jurist Schmitt absorbs and transformates Hobbes’s theory deeply. Kant and Hegel's ideas are subject to, some extent, the impact of Rousseau. Hobbes’s theory almost have no impact to British political reality. Rousseau's theory has far-reaching implication to the political realities, affecting the French Revolution, particularly affecting the revolutionaries, and political theorist Robespierre. The general conclusion of this article summarizes and emphasizes the text of the theme, pointed out that Hobbes and Rousseau’s theory of the state of nature is different for their different intention. Through analyzing the ancient modern concept of contrast, we can see the differences of modern Philosophy of Law. The difference between Hobbes and Rousseau lies in the era of internal difference, which is the difference between the modern thinker. In terms of fighting against medieval ideology, they are consistent. By analyzing the differences between the two theory of the state of nature ,we can see clearly the history of western philosophy of law and method of context as well as the formation of philosophical pedigree of law affected by their theory of natural state differences.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D09
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2010-03-01
回到顶部