老子政治哲學的現代詮釋

NCUIR > College of Liberal Arts at National Central University > Executive Master of Philosophy > Electronic Thesis & Dissertation > Item 987654321/60790

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/60790

Title:	老子政治哲學的現代詮釋
Authors:	王漢哲;Stamatov,Aleksandar
Contributors:	哲學研究所在職專班
Keywords:	老子;政治哲學;無為;無政府主義;烏托邦;自然狀態;Laozi;political philosophy;wuwei;anarcism;utopia;state of nature
Date:	2013-07-29
Issue Date:	2013-08-22 12:02:54 (UTC+8)
Publisher:	國立中央大學
Abstract:	十九世紀末至二十世紀初期，正當西方開始孰悉老子哲學思想，而東方開始孰悉西方的現代政治學說時，一種較常見的主張認為老子政治哲學思想是一種無政府主義的學說。此因，有人將「無為」的概念錯誤理解為統治者什麼都不做。今日此種看法似乎普通，甚至幾乎所有當代政治哲學教科書，也提到老子與無政府主義可能的關係，而成為一般人對老子的普及理解，似乎已是毫無疑問的事實。不過，在學術文獻中，我們可以看到，老子政治思想是否是無政府主義學說，意見不一。本文要試圖挑戰那些主張對老子政治思想無政府主義詮釋的學者，而試圖給予對老子可接受的非無政府主義的解讀。為了做出以上的工作，我先承認老子政治思想具深刻形上基礎，此為對老子哲學思想普通理解，而此形上基礎在討論與詮釋老子政治思想時有貢獻。由此，本文首先要討論老子形上思想，即道、無、有、德這些概念，以及對道領會的問題。其次，討論由此形上基礎浮現的實踐哲學，包含「自然」與「無為」的概念，及給予對無為的積極解釋。第三，探討老子政治思想，即老子對治國的看法及老子對統治者的建議，說明聖人要模仿或順著由道來的自然原則，以便建立合於道的標準之國。接者，本文要給予老子政治思想非無政府主義的詮釋。在此過稱中，我要討論至今最詳盡的無政府主義詮釋論證，並試圖找出這些論證可能出現的錯誤或破落。老子承認統治者與國家存在的事實，並非是一個具強烈說服力的論證去說明老子不是無政府主義者，因為無政府主義本身不見得否定統治者與國家。但問題是老子承認等級制度，而此正是無政府主義想要排除的東西。且本文說明，老子政治思想與無政府主義之間理論上與概念上的差異。由前者而言，老子哲學思想給予詳盡闡述的形上思想，特別是存有論，反之無政府主義缺乏這種討論。由後者而言，老子政治思想最重要的概念是無為，而西方政治哲學，含無政府主義，皆仍在有為而治的意識中。最後，雖老子在第八十章中所描繪的「小國寡民」裡看不見政權，但如將它置於全文語境中做考量，其他有關政權文本的章句，可應用於這個「理想國」，而排斥對它作為無政府主義的詮釋。並，如果接受老子在第八十章中描寫了一種自然狀態的看法，可見此種自然狀態與西方哲學家的自然狀態的不同，在於後者是前–政治的狀態，但老子的則有合法政權。 Ever since the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, when the West began to be familiar with the Laozi, and the East with modern Western political theories, we have frequently heard the claim that the political philosophy of the Laozi is a kind of anarchist theory. The reason for this claim is that some would wrongly interpret the Laozi’s concept of wuwei as meaning that the ruler should do absolutely nothing. This view today is almost common. Nearly every textbook on contemporary political philosophy hastens to mention that the Laozi is one of the first works which propounded anarchism, and this has become a popular understanding of the Laozi among the common people and an unquestionable fact. However, we can see in academic literature that there are disagreements on whether the political philosophy of the Laozi is an anarchist theory or not. This dissertation will try to challenge those who offer the anarchist interpretation and will also attempt to give an acceptable non-anarchist interpretation of the political philosophy of the Laozi. In order to accomplish the above task I will first acknowledge that the political philosophy of the Laozi has a deep metaphysical basis, which is a common understanding of the philosophy of the Laozi, and when we discuss or interpret the political philosophy of the Laozi this metaphysical basis has a contribution to make. Thus, this dissertation will first discuss the metaphysical thought of the Laozi, e.g., the concepts of the dao (the way), wu (nothingness), you (being), de (the virtue) etc., and the problems of grasping the dao. Secondly, it will discuss the practical philosophy that emerges from this metaphysical basis, including the concepts of ziran (naturalness, self-so) and wuwei (non-action, having-no-action), and it will also offer a positive account of the concept of wuwei. Thirdly, it will present the political philosophy of the Laozi including the view of the Laozi on ruling the state and its advice to the rulers, and it will show that the role of the sage is to imitate or follow the natural principle that comes from the dao so that the state the sage-ruler establishes is in accordance with the standard of the dao. Next, this dissertation will provide a non-anarchist interpretation of the political philosophy of the Laozi. At this point, I will present the most elaborate arguments for the anarchist interpretation so far, and I will try to find out their possible mistakes and gaps. It should also be known that the fact that the Laozi recognizes the existence of the ruler and the state is still not a convincing enough argument for some that it does not propound anarchism, because anarchism itself does not necessarily negate them. However, I will also show that the Laozi recognizes central and hierarchical political authority, and this is the very thing that anarchism wants to eliminate. Moreover, this dissertation stresses the theoretical and principal differences between the Laozi and anarchism. The former is that the philosophy of the Laozi has an elaborate metaphysical thought, especially ontology, while anarchism does not. The latter is that according to the political philosophy of the Laozi the ruler’s main principle of action is wuwei (having-no-action), while for Western political philosophies including anarchism, the opposite principle of youwei (having-action) is the key. At the end, in Chapter 80 of the Laozi there is a description of a “small country with few people” and we cannot see the political authority in it yet if we place it in the context of the whole text, other chapters concerning political authority can be used to eliminate the anarchist interpretation of this “ideal state”. Moreover, if we allow that Chapter 80 of the Laozi depicts a kind of state of nature, we can see that it is different from the one imagined by the Western philosophers in that the latter is a pre-political state, whereas the state of nature of the Laozi has a legitimate political authority.
Appears in Collections:	[Executive Master of Philosophy] Electronic Thesis & Dissertation

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	1899	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...