两种公共理性

发布时间：2018-04-04 21:34

  本文选题：启蒙　切入点：公共理性　出处：《浙江大学》2017年博士论文

【摘要】：公共理性是当下自由主义内部盛行的一波思潮,是个充满争议性的理念。那么,到底该如何理解公共理性?它从何而来,又因何而来?争议的焦点是什么?这些构成了本文的考察主题。公共理性的核心关注,是秩序的正当性问题。公共理性作为一个术语,在启蒙时期就已诞生,但内涵不断丰富发展。启蒙终结了神权社会,确立了人的理性的中心地位,进步巨大。同时,神性的褪色带来了世界的规范性脱魅,理性认知的纷争呼唤新的裁断标准,社会需要新的权威和秩序。公共理性的主题就是反思这一秩序构建。本文第二章梳理了启蒙思想家们对公共理性观念的思考。霍布斯最先提出公共理性的概念,用以指称“主权者”的理性,借助绝对主权者的意志来平息纷争;洛克虽未提出公共理性的确切表述,但他认为人类社会应该设立公共的裁判者,赋予其公共权威,以弥补个人理性的不足;卢梭提出了作为“公意”的公共理性,从卢梭的表述来看,公共理性即法律,而法律乃公意之表达,其承载了公共利益和公正价值;康德没有明确提出公共理性的说法,但他强调“理性的公共运用”,该表达的重心在于“理性”,其载体是同质性的、作为抽象的理性存在者的人,相信公开运用理性,秩序终将划一。这些观念对于罗尔斯的公共理性理念影响至深,它糅合了霍布斯的“世俗”、洛克的“宽容”、卢梭的“公意”和康德的“公开”。本文的核心部分,是深入对比分析当前流行的关于公共理性理念的一个最主要的争议。争议双方为:约翰·罗尔斯与杰拉尔德·高斯。高斯是继罗尔斯之后研究公共理性最有影响力的人物,其理论脉络与罗尔斯针锋相对。两种公共理性关注的主题相同,即探究被多元价值信念所深刻分化的公民,如何开展公共辩护。不同的是:罗尔斯的公共理性包含三个层面,公民理性能力、公共理由、公共政治价值,他主张参与特定政治活动的公民,肩负着一种公民性责任,以能够在关于根本政治问题的决策方面,仅参照公共价值和公共标准来为自己的决策行为辩护;高斯将公共理性视为社会系统中个体成员基于内在的理由所认同之物,公共理性秩序的构建是彼此博弈的结果,公共推理相当于一种过程和组织,而不是一种特殊的共同话语,而且,视角、推理和价值多样性本身就是自由和稳定的社会和政治秩序的基础。高斯对罗尔斯的批判不是针对本体论意义上的正义原则的真确性或合理性,而是质疑罗尔斯为正义原则辩护的方法论。显然,双方争论是无果的。与其说政治哲学的使命在于求真理,不如说更在于讲道理。
[Abstract]:Public reason is a current trend of thought in liberalism and a controversial idea.So, how to understand public rationality?Where did it come from and why?What's the point of the controversy?These constitute the theme of this paper.The core concern of public rationality is the legitimacy of order.Public rationality, as a term, was born in the Enlightenment period, but the connotation has been enriched and developed.Enlightenment put an end to theocratic society, established the central position of human rationality, and made great progress.At the same time, the fading of divinity brings the normative disenchantment of the world, the dispute of rational cognition calls for a new standard of adjudication, and the society needs new authority and order.The theme of public rationality is to reflect on the construction of this order.The second chapter of this article combs the enlightenment thinkers to the public rational idea ponder.Hobbes first put forward the concept of public rationality, which is used to refer to the rationality of the "sovereign" and to settle the dispute with the will of the absolute sovereign.However, he thinks that human society should set up public judges and endow them with public authority in order to make up for the deficiency of personal rationality. Rousseau put forward the public rationality as "public will". From Rousseau's expression, public rationality is the law.Law is the expression of public will, which bears the value of public interest and justice. Kant did not clearly put forward the view of public rationality, but he emphasized "the public use of reason", the focus of the expression is "reason", and its carrier is homogeneity.As the existence of abstract reason, people believe that the public use of reason, order will be uniform.These ideas deeply influence Rawls' public rationality, which combines Hobbes' secular, Locke's tolerance, Rousseau's public will and Kant's openness.The core part of this paper is a deep contrast analysis of the current popular concept of public rationality is the most important controversy.The parties to the dispute are John Rawls and Gerald Gao Si.Gao Si is the most influential person studying public rationality after Rawls whose theoretical context is in opposition to Rawls.The two kinds of public rationality concern the same theme, that is, to explore how citizens deeply divided by pluralistic value beliefs, how to conduct public defense.The difference is that Rawls' public rationality consists of three levels: citizen's rational ability, public reason and public political value. He advocates that citizens who participate in specific political activities shoulder a kind of civic responsibility.In order to be able to justify his decision making on fundamental political issues only by reference to public values and public standards; Gao Si regarded public rationality as something recognized by individual members of the social system for internal reasons,The construction of public rational order is the result of game between each other. Public reasoning is equivalent to a process and organization, not a special common discourse.Reasoning and diversity of values are in themselves the foundation of a free and stable social and political order.Gao Si's criticism of Rawls is not aimed at the truth or rationality of the principle of justice in the sense of ontology, but rather questions Rawls' methodology of defending the principle of justice.Obviously, the argument between the two sides was fruitless.The mission of political philosophy is not so much to seek truth as to reason.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D091
，

本文编号：1711760