【作者】 陈华仔；

【导师】 刘铁芳；

【作者基本信息】 湖南师范大学 ， 高等教育学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 “好人”与“好公民”的冲突与和解是人类面对自身生存所必须思考的核心问题,当我们脱离原始状态而成为“社会的动物”或“政治的动物”之时,这一问题便如影随形。因为,人们,特别是那些伟大的天才们深刻地认识到,作为有理智的人类,人们往往首先筹划和关心的是自身灵魂的健康和完善,并努力使自己成为“最好的人”；但另一方面,人只能生活在“社会之中”,“人是政治的动物”(亚里士多德),虽然作为个体的人而言有可能孤独的生活,但作为人类整体,我们无法也不愿意脱离社会而生活。因而,为了整个人类的生存和幸福,又需要我们献身于他人,尤其是政治共同体的公民同胞。那么,这两方面究竟是什么关系?孰先孰后呢?其最终指向的是这样一个问题：人类应如何恰当地处理两者之间的位序,才能最大程度的对人类有益?西方古典理性主义哲学对这一问题的思考首先基于以下认识：哲学生活——它要求无情地追问、求索道德智慧——可以或应该以何种方式超越(尽管同时在引导)政治生活和道德生活,对于古典政治哲学来说本就是一个最重要、最微妙的问题。苏格拉底的“转向”是古典理性主义哲学对这一问题所作出的最有力,也最具智慧的回应。它一方面通过论述哲学与政治之间,或者说“好人”与“好公民”的德性之间所存在的差异和冲突,强调了两者之间的冲突所可能导致的对双方的不良后果；另一方面,它又通过对城邦政治和大众日常生活的关注,使我们注意到了哲学与道德卓越或公民美德之间复杂、紧张甚或有些水火不容的关系的另一面。这种和解性的可能,来源于哲人对自身公民责任的自觉,来源于他们对哲学可能性的思考。因而,作为政治哲人的苏格拉底及其继承者,他们的使命就转变为：在政治共同体的法庭面前为哲学辩护,并且是基于政治共同体来为哲学辩护。现代哲学的启蒙,来源于16、17世纪的那些哲人,他们试图对“好人”的德性与“好公民”的德性之间的关系进行一种完全新异的解释,这种解释基于这样的信念：他们宣称要克服或回避那些支配古典理性主义哲学的张力、问题以及尚未解决的矛盾。为了实现这一目标,整体而言,现代哲人在两方面作出了改变：一方面,把传统理性主义哲学中哲学的或神学的一维视为“虚幻的东西”或者“理想主义”,使之从政治生活中抽离出来,并加以排斥,这就是所谓的“政治的祛魅”。这种“祛魅”看似把哲学或神学从“属人的智慧”抬高到了“神的智慧”,却在事实上人为的割裂了它们与政治、与人类生活的关系。这样,热爱或追求真理被视为是为了满足其他更自然或更深层的需求和激情,成为纯粹个人的事情,与政治完全无关。而社会或政治也不再被认为指向自身之外,从而失去了超越自身的可能性。另一方面,现代哲人从对人性中永恒与必然的东西的洞察出发,在“现实主义”的路径上重新理解和构建政治生活,从而在根本上改变了政治的属性,他们始终秉承着这样一个承诺：受到启蒙的大众一旦在新原则下得到培育,将会在那些原则及其所引导的生活中找到和平的共识和冷静的满足。卢梭在欧洲启蒙运动的中心——法国——和启蒙运动最高潮的时代——18世纪——最早对启蒙哲学发出了强烈质疑,因而,他不可避免被人看成是“怪物”、“厌世者”。但不可否认,卢梭确实清醒而深刻地认识到了现代政治哲学所可能导致的弊端和不良后果,这种后果可以用一句话概括就是：人的品性和政治品性的下降,而且这两者之间的恶性循环,最终将导致的是人类智识的完全毁灭。从这一视域出发,卢梭提出自然教育的思想,他试图把通过个体天性的完满发展所带来的理智成熟的人类,与基于此基础上的自由民主政治联系起来,从而为人类及其政治德性开启一种上升的可能性。但对古典理性主义哲学熟稔于心的卢梭也深刻地认识到,他所建构的“好人”与“好公民”德性的和解甚至同一,并不是一个现实的实行方案,而是“心智之眼”所持的一个标准。基于此标准,我们就能衡量和批评既存政治,并使之注意到自身的种种局限。因此,卢梭的自然教育思想本质上“是言而非行”,这也正是他始终审慎的注意区分不同对象,从而给一般人感觉模糊、矛盾的关键所在。更多还原

【Abstract】 The conflicts and reconciliation between "good man" and "good citizen" is a crucial question for consideration faced by the human race, when he moved from the primitive state to the so called "societal animals" and "political animals". As a race with intellect, people, especially those great geniuses are deeply aware of their deep care and concern for their perfection and health of their souls, and make great efforts to become "the best man"; meanwhile, man can only live "in association with others","Men are political animals," as asserted by Aristotle. As individuals, man can live alone, but as a whole, man cannot live from isolating himself from the society. Thus, for the existence and welfare of the whole human being, we need to devote ourselves to others, especially those of our compatriots and citizens in the same political community. Then what is the relationship between the two? Which comes first? In the final analysis, it points to this:How can man deal with the order or hierarchy between the two to benefit most for him?Western classical rationalist philosophy based its thinking on the ground that philosophical life, as a relentless questioning and quest for moral wisdom, can or should somehow transcend (not to say guide) political and moral life. This in reality is the most crucial and the most subtle question for classical political philosophy. The "Socratic turn" of philosophy is the most forceful and wisest response ever made to this question. On the one hand, through elaborating the difference and conflicts between philosophy and politics, or rather, between "good man" and "good citizen", it bring to light the possible bad results stemming from those conflicts; on the other hand, it draws our attention to the lives in the city and among the citizens and lays bare the complexities and irreconcilable tension between philosophical or moral virtue and civil virtue. The possibility of reconciliation may find its origin in the philosopher’s self-awareness of his civil obligation and his thinking of the possibility of philosophizing. Hence the mission of Socrates and his successors as political philosophers thus turns to be the apology or defense on behalf of philosophy against the tribunal of the political community and for the political community.The enlightenment of modern philosophy, originated from those philosophers in the16th and17th century, attempted to invent a whole new interpretation on the relationship between the virtues of "good man" and "good citizen". This new thinking was based on the belief:they asserted that they can overcome or avoid those tensions, problems and contradictions that dominated the classical rationalism. To achieve this goal, generally speaking, modern philosophers transform in two aspects: first, they take the rejected the philosophical or theological dimension in the traditional rationalism as "visionary" or "idealism", and separated it, which is the so-called "political disenchantment". This disenchantment seems to have elevated philosophy or theology from "human wisdom" to "divine wisdom", but in effect have rent philosophy and theology, politics and human life into pieces. As a result, the love or pursuit of the truth is taken for the gratification of some other more natural or deeper needs and enthusiasms, and becomes purely personal and has nothing to do with the political. Society or politics is no longer viewed as pointing to things other than oneself, and hence the possibility of transcending oneself is lost. Second, starting from insight into the eternity and necessity in the human nature, they "realistically" interpret anew and re-construct the political life, and thus changed the nature of politics. They have faith in such a promise:if the enlightened masses are nurtured under this new principle, they will find a life of peaceful consensus and calm satisfaction under the guidance of the new principles.Rousseau, in France, the center of Enlightenment Movement in Europe, in its climax, was the first to launch an attack on the enlightenment philosophy, so he was viewed as a "monster" and "pessimist". But undeniably, he indeed realized clearly and profoundly the detriments and negative consequences of modern political philosophy, which can be summarized as follow:the degrading of the character or taste of man and politics and the vicious circle between the two will result in the total destruction of human intellects. Starting from this insight, Rousseau proposed his ideas of natural education. He tried to bridge the gap between the intellectually mature human beings, the product of the fully developed individuals from their natural aptitude, and the liberal democracy in politics based on the intellectually mature human beings, to pave the way for the possibility of the exaltation of human race and its political virtue. As he was acquainted with the classical rationalist philosophy, knew deep in his heart that the reconciliation or even identity between the virtues of "good man" and "good citizen" may not be a realistic solution, it may only be a criterion for the "soul’s eye". This criterion is for the measurement and criticism of the existing politics, and brings its limitations to the fore. So to speak, Rousseau’s natural education is essentially only "in speech" but not "in deed". This explains why he gives the impression of being ambiguous and contradictory, as he always deliberately pay much attention to the distinction of different objects.更多还原