【作者】 刁小行；

【导师】 张国清；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 外国哲学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 当代政治哲学家关注的主要问题,是在坚持基本人权以及平等、自由、宽容、多元主义和正义这些古典自由主义价值的同时,如何找到一种方式,将文化与共同体的共享意义的完整性与多元性给予严肃的探讨。这也是自由主义——社群主义之辩的实质问题。沃尔泽认为,可以通过他所说的社会善的共享理解来实现。共享理解意味着共同体的观念以及自由、正义等其他重要道德观念,是产生并内在的镶嵌于特定的文化及其历史发展之中的。它们并非与某种普遍的人性、自然法或从特定文化中抽象出来的普遍原则相联系。这些共享理解适用于它所产生的文化世界,但并不一定适用于其他的文化世界,除非是以某种最小主义的或稀薄的方式进行适用。他认为,特定的文化价值对表达它们的人们而言,不是次要的而是本质性的。美国当代政治学家迈克尔·沃尔泽拥有一种惊人的跨学科的研究能力,包括社会学、哲学、历史学、伦理学与宗教研究等。他并非传统意义上的政治哲学家。他并不像某些政治哲学家那样,首先提出关于正义的抽象标准或关于好生活的抽象理念,然后再将它们运用于人类共同体之中。相反,他首先考察人类在其共同体之中发展和做出道德决断的丰富多样的方式,然后再根据历史与社会的现实,形成自己的理论关注。沃尔泽的研究领域也很独特,几乎涉及了政治哲学的所有重要领域,包括清教徒的革命、战争伦理、分配正义、复合平等、政治宽容、文化多元主义、公民社会和犹太政治传统等。他认为,政治哲学家的任务是作为社会的批评者去行动,帮助人们形成关于已知事物的更为清晰的观念；是解释特定共同体的共享理解而不是去发现或创造道德原则。沃尔泽同时也是美国最重要的公共知识分子之一,他担任美国左翼杂志《异议》的编辑工作五十余年,他也经常参与美国重大的政治运动和公共辩论。可以说,沃尔泽是一位亲近美国左翼的理论家和活动家,这一点对其思想也产生了重要影响。本文主要采用历史主义的方法对沃尔泽的论著进行解释和研究,这种方法将沃尔泽定位在特定的历史情境中,这样做可以更为清晰的解释和理解他的整个思想。在分析哲学传统之下,很多学者将沃尔泽归入社群主义者的行列,并认为他的思想在本质上是相对主义的和保守主义的。本文认为,社群主义者的标签是具有误导性的。就像沃尔泽本人所承认的,他的思想虽具有社群主义的特征,但他并非社群主义者；如果一定要贴一个意识形态标签,他自认为是一位社会民主主义者。作为一位社会民主主义者,沃尔泽更为关注平等的生活体验而不是哲学分析；他承认自由主义的正义理论是平等主义的,但它们对人们真实平等的实际关注还不够,尤其在社会学、历史学和人类学方面的理解明显不足。本文认为,沃尔泽思想的核心特征是发展一种复合和阐释的思想形态,冲破意识形态的“纯化”,为民主主义、社会主义、自由主义和社群主义的多元价值留下空间。本文的主体部分按照年代的顺序对沃尔泽的主要论著进行了解释和研究,对其思想历程、重要论题以及思想特点进行了呈现。论述的时间跨度近60年,共分4个阶段,基本上是以15年为一个阶段。除引言之外,本文的第一部分主要涉及沃尔泽的早期思想和经历。在这个阶段,沃尔泽主要受到三种传统的强烈影响,并开始形成其思想的一些基本观念。这一部分主要介绍了影响沃尔泽的重要思想和人物以及他的主要思想论题,重点对《圣徒的革命》、《政治行动》和《论义务》等论著进行了解析。在这个时期,沃尔泽思想的中心主题是论证政治行动的意义和重要性。他在这个时期所使用的研究方法深刻影响了他的整个学术生涯,他也一直保持着在该时期所形成的基本理念。第二部分主要涉及沃尔泽在上世纪七十年代和八十年代前半期的论著。在这一阶段,随着《正义与非正义战争》、《正义诸领域》以及一些重要论文的发表,如,“哲学与民主”、“自由主义与区分的艺术”等,沃尔泽的战争伦理、复合平等和分配正义等核心思想开始出现。他也开始成长为一位著名的政治哲学家。在本章中,本文开始注重将沃尔泽的思想置入特定的历史情境中进行理解,逐步解释分析哲学传统对沃尔泽思想的误解。沃尔泽坚持认为,政治哲学家应该解释我们共享的价值,正义应该忠实于特定共同体的共享理解。他的这些主张起始于他对美国激进民主传统和公共辩论的参与。沃尔泽自认为是一位社会民主主义者,他的平等主义更具包容性,也更为注重实际的生活体验和社会学上的理解。本章涉及了沃尔泽的多元主义、复合平等、政治参与、共同体和正义等核心思想,对其思想发展以及阐释和复合的思想形态进行了论述。第三部分主要是沃尔泽思想的巩固和完善,涉及其从上世纪八十年代后半段一直到新世纪的论著。本章集中关注了《阐释与社会批判》和《批判家群体》两本著作以及一些重要论文,后者是对前者所提出的“哲学方法”的“政治论述”。在这个时期,沃尔泽的主要关注在于,面对政治哲学中占主导的平等自由主义和美国政治上的新保守主义,提供一种社会民主主义的应对。沃尔泽并没有否认以罗尔斯为代表的平等自由主义比自由至上的自由主义所具有的进步性,但他一直相信一种普遍主义的理论对推进实质性平等而言意义并不大。平等自由主义对差异政治关注较少,这种自由主义误解了平等的本质。沃尔泽的很多社群主义倾向的理论论述,实际上反映了他对社会民主主义原则的援用,以及从左翼激进民主传统中所汲取的洞见。他在这一时期更为关注公民社会以及文化多元主义社会中的差异的调节问题。此外,他也开始了对犹太政治传统的研究。第四部分主要涉及沃尔泽最近十年的论著。他在这一时期的首要关注是犹太政治传统,并对战争伦理重新进行了反思。他对犹太政治传统的关注似乎更多的是其个人兴趣使然,他对以色列一直保持着浓厚的兴趣并有定期出访以色列的经历；而他对战争伦理的重新反思,主要是由美国所发动的战争和反恐行动等政治现实所激发。最后,本文进一步强调,沃尔泽的思想倾向是对不同传统的融合并反映了其社会民主主义的承诺；与罗尔斯、麦金太尔等同辈的理论家相比,沃尔泽的思想始终保持着对社会和政治现实的关注,并随着社会和政治现实的变化而不断发展。这也是对其思想进行历史研究的一个重要理由。此外,沃尔泽在一定程度上也是美国左翼政治思想的一个重要人物,这也是其思想研究中需要注意的一个方面。第五部分主要阐释了沃尔泽的四位主要批评者的观点以及相应的辩护和回应。沃尔泽的批评者认为,他的思想存在相对主义、保守主义以及缺乏批判性等缺陷。本文主要通过对“不可公度性”、“不可兼容性”以及一种普遍的最低限度的道德模式的分析说明,来为沃尔泽进行辩护。此外,作为这种辩护的继续,本文通过对沃尔泽进行一种语境主义和历史主义的解读,支持其思想中所具有的批判性。本文最后对沃尔泽的思想进行了简要的总结和评价。本文主要对沃尔泽的政治哲学思想进行了历史性研究,相较于简单的哲学分析方式而言,这样的方法可以使我们更好的理解沃尔泽的论著,更合理的把握他的整个思想逻辑。沃尔泽在《异议》杂志的工作,以及作为反越战运动和公民权利的积极行动者,使他参与了类型多样的政治活动。这些活动使其发展了不同于德沃金和柯亨的平等观念,以及不同于罗尔斯的政治哲学观念。沃尔泽早期的大多数论著,主要受到三种思想传统的启发或者试图调和这些传统中相冲突的理念。随着思想的发展,他在这些传统的影响之下,逐渐发展出自己的研究主题。这在一定程度上,也是对这些传统的一种超越。从概念上而言,将沃尔泽视为社群主义者对其思想而言并不合适。这既是因为,它未能认真对待沃尔泽将自己视为社会民主主义者的自我描述,也是因为它低估了沃尔泽试图将社会主义、自由主义、社群主义甚至保守主义的基本洞见相调和的努力。这种调和是沃尔泽思想的一个重要特征。对沃尔泽而言,纯粹的意识形态从来不是政治哲学应该追求的东西,政治哲学应该吸收和利用任何有用的意识形态论证,并应该避免意识形态派系之间的偏见。沃尔泽对政治哲学的最大贡献,是开拓了政治哲学研究的一种不同模式。这一点与当代政治哲学的主流研究方法具有明显不同,这也使得沃尔泽的思想独具一格。他一直强调,他本人既是理论家,也是行动者；既是政治哲学家,也是寻求促进社会民主主义事业的政治行动者；既是学院型的学者,也是公共知识分子。沃尔泽作为一位成功的公共知识分子,既是由于其学术论著的巨大影响力,也是由于其终生致力于公共杂志的编辑工作。因此,他已经指出了一条连通政治参与的政治哲学道路。这条道路超越了纯粹的学术研究,以一种平静、反思但有担当的方式,直接表达日常政治生活中的问题。就这一点而言,美国乃至整个知识界都将长久的受惠于他。更多还原

【Abstract】 The main problem which contemporary political philosophers focus on is how to find a way to discuss the integrity and diversity of the shared meanings, meanwhile we can insist on basic human rights, equality, freedom, tolerance, pluralism and justice. This is also the substantive matter of liberal-communitarian debates. Machael Walzer says, the problem can be resolved though the shared meanings of social goods. The shared meanings mean the conceptions of the community and the moral conceptions including freedom, justice and so on. Those conceptions grow out and intrinsic to the historical development of a particular culture, and they don’t relate to the human condition, the natural law and the universal principle. Those shared meanings apply to the cultural world which they come from, however they perhaps don’t apply to the other cultural worlds. Walzer says, the particular cultural values aren’t secondary but fundamental to the people who express them.Michael Walzer, the American contemporary political philosopher, has extraordinary abilities to do research interdisciplinary, including sociology, philosophy, history, ethics and religious studies. He is not the kind of philosopher in the conventional sense. He doesn’t first put forward the abstract patterns of justice or the abstract ideas of the good life like the other political philosophers have done. However he first observes the various ways the people make the moral decisions, and then forms his own theories according to the historical and social realities. Walzer’s research field is also very special, and almost involves the all important areas of the contemporary political philosophy, including the puritan revolution, war ethics, distributive justice, complex equality, political tolerance, multiculturalism, civil society and so on. He thinks, the aim of political philosophers is to act as the social critics, to help the people to form the clearer conceptions about what we know, and to explain the shared meanings of the particular community. Walzer is also one of the most important American public intellectuals, and he has as editor of the Dissent magazine for more than fifty years. So to speak, Walzer is an theoretician and activist close to the Left, which has also influenced his thoughts. This thesis explains Walzer’s works in a historical approach. This method can locate Walzer in the specific historical situation, and can understand Wlzer’s whole thought clearly. Many scholars classify Walzer as communitarian in the tradition of analytic philosophy and consider his thought as relativism and conservatism. However classifying Walzer as communitarian is a misunderstanding. As a social democrat, Walzer pays closer attention to equal life experience not philosophical analysis; he thinks that the liberal justice theory fail to focus on real equality enough, and it is flawed in the field of sociology, history and anthropology. The core feature of his thoughts is a complex and interpretive thought-form, and seeks to break pure ideology, leaving spaces reserved for the multiple values.The main body of the thesis explains and researches Walzer’s important publicans, and presents his thoughts development, core topics and ideological characteristics. The time span is almost sixty years with four stages, and each stage is approximately fifteen years.In addition to the introduction, the first part of this thesis mainly involves his early ideas and experience. In this part, three kinds of traditional have influenced Walzer strongly. Walzer started forming some basic ideas. This chapter has briefly introduced the important thoughts and persons which influence Walzer, and discuss the main thought, especially discussing the Revolution of the Saints, Political actions and On Obligation. In this period, his core thought was the significance and importance of political actions. The methodology used in this period has influenced his whole academic career deeply, and he has also kept the basic ideas formed in this period.The second part mainly involves Walzer’s works in the1970s and the first half period of1980s. The thoughts of war ethics, justice and the complex equality began to appear with some works, including Just and Unjust Wars, the Spheres of Justice, Philosophy and Democracy, and Liberalism and the Art of Separation. Walzer began to become a famous political philosopher. Meanwhile this part places Walzer’s thoughts in the historical situation, and clarifies some misunderstandings. Walzer insists that political philosopher should aim to interpret our shared values, and justice should conform to the shared understandings of community. These viewpoints grow out of his participation in American radical democratic tradition and public debates. Walzer imposes himself as a social democrat. His conceptions of equality are more inclusive, and place more attention to the actual life experience. This part involves his pluralism, membership, complex equality, political participation, community and justice, and discusses the development and the form of his thoughts.The third part is about the consolidation and improvement of his thoughts, involving the main works from the latter half of1980s to2000, and especially focuses Interpretation and Social Criticism, the Company of Critics, and some important papers. In this period, Walzer paid attention to egalitarian liberalism and neo-conservatism, and provided a social democratic response. He admitted the Rawlsian egalitarian liberalism embodies historical progress, but it made little sense to promote the substantial equality. The egalitarian liberalism pays less attention to politics of difference like Marxism, and it misunderstands the essence of equality. His communitarian discusses in fact reflect his appeals to social democracy, and absorb some insights from radical democratic tradition. In this period, he paid more attention to civil society, multiculturalism and Jewish political tradition.The forth part mainly involves Walzer’s publications in the last ten years. His primary concern is Jewish political tradition and war ethics in this period. His personal interest and American counterterrorism seem promote this concern. In the last, this part further emphasizes, Walzer’s thoughts compromise the merits of different traditions and reflect his commitment to social democracy. Comparing with Rawls, his thoughts always keep the commitment to social and political reality, and develop with social and political reality constantly. It is a reason why to research his thoughts historically. In addition, Walzer is also an important feature of American Left-wing political thought, which is a noteworthy aspect.The fifth part mainly explains four critics to Walzer and relevant defenses and responses. His critics said that his thoughts were relativism and conservative. This part defenses for Walzer through incommensurability, incompatibility and minimal moral model. In addition, this part interprets Walzer in a contextual and historical way, and point out the criticalness existing in his thoughts. The last part is brief summary and evaluation of Walzer’s thoughts. This thesis does some research about his political philosophy in a history way, comparing with simple philosophical analysis, this way can make better sense of him and his whole thought logic. As the editor of Dissent magazine, Walzer is an activist for civic right and enters into various political activities. These activities make him develop unique conceptions of equality other than Dworkin Cohen and Rawls. Walzer’s early thought was affected by three kinds of tradition primarily, and tried to reconcile conflicting ideas in these traditions. As his thoughts developed, he has developed his own research theme under these traditions. It has also exceeded these traditions to some extent. It is not proper to consider Walzer as a communitarian. It is not only treat Walzer’s own description but also underestimates his efforts to reconcile socialism, liberalism, communitarianism and even conservatism. This is an important feature of his thoughts. For Walzer, what political philosophy should pursue is not pure ideology. It should absorb and utilize any useful ideological arguments, and avoid bias between ideological factions. The greatest contribution of Wazler to political philosophy is to open up the new approach of political philosophy research. This approach is different apparently from the mainstream approach of political philosophy research, which also makes his thoughts unique. As he himself has always emphasized, Walzer is both a theoretician and an activist; both a scholar and a public intellectual; both a political philosopher and a political actor for social democracy. As a public intellectual, he has worked for public magazine for all life time. He has connected political philosophy with political participation; He has also ascended pure academic research and addressed issues in the daily political life directly in a reflective and responsible way. America even the whole academic circle will benefit from him for long.更多还原