【作者】 彭刚；

【导师】 杨大春；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 外国哲学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 根据卢梭的人性理论,人的本质既非人的理性,也非人的社会性,而是人的情感。人类最原始且最基本的情感是自爱,随着人类由自然状态迈入到社会状态,自爱就必然转化为自尊。自尊具有两种性质相反的基本类型,即虚荣和骄傲。自爱渴望的是自身的福利和幸福,它是一种非社会性的情感;虚荣渴望的是社会的荣誉和尊重,并试图以财富、名望或权力来实现其目的,它是一种反社会性的情感;骄傲同样渴望社会的荣誉和尊重,但它以美德和功绩来实现其目的,它是一种合社会性的情感。与这三种基本的人性相对应,卢梭区分了人的三种基本类型,即为自爱所支配的自然人,为虚荣所支配的腐败的文明人和为骄傲所支配的公民。卢梭认为,所有人的最终生活目标都是自身的幸福,但不同类型的人追求幸福的途径却是不同的。在政治社会的背景之下,人们要获得幸福就应该值得幸福,没有美德就没有幸福。然而,拥有美德并不意味着就拥有幸福,要使美德与幸福协调一致,就需要有一个合法而又健全的政治秩序。只有当政治社会的分配机制和评价机制把美德和功绩而非财富和权力作为分配荣誉和地位的标准时,有美德的人才能凭借自身的美德和功绩来获得自尊的满足,从而赢得自身的幸福。所以,卢梭的政治哲学是从属于他的哲学人类学的,他的哲学人类学以人类的幸福和美德为目标,而他的政治哲学则以一个能够确保美德和幸福之间协调一致的政治秩序为目标。因此,卢梭的《社会契约论》为人类设想了这样一个“道德的和集体的共同体”:它既确保所有社会公民平等的自由和权利,因为平等和自由是人们实现自身幸福的必要条件;又鼓励和促进有利于美德的生活方式,确保美德和功绩成为分配荣誉和地位的标准,因为只有当美德能赢得社会的尊重时,美德和幸福的一致才变得可能。所以,卢梭的理想契约与霍布斯和洛克二人的标准契约的本质区别就在于,它不仅包含了一个初级约定,即确保每个人和所有人的自由和权利,而且还包含了一个高级约定,即创立一个有利于美德和幸福之间一致性的合法和健全的共和国。要使这两个约定都得到所有契约各方的自由同意,就要求契约各方不仅有尊重其他各方自由和权利的正义美德,而且要有使自己的个别意志服从公意的公民化美德。因此,卢梭的契约各方并不是理性、自利的“明智而独立的人”,而是已被立法者“解自然化”或“公民化”的民族共同体的成员。在一个合法而又健全的政治社会里,公民必须以有利于全体幸福的方式来赢得自身的幸福。公民美德不仅是公民自身幸福的必要条件和构成性内容,而且是一个“道德的和集体的共同体”确保自身合法性和稳定性的必然要求。在卢梭那里,每个人和所有人的幸福是政治社会的最终目标,然而这一目标却必须以整体主义的方式而非个人主义的方式来实现。把卢梭的政治哲学置于其哲学人类学这一整体思想的背景之下,我们认识到,卢梭既不是一个绝对的个人主义者,也不是一个绝对的集体主义者,他并没有放弃个人主义和集体主义这两个原则中的任何一个。他的这种以整体的方式来实现个人幸福的主张表达的是一种整体论的个人主义立场。更多还原

【Abstract】 According to Rousseau’s philosophical anthropology, the human nature is neither his rationality nor his sociality, but his passion. Human’s original and basic passion is "amour de soi" (self-love) which transforms to "amour propre" (self-esteem) which contains two opposite and basic emotion named "vanity" and "pride" when the mankind enters the social state. As it desires only one’s own interests and happiness , the self-love is a non-social emotion; As it desires the honor and the esteem and tries to achieves them by the wealth, the power or the reputation, the vanity is an anti-social emotion; By comparison, although the pride desires the same ends as the vanity, it tries to achieve it by one’s virtue and merits, so it is a social emotion. Rousseau divided the mankind into three basic sorts which vis-a-vis the three basic human natures, which was the natural person who was guided by his self-love, the corrupt civilized person who was dominated by his vanity, and the virtuous citizen who was guided by bis pride.Rousseau maintained that everyone’s ultimate aim was his own felicity although the way by which everyone achieved his aim diversed from each other. In the condition of the political society, one should merit happiness if he wants to get it. There is no happiness whenever there is no virtue, but the virtue doesn’t imply the happiness. To make the virtue matching the happiness, there needs a legitimate and healthy political system, only which can coordinate the virtue with the happiness. The virtuous citizen can not get his contentment of his self-esteem by his virtue and merits unless the distributive and evaluative systems of the political society make the virtue and merits rather than the wealth and the power as the standards of honor and esteem. From this view it, Rousseau’s political philosophy depends on his philosophical anthropology. As his philosophical anthropology aims the mankind’s virtue and felicity, his political philosophy must aim a political system which can coordinate the virtue with the happiness.Rousseau’s "The Social Contract" therefore imagined a "moral and collective body" as this: which both safeguards each and everyone’s rights and liberties and encourages and promotes the life style which is in favor of virtue and guarantees virtues and merits as the standards by which the honor and the esteem are distributed. What distinguishes Rousseau’ social contract from Hobbes’ and Locke’s ones is that Rousseau’s social contract contains not only a primary agreement but a high-level one as well. While the junior agreement is everyone’s rights and liberties, the senior one is a legitimate and health political system which promotes its member’s virtue. In order of the two agreements being approved freely, all of the contractual participants must have both the righteous virtue of respecting all other’s rights and liberties, and the civic virtue of making his own individual will in deference to the general will. Rousseau’s contractual participants therefore are not "the enlightened and independent man" whom was discussed in "Geneva Manuscript" ,but the members of the national community whom have been "denatured" by the legislator.As in a legitimate and healthy political society, one must earn his own happiness by means of contributing to the whole’ happiness, civic virtues is not only the necessary condition and constitutive ingredients of the citizen’s happiness, but also the requirement of the legitimacy and stability of the "moral and collective body" . From Rousseau’s point of view, the ends of the political society was the each one and everyone’s happiness, but which must be attained by means of the collective rather than the individual way.更多还原