政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/134065
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113451/144438 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51296076      線上人數 : 794
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋
    政大機構典藏 > 文學院 > 哲學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/134065


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/134065


    題名: 重構Isaiah Berlin的兩種自由理論
    A Reconstruction of I. Berlin’s Conception of Liberty
    作者: 李東瑤
    貢獻者: 鄭光明
    李東瑤
    關鍵詞: 多元價值
    消極自由
    積極自由
    共和主義自由
    選擇自由
    日期: 2021
    上傳時間: 2021-03-02 14:27:56 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 自Isaiah Berlin於上世紀中葉重申消極自由與積極自由之區分以來，我們如今對於自由問題的討論仍多以其爲出發點。儘管其自由理論因其内在的模糊和混亂招致諸多批評，但在如今價值多元幾成普遍共識的大背景下，Berlin對於消極自由的青睞可説已形塑了我們對於自由的主流理解。與此同時，積極自由和共和主義自由的支持者們又强烈質疑消極自由的基礎性和優先性，認爲消極自由不能代表自由之真義。針對這種持續的論爭，本論文將從Berlin自由理論、尤其是其偏重的消極自由所遭受的批判出發，嘗試重新梳理建構Berlin的兩種自由框架，提出選擇自由是Berlin自由理論的真正核心，它構成消極自由與積極自由的共同基礎，要求二者分別從免於干預與自我做主兩個維度來保障個體的選擇。唯此，在無法回避多元價值之可能衝突、必須進行抉擇與取捨的生存處境中，個體作爲通過選擇進行自我創造的道德主體，才能不失人之爲人的本質。
    參考文獻: Baldwin, T. (1984). MacCallum and the two concepts of freedom. In G. W. Smith (Ed.), Liberalism: Ideas of freedom (critical concepts in political theory V.1) (pp.222-236). Cambridge: Routledge.
    Benn, S. I. (1975). Freedom, Autonomy and the Concept of a Person. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 76(n/a), 109 - 130.
    Benn, S. I. (1988). A Theory of Freedom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Berlin, I. (1994a). Introduction. In J. Tully & D. M. Weinstock (Eds.), Philosophy in an age of pluralism: the philosophy of Charles Taylor in question (pp.1-3). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Berlin, I. & Williams, B. (1994b). Pluralism and liberalism: A reply. Political Studies, 42(2): 306-309.
    Berlin, I. (1998). My Intellectual Path. In H. Hardy (Ed.), The Power of Ideas (2nd ed., pp.1-28). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    Berlin, I. & Jahanbegloo, R. (2000). Conversations with Isaiah Berlin. London: Phoenix Press.
    Berlin, I. (2002). Liberty: Incorporating ‘Four Essays on Liberty’. (H. Hardy, Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Berlin, I. (2004). A letter on human nature. New York Review of Books, 51(14): 26.
    Berlin, I. (2013). The Crooked Timber of Humanity. (H. Hardy, 2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    Berlin, I. (2014). Freedom and its betrayal: Six enemies of human liberty (H. Hardy, 2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    Carter, I. (2000). A Critique of Freedom as Non-domination. The Good Society, 9(3), 43-46.
    Carter, I. (2008). How are power and unfreedom related? In Laborde, C. & Maynor, J. (Eds.), Republicanism and political theory (pp. 58-82). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    Carter, I. (2016). Positive and Negative Liberty. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
    Christman, J. (1991). Liberalism and individual positive freedom. Ethics, 101(2), 343-359.
    Christman, J. (2005). Saving positive freedom. Political Theory, 33(1), 79-88.
    Christman, J. (2015). Freedom in Times of Struggle: Positive Liberty, Again. Analyse & Kritik, 37(1-2), 171-188.
    Constant, B. (1988). Constant: political writings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Crowder, G. (1988). Negative and Positive Liberty. Political Science, 40(2), 57-73.
    Crowder, G. (1994). Pluralism and Liberalism. Political Studies, 42(2), 293-305.
    Crowder, G. (2004). Isaiah Berlin: liberty and pluralism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    Crowder, G. & Hardy, H. (Eds.) (2007). The One and the Many: Reading Isaiah Berlin. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
    Crowder, G. (2015). Why We Need Positive Liberty. The Review of Politics, 77(2), 271-278.
    Crowder, G. (2016). After Berlin: The Literature 2002–2020. Retrieved from http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/lists/onib/after-berlin.pdf (2016; updated 7 May 2020)
    Feinberg, J. (1973). The Concept of Freedom. In Social philosophy (pp. 4-19). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
    Frankfurt, H. G. (1971). Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. The journal of philosophy, 68(1), 5-20.
    Gallie, W. B. (1955). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. 56 (1955 - 1956), 167-198
    Gray, J. (1980). On negative and positive liberty. Political Studies, 28(4), 507-526.
    Gray, J. (2013). Isaiah Berlin: an interpretation of his thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    Gray, T. (1990). Freedom. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
    Green, T. H. (1986). Lectures on the principles of political obligation and other writings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan. (R. Tuck, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Kramer, M. (2008a). The quality of freedom. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
    Kramer, M. (2008b). Liberty and Domination. In Laborde, C. & Maynor, J. (Eds.), Republicanism and political theory (pp. 31-57). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    Laborde, C., & Maynor, J. (2008). The republican contribution to contemporary political theory. In Laborde, C. & Maynor, J. (Eds.), Republicanism and political theory (pp.1-28). John Wiley & Sons.
    Larmore, C. (2001). A critique of Philip Pettit`s republicanism. Philosophical Issues, 11(1), 229-243.
    Larmore, C. (2003). Liberal and republican conceptions of freedom. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 6(1), 96-119.
    Lin, Y. (2016). Value Pluralism and Liberal Democracy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York: Columbia University.
    Lovett, F. (2017). Republicanism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/republicanism/
    MacCallum, G. C. Jr. (1967). Negative and Positive Freedom. Philosophical Review, 76, 312–334.
    MacPherson, C. B. (1973). Berlin`s division of liberty. In Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval (pp. 95-119). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
    Miller, D. (1983). Constraints on Freedom. In Miller, D. (Ed.), The Liberty Reader (pp. 183-199). Edinburgh, UK: Paradigm Publishers.
    Miller, D. (Ed.). (2006). The Liberty Reader. Edinburgh, UK: Paradigm Publishers.
    Patten, A. (1996). The republican critique of liberalism. British Journal of Political Science, 26(1), 25-44.
    Pettit, P. (1993). Negative liberty, liberal and republican. European Journal of Philosophy, 1(1), 15-38.
    Pettit, P. (1996). Freedom as Antipower. Ethics, 106(3), 576-604.
    Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: a theory of freedom and government. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Pettit, P. (1998). Reworking Sandel`s republicanism. Journal of Philosophy, 95(2), 73-96.
    Pettit, P. (2012). On the People`s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Pettit, P. (2015). Freedom: psychological, ethical, and political. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, DOI: 10.1080/13698230.2015.1033861
    Ricciardi, M. (2007). Berlin on Liberty. In G. Crowder and H. Hardy (eds.), The One and the Many. Reading Isaiah Berlin (pp. 119-139). Amherst NY: Prometheus Books.
    Riley, J. (2013). Isaiah Berlin’s “Minimum of Common Moral Ground”. Political Theory, 41(1), 61-89.
    Sandel, M. J. (1998a). Democracy`s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
    Sandel, M. J. (1998b). Reply to My Critics. In A. L. Allen & M. C. Regan (Eds.), Debating Democracy’s Discontent: Essays on American politics, law, and public philosophy (pp.319-335). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Sen, A. (2001). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Skinner, Q. (1984). The idea of negative liberty: Philosophical and historical perspectives. In R. Rorty, J. Schneewind, & Q. Skinner (Eds.), Philosophy in History: Essays in the Historiography of Philosophy (Ideas in Context, pp. 193-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Skinner, Q. (1986). The paradoxes of political liberty. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 7, 227-250.
    Skinner, Q. (1998). Liberty before liberalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Skinner, Q. (2002). A Third Concept of Liberty. Proceedings of the British Academy, 117, 237-268.
    Skinner, Q. (2003). States and the freedom of citizens. In Q. Skinner & B. Strath (Eds.), States and citizens: History, theory, prospects (pp.11-27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Swift, A. (2014). Liberty. In Political philosophy (pp. 57-94). Cambridge, UK: Polity.
    Taylor, C. (1979). What’s wrong with negative liberty? In D. Miller (Ed.), The Liberty Reader (pp.141-162). Edinburgh, UK: Paradigm Publishers.
    Taylor, C. (1994). Charles Taylor replies. In J. Tully & D. M. Weinstock (Eds.), Philosophy in an age of pluralism: the philosophy of Charles Taylor in question (pp.213-214). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    林垚(2009)。〈支配的异质性〉。《外國哲學》(第20輯)，46-60。
    林垚(2014)。〈以賽亞·伯林的自由觀〉。《法哲學與法社會學論叢》，00，1-27。
    劉擎(2015)。〈自由及其濫用:伯林自由論述的再考察〉。《中國人民大學學報》，4，43-53。
    馬華靈(2019)。《反自由的自由：伯林與施特勞斯的思想紛爭》。臺北：聯經出版事業公司。
    錢永祥(1997)。〈紀念柏林之死〉。《二十一世紀》，44，62-65。
    錢永祥(2001)。〈我總是活在表層上——談思想家柏林〉。《縱欲與虛無之上》(頁119-134)。臺北：聯經出版事業公司。
    錢永祥(2012)。〈柏林論歷史與個人〉。《新史學》，23(2)，217-242。
    石元康(2000)。〈柏林論自由〉。《當代西方自由主義理論》(頁1-26)。上海：三聯書店。
    蕭高彥(2013)。《西方共和主義思想史論》。臺北：聯經出版公司。
    葉浩(2011)。〈價值多元論與自由主義——兼論柏林的政治理論方法論〉。《政治與社會哲學評論》，39，59-111。
    應奇、劉訓練(編) (2006)。《第三種自由》。北京：東方出版社。
    周保松(2013)。〈消極自由的基礎〉。《南風窗》，19，80-83。
    描述: 博士
    國立政治大學
    哲學系
    103154506
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103154506
    資料類型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202100212
    顯示於類別:[哲學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    沒有與此文件相關的檔案.



    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋