English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 118575/149625 (79%)
造訪人次 : 79298463      線上人數 : 631
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 140.119/159355
    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/159355


    題名: 重構費希特的承認理論:一個系統性的詮釋
    Reconstructing Fichte's Theory of Recognition: A Systematic Interpretation
    作者: 張明融
    Chang, Ming-Jung
    貢獻者: 謝昭銳
    Tse, Chiu-Yui
    張明融
    Chang, Ming-Jung
    關鍵詞: 自我意識
    召喚
    相互承認
    超驗條件
    自願主義
    Self-consciousness
    Summons
    Mutual recognition
    Transcendental condition
    Voluntarism
    日期: 2025
    上傳時間: 2025-09-01 16:42:09 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 費希特在《自然法權基礎》中試圖從自我設定的行動出發,推證法權概念的實在性,也就是將法權理解為自我意識的超驗條件。他主張,法權不應奠基於道德哲學,而應以主體間自由的相互關係為核心。基於此立場,費希特將主體與他者之間的相互承認視為法權的超驗基礎,藉此區分法權與道德為兩者相互獨立的科學。然而,這一推證常被批評為缺乏說服力。本文嘗試為費希特的立場提供辯護,透過重構其推論過程,說明法權作為自我意識條件的合理性,並指出相互承認同時作為超驗條件跟規範性原則。為了支持此一主張,本文進一步分析法權推論中的一項核心概念,也就是主體如何透過他者的行動而意識到自身,即主體如何受到他者的召喚。本文主張,召喚的概念必須同時具備規範性與因果性,才能為費希特的法權推證提供堅實基礎。
    In the Foundations of Natural Right, Fichte attempts to deduce the reality of the concept of right by beginning with the act of self-positing. He understands right as a transcendental condition for the possibility of self-consciousness. According to Fichte, the concept of right should not be grounded in moral obligation but should instead be based on the relation between rational beings through mutual recognition. However, this deduction has often been criticized as unconvincing. This thesis seeks to defend Fichte’s position by reconstructing the steps of his argument. It argues that the concept of right, understood as a condition for self-consciousness, can be plausibly justified. To support this claim, the thesis analyzes a central concept in the deduction of right, namely the concept of summons. Through the summons, the subject becomes aware of itself. The thesis argues that the summons must possess both normative and causal dimensions in order to support the justification of the concept of right.
    參考文獻: Brandom, Robert. From Autonomy to Recognition. In Recognition: German Idealism as an Ongoing Challenge. Ed. by Christian Krijnen. 53-66. Brill.
    Breazeale, Daniel. 2008. The First-person Standpoint of Fichte’s Ethics. Philosophy Today, 52 (3–4): 270–281.
    ──. 2013. Thinking through the Wissenschaftslehre: Themes from Fichte's early philosophy. Oxford University Press.
    ──. 2021a. Editor’s Introduction. In Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre and Related Writings (1794–95). Trans. and ed. by Daniel Breazeale. 1-144. Oxford University Press.
    ──. 2021b. Fichte and the Path from “Formal” to “Material” Freedom. In Fichte’s System of Ethics: A Critical Guide. Ed. by Bacin, S. and Ware, O. 85-108. Cambridge University Press.
    Beiser, Frederick. 2002 German idealism: The Struggle against Subjectivism, 1781–1801. Havard University Press.
    Clarke, James Alexander. 2009. Fichte and Hegel on Recognition. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 17, 2: 365–385.
    ──. 2014. Fichte, Hegel, and the Life and Death Struggle. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 22, 1: 81-103.
    Darwall, Stephen. 2013. Honor, History, and Relationship: Essays in Second-personal Ethics II. Vol. 2. OUP Oxford.
    ──. 2021. Recognition, Second-Personal Authority, and Nonideal Theory. European Journal of Philosophy, 29, 3: 562–574.
    Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. 1992. Foundations of Transcendental Philosophy (Wissenschaftslehre) nova methodo. Trans. and ed. by Daniel Breazeale. Cornell University Press.
    ──. 2000. Foundations of Natural right. Ed. by Frederick Neuhouser. Trans. by Michael Baur. Cambridge University Press.
    ──. 2005. The System of Ethics. Trans. and ed. by Daniel Breazeale and Günter Zöller. Cambridge University Press.
    ──. 2021. Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre and Related Writings (1794–95). Trans. and ed. by Daniel Breazeale. Oxford University Press.
    Franks, Paul W. 2005. All or Nothing: Systematicity, Transcendental Arguments, and Skepticism in German Idealism. Harvard University Press.
    ──. 2016. Fichte’s Kabbalistic Realism: Summons as ẓimẓum. In Fichte’s Foundations of Natural Right: A Critical Guide. Ed. by Gottlieb, G. 92-116. Cambridge University Press.
    Goh, Kienhow. 2024. Fichte on Free Will and Predestination. New York and London: Routledge.
    Gottlieb, Gabriel. 2016. Fichte’s Developmental View of Self-Consciousness. In Fichte’s Foundations of Natural Right: A Critical Guide. Ed. by Gottlieb, G. 117-137. Cambridge University Press.
    ──. 2019. Fichte’s Relational I: Anstoβ and Aufforderung. In The Palgrave Fichte Handbook. Ed. by Steven Hoeltzel. 213–235. Palgrave Macmillan.
    Guyer, Paul. 2024. Kant’s Impact on Moral Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
    Hasan, Rafeeq. 2024. Kant on Right. In The Oxford Handbook of Kant. Ed. by Anil Gomes and Andrew Stephenson. 389-409. Oxford University Press.
    Honneth, Axel. 1996. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Trans by. Joel Anderson. The MIT Press.
    ──. 2020. Recognition: A Chapter in the History of European Ideas. Trans by. Joseph Ganahl. Cambridge University Press.
    ──. 2021. You or We: The Limits of the Second‐Person Perspective. European Journal of Philosophy, 29, 3: 581-591.
    Ikäheimo, Heikki. 2022. Recognition and the Human Life-Form: Beyond Identity and Difference. Routledge.
    Kant, Immanuel. 1991. Political Writings. Ed. by H. S. Reiss. Trans. by H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge University Press.
    ──. 1991. The Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. by Mary Gregor. Cambridge University Press.
    ──. 2002. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. and ed. by Allen W. Wood. Yale University Press.
    Kosch, Michelle. 2018. Fichte's Ethics. Oxford University Press.
    ──. 2021. Fichte on Summons and Self-Consciousness. Mind, 130, 517: 215-249.
    Kramer, Matthew. H. 2018. H.L.A. Hart: the nature of law. Polity
    Larmore, Charles. 2020. What is Political Philosophy? Princeton University Press
    Lewis, James HP. 2024. Varieties of Second-personal Reason. Erkenntnis. Forthcoming.
    List, Christian. 2025. Can AI Systems Have Free Will? Working paper. Available from https://philpapers.org/archive/LISCAS-3.pdf. Retrieval date: 2025/05/24.
    Löhr, G. and Dennis, M. 2025. Prudential Reasons for Designing Entitled Chatbots: How Robot "Rights" Can Improve Human Well-being. AI Ethics. Forthcoming.
    Martin, Wayne. 2018. Fichte’s Creuzer Review and the Transformation of the Free Will Problem. European Journal of Philosophy, 26, 2: 717-729.
    Müller, Vincent C. 2021. Is It Time for Robot Rights? Moral Status in Artificial Entities. Ethics and Information Technology, 23, 4: 579-587.
    Moyar, Dean. 2016. Fichte’s Organic Unification: Recognition and the Self-Overcoming of Social Contract Theory. In Fichte’s Foundations of Natural Right: A Critical Guide. Ed. by Gottlieb, G. 218-238. Cambridge University Press.
    Nance, Michael. 2012. Recognition, Freedom, and the Self in Fichte’s Foundations of Natural Right. European Journal of Philosophy, 23, 3: 608-632.
    ──. 2016. Freedom, Coercion, and the Relation of Right. In Fichte’s Foundations of Natural Right: A Critical Guide. Ed. by Gottlieb, G. 196-217. Cambridge University Press.
    ──. 2020. Fichte’s First Principle of Right. Fichte Studien, 49, 1: 248-266.
    Neuhouser Frederick. 2000. Introduction. In Foundations of natural right. Ed. by Frederick Neuhouser. Trans. by Michael Baur. vii-xxvii. Cambridge University Press.
    ──. 2016. Fichte’s Separation of Right from Morality. In Fichte’s Foundations of Natural Right: A Critical Guide. Ed. by Gottlieb G. 32-51. Cambridge University Press.
    Nisenbaum, Karin. 2023. Fichte's Perfectionist Solution to the Problem of Autonomy. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 61, 4: 649-671.
    Radrizzani, Ives. 2016. The Wissenschaftslehre and Historical Engagement. In The Cambridge Companion to Fichte. Ed. by David James and Günter Zöller. 222-247. Cambridge University Press.
    Ramsauer, Laurenz. 2023. Between Thinking and Acting Fichte’s Deduction of the Concept of Right. Manuscrito, 46, 2: 156-197.
    Saunders, J. 2016. Kant and the Problem of Recognition: Freedom, Transcendental Idealism, and the Third-Person. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 24, 2: 164–182.
    Siep, Lugwig, 2014. Anerkennung als Prinzip der praktischen Philosophie: Untersuchungen zu Hegels Jenaer Philosophie des Geistes. Meiner.
    Stern, Robert and Tony Cheng. 2023. Transcendental Arguments. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/transcendental-arguments/. Retrieval date: 2024/05/22.
    Timmermann, Jens. 2007. Kant's groundwork of the metaphysics of morals: A commentary. Cambridge University Press.
    Tse, Chiu Yui Plato. 2020. Transcendental idealism and the self-knowledge premise. Journal of Transcendental Philosophy, 1, 1: 19-41.
    Ware, Owen. 2010. Fichte's Voluntarism. European Journal of Philosophy, 18, 2: 262-282.
    ──. 2020. Fichte's Moral Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
    ──. 2023. Kant on Freedom. Cambridge University Press.
    Wood, Allen. 2016. Fichte's Ethical Thought. Oxford University Press.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    哲學系
    110154004
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110154004
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[哲學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    400401.pdf1197KbAdobe PDF3檢視/開啟


    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