Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/152877
|
| Title: | 寬容或不寬容？論霍布斯的宗教寬容立場與當代意義
Tolerant or Intolerant? Hobbes on Religious Toleration and its Contemporary Relevancy |
| Authors: | 劉惟綸
Liu, Wei-Lun |
| Contributors: | 周家瑜
Chou, Chia-Yu
劉惟綸
Liu, Wei-Lun |
| Keywords: | 霍布斯
宗教寬容
宗教自由
自然法
世俗性原則
人性尊嚴
Hobbes
Religion Toleration
Religious Freedom
Laws of Nature
Laïcité
Human Dignity |
| Date: | 2024 |
| Issue Date: | 2024-08-05 14:33:27 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本文試圖藉由重新爬梳霍布斯生涯中的三部重要著述《論公民》、《利維坦》及《貝希摩斯》中關於宗教寬容的論述，說明霍布斯對宗教寬容抱持的立場。霍布斯在早期著作《論公民》中擁護主權者對臣民進行宗教迫害，在成熟期著作《利維坦》轉向支持宗教寬容與內心信仰自由，到晚期著作《貝希摩斯》則轉向呼籲解放異端及宗教言論自由。這樣的轉變顯示霍布斯由贊同宗教迫害轉向捍衛宗教寬容與宗教自由的立場，而霍布斯自然法核心原則的「己所不欲，勿施於人」是促使其支持宗教寬容及宗教自由的重要理由。最後，筆者以現代法國世俗性原則實踐的案例，結合Waldron的「人性尊嚴」概念，論證霍布斯的宗教寬容理論在當代仍具有一定的適用性。
This thesis attempts to explain Hobbes’s stance on religious toleration by re-examining his accounts on religious toleration in three major works in his career, namely: De Cive, Leviathan, and Behemoth. While in De Cive, Hobbes argues for the sovereign’s right to persecute subjects for their religious beliefs, in Leviathan, he shifts to supporting religious toleration and liberty of inner belief. In Behemoth, he further calls for the toleration of heretics and liberty of religious expression. This shift demonstrates the substantial change in Hobbes’s position from endorsing religious persecution to defending religious toleration and religious freedom. I argue that a crucial reason for Hobbes’s support for religious toleration and freedom is the core principle of laws of nature: “Do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thyself.” To illustrate that Hobbes’s theory of religious toleration still has a certain applicability today, I explore the case of the practice of “laïcité” in modern France by incorporating Waldron’s idea of “human dignity”. In conclusion, although Hobbes once supports religious persecution, he changes his ground——Hobbes is not only a supporter of religious toleration, but also a defender of religious freedom. |
| Reference: | 一、中文
中央社
2023a 〈法國嚴格執行世俗主義 校園將禁穿長罩袍〉。中央社，8月28日。2024年2月14日，取自https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aopl/202308280153.aspx。
2023b 〈法國校園禁穿罩袍輿論延燒 各界憂文化宗教戰再起〉。中央社，8月29日。2024年2月14日，取自https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aopl/202308290012.aspx。
台灣聖經公會（編）
2015 《聖經》。臺北：台灣聖經公會。
周家瑜
2019 〈論法律與道德的關係：霍布斯之「自然法與實證法相互包含」論題〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》68: 107-142。
林碧津
2015 〈法國「世俗性」（laïcité）原則下的言論自由〉，《玄奘佛學研究》(24): 49-83。
沃爾德倫
2024 《論人的尊嚴》，張卓明（譯）。北京：商務印書館。
法務部全國法規資料庫
1999 〈司法官大法官解釋釋字第 490 號〉，2022年11月15日，取自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/ExContent.aspx?ty=C&CC=D&CNO=490
馬蒂尼奇（Martinich, A. P.）
2015 《霍布斯》，王軍偉（譯）。北京：華夏出版社。
梁裕康
2017 〈屬靈的或屬世的？論霍布斯的政教關係理論〉，《政治科學論叢》71: 1-40。
塔克（Tuch, Richard）
2003 〈論公民英文新譯本導言〉，見霍布斯《論公民》，應星、馮克利（譯）。貴州：貴州人民出版社。
2013 《哲學與治術》，韓潮（譯）。南京：譯林出版社。
奧爾森（Olson, Roger E.）
2002 《神學的故事》。吳瑞誠、徐成德（譯）。新北：校園書房出版社。
霍布斯（Hobbes, Thomas）
2003 《論公民》，應星、馮克利（譯）。貴州：貴州人民出版社。（原著出版年：1642年）
2019 《貝希摩斯：英國內戰緣由史》，李石（譯）。北京：北京大學出版社。（原著出版年：1681年）
2021 《利維坦》，莊方旗（譯）。臺北：五南出版。（原著出版年：1651年）
蘇倚德
2021 〈法國本土政教分離政策之歷史沿革〉，《輔仁宗教研究》(43): 1-42。
二、英文
Abizadeh, Arash
2013 “Publicity, Privacy, and Religious Toleration in Hobbes’s Leviathan,” Modern Intellectual History 10(2): 261-291.
2022 “Consequences, Conscience, and Fallibility: Early Modern Roots of Toleration,” Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 34 (1): 16-27.
Baumgold, Deborah
1988 Hobbes’s Political Philosophy. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, Jeffrey R.
2005 The Allegiance of Thomas Hobbes. NY: Oxford University Press.
2020 In the Shadow of Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Day, Andrew Kenneth
2019 “Hobbes’s Changing Ecclesiology”, The Historical Journal 62(4): 899-919.
Forst, Rainer
2013 Toleration in Conflict: Past and Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gillespie, Michael Allen
2008 The Theological Origins of Modernity. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Goolam, Nazeem MI
2006 “The cartoon controversy: a note on freedom of expression, hate speech and blasphemy,” The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa 39(2): 333-350.
Hobbes, Thomas
1983 De Cive: The English Version. Howard Warrender. (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1994 Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Edwin Curley (ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
2010 Behemoth. Paul Seaward (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kabala, Boleslaw Z.
2019 “The Return of the Intolerant Hobbes,” History of European Ideas 45(6): 785-802.
Lacorne, Denis
2019 The Limits of Tolerance: The Limits of Tolerance: Enlightenment Values and Religious Fanaticism, C. Jon Delogu and Robin Emlein (trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Martinich, A. P.
1992 The Two Gods of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on Religion and Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Parkin, Jon
2018 “Hobbes and the Future of Religion,” pp. 184-201 in Laurens van Apeldoorn and Robin Douglass (eds.), Hobbes on Politics and Religion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ryan, Alan
1988 “A more tolerant Hobbes?,” pp. 37-59 in Susan Mendus (ed.), Justifying Toleration: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tuck, Richard
1990 “Hobbes and Locke on Toleration,” pp. 153-171 in Mary G. Dietz (ed.), Thomas Hobbes and Political Theory. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
1993 Philosophy and Government 1572–1651. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waldron, Jeremy
2012a Dignity, Rank, and Rights. Meir Dan-Cohen (ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2012b The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walsham, Alexandra.
2006 Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500-1700. Manchester and NY: Manchester University Press. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
政治學系
108252004 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108252004 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [政治學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 200401.pdf | | 1998Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
