政治哲學與敘事真實：霍布斯自然狀態中的事實與虛構

Political Philosophy and Narrative Truth: Fact and Fiction within Hobbes's State of Nature

柯汎禧(Fen-Shi Ker)

《台灣政治學刊》 23卷1期 (2019/06) Pp. 159-214

https://doi.org/10.6683/TPSR.201906_23(1).0004

摘要

本篇論文聚焦在如何整全地解決「自然狀態的事實與虛構」之爭議。我們將透過重新整理霍布斯式自然狀態在既有討論中的爭議，指出哲學虛構、歷史真實的詮釋爭議，來自於討論者多以經驗主義式的事實，理解自然狀態概念內的經驗描述，進一步來說，透過重新建構霍布斯意義下的「事實」，霍布斯的體系得以消解哲學虛構與歷史真實的對立。最後，我們意圖探討政治哲學與敘事理論的聯繫，本文的觀點是，至少在霍布斯的框架中，自然狀態概念的作用，即是把經驗現象轉化為意義之網，從而使霍布斯得以藉由一種趨近於當代敘事理論的理論性說法，擴大政治哲學的經驗範圍與現實感。

關鍵字

利維坦 ； 歷史敘事 ； 歷史事實 ； 因果關係 ； 自然狀態

並列摘要

This thesis aims to completely resolve the controversy which refers to the state of nature between truth and fiction. By going through disputes related to Hobbes's concept of the state of nature, we attempt to point out that the foundation of interpretive controversy is derived from most interpreters applying thoughts on empiricism to understand empirical descriptions within the state of nature. Furthermore, Hobbes's system could resolve the opposition between philosophical fiction and historical truth within the state of nature through reconstructing the ＂fact＂ from the perspective of Hobbes's context. Finally, the major purpose of this thesis is to clarify the relationship between political philosophy and narrative theory. In my opinion, the function of the state of nature is to transform empirical phenomena into a web of meaning. Hobbes consequently enlarged the empirical range and practical sense within political philosophy with narrative theory approaching a contemporary theoretical perspective.

並列關鍵字

Leviathan ； historical narration ； historical truth ； causal relationship ； state of nature

參考文獻

方志強，2002，〈「歷史事實」—「事實」與「解釋」的互動〉，《新史學》，13（3）：149-191。Fang, Jyh-Chyang. 2002. “‘Lishi shishi’: ‘shishi’ yu ‘jieshi’ de hudong” [What is a Historical Fact ?-The Interaction Between Fact and Interpretation]. New History 13(3): 149-191

周樑楷，2006，〈歷史意識是種思維的方法〉，《思想》，2：125-162。Chou, Liang-Kai. 2006. “Lishi yishi shizhong siwei de fangfa” [The Sense of History is the Method of Thinking ]. Si Xiang 2: 125-162.

曾國祥，2002，〈現代歷史理論的自然主義假設：一個批判性的回顧〉，《歐美研究》，32（3）：567-620。Tseng, Kuo-Shiang. 2002. “Xiandai lishi lilun de ziranzhuyi jiashe: yige pipanxing de huigu” [Naturalistic Assumptions in Modern Historiography: A Critical Review]. EurAmerica 32(3): 567-620.

曾國祥，2009，〈原因與理由：霍布斯公民哲學的二元體系〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》，30：61-116。Tseng, Kuo-Shiang. 2009. “Yuanyin yu liyou: Hobbes gongmin zhexue de eryuan tixi” [Cause and Reason: The Dual Systems of Hobbes's Civil Philosophy]. A Journal for Philosophical Study of Public Affairs 30: 61-116.

Thucydides. 2000，《伯羅奔尼撒戰爭史：雅典斯巴達戰爭史》，謝德風譯，臺北：臺灣商務。譯自 History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 1-6. 1919-1921. Thucydides. 2000. Polopennisa Chanchengshih : Yatien Ssupata Chanchengshih. Hsieh, Te-Feng, Trans. Taipei: The Commercial Press Translated from History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 1-6. 1919-1921.