奧古斯丁與柏拉圖論人際之愛：哲學評估

Interpersonal Love in Augustine and Plato: A Philosophical Assessment

鄭義愷(I-Kai JENG)

《哲學與文化》 50卷5期 (2023/05) Pp. 95-112

摘要

本文就人與人之間的愛這一課題，將柏拉圖與奧古斯丁著作中的相關說法作一比較。比較的目的在於透過批評柏拉圖學說來說明奧古斯丁學說的優勢與合理性。本文指出柏拉圖學說的兩個缺點：一、愛是某種欲望，從而預設了匱乏；二、愛對善的追求會貶低對個人的愛。然後再說明奧古斯丁如何在接受許多柏拉圖前提的狀況下，仍能修正這兩個缺點：一、愛既是欲望也是享受；二、愛對善的追求在某些狀況下會提升對個人的愛。本文一方面會從對日常生活中愛的現象的觀察出發，與這兩個思想家的說法作印證；另一方面也會從概念的層次上，解說奧古斯丁學說的穩妥並回應可能的疑難。

關鍵字

奧古斯丁 ； 柏拉圖 ； 倫理學 ； 人際之愛 ； 照顧

並列摘要

This paper compares Plato's with Augustine's view of interpersonal love based on their relevant writings. The purpose of the comparison is to defend the superiority and plausibility of Augustine's view by showing the defects in Plato's. I argue that Plato's account of love has two errors: he believes that love is a kind of desire, which presupposes lack, and that the ultimate object of love, the Good, demotes the value of interpersonal love excessively. I then explain how Augustine, despite agreeing with Plato on many points, nevertheless corrects these two mistakes. For him, love is both desire and enjoyment of the beloved object; and in some cases, the pursuit of the Good elevates the worth and meaning of interpersonal love. This paper shall consider, on the one hand, the two accounts in light of observations from everyday life, and on the other, to conceptually show the soundness of Augustine's view and respond to a possible challenge.

並列關鍵字

Augustine ； Plato ； Ethics ； Interpersonal Love ； Care

參考文獻

Beatrice, Pier Franco. “Quosdam Platonicorum Libros: The Platonic Readings of Augustine in Milan,” Vigiliae Christianae 43.3(1989): 248-81.

Cary, Phillip. Inner Grace: Augustine in the Traditions of Plato and Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Meconi, David Vincent. “Traveling without Moving: Love as Ecstatic Union in Plotinus, Augustine, and Dante,” Mediterranean Studies 18(2009): 1-23.

O'Donovan, Oliver. The Problem of Self-Love in St. Augustine. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980.

O’Meara, John J. “St. Augustine’s Attitude to Love in the Context of His Influence on Christian Ethics,” Arethusa 2.1(1969): 46-60.