盧梭與康德的共和理念及其實現－共和範式到政治創建的比較

The Republican Ideal and Political Innovation: A Comparison between Rousseau and Kant

劉岫靈(Hsiu-Ling Liu)

自主的自我立法 ； 民主共和 ； 憲政共和 ； 共和理念 ； 政治創建 ； autonomous self-legislation ； Democratic Republicanism ； Constitutional Republicanism ； republican ideal ； political innovation

人文及社會科學集刊

29卷4期（2017 / 12 / 01）

485 - 525

繁體中文

盧梭的「民主共和」理論與康德的「憲政共和」理論是古典共和主義轉向現代共和主義過程中的兩組重要典範，本文旨在從規範論層次的「共和理念」面向與秩序論層次的「政治創建」面向分析這兩組共和理論的理路分歧。文中首先將分析兩人的「共和理念」，並概念化為兩組不同的共和範式。其次分析兩人的「政治創建」論述，說明兩組共和範式是如何在有限的時空中創造「共和政體」並維持自身存在。最後，對兩人的「共和理念」範式與「政治創建」論述進行比較，以釐清兩種理論的內在差異以及兩組典範之於現代共和主義的特殊意義。

Rousseau's ＂Democratic Republicanism＂ and Kant's ＂Constitutional Republicanism＂ are two important albeit conflicting paradigms of the transition from classical to contemporary Republicanism. In this paper, we aim to analyze the differences between Republican Ideal and Political Innovation. At first, we compare the differences in the Republican Ideals of Rousseau and Kant by proposing two different schemes of ideas: Rousseau's ＂autonomous freedom- general will-sovereignty-laws-republic＂ and Kant's ＂autonomous freedom- principle of right-public will-the state in idea-republic＂. Secondly, we analyze the two different discourses of Political Innovation in order to explain how they create a ＂republic＂ and maintain their own existence in a limited spacetime (temporal finitude). In conclusion, through the above comparison of the Republican Ideal and Political Innovation, we try to clarify the differences between these two paradigms while indicating their distinctive meaning in terms of relevance of contemporary republicanism.

1. 周家瑜(2012)。康德論政治自由：對政治式詮釋的修正。政治與社會哲學評論，43，81-116。
   連結：
2. 陳嘉銘(2013)。盧梭推論戰爭權利的途徑—從共和自由到萬民法。臺灣民主季刊，10(4)，93-136。
   連結：
3. 陳嘉銘(2014)。「創造出公民，要什麼就都有了」？論盧梭的自由、愛國主義和實現共和的弔詭。人文及社會科學集刊，26(2)，175-218。
   連結：
4. Bertram, Christopher(2012).Rousseau's Legacy in Two Conceptions of the General Will: Democratic and Transcendent.The Review of Politics,74(3),403-419.
5. Bielefeldt, Heiner(1997).Autonomy and Republicanism: Immanuel Kant's Philosophy of Freedom.Polit ical Theory,25(4),524-558.
6. Cassirer, Ernst,Gay, Peter(ed.)(1989).The Question of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.New Haven:Yale University Press.
7. Costa, M. Victoria(2009).Neo-republicanism, Freedom as Non-Domination, and Citizen Virtue.Politics, Philosophy and Economics,8(4),401-419.
8. Gregor, Mary J.(ed.)(1996).Practical Philosophy.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
9. Guyer, Paul(ed.)(1992).The Cambridge Companion to Kant.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
10. Hendel, C. W.(1962).Jean Jacques Rousseau: Moralist.Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill.
11. Kant, Immanuel,Paton, H. J.(ed.)(1964).Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Moral.New York:Haper & Row Press.
12. Kaufman, Alexander(1997).Reason, Self-Legislation and Legitimacy: Conceptions of Freedom in the Political Thought of Rousseau and Kant.The Review of Politics,59(1),25-52.
13. Korsgaard, Christine M.(1996).Creating the Kingdom of Ends.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
14. Krieger, Leonard(1972).The German Idea of Freedom.Chicago:Chicago University Press.
15. Nelson, William(2008).Kant's Formula of Humanity.Mind,117(465),85-106.
16. Nicgorski, W.(1991).Cicero's Focus: From the Best Regime to the Model Statesman.Political Theory,19,230-251.
17. Paton, H. J.(1971).The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant's Moral Philosophy.Pennsylvania:Pennsylvania University Press.
18. Plattner, Marc F.(1979).Rousseau's State of Nature: An Interpretation of the Discourse on Inequality.Dekalb:Northern Illinois University Press.
19. Pocock, J. G. A.(1975).The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Repub lican Tradition.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
20. Pojman, Louis P.(2005).Kant's Perpetual Peace and Cosmopolitanism.Journal of Social Philosophy,36(1),62-71.
21. Powell, J. G. F.(2001).Were Cicero's Laws the Laws of Cicero's Republic?.Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies,45(S76),17-39.
22. Reiss, Hans(ed.),Nisbet, H. B.(trans.)(1991).Kant: Political Writings.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
23. Riley, Patrick(1982).Will and Political Legitimacy: A Critical Exposition of Social Contract Theory in Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
24. Ripstein, Arthur(2009).Force and Freedom: Kant's Legal and Political Philosophy.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
25. Rousseau, Jean Jacques,Cole, G. D. H.(ed.)(1955).A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.London:Dent.
26. Rousseau, Jean Jacques,Cole, G. D. H.(ed.)(1968).The Social Contract and Discourses.London:Dent.
27. Strauss, Leo(1953).Natural Right and History.Chicago:Chicago University Press.
28. Vatter, Miguel(2011).The People Shall Be Judge Reflective Judgment and Constituent Power in Kant's Philosophy of Law.Political Theory,39(6),749-776.
29. Williams, Howard(2001).Metamorphosis or Palingenesis? Political Change in Kant.The Review of Politics,63(4),693-722.
30. Wood, Neal(1988).Cicero's Social and Political Thought.Los Angeles:University of California Press.
31. 朱堅章(1972)。盧梭政治思想中自由觀念的分析。國立政治大學學報，26，183-205。
32. 蔡英文編、張福建編(2001)。自由主義。臺北=Taipei:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所=Sun Yat-Sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy, Academia Sinica。
33. 蔡英文(2015)。從王權、專制到民主：西方民主思想的開展及其問題。臺北=Taipei:聯經=Linking Publishing。
34. 蕭高彥(2013)。西方共和主義思想史論。臺北=Taipei:聯經=Linking Publishing。

1. 李念祖(2021)。不是契約的約定－論約法三章與社會契約義理的差距。法制史研究，38，1-56。