貨幣作爲估價尺度－某些介於歷史和批判的烏托邦之間的哲學－進化視野

Money as Criterion of Valuation

10.29653/LS.199612.0005

哈拉德•霍爾茨(Harald Holz)

貨幣 ； 估價尺度 ； 亞理斯多德 ； 德謨克利特主義 ； 倫理學 ； 經濟－社會－政治體系 ； 烏托邦 ； money ； criterion of valuation ； Aristotle ； Democritism ； ethics ； eco-socio-political system ； utopia

鵝湖學誌

17期（1996 / 12 / 01）

111 - 143

繁體中文

貨幣被看成是財物交易之溥世估價系統的普遍性記號－雖然這是建立在一種頻繁使用它的人之間基本且相互（基於物質基礎）的信任上。今天，貨幣是我們所有經濟、社會、政治及文化面貌上最正式之交換系統的根本原則，在它們之中，彷佛就像存在有價值分配的判準一般。因此，貨幣變成了一種症狀，強迫着我們一起在現代文明中成長和變遷。長久以來（亞理斯多德早就有近似的貨幣定義），這一同時具有工具性和符號化的特徵，它已經擴展到非物質的財物，例如，不但是在健康方面，並且在歡愉、榮耀、名聲、權力等等，其中心動機都可以是爲求得任何種類權力的慾望。尤其是，貨幣甚至成了如同人在求取幸運時所必須之工具那般。仔細探究，貨幣的觀念含藏有某些意識形態背景，例如共產主義、社會主義、資本主義，甚至如伊斯蘭教、佛教、天主教和喀爾文教派的宗教脈絡。特別是，資本主義的生活方式－亦即藉由貨幣這一工具或從貨幣的視角來看人的生命存在這一點－顯現出了，它是建立在自然、人類以及其間的代謝之澈底的機械模式上。另一方面，社會主義這一版本的政治經濟學，它則再一次被解析成一種集體化的貴本主義(collectiviezed capitalism)的僞裝。這種情況變成了一種全人類所過的生活方式。它的表徵是一種人和自然之進步的開發與破壞－特別是在一種通常可見之有關文明熵症狀(a symptom of a common civilisational entropy)的親切觀點下來看，或是在普世性鉅大之有關悲劇症狀之批判隨觀點下來看。於此我們必須區分；依嚴格的意義說，貨幣是所有的，而不是該某一本原的原因。相反地，這是在廣大的西方及西方化的世界這個背景中具有領導性地位之唯物主義的、社會機械主義的意識形態。因此，對公共財富的興趣或多或少地正要被特殊的，甚至是個別的興趣所克服。因此，不但一方面失去了個別和特殊部分之平衡，並且在另一方面也喪失了共同的部分。然而，有一個深刻的改革似乎一直是可能的。因此，倘若整個經濟－社會－政治系統可以以博弈理論來解釋的話：並且假若這一傳弈約結構性佈列－亦即物質力量和用處比其他價值優越的觀念－被其他人評估爲是可替代的；以及第三，假若這種可替代性可被展現爲維持我們世界文明中之最好的部分所絕對必頭的，－那廢，這一中心襯念就應該，並且也鈴須被一個新的－也就是要能夠被非唯物主義（亦即知性和精神價值）的流行所刻劃。更實在論地說，這些價值應該排到在所有文化價值－即一些在涵括如東亞和歐洲最好之倫理和知性原則且淵源流長的人文主義傳統中得到證實的文化價值－的首層上。根清楚地，經濟系統將會遭受本質上的危險。不過，面對貨幣所扮演的角色，這點將會把其純爲形式的功能維持作爲塵世財貨之普遍可能的比較和計算的媒介。於是，這一新的處況依理將會展現給我們一個深刻變化的估價標準，而貨幣亦將以其方式參予於其間。

Money is thought to be a universal sign of a worldwide valuation system for exchangeable goods whatever, although this is based on an elementary and reciprocal confidence, relying on material foundations, between men who are busy with it. To-day, money is the founding principle of a very formal commutational system of all our economical, social, political and cultural features in as much they underlie the criterion of value distribution. So, money has become a symptom and force together of growth and change in modern civilisation. This at the same time instrumental and symbolising character, since a very long time-(Aristotle already has nearly the same definition of money)-, has expanded also into immaterial goods. e.g. not only healthyness, but also pleasure, honour, reputation, power and the like, of which the central motivation may be the desire for any kind of power whatsoever. Moreover, money appears that way even as an unconditional means of human luck at all.Very close to the treatment as well as the idea of money hold certain background ideologies. e.g. communism, socialism, capitalism, even in the religious context Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism and Calvinism.-In particular, the capitalistic way of life. i.e. doing man's existence by means and in the view of money, appears to be based on a thorough-going mechanistic pattern of nature, human beings and the metabolism between both. Socialist versions of political economy, en the other hand, reanalysed as a disguised shape of cellectivised capitalism. -This has become a mankind-wide way of doing life by human beings. Its token is a progressing exploitation and demolition of man and nature,-in a benign point of view a symptom of a common civilisational entropy, in a critical one a symptom of a worldwide gigantic tragedy.Now, we must distinguish: Money is a symptom of all that. but not the primordial cause, in a strict sense, of it. This is, on the contrary, the leading materialistic, social-mechanistic ideology in the background of wide parts of the western, and westernised, world. - Thus. the interest of the common wealth is going, less or more, to be overcome by particular, even individual desires whatever The balance of the individual resp. particular part on the one hand, and the common part on the other has been lost.Nevertheless, a deep reaching reform seems still to be possible. Therefore, if the whole eco-socio-political system is interpreted game-theoretically, and if, further, the structurising constellation of this game, namely the idea of the preponderance of material power and use over all values else, is assessed to be replaceble by another one, and if. thirdly, this replacement can be shown as absolutely necessary for the survival of the best of our world civilisation.- then this central idea should, and must, be replaced by a new one which, then, could be characterised by the prevalence of non-materialistic, i.e. intellectual and spiritual values. More realistically, these values should be ranking at the first order of all cultural values proven in a long humanistic tradition that encompasses e. g. the best of East-Asian und European ethical, and intellectual, principles.Obviously also the economical system, being far from declared superfluous, will then undergo essential changers. - But, with regard to the role of money, this will retain its merely formal function as a medium of universally possible comparison and comutation of terrestrical goods. This new situation, then, will show us a deeply changed criterion of valuation in principle, and money will participate n it iii its way.