讓自由主義合情理：Bernard Williams論合法性與現代性 - 政大學術集成
128
0
0
全文
(2)
(3) 2016/10/19. fb161019-2.htm. 記錄編號：G0102252030. 國⽴立政治⼤大學 博碩⼠士論⽂文全⽂文上網授權書 National ChengChi University Letter of Authorization for Theses and Dissertations Full Text Upload (提供授權⼈人裝訂於紙本論⽂文書名⾴頁之次⾴頁⽤用) (Bind with paper copy thesis/dissertation following the title page) 本授權書所授權之論⽂文為授權⼈人在國⽴立政治⼤大學政治學系系所 ________________組 105學 年度第⼀一學期取得 碩⼠士學位之論⽂文。 This form attests that the _____________ Division of the Department of Graduate Institute of Political Science at National ChengChi University has received a Master degree thesis/dissertation by the undersigned in the _________ semester of 105 academic year. 論⽂文題⺫⽬目（Title）：讓⾃自由主義合情理：Bernard Williams論合法性與現代性 ( Making Sense of Liberalism: Bernard Williams on Legitimation and Modernity ) 指導教授（Supervisor）：葉浩 ⽴立書⼈人同意⾮非專屬、無償授權國⽴立政治⼤大學，將上列論⽂文全⽂文資料以數位化等各種⽅方式重 製後收錄於資料庫，透過單機、網際網路、無線網路或其他公開傳輸⽅方式提供⽤用⼾戶進⾏行線 上檢索、瀏覽、下載、傳輸及列印。 國⽴立政治⼤大學並得以再授權第三⼈人進⾏行上述之⾏行為。 The undersigned grants non-exclusive and gratis authorization to National ChengChi University, to re-produce the above thesis/dissertation full text material via digitalization or any other way, and to store it in the database for users to access online search, browse, download, transmit and print via single-machine, the Internet, wireless Internet or other public methods. National ChengChi University is entitled to reauthorize a third party to perform the above actions. 論⽂文全⽂文上載網路公開之時間（Time of Thesis/Dissertation Full Text Uploading for Internet Access）： 網際網路（The Internet） ■ ⽴立即公開 ● ⽴立書⼈人擔保本著作為⽴立書⼈人所創作之著作，有權依本授權書內容進⾏行各項授權，且未侵 害任何第三⼈人之智慧財產權。 The undersigned guarantees that this work is the original work of the undersigned, and is therefore eligible to grant various authorizations according to this letter of authorization, and does not infringe any intellectual property right of any third party. ● 依據96年9⽉月22⽇日96學年度第1學期第1次教務會議決議，畢業論⽂文既經考試委員評定完 成，並已繳交⾄至圖書館，應視為本校之檔案，不得再⾏行抽換。關於授權事項亦採⼀一經授權 不得變更之原則辦理。 According to the resolution of the first Academic Affairs Meeting of the first semester on September 22nd, 2007,Once the thesis/dissertation is passed after the officiating examiner's evaluation and sent to the library, it will be considered as the library's record, thereby changing and replacing of the record is disallowed. For the matter of authorization, once the authorization is granted to the library, any further alteration is disallowed， ⽴立 書 ⼈人：⺩王雲飛 簽 名(Signature)： 中 華 ⺠民 國 105 年 10 ⽉月 19 ⽇日 Date of signature：__________/__________/__________ (dd/mm/yyyy) 19 10 2016. file:///Users/Wong/Downloads/fb161019-2.htm. 1/1.
(4)
(5)
(6) Williams Williams. 2016. 10. 19. Butler’s Wharf, London.
(7) ! ! ! ! ! Bernard!Williams. Williams Williams Williams Williams. Williams. ! ! ! Bernard Williams.
(8) Abstract. Bernard Williams is one of the most representative scholars among the trend of political realism in contemporary political philosophy. He criticized political moralism for it makes moral prior to the political, advocated the political should be given more autonomy. He proposed the "Basic Legitimation Demand" as the normative source in politics, combined with modernity as a condition, to create a new approach toward liberalism. This thesis reviews Williams's ideas of legitimation and modernity by examining his theory, and explores his insights on the methodology of political theory. While endorsing and appreciating Williams's claims and acknowledging the uniqueness of his methodological concern, the following criticisms remain. First of all, Williams’s understanding of "the political" already contains moral concern. Second, "Basic Legitimation Demand" implies an elementary view of liberalism. Third, there is a subtle relationship between the liberalism of fear and Basic Legitimation Demand that could make Williams's theory flawed. Fourth, political moralism is written for the readers of contemporary pluralistic society, and the methods used can be regarded as a kind of rhetoric.. Key words: Bernard Williams, Political realism, Political moralism, Basic Legitimation Demand, Liberalism of Fear, Modernity..
(9) !. ........................................................................................... 1. Williams .................................................................................................... 17. Williams. Schmitt. .................................................... 23 ................................................................ 24 .................................... 27 .................................. 29. .................................................................. 32 .............................................. 33 .............................................................. 34. !. !.
(10) .................................................................. 36 .............................................................. 37. .................................................. 40 ................................................................ 41 .................................................. 43 ................................................................ 46 Hall. Williams. Williams. ........................ 48. ............ 53. .......................................... 54 ............................ 58. .............................. 61 .......................................................................... 63 ...................................................................... 65. ............................ 77. !. !.
(11) Shklar. .......................................... 78. ................................................................ 85. .......................................................................... 89 .................................................................. 93. ....................................................................................... 107 ............................................................................................. 113. !. !.
(12) Wolff 2006 2 evaluative. Geuss 2010 385 North 2010 381 Valentini 2012 654 1. Honig and Stears 2011 177. ideal -. non-ideal. realism Valentini 2012 full-compliance partial-compliance !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1!. Leopold, D., & Stears, M. (2008). Political theory: methods and approaches. Oxford University Press Floyd, J., & Stears, M. (Eds.). (2011). Political philosophy versus history?: contextualism and real politics in contemporary political thought. Cambridge University Press List, Christian, and Laura Valentini.(2016) "The Methodology of Political Theory." The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology. Oxford University Press. !. 1!.
(13) end-state. transitional Valentini idealization. Valentini 2012: 662 Valentini. Baderin. 2013. detachment. Freeden. prescriptive. displacement. interpretive. Baderin Freeden 2012 Galston. political possibility. Galston !. 2010 2!.
(14) strict compliance. Rawls 1999:5. distinctiveness. Galston. Geuss 2008. 2008. 9. 2008 11 2008 13 !. 3!.
(15) 2008 15 Geuss modus vivendi Honig and Stears. 2011. 178. Geuss Geuss. Rawls 1999 8. Stemplowska 2008. Floyd and Stears 8 !. 4!. 2011.
(16) 2. Honig and Stears 2011 179. Larmore 2012 3. 3. Williams. Bernard Williams. Freeden 2012 5-6. Williams Sleat 2010. 486. 489. Williams !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2! 3!. !. Rossi, E. (2015). Can Realism Move Beyond a Methodenstreit?. Political Theory, 1-11 Gray, J. (2002). Two Faces of Liberalism. The New Press. 5!.
(17) Williams. Williams. Chappell 2015. Williams. affair Williams. 1980. Hawthorn. 2005 i. In the Beginning was the Deed. Realism and. Moralism in Political Argument. Williams Williams !. 6!.
(18) Williams. Yack 2006. Baderin. 2013. 8. Bavister-Gould. 2013. 594. Sagar 2014 1 the liberalism of fear Williams. Basic Legitimation Demand. Might is right. Williams Larmore 2012 !. Williams 4 7!. Williams. Williams. Judith Shaklar.
(19) Geuss. Honig and Stears 2011 185. Geuss 2008: 101. Williams Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams Williams Williams. !. 8!.
(20) Freeden 2012. Williams Williams. Freeden ——. Freeden. Williams. ——. Williams Williams Williams. Freeden Williams Freeden Bavister-Gould. 2013. Williams Williams. Williams. Williams Larmore 2012 Larmore. Baderin 2013 9. Sleat 2010 !. Williams 9!.
(21) Williams Williams Williams /. /. Williams. Williams. Williams. Hall 2015. Hall. Williams. Williams. Larmore. Hall. Williams. Williams Larmore !. 10!. Williams.
(22) Williams. Hall. Philp. 2007. Sagar. Sleat 2014. 5-6. Williams. Sagar 2014. Williams 2008. Flathman Williams. Williams Yack 2006. 2007. Ross. Pippin. 2009. Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams. Williams Williams Williams. Williams. !. 11!.
(23) Williams. Williams Williams Williams. 4. Williams. Williams. Williams now and here Williams nostalgia. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4!. Erman, E., & Möller, N. (2015). Political Legitimacy in the Real Normative World: The Priority of Morality and the Autonomy of the Political. British Journal of Political Science, 45(01), 215-233. Sigwart, H. J. (2013). The logic of legitimacy: Ethics in political realism. The Review of Politics, 75(03), 407-432. Sleat, M. (2014). Legitimacy in realist thought: Between moralism and realpolitik. Political Theory, 0090591714522250. Sleat, M. (2015). Justice and Legitimacy in Contemporary Liberal Thought. Social theory and practice, 41(2), 230-252. !. 12!.
(24) Sleat. Williams Williams ⋯⋯. Williams making sense. Williams. Williams Williams Williams Williams. Bernard Williams. Williams Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. !. 13!.
(25) Williams. “the political”. Carl Schmitt. Schmitt. Schmitt. Schmitt. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams Williams Williams. Williams Williams. Williams. !. 14!.
(26) Williams. Williams Williams. Shklar Williams. Williams ⋯⋯. Williams. Williams. Williams Williams. !. 15!.
(27)
(28) Williams. deontological. Rossi and Sleat 2014: 1. Rossi and Sleat 2014: 2 Rossi and Sleat 2014: 2; Philp 2012: 631. !. 17!.
(29) Bernard Williams Williams Carl Schmitt. Williams. Williams Williams. 1. the political Schmitt. Williams 2005: 2-3; Galston 2010: 387. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1!. the!political. ”political” ”political” ”the!political” the!political !. 2004. !. 18!. ! ”politics” !. ”the!political”. ”the!political” !.
(30) Bernard Williams 2005: 12 77. Williams Williams. Williams. Carl Schmitt. Williams. 20. Schmitt Schmitt. Chantal Mouffe 1993 Schmitt 2005: 12 77 Schmitt 2007: 25 Schmitt. !. 19!. Williams.
(31) 2007: 26. Schmitt 2007: 27. Schmitt 2007: 27. Schmitt. Schmitt concrete existential. !. Schmitt 2007: 27-28. 20!. Schmitt.
(32) Schmitt. public enemy. hostis inimicus. Schmitt 2007: 28. Schmitt 2007: 29. Schmitt. grouping 2007: Schmitt 2007: 33. !. 21!. Schmitt.
(33) Schmitt 2007: 27. Schmitt Schmitt 2007: 35. Schmitt. Schmitt. !. -. 22!.
(34) Bernard Williams Williams. Schmitt. Schmitt. Bernard Williams. Schmitt Bernard Williams. Schmitt Williams 2005: 78 ——. Williams. opponent. Williams. Schmitt. Williams. Schmitt. Schmitt 2007: 22-24 43-44 44-45. Williams. Williams 2005: 3 2005: 78 Schmitt. Williams. Schmitt Williams Schmitt. !. 23!.
(35) Schmitt. Williams Williams Williams. Schmitt. Williams ——. Williams. —— Williams 2005: 77. Williams Williams. Williams. Williams Williams 2005: 77 Williams 2005: 77. decision !. 24!.
(36) Williams 2005: 77. Williams. 2005: 77. Hall 2013: 231 Williams 2005: 77. Williams Williams. Williams 2005: 75. Bernard !. 25!.
(37) Williams. 2. ——. Williams 2005: 75. historical deposit. 2005: 77. Williams priori. anthropology. Williams 2005: 76. construct. ——. Williams 2005: 76 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2!. !. !. 26!.
(38) Williams. Williams 2005: 78. Williams Williams 2005: 13 !. 27!.
(39) Williams 2005: 13. Williams 2005: 13 Williams. Schmitt. Schmitt Williams Williams 2005: 78. Schmitt. Williams. Williams 2005: 78. Williams Williams 2005: 78. !. 28!.
(40) Williams. Williams 2005: 12-13. —— —— Williams 2005: 12 Williams. Williams. Williams. in the beginning was the deed. !. 29!.
(41) Valentini 2012: 659; North 2010: 382; Galston 2010 Baderin 2013. Williams. Williams represent. Williams. Williams 2005: 24. Williams. Williams 2005: 24. !. 30!.
(42) Williams 2005: 25. Williams. foundationalism Williams 2005: 25. Williams. liberal project. Williams 2005. Williams 2005: 25. Williams Williams 2005: 25. Williams 2005: 25-26. Williams 1993: 164. !. 31!.
(43) Bellamy. 2010: 427. Williams Williams 2005: 12. Williams. Williams Williams 1981: 54. Williams. involvement. disposition. 1981: 54. !. 32!. Williams.
(44) Williams. professional ethics. client Williams 1981:55. Williams 1981: 55. Williams trying to stay in office. Williams 1981: 56 the business of politics. Williams 1981: 56 !. 33!.
(45) Williams Williams 1981: 56. resign Williams Williams 1981: 57. Williams. !. 34!.
(46) Williams 1981: 58 Williams. Williams. Williams 2005: 59 exception unease. !. 35!.
(47) Williams. Williams 1981: 60 Williams 1981: 60. Williams. Williams 1981: 61 consequentialism. Williams 1981: 61-62. Williams 1981: 62 !. 36!.
(48) Williams 1981: 62. Williams. Williams 1981: 62. professionalism. Williams. Williams concealment 66 !. 37!. Williams 1981:.
(49) professional commitment. Williams 1981: 66. Williams. Williams 1981: 66 Williams. Williams !. 38!.
(50) Williams 1981: 67. Williams. Williams 1981: 67. Williams 1981: 67. promotion pattern bottleneck. Williams 1981: 68. !. 39!. Williams Williams.
(51) Bernard William. amoral. immoral. Galston 2010: 387 Williams 2005: 9. 2005: 2 77. Williams. enactment. structural Williams. Williams Hall 2013: 223 Williams. Williams. Williams 2005: 2. !. 40!.
(52) Williams 2005: 1. Williams 2005: 1. Williams. Williams 2005: 1. Williams 2005: 1. Bernard Williams. Williams 1973: 80. Hawthorn 2005: xiii. Williams !. 41!.
(53) Williams 2005: 2-3 Williams. 3. Williams. Williams. Williams. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. 3! Smart, J.J.C & Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press.. !. 42!.
(54) Williams. Williams 2005: 1. Williams 2005: 29. Rawls 1999: 3 6. Williams 2006: 78 Rawls !. 43!.
(55) 1999: 12 Williams 2005:29. ethical commonwealth. primary good notion of autonomy. Rawls 1999: 221-227. !. 44!.
(56) Rawls 1999: xii, 11. Rawls 1999: 4. Williams. 2005: 12. Rawls 2005: xv Williams. reasonable pluralism. political. conception of justice. Rawls 2005: xxxvi. Rawls 2005: 11 Rawls 2005: 9-10. modus vivendi Rawls 2005: xxxvii-xxxviii !. 45!.
(57) social unity Rawls 2005: 147. moral ground. moral object. Rawls 2005: 147. Williams Williams. !. 46!.
(58) political. Williams. Williams 2005: 10 Williams. ?Williams !. 47!.
(59) 4. Williams Williams 2005: 9. Hall. Williams. Edward Hall 2013. Williams. Williams Sangiovanni. -. practice-dependent. Hall 2013: 221; Sangiovanni 2008: 138 Hall 2013: 222 Williams. Hall 2013: 223. Williams. Hall Williams. wishful thinking. Hall 2013: 229 Hall. Williams. Hall 2013: 234 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4!. !. Basic!Legitimation!Demand. Making!Sense 48!. !.
(60) Williams. Hall. Hall Williams Sangiovanni -. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams Williams Williams 2005: 3. !. 49!.
(61) Hall. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams Williams. Williams Williams. Williams Williams. !. 50!.
(62) Williams. Williams. !. 51!.
(63)
(64) Williams Williams. Williams 2005: 77 Williams legitimaticy. legitimate. legitimation. 1. Williams. Williams Williams Williams. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1!. legitimacy. legitimation. legitimacy legitimation Williams legitimation. !. 53!. Legitimate. justify !.
(65) Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Hall. 2015. Critical Theory Principle. an overtly coercive or deceitful regime. !. 54!.
(66) Williams 2005: 22 autonomy. —— —— Williams 2005: 22; Nino 1991: 104 Williams 2005: 22; Nino 1991: 104 Williams. Williams 2005: 23 17 Gray 1995: xi. Williams 2005: 9. !. 55!.
(67) autonomy. Williams Williams. 2005: 20. Williams 2006: 55. Williams 2006: 59-60. Williams. Williams 2005: 20 !. 56!.
(68) Williams 2005: 21. Williams. doublethink. -. -. -. -. Williams 2005: 21. Williams 2005: 21. Williams Williams 2005: 21. religious sectarianism Williams 2005: 21 5. !. 57!. Geuss 2001:.
(69) Geuss 2001: 5. co-existence Williams 2005: 22. !. 58!.
(70) Williams. Williams 2005: 23 Williams. Williams 2005: 23 Might is not, in itself, right necessary truth. Williams. the first. Williams 2005: 23. Williams !. 59!.
(71) Hobbes 1998: 84. Williams. Hobbesian fear Williams 2005: 145. -. 2. Williams. Williams 2005: 145. Williams Sleat 2010: 494. fellow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2!. !. !. 60!.
(72) citizen. Schmitt. Williams. Williams. Williams Sleat 2010: 495; Freeden 2012: 7-8. Williams. Williams. !. 61!.
(73) Williams Williams. Williams 2005: 79. Williams primitive freedom. Williams 2005: 79 Williams. Williams 2005: 75. Williams. Williams 2005: 82. Williams. proto-political. Williams resentment Williams 2005: 82 Williams. !. 62!. Williams 2005: 10.
(74) Williams 2005: 82. Williams. Williams 2005: 83 legitimating. Williams 2005: 83 Geuss Geuss 2001: 43. Williams. Williams 2005: 83. Williams !. first political 63!.
(75) question. Williams 2005: 3. Williams Williams. Williams Williams 2005: 3. Williams. Williams. Williams 2005: 3. !. Williams. 64!.
(76) Williams. Basic. Legitimation Demand. Williams. acceptable Williams 2005: 4. Williams Williams 2005: 4. Sleat 2010: 495 someone can fear. !. Williams. what radically disadvantage. 65!.
(77) 3. Williams 2005: 4. Williams 2005: 5. Williams 2005: 5 Williams. ⋯⋯ Williams 2005: 95. Williams. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3!. 2005:!4 !. Williams !. Williams!. 66!.
(78) Williams Williams. Hall 2015: 470. Hall 2015: 472. Williams. Williams 2005: 62. Williams 2005: 5. !. 67!.
(79) Williams 2005: 6. Williams 2005: 4. Williams 2005: 6 Williams. the actual. discursive power of politico-ideological language. !. 68!. Freeden 2012: 6.
(80) Williams Critical Theory Principle. Williams 2005: 6 Williams. the advantaged party. the disadvantaged party. Williams Williams 2002: 222 Williams. Williams 2002: 222. !. 69!.
(81) Williams. Williams 2002: 223. Williams 2002: 224 -. Williams 2002: 224. genetic. fallacy. Williams !. 70!.
(82) Williams 2002: 226. Williams. Williams 2002: 226-227. !. 71!.
(83) Williams. Williams 2002: 227. Williams 1 1 2 Williams 2002: 228 Williams. 3. 1. 2. 1. 1. Williams 2002: 228. Williams. 3. !. 1. 72!. 4. 1.
(84) 1 1. 1. Williams a theory of moral truth Williams 2002: 230. a theory. of error. Williams. Williams. Williams. !. Williams. 73!.
(85) Williams. Williams 2005: 5. Williams / Williams. Williams. Williams Sleat 2010: 495 Williams. Williams !. 74!.
(86) Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams 2005: 9. !. 75!. Williams.
(87)
(88) Williams Williams. Williams Williams. Williams 2005: 3. Judith Shklar Judith Shklar. Williams Williams Williams 2005: 7. Williams 2005: 90 Williams Williams Williams Williams 2006: vii. !. 77!. Williams.
(89) 1. ⋯⋯. Williams. making sense. Williams. nostalgic consciousness. Williams. Williams. Shklar Shklar Williams Williams. Shklar a philosophy of life. Shklar 1989: 149. Shklar. Shklar 1989: 149. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1!. !. ! 78!. Williams.
(90) Shklar 1989: 150. Williams. Shklar. Williams 2005: 55 Shklar. Shklar 1989: 150. Shklar 1989: 150. Shklar. Williams. Shklar Shklar 1989: 151 public policies of churches toleration. Shklar 1989: 151 !. 79!.
(91) Shklar 1989: 151. liberalism of natural rights of personal development. liberalism. Shklar. patron saints. of liberalism Shklar 1989: 155. Shklar 1914. Shklar 1989: 155. Shklar. Shklar 1989: 155 Shklar Shklar 1989: 149 Shklar !. 80!.
(92) Shklar conceptually pure Shklar 1989: 155-156. Shklar Shklar 1989: 156. Shklar. Shklar 1989: 157 Williams. Shklar. Williams. Shklar. Shklar. Shklar 1989: 157. Shklar. Shklar 1989: 159. !. 81!.
(93) Shklar 1989: 159 Shklar. Williams Shklar. Shklar 1989: 162. Shklar 1989: 163 Shklar. Shklar 1989: 164 Shklar. Shklar. Shklar 1989: 164 Williams !. Shklar 82!.
(94) Williams. Shklar powerlessness a universalism of negative capacities. the. only certainly universal materials of politics. Williams 2005: 59. the weak. Williams. Shklar. the powerful. Shklar. Williams 2005: 61 Williams 2005: 8-9 Williams. Shklar Williams 2005: 61 Shklar. Williams Shklar. Shklar !. 83!.
(95) Williams 2005: 56 Shklar. Schmitt Williams Williams 2005: 59 Williams Williams. Williams 2. Williams. 2005: 61. Williams 2005: 60 Williams. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2! “it!treats!each!proposal!for!the!extension!of!the!notions!of!fear!and!freedom!in!the!light!of!what! locally!has!been!secured.”!. !. 84!.
(96) Shklar. Williams Williams. 1994. Williams a sense of past. a sense of present. Williams. the question of the audience of political philosophy. Williams 2005: 54 Williams Williams 2005: 56. -. -. a second-person analogue !. 85!. Williams. Williams 2005: 56.
(97) Williams founding father Supreme Court. start from the ground up Williams 2005: 58. Williams 2005: 58. Williams. !. 86!.
(98) Williams 2005: 57. a effect of diffusion. Williams 2005: 57. Keynes 1939: 383; Williams 2005: 57. Williams 2005: 58 Williams. Williams 2005: 58. displacement of politics. !. 87!.
(99) Williams 2005: 58 Williams. Williams 2005: 59 Williams. Williams 2005: 59 Williams Williams 2005: 59 Collingwood. Williams. !. 88!. Williams.
(100) Williams 2005: 9 Williams 2005: 57. Williams 2005: 15 Shklar. Williams Williams. Williams. Williams 2005: 25. ⋯⋯ Williams. !. 89!.
(101) Williams Rechtstaat Williams 2005: 9 ⋯⋯. ⋯⋯. Williams. 2005: 11. MS Williams Williams 2002: 238. Williams 2002: 245 Williams minimalist Williams Williams. narrative !. 90!.
(102) Williams 2002: 239. Williams 2002: 244. Williams 2002: 243 ⋯⋯ ⋯⋯ making sense. Williams making sense. ⋯⋯. Williams. Williams 2005: 10. !. 91!.
(103) Williams 2005: 11. Williams. Williams 2005: 11. ⋯⋯. Williams 2005: 11 here and now. ⋯⋯. Williams 2005: 11. Williams 2005: 11 Williams. !. 92!.
(104) Williams 2005: 11. ⋯⋯. Williams. Williams. 1984 Williams. Williams. William. Williams Williams !. 93!.
(105) 2005: 9 organizational feature Williams 2005: 9 Williams Williams 2005: 42 Williams. Williams ——. —— Williams. Williams 2005: 15. Williams. Williams 2005: 15. Williams Williams 2005: 15 Williams. discourse theory. Williams 2006: 16. !. 94!.
(106) the role of actors oriented to success Williams 2005: 16. Williams 2005: 16. Williams. Williams 2005: 16. ⋯⋯. Williams. 2005: 16. Williams Williams 2005: 16. Williams 2005: 17. Williams 2005: 17 Williams 2005: 93 Williams ⋯⋯ !. 95!.
(107) merely circular or empty. Williams 2005: 96. Williams. Williams 2005: 93-94. Williams. now and here. Williams 2005: 94. !. 96!.
(108) historical self-consciousness Williams 2005: 94. Williams 2005: 96. Williams 2005: 95. Williams 2005: 7. !. 97!.
(109) Williams. Williams. ethical nostalgia. Williams 2005: 40. Williams 2005: 41 general view. !. 98!.
(110) Williams 2005: 42. Williams 2005: 43 Williams 2005: 42. Williams Williams. disintegration. Williams 2005: 33. Williams Williams. Williams 2005: 32. Williams. Williams. Williams 2005: 32. !. 99!.
(111) ethical density. Williams 2005: 33. liberal pluralist theory Williams Williams. Williams 2005: 38. Williams 2005: 38 Williams !. 100!.
(112) Williams 2005: 39. Williams. foundationalism 34. Williams 2005: Williams. Williams 2005: 35. Williams. Williams 2005: 36. 3. Williams 2005: 36 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3!. !. !. 101!.
(113) Williams 2005: 37 Williams. Williams 2005: 37. A Y. X. A. Y. X. Y. Williams 2005: 68. Williams 2006: 156 Williams !. 102!. X B. B.
(114) Williams 2005: 68. Williams 2005: 68-69. Williams 2005: 69. Williams 2006: 158. Williams 2006: 159 Williams the relativism of distance Williams. !. confrontation. 103!.
(115) Williams 2006: 163. Williams 2006: 163. !. 104!.
(116) Williams. Williams 2005: 49. !. 105!.
(117)
(118) ! Williams distinctively!political!thought Williams! 2005:!3. ”distinctively!political!thought”. Williams. ”political”. ”political”. Williams Williams ”political” ”political” ! Williams. !. 107!.
(119) !. Williams. !. !. 108!.
(120) Williams !. !. !. !. 109!.
(121) ! Williams. ! Williams Williams Williams. Williams Williams !. 110!.
(122) Williams. Shklar. ! Williams Williams Williams. Williams Williams. Williams. Williams. truthfulness Williams. !. !. 111!.
(123)
(124) Baderin, A. (2013). Two Forms of Realism in Political Theory. European Journal of Political Theory,0(0), 1-22. Bavister Gould, A. (2013). Bernard Williams: Political Realism and the Limits of Legitimacy. European Journal of Philosophy, 21(4), 593-610. Bellamy, R. (2010). Dirty Hands and Clean Gloves: Liberal Ideals and Real Politics. European Journal of Political Theory, 9(4), 412-430. Chappell, Sophie Grace, "Bernard Williams", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/williams-bernard/>. Erman, E and Möller, N. (2015). Political Legitimacy in the Real Normative World: The Priority of Morality and the Autonomy of the Political. British Journal of Political Science, 45(01), 215-233. Flathman, R. (2010). In and Out of the Ethical: The Realist Liberalism of Bernard Williams. Contemporary Political Theory, 9(1), 77-98. Floyd, J and Stears, M. (Eds.). (2011). Political Philosophy versus History?: Contextualism and Real Politics in Contemporary Political Thought. Cambridge University Press Freeden, M. (2012). Interpretative Realism and Prescriptive Realism. Journal of Political Ideologies, 17(1), 1-11.. !. 113!.
(125) Forrester, K. (2012). Judith Shklar, Bernard Williams and Political Realism. European Journal of Political Theory, 11(3), 247-272. Galston, W. A. (2010). Realism in Political Theory. European journal of political theory, 9(4), 385-411. Geuss, R. (2001). History and Illusion in Politics. Cambridge University Press. -----------. (2008). Philosophy and Real Politics. Princeton University Press. Gray, J. (1995). Liberalism, 2nd.ed, University of Minnesota Press. ---------. (2002). Two Faces of Liberalism. The New Press. Hall, E. (2015). Bernard Williams and the Basic Legitimation Demand: a Defence. Political Studies, 63(2), 466-480. ---------. (2013). The Limits of Bernard Williams's Critique of Political Moralism. Ethical perspectives, 20(2), 217-243. Hawthorn, G. (2005). Introduction. In the Beginning Was the Deed, by Bernard Williams, i-xx. Princeton University Press. Honig, B and Stears, M. (2011). The New Realism: From Modus Vivendi to Justice. Political Philosophy versus History, 177-205. Cambridge University Press. Hobbes, T. (1998). Leviathan, Oxford University Press. Larmore, C. (2012). What Is Political Philosophy?. Journal of Moral Philosophy. DOI 10.1163/174552412X628896. Leopold, D and Stears, M. (2008). Political Theory: Methods and Approaches. Oxford University Press. !. 114!.
(126) List, Christian, and Laura Valentini.(2016) .The Methodology of Political Theory. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology. Oxford University Press. North, R. (2010). Political Realism: Introduction. European Journal of Political Theory, 9(4), 381-384. Philp, M. (2007). Political Conduct. London: Harvard University Press. Pippin, R. B. (2007). Review of the book In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument, by Bernard Williams. The Journal of Philosophy, 104(10), 533-539. Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice, rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 5. ----------. (2005). Political Liberalism, expanded edition. Columbia University Press. Ross, S. (2009). Review of the book In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument, by Bernard Williams. Essays in Philosophy, 10(2), 3. Rossi, E. (2015). Can Realism Move Beyond a Methodenstreit?. Political Theory, 1-11. ----------. and Sleat, M. (2014). Realism in Normative Political Theory. Philosophy Compass, forthcoming. Sagar, P. (2015). From Scepticism to Liberalism? Bernard Williams, the Foundations of Liberalism and Political Realism. Political Studies, 1467-9248. Schmitt, C. (1996). The Concept of Political, The University of Chicago Press. !. 115!.
(127) Shklar, J. (1989). The Liberalism of Fear. Political Liberalism: Variations on a Theme, 149-166. Sigwart, H. J. (2013). The Logic of Legitimacy: Ethics in political realism. The Review of Politics, 75(03), 407-432. Sleat, M. (2010). Bernard Williams and the Possibility of a Realist Political Theory. European Journal of Political Theory, 9(4), 485-503. ----------. (2014). Legitimacy in Realist Thought: Between Moralism and Realpolitik. Political Theory, 0090591714522250. ----------. (2015). Justice and Legitimacy in Contemporary Liberal Thought. Social theory and practice, 41(2), 230-252. Smart, J.J.C and Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press. Stemplowska, Z. (2008). What's Ideal about Ideal Theory?. Social Theory and Practice, 34(3), 319-340. Valentini, L. (2012). Ideal vs. Non ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map. Philosophy Compass, 7(9), 654-664. Williams, B. (2011). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. --------------- & Hawthorn, G. (2005). In the Beginning was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument. Princeton University Press. ---------------. (1981). Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers 1973-1980. Cambridge University Press. ----------------. (1993). Shame and Necessity. University of California Press. !. 116!.
(128) ----------------. (2002). Truth & Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton University Press. Wolff, J. (2006). An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press. Yack, B. (2006). Review of the book In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument, by Bernard Williams. Ethics, 116(3), 615-618.. !. !. !. 2004!. !. 117!.
(129)
Outline
相關文件
H., “Notes on the Religious, Moral, and Political State of India before the Mahomedan Invasion, Chiefly Founded on the Travels of the Chinese Buddhist Priest Fa Hian
The research data are collected by questionnaire survey and analysed in electors’ opinion with political party of candidate, application of information technology media,
Formal theory, causal inference, and big data are not contradictory trends in political science. Inside the turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a
353 Giles Pope, The Political ideas of Lorenz Stein and their influence on Rudolf Gneist and Gustav Schmoller, 1985, p.258; Lorenz von Stein, Handbuch der Verwaltungslehre und
However, some basic and profound problems that have been addressed by political theorists still lack attention of practitioners in Taiwan, which may have created an misunderstanding
“Contextual Antecedents and Political Consequences of Adolescent Political Discussion, Discussion Elaboration, and Network Diversity.” Political Communication, 26 (1),..
“Decision Making in Economic”, Political, Social andTechnological Environments: The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, RWS Publications, University of Pittsburgh. 【39】
As the overall political & economic systems of the nation have been changed, the ROC military political warfare organization is carrying out the critical change to cope with
