| dc.contributor.advisor | 葉浩 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Yeh, Hao | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | 林祐安 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | Lin, Yu-An | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 林祐安 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Lin, Yu-An | en_US |
| dc.date (日期) | 2022 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 1-Aug-2022 18:25:17 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 1-Aug-2022 18:25:17 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 1-Aug-2022 18:25:17 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) | G0108252009 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141238 | - |
| dc.description (描述) | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 政治學系 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 108252009 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 蘇格蘭啟蒙運動哲學家亞當斯密，以其政治經濟學名著《國富論》裡「看不見的手」此一隱喻著稱，而被認為是基於自由主義、資本主義立場推行自由貿易的旗手，後世也多將其置於理性自利的框架下討論。然而，我認為，亞當斯密理論的核心，其實是一套連接人性之中感性和理性官能的一元認識論，因此其實可以將斯密置於美學的脈絡中理解。斯密倫理學著作《道德情感論》中的核心概念「不偏私的旁觀者」，所指的是個人在觀看他人的行動和反應後，不但形成想像、也生成同情共感，是而能在心裡形成一套行事準則，而社會道德也就在互動經驗之中得到建構。觀看與被觀看揭示了觀者與被觀者之間、以及兩者對於整個道德系統的承認——這是亞當斯密的視覺哲學。因此，我認為斯密的書寫高度美感化，不僅在內涵上經由描繪身體感官而帶出事實，既反目的論、反對效益論、也反對功能論，同時在方法上也運用類比手法來進行說明。而當亞當斯密將道德系統的邊界劃定為現時的政治實體，也就顯示為對國民一概承認。在安全／自由的張力之間，承認更偏向安全，故本研究也將帶出一種和既往理解截然不同的亞當斯密。也是經由斯密的實然描繪，我們得以認識到應然的理想觀看，也就是規範性之所在，恰在於我們要能夠真正看見別人。在資本主義萌芽的典範轉移之際，亞當斯密的超驗現象學，也讓我們得以反思當代的美感政治：認識他人處境的不可能性，導致民主／民粹的劃分，而政治極化更在視覺文化、社群媒體的互動之中加劇——我們看、卻從未真正看見別人。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Adam Smith, who is renowned for his use of the metaphor “the invisible hand” in Wealth of Nations, is known as a liberalist and capitalist who stands for free trade. Hence, Smith is often brought up in the category of reason and self-interest. However, I propose that the core of his theories is epistemology connecting sensations and judgements and that he should be read in the context of aesthetics.Through introducing the impartial spectator in his writing of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith illustrates how one’s imaginations form upon one’s seeing of others’ actions and one would thus sympathise with them. Through the process of seeing, imagining and sympathising, general rules of actions are formed within one’s conscience, and social morals are thus built through our experiences of interacting. This is, as Smith himself puts it, the philosophy of vision. I propose, therefore, that Smith’s writings are highly aesthetical as he not only illustrates the facts (rather than the purpose or utility and so on) of human life through focusing on bodily senses and could therefore be interpreted as against teleology, against utilitarianism and against functionalism, but he also uses analogies to make his point, such as showing how a human society could be like an animal body or a watch. Also, Smith sets the boundaries of moral systems to be the current states, and it demonstrates how a person acknowledges, if not recognises, their fellow-citizens. Since acknowledging is linked to security rather than to liberty, my research suggests a different approach to Smith.It is also through Smith’s descriptive writings, we could therefore get to know that normativity lies within that we “ideally see”, namely we see other people as they are. Smith’s transcendental phenomenology proposed in times of the rise of capitalism could also lead us to reflect on the politics of the aesthetic of our contemporary world: that we don’t understand others’ situations is what leads to the differentiating of democracy and populism; political polarisation has been growing through our interactions on social media as we never truly see each other. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 壹、導論：亞當斯密的視覺哲學————————————————1一、亞當斯密的美感倫理學——————————————————1二、社會道德的形構：反目的論、反效益論與反功能論—————8三、亞當斯密的超驗現象學——————————————————14貳、觀看作為道德實踐——————————————————20一、觀看者對被觀看者的承認———————————————20二、被觀看者對觀看者的承認———————————————26三、觀看與被觀看作為對系統的承認————————————30參、現實世界的道德————————————————35一、經濟行為與系統———————————————————35二、共在的政治實體——————————————————41三、現時與共時————————————————————46肆、從閱讀亞當斯密反思當代—————————50一、理想觀看：應然規範來自實然描述———————50二、對當代的反思———————————————————55參考文獻———————————————————————60 | zh_TW |
| dc.format.extent | 1662082 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.source.uri (資料來源) | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108252009 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 道德情感 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 同情共感 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 不偏私的旁觀者 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 視覺哲學 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 美感政治 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 超驗現象學 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | moral sentiments | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | sympathy | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | impartial spectator | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | the philosophy of vision | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | the politics of the aesthetic | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | transcendental phenomenology | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 超越道德情感的邊界：對亞當・斯密的反思 | zh_TW |
| dc.title (題名) | Boundaries of Moral Sentiments and Beyond: Reflections on Adam Smith`s Writings | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | thesis | en_US |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 專書Copernicus, Nicolaus. 2005，《天體運行論》。台北：大塊文化。Arendt, Hannah. 2006. Between Past and Future. NY: Penguin Group.Bauman, Zigmund and Thomas Leoncini. 2019. Born Liquid. Cambridge: Polity.Barry, Brian. 2002. Justice as Impartiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Berger, John. 1977. Ways of Seeing. NY: Penguin Books.Eagleton, Terry. 1990. The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Oxford: Blackwell.Frazer, Michael. 2010. The Enlightenment of Sympathy. NY: Oxford University Press.Han, Byung Chul. 2017. Psychopolitics. NY: Verso.Hirschman, Albert. 2013. The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism before Its Triumph. NJ: Princeton University Press.Hume, David. 2007. A Treatise of Human Nature. NY: Oxford University Press.Husserl, Edmund. 1973. Experience and Judgment. London: Routledge.Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1968. The Visible and the Invisible. IL: Northwestern University Press.Raphael, David. 2007. The Impartial Spectator: Adam Smith’s Moral Philosophy.Smith, Adam.1977. The Wealth of Nations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1984. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. IN: Liberty Fund.West, Edwin. 1990. Adam Smith and Modern Economics. MA: Edward Elgar.論文Brown, Vivienne. 2016. “The impartial spectator and moral judgment.” Econ Journal Watch 13(2): 232-248.Carrasco, María Alejandra and Christel Fricke. 2016. “Adam Smith’s Impartial Spectator.” Econ Journal Watch 13(2): 249-263.Gordon, Robert. 1995. “Sympathy, simulation, and the impartial spectator.” Ethics 105(4): 727-742.Heilbroner, Robert L. 1982. “The socialization of the individual in Adam Smith.” History of Political Economy 14(3): 427-439.Hemingway, Andrew. 1989. “The ‘Sociology’ of Taste in the Scottish Enlightenment.” Oxford Art Journal 12(2): 3-35.Hill, Lisa. 2001. “The hidden theology of Adam Smith.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 8(1): 1-29.Hurtado, Jimena. 2016. “Adam Smith’s Impartial Spectator: Autonomy and Extended Selves.” Econ Journal Watch 13(2): 298-305.Inglehart, Ronald and Pippa Norris. 2016. “Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash.” HKS Working Paper No. RWP16-026.Kelly, Paul. 1998. “Introduction: Impartiality, Neutrality and Justice.” In Impartiality, Neutrality and Justice: Re-reading Brian Barry`s Justice as Impartiality, ed. Paul Kelly. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Kim, Kwangsu. 1997. “Adam Smith: Natural Theology and Its Implications for his Method of Social Inquiry.” Review of Social Economy 55(3): 312-336.Labio, Catherine. 2013. “Adam Smith`s Aesthetics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Adam Smith, eds. Christopher Berry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Levinson, Jerrold. 2005. “Philosophical Aesthetics: An Overview.” In The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics, ed. Jerrold Levinson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Macfie, Alec. 1971. “The invisible hand of Jupiter.” Journal of the History of Ideas 32(4): 595-599.Marshall, David. 1984. “Adam Smith and the Theatricality of Moral Sentiments.”Critical Inquiry 10(4): 592-613.McHugh, John. 2016. “On the origins and normative status of the impartial spectator.”Econ Journal Watch 13(2): 306-311.Morrow, Glenn. 1923. “The significance of the doctrine of sympathy in Hume and Adam Smith.” The Philosophical Review 32(1): 60-78.Nieli, Russell. 1986. “Spheres of intimacy and the Adam Smith problem.” Journal of the History of Ideas 47(4): 611-624.Oslington, Paul. 2011. “Divine action, Providence and Adam Smith’s invisible hand.” Adam Smith as Theologian: 61-74.Rick, Jon. 2007. “Hume and Smith’s Partial Sympathies and Impartial Stances.”Journal of Scottish Philosophy 5(2): 135-158.Rodrik, Dani. 2018. “Populism and the economics of globalization.” Journal of International Business Policy 1(1): 12-33.Rothschild, Emma. 1994. “Adam Smith and the invisible hand.” The American Economic Review 84(2): 319-322.Sen, Amartya. 2013. “The contemporary relevance of Adam Smith.” In The Oxford Handbook of Adam Smith, ed. Christopher Berry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Smith, Vernon L. 1998. “The two faces of Adam Smith.” Southern Economic Journal:2-19.Stecker, Robert. 2005. “Definition of Art.” In The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics, ed. Jerrold Levinson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Viner, Jacob. 1927. “Adam Smith and laissez faire.” Journal of Political Economy 35(2): 198-232.網路資料Pelley, Scott. 2021. “Whistleblower: Facebook is misleading the public on progress against hate speech, violence, misinformation.” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-misinformation-public-60-minutes-2021-10-03/ (May 23, 2022). | zh_TW |
| dc.identifier.doi (DOI) | 10.6814/NCCU202200872 | en_US |
