English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 109925/140876 (78%)
Visitors : 45968076      Online Users : 906
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141238


    Title: 超越道德情感的邊界:對亞當・斯密的反思
    Boundaries of Moral Sentiments and Beyond: Reflections on Adam Smith`s Writings
    Authors: 林祐安
    Lin, Yu-An
    Contributors: 葉浩
    Yeh, Hao
    林祐安
    Lin, Yu-An
    Keywords: 道德情感
    同情共感
    不偏私的旁觀者
    視覺哲學
    美感政治
    超驗現象學
    moral sentiments
    sympathy
    impartial spectator
    the philosophy of vision
    the politics of the aesthetic
    transcendental phenomenology
    Date: 2022
    Issue Date: 2022-08-01 18:25:17 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 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。
    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.
    Reference: 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).
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    政治學系
    108252009
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108252009
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202200872
    Appears in Collections:[政治學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    200901.pdf1623KbAdobe PDF2113View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback