Seiji-tetsugaku-teki kosatsu: riberaru to sosharu no aida (Papers on Political Philosophy: Between Liberal and Social)
Seiji-tetsugaku-teki kosatsu: riberaru to sosharu no aida (Papers on Political Philosophy: Between Liberal and Social)
复制标题
Seiji-tetsugaku-teki kosatsu：riberaru to sosharu no aida（政治哲学论文：自由主义与社会主义之间）
DOI：
10.1093/ssjj/jyx025
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
1.1
通讯作者：
犬塚元
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haruka Sakamoto;Sangnim Lee;Aya Ishizuka;Eiji Hinoshita;Hiroyuki Hori;Nanao Ishibashi;Kenichi Komada;Masataro Norizuki;Yasushi Katsuma;Hidechika Akashi;Kenji Shibuya;宮﨑牧人;武部貴則;犬塚元
在过去十年左右的时间里，“分析”政治哲学的地位迅速提高，甚至在日本政界也是如此。然而，Uno在本书中所涉及的是另一种类型的政治哲学，与以“分析”方法为代表的英语世界的政治哲学明显不同。Uno专注于法国政治哲学的传统，介绍了该领域的各种理论并解释了它们的意义，同时指出了与英语政治哲学的差异和相似之处。本书介绍的主要思想家是20世纪的法国政治哲学家，如“社会主义或野蛮主义”团体的克劳德·勒福尔和科尼利厄斯·卡斯托里亚迪斯，以及EHESS雷蒙德·阿隆政治研究中心的皮埃尔·马南特、马塞尔·戈谢和皮埃尔·罗桑瓦隆。宇野指出，英语国家的政治哲学与经济学和分析哲学有密切的联系，而法国的政治哲学则与社会学和历史学等领域密切合作，这使其具有跨学科的综合性，可以从不同的角度分析政治现象。在这一观察中嵌入的是Uno自己对分析政治哲学和经验政治科学的立场的声明。Uno认为，在他们对客观性和方法论严谨性的不懈追求中，诸如此类的方法可能会与普通人的真实生活经验相隔离，无法回应他们对他们所生活的社会的基本性质的回答。
‘Analytical’political philosophy has rapidly grown in stature over the past decade or so even within the Japanese academe. What Uno deals with in this book, however, is another type of political philosophy, manifestly distinct from the political philosophy of the Anglophone world as represented by the ‘analytical’approach. Uno focuses on the tradition of political philosophy in France, introducing various theories from this field and explaining their significance, at the same time as pointing out differences and similarities with Anglophone political philosophy. The main thinkers introduced in this book are 20th-century French political philosophers such as Claude Lefort and Cornelius Castoriadis of the ‘Socialism or Barbarism’group, and Pierre Manent, Marcel Gauchet, and Pierre Rosanvallon of the EHESS Raymond Aron Center for Political Research. Uno observes that while Anglophone political philosophy has affinities with economics and analytical philosophy, French political philosophy has developed in close collaboration with such fields as sociology and history, which gives it a transdisciplinary, comprehensive character that enables it to analyze political phenomena from various angles. Embedded in this observation is a declaration of Uno’s own stance on analytical political philosophy and empirical political science. In their relentless pursuit of objectivity and methodological rigor, Uno suggests, approaches such as these may become isolated from ordinary people’s genuine lived experience and be incapable of responding to their need to have an answer to the fundamental nature of the society in which they live in.