English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88613/118155 (75%)
Visitors : 23471934      Online Users : 203
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: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/123236


    Title: 摩根索與《老子》:兩種現實主義的對話
    Morgenthau vs Laozi: a dialogue of two type of realism
    Authors: 周聖傑
    Chou, Sheng-Chieh
    Contributors: 張其賢
    Chang, Chi-Shen
    周聖傑
    Chou, Sheng-Chieh
    Keywords: 摩根索
    《老子》
    現實主義
    權力平衡
    人性論
    道德
    守弱
    不爭
    守下
    和平
    Hans J. Morgenthau
    Laozi
    Realism
    Balance of power
    Theory of human nature
    Moral
    Weak
    Not struggle
    Low posture
    Peace
    Date: 2019
    Issue Date: 2019-05-02 14:45:16 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本論文淺述了摩根索與《老子》主要的核心思想。試圖模擬兩者之對話。並且以兩者的文獻作為對話之依據。摩根索之思想是由對人性悲觀發展出他的現實主義理論,以權力作為唯一考量,希望以此創造出一種以邪惡克制邪惡的權力平衡(鬥而不破)的國際態勢。其中雖也有討論道德規範的問題,但道德規範對於摩根索來說始終只能用來作為工具性的考量,因摩根索只問現實、客觀的強弱,非主觀的好惡。而《老子》的核心的價值是「道」,包含了不爭、守弱、守下等的態度,用這些策略讓國家可以在國際中永續生存。筆者整理出兩者對於「人性」、「權力」、以及《老子》之守弱、守下、不爭等態度會如何回應摩根索,以上三點作為討論的切入點,試圖將兩者進行一個模擬的對話。發現兩者對人性的看法皆是悲觀的,但又因為人必然被道德規範拘束,若是以道德規範來指導政策,容易產生像是意識型態之爭的狀況出現,對於《老子》而言,則是容易產生「爭」的狀況,因此兩者都希望找出一個解套的方式,其中摩根索希望透過領袖以權力代替道德。而《老子》則是以「道」取代權力。最後若是以《老子》之立場來建議摩根索的話,《老子》可能會認為權力平衡終究是建立在「爭」之上,是相對危險的即使短時間內似乎很有效,但若以長期觀之,權力平衡(邪惡克制邪惡)終究是危險的。對於《老子》來說摩根索這樣的解套方式還是不夠圓滑,因此《老子》會建議摩根索採取「道」這種不爭、保全實力在重要的地方。若是對抗不可免的話,也是用較被動、防禦的方式與之對抗。以這種方式才能使國際自然而然的在一種和諧安定的情況下,各國安然的自給自足、永續長存。
    This thesis briefly describes the main core ideas of Morgenthau and Laozi. Attempt to simulate the dialogue between the two. And the literature of both is used as the basis for dialogue. Morgenthau's thought is to develop his realism theory from the pessimism of human nature. With power as the sole consideration, He hopes to create an international situation in which the balance of power is controlled by evil(fight without breaking). Although there are also discussions on ethics, but ethics can only be used as an instrumental consideration for Morgenthau. Because Morgenthau only asked the reality, the objective strength and weakness, non-subjective likes and dislikes.
    The core value of Laozi is “Tao”, which includes attitudes of not struggle, weak, and low profile. Use these strategies to enable countries to survive forever in the international arena. The author sorts out the two points of “humanity”, “power”and “how does Laozi’s attitude of being weak, low profile, and not struggle respond to Morgenthau?”above as the entry point for discussion. Found that both views on human nature are pessimistic. But because people are bound to be bound by moral standards, if they use ethical norms to guide policies, it is easy to produce situations like the struggle of ideology. For Laozi, it is a situation that is prone to “contention.”So both want to find a way to solve the problem. Among them, Morgenthau hopes to replace morality with power through leaders. And Laozi replaces power with “dao.” Finally, if you are proposing Morgans in the position of Laozi. Laozi may think that the balance of power is based on struggle. It is relatively dangerous. Even if it seems to be effective in a short time. But in the long run, the balance of power (evil and restraint of evil) is ultimately dangerous. For Laozi, Morgenthau’s solution is still not smooth enough. Therefore, Laozi will suggest that Morgenthau adopts the “Tao”, which is an not struggle and preserving strength in important places. If confrontation is inevitable, it will also be confronted with a more passive and defensive approach. In this way, the international community can naturally be self-sufficient and sustainable forever in a harmonious and stable situation.
    Reference: 王卡點校,2017,《老子道德經河上公章句》,北京:中華書局。
    王弼著,樓宇烈校釋,2016,《老子道德經注校釋》,北京:中華書局。
    李濤,2011,〈老子的國家間道義思想及啟示〉,《新鄉學苑學報(社科版)》,25(2):30-33。
    林炫向,2015,〈摩根索的國際關係規範論述及其道德觀爭論〉,《政治科學論叢》,65:71-102。
    高明,1996,《帛書老子校注》,北京:中華書局。
    徐昕、郝望、李保平譯,Hans J. Morgenthau原著,2017,第七版,《國家間政治:權力鬥爭與和平》,北京:北京大學。
    許雅棠,2005,《民本治理學》,台北:台灣商務印書館。
    陳啓天,1958,《韓非子校釋》,台北:中華叢書。
    陳鼓應,1993,《老莊新論》,台北:五南。
    劉增光譯,Hans-Georg Moeller原著,2010,《〈道德經〉的哲學》,北京:人民出版社。
    鮑新山,2017,〈老子軍事思想淺談〉,《青海師院大學學報(哲學社會科學版)》,39(6):30-34。
    閻學通、徐進,2008,《中國先秦國家間政治思想選讀》,上海:復旦大學。
    蔡明田,1976,《老子的政治思想》,台北:藝文印書館。
    顧廣芳,2015,〈論老子軍事思想及其現實意義〉,《赤峰學院學報(漢文哲學社科版)》36(12):82-84。
    Algosaibi, Ghazi A. R. 1965. “The Theory of International Relations: Hans J. Morgenthau and His Critics.” Background 8(4): 221-253.
    Claude,, Inis L. 1986. “The Common Defense and Great-Power Responsibilities.” Political Science Quarterly 101(5): 719-732.
    Kavanagh, Jennifer. 2014. U.S. Security-Related Agreements in Force Since 1955. Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation.
    Morgenthau, Hans J. 1978. Politics Among Nations:The Struggle for Power and Peace. Fifth edition. New York : Alfred A. Knopf.
    Morgenthau, Hans J. 2006. Politics Among Nations:The Struggle for Power and Peace. Seventh edition. Boston, Mass. : McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
    Morgenthau, Hans J. 1946. Scientific man vs. power politics. Chicago:The University of Chicago.
    Oren, Ido. 2009. “The Unrealism of Contemporary Realism: The Tension between Realist Theory and Realists' Practice.” Perspectives on Politics 7(2): 283-301.
    Smith, Michael Joseph. 1986. Realist thought from Weber to Kissinger. Baton Rouge : Louisiana State University Press.
    Scheuerman, William E. 2009. Hans Morgenthau : realism and beyond. Cambridge, U.K. : Malden, Mass. : Polity Press.
    See, Jennifer W. 2001. “A Prophet Without Honor: Hans Morgenthau and the War in Vietnam, 1955–1965.” Pacific Historical Review 70(3): 419-448.
    Thompson, Kenneth W. 1980 Masters of international thought : major twentieth-century theorists and the world crisis. Baton Rouge : Louisiana State University Press.
    Thompson, Kenneth W. 1994. Fathers of international thought : the legacy of political theory. Baton Rouge, La. : Louisiana State University Press.
    Vasquez, John A. 1996. Classics of international relations. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    政治學系
    104252019
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104252019
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/THE.NCCU.PS.003.2019.F09
    Appears in Collections:[政治學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    201901.pdf984KbAdobe PDF56View/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
    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。
    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。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback