自由主义的阿喀琉斯之踵:政治思想史上的主奴之辨  

The Achilles Heel of Liberalism: The Distinction between Master and Slave in the History of Political Thought

作　　者：陈周旺[1] CHEN Zhou-wang(School of International Relations and Public Affairs,Fudan University,Shanghai 200433,China)

机构地区：[1]复旦大学国际关系与公共事务学院,上海200433

出　　处：《广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2021年第1期148-156,共9页Journal of Guangxi Normal University(Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition)

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目“公民权利、国家治理与工人职业健康权益保障研究”(16JJD820024)。

摘　　要：自由主义政治思想存在"阿喀琉斯之踵",这就是霍布斯提出来的主奴关系问题。从霍布斯到卢梭,主奴之辨贯穿了近代自然法学说的始终。霍布斯的主奴斗争是永恒的战争,洛克建立和平的代价是人对自然的征服,以及确立人为虚假的"主人"。卢梭"承认的政治"试图从根本上解决主奴冲突,但西方政治沿着洛克而非卢梭的路线发展。黑格尔的主奴辩证法道出这一切,并在某种意义上启发了马克思的异化理论。只有理解了主奴之辨,才能洞悉近代以来西方政治思想的真相与困境,确立对自由主义的批判基础。There is "Achilles Heel" in liberal political thought, an issue of master-slave relationraised by Hobbes. Through the whole modern natural law theory, from Hobbes to Rousseau,runs the distinction between master and slave. Hobbes’ master-slavestruggle is an eternal war. Locke’s price for establishing peace is man’s conquest of nature and the establishment of man as the illusory"master", from whom western politics developed even though Rousseau’s "politics of recognition" tries to solve at length the conflict between master and slave-all are revealed by Hegel’s master-slave dialectics, which enlightens Marx’s alienation theory in a sense. Only by understanding the master-slave distinction can we gain an insight into the truth and dilemma of Western political thought since modern times,thus establishing the critical basis for liberalism.

关 键 词：政治思想 自由主义 主奴之辨 政治思想史 

分 类 号：D09[政治法律—政治学]