請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/27625
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 陳思賢(Sy-Shyan Chen) | |
dc.contributor.author | Yu-He Siao | en |
dc.contributor.author | 蕭育和 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-12T18:12:40Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2007-10-09 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2007-10-09 | |
dc.date.issued | 2007 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2007-10-03 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 參考文獻
Agamben, Giorgio. 1991. Language and Death:The Place of Negativity. trans. Karen E. Pinkus with Michael Hardt. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press. Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer:Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University Press. Agamben, Giorgio. 1999. Potentiality:Collected Essays in Philosophy. Stanford California:Stanford University Press. Agamben, Giorgio. 2000. Means without Ends:Notes on Politics. trans. Vincenzo Binetti and Cesare Casarino. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press. Agamben, Giorgio. 2005. State of Exception. trans. Kevin Attell. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press. Armstrong, Aurelia. 1997. “Some reflection on Deleuze's Spinoza:Composition and Agency.” in Deleuze and Philosophy:The Difference Engineer. ed. Keith Ansell Pearson. New York :Routledge, pp.44-72. Althusser, Louis. 1990. Philosophy and the Spontaneous Philosophy of the Scientists and Other Essays. New York:Verso. Althusser, Louis. 1997. “The only materialist tradition, PartI:Spinoza.” in The New Spinoza. ed. Warren Montag and Ted Stoze. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press, pp.3-19. Althusser, Louis. 2006. Philosophy of the Encounter:Later Writings, 1978-87. New York:Verso. Arendt, Hannah. 1963. On Revolution. New York:Viking. Arendt, Hannah. 1981. Willing. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Badiou, Alain. 1999 Deleuze:The Clamor of Being. Trnas. Louis Burchill. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press. Badiou, Alain. 2005. Metapolitics. Trans. Jason Barker. New York:Verso. Balibar, Etienne. 1994. Masses, Classes, Ideas:Studies on Politics and Philosophy before and after Marx. trans. James Swenson. New York:Routledge. Balibar, Etienne. 1998. Spinoza and Politics. Trans. Peter Snowdon. New York:Verso. Barbone, Steven. 1999. “Power in the Tractatus Theologico-politicus.” in Piety, Peace and the Freedom to Philosophize, ed. Paul J. Bagley. Boston:Kluwer Academic, 91-110. Barbone, Steven. 2002. “What counts as an individual for Spinoza.” In Spinoza:Metaphysical Themes. ed. Olli Koistinen and John Biro. New York:Oxford University Press, 89-112. Batnitzky, Leora. 2006,Leo Strauss and Emmanuel Levinas:Philosophy and the Politics of Revelation. New York:Cambridge University Press. Benjamin, Walter. 1990. The Origin of German Tragic Drama. New York:Verso. Bernstein, Richard. 2002. Radical Evil. Malden, MA : Polity Press. Brett, Annabel S. 1997. Liberty, Right, and Nature:Individual Rights in Later Scholastic Thought. New York : Cambridge University Press. Butler, Judith. 2004. Precarious Life:The Power of Mourning and Violence. New York:Verso. Colebrook, Claire. 2005a. Philosophy and Post-structuralist Theory. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press. Colebrook, Claire. 2005b. “The space of man: On the specificity of affect in Deleuze and Guattari.” In Deleuze and Space. ed. Ian Buchanan and Gregg Lambert. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press, 189-206. Connolly, William. 1998. Political Theory and Modernity. Oxford:Blackwell. Curley, Edwin. 1988. Behind the Geometrical Method:A Reading of Spinoza’s Ethics. Princeton:Princeton University Press. Curry, Neil. 2004. “Lost in transition:Reconceptualisatiing of the real.” in Realism Discourse and Deconstruction. ed. Jonathan Joseph and John Michael Roberts. New York:Routledge, pp.137-49 Deleuze, Gilles. 1988a. Foucault. Trans. Sean Hand. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press. Deleuze, Gilles. 1988b. Spinoza:Practical Philosophy. Trans Robert Hurley. San Francisco : City Lights Books. Deleuze, Gilles. 1990. Expressionism in Philosophy:Spinoza. Trans. Martin Joughin. New York:Zone Books. Deleuze, Gilles. 1992. “What is dispositif ?” In Michael Foucault:Philosopher. ed. and trans. Timothy J. Armstrong. New York : Harvester Wheatsheaf, 159-66. Deleuze, Gilles. 1994. Difference and Repetition. Trans. Paul Patton. London:The Athlone Press. Derrida, Jacques. 1992. “Force of law:The Mystical Foundation of Authority.” in Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice. ed. Drucilla Cornell, Michel Rosenfeld, and David Gray Carlson. New York:Routledge, pp.3-67. Frankel, Steven. 2001. “The invention of liberal theology: Spinoza’s theological-political analysis of Moses and Jesus.” The Review of Politics 63(2):287-316. Frankel, Steven. 2002. “The piety of a heretic: Spinoza’s interpretation of Judaism.” The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 2002(11):117-34. Foucault, Michel. 1984. 'Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.' in The Foucault Reader. ed. Paul Rabinow. New York:Pantheon Books, pp.76-100. Foucault, Michael. 1997. The Politics of Truth. ed. Sylvere Lortinger and Lysa Hochroth. New York : Semiotext(e). Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1994. “Kant and hermeneutical turn.” in Heidegger’s Ways. by Hans-Georg Gadamer. trans. John W. Stanley. New York:State University of New York Press, pp.49-59. Giancotti, Emilia. 1997. “The birth of modern materialism in Hobbes and Spinoza.” in The New Spinoza. ed. Warren Montag and Ted Stoze. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press, pp.49-64. Goldenbaum, Ursula. 2004. “The affects as a condition of human freedom in Spinoza’s Ethics.” In Spinoza on Freedom and the ‘Free Man’. ed. Yirmiyahu Yovel and Gideon Segal. New York:Little Room Press, 149-61. Han, Beatrice. 2003. “Foucault and Heidegger on Kant and Finitude” in Foucault and Heidegger:Critical Encounter. ed. Alan Milchman and Alan Rosenberg. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 127-62. Hardt, Michael. 1993. Gilles Deleuze:An Apprenticeship in Philosophy. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press. Hardt, Michael. 2001. “The Art of Organization:Ontological Assemblages and Political Assemblages in Spinoza.” In Deleuze and Guattari:Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers, Vol.1, ed. Gary Genosko. New York : Routledge, 376-393. Heidegger, Martin. 1990. Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics. Bloomington : Indiana University Press. Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow. 1986. “What is maturity?Habermas and Foucault on ’What is Enlightenment. ’ ” in Foucault:A Critical Reader. New York:Blackwell, 109-122. Israel, Jonathan. 2006. Enlightenment Contested:Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man, 1670-1752. New York : Oxford University Press. Kalyvas, Andreas. 2005. “Sovereignty, Democracy and the Constituent Power.” Constellations 12(2) :223-44. Kant, Immanuel. 1997. “What is enlightenment?” in The Politics of Truth. ed. Sylvere Lortinger and Lysa Hochroth. New York : Semiotext(e), 7-20. Kolb, David. 1986. The Critique of Pure Modernity : Hegel, Heidegger, and After. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Laclau, Ernesto. 1990. New Reflection on the Revolution of our Time. New York:Verso. Laclau, Ernest. 1996. Emancipation(s). New York:Verso. Laclau, Ernest. 2004. “Can immanence explain social struggles?” in Empire’s New Clothes:Reading Hardt and Negri, eds. P. A. Passavant and Jodi Dean. London:Routledge, 21-30. Laclau, Ernest. 2005. On Populist Reason. New York:Verso. Laclau, Ernesto. 2007. “Bare life or social indeterminacy.” in Giorgio Agamben : Sovereignty and Life. Stanford:Stanford University Press, pp.11-22. Laerke, Mogens. 1999. “The voice and the name:Spinoza in Badiouian critique of Deleuze..” Pli(8):86-99. Levinas, Emmanuel. 1990a. “The Spinoza case.” in Difficult Freedom:Essays on Judaism. trans. Seán Hand. London:The Athlone Press, pp.106-10. Levinas, Emmanuel. 1990b. “Have you reread Baruch?” in Difficult Freedom:Essays on Judaism. trans. Seán Hand. London:The Athlone Press, pp.111-18. Levinas, Emmanuel. 1996. “Martin Heidegger and Ontology.” Diacritics 26(1):11-32. Lloyd, Genevieve. 1996. Spinoza and Ethics. New York:Routledge. Macherey, Pierre. 1992. “Toward a natural history.” In Michael Foucault:Philosopher. ed. and trans. Timothy J. Armstrong. New York : Harvester Wheatsheaf, 176-91. Macherey, Pierre. 1998. In a Materialist Way:Collected Essays. ed. Warren Montag. Trans. Ted Stolze. New York:Verso. Mansfield, Harvey. 2000. “Introduction to Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.” in Democracy in America. Chicago:University Of Chicago Press. Mason, Richard. 1997. The God of Spinoza:A Philosophical Study. New York:Cambridge University Press. Matheron, Alexandre. 1997. “The theoretical function of democracy in Spinoza and Hobbes.” in The New Spinoza. ed. Warren Montag and Ted Stoze. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press, pp.207-17. Meier, Heinrich. 2006. Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem. New York:Cambridge University Press. Montag, Warren. 1996. “Beyond force and consent:Althusser, Spinoza, Hobbes.” in Postmodern Materialism and the Future of Marxist Theory: Essays in the Althusserian Tradition. Hanover: University Press of New England, pp.91-106. Montag, Warren. 1999. Bodies, Masses, Power:Spinoza and his Contemporaries. New York:Verso. Montag, Warren. 2002. Louis Althusser. London:Palgrave. Montag, Warren. 2005. “Who’s afraid of the multitude? Between the individual and the state.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 104(4):655-73. Murphy, Timothy. 2003. “The Ontological Turn in the Marxism of Georg Lukács and Antonio Negri.” Strategies 16(2):163-84. Negri, Antonio and Hardt, Michael. 1994. Labor of Dionysus : A Critique of the State-form. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press. Negri, Antonio. 1996. “Constituent Republic.” in Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics. edited by Paolo Virno and Michael Hardt. London: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 213-222. Negri, Antonio. 1999. Insurgencies:Constituent Power and Modern State. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press. Negri, Antonio & Hardt, Michael. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press. Negri, Antonio. 2002. “Towards an ontological definition of the multitude.” trans. Arianna Bove.. Multitudes 9. http://multitudes.samizdat.net/article269.html Negri, Antonio. 2003. The Savage Anomaly:The Power of Spinoza's Metaphysics and Politics. trans. Michael Hardt. Negri, Antonio and Hardt, Michael. 2004a. Multitude:War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New York:The Penguin Press. Negri, Antonio. 2004b. Subversive Spinoza:(un)Contemporary Variations. Trans. Timothy S. Murphy ... [et al.] New York : Manchester University Press. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press. Negri, Antonio. 2007. The Political Descartes:Reason, Ideology and the Bourgeois Project. New York:Verso. Norris, Andrew. 2005. “Giorgio Agamben and the politics of the living Dead.” in Politics, Metaphysics and Death:Essays on Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer. Durham:Duke University Press, pp.1-30. Norris, Christopher. 1991. Spinoza and the Origins of Modern Critical Theory. USA : Basil Blackwell. Norris, Christopher. 1996. Reclaiming Truth:Contribution to a Critique of Cultural Relativism. Durham : Duke University Press. Rice, Lee C. 2002. “Love of God in Spinoza.” In Jewish Themes in Spinoza’s Philosophy. ed. Heidi M. Ravven and Lenn E. Goodman. Albany:State University of New York, 93-106. Pocock, J. G. A. 2003. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton:Princeton University Press. Pocock, J. G. A. 1989. Politics, Language, and Time:Essays on Political Thought and History. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Rancière, Jacques. 1995. On the Shores of Politics. New York:Verso. Rancière, Jacques. 2001. “The Ten Theses on Politics.” In Theory and Event 5(3), http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v005/5.3ranciere.html. Rancière, Jacques. 2007. “Does democracy means something?” in Adieu, Derrida. ed. Costas Douzinas. New York : Palgrave Macmillan, pp.84-100. Read, Jason. 1999. “ The Antagonistic Ground of Constitutive Power: An Essay on the Thought of Antonio Negri. ” Rethinking Marxism 11(2): 1-17. Rosen, Stanley. 1981. “Benedict Spinoza.” in History of Political Philosophy, ed. Leo Strauss & Joseph Cropsey. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 431-50. Rosenthal, Michael. 2002. “Why Spinoza chose the Hebrews:The exemplary function of prophecy in the Theological-Political Treatise.” In Jewish Themes in Spinoza’s Philosophy. ed. Heidi M. Ravven and Lenn E. Goodman. Albany:State University of New York, 225-60. Schmitt, Carl. 1996. The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes:Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol. trans. George Schwab and Erna Hilfstein. Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press. Schmitt, Carl著,劉宗坤等譯,2004,《政治的概念》,北京:世紀出版集團。譯自Der Begriff des Politischen. Duncker & Humblot:Berlin. 1995. Schmitt, Carl. 2005. Political Theology:Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. trans. George Schwab. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press. Smith, Daniel. 2003.“Deleuze and Derrida, immanence and transcendence : two directions in recent French thought.” in Between Deleuze and Derrida. ed. Paul Patton and John Protevi. New York : Continuum, pp.44-66. Smith, Steven. 2003. Spinoza’s Book of Life:Freedom and Redemption in the Ethics. New Haven:Yale University Press. Smith, Steven. 2006. Reading Leo Strauss:Politics, Philosophy, Judaism. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press. Stavrakakis, Yannis. 2005. “Negativity and democratic politics:Radical democracy beyond reoccupation and conformism.” in in Radical Democracy:Politics between Abundance and Lack, ed. Lars Tønder & Lasse Thomassen. New York:Manchester University Press, pp.185-202. Strauss, Leo. 1953. Natural Right and History. Chicago : University of Chicago Press. Strauss, Leo. 1965. Spinoza’s Critique of Religion. New York:Schocken Books. Strauss, Leo. 1968. Liberalism, ancient and modern. New York:Basic Books. Strauss, Leo. 1984. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes:Its Basis and Its Genesis. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Strauss, Leo. 1988. Persecution and the Art of Writing. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press. Strauss, Leo. 1996.“Notes on the Concept of the Political.”In The Concept of the Political. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, pp.83-107. Strauss, Leo. 1995. Philosophy and Law. Albany:State University of New York Press. Thomas, Peter. 2002. “Philosophical Strategies: Althusser and Spinoza.” Historical Materialism 10(3):71-113. Tønder, Lars and Thomassen, Lasse. 2005. “Rethinking radical democracy between abundance and lack” in Radical Democracy:Politics between Abundance and Lack, ed. Lars Tønder & Lasse Thomassen. New York:Manchester University Press, pp.1-16. Tuck, Richard. 1998. “Introduction to Hobbes’s On the Citizen.” in Hobbes:On the Citizen.. New York:Cambridge University Press, pp.viii-xxxiii. Vatter, Miguel. 2004. “Strauss and Schmitt as Readers of Hobbes and Spinoza:On the Relation between Political Theology and Liberalism.” The New Centennial Review 4(3):161-214. Verbeek, Theo. 2003. Spinoza’s Theologico-political Treatise:Exploring ‘the Will of God’. Aldershot, Hampshire, England ; Burlington, VT : Ashgate Pub. Vries, Hent de. 2006. “Levinas, Spinoza, and the Theologico-Political Meaning of Scripture.” in Political Theologies:Public Religions in a Post-secular World. New York:Fordham University Press. pp.232-48. Williams, Caroline. 2002. “Reading Spinoza:Review Essay.” Contemporary Political Theory 1(1):371-88. Weatherston, Martin. 2002. Heidegger’s Interpretation of Kant.. New York:Palgrave Macmillan. Žižek, Slavoj. 1999. The Ticklish Subject:The Absent Centre of Political Ontology. New York:Verso. Žižek, Slavoj. 2004. Organs without Bodies:Deleuze and Consequences. New York:Routledge. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/27625 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 在當代政治哲學思潮中,史賓諾沙「復興」是一個重要的智識背景。此一復興有兩個重要的線索,第一,它重新處理了啟蒙理念中理性與想像的張力問題,史賓諾沙式的本體論將理性與想像之間的過渡設想為一個平順的本體論歷程,這存在三個不同面向的理解,首先,它要求承認想像的唯物性格,不能將之視為認識上的錯認,而是作為一種個體性之間具體的互動,阿圖塞在這個脈絡提示了隱藏在史賓諾沙形而上學體系下的顛覆質素。第二個面向是主動情感對於被動情感的置換,此一基進啟蒙命題不在於理性對想像的宰制,而是身體的正面培力與自我治理。第三個面向是由德勒茲所論述更基進的立場,他將去影響的力量等同於受影響的力量。史賓諾沙式本體論轉向構成當代「內在性」思潮的哲學傳統。奈格里總結了此一內在性哲學傳統同時將之應用於實際的政治分析,並將平順的本體論歷程延伸至集體的政治結社,從個體到諸眾的歷程,這是史賓諾沙復興的第二個線索。史賓諾沙著作中對摩西式政體、馬基維利的共和國與霍布斯的利維坦的反思所提供對諸眾的政治想像,挑戰了自由主義與共和主義共享的制憲權典範。諸眾對帝國的反抗可說是使徒與摩西先知主權對立的現代版本。對於史賓諾沙式本體論與conatus之「表現」的質疑則針對此一平順歷程,阿岡本的「潛能」與紀傑克「超驗的創傷」則分別代表不同的回應。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In contemporary political thoughts, the “Spinoza renaissance” is an important intellectual background. There are two indications in this “Spinoza renaissance”, firstly, it rehashes the tension between reason and imagination in the Enlightenment tradition. Spinozian ontology envisages the transition from imagination to reason as a plain ontological itinerary, from epistemology to ontology, which has three aspects: The first aspect is the recognition of the “materiality” of imagination, not a epistemic misunderstanding, imagination reveals the concrete interaction between individualities, in this context Althusser as a harbinger indicated the subversive elements in Spinoza’s metaphysical system. The second aspect is the displace of passive affect with active affect, this radical Enlightenment thesis is not reason’s mastery of imagination, but a body’s positive empowerment and self-government. The third aspect is demonstrated by Gilles Deleuze, who equated the power to affect with the power to be affected. Spinozian ontological turn constructs an important background of contemporary philosophy of immanence. Antonio Negri summarized the immanence thought and applied it to actual political analysis with the extension of plain ontological itinerary to the collective political association, the process from individual to multitude, which is the second indication in this “Spinoza renaissance”. The reflection of Mosaic regime, Machiavelli’s Republic and Hobbes’s Leviathan in Spinoza's writings provides a political imagination of multitude which challenges paradigms of 'constituent power' shared by liberalism and republicanism. The resistance of multitude to Empire is the modern portratal of apostle’s opposition to Mosaic’s prophetic sovereign. The critique of Spinozian Ontology and expression of conatus is the contest against this plain itinerary, Agamben’s “potentiality” and Žižek’s “trauma of transcendence” are different responses to Spinozian ontology. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-12T18:12:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-96-R93322005-1.pdf: 5217033 bytes, checksum: 2e37eb73f313de9a835bf55b6bddd174 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 錄
縮寫表 第一章 導論:當代史賓諾沙復興的兩個線索 01 第二章 政治體的情感秩序 11 第一節 自然權利:反霍布斯線索,或論自然的優越性 12 第二節 政治體制:反馬基維利線索,或論民主的優越性 20 第三節 阿圖塞的知識論詮釋 31 第三章 反啟示神學的基進啟蒙批判 39 第一節 啟蒙傳統的本體論詮釋 40 第二節 史特勞斯的政治神學批判 49 第三節 啟示神學的政治性格 57 第四章 從使徒到諸眾的本體論轉向 67 第一節 使徒信仰的政治體理念 68 第二節 野蠻的異例:諸眾 76 第三節 德勒茲的本體論詮釋 85 第五章 奈格里與當代本體論論爭 97 第一節 奈格里論制憲力 100 第二節 奈格里論史賓諾沙的政治本體論 108 第三節 再談本體論:紀傑克與阿岡本 119 第六章 結論 127 參考文獻 133 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 政治想像與基進啟蒙:史賓諾沙式本體論的當代詮釋 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Political Imagination and Radical Enlightenment:Contemporary Interpretations of Spinozian Ontology | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 96-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張鼎國(Ting-Kuo Chang),曾慶豹(Ken-Pa Chin) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 史賓諾沙,本體論,想像,基進啟蒙,諸眾, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Spinoza,ontology,imagination,radical enlightenment,multitude, | en |
dc.relation.page | 139 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2007-10-03 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 政治學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-96-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 5.09 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。