|
柏拉图“高贵的谎言”的“高贵性”所在
|
Abstract:
柏拉图在《理想国》中用于教化城邦的“高贵的谎言”受到政治哲学上“专制主义”和“谎言的危害”的质疑,本文旨在回应质疑的同时,阐明“高贵的谎言”的高贵性所在。对于专制主义的回应,本文首先分析“高贵的谎言”的原则是否与专制政体的精神动力一致,其次探究其内涵究竟是指向某个特别政体还是为所有政体所普适,结论为“高贵的谎言”并非为专制主义张本;对于“谎言的危害”的回应,本文将谎言的定义拆分为柏拉图的定义下的谎言、日常伦理层面的谎言和存在主义哲学层面的谎言三层,逐一分析“高贵的谎言”是否符合这三层的定义,其次分析即使在事实判断上构成谎言,是否在价值判断上应该否定其价值,即“高贵的谎言”是否真正具有高贵性,结论为“高贵的谎言”只在日常伦理的层面可被定义为“谎言”,但其价值并不因此而受到否定。最后,本文将讨论“高贵的谎言”的高贵性究竟何在,通过分析其动机阐释“高贵的谎言”所代表的教育方式对城邦的意义和谎言对哲学和哲学家的保护作用。
Plato’s “Noble Lie” used to educate the city-state of Athens in The Republic is questioned by the “absolutism” at the level of political philosophy and “harm of lies”. The purpose of this article is to respond to the objections faced by “Noble Lie” and clarify the nobility of it. In response to the objection of authoritarianism, this paper will first analyze whether the principle of “Noble Lie” has the necessary mental condition of autocracy. Then whether the connotation of “Noble Lie” refers to a particular polity or is universal to all polities will be further explored. The conclusion will be drawn that “Noble lie” is not a pretense for authoritarianism. In response to the objection of “harm of lies”, this paper will divide the definition of lies into three categories: Plato’s definition of lies, lies at the daily conversation level and lies at the level of existential philosophy. The paper will analyze whether “Noble Lie” meets the definitions of these three categories one by one, and then analyze even if it constitutes a lie in terms of factual judgment, whether its value should be denied at the level of value judgment, that is, whether “Noble Lie” is truly noble. And the conclusion will be drawn that “Noble Lie” can only be defined as “lie” at the level of daily conversation, but its value cannot be denied because of it. Then, this paper will discuss the nobility of the “Noble Lie”. Through the analysis of its motivation, the meaning of the educational methods represented by “Noble Lies” to city-states and the protection to philosophers and philosophers will be illustrated.
[1] | (古希腊)柏拉图. 理想国[M]. 张俊, 译. 北京: 民主与建设出版社, 2020: 331b-590d. |
[2] | (美)施特劳斯. 什么是政治哲学[M]. 李世祥, 译. 北京: 华夏出版社, 2011: 1-2. |
[3] | 张安冬. “高贵的谎言”——基于《政治家篇》和《法律篇》的补注[J]. 政治思想史, 2021, 11(2): 106-120+199. |
[4] | (法)路易?阿尔都塞. 孟德斯鸠: 政治与历史[M]. 霍炬, 陈越, 译. 西安: 西北大学出版社, 2020: 45. |
[5] | (美)列奥?施特劳斯(Leo Strauss). 自然权利与历史[M]. 彭刚, 译. 北京: 生活?读书?新知三联书店, 2003: 62-100. |
[6] | 罗兴刚. 爱的教育: “高贵的谎言”背后——政治哲学如何作为原初的伦理学[J]. 人文杂志, 2012(4): 35-40. |
[7] | 陈亮升. 道德教育意味着灌输“高贵的谎言”吗——对马西亚?巴伦观点的质疑[J]. 广西社会科学, 2019(9): 165-170. |
[8] | 孙银光, 杜时忠. 显白与隐微: 古典教育的两重性——兼论“高贵谎言”的教育意蕴[J]. 复旦教育论坛, 2019, 17(3): 17-23. |
[9] | 龚群. 柏拉图《理想国》中的价值与事实观[J]. 伦理学研究, 2023(1): 94-101. |