政治哲学讲座第四十一讲：马基雅维利关于宗教的共和主义进路
Political Philosophy Workshop (41st)
1
Organizer
Department of Philosophy (Zhuhai)，Sun Yat-sen University
2
Topic
“Machiavelli’s Republican Approach to Religion”
3
Speaker
Miguel Vatter, Professor of Politics, Alfred Deakin Institute, Deakin University, Australia
4
Moderator
Jun-Hyeok KWAK Professor, Department of Philosophy (Zhuhai), Sun Yat-sen University
5
Time
April 14th. 2022 09:00
6
Place
Tencent (VooV) ID: 939-396-443
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses Machiavelli’s republican account of civil religion in relation to the current debate between liberal and “postsecular” approaches to religion in the public sphere associated with Rawls, Taylor and Habermas among others. I begin by articulating Cecile Laborde’s recent discussion of liberalism’s approach to religion. I then contrast it with my own reconstruction of a republican approach to religion based on my interpretations of Machiavelli’s treatment of religion. The crucial point of difference between Laborde’s and my thesis relates to the dependency of emancipatory constitutional principles, what Rawls calls “constitutional essentials,” on a republican idea of civil religion. I illustrate this republican meaning of civil religion by discussing the debate on the abolition of slavery and civil war in the US context in relation to the thought of Frederick Douglass. Lastly, I make an argument for why Rawls’s understanding of the relation between the US constitution and religion is more republican – in the sense I have exposed through Machiavelli and Douglass – than liberal.
政治哲学讲座第四十一讲
1
主办
中山大学哲学系（珠海）
2
主题
马基雅维利关于宗教的共和主义进路
3
主讲
Miguel Vatter
澳大利亚迪肯大学政治学系教授
4
主持
Jun-Hyeok KWAK （郭峻赫）
中山大学哲学系（珠海）教授
5
时间
2022年4月14日上午09:00
6
地点
腾讯会议 会议号：939-396-443
摘要
● ●
本文讨论了马基雅维利以共和主义路径解释公民宗教的方法，及其与当下自由主义和“后世俗”方法有关宗教在公共领域中的地位之争论（罗尔斯、泰勒和哈贝马斯等人涉及此争论）的关系。首先，本文将阐述塞西尔•拉博德最近的自由主义对宗教的处理的讨论。其次，基于我对马基雅维利对待宗教的方式的解释，我将重构共和主义处理宗教的方法，并将其与拉博德的自由主义方法进行对比。拉伯德和我的论文之间的关键区别在于，解放的宪法原则（罗尔斯称之为“宪法根本”）依赖于一种共和主义意涵的公民宗教。为了阐明上述公民宗教的共和主义意涵，本文将讨论与弗雷德里克·道格拉斯思想相关的，美国背景下的废奴和内战的论辩。最后，本文将论证，为什么罗尔斯对美国宪法和宗教关系的理解，就本文通过马基雅维利和道格拉斯所揭示的而言，更加接近于共和主义而非自由主义。
