城邦、理性、法治——柏拉图法律思想解读

【作者】 陈鹏飞；

【导师】 陈金全；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 法律史， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 柏拉图是古希腊杰出的思想家，西方原创文化的奠基人。雪莱说：“他是第一个，也许还是最后一个，坚持认为统治一个国家的不应该是最富有，最有雄心，或最精明的人，而是最有智慧的人。”可是，现代人对他却没有那么亲切。有人说他主张知识专制，有人说他主张奴隶主贵族专制，甚至有人说他简直是第二次世界大战的始作俑者。我们可以说这些都是对他的误解。造成误解关键有两点。其一，古希腊远离当代社会。时间上跨越两千五百年，政治思维模式与现代天壤之别。古希腊是一种城邦集体主义政治(雅典民主也不离外)，今天是一种自由主义政治(指世界主流政治而言)。其二，柏拉图的思想确实深奥。美国哲学家保罗·埃尔默·摩尔说：“很难不被柏拉图的思想弄得望而止步，因为阅读他的作品有时候竟是一件费力不讨好的事。”但是柏拉图确实给后人留下了丰厚的思想遗产。当现代人被自由主义推向“单向度的人”时，社会矛盾冲突和人们精神危机迫使人们回到苏格拉底和柏拉图，去寻找被遮蔽了的文化本原。 本文尝试以希腊历史为切入点，把柏拉图思想放在伯罗奔尼撒战争前后的时代背景中去理解。他虽然对民主政制提出过严厉批评，但只有他而不是(后期)智者，才是雅典民主政治真正的朋友。他认为哲学由关注自然转向关注人是对的，但是，人是万物的尺度却容易导致相对主义和感觉主义。人的理性或神才能是万物的尺度。他发展了古希腊理性，造就了西方法律文化的理性特征。针对智者主张意见治理城邦，柏拉图坚决主张用智慧治理城邦，认为法律与制度要符合或与真理接近。所以，他才是真正的法学家，而非人治主义者。 文章第一部分分析柏拉图的“相论”和正义理论，从理论上理清柏拉图哲学思想的发展脉络。“相”是事物的“本真”，“正义”指人的德性，“善”是一切事物的原因，又是最高的正义。因此，“相”的哲学思想本身已蕴涵了对宇宙本质和人类道德生活的终极关怀。柏拉图的相论确实存在着一个发展过程。前期的相论不仅侧重目的论的伦理道德，而且搞不清具体事物中已包含着事物普遍本质，后期柏拉图在这两个方面都有觉醒和发展，所有事物都有普遍本质，也应该有其相应的“相”。这为他后期继续探讨城邦政治和具体立法活动打下了坚实的哲学理论基石。 第二部分，展开论述柏拉图的理性法治思想。首先，通过比较传统正义和柏拉图的正义理论，可以看到柏拉图的正义本质是灵魂中理智、激情、欲望的节制与和谐.他并不否认人的正当欲望，但突出了如何使欲望与理智、激情和谐.可见柏拉图的正义论高于传统正义论。接下来从法治角度去审视《国家篇》.可以说《国家篇》的中心思想其实是让真正的哲学家一一苏格拉底(柏拉图)一一来回答关于“什么是好的法律与如何形成好的法律?什么是好的城邦与如何形成好的城邦”这个问题。柏拉图认为好的法律是符合人的自然本性的智慧，必须通过辩证法培养爱智慧并可能有真知的人来治理城邦，这样才可能有智慧的法律。这并非什么乌托邦，而是一部关于雅典民主城邦极佳的道德法专著，用今天的话讲是一部很好的法理学教材。通过哲学教育对立法者培养的详尽分析，民主政制与贤人政制的讨论，一个有责任的民主城邦的立法家呈现于我们面前。对柏拉图的批评只是自由主义者对柏拉图的误解.紧接着对柏拉图《政治家篇》和《法律篇》的政治法律观点和思想进行分析。柏拉图始终以高度的责任感关注着城邦政治，他并非坐而论道，而是强迫自己下降到洞穴拯救城邦的同胞，为同胞立法。因为，法治为人管理自己提供可能。神不再“牧养”人类，人类通过法律可以不全面“牧养”自己。这进一步显示了柏拉图这位伟大的哲学家始终关注着城邦的实践生活，关注着城邦正义道德和法律治理。柏拉图并非什么无奈之后才转向法治思想。在《国家篇》中，他主要是通过对正义智慧的寻求来批判智者的意见，认为意见不能治理城邦，而智慧治理城邦不仅是可能的，也是可行的。到《政治家篇》和《法律篇》，由于 “相”论得到发展，哲学家加认识到走下洞穴时机已经成熟。于是，他深入洞穴解救城邦同胞，并为之立法。柏拉图认为立法的目的是和平，城邦法律具有至高无上性，而权力仅仅是法律的使臣.与《国家篇》一样，柏拉图始终强调教育的作用，教育培养正义的、理性的立法家，教育使人们灵魂能够很好地节制，教育有助于人们培养正义的法律意识。 第三部分通过对亚里士多德和西塞罗哲学和政治法律思想的简略分析，我们看到柏拉图是当之无愧的法治主义者，同时也显示出他对罗马和近现代西方法治思想的巨大影响。但是，柏拉图是人而非神，他对人类理性一面给予更多关注和思考、对现实生活中大量存在的非理性现象他没有给予更多关注和思索。他所处时代的狭小城邦意识和生产力发展水平导致他的思想存在着他自身难以克服的局限。更多还原

【Abstract】 Plato is an outstanding thinker in ancient Greece and a foundation stone of the origins of western culture as well. He is not so popular with some modern people, because he is regarded as an authoritarian. But in the author’ s opinion, this attitude misunderstands him.Plato painstakingly insisted that we should use wisdom, not individual ideas to manage a city. In this article, the author puts Plato’ s thought into the background of the Peloponnesian War to comprehend . The author finds that Athens and other ancient Greek cities were in "a time of moral crisis" . Though he criticized the democracy of Athens, Plato also criticized other constitutions. The Laws in these cities did not correspond with human nature. He thought that the changing direction of philosophy from concerning about nature to paying attention to human being was correct, but it was incorrect that man played a role as the measure of all things. Only human reasonableness or God reasonableness is truth. Therefore he is a real legislator not an authoritarian.In part one, the author examines Plato’ s theory of Idea and justice, which were the basis of his political science. Plato took Idea for being, justice for reason and supreme justice. Thus the thought of Idea philosophy has tended to cosmic substance and human virtual life.In part two, the author amplifies Plato’ s thought of national law. First, we can catch on the essence of justice of Plato. Reason, braveness and desire to be self-disciplined and united mutually are shown through comparing Plato’ s justice with traditional justice. Secondly, we can survey The Republic from law aspects. Plato regarded that good law must came up to the human nature, and that a city must be governed by few people who knew the truth or lovedtruth. Those people can be well educated in a long time. Thirdly, The author analyzes the points and thought of law in The States man and The Law. Plato was always responsible for his state . He not only researched theory but also personally went into the Cave as well as the delivery of his compatriots. This showed that Plato always cared for practical politics of the State and always cared for morality and law. Plato was not desperate to turned to law from totalitarian too. In the Republic Plato mainly criticized Sophists who guessed that their opinions can be used to manage the State, hence he believed that only wisdom and real knowledge could be used to manage the State. This requested Plato primarily to answer what wisdom and justice should be and how to acquire them. When he wrote The Statesman and The Law, the chance to go into the cave had been ripe. It’ s time for Plato to talk about legislation and how to administer law.In part three, the author compares Aristotle’ s thought and Cicero’ s thought with Plato’ s briefly. We come to awareness that just Plato is the first thinker who insisted law doctrines, not Aristotle or Cicero. In a word, although Plato’ s thought undoubtedly exists limitation, we can’ t deny it’ s great influence on western culture of law and order.更多还原