格魯吉亞多民族組成的社會文化，使得自格魯吉亞獨立以來，少數民族分離運動造成國家內部動盪不安，為確保國家領土完整、主權及國防安全等考量，格魯吉亞以武力壓制南奧塞梯(South Ossetia)的民族分離運動，導致民族分離問題演變為格俄戰爭，進而使得原本國內問題升高至國際衝突。此次衝突在法國總統薩科奇(Nicolas Sarkozy)斡旋下，於莫斯科簽訂六項停火協議，但目前中央政府與民族分離地區關係仍相當緊繃。俄羅斯對境內車臣（Chechnya）及印古什（Ingushetia）爭取獨立極力壓制，但卻不遺餘力的在南奧塞梯及阿布哈茲（Abkhazia）投入軍力資源及經濟投資；是什麼原因讓世界強權支持不同種族、不同語言的分離運動？2008年在格俄衝突爆發後，各國際組織及西歐勢力第一時間反映出國際政治角力的現實面，我們又應如何解讀其背後意涵。綜觀格魯吉亞內部因素及國際社會實際情況後，期能藉此預測未來格魯吉亞主權及領土完整性的變化。

《邏輯學》之「本質論」的首章「映象」，曾經被黑格爾自己表示過是最為困難的部分之一。然而，在當代研究中卻存在著二種截然不同的觀點：或是認為此章只是黑格爾多餘的插曲，或是認為此章乃黑格爾哲學系統的核心或基礎。對於後者，亦存在著不同詮釋取向：或是著重於本章作為系統的「形式方法」 (Henrich)，或是議論本章作為「形上學批判／表現」的理論核心 (Theunissen)。對於這些詮釋，在經過對黑格爾文本的細膩閱讀後，我們可以發現這些詮釋都嚴重忽略了這本作為「邏輯－形上學」的著作在這裏所要探討的形上學主題，即以思辨的方式重構古代的οὐσία與συμβεβηκός的形上學，並且克服所謂的「分離問題」(the problem of χωρισμός)。本文即嘗試以此視角出發，對黑格爾本質邏輯最後的「絕對無差異」環節，至本質邏輯中的「映象」進行詮釋，試圖顯示這個形上學議題對於理解「映象」一章之抽象文字之為必要，並且由亦可回應上述詮釋：此章中作為思辨運動之原理的「絕對否定性」乃作為「邏輯－形上學」之「原理」，而非「形式方法」；並且黑格爾並非只對古代形上學進行批判，而是以新的思辨方式將之吸吶。

本論文以異作為分離相論的轉折這點為主軸，逐段解釋一些相關的段落來看異之相在晚期相論中的作用，主要涉及的對話錄是《哲人篇》與《巴門尼德斯篇》。 本論文的架構是從《巴門尼德斯篇》第一部分開始，看分離相論所會導致的問題，再從第二部分的回應中看到分離以外，假定諸相相互結合作為另外一種可能，以及在第五組假設中所顯現的異之相所具有的存有學上的重要性。而通種論中最高種間彼此的關係、在《哲人篇》中所引入的二分法以及篇中所連帶解決的問題則在二到五章中呈現。並於第五章節總結了異在《哲人篇》及通種論中的地位及作用。首先是異在《哲人篇》中達到了指出有一種虛假的言說存在的目的；並且異的存在解釋了諸相的基本結構，最高種的劃分必也是依據這種基礎，它們必分有「是」而是，分有異而得以相區別，而諸種屬必相連結構成那諸多被區別出的種或類；回返至《哲人篇》前半部和最後一部分所使用的分解法，此方法亦是立基於通種論和異的結構上。通過一個整體的連結能夠有一個包含其下所有類的最高種，其得以作為一個劃分的起點，而類差作為劃分的依據也因同異的存在而是可能的。 / The aim of this thesis is to show how the idea of difference works in Plato’s late theory of Ideas, and it is chiefly concerned with Plato’s Parmenides and Sophist. The theme of the first part of Parmenides is what will be caused by Chorismos, and of the second part might show another possibility from the Chorismos, that is, the communion of genera. And then the fifth hypotheses of the second part of Parmenides might show the importance of the idea of difference in Plato’s late ontology. In Sophist, since the theory of communion of genera might solve the problem of Chorismos, and the idea of difference as one of the greatest genera of the communion of genera, which might be the most important one, I deal with it and the relations between the fives greatest genera. There are also the problems that be solved by the idea of difference in Sophist, and which brings a new method (dialectics) of Plato’s late dialogues, for defining all of them clearly, I analysis those concerned paragraphs.

歐洲社會民主主義與共產主義皆源自馬克思的社會主義，俄羅斯無產階級革命成功後使得兩者在實際作為中開始分化。隨後社會民主主義在西歐議會制度中得以持續發展，而第二次世界大戰後東歐則被蘇聯納入共產主義陣營之中。然而，歷經近百年的實踐後兩者終究殊途同歸，其同歸的方式是由社會民主主義更新發展成為更符合現代政治價值的「第三條路」，尤其蘇東劇變後的20年間，東西歐的左派政治皆已趨於穩定，特別是東歐各國的共產黨繼承政黨在社會民主化後，更能相繼以聯合政府的方式取得上臺執政的機會。 其中最受國際關注的，便是摩爾多瓦共產黨於2001年2月2日在國會選舉中獲得眾多選民的支持，在國會101席中取得71席的絕對多數，令其有權單獨組成政府，更尤甚者，推舉出自家的共黨總統沃羅寧；2005年沃羅寧二度蟬連總統職位，並由摩共繼續組成政府。自2001年起至2009年已連續執政八年，從執政前摩爾多瓦的政治背景、摩共得以重新回朝的原因探究，到其執政後國內外政治的重要議題，皆是本文專章著墨的重點。 本文認為：第一，社會民主主義在後蘇20年中，積極從事理論與實踐的改革，在老左派與新右派之間已經走出新的「第三條路」；第二，研究摩共得以重新上臺的因素，除了本身對於政治制度的探索與改革之外，轉型時期的經濟危機與府會之爭，以及共產遺緒效應皆為主因；第三，摩共執政八年在經濟調息與外交政策的表現上成績斐然，但逐年下降的民主化評比卻突顯出共黨一貫僵化的政治思維，外加第二任期的經濟表現停滯，導致摩爾多瓦共產黨最終還是淪為最大在野黨。 / Both Social democracy and communism are derived from Karl Marx’s Socialism. However, they had come to a parting of the ways after the success of the proletarian revolution in Russia. Social democracy continued to develop under the parliamentary system in Western Europe, while communism thrived in Eastern European countries, which were controlled by USSR after WWII. Coming into the 21st century, however, the two reconciled and have once again merged and redefined themselves as “the Third Way”, which adapts itself to certain modern political values, and it had been growing steadily in the first two decades following the dissolution of Soviet Union. In Eastern Europe, successors of communist party have adapted themselves to this “Third Way”, which helped them come into power one after another by forming coalition governments. Among them, it was the Party of Communist of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM), which attracted international attention. The PCRM has won an absolute majority, gaining 71 out of a total of 101 seats, in the 2001 Moldovan Parliamentary election, enabled it to form the government, as well as, electing its very own communist President Vladimir Voronin. In 2005, the PCRM has once again won the election, and made President Vladimir Voronin re-elected to a consecutive term. The PCRM was in government between 2001 and 2009 for 8 years, and this research will look into a wide range of issues including the political background of PCRM, accounts of its regaining of political power, and important decisions of domestic and foreign policies made by the PCRM government. The first part of this research argues that social democracy had been actively reforming both in theory and practice in the two decades after the dissolution of USSR and it has successfully created a “Third Way” as opposed to the Old Left and the New Right. The second part argues that PCRM’s return to office can be attributed to its self-reformation, economic crisis, confrontations between the President and the Parliament in the period of transition, as well as, the communist legacy. In conclusion, it is argued that, although, PCRM government has made great achievements in foreign policies and in restructuring economy, Moldova’s score on democracy has worsened during its time in government, reflecting the ossified political ideology of communist party. It is this ossified political ideology alongside with the economic stagnation in its second term that led to the defeat of PCRM in the 2009 election and sent it back to opposition majority in the Parliament ultimately.