No description available.

京都大学 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(人間・環境学) / 甲第23974号 / 人博第1026号 / 新制||人||242(附属図書館) / 2022||人博||1026(吉田南総合図書館) / 京都大学大学院人間・環境学研究科共生文明学専攻 / (主査)教授 佐野 宏, 准教授 長谷川 千尋, 教授 大槻 信, 教授 小柳 智一 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Human and Environmental Studies / Kyoto University / DGAM

目前學界對於西塞羅與馬基維利兩者關係的看法有所不一，所爭論的是馬基維利是衝突或是延續著共和主義人文傳統，本文則嘗試論證西塞羅和馬基維利之間並非僅是傳統上的大相逕庭，而是兩者分別在當時所處環境中就各別看重的問題上，找到最好的解決辦法，在最終考量上皆以表現出國家利益為考量的傾向。西塞羅的關懷以高尚性意圖出發，藉由智慧明白事物真理，藉由正義保障人的生存，利用例外原則進而維持國家；馬基維利認為為了國家利益的目的，統治者應審慎明智的在必要時刻做出必要抉擇，利用具有美德樣貌的能力行事，那些能夠明白統治者難處的人，都能明白其目的的良善以寬宥其手段。然而，要注意到馬基維利的寬宥想法，有著看不到真正結果與國家利益是經常變動的兩個盲點。此外，即便兩者重視國家利益的態度可以如此相近，但西塞羅認為高尚性是國家利益的根本，而馬基維利並不如此。最後，本文整理出兩者可以從思想與時勢立場互相置換，進而指出：充分的理解尊重以達到對話的可能。進而不論是冀求理念融合或尊重其並立，行動與意圖都需要切中要義的把握合宜或時勢。或在規範之中尋找例外，或在極端之中遵循規範，權宜變通勢必成為不可忽略的方式之一。 / There are many arguments about the relation between Cicero and Machiavelli in academic circles. One of them argues that the thoughts of Machiavelli might conflict to republicanism and humanistic traditions. This article is trying to demonstrate another angle that Machiavelli is not merely different from Cicero and traditions, but similar to the purpose which is they are finding the seemliest way respectively at the specific circumstance in their time. Cicero is concerning the honourableness which is realizing the truth by wisdom, ensuring lives of men by justice, and using exceptions of principles in order to maintain the republic. Machiavelli thinks the ruler should make necessary decisions by prudence and use the abilities with virtue like at necessary time to maintain the existence of the state. And those people who know the dilemma of the ruler will know his great ends and excuse whatever means. However, the thought of excuse has two flaws. One is the real end cannot be seen, and another is the benefit of republic often changed. Yet, even though Cicero and Machiavelli are so close to each other because they are placing a high value on the benefit of republic, the former who argue the base of republican benefit is honourableness, not for the later. In the end, this article is trying to put each of them under the opposite thought and circumstances for making a conversation with sufficient respect and realization possible. No matter it is intermingling or separating both ideas, the actions and intentions must be appropriate to seemliness and circumstances. And no matter it is searching exceptions in norms or norms in extremes, the seemly ways for specific circumstances is absolutely necessary.