公共理性的“困境”及其解决——剖析康德与罗尔斯的论证

Is There a Paradox of Public Reason: Analysis for Kant and Rawls' Argument

人们经常使用"公共理性"这个词,但对其含义或许并未深究。康德和罗尔斯分别对"理性的公共运用"和"公共理性"做了界定和说明,前者肯定理性的公共运用对于启蒙的重要意义,并对这种公用坚信不疑;后者则认为表面上存在公共理性的"悖谬"。前者以意志自由为逻辑起点,巧妙地消解公共理性的悖谬;后者为了达到同样的目的假设了秩序良好的公民社会。相对而言,康德的论证更具先验论证的色彩,而罗尔斯的论证却营造了实用主义的背景。借助他山之石,我们或将吸取其思想,对中国现实问题之思考具有借鉴意义。

One usually uses the term ＂public reason＂ without inquiring deeply its complicated meanings.Both Kant and Rawls define this term,and the latter has come to realize the paradox of public reason.In order to dissolve this kind of paradox,Kant conceives that there existed something named ＂will to freedom＂ which can be used as a logic starting point,However,on the contrary,differently from Kant＇s position,Rawls supposes that ordered society,namely civil society constituted by some liberal and equal citizen,also can do this easily.Comparatively speaking,Kant＇s argument has certain transcendental character,and the argument what Rawls did endorses some pragmatic background.By means of the instrument coming from abroad,we will find out that either Kant or Rawls＇ way has significance for resolving the problems in China.