{"title":"公共行政理论中的目的论及其运用与误用——以经济政策为例","authors":"C. Gordon","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1090104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern social science supposedly eschews any notion of purposefulness when assessing social phenomenon. There may be causes and effects, and in the case of individual actors or groups of actors there are certainly intentions. But the Aristotelian notion of teleology, that things which social scientists study have some sort of predetermined goal, seems decidedly unscientific to modern minds. It may seem strange to hear mention of such an archaic term. Few writers nowadays refer explicitly to teleogy when analyzing the state, or anything else for that matter. The term is derived from the Greek telos (meaning end or goal) and logos (meaning theory or account) and refers simultaneously to a belief that a particular phenomenon under study has a purpose and the attempt to explain how the characteristics of the phenomenon in question lead to fulfillment of that purpose (W.T. Jones 1969, 222). Yet, conservative political philosophers have used teleogy to great effect. They often assume that the State and its actors are self-interested and self-aggrandizing. Many in this cynical age see such a premise as self-evident and regard as naive any more generous-minded deviation from it. Nonetheless, this premise posits a fundamental tendency in the State which makes certain courses of action, in this case a tyrannical government, more likely than others, and hence makes certain types of events, such as a switch to debt finance, more dangerous than others. There are, however, many other frameworks of the State and they are usually linked with a teleology of some sort. Writers who are not so conservative use teleology as well, just a different one, namely that the natural end of the state and humanity is to do good, not evil, or to help others, not themselves. This paper will review the theoretical debate about statecraft (which often comes down to a debate about the natural tendency of the state, and its ability in a given historical circumstance to fulfill that tendency). The argument will be made that despite some strong advantages of other approaches, the grand theoretical and teleological way of analyzing policy has been fraught with difficulty.","PeriodicalId":399171,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Teleology and its Use and Misuse in Theories of Public Administration: The Case of Economic Policy\",\"authors\":\"C. Gordon\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1090104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Modern social science supposedly eschews any notion of purposefulness when assessing social phenomenon. There may be causes and effects, and in the case of individual actors or groups of actors there are certainly intentions. But the Aristotelian notion of teleology, that things which social scientists study have some sort of predetermined goal, seems decidedly unscientific to modern minds. It may seem strange to hear mention of such an archaic term. Few writers nowadays refer explicitly to teleogy when analyzing the state, or anything else for that matter. The term is derived from the Greek telos (meaning end or goal) and logos (meaning theory or account) and refers simultaneously to a belief that a particular phenomenon under study has a purpose and the attempt to explain how the characteristics of the phenomenon in question lead to fulfillment of that purpose (W.T. Jones 1969, 222). Yet, conservative political philosophers have used teleogy to great effect. They often assume that the State and its actors are self-interested and self-aggrandizing. Many in this cynical age see such a premise as self-evident and regard as naive any more generous-minded deviation from it. Nonetheless, this premise posits a fundamental tendency in the State which makes certain courses of action, in this case a tyrannical government, more likely than others, and hence makes certain types of events, such as a switch to debt finance, more dangerous than others. There are, however, many other frameworks of the State and they are usually linked with a teleology of some sort. Writers who are not so conservative use teleology as well, just a different one, namely that the natural end of the state and humanity is to do good, not evil, or to help others, not themselves. This paper will review the theoretical debate about statecraft (which often comes down to a debate about the natural tendency of the state, and its ability in a given historical circumstance to fulfill that tendency). The argument will be made that despite some strong advantages of other approaches, the grand theoretical and teleological way of analyzing policy has been fraught with difficulty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":399171,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of Science eJournal\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of Science eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1090104\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1090104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在评估社会现象时,现代社会科学应该回避任何目的性的概念。可能有因果关系,在个体行为者或群体行为者的情况下,肯定有意图。但是亚里士多德的目的论,即社会科学家研究的事物都有某种预定的目标,在现代人看来显然是不科学的。听到这样一个古老的术语似乎很奇怪。如今,很少有作家在分析国家或其他任何事情时明确地提到目的论。这个词来源于希腊语telos(意思是终点或目标)和logos(意思是理论或解释),同时指的是一种信念,即所研究的特定现象有其目的,并试图解释所研究的现象的特征如何导致该目的的实现(W.T. Jones 1969, 222)。然而,保守的政治哲学家们利用目的论产生了巨大的影响。他们常常假定国家及其行为者是自私自利和自我膨胀的。在这个愤世嫉俗的时代,许多人认为这样的前提是不言而喻的,并且认为任何对它的慷慨偏离都是幼稚的。尽管如此,这一前提假定了国家的一种基本趋势,这种趋势使某些行动方案,在这种情况下是一个专制政府,比其他行动方案更有可能,因此使某些类型的事件,如转向债务融资,比其他事件更危险。然而,还有许多其他的国家框架,它们通常与某种目的论联系在一起。不那么保守的作家也使用目的论,只是不同的一种,即国家和人类的自然目的是行善,而不是作恶,或者帮助他人,而不是自己。本文将回顾关于治国方略的理论辩论(这通常归结为关于国家的自然趋势及其在特定历史环境下实现这种趋势的能力的辩论)。尽管其他方法有一些强大的优势,但分析政策的大理论和目的论方法充满了困难。
Teleology and its Use and Misuse in Theories of Public Administration: The Case of Economic Policy
Modern social science supposedly eschews any notion of purposefulness when assessing social phenomenon. There may be causes and effects, and in the case of individual actors or groups of actors there are certainly intentions. But the Aristotelian notion of teleology, that things which social scientists study have some sort of predetermined goal, seems decidedly unscientific to modern minds. It may seem strange to hear mention of such an archaic term. Few writers nowadays refer explicitly to teleogy when analyzing the state, or anything else for that matter. The term is derived from the Greek telos (meaning end or goal) and logos (meaning theory or account) and refers simultaneously to a belief that a particular phenomenon under study has a purpose and the attempt to explain how the characteristics of the phenomenon in question lead to fulfillment of that purpose (W.T. Jones 1969, 222). Yet, conservative political philosophers have used teleogy to great effect. They often assume that the State and its actors are self-interested and self-aggrandizing. Many in this cynical age see such a premise as self-evident and regard as naive any more generous-minded deviation from it. Nonetheless, this premise posits a fundamental tendency in the State which makes certain courses of action, in this case a tyrannical government, more likely than others, and hence makes certain types of events, such as a switch to debt finance, more dangerous than others. There are, however, many other frameworks of the State and they are usually linked with a teleology of some sort. Writers who are not so conservative use teleology as well, just a different one, namely that the natural end of the state and humanity is to do good, not evil, or to help others, not themselves. This paper will review the theoretical debate about statecraft (which often comes down to a debate about the natural tendency of the state, and its ability in a given historical circumstance to fulfill that tendency). The argument will be made that despite some strong advantages of other approaches, the grand theoretical and teleological way of analyzing policy has been fraught with difficulty.