| Abstract: | 摘 要 本論文首先由哲學「認識論」角度介紹哈伯瑪斯（Jürgen Habermas）早期與中期理論之形構及其基礎：經由對各種不同學科之批判，哈氏探討自然科學與社會科學對其對象領域之認識與研究方法之劃界問題，並得出結論認為自然科學與社會科學分別經由客觀「觀察者」角度與主觀「參與者」角度進行研究，兩者具有根本上的分野；此並關涉早、中期哈伯瑪斯將自然主義路向與人文主義路向相對立，以此相對舉之世界圖像與立論基礎詮解帕森斯社會理論之關鍵性問題：帕森斯早期「行動理論」與中期「系統理論」之斷裂問題。 其次，由「認識論」角度介紹帕森斯（Talcott Parsons）理論之建構及其基礎。由「意願說的行動理論」與其核心成素「模式變項」，以及「系統理論」與，可見其理論建構基礎乃由客觀的「觀察者」角度綜攝社會上各種不同類型主體之主觀「參與者」角度所構成，此並關涉上述自然科學與社會科學之劃界問題以及自然與文化路向問題。帕森斯的世界圖像並不將自然主義與人文主義相對立，而是以社會事實為研究起點進行客觀觀察，並將兩者加以調和，於客觀的綜攝觀察之下兼容各種主觀「參與者」的人文主義立場，也就是說，在「事實性」中包含有「規範性」。 本論文於評論中指出，哈伯瑪斯對不同學科之批判性詮釋以及對帕森斯理論問題之詮解，自有其創造性的「自我表現式詮釋」定向。最後，結論中總結兩人因其各自不同的世界圖像，對現代社會中意義喪失與價值闕如問題於其各自理論系統中有不同層面之處理與回應。關鍵字：認識論、哈伯瑪斯、帕森斯、自然主義、人文主義、路向、 主觀參與者、客觀觀察者、行動理論、模式變項、系統理論、 四個功能模式、事實性、規範性、自我表現式詮釋定向、 世界圖像
Abstract The thesis firstly aims to introduce Jürgen Habermas’s theoretical construction and its foundation in his early and middle periods: through the critique of various disciplines, Habermas explores how natural science and social sciences observe their object domain and how their research methods were demarcated. Then he concludes that there is the fundamental division between natural science and social sciences: the former takes the angle of objective “observer” and the latter takes the angle of subjective “participant” to do research. That is also relevant to Habermas’s theoretical position in his early and middle periods: he views the orientation of naturalism is opposite to that of humanism. Habermas uses the above worldview and the theoretical basis to interpret Parsons’s key problem of his social theory: the gap between his early “action theory” and the “system theory” in his middle age. Secondly, this thesis attempts to introduce Talcott Parsons’s theoretical construction and its foundation from the angle of “epistemology”. Through the “Voluntaristic theory of action ” and its core element “pattern variables” as well as the “system theory” and “AGIL” model, we may see Parsons’s foundation of theoretical construction is based on the angle of objective “observer” which includes the subjective “participant” angle from different types of subjects in a society. That is related to the above problem of demarcation between natural science and social sciences, as well as that of the division of natural and cultural orientations. Parsons’s worldview does not view naturalism and humanism are opposite, but use social facts as a research starting point to do objective observation to reconcile the two: on the basis of objective observation, Parsons’s worldview is inclusive of the humanist position of subjective “participant”, i.e. insides the “facticity” one may find out the “normativity”. My critique unfolds that Habermas’s critical interpretation on various disciplines and on Parsons’s theoretical problem rooted in his orientation to creative “self-performative interpretation”. Finally, this thesis concludes that on the basis of different worldviews, Habermas and Parsons respond to the modern social problem of “loss of meanings and values” in different ways and on different dimensions. Keywords: epistemology, Jürgen Habermas, Talcott Parsons, naturalism, humanism, orientation, objective observer, subjective participant, action theory, pattern variables, AGIL model, system theory, orientation of self-performaitve interpretation, worldview |
