文献一覧: 木原淳 (著者)

2 0 0 0 OA バトリオティズムと世界市民主義カントの公共体観念を素材として

著者: 木原淳
出版者: 日本法哲学会
雑誌: 法哲学年報 (ISSN:03872890)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.2005, pp.156-164,194, 2006-10-30 (Released:2010-02-15)
参考文献数: 15

Following Rousseau's theory of people's sovereignty and his concept of law, Immanuel Kant described his ideal state as “Gemeinwesen”. He consciously and intentionally denied world republic in his book “Zum ewigen Frieden”. According to Rousseau, the virtue can become fruitful only within the context of “l'amour de la patrie” (patriotism). Rousseau's patriotism and republic theory is to be expected in a small city state, not in a large state. As such, anti-world republic dogma by Kant reflects the significance of patriotism in small state posited by Rousseau. Unlike Rousseau, however, Kant interpreted “patriotism” as directed at “Land”, and “Volk” as being a group with single ethnic identity, not as an universal “Volk”. Such distinctive characteristic of Kant's state theory has generally been assumed to have derived from his pre-modern character and historic circumstances. In this paper, I suppose that the source of difference in the concepts held by the two distinct philosophers can be found in the difference of the size of states they presupposed. Rousseau considered his “republic” as a small sized city state, so the object of his patriotism could be pure and abstract fatherland, ignoring the traditional framework of property system (societas civilis). To the contrary, Kant struggled to form his state theory as a middle-sized territorial state, which aimed to destroy traditional and privileged property system and to separate territorial sovereignty from economical private land property rights. Therefore Kant's concepts of “Land” and “Volk” played an important role to build a theory of modern and republican territorial states. This indicates that it was logically natural for Kant to deny the concepts of the world republic.

2 0 0 0 IR 生命と所有 : 身体利用の権原をめぐる一考察 (青地正史教授退職記念号)

著者: 木原淳
出版者: 富山大学経済学部
雑誌: 富大経済論集 (ISSN:02863642)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.60, no.3, pp.417-442, 2015-03

何故に労働の投下が,物件と身体を同質化するのか,またそのことと,身体の法的性質はどのような関係にあるのだろうか。本稿はこの問題の端緒としてロックとカントの所有論と対照する。両者は共に,契約による所有の根拠づけを拒否する点では共通するが,カントはロックの労働所有説を批判し,所有制度の淵源を,領土高権を背景とする土地所有制度に求める。これは所有権のもつ公共性を重視した現実的な思考ではあるものの,この思考は身体と所有との密接な関わりを完全に排除しており,身体と所有にかかわる限界事例に対して無力なものとなっている。そのような観点から,熊野純彦の議論を参照しつつ,所有と身体ないし生命との密接な関連を明らかにし,身体をめぐる法的問題の指針とすることを目的とする。

2020-04-14 22:21:00
2 + 1 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA 植物病原糸状菌の光環境応答:分子基盤の解明と寄生戦略の追求

著者: 木原淳一
出版者: 島根大学
雑誌: 基盤研究(C)
巻号頁・発行日: 2007

イネごま葉枯病菌を用いて、近紫外線及び青色光照射によって発現が増加する50以上の新規光環境応答遺伝子を明らかにした。そして、光受容体の候補となりうるオプシン様遺伝子、及び、青色光受容体(BLR1)の制御を受ける遺伝子等を見いだした。イネごま葉枯病菌の分生胞子形成は太陽光の照射条件に依存しており、宿主植物への感染に対する寄生戦略が推察された。また、紫外線防御に関連するメラニンの植物病原糸状菌における役割を明らかにした。

2021-09-29 21:58:11
1 + 0 Twitter

https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-19614010/

1 0 0 0 OA 生命と所有 : 身体利用の権原をめぐる一考察

著者: 木原淳
出版者: 富山大学経済学部
雑誌: 富山大学紀要.富大経済論集 (ISSN:02863642)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.60, no.3, pp.417-442, 2015-03

2020-07-21 15:03:30
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 IR 憲法典の解釈は政治的か? : 高柳賢三の政治的マニフェスト説を出発点として

著者: 木原淳
出版者: 富山大学経済学部
雑誌: 富大経済論集 (ISSN:02863642)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.62, no.1, pp.47-85, 2016-07

2020-04-14 22:40:20
1 + 1 Twitter

1 0 0 0 バトリオティズムと世界市民主義:カントの公共体観念を素材として

著者: 木原淳
出版者: 日本法哲学会
雑誌: 法哲学年報 (ISSN:03872890)
巻号頁・発行日: no.2005, pp.156-164,194, 2006

Following Rousseau's theory of people's sovereignty and his concept of law, Immanuel Kant described his ideal state as “Gemeinwesen”. He consciously and intentionally denied world republic in his book “Zum ewigen Frieden”. According to Rousseau, the virtue can become fruitful only within the context of “l'amour de la patrie” (patriotism). Rousseau's patriotism and republic theory is to be expected in a small city state, not in a large state. As such, anti-world republic dogma by Kant reflects the significance of patriotism in small state posited by Rousseau. Unlike Rousseau, however, Kant interpreted “patriotism” as directed at “Land”, and “Volk” as being a group with single ethnic identity, not as an universal “Volk”. Such distinctive characteristic of Kant's state theory has generally been assumed to have derived from his pre-modern character and historic circumstances.<br> In this paper, I suppose that the source of difference in the concepts held by the two distinct philosophers can be found in the difference of the size of states they presupposed. Rousseau considered his “republic” as a small sized city state, so the object of his patriotism could be pure and abstract fatherland, ignoring the traditional framework of property system (societas civilis). To the contrary, Kant struggled to form his state theory as a middle-sized territorial state, which aimed to destroy traditional and privileged property system and to separate territorial sovereignty from economical private land property rights. Therefore Kant's concepts of “Land” and “Volk” played an important role to build a theory of modern and republican territorial states. This indicates that it was logically natural for Kant to deny the concepts of the world republic.