 |
|
翻
译 范 例 |
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
中西传统自由观的比较
唐士其
A
Comparative Study of the Concept of Freedom in Chinese
and Western Traditions
Tang Shi Qi
|
| |
| If
freedom is defined in its most general sense as a state of
absence of any obstacle to human thoughts and actions, then
no nation in the world would reject this kind of freedom at
any time, thought they may understand and pursue freedom in
different ways. The term "freedom" as is used here
carries strong Western connotations, which to some extent
obliterates the special characteristics necessarily possessed
by other cultural traditions. As far as China is concerned,
in the modern era, the fight against "autocracy"
by means of Western "freedom" has been a topic lasting
for more than one hundred years. The topic continues to last,
indicating the vitality of this demand. But this is only half
the story. If we believe this basic proposition that the pursuit
of freedom is the only driving force behind the progress of
human society, we have to admit that if there has been no
persist pursuit for freedom in the cultural tradition of China,
there would be no existence and the development of Chinese
culture over the past thousands of years. |
| |
| 如果把自由在最一般的意义上定义为一种不存在对于思想和行为的障碍的状态，那么世界上没有任何一个民族在任何时候拒绝这种自由，但它们对于自由的理解与追求的方式各不相同。就此而言，在这里使用具有强烈的西方色彩的"自由"这个词，在某种程度上也就抹杀了它对于不同的文化传统来说必然具有的某些不可通约的特性。就中国的情况来说，从近代以来，以西方的"自由"反对自身传统中的"专制"，已经是一个持续了一百多年的话题。这个话题至今仍在持续，说明了这种要求的生命力。但这只是问题的一半。如果我们相信对于自由的追求是人类社会进步的唯一动力这样一个基本的命题，那么就必须承认，如果在中国文化传统中没有一种对于自由的执着，也就没有几千年来中国文化的存在与发展。 |
| |
| If
we admit that, in Chinese traditional culture, there is a
concept somewhat analogous to the Western notion of freedom,
then we are not only confronted with the problem of language
transit, that is, the equivalent switching of a series of
concepts and contexts between Chinese and Western cultural
systems when reflections are conducted concerning the notion
of "freedom". More importantly, we are also confronted
with the task of discovering the relative values of those
two concepts of freedom and their inadequacies by contrasting,
under the specific contexts of dialogue, the historical development
of the concept of freedom in China and in the West. In this
way, we can provide possible new clues for an understanding,
at once more general and specific, of the concept of freedom. |
| |
| 如果承认中国传统文化中存在着某种类似于自由的思想观念，那么在这里不仅有一个语言之间转换的问题，即在中国和西方文化的系统之间对围绕"自由"而展开的各种思考进行一系列的概念与语境的等值的替换，而且更重要的是必须在具体的对话环境中通过中西方历史上自由观念的发展的对比，揭示出这两种自由观的相对价值及其缺陷所在，从而最终为人们对自由的更为普遍，也更为具体的理解提供一种新的可能的线索。 |
| |
| Part
I: The Concept of Freedom in the Western Tradition
The
ancient Greek culture is the origin of Western political
thought. Many political thinkers trace the concept of freedom
as developed in the modern period in the West back to ancient
Greece and indicate that, from the outset, Western civilization
contained the earliest notion of freedom. In political thought,
this is called the myth of "great historical tradition".
However, an actual examination of the ancient Greek political
thought would indicate that, though we cannot say that ancient
Greeks had not idea of freedom, their understanding of freedom
differed considerably from the notion of freedom developed
in Western modern history. As a matter of fact, the Western
concept of freedom in the modern period was the product
of its modern political and social development. Or we can
say that the modern expression of freedom is the ultimate
product of Western political thought after a series of shifts
in the reflections on freedom since the ancient Greece.
|
| |
| 一、西方政治传统中的自由观念
古代希腊文化是西方政治思想的渊源，也有不少的政治思想家把西方近代产生的自由主义观念一直往后延伸到古希腊，并以此证明西方文明从一开始就孕育了自由观念的萌芽。在政治思想中，这被称为"伟大的历史传统"的神话。然而，对古代希腊政治思想的实际考察证明，虽然不能说在当时人们的观念中没有自由的思想，但同时应该承认的是，这种对于自由的理解与现代西方的自由观念是具有相当的不同的内涵的。实际上，现代西方的自由思想是近代政治和社会发展的产物，或者说是一种自由的现代表达方式，是古希腊之后，西方政治思想中对于自由的思考经过一系列的转换最终的产物。
|
| |
| Among
the Greeks of the Homer period, it is difficult to find a
positive feeling and experience of freedom. Prometheus reiterates
the price for pursuing freedom and Sisyphus explains to the
populace the impossibility to fight against one's fate. The
story of Oedipus Rex typically embodies the despair of ancient
Greeks in their quest for freedom. In ancient Greek literature,
the earliest articulation of freedom is made by Hesiod in
one of poems, in which the eagle says to his prey " Why
do you shiver so?/ You have been captured by a more powerful
predator/ You can only travel around with me/ If I am willing,
you could be my meal/Or I can set you free/ Only the stupid
will rebel."(1) |
| |
| 在荷马时代的希腊人中间，人们很难找到一种对于自由的正面的体验与感觉。普罗米修斯向人们反复说明追求自由的代价，西西福斯则向世人述说命运的无奈，至于俄迪浦斯王子的传说，则更是典型地体现了一种希腊人对于自由的绝望。翻阅古希腊典籍，能够找到的对自由最早的表述之一是由赫西阿德做出的。在他的一首诗歌中，一只老鹰对被它捕获的夜莺宣称："是什么让你如此颤栗，你已经被一个比你更强者所捕获，只能随我四处游历。如果我愿意，你也许会成为我的盘中之羹，也许会重获自由。只有蠢货才会反抗强者。 |
| |
| This
is the most general understanding of freedom, as a state opposite
to enslavement. Of course, to some extent, freedom can be
understood only in this way. Because of the institution of
slavery in all the city-states in ancient Greece and because
of the different political system within those city-states,
the contrast between the slaves and the free people and the
contrast in the mode of civic life between different city-states
naturally served as a foundation on which people understood
the concept of freedom. However, the freedom understood in
this way by the ancient Greeks might be more properly considered
to be a right. Among ancient Greek political thinkers, Aristotle
made many references to the concept of freedom. For example,
when referring to the distinction between oligarchy and democracy,
he wrote: "if within a city-state all people are free
citizens, rich people would only account for a small proportion.
Some are marked by freedom while others are marked by their
property. Those are the actual foundations on which those
representing oligarchy and those representing democracy struggle
for the power of government."(2) When talking about the
necessary conditions for the city-states to obtain excellent
political life, he says: " Apart from wealth and freedom,
the quality of justice and the quality of a soldier (bravery)
are also indispensable. If people are to co-exist in a city-state,
they should possess those qualities. The first two qualities
are necessary for the existence of the city-state while the
later two qualities are the conditions that a city-state should
attempt to pursue and with which it can obtain excellent life."(3)
Aristotle further believes that "if political justice
could be realized in a city-state, among people who co-exist
for the purpose of attaining self-sufficiency, they will find
they are free, equal in proportion, or in mathematical terms."
(4) |
| |
| 这里反映的是对自由最通常的理解，即一种与奴役相对的状态。当然，从某种意义上说，自由永远只能通过对比加以认识。由于古代希腊城邦普遍存在奴隶制度，各城邦的政治制度也各不相同，所以奴隶与自由民的对比，以及不同城邦公民生活模式的对比就十分自然地成为人们对于自由的理解的出发点。不过，在古希腊，以这种方式理解的自由可能被称为某种"权利"要更为妥当一些。在古希腊的政治思想家当中，亚里斯多德曾经多次提及自由的概念，比如说，在谈到寡头政体与平民政体的区别时，他写道：如果"一个城邦组织内，全部都是自由的公民，而富于资财的人则限于其中的较小部分；其一以自由为标帜，另一则以财富为依据，这些就是寡头和平民两派各各据以争取统治权力的实际基础。"
在论及城邦获得优良的政治生活所必须的基本条件的时候，他又表示："除了财富与自由之外，正义的品德和军人的习性（勇毅）也是不可缺少的要素。人们倘使要共处于一个城邦之中，就应该各各具有这些要素。前两个要素为城邦所由存在的条件，后两个要素则为城邦所由企求并获致优良生活的条件。"
亚里斯多德并且认为，如果在一个城邦中实现了政治的正义，那么人们就将"在为了达到自足的目的而共同生活的人们之间发现，他们是自由的，而且或者在比例方面，或者在算术方面彼此平等"。 |
| |
| There
should be no doubt that Aristotle used the concept of freedom
to indicate the possession of certain political rights. Actually,
in ancient Greece, the great difference between free people
and slaves lies in whether a person possessed the right to
participate in the political life of the city-state. Of course,
besides Aristotle's understanding, there was another type
of understanding of freedom prevalent in ancient Greece, which
was represented by Pericles. In his famous Address at a Funeral,
he proposes: " Our political freedom has spread to our
daily life. ……. But all those in our personal life have
not made us indifferent to law as citizens. Our guarantee
lies in a belief, which constantly reminds us of the need
to obey our administrators and the law, ……. In Athens, we
live according to what we like but we are always ready to
meet all challenges. Although our habits derive from leisure
instead of labor and our courage is natural rather than artificial,
we are willing to face hazards. We do not have to undergo
those unnecessary hardships but we are ready to face those
hardships fearlessly when it is necessary. Therefore, compared
with those who have never been out of hardships, we possess
double advantages." |
| |
| 亚里斯多德用"自由"这个概念来表达对于某些政治权利的拥有，这应该是没有什么疑问的。实际上，在古希腊，自由民与奴隶最大的差别，也就在于是否拥有参与城邦政治生活的权利。当然，在亚里斯多德的理解之外，在古希腊还存在着另一种对自由的理解，那就是伯利克里的理解。他在其著名的《葬礼上的演说辞》中说："我们在政治上的自由扩展到日常生活之中，……但个人生活中的这一切并没有使我们作为公民无视法律。我们的保障在于这样的一种信念，它告诫我们服从管理者和法律，……在雅典，我们按照自己的喜好生活，但我们时刻准备面临一切挑战。虽然我们的习惯来自于闲暇而非辛劳，我们的勇气来自于自然而非人为，但我们却乐意面对危险，我们既不必刻意经历艰辛，但在必要的时候又能够无畏地面对它们，因而比起从来不曾从艰苦中脱身的人们来说，我们具有双倍的优越。" |
| |
| Here,
Pericles was making a comparison between Sparta and Athens.
By saying that Athenians possessed greater freedom than the
Spartans, Pericles implies that compared with the Spartans,
the Athenians enjoyed a more comfortable and leisurely way
of life. It further implies that Athens imposed fewer restrictions
on its citizens than Sparta. This was still a relative kind
of freedom. Of course, it not only implies political right
but also implies the autonomous choice of one's personal life.
This is the basic premise of the concept of freedom in the
West since the modern period. In this sense, the existence
of Sparta and other less free city-states made the Athenians
value and exercise the freedom that they possessed and further
reinforced their awareness of freedom. In the Roman political
thought, we can discover the existence of similar features
(by means of contrasting with enslavement). Here we might
arrive at an incidental conclusion that, on the issue of freedom,
the existence of the contrast between freedom and enslavement
constitutes an important contributing factor to freedom. But
for ancient China, the lack of such a contrast perhaps explains
why people failed to define freedom from the political and
legal perspective. |
| |
| 伯利克里在这里是拿斯巴达与雅典作对比，说雅典人具有比斯巴达人更多的自由，意思是说与斯巴达人相比，雅典人具有一种更加自在舒适的生活方式，也就是说，雅典与斯巴达相比，对于它的公民们施行较少的强制。这仍然是一种相对而言的自由。当然，它的意义在于不仅意味着一种政治上的权利，而且也意味着一种对于个人生活方式的自主选择。这是近代以来西方自由思想的一个基本出发点。从这个意义上说，斯巴达和其他不那么自由的城邦的存在使雅典人更加珍视和发挥他们所享有的自由，更强化了他们的自由的意识。在罗马的政治思想中，我们也可以发现同样的特点（即通过与奴役的对比发现自由）存在。从这里也许可以得出一个附带的结论，那就是在自由的问题上，一种与不自由的对比的存在本身，是对自由的一个重要的促进因素，而对古代中国来说，这种对比的缺乏也许是人们不能更多地从政治与法律的角度界定自由的一个原因。 |
| |
| Nevertheless,
it is not proper to idealize Pericles' glorification of Athenian
freedom because both the Athenians and the Spartans owed the
obligation of absolute obeying the city-states to which they
belonged. The freedom that they could enjoy was within the
limits granted by their city-states. The point is that any
citizen had no right to rebel against the unfair and the unjust
actions of the city-states. The death of Socrates serves as
a typical example in this respect. This is the greatest difference
between the ancient and the modern forms of freedom. The death
of Socrates and the rapid decline of the Athenian city-states
after Pericles made Plato extremely skeptical about the Athenian
freedom and the democratic form that embodied this freedom.
He believed that a genuine form of politics does not require
the free choice of individuality because the objective existence
of thee weaknesses of humanity necessarily turns this kind
of freedom into an indulgence in personal desires. For Plato,
what is fundamental to politics is a kind of definite order,
that is, justice or the absolute domination of reason over
the "wishes" and the desires. This domination can
be manifest in the same person or in a city-state, that is,
the government of the public life by a philosopher.
|
| |
| 但也不应该把伯利克里对于雅典自由的赞颂过于理想化，因为无论雅典人还是斯巴达人，对于城邦来说都有一种绝对服从的义务，而他们所能够拥有的自由，不过是城邦允许之下的自由。关键在于，任何公民都不具有反抗城邦哪怕是不公正不合理的行为的权利，苏格拉底之死就是一个典型的例子。这是古代的自由与近代的自由的一个最大的差别所在。苏格拉底之死，以及雅典城邦在伯利克里之后迅速的衰败，使柏拉图对于雅典的自由，以及体现这种自由的民主制度采取了一种极端怀疑的态度。他相信，一种真正的政治，需要的不是个性选择的自由，因为人性的弱点的客观存在必然使这种自由变成一种对个人欲望的放纵。对于柏拉图来说，政治的根本，应该是某种确定的秩序即"正义"，是理性对于"意见"和欲望的绝对的支配。这种支配既体现在同一个人的身上，也体现于一个城邦之中，即哲学家对于公共生活的统治。 |
| |
| If
we reconstruct Plato's thoughts by means of the later-day
concept of freedom, a question might be raised: what should
be the relationship between truth and freedom? Although Plato
himself did not provide any definite expression of such thoughts,
we can still ask whether, according to Plato's ideology, the
person who lived by the principle of reason and completely
controlled his personal desires is free. We know that Plato
would give an affirmative answer to this question. Here, an
initial foundation was provided for a later-day discussion
concerning the relationship between freedom and inevitability.
However, this type of freedom is not in accordance with human
nature, as is pointed out by Aristotle in his critique. On
the other hand, it is overly tinted with elitism because according
to Plato's theory only a very limited number of people could
live by the principle of reason. In the actual political life,
what Plato wished was surely to guarantee a sort of freedom
of thought for such thinkers as Socrates. But the contradiction
is that although he reserved for philosophers the status of
the highest ruler in his republic, he has also eliminated
any possibility of free thinking because what he conceived
was a mode of public life that was totally static, rigid,
which he regarded as perfect (or is there any room for improvement
in his republic?). It is therefore natural that Socrates did
not have a good time there. |
| |
| 如果用后代的自由观念来重构柏拉图的思想，那么可能提出这样的一个问题，即真理与自由的关系应该是怎么样的？尽管柏拉图本人并没有明确表达这样的思想，但我们还是可以设想在柏拉图的思想体系中，按照理性生活并且彻底控制了自己的欲望的人是否自由。相信柏拉图应该能够做出一个肯定的回答。这里为后来自由与必然的关系的讨论提供了最初的基础。但是，这种"自由"既不近人情，如同后来亚里斯多德所批判的那样；又具有过分强烈的精英主义的色彩，因为按照柏拉图的理论，只有极少数的人才能具有这种按照理性生活的资格。具体到实际的政治生活当中，柏拉图希望的，显然是为象苏格拉底那样的思想家保证一种思考的自由，但矛盾在于，他所设想的理想国中虽然为哲学家保留了最高统治者的位置，但同时也已经排除了自由思想的任何可能性，因为他设想的是一种完全静止、僵化的、当然按照他的理论也是完美的公共生活的模式（理想国的制度还可以有改进的余地吗？），所以苏格拉底的命运在那里大概也好不了多少。 |
| |
| To
a large extent, the ideas which were proposed by Plato in
his Republic were later rejected by himself. Aristotle's understanding
of freedom came back to the level of common sense. Aristotle
once said that a good life under constitution is a life of
safety rather than a life of enslavement. This idea was inherited
by Thomas Aquinas, who further believed that such a life was
both "libertatern and salutem". This idea constituted
the basic content of the concept of freedom during the period
from ancient Rome to Middle Ages. As is mentioned above, like
ancient Greeks, the initial Roman conception of freedom is
the kind of freedom that Romans enjoyed in comparison with
the slaves and other races outside Rome. Freedom was also
incorporated as some political and social rights. But apart
from that people in ancient Rome developed some kind of new
understanding concerning freedom, that is, the understanding
of freedom in the so-called "republicanist" tradition.
Such an understanding includes the following two aspects.
There is the relationship between law and freedom. Political
thinkers in ancient Rome, like Cicero, all emphasized that
freedom should be regulated by law in order for people to
differentiate freedom from "license". Cicero himself
wrote that "Anything that goes to the extreme will be
its opposite, whether it is the climate, the income, or the
health of man. It is especially true for the political life
of a nation. Extreme freedom would result in extreme enslavement.
This is equally applicable to the general public as a whole
and to the individual citizens. Complete freedom would lead
to political tyranny, which is the most unjust and most cruel
state of enslavement."(5) |
| |
| 柏拉图在《理想国》中的设想在相当大的程度上后来被他自己所放弃，所上所说，亚里斯多德对于自由的理解又重新回到了常识的水平上来，亚里斯多德曾经表示，在一种良好的宪法下的生活是一种安全的而非奴役的生活，而这种观点也被托马斯·阿奎那所继承，他并且认为这种生活是自由而且安全的（libertatern
et salutem），这是罗马到中世纪之间政治思想中关于自由的观念的一个基本内容。如上所说，与古希腊人一样，罗马人的自由最初同样是罗马人相对于奴隶或者罗马之外的其他民族的人的自由，它同样表现为某些政治与社会的权利。但除此之外，在古罗马，人们对于自由的理解又增加了新的内容，这就是所谓的"共和主义"的传统对自由的理解。这种理解包括两个方面的内容，首先是关于法律与自由的关系。古罗马的政治思想家如西塞罗等人都强调自由应该受到法律的调整从而使其区别于"放任"（licence）。西塞罗本人曾经写道："任何事物如果走向极端--无论是天气、收成还是人的健康--都会成为它的反面，对于一个国家的政治生活而言尤其如此。极端的自由，其结果只会是极端的奴役，这无论对于人民全体还是公民个人来说都同样正确。纯粹的自由将导致政治上的专制，这将是最不公正的和最残暴的奴役状态。" |
| |
| The
"republicanist" tradition stresses the subordination
of freedom to law. But the law is not the arbitrary law. Cicero
pointed out that "freedom can find its proper place only
when the public has commanded the supreme power of the state."(6)
That is to say, a basic condition for freedom is that the
general public as a whole can become the framers of law. This
is where the essential spirit of "republicanism"
dwells. Augustine also believed that the pursuit of freedom
and honor made Roman people create admirable achievements(7).In
addition, the "republicanist" tradition stresses
the role of the natural law and stressed the ultimate agreement
between the law in reality and the natural law. This is the
second guarantee for the freedom of the citizens in the "republicanist"
tradition. Because political thinkers from Cicero to Aquinas
all emphasized the inner cohesion between natural law and
reason, it is easy to come to the conclusion that freedom
is subordinated to law and hence to reason. |
| |
| "共和主义"传统强调自由在于对法律的服从，但这种法律并不是专制的。西塞罗指出："只有在人民掌握了最高权力的国家，自由才能找到其安身之所。"
也就是说，自由的一个基本前提是人民全体作为法律的制定者，这正是"共和主义"的精神实质之所在。奥古斯丁也认为，正是对于自由与荣誉的追求使罗马人创造了令人钦佩的业绩。
除此之外，"共和主义"的传统也强调自然法的作用，强调现实的法律最终必须与自然法相一致。这是"共和主义"传统中对于公民自由的第二重保障。由于从西塞罗到阿奎那都强调自然法与理性的内在一致性，所以也很容易由此得出自由是对法律从而也是对理性的服从的结论。
|
| |
| The
second peak in the development of the "republicanist"
thought happened in the Renaissance Italy. Since the beginning
of the 14th century, the relationship between the political
system and freedom had become one of the important issues
that aroused the concern of the Italian humanists. The republic
of Florence at that time served as the typical example for
their study. One of the early humanists Coluccio Salutati
wrote in a letter in 1369 that there was nothing nobler, greater
and more valuable than freedom. Freedom was a "dulce
libertatisfrenum", which implies a life under the law,
a law that governs all people and is established according
to the most fair principle of equality. Leonardo Bruni further
elaborated on Cicero's ideas by pointing out that the Florentine
system made it possible to establish definite legal norms
for people's political life, a fact which constituted the
strengths of the Florentine system. Different political forces
within the state achieved proper balance, which, fundamentally
speaking, provided a legal guarantee for freedom. He alleged
that there would be no republic if there was no law and that
life would be meaningless without freedom(8). Another humanist
Alamano clearly asserts in his 1479 dialogue On Liberty that
"political freedom dwells in the possibility of a free
life within the confines of law and mores". At the same
time, he believes that a sensible man can bring his passion
under the control of reason and realize the possibility of
freedom. By contrast, an insensible person would be dominated
by his passion and turn his freedom into endless dissatisfaction
and misfortune(9). Dante also believes that a man is free
if he lives by the principle of reason. On the contrary, if
he allows himself to be dominated by his desires or the will
of others, he will be cast into an enslaved state. A corrupt
political system would reduce people into mere slaves while
a just system could help people develop into citizens of virtue
and integrity. |
| |
| "共和主义"思想的第二个高峰出现在文艺复兴时期的意大利。从十四世纪开始，自由与政体的关系成为意大利人文主义者关注的一个中心话题，而当时的佛罗伦萨共和国则是他们研究的一个典型的案例。早期人文主义者萨鲁塔蒂（Coluccio
Salutati）1369年的一封信中就曾写道：没有什么比自由更高贵、更伟大和更有价值。'8 自由是一种"甜蜜的约束"（dulce
libertatisfrenum）它意味意在一种支配着全体人民的、基于最公正的平等标准的法律之下生活。布鲁尼（Leonardo
Bruni）继承西塞罗的思想，认为佛罗伦萨制度最大的优点在于法律为人们的政治生活确立了明确的规范，国家的各种政治力量得到了适当的平衡，而从根本上说，就是法律保证了自由。他所此断言，没有法律就没有共和国，而没有自由生存就失去了价值。
另外一位人文主义者阿拉马诺在其写于1479年的对话录《论自由》一书中，则明确提出，"政治的自由存在于在法律与习俗的界限之内自由生活的可能性。"他同时认为，一个明智的人能够使自己的情欲服从于理性的约束从而能够实现自由的可能性，而不明智的人由于只能听从于情欲的摆布从而只能把自由转变成无穷无尽的不满与不幸。
但丁也认为，如果一个人是按照他的理性生活的，那他就是自由的，相反，如果他被自己的欲望或者别人的意志所支配，那么他就处于一种奴役的状态。一种腐败的政体把人们降低为奴隶，而一种正义的政体则同时使人们成为品德优良的人和正直的公民。 |
| |
| Generally
speaking, the republicanists uses the law formulated by the
citizens as an intermediary to unify freedom and imposition.
According to their view, if the law of the state is framed
by the people of the state and if such a law is the reflection
of their common will, then the compliance with the law would
naturally become the result of their voluntary choice. This
is because under such circumstances, they are not obeying
others but obeying themselves. Therefore, just as they are
free when they formulated their constitution, they are also
free when they are obeying the law. In this way, from the
perspective of the republicanists, the issue of freedom is
transformed into the problem of the jurisdiction of the state
power. To put it in another way, the republicanists first
of all believe that the imposition inherent in the state is
the imposition by a group of people over another group of
people, not the imposition by the state over its citizens.
Therefore, if the political power is controlled by all citizens,
then the state can be said to have achieved universal freedom.
|
| |
| 总的来说，共和主义者以公民制定的法律为中介，把自由与强制统一了起来。在他们看来，如果说一个国家的法律是由人民自己所制定的，是他们的意志的反映，那么对于这些法律的服从自然也是人们自愿选择的结果，因为在这种情况下，他们服从的不是别人，正是他们自己。因此，正如他们在制定法律的时候是自由的一样，他们在服从法律的时候同样也是自由的。这样，从共和主义者的角度来看，自由的问题便转化为国家权力的归属问题。进一步说，共和主义首先认为国家中存在的强制是一部分人对另一部分人的强调而并非国家本身对于其公民的强制，因此，如果政权为公民全体所掌握，那么在这个国家中便实现了普遍的自由。 |
| |
| The
republicanist tradition emphasizes the conformity between
public will, law and freedom and its superiority is quite
obvious when all the citizens are examined as a whole. But
when the individual freedom of the citizens is taken into
account, this type of thought will inevitably encounter its
paradoxes. Because in fact it is virtually important that
the law is a product of universal agreement, we may well ask
whether the person who has to obey the law that he himself
does not agree with is free? Rousseau was clearly aware of
the problem that in actual politics it cannot be guaranteed
that every law can win the universal support from the citizens.
If the principle of majority vote is adopted, it is inevitable
that the law as is finally passed does not conform to the
will of a proportion of citizens. Rousseau believes that this
should not change the basic proposition that the compliance
of public opinion is the political freedom. As for those people
who hold a different position from the public opinion, the
state has the right to force them, by means of imposition,
to accept the decisions by the public opinion, that is, to
force "freedom" on them. Rousseau's inference is
that the law should be the incarnation of the "public
will" and, for individual citizens, whether or not he
agrees with a particular law (which is the incarnation of
the "public will"), he has to comply with it in
order to achieve his true freedom. In other words, the compliance
with the public will is actually a reflection of freedom.
Rousseau's theory in fact hypothesizes an agreement between
the public reason and the individual reason. But his practice
of identifying the "public will" with the majority
opinion has considerably neglected the independent significance
of the individual will, which, in the view of later thinkers,
provided a basis for a totalitarian political theory. It is
obvious that in the "republicanist" tradition, the
problematic relationship between freedom and imposition was
not really worked out. Although Kant proposed the self-discipline
of reason as the condition for moral freedom, freedom was
still required to comply with the inevitable. However, since
this self-discipline cannot be simply equated with the logical
uniformity, the so-called "necessity" lacks corresponding
criteria. Thus in Hegel's juristic philosophy, reason was
once again identified with the will of the state.
|
| |
| 共和主义的传统强调公众意志、法律、以及自由之间的一致性，在把公民作为一个整体加以考察的时候，这种思想的优越性是明显的。但是，考虑到公民个人的自由的时候，这种思想不可避免地会遇到矛盾。由于在事实上法律几乎不可能是公民全体一致同意的产物，那么一位公民服从并不是他自己同意的法律的时候，他是否仍然自由呢？卢梭意识到了这个问题的存在，即在实际的政治中不可能始终保证任何的法律都得到公民全体一致的同意，在采取多数决定原则的情况下，必然出现最后通过的法律与部分公民的意志不一致的情况。卢梭认为，这种情况并不能改变对于公意的服从就是政治的自由这一基本的论断，对于那些持有与公意不同立场的人，国家有权力以强制的方式使他们接受公意的决定，也就是"强迫"他们"自由"。卢梭的推论是：法律应该作为"公意"的体现，而对于一个公民来说，无论他自己是否同意某一项体现了公意的具体的法律，他只有服从于它，自己才能实现真正的自由，也就是说，对于主权者和公意的服从实际上就是自由的体现。卢梭的理论实际上假设了一种公共理性与个人的理性的一致性；但他把"公意"等同于多数的意见又在相当的程度上忽视了个人意志的独立意义，从而被后人认为为某种极权主义的政治理论提供了依据。由此可见，在"共和主义"的传统之中，自由与强制的问题并没有能够得到真正的解决。康德虽然提出了理性的自律作为道德的自由的条件，自由被认为是服从于必然。但由于这种自律并不能仅仅等同于逻辑上的一致性，所谓的"必然"也缺乏相应的标准，所以在黑格尔的法哲学中，理性再次与国家意志等同起来。 |
| |
| In
Western Europe after the 15th century there was a period of
active development for the absolutist states. From that time
on, the power of the state experienced unprecedented growth
and in the face of the completely strengthened state power,
the individual could only feel a sense of helplessness. Therefore,
even though the republicanist tradition reached another peak
among the English revolutionaries after the 1640 English Revolution,
many philosophers remained skeptical whether the republicanist
mode could possibly work out the relationship between the
liberty of citizens and the imposition of the state under
the condition of modern states. It was Hobbes who gave the
fullest articulation of this skepticism. Hobbes had a deep
fear of the wars and the turmoil that happened between the
English revolutions. He wished that there could be some absolute
order which could assure people that certain of the basic
human liberties and rights would not remain mere abstract
and theoretical promises. |
| |
| 十五世纪之后的西欧是绝对主义的国家发展的时期，从此开始，国家的权力得到了空前的发展，个人在这种全面强化的国家政权的面前表现出一种无力的感觉。因此，虽然1640年的英国革命之后，共和主义的传统在英国的革命者再次达到了高潮，但以共和主义的方式能否解决近代国家的条件下公民的自由与国家的强制之间的关系问题，对此不少思想家持一种怀疑的态度，而最明确地反映了这种怀疑的人就是霍布斯。霍布斯对于两次英国革命之间的战乱与动荡充满了恐惧，渴望有某种绝对的秩序来保证人们一些基本的自由与权利而不是理论上抽象的承诺。 |
| |
| The
impression that Hobbes left on later generations is that he
was an advocate of absolute monarchy. However, the role that
he played for the modern development of liberalism is similar
to that of a founder because it was he pointed out that the
purpose of the government was to protect some of the basic
human rights. People had already possessed the right of freedom
(the natural right) long before the advent of government.
With the advent of government, freedom existed only in the
broad space outside the legal prohibition imposed by the government.
He specifically asserts that "in those places which do
not fall under the jurisdiction of the rulers, the subjects
have the right to act or not to act according to their own
judgment."(10) Those are precisely the two basic propositions
of modern liberalism. Of course, the basic human rights listed
by the liberalists as fundamental human freedom had yet to
undergo a process of gradual development. They originated
from the laws during the religious reformation (the freedom
to interpret religious doctrines). Martin Luther once expressed:
" Unless all the man-made laws (referring to the ecclesiastical
laws --- by the author), whatever their content, are completely
abolished, there would be no hope of solving the problem.
Only when we have possessed the freedom brought by the gospel
can we make our judgments according to it and guide our life."(11)
|
| |
| 霍布斯留给后人的印象是一位绝对君论的鼓吹者，但他对于近代自由主义思想的发展却发挥了一位类似于奠基人的作用，因为正是他明确提出政府的目的在于保护人类的某些基本的，人们在政府出现之前就已经享有的自由（自然权利），而在政府出现之后，自由就在于法律禁止之外的广泛的空间。他明确表示："在主权者未以条令规定的地方，臣民都有自由根据自己的判断采取或不采取行动。"
这正是近代自由主义的两项基本的论题。当然，被自由主义者列为基本自由的人类的基本权利有一个逐步扩展的过程，它最早源于宗教改革运动中人们对于自由思想（对教义的理解的自由）。马丁·路德就曾经表示："除非一切人为制定的法律（指教会法--引者）不论其内容如何都被干净彻底地加以废除，否则就根本没有解决问题的一丝希望。只有当我们拥有福音书给我们带来的自由，我们才能在一切方面依照它做出判断并指导我们的生活。"
|
| |
| The
concept of freedom as represented by Hobbes and elaborated
by Locke had obvious distinctions from the "republicanist"
tradition. They maintained an absolute interpretation of freedom,
that freedom is a state of absence of any restriction. For
instance, Hobbes believes that "freedom is simply a state
in which there is no obstacle to action." (12)They further
believe that before the advent of the state, there was no
imposition on any individual, hence every individual enjoyed
real freedom. Of course, nature and other people would somehow
constitute some kind of imposition and restriction on an individual,
but this should by no means be equated with the lack of political
freedom. The notion that man enjoyed his basic freedom before
the advent of the state was later summarized as the theory
of "divinely endowed human rights" and became universally
accepted. Both Hobbes and Locke believed that the state is
founded to ensure that people could naturally enjoy their
freedom and rights. The purpose of the state itself determines
the boundary of its legal action, that is, it must not deprive
or jeopardize those liberties. Liberalists including Hobbes
and Locke all admit that the existence of the state and its
activities must impose some restrictions on the otherwise
infinite freedom. This means that their political perspective
was based on the premise of the absolute opposition between
the state and freedom. This is their major difference from
the republicanists. They never attempted to discover anything
that could possibly unify freedom and imposition. Instead,
they openly admit that imposition is the deprivation of freedom.
They emphasize that the state's restrictions on individual
freedom must not encroach upon the guarantee of basic personal
liberty (fundamental human rights). Outside the legal restrictions,
people could enjoy total freedom. Furthermore, since people
establish their state for the purpose of protecting their
freedom, they have the legitimate right to revolt against
their state if the state seriously endangers their freedom
and rights. |
| |
| 由霍布斯所代表并由洛克真正加以发挥的对于自由的理解与"共和主义"的传统的区别是明显的。他们对于自由持一种绝对的理解，即自由就是不存在任何约束的状态，比如霍布斯就认为"自由简单地说就是不存在行为的障碍的一种状态。"
他们并且相信，在国家出现之前，由于不存在任何对个人的强制，每一个人都享有真正的自由。当然，自然界和他人会在某种意义上构成一种对个人的强制和约束，但这无论如何这不能被等同于政治上的不自由。人在国家出现之前享有基本的自由这样一种观念在后来以被概括为"天赋人权"的理论而被普遍接受下来。无论霍布斯还是洛克都相信，国家是人们为了保证他们自然地享有的这种自由与权利而建立起来的，国家的目的本身便决定了它合法行动的界限，这就是它不能反过来剥夺与危害这些自由。霍布斯和洛克那样的自由主义者都承认国家的存在及其活动必须以对人们原来无限的自由加以某些限制，也就是说，他们的政治观以国家与自由的绝对的对立为前提，这是他们与共和主义者的一个重大区别，即他们从不试图寻找某种能够把自由与强制统一起来的东西，而是明确承认强制就是对自由的剥夺。他们强调的是，国家对于个人自由的限制必须以对于基本的个人自由（基本人权）的保障作为界限，而在法律限制之外就是自由。不仅如此，人们既然是为了保证自己的自由才建立了国家，因此如果国家反过来严重威胁了他们的自由与权利，那么他们拥有完全正当的权利对国家进行反抗。 |
| |
| To
sum up. Liberalists put forward a totally new definition of
the relationship between freedom and law. Here, law becomes
a mere instrument whose task is to provide concrete guarantee
for freedom. In addition, the traditional "republicanist"
subject of the relationship between freedom and mores was
no longer mentioned. As man's "natural right", freedom
directly appeals to man. Or, in the words of Spinoza, "we
must regard the natural state as having neither religion nor
law, therefore, there is no crime or mistakes. …we believe
that the natural state preceded the law and the divine revelation.
It does not stem from ignorance. Everybody is born free."(13) |
| |
| 总之，自由主义对自由与法律的关系进行了全新的定义，在这里，法律成为一种纯粹的工具，它的使命就是对自由提供切实的保障。另外，自由与公民道德这一"共和主义"的传统话题也不再被提及。自由被直接诉诸人作为人的"自然权利。"正如斯宾诺莎所说："我们必须把天然的状态看成是既无宗教也无法律的，因此也就没有罪恶与过失。……我们认为的自然状态是先于与缺乏神圣启示的法律与权利，并不只是因为无知，也是因为人人生来就赋有自由。"
|
| |
| The
notion that freedom lies outside the legal restrictions was
an important transformation in the Western interpretation
of freedom in this period and this transformation significantly
broadened the category of freedom. In contrast to the "republicanist"
conception of freedom, the liberalists' understanding had
obvious advantages because under certain circumstances the
truth is not always with the majority. Moreover, in the actual
political life, the majority does not really have the right
to make political decisions. As far as the liberalists are
concerned, Rousseau's and Hegel's interpretation of freedom
not only provided foundation for the "tyranny of the
majority" but also made possible the political imposition
in the name of majority by some political forces. Historically,
modern liberalists took freedom, one of the basic components
of the naturally endowed human rights, as the premise of all
legal and political systems and individual freedom could be
guaranteed as long as such freedom did not obstruct the equivalent
rights of others. The emergence of modern liberalism in Western
Europe was a revolt against the then emerging tyrannical states,
a reaction to ensure the freedom of citizens when the individual
is confronted with the reinforced state power. In other words,
while the state is acquiring an unprecedented power, its citizens
are also endeavoring to discover a system that can guarantee
the personal liberty and can be used to counterbalance the
reinforced state power. It can be said that this is a natural
expression of the concept of freedom in an era of tyrannical
states. Or we can say that the emergence of this concept of
freedom, which differs from its ancient counterpart, is somewhat
inevitable. Therefore, the concept of freedom as represented
by modern liberalism is the result of a distinctive understanding
of the nature of the state and the relationship between the
state and the society. It is also a form of rebellion against
the modern tyrannical states. Undoubtedly, it is also the
ultimate outcome of the gradual awakening of the individual
consciousness. This type of interpretation of freedom served
as the groundwork for all the political and legal systems
of the modern state. From one aspect, this testifies to a
basic choice that people made in pursuing their political
freedom under the condition of modern states. Generally speaking,
the concept of fundamental human rights as established by
liberalism that any individual possesses some basic liberties
which the state must not encroach upon or deprive under any
circumstances has become a common understanding in Western
political thought. It serves as the fundamental premise for
any political discussion. |
| |
| 应该看到，西方政治思想中对于自由的理解从法律所允许的就是自由到法律限制之外就是自由，这个转变使自由的范畴得到了极大的扩展。与共和主义者对于自由的理解相比，自由主义的理解的优越性是显而易见的，因为在某些情况下，多数并不能始终掌握真理，况且多数在现实的政治生活中也不可能真正掌握政治的决定权。在自由主义者看来，卢梭和黑格尔式的对于自由的理解不仅为"多数的暴政"提供了基础，而且也使某种政治力量借多数之名进行政治强制成为可能。从历史的发展来看，近代自由主义者把作为天赋人权的一个基本组成部分的自由视为全部法律与政治制度的出发点，个人的自由只以不妨碍他人同等的自由为限。近代自由西欧主义的产生是个人对于正在出现的专制国家的一种反抗，是个人面对一种强化之后的国家权力为确保公民的自由的一种反应。也就是说，当国家获得了一种前所未有的权力的同时，公民也在寻求一种能够与这种经过强化的国家权力相抗衡的个人自由的保障体系。这应该说是在专制国家时代自由观念的一种自然的表达，或者说，这种与古代自由观不同的自由观的出现具有其必然性。因此，近代自由主义所代表的自由观即是当时对于国家的性质、国家与社会的关系的独特的理解的结果，也是对于近代专制主义国家的一种反应。当然，也是个人自我意识逐步觉醒的最终结果。这样一种对自由的理解构成了现代国家全部政治法律制度的基础，这也从一个侧面表明了在近代国家的情况下人们追求政治上的自由的一种基本的选择。总的来说，由自由主义所确立的基本人权的观念，即个人具有某些国家无论如何也不能加以侵犯和剥夺的基本的自由的观念在西方政治思想中现在已经成为一种共识，成为任何政治讨论的基本前提。 |
| |
| Nevertheless,
there are some insurmountable problems inherent in the interpretation
offered by modern liberalism. On one hand, the liberalists
believe that man can enjoy full freedom in a natural condition
devoid of the state. On the other hand, they admit that freedom
is impossible because of the existence of various restrictions
such as the conflicts among different individuals. Freedom
may even turn into a struggle of "the entire population
of one group against the entire population of another group,"
hence making the establishment of the state necessary. In
this sense, the state can both guarantee and restrict human
freedom. Since the natural state is nothing more than an illusion
--- the majority of social-contract theoreticians admit this,
fundamentally speaking, freedom is still located within the
state, not outside the state. It is precisely on this point
that Burke used the "English freedom" to criticize
the abstract concept of freedom proposed by the French Revolution.
Secondly, although some basic rights such as life and property
became recognized as "naturally endowed liberties",
such liberties would be completely abstract for those who
do not possess any property. As for the question whether individual
freedom can be fully exercised under the condition of not
jeopardizing the freedom of others, it is a proposition that
has never been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Although modern
liberalism played an important role in many countries in fighting
against political tyranny, striving for the equal rights of
citizens, and broadening political freedom, this doctrine
of freedom is often too abstract to grasp, for it neglects
many of the actual social and economic conditions. As pointed
out by Rousseau, man is born free but he is still in eternal
enslavement. It is also the dilemma that Sartre has revealed
concerning human freedom. |
| |
| 但是，近代自由主义对于自由的理解也存在着一些难以克服的问题。自由主义者一方面相信人在没有国家的自然状态之下享有充分的自由，但另一方面又承认由于各种限制的存在，比如人们之间的相互争斗，这种自由往往成为不可能，甚至成为"一切人反对一切人的斗争"，由此才有必要建立国家。从这个意义上说，国家虽然限制人的自由，但同时也保证人的自由。由于自然状态只不过是一种虚构--大多数的社会契约论者都承认这一点，那么自由从根本上来说仍然还是在国家之内而不是在国家之外，柏克正是在这个意义上以"英国人的自由"来批判法国大革命所提出的抽象的作为人的自由的观念。其次，虽然诸如生命与财产等基本权利作为"天赋的"自由得到确认，但比如说对于没有财产的人来说，这种自由就成为一种完全的抽象。至于一个人的自由是否真的能够在完全不妨碍其他人的自由的前提下得到完全的发挥，这本身也是一个没有经过严格论证的命题。正因此，虽然近代自由主义在各国反抗政治专制、争取公民的平等权利、扩展人们的政治自由方面的确发挥了巨大的作用，但是，这种在很大程度上忽视了具体的社会经济条件的自由常常也让人感到抽象而难以把握，这正是卢梭所说的：人生而自由，但无往而不在奴役之中。也正是萨特所集中揭示的人类自由的困境。 |
| |
| Another
basic characteristic of modern liberalism is that it is largely
separated from morality and from the community of human society.
Because of this, freedom can be the freedom of the strong
to bully the weak; it can also be the freedom of those social
members who possess certain amount of social resources to
infinitely expand their personal interests. With regard to
the former, Liang Qi Chao presented some fairly perceptive
commentary. His explanation of the modern concept of freedom
is: "Previously only those in positions of dominance
are the strong men and now the dominated can also become the
strong men. …When two strong men meet and two strong powers
co-exist, they counteract on each other and the two powers
become equal. Therefore, the right of freedom is the same
thing as the strong power."(14) With respect to the latter,
the actual social and political life in the modern period
can provide some sufficient illustrations. One of the typical
examples is whether the absolute freedom should be guaranteed
in scientific research? Should the freedom to clone human
being be guaranteed? Augustus wrote: " For those souls
that rejoice over their own freedom and refuse to serve the
God, they will be deprived of their control over their body
that they originally possessed. Because they have intentionally
rejected the God above them, they will have to lose the servants
that are below them. In fact, they can no longer have control
over their own actions. If otherwise they had obeyed the God,
they would have been able to do so."(15) What Augustus
was driving at was that freedom itself should be brought within
some internal moral limits. |
| |
| 另一方面，由于近代自由主义的一个基本特点是它在很大程度上离开了对于道德以及对于人类社会共同体的关联，因此，它既可以表现为一种强者欺凌弱者的自由，也可能表现为一种那些拥有相应的社会资源的社会成员无限扩展自己的个人利益的自由。对于前者，梁启超曾经进行过精辟的评论，他对近代自由观念的解释就是："前此唯在上位者乃为强者，今则在下位者亦为强者。……两强相遇，两权并行，因两强相消，两权平等，故可谓自由权与强权本同一物。"
对于后者，近代以来实际的社会政治生活也提供了充分的证明。一个典型的例子就是在科学的研究中是否应该保证绝对的自由，比如说，是否应该保证克隆人的自由？奥古斯丁曾经写道："对于那种在欢呼自己的自由而不屑服务于上帝的灵魂来说，它将被剥夺原来所具有的那种对于其肉体的支配。由于它有意地抛弃了它之上的上帝，它也将失去在它之下的仆从，它实际上也不再能支配自己的行为，而如果它服从于上帝的话，它总是能够做到这一些的。"
这里说的是，自由本身需要某种内在的、道德的限度。 |
| |
| Post-modernist
thinkers have conducted sufficient criticism over the inconsistencies
inherent in the ideas of freedom since the Enlightenment.
Their criticism focuses on two aspects. First, the criticism
is directed toward the abstractness of modern liberalism.
It is believed that the so-called "natural rights"
were mere illusion. Foucault points out that there has never
been such a thing as "primitive free space". He
claims: "I am only concerned with the fact that all human
relations are largely a relationship of powers."(16)
Secondly, the criticism is directed at the kind of thinking
in the Western intellectual tradition since the enlightenment,
which completely identified reason and self-consciousness
with freedom. Post-modernists judged such a practice as an
absolute illusion and believe that what is really reflected
by the so-called moral awareness is no more than a form of
internalization in people's thought of the social relationship
between power and control. |
| |
| 后现代主义的思想家们对于启蒙时代以来自由思想中包含的矛盾性进行了充分的批判。他们的批判在集中于两个方面，一是批判了近代自由主义思想的抽象性，即认为所谓的"自然权利"根本就是一种虚幻，福科就指出，根本就不存在"原始自由的空间"，他明确表示："我所关注的是这样的一个事实，即人类的所有关系在某种程度上都是一种权力关系。"
其次是批判了自启蒙运动以来西方思想传统中那种把理性、自我意识和自由完全等同的思维，断定这完全是一种错觉，而所谓的道德意识所真正反映的，不过是一种社会中的权力与控制关系在人的思维中的内在化。 |
| |
| In
his Genealogy of Morality, Foucault undertook some interesting
reflections on the ethical concepts in ancient Greek and Roman
period. According to Foucault, in ancient Greek and Roman
culture, ethical concepts reflect the relationship between
the individual and himself. They reflect the individual's
command of his personal life and the purpose of education
is to make people become better masters of themselves. Foucault
goes on to say that while Kantian ethics emphasizes the individual's
duty and obligation to others, the ethics in ancient Greece
and Rome stressed the individual's control and command over
his desires. At the same time, Greeks and Romans believed
that the reason, which could perfectly control a person, could
also perfectly control the whole city-state. It is clear that
Foucault advocates ancient Greek and Roman culture as an alternative
to modern civilization. He believes that such a culture might
overcome the imposition brought by modernization on the so-called
the internalization of man. Foucault hopes that a reconstruction
of individual might be realized and the reconstructed individual
might be able to, in a refined form, have totally new experiences
of pleasure and desires. Of course, Foucault does not believe
that the Greek and Roman concepts of ethics can be directly
applicable to modern situation. In his words, "to re-examine
the ancient Greeks today does not mean that we must regard
Greek ethical concepts as our highest framework of reference.
The key point is that the European intellectual tradition
can renew Greek ideas and will value such an experience in
order for people to obtain their complete freedom."(17)
|
| |
| 福科在《道德的谱系学》一书中，对古代希腊罗马时代的伦理观念进行了一些有意思的反思。他认为，在古代希腊罗马文化中，伦理观念反映的是个体与其自身的关系，也就是说，它体现的是一种个人对于他自身的生活的把握，而教育的目的则是使人们更好地成为自己的主人。福科写道，尽管康德式的伦理学强调的是个体对于他人的责任和义务，但古代希腊罗马的伦理学强调的是对于自身欲望的把握与控制，与此同时，希腊和罗马人相信，能够完美地控制一个人的理性，同时也能够完美地控制整个城邦。可以说，福科是把古代希腊罗马文化作为一种现代文明的替代物而加以提倡的，他并且相信，这样一种文化可以克服现代化所带来的那种所谓的对人的内在化的强制，以及这种文化中所包含的以对人与自然的征与支配作为自由的前提的缺陷。福科希望能够实现一种个体的重构，这种新的个体将以经过提练的形式感受一种新的经验，愉悦与欲望。当然，福科也并不认为古代希腊罗马的伦理观念能够直接为现代人所用，用他的话来说："在今天重新认识希腊人并不意味着必须把希腊的伦理观念视为我们必须参照的最高标准。关键在于欧洲的思想能够重新继续希腊人的思维，并且为了使人们得到完全的自由而重现这种经验。"
|
| |
| Foucault
believes that "the classical period has lost the awareness
of the self as an autonomous mechanism … therefore some questions
have been posed to us as they were posed to the ancients.
As far as I am concerned, the pursuit of different styles
among different people was what the different ancient groups
had been doing and this has become the goal which we once
again try to achieve"(18). He points out that the question
is not simply "the discovery of the self" or the
discovery of the inner existence of the self. It is a matter
of constant creation of self. Foucault claims that his mission
is to discover a space of freedom and a structure that may
enable us to exist as self-sufficient entities."(19)
For Foucault, the so-called liberty is a constant process
of moral practice whereby the individual can arrive at a kind
of self-command or self-contemplation. Freedom is the "ontological
condition of ethics" and ethics "is an exquisite
form by which the ethics can be realized."(20) While
not neglecting the social and political conditions of freedom,
Foucault stresses that the individual still has the ability
to produce the freedom of practice by means of self-definition
and self-control. Finally, he insists that the exercise of
this ability may well become an important condition for the
individual to break away the restrictions imposed by the society
upon that individual. Foucault's thoughts on freedom may provide
an important starting point to help us understand the concepts
of freedom in Chinese intellectual traditions. |
| |
| 福科认为："古典时期失去的恰恰是一种对于自我作为主体的机制的问题意识……因此，某些问题如同当时对古代人一样，现在同样对我们提了出来。对于不同的人之间不同风格的追求，在我看来，正是古代不同群体的人就已经开始进行，而我们今天又再次追寻的目标。"
他并且指出，问题不在于单纯地"发现自己"，发现个体内部的存在，而是在于一种不断的自我创造。福科表示，他自己的任务就是要寻找一种自由的空间，并使之产生一种使"我们能够人作为一种自足的主体"而存在的结构。
在福科看来，所谓的自由（Liberty）就是一种持续不断的道德实践，通过它个体实现了一种自我把握和自我关照。自由是"伦理的本体论条件"，而伦理则是"自由借以实现的一种精细的形式。"
福科在不忽视自由的社会政治条件的同时，强调个体仍然具有一种进行自我界定、自我把握从而创造出一种自由的实践的能力，并且强调，正是这种能力的发挥，是个人冲破社会对于自由的限制的一种重要条件。福科对于自由问题的思考可以为我们理解中国传统思想中的自由观念提供某种可能的起点。 |
| |
| Part
II: Chinese Ancient Concepts of Freedom
In ancient
China, there was the usage of the concept of freedom, for
example, in the Yu poem "The Peacock Flies Southeast",
we have those lines: "If I brood with anger for a long
time, how can you be free." There is the denotation
of freedom in the sense of Western tradition. However, the
concept had not been used in the context of moral and political
pursuit until modern China, especially in orthodox Confucianism.
But this is not to conclude that there was no individual
pursuit of freedom in traditional Chinese culture. The pursuit
of freedom by Jiao Zhongqing's wife as a representative
of ordinary Chinese woman embodies a wish hidden in everyone's
subconscious world. It is impossible that traditional Chinese
culture has no response to such an important issue. Of course,
the response might have been made in the entirely traditional
Chinese category.
|
| |
| 二、中国古代的自由观念
虽然中国古代对于自由这个概念也有所使用，比如说《孔雀东南飞》中就出现过"吾意久怀忿，汝岂得自由"的句子，从其含意看也具有类似西方语言中自由的内涵，但可以肯定的是，在近代以前的中国，这个概念并不具有作为人的一种道德与政治追求的意义，尤其是在正统的儒家思想中更是如此。但也并不能由此得出结论认为，在作为古代文化传统中不存在对个人自由的追求。焦仲卿的妻子作为一位普通妇女所向往的自由境界，体现的完全是一种任何人都可以具有的愿望。中国传统文化不可能不对这样的问题作出自己的回答。当然，事实上也做出了这种回答，但使用的完全是中国传统的思维范畴。
|
| |
| It
may well be said that the traditional Chinese concept of freedom
was formed during the periods of Spring and Autumn (c. 770-476
B.C.) and Warring States (c. 475-221 B.C.). It was developed
into a system of thought in the Confucianist culture. The
idea of freedom provided the traditional intellectual with
a philosophy imbued with a strong sense of transcendentalism.
|
| |
|
可以说，中国传统的自由观念是在春秋战国时期百家争鸣的过程中形成，并且最终在儒家文化的思想中形成了一种相对完整的思想体系。这种思想为特别是中国传统的士大夫阶层提供了一种具有相当的超越性的人生哲学和精神支柱。
|
| |
| Any
study of traditional Chinese ideas must start with the "devotion
of oneself to the re-establishment of rites" advocated
by Confucius. In fact, the social and political context that
Confucius lived in was quite similar to that in which Socrates
and Plato lived. It was characteristic of a downfall of the
traditional values and customs in social and political lives
and of the rapid development of the idea of freedom among
the intellectual (the traditional Chinese saying is "rites
destroyed the music collapsed"). And the remedy they
prescribed for the social instability caused by such downfall
was also similar: Plato's ideas and Confucius's "rites".
Nevertheless, there were differences between Plato's "ideas"
and Confucius's "rites". First, the application
of Plato's ideas to politics has a strong flavor of elitism.
That is to say, the knowledge of ideas are privileged to only
a few social members. Accordingly, he elaborated a political
pattern of social hierarchy. Confucius's "rites"
are short of this feature, since rites are available to all
through learning. Although "rites should not be applied
to the plebian and penalty should not be imposed upon the
official", Confucius emphasized that "education
must be enforced among all classes of people."(21) Thus,
"rites" are regarded as both political criteria
in the society and norms of personal cultivation, and rites
become the foundation of "self-cultivation, family maintenance,
state administration and country unification." Secondly,
another important difference between the "ideas"
and "rites" lies in the fact that "rites"
are characteristic of practice and demand their embodiment
in everyday life, with no exception of gentleman. Thus, rites
become a life style (in Foucault's terms) that common people
imitate and an expression of world-view. Contrary to this,
the ideas in Plato, as highly conceptualized logos expressed
through language, have only the function of social control
in practice but no applicability in universal human life.(22)
It is because rites have the above-mentioned two features
that Confucius tried his best to fulfill them though he knows
that was impossible and took the re-establishment of rites
as a mission for the rest of his life(23). But the objective
results of his theory and practice were not to push society
back to the ancient times (Of course, Plato failed, too).
On the contrary, they provided a medium for the development
of a new life style and new philosophy. Here, measure takes
the place of aim. The thought derived from "rites"
later became a bondage used by the ruling class to curb people's
freedom, but at the same time it turns out to be the starting
point of personal development through self-cultivation. That
is why "rites" have advantages over "ideas".
Therefore, it is wrong to deny the negative effect that "rites"
produce upon individual freedom in the history of China; but
while we recognize the negative effect produced by the thought
of rites, we have to see that it at the same time possibly
provided opportunity for the development of individual freedom,
or provided a particular understanding of freedom. It is in
this sense that an American scholar says that the striking
characteristic of the East Asian thought lies in the universally
accepted proposition that human being can consummate themselves
through self-cultivation in everyday life.(24) |
| |
| 对于中国传统文化观念的考察不可能不从提倡"克已复礼"的孔子说起。实际上，孔子生活的时代的社会政治环境与苏格拉底和柏拉图时期的古希腊相当类似，其基本的特征都是传统价值与习俗在社会政治生活中的支配作用急剧下降以及部分知识分子的自由思想的产生（用中国传统的说法就是"礼崩乐坏"）；而他们对于解决由此带来的社会动荡与文化和观念冲突所开的药方也非常相似，那就是柏拉图所提出的理念与孔子所提倡的"礼"。但是，两者又有所区别。首先，如上所述，柏拉图的理念论在政治学中的运用具有一种强烈的精英主义的色彩，也就是说，他相信对理念的把握只能是社会中极少数人的特权，他并且据此设计了一种高度等级化的社会政治模式；而孔子的"礼"论则不具有这种特点，因为"礼"是所有的人都能够通过学习而获得的，虽然说"礼不下庶人，刑不上大夫"，但孔子还是强调"有教无类"
。由此决定了"礼"既是一种社会政治规范，同时也可以成为一种人格修养的准则，这就是"修齐治平"的根据所在。其次，"礼"论与理念论的另外一个重要的不同就在于"礼"作为一种仪式具有极强的实践性，它要求体现在每一个人日常起居的举手投足当中，甚至于要求"君子慎独"。"礼"的这种特点使它有可能成为一种能够为普通人仿效的生活方式（即福科所说的Style），并且成为符号化的生活观念的表达。与此相反，理念论作为一种通过语言表达的高度概念化的逻辑体系（logos），其抽象性使其在实践中只可能有一种社会控制的功能而不具备普遍化的人生哲学的实践能力。
正是由于"礼"具有上述两个方面的特点，所以虽然孔子穷其一生"知其不可而为之"
，以"克已复礼"为已任，但他的理论与实践的客观结果却不是把社会推回到遥远的过去（当然，柏拉图也没有能够做到这一点），而是为一种新的生活方式与人生哲学提供了一种独特的载体。在这里，手段替代了目的，"礼"的思想固然由于后世统治者的利用而成为约束人的自由的一种枷锁，但与此同时，也成为一种人通过自我修养而使其个性自由发展的起点。这就是"礼"论相对于理念论的优越性所在。因此，否认"礼"在中国历史上对于个性自由所造成的严重阻碍固然是一种不顾事实的观点，但在承认"礼"论的这种消极作用的同时，也应该看到，这种理论同时又为人的自由发展提供了某种可能的方向，或者说对自由提供了一种独特的理解。正是在这个意义上，美国的儒学研究者杜维明说："东亚思想的显著特点体现在一个为世人普遍接受的命题上，即人可以在日常生活中通过自我努力而完善起来。"
|
| |
| The
key why Confucianism can provide such a possibility is that
when Confucius proposed his theory of "rites", he
did not exert a set of strict social and political criteria
of behavior but a plan for the cultivation of a perfect personality.
Confucius's thought about personal consummation includes the
following aspects. First, he advocated a positive attitude
towards secular life. Although he believed in "fate",
what he stressed was a transcendental attitude towards material
wealth and luxurious life. Thus he said "One's life is
determined by fate."(25) This is at the same time a breadth
of vision indifferent to fame and wealth noble to an individual,
thus "it is fate whether Dao works or stops to work."(26)
But this is not at all a pessimistic world-view. Otherwise,
we would never have had the progressive spirit of "Fate
has its way but a gentleman will make unremitting efforts
to improve himself"(27) which has encouraged Chinese
intellectuals for two thousand u years. This thought was further
developed by Mencius, who says tha | | |
