Chapter 61 Chapter 12 Philosophical Liberalism

The rise of liberalism in politics and philosophy has provided material for the study of a very important and general question, which is: What influence has the political and social situation always had on the thinking of original and eminent thinkers, and, conversely, What is the impact of these people on the future political and social development? There are two opposite mistakes are very common, we must be vigilant.On the one hand, gentlemen who are more familiar with books than with practical affairs are prone to overestimate the influence of philosophers.As soon as they see a party claiming to be inspired by the lessons of so and so, they think that its actions can be attributed to so and so, but it is often philosophers who get the credit for proposing what the party will always do anyway. The cheers of the party.Until recently, almost all book writers exaggerated the role of their peers.But on the other hand, out of the old error of rebellion, a new error has arisen, which is to regard theorists as almost passive products of the environment, which can be said to have no influence on the development of events.On this view, thought is like foam on the surface of a deep current, and that current is determined by material, technological causes; the current in a river is not caused by bubbles that show the direction of the flow to the bystander, and social change is likewise Nor is it caused by thought.In my opinion, I believe that truth lies somewhere between these two extremes.Between thought and practical life, as everywhere else, there is a reciprocal interaction; to ask which is cause and which is effect is as futile as the chicken-and-egg question.I do not intend to waste time by discussing the subject in the abstract, but I will examine an important instance of this general problem historically, namely, the development of Liberalism and its offshoots from the end of the seventeenth century to the present.

Early liberalism was a product of England and Holland, with some definite features.It upholds religious toleration; it is itself Protestant, but not fanatically Protestant but eclectic; it considers religious wars to be follies.It favored trade and industry, so it favored the rising middle class more than the monarch and the nobility; it respected property rights very much, especially if the property was accumulated by the owner's personal labor.Hereditaryism, though not abolished, was more limited in scope than before; in particular, it rejected the divine right of kings in favor of the view that all societies, at least initially, had the right to choose their own form of government.There is no doubt that the tendency of early liberalism was a democracy tempered by property rights.There was a belief (initially not fully expressed) that all men were created equal and that their subsequent inequality was a product of circumstances.Therefore, the opposite side of innate traits, that is, the importance of acquired education is very emphasized.There was also a certain prejudice against the government, for almost everywhere the government was in the hands of kings or nobles, who either knew little of the needs of the merchants, or paid little attention to them; , so this prejudice is suppressed.

Early liberalism was full of optimism, vitality, and rational coolness, because it represented a growing power that seemed likely to win without great difficulty, and which would bring mankind a sense of victory if it won. Come a great favor.Early Liberalism was opposed to everything medieval in philosophy and politics, for the doctrines of the Middle Ages had been used to sanction the power of the church and kings, to justify persecutions, and to hinder the development of science; but it was equally against Calvin, who was then modern fanaticism of the Baptists and Anabaptists.It wanted to bring an end to political and theological struggles, to free up energy for such exciting business and scientific endeavors as the East India Company and the Bank of England, the theory of gravity and the discovery of the circulation of the blood.Throughout the Western world, obstinacy gradually gave way to enlightenment, the fear of Spanish power came to an end, all classes prospered day by day, and some of the highest hopes seemed to be guaranteed by the most lucid sense.In a hundred years, nothing has happened to cast a shadow over these hopes.Eventually, these hopes themselves gave rise to the French Revolution, which gave rise directly to Napoleon, and from Napoleon to the Holy Alliance.After these events, liberalism must take a certain breather, a breather, before the revived optimism of the nineteenth century can emerge.

Before we proceed to the details, it is best to examine the general pattern of the liberal movement from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries.The pattern was simple at first, and gradually became complex and complex.The distinguishing feature of the movement as a whole is individualism in a broad sense; but the word "individualism" is an ambiguous term without further definition of its meaning.None of the Greek philosophers before Aristotle, including him, were individualists in the sense in which I intend to use the word "individualist."They regard man as a member of society; for example, Plato's "Nation" does not try to explain what is a good individual, but to clearly describe a good society.From the time of Alexander onwards, with the loss of political liberty in Greece, individualism developed, represented by Cynics and Stoics.

According to Stoic philosophy, a person can live a good life no matter what the social situation is.This was also the view of Christianity, especially before it gained control of the state.But in the Middle Ages, although the mystics kept alive the original individualism in Christian ethics, the views of most people, including most philosophers, were governed by a strong unity of dogma, law and custom, so that People's theoretical beliefs and practical morality are controlled by a social organization, the Catholic Church: what is true and what is good should not be determined by individual thinking alone, but by the collective wisdom of the religious council.

The first major breach in the system was opened by Protestantism, which asserted that the Registrar could also err.In this way, determining the truth ceases to be a social enterprise and becomes a personal matter.As different individuals came to different conclusions, the result was conflict, and theological decisions were no longer to be found in the synod but to be sought on the battlefield.Since neither side could eradicate the other, it finally became apparent that a way must be found to reconcile intellectual and ethical individualism with orderly social life.This was a major problem that early liberalism sought to address.

At the same time, individualism seeped into philosophy.Descartes' basic certainty "I think, therefore I am" makes the basis of cognition vary from person to person, because for each person, the starting point is his own existence, not the existence of other individuals, nor the existence of society.He emphasized that clear and clear concepts are reliable, which is also the same, because through introspection we think we can find out whether our ideas are clear and clear.Most of the philosophies since Descartes have more or less this kind of ideological individualism. However, this general standpoint also has various forms, which in practice have very different results.There is perhaps the least amount of individualism in the way of thinking of the typical scientific discoverer.If he arrives at a new theory, it is only because it seems to him to be correct; he does not bow to authority, because if so, he will continue to accept the theory of his predecessors.At the same time, he is based on the generally accepted standard of truth; he hopes not to rely on his own prestige but to rely on the truth that others personally find credible, so that others can be convinced.In science any conflict between the individual and society is by its nature transitory, and since, broadly speaking, scientists all agree on the same standard of knowledge, discussion and research usually end in agreement.

But this is a recent development; in Galileo's time, the prestige of Aristotle and the church was still considered at least as strong as the evidence provided by feeling.This shows that the individualistic element in the scientific method, although not obvious, is still inherent. Early liberalism was individualistic in matters of knowledge and individualistic in economics, but it did not smack of self-assertion in matters of emotion or ethics.This liberalism dominated eighteenth-century England, the framers of the American Constitution and the French Encyclopedias.During the French Revolution it was represented by the more moderate parties, including the Girondists; but with the fall of these parties it disappeared from French politics for a generation.In Britain, after the Napoleonic Wars, it regained power with the rise of the Benthamites and the Manchester School.Liberalism has always been the most successful in the United States, where it has prevailed from 1776 to the present, or at least until 1933, because there was no feudal system and no state church to hinder it.

A new movement developed in antithesis to liberalism, started by Rousseau and gaining strength from the Romantic movement and nationalism.In this movement, individualism expanded from the realm of knowledge to the realm of passion, and the anarchic aspects of individualism became apparent.The hero worship promoted by Carlyle and Nietzsche is typical of this stream of philosophy.There are all kinds of ingredients coalescing in it.There was a distaste for early industrial society, a hatred of the ugliness it produced and a strong revulsion for its brutality.There is a nostalgic nostalgia for the Middle Ages, which is idealized out of hatred of modern times.There was also an element of an attempt to combine the defense of the declining privileges of the Church and the nobility with the defense of the wage-earners against the oppression of the manufacturers.There is also this element: in the name of nationalism, under the banner of the glory of the war to defend "freedom", the right to rebellion is fiercely defended.Byron was the poet of the movement; Fichte, Carlyle, Nietzsche its philosophers.

But since we cannot all live the life of a heroic leader, and we cannot all give our individual wills to be exercised, this philosophy, like every other kind of anarchism, when adopted, inevitably leads to the most successful The dictatorship of the "hero".And once his tyranny is established, he will suppress to others the self-assertive ethic on which he relies to gain power.Therefore, this theory of life is all self-refuting, that is to say, if it is adopted and put into practice, the result will be a very different situation: an autocratic state where individuals are severely suppressed.

There is another school of philosophy that is roughly an offshoot of liberalism, and that is the philosophy of Marx.I shall discuss Marx later, so for the moment it is only necessary to keep him in mind. The earliest detailed treatment of liberal philosophy is found in Locke; Locke is by no means the most profound person among modern philosophers, but he is the most influential one.In England, Locke's views were in such harmony with those of the majority of intellectually developed men that it is difficult to trace its influence except in theoretical philosophy; This aspect created a counterpoint to the prevailing Cartesianism, so it clearly played no small role in shaping the course of events.This is an instance of the general principle that a philosophy developed in a politically and economically advanced country, which in its birthplace is nothing more than a clarification and systematization of prevailing opinion, may elsewhere be a wellspring of revolutionary blood, and finally will be the source of a real revolution.Some of the principles regulating the policies of the advanced countries were disseminated to the less advanced countries, mainly through theorists.In advanced countries, practice inspires theory; in backward countries, theory inspires practice.This difference is one of the reasons why transplanted ideas are seldom as successful as those in the old soil. Before proceeding to Locke's philosophy, let us review some of the circumstances in seventeenth-century England which influenced the formation of his views. The struggle between the king and the parliament during the civil war made the British people always love compromise and stability, and they were afraid to push any theory to its logical conclusion. This root has dominated the British people until modern times.The long policy which Congress had striven for, at first gained the support of a great majority.On the part of Congress, it was intended to abolish the king's authority to approve trade monopolies, and to allow him to recognize the tax monopoly of Parliament.Parliament wanted to give freedom to some opinions and religious ceremonies persecuted by Archbishop Lauder within the Church of England; it advocated that Parliament should meet at a certain period, and should not be held only at occasional occasions when the king felt that its assistance was indispensable.Congress objected to arbitrary arrests, and judges to flattering the king's will.But there are many who, though willing to agitate for these ends, refuse to use arms against the king, which seems to them treason and sacrilege.As soon as the actual war broke out, the division of forces became closer to equality. The political development from the outbreak of the Civil War to the installation of Cromwell as Lord Protector, now well known, was at the time unprecedented.The Congressional party includes the Presbyterians and the Independent Churches; the Presbyterians want to keep the state church, but remove the bishop; the Independent Church agrees with the Presbyterians on the issue of bishops, but maintains that the congregations should be independent of any central church Organs interfere with freedom to choose their own theology.Presbyterians generally belong to a higher social class than Independents, and their political views are more moderate.They hope that once the king becomes reconciled because of his setbacks, they will come to an understanding and reconciliation with the king.But their policy did not work at all because of two circumstances: first, the king displayed a kind of martyr's tenacity in the matter of the archbishop; Army" did this, and the new army is composed of people sent by independent churches. As a result, when the military resistance of the king was crushed, he still could not be persuaded to agree to a treaty, but the Presbyterians lost their numerical superiority over the parliamentary army.The defense of democracy puts great power in the hands of a few who exercise their power with complete disregard for democracy and parliamentary politics.Charles I had caused a national uproar in his earlier attempt to arrest the Five Members, and his failure had left him embarrassed and embarrassed.But Cromwell had no such difficulties.Through the "Prade Purge", he dismissed about a hundred Presbyterian deputies and temporarily obtained a submissive majority.In the end, when he decided to abolish Congress altogether, "the dog didn't bark"—the war had made it seem as if only force mattered, and had produced contempt for constitutional forms of government.Thereafter, during Cromwell's lifetime, British politics was a military dictatorship, hated by a growing majority of the nation, but impossible to shake off at a time when only his henchmen were armed. Charles II, after his refuge in the oak and exile in Holland, resolved upon the Restoration never to travel again.This forced him to accept some kind of detente. He does not claim the right to impose taxes not sanctioned by Congress.He agreed to the habeas corpus, which deprived the monarch of the power of arbitrary arrest.Occasionally he could, with the financial assistance of Louis XIV, despise the taxing power of Parliament, but on the whole he was always a constitutional monarch.The limitations on the royal power which the enemies of Charles I had desired were for the most part recognized at the Restoration and observed by Charles II, for it had been proved that a king suffers at the hands of his subjects. Unlike his elder brother, James II was completely devoid of insidious artifice.His obstinate old faith made himself the enemy of both Anglicans and Anglicans, though he intended to ignore Congress and grant tones to the Anglicans in order to reconcile with them.Foreign policy also played a role.The Stuart king pursued a foreign policy first to Spain and then to France in order to avoid the necessary taxation in time of war (which would have made the Crown dependent on Parliament).The growing power of France aroused an unwavering hatred among the English against the dominant state on the Continent, and the withdrawal of the Edict of Nantes vehemently turned Protestant sentiments against Louis XIV.In the end, almost everyone in England wanted to get rid of James.But almost everyone was equally determined to avoid a return to the days of the Civil War and Cromwell's dictatorship.Since there is no constitutional way of getting rid of James, there must be a revolution, but it must be ended quickly, before the forces of destruction have the slightest chance of succeeding.The power of Congress must be secured once and for all.King James must abdicate, but the monarchy must be preserved; but this monarchy should not be a divine monarchy; but a monarchy that depends on legislative approval, and therefore on Parliament. All this was done in a flash, thanks to the alliance of the aristocracy and big business, without the need to fire a single shot.After various non-compromising attitudes have been tried and failed by people, compromise and moderation have been successful. The new king was Dutch, and brought with him the commercial and theological wisdom for which his country was known.The Bank of England was established; the national debt became a solid investment, and there was no longer any danger of the sovereign's sudden repudiation. The Freedom of Religion Act put an end to actual persecution, though it still imposed qualification restrictions on Old Churches and Nonconformists.Foreign policy became firmly anti-French, and remained so, with some brief hiatus, until the fall of Napoleon.