Whether Hegel is truly a discussion here, even in an empirical sense, is problematic. This is just to say that some political thinkers in the West are potential, who believe that the current system of freedom and democracy in Western politics is the universal destination of humanity. To prove his natural rationality, he would say why we succeed, and he would say it's because society is within civil society.
Everyone has their own right to speak and pursue their own interests. Only on the basis of such a civil society can there be the current democratic country. This statement is sometimes true and sometimes false. Why?
Because the West is not a one size fits all approach, the development of Western society varies from region to region and country to country. You must use one thing of experience to look at it, and there may be many viewpoints. If we talk about them purely based on history, there must be many different perspectives. What you have researched is this, and what I have researched is that, because we are not studying a country or a society.
Hegel believed that civil society is a community of shared interests, where each person pursues their own interests and needs regardless of others, and of course, they also establish certain economic organizations to meet their own needs. In this way, during the Middle Ages, there were various guilds and professional organizations in Kilt. For example, in Germany, the book industry relied on different methods from France. I heard that he was a guild in the medieval book industry. As people in the book and magazine industry, we had a guild system where we determined the price of books.
He is based on a fixed pricing system. If you say it's too expensive, you won't buy it. However, France is more flexible. I have different publishers, so I can set different prices. If I am willing to set a lower price, I can set a lower one. Germany is still like this, one advantage is that it can receive industry protection, but the disadvantage is that of course, it does not have much say in its monopoly on prices.
Hegel, taking German civil society as an example, regarded it as an economic organization. This type of economic organization, for the sake of its own stability, has a legal system and institutions that enforce the law, as well as a court system and police.
Hegel believed that if we were to say that both the constitution and the government belong to the state, not to civil society, ordinary people would find this statement strange because we would think that the court system and the police belong to the state. How can they belong to the judiciary, and how can they belong to civil society, even in Germany's civil society, is impossible. Violent institutions, police courts, and courts naturally belong to the state.
In fact, Hegel's concept of civil society is not an empirical concept, but a philosophical concept. He doesn't care whether it matches empirical facts or not. What he cares about is whether I borrow concepts to explain the truth I want to explain. Don't talk to me about it. However, real life is not like what you say. He doesn't care about this, and Hegel doesn't care about whether civil society exists as he describes it.
For him, the concept of civil society is only a one-sided and insufficient concept of the state itself. As an external state, he is a state that is ignored by the essence of the state. The essence of the state is not reflected in him, but ultimately, like the family, it should be included in the state and absorbed by the concept of the state in the future.
What nonsense would those of us today who do not read Hegel's books or engage in general political philosophy and political science theory say. Of course, people who speak nonsense all have a common characteristic, whether it is a philosophical system, a political system, or a legal system. If they talk about it, they will basically adopt the thinking of Hegel's German transcendental philosophers. These things are a philosophical concept, not an empirical fact. And if we see the foreigner we invited talking today, regardless of his background, he would say that this is first and foremost an empirical fact, and only then can we talk about it meaningfully.
Hegel's approach to this is different from theirs. Just like Zhongzhe, when Zhongzhe talked about the Shang Dynasty, there were many facts. I'm thinking, do many people now say that there are such facts about the Shang Dynasty? Don't talk about the three generations of holy kings Yao, Shun, and Yu, do these things really exist? Then, many so-called historical verifications will be put forward to refute this point, but he doesn't know. Confucius was a person who read extensively in poetry and books, so he naturally knew that he might not be reliable. We can think of it, he must be able to think of it, there was no written record of that time.
Because the materials for written records have not yet been invented, he would not be unaware. Let's not simplify the ancient people's thinking. At best, he had oral transmission, but why did he talk like this? Of course, he may not be as clear as Hegel, but he also knows that the existence or non existence is not important. I am using him to talk about things.
The next class in the Chinese studies class is called Chen Shao. He also wrote a good article for me. He said that Gu Jie just said that Mencius criticized the Book of Songs wrongly and did not understand it at all. In Mencius' mind, poetry is something. In your opinion, you have accepted a concept of poetry from the modern West to understand the Book of Songs. I'm sorry, if Mencius were alive, I'm sorry. Such a concept of poetry does not exist in China, so you can say it that way.
The concept of literature itself came into being very late. Even in the West, even if it meant words at the beginning, all written materials were called literature, which was specifically turned into a kind of fictional thing with artistic nature. It was very late. What is the biggest problem that Chinese people have with the West now?
I don't know that the West also has a history, and I don't know what you know about the West, especially the May Fourth generation. It's just that some of the viewpoints of Westerners in the past 200 years are completely objective, just like the geometry and algebra they want to learn from Westerners. Just like now, some people still say that philosophy has Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy, which is simply nonsense. If their physics doesn't have Chinese physics and Western physics, how can they only distinguish between Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy.
I have placed infinite hopes on you. I always hope that we Chinese people will not be so stupid. I always hope that in the future we Chinese people can really reflect that we are an excellent nation. To do this, we are too short of ambition and effort. The first one thinks that I will have a good position in the future, just a doctoral supervisor from a certain university or a famous professor from a certain university. If I don't have enough ambition, it doesn't count as anything, and there is also a lack of effort.
The combination of hard work and determination will lead to a constant self reflection as the first object of criticism in the future. Only by combining the three can one become a master. Our Chinese people are not ambitious, and our second effort is not enough. Third, since Confucius and Mencius, Chinese people have always had a slightly more concept of self-criticism than Westerners. I have always been looking for our ancestors in ancient books. No one can review themselves. It's hard to see that he said I was wrong. I used to think so. Now I think it's wrong. There are few. We Chinese people see it as a weakness. In fact, it doesn't matter if it's wrong. If it's wrong, it can be right after it's wrong. This is very few. They always want to say that admitting mistakes creates a national subconscious. If it's wrong, it means not good. If it's wrong, it means you are better than others. Because others have no courage, you have courage, just like When two people duel and knock down the other's weapon, or the other's weapon falls on the ground carelessly, you have the discretion to pick it up. This is the act of a hero. Then, Take advantage of others' lack of vigilance and stab you first, it's a despicable act.
So, we must be clear about this.
In Hegel's highest philosophy of law, of course, the concept of the state is the highest concept. He regards the family and civil society as one concept, and the ideas and concepts they represent are unified on a higher platform within the concept of the state.
The family naturally exists within the state, and society also exists within the state, both representing an incomplete aspect of the state.
The dialectical development of the concept of the state is a development of concepts. The development of concepts means that we cannot follow the empirical historical view that human society first had the family, then society, and finally the state. Hegel is not talking about this issue here. He went from the family to civil society to the state, and he did not follow the organized form of our history, that is, it came first and then. He does not have this meaning.
His order is based on a logical sequence, and a chronological order in the sense of compiling history is meaningless to him. If we were to do so, then of course, because Hegel referred to the development of the concept of the state as encompassing both the family and civil society, making it the most complete concept. Naturally, many people believe that he is a thoroughly authoritarian theory of the state.
He and the British put forward the idea of putting civil society above everything. Spencer and other people just formed a contrast. You can see it at a glance, just like the public knowledge on the Chinese Internet, there are the so-called German French line and the British American line. The German French line represents authoritarianism, while the Anglo American line represents democracy, which includes two historical perspectives: one is based on the history of Britain and America, and the other is based on the history of Germany and France. These guys cannot even talk about the word 'ideology'.
They, like children, first identify who the good people are and who the bad people are in this world. I stand on the side of the good people, and then speak in the language of the good people. In this way, sometimes it is impossible to talk about things in China to them. When Hegel died, Spencer was just born, and he had a very thorough theoretical thinking on civil society.
He believes that the concept of civil society represents only one factor of our pursuit of profit, and the factor of satisfying personal interests. However, the factor is certainly included in the state, but it cannot be the highest organized form of human beings. All that we have is the state. He believes that we can use things from logic to represent it. The family represents the universal link in an undifferentiated and unified sense, civil society represents the special link, and the state represents the universal and special unity.
网友评论