设万维读者为首页 万维读者网 -- 全球华人的精神家园 广告服务 联系我们 关于万维
 
首  页 新  闻 论  坛 博  客 视  频 分类广告 购  物
搜索>> 发表日志 控制面板 个人相册 给我留言
帮助 退出
俞先生的博客  
在中国工作21年无住房。到加拿大后,5年内买房。社会制度不同是原因。  
        http://blog.creaders.net/u/6944/ > 复制 > 收藏本页
我的网络日志
试论宪法的语言学起源 2019-07-14 18:44:51

我在我自己写的书Language and State: A Theory of the Progress of Civilization, Revised and Updated Edition里面的第12章《论和平》的第二节宪法安排里论述了宪法的语言学起源。这是人类历史上的第一次。在过去,哲学家和法学家论述宪法的时候,要么论述宪法的社会背景,要么研究宪法的条文,从未有人从语言哲学的角度研究宪法。本人的这项研究开了人类文明史的先河。请感兴趣的读者欣赏。




2. Constitutional Arrangement

Language not only allows for people to make a contract in order to engage in the exchange in the economic domain to the effect that people avoid a war but also allows for people to make a long-term contract instead of a temporary one to coordinate their actions and hence to establish a mode of the constructive mutual interaction in the long run. They can make such a long-term contract as a collective being. They can establish order. A constitution is such a contract. Such a contract is an arrangement made by them to allow for themselves to co-exist peacefully in the same community. The linchpin is that, as they can use language, each can learn about the intention, idea and commitment of all others. They can make a contract. They may keep on coordinating their action and cooperate in accordance with this contract. Thus they can possibly avoid any conflict. They may also avoid a war. They may realize peace. People can discern a correlation between language and peace. This means that the situation in which people use language in their interaction is distinct from the situation in which people do not use language in their interaction. By using language therein, both sides can jointly engage in this mutual interaction. They may make peace. If two sides make peace, they usually have the same intention. They are willing to engage in the mutual interaction. They build a trust relationship. Conversely, if two sides are at war, they normally do not communicate by using language. If two sides interact with each other at war, such an interaction may be unilaterally forced by one side. This interaction may not be accepted by the other side. There is no mutual trust. Such an interaction between one another is not constructive. Both sides do not accept their co-existence. Thus we see that peace is the constructive interaction between one another. A war is usually waged by one side to wipe out the other side while peace means the co-existence of the two sides. The interaction between one another at war is not sustainable while the interaction between one another at peace sustainable. In the state of peace, the interaction between one another must be basically linguistic, whereas in the state of war the interaction between one another is usually physical. If people make a constitution, they merely encourage linguistic interaction. Language is crucial. If we postulate that before people agree to form their community, they are likely to be in the state of war, it is also arguable that a contract, made by them to form their community so as to put an end to the possible state of war, is a peace treaty. A constitution can be such a kind of peace treaty. Language is, ontologically, in relation to contract and hence constitution. Language is also, ontologically, in relation to peace and hence in relation to the building of the society. We can ascertain these complex relations in three aspects.

First, while people communicate using language, they are equal. Language does not discriminate against anyone. So long as language is not abused, all should be treated equal in linguistic communication. Then all are willing to join this society. Though sometimes a person who communicates is strong while another person who communicates is weak, both are indispensable. As a process of linguistic communication needs to go on between the two sides, we cannot argue that one of them is more important than the other. If they sign a contract, they do so on the basis of equality. Equality is the basic element of the formation of this society. Conversely, if people are not equal, they may not be willing to sign a contract. They may not form a society. If they do not form a society, they may be in the state of war. They may not use language because each tries to conquer the other. Each may not treat the other equal. Then we have all the reasons to believe that each side will be the adversary of the other. As they do not join each other to make peace, each side builds up unilaterally its military strength to defend itself. Linguistic communication between the two sides is of no utmost importance. What is of utmost importance is military strength. When they are in conflict, what is decisive may also be military tactic instead of language. As each side tries to get the upper hand, they will never treat each other equal. Each side interacts with the other, merely viewing both the strength of its own and that of the adversary. Only the strength of each side is considered to determine whether or not and how to engage the adversary. That is, each side tries to use its own advantage and the disadvantage of the other side to defeat the other side. Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese philosopher, used to say that “It is the rule of war: If our forces are ten to the enemy’s one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two, one to meet the enemy in front, and one to fall upon his rear.”13 By contrast, each side expects the other side to cooperate in the state of peace. People may not be organized because they are not always to be organized to build an army to defeat the other side. But they are going to form a society. They are likely to make a constitution.

Second, while people communicate using language, they build their community. They build their society. They often take initiative to inform each other that they hope to make and keep peace. They reveal their plans of building the society. What is important is that their intention of making and keeping peace and their intention of building the society are not misunderstood by each other. Each side depends on the other side in cooperation. Each side may have made an agreement with the other side tacitly. By contrast, if people are at war against each other, they will not give any information to each side in mutual interaction. As two sides confront each other, each side may try to get information about the other side while trying to prevent the other side from getting any information about itself. Each side tries to get prepared to fight and defeat the other side. That is, each side is unwilling to let the adversary know its own disposition while trying its best to learn about the disposition of its adversary. In this case language is not used normally or not used at all though information from the adversary is gathered. Thus spies are sent out. As Sun Tzu stated,

 

        Knowledge of the spirit world is to be obtained by divination; information in

        natural science may be sought by inductive reasoning; the laws of the universe

        can be verified by mathematical calculation; but the dispositions of the enemy

        are ascertainable through spies and spies alone.14  

 

By contrast, each side tells the other side what it thinks in the state of peace. Both sides do not conceal their ideas. While people make and keep peace, each side always lets the other side know that it wants to make and keep peace. While they want to make and keep peace, they recognize that all can co-exist. Peace means the co-existence of all. All are cooperators. All act in unison. If they make an agreement, this agreement can be regarded as a constitution. The constitution is a language solution.

Third, while people communicate using language, language compels all to be honest. Honesty is required in the formation of the society. Honesty is part of morality. This means that people form their community in linguistic communication and they also form their community with morality. So long as language is not abused, linguistic communication supports the spread of morality in the community and morality supports the formation of the society. In terms of the relationship between morality and constitution, my view is that while people make a constitution, this constitution should be moral. The reason is that the constitution is usually agreed to by all. As all agree to this constitution, this constitution should not be immoral. In other words, if this constitution is immoral, all will not reach an agreement. If a document is immoral, it will always be controversial.  In the meantime I argue that if people choose not to use language to make a peace treaty, they will be likely to be in conflict. Sometimes they will go to war. While people go to war, they are not able to adhere to morality. They will not be honest. They will cheat each other. Each side uses every method, including immoral method, to defeat the other side. For example, one side may especially conduct a night combat to beat the other side that is not prepared for that combat in the night. This side will never notify the other side in advance. Even the method of deception is adopted as a military tactic. Thus sometimes one side is misled by the other in the battle. An evil plot is sometimes adopted to defeat the adversary. If language is used, it is abused. Therefore, Sun Tzu opined that “All warfare is based on deception.”15 He even further wrote that “when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”16 There is no honesty between the two adversaries. Each side does not trust the other. Both adversaries are in the state of nature. By contrast, people who make a constitution often clarify their intention. They are open and aboveboard. They




浏览(84) (0) 评论(2)
发表评论
为什么在意识形态上西方不和中国较真 2019-07-10 21:23:48

为什么在意识形态上西方不和中国较真

不久以前,俄罗斯报纸《独立报》发表文章,比较前苏联与中国。文章认为,苏联时期,西方国家将苏联视为意识形态上的敌人,通过冷战遏制苏联。苏联为了自保,大力发展军事工业,并且花费大量金钱扶持海外的平庸政权。苏联最终因为不堪重负而崩溃。但是,自从70年代以后,西方国家已不再视中国为意识形态上的敌人。愿意与中国发展经贸关系,让中国融入世界贸易体系,对中国有所关照。相比之下,中国经济得到快速提升,成为经济总量世界第二。这个分析中留下一个问题:为什么西方没有将同样是社会主义国家的中国视为意识形态上的敌人而发动冷战?

最近我在读一本西方学者研究中国的书。这本书的作者是:W.J.F. Jenner。书名是:The Tyranny of History: The Roots of China’s Crisis。出版商是:The penguin Press。这本书反映西方人对中国的真实看法。西方人压根就没有将中国视为社会主义国家。他们认为,前苏联和前东欧社会主义国家是社会主义国家,奉行国际主义。亚洲的所谓社会主义国家,包括中国、朝鲜和越南并非真正社会主义国家。他们认为,亚洲这些国家是披着社会主义外衣的传统封建制国家。所以,在意识形态上,西方国家不和中国较真。不围堵中国。不与中国进行冷战。可以和中国发展贸易关系。可以与中国进行经济合作。他们认为,中国奉行民族主义的政策。所以,不是社会主义国家。而且中国仍然保持古老亚洲国家的那种数千年以来的封建传统。

作者讲了很多内容。我在这里仅仅引用一个内容。作者说,毛泽东80岁了还在执政。这么大的年纪的人还不退休,仍在统治中国,这本身就是皇帝的特征。皇帝就是年迈了还在统治国家。在一般现代国家里,领导人到了一定年纪就退休了。可是,毛泽东不退休,一直工作到去世。当然,前苏联时期斯大林也是工作到去世。但是,毛泽东的统治与斯大林不同。毛泽东在病床上还在治理中国。皇帝临死之前也是这样统治国家。毛泽东在晚年时期,已经不再与国家其他领导人一起开会研究国家的问题,而是直接下达指示,政府其他领导人执行。毛泽东已经不在办公室开会。政府工作人员要汇报工作的话,就只能去毛泽东的书房。周恩来就是这样到毛泽东的书房去请示和汇报。毛泽东住在皇宫里面,有数名年轻女性工作人员帮助他的起居,如同宫女。毛泽东任命他的侄子毛远新担任联络员,其实,就是传达圣旨的人。毛已不再与政府其他成员商量决定国家大事,而是通过一个传达最高指示的人直接下命令。毛泽东要吃饭的时候,都是由专门厨师做饭,由工作人员将饭菜端到毛的书房。毛吃完饭以后,又有人将食具端走。就像古代皇帝吃饭的样子。毛泽东不会到餐厅去用餐。毛泽东经常穿着睡衣会见访客,包括外宾。这都是皇帝的做派。如果美国总统川普穿着睡衣在白宫会见官员会是一种什么情况?

所以,西方国家的学者分析说,前苏联领导人也不会出现这种情况。只有在中国会出现这种情况。所以,他们认为中国并非真正的社会主义国家,而是官僚君主制政体。正是由于这个原因,西方人也不想与中国争论意识形态问题,因为他们认为中国的那种马列主义的意识形态只是一个伪装,其实质仍然是亚洲的封建专制政权。

我想这个看法也有其道理。例如,我们说中国的社会主义制度实行公有制。但是,其实,在中国的古代封建社会里,土地其实也是公有的。土地实际上归皇帝所有,也类似于公有制。真正的私有制是资本主义条件下的私有制。而中国现在的公有制与中国古代的公有制也有相通之处。所以,西方人的观点值得注意。



浏览(1041) (8) 评论(31)
发表评论
也谈香港《逃犯条例》寿终正寝 2019-07-09 16:08:22

最近几天,香港特首林郑月娥宣布《逃犯条例》寿终正寝。从《逃犯条例》出台到最后寿终正寝经历了几个星期的街头动荡,经历了一场又一场的市民抗议风暴。这是一个艰难和充满抗争的立法过程。这个立法过程以卷入一场民众自发抗议的街头冲突为其特征。回想起来,原本可以避免这样的冲突,包括避免一些抗议的青年人丧失宝贵的生命。这样的抗议也让远在北京的中共统治者惊慌失措。据说,香港的一场街头抗议促使北京领导层派出钦差大臣到与香港比邻的深圳观望。

这样的类似事件不是历史上的第一次。好多年以前,香港政府欲通过一个有关公安的所谓的23条,也遭遇香港民众铺天盖地的拼死反抗,结果那个议案也胎死腹中。这一次,香港政府又一次试图冒险过关,结果再次功亏一篑。虽然香港政府已宣布,这个审议《逃犯条例》的程序已经无效,不排除将来再次有一些香港民众反对的议案出台并再次在香港掀起民众抗议的风暴。香港政府应该考虑采取一些对策来解决出台议案在半路被民众阻截的风险。我本人提出一个建议。

完全可以在出台一项重要的议案的时候,进行一次香港人民的全民投票。如果人民投票赞同一项法案,然后再正式出台。比如,这一次提出《逃犯条例》之前,就举行一次全民公决,如果多数民众反对,就不再出台此项法案。这样,香港人民的街头抗议也不会出现。结果和现在一样,但是,可以避免人民与政府的正面冲突,避免人员伤亡,避免产生人民与政府之间出现不必要的对抗。这就是民主。可惜,香港的主政者不了解民主。他们反对双普选,也不举行公投,认为只要北京不表态,只要符合北京的想法,就可以独自决定,而罔顾民意。这样,才造成如此动荡和得不偿失的冲突。

历史上,西方民主国家也经历类似情况。近代民族国家形成以后,政治家们并没有自觉地采用选举制。人民不断上街抗议,要求获得普选权。1820-1830年代,英国爆发宪章运动就是要求普选权。政府多次镇压人民抗议。但是,人民不屈不挠。统治者终于顽抗不下去了,决定进行选举法改革。所以,1832年英国出台《议会改革法》,给男性公民普选权。后来,又进一步改革。1867年进一步立法扩大选举权给工人阶级和妇女。由于人民有了表达意见的合法途经,街头抗议明显减少。虽然不能完全排除街头的示威和抗议,由于人民有了合法表达意见的渠道,统治者已能清楚了解人民的意愿。那种预先根本就难预料的街头对撞的情况已经很少看见。这就是西方国家民主进程的基本特点。

希望香港的主政者能够学习西方国家的经验,逐步开放人民的自由选举,实现一人一票的制度,在平等的基础上由人民行使自己的当家做主的权利。估计以后就可以避免政府严重误判民意、民众上街与警察对打的不安定局面,就可以实现民情上达,政府决策有据,官民彼此默契互相配合,政府代表人民管理香港。相信香港的明天一定会更好。

浏览(393) (6) 评论(3)
发表评论
纪念维特根施坦诞辰130周年 2019-07-08 15:26:05

纪念维特根施坦诞辰130周年

2019426日是当代著名哲学家路德维希维特根施坦诞辰130周年。我看见中国有一些学者写文章纪念维特根施坦。维特根施坦以研究语言哲学而出名。我在研究我自己的政治社会理论的时候也涉猎一些语言学知识。所以,我本人读过维特根施坦的若干著作,包括《逻辑哲学》。

我的感觉是,维特根施坦的哲学仍然属于普通哲学。我所谓普通哲学,就是普通人容易懂的哲学。这种哲学没有很高的抽象度。维特根施坦所以在人类哲学史上占有一席地位,是他的哲学思想具有独特性。他的语言哲学开了人类学术史的先河。他的那个给过去的哲学家诊断思维病根的研究则只是一种次要的意外之作。

我和他的思维的差异是,我强调了媒介在语言运行过程中发挥的不可忽略的作用。例如,在维特根施坦那里,所谓的语言游戏只是一种修辞学的另类表达方式。他赋予他的语言游戏一种哲学内涵。例如,中国有一句成语:归心似箭。这句话的意思是说,人想回家,想很快就跑回家。人们用放箭的速度说明一个人日夜想回家的急切心情。这包含一种明喻。用箭飞来说明跑的速度,在维特根施坦那里,就是一种语言游戏。在我的研究中,箭飞的描述是个媒介,人们通过描述箭飞来说明自己的心情。媒介帮助人类达到提高语言表达能力的目的。

我在我自己写的两本书里都写过这一类在维特根施坦视为语言游戏的现象。例如,在Language and State: A Theory of the Progress of Civilization, Revised and Updated Edition这本书里,我用一章专门论述“解释。” 解释是一种语言现象。但是,人类在解释事物的时候,经常用一些形象的语言来达到自己的目的。这些解释过程中,会利用客观世界的各类存在物来当媒介,表述人们对客观世界的看法。比如,人们会用解释简单事物的方式解释复杂的事物。解释简单事物的过程是解释复杂事物的媒介。人们也还会通过解释日常生活的方式解释人类的复杂的精神世界。例如,解释生活方式可能也是解释一种价值观的过程。我认为,我的思维的成果比维特根施坦的思维成果更有理论内涵和学术前景。

维特根施坦仅仅研究语言现象,而我将语言现象视为社会现象。人们的语言行为就是他们的社会行为。人们通过创造各类媒介创造自己的社会,因此,本人感到,维特根施坦的思维范围仍有很大局限。在我这里,由于人类能在运用语言的过程中创造各类媒介来使用一种表现力极强的方式来让自己的内在思想外在化,人类创造了自己的意义世界。同时,人类又通过人们自己的生活和生产劳动来反映他们的意义世界。易言之,解释语言就是解释人类社会的全部内容。但是,在维特根施坦那里,研究语言仅仅是研究人类的表达方式。维特根施坦的理论有待后来人将其扩展并发扬光大。

当然,我非常赞同维特根施坦的一个看法:凡是人们能够说出来的东西,就是人们能够表达的内容,那都是简单的,都是不重要的。真正重要的是那些人们无法说出来的东西。哲学家尤其要能够解释平时人们无法表达的东西。所以,我的看法是,我们写书的时候,要将很多重要的和需要深入思考的问题按下不表,让读者自己去思考。所以,我写的书里,总是将一部分内容隐藏起来,不直接表达出来,让读者去思考。我们需要创造一种语境,让哲学书的作者和读者一起来思考问题。作者的确在主导有关的思维过程,但是,作者也给读者自由思考的空间,也让读者参与其中,并能影响有关的思维过程。真正有思想性的作品都是读者能参与其中与作者一起思考问题的作品。一个思想性的作品不仅仅是作者创造的,也是读者参与其中一起创造的。

 

浏览(123) (1) 评论(3)
发表评论
关于赠送政治哲学书的重要声明 2019-07-08 11:17:41

关于赠送政治哲学书的重要声明

以前发布赠送政治哲学书给教学研究者的启事。有关书的书名是:Language and State: A Theory of the Progress of Civilization, Revised and Updated Edition。该书的出版日期是20181115日。由Hamilton Books/Rowman & Littlefield出版发行。收到一些感兴趣的人士的电邮。本人希望在此进一步说明,本人仅仅赠送图书给从事政治哲学或政治理论或政治社会学的教学的大学教师或在读博士研究生。

需要指出,即使您是一位曾经学政治哲学或政治理论的博士,只要您目前不在大学任教或从事研究,您仍然不符合本人的要求。何况,您并非学过政治哲学或政治理论。而且您需要是一位目前在一所综合性大学里教授政治理论或政治哲学的教师,或者是其中的一名正规的在读博士研究生。不符合此要求,就不会得到赠书。

赠送图书并非单方面施惠。这是我这个作者本人的看法。我通过这个方法寻求您的协助。如果您在一所正规大学教或学政治哲学或政治理论,我视您为一个媒介。如果您读了我的书,我估计您会将我的书里的观点和知识传播给周围的人。特别是一位教师,他就是一个媒介。如果您不在大学里面从事正式的教学,您就不是媒介。所以,我不会赠书给您。

所以,凡是能让本人确信您能成为一个媒介帮助传播新的知识和理论的话,我都愿意赠书。

从美国的亚马逊网上书店的广告就可以看出,我写的这本书的标价是每本160美元。我本人是以每本书130美元的代价从出版商那里买来的。折算成人民币,这本书的售价也达到约1000元人民币。加上邮寄费用,代价也不小。目前,这本书在世界各国都有售出。特别是在加拿大销售情况最好。估计是我本人做了一些推广工作的结果。本人的这本书在社会科学理论方面没有任何替代作品。其内容在整个人类历史上独一无二。

我本人一直从事体力劳动。有时也从事一点翻译工作。工作非常劳累。我已经逐步进入老年人的状态。将辛苦劳动省下来的钱买书赠书,这样的劳作比在中国的知识分子从事的工作还要繁重。特别希望在中国的网友知识分子能够理解。如果您真的对这本书感兴趣,只要您愿意,您能读到这本书。2年以后,估计会有中国的图书馆购买本人的书。至少位于北京的国家图书馆会购买。您可以通过馆际互借借阅这本书。

如果您需要这本书,请给我留言。

 

浏览(171) (1) 评论(0)
发表评论
总共有218条信息 当前为第 1/44页 首页 上页 下页 尾页 跳转到:
 
关于本站 | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站导航 | 隐私保护
Copyright (C) 1998-2017. CyberMedia Network /Creaders.NET. All Rights Reserved.