本人写的书中的第十一章，题目是：论哲学。第一节，论述哲学的传播（起源）；第二节论述哲学的社会功能；第三节论述哲学的时间和空间及其意义。对哲学的社会学分析感兴趣的读者或许愿意读一读这一章。里面有一些拼写错误的单词，主要是单复数没有写对。出版书的时候纠正了一些，但还有一些遗漏。但是，不妨碍阅读。

Chapter Eleven

Philosophy

1. The Dissemination of Philosophy

Human thought, as a spiritual resource, factors into the operation of the state because the operation of the state often comes under the influence of thought. The reason is that a human thought that proves rational and applicable can be embraced by many people, and even by all. If this thought is embraced by many or all, and further, they firmly uphold it, this thought is likely to generate enormous social power. With this social power the creator of this thought, often a philosopher, may exercise a strong influence on the operation of the state. As long as this thought is rational and applicable, and this thought spreads through linguistic communication among all people, it can even guide the operation of the state. If people create a thought for the building of the society or the state, they all can share it in realizing this objective. Language allows for a philosopher to communicate with all people and disseminate his thought on a large scale. The thought created by a philosopher is usually intended to be embraced by as many people as possible. No human thought is ever intended to be embraced by only a portion of people in the society or the state. For example, when people disseminated Confucianism in ancient China, they disseminated it among all the people—male and female, old and young. All were influenced and infected by Confucianism, albeit to different degrees. When people disseminated the thoughts of liberty, democracy, and fraternity in Europe in early modern times, they disseminated it to all people in the European states. Nearly all of the people embraced these thoughts to some degree. In human society, philosophical thoughts are often created by a small number of people. These people are philosophers, or thinkers. These philosophers who create original thoughts on the basis of a systematic theory comprise a small number of people. Sometimes a school of philosophy that offers an original philosophical thought is directly contributed by only one philosopher. However, millions of people may embrace and put into practice the philosophical thoughts created by a few philosophers. The philosophical thoughts created by a few philosophers may influence a multiplicity of people in the state. Then philosophy may play a role in the formation and operation of the state.

For example, when people form a state, they rely on the guidance of values. They build their state because they hold the same values. These values are usually the mainstream values stemming from a philosophy created by a small number of philosophers. Those values are their thoughts.  Philosophers become a special group of people who can act as the “tutors” or “counselors” of the people in shaping the values of the people by way of their thoughts. This situation is distinct from the situation in the tribe. When people formed a tribe, they operated the tribe according to the consciousness of kinship. People developed this consciousness of kinship naturally. When people form a state, they operate the state according to the mainstream values held by all, or the majority of, people in the state. These values often stem from a thought developed by people in social practice. This thought also often reflects a sort of philosophy. This philosophy is often produced by a philosopher or a few philosophers.

                As philosophers can disseminate their thoughts, and the broad masses of the people can embrace those thoughts, philosophers guide, through philosophy, the operation of the state. It is crucial for philosophers to disseminate their philosophical ideas to the broad masses of the people through linguistic communication. There are different ways to deliver the communication used between philosophers and the masses. When a philosopher gives lectures to students, he disseminates the same thought to many people at the same time. In ancient times, some philosophers founded academies to disseminate their thoughts. At the same time, along with the development of written communication, people transcribed books, which allowed philosophers to disseminate knowledge and thoughts in the society. These philosophers comprised a small number of people. Since the development of printing, philosophers have reached readers in different places via the books they write and have printed by publishing houses. In modern times, now that books are printed, philosophers write many books to promote their knowledge and thoughts. With the availability of printing, linguistic communication has become a system of “broadcast” through which philosophical thoughts created by a few people quickly influence many or even all, and then function as a guide to the operation of the state. Then philosophy turns into a social power in the operation of the state.

                Language is a powerful tool used by people to transform the thoughts of a few people into the idea of many other people, I argue. After philosophers offer philosophical thoughts, the masses embrace them gradually. The use of language creates a basic condition for the birth of philosophy shared by all across the state, or at least the development of philosophy involves a process of linguistic communication between philosophers and the masses across the state. Language serves as the all-purpose medium used by philosophers to communicate with the masses, who are expected to hold the same philosophical ideas across the state. Therefore, whenever people disseminate their philosophical thoughts, they talk and write and enter into the corresponding courses of linguistic communication used across the state. They enter into these courses of linguistic communication to help provide a state spirit that unites all in support of the operation of the state and sets the orientation of the development of the state. People continue to learn and embrace the philosophical thoughts, as the state needs to be always supported by common values stemming from a philosophy, and this philosophy needs to be the one upheld by all people forming the state. For example, philosophy presupposes that someone who has knowledge of philosophy gives an interpretation to those who do not have knowledge of philosophy. When an interpretation is given, it is given because of the necessity of answering a question. When an answer is given, the related information flows from one to the other. A philosophical question, asked by some people, may be asked by all. Particularly after a question is raised, people may try to give an answer using their knowledge. For example, when someone asks one question about society, philosophers may give their systematic and in-depth interpretation of the relevant question using philosophy. The said interpretation may be given to all. As all may accept the same interpretation, all may be guided by the same philosophical thought. This thought may become the mainstream philosophical thought.

Needless to say, people in the state usually possess different levels of literacy because they receive different levels of education. If a philosophical book, written by a philosopher, is abstruse or recondite, his philosophical thought may not be easily understood by ordinary people who have received less education. The translation of the thoughts of a few into the ideas of many may not be easy and smooth. Yet the interpretation given using language may help solve this problem. As long as ordinary people receive basic education and are able to perform basic linguistic communication with others for all purposes, ordinary people can understand these abstruse or recondite thoughts through an interpretation given by those who help popularize the philosophical thoughts, such as the teachers teaching philosophy, or authors writing philosophical books popularizing the original philosophical thoughts. When people disseminated democratic thoughts to the masses in the European states in the eighteenth or nineteenth century, many intellectuals took part in the cause of disseminating those democratic thoughts. Some politicians who had related knowledge propagated the relevant thoughts directly by giving speeches in public or writing pamphlets. Likewise, when workers’ movements arose in Europe in the nineteenth century, millions of workers were mobilized by a variety of philosophical thoughts, such as the Marxist ideas. Although workers received a lower level education than that received by intellectuals, they were equally influenced by the same thoughts because some people gave interpretations. Around the middle of the twentieth century, J. Plamenatz wrote:

The workers, when they vote, understand the issues about as much and as little as their employers. That they do not do so, that they are kept in ignorance, that the political vocabulary current among them is one evolved in the interest of the rich—all these statements appear to me to be false. The political vocabulary in current use is much larger than it was two hundred years ago, and most of the words and phrases added to it were invented by radicals and socialists. Indeed, many of them were either coined by Marx or else made popular by him. The language of politics, as it is spoken in Western Europe, is as much “proletarian” as it is anything else.¹

How could socialist thoughts influence the working class? My view is that interpretations given using language enable the same philosophical thought to be shared by all, despite different levels of education and literacy.

      That philosophers can communicate with all across the state using language can also be shown by the fact that philosophical thoughts, created by philosophers, may function as a systematic guide to the operation of the state, out of the control of philosophers themselves. Philosophers may work and live in a certain region. But by performing linguistic communication, they communicate, using media, with those who work and live in other regions. The language they use enables them to preserve their philosophical thoughts on those media, which helps them disseminate their thoughts to many other people. For example, after they write their books and have those books published, these books disseminate their thoughts independently. After the bookstores sell those books, they immediately start the process of linguistic communication to disseminate the thoughts of the philosophers on behalf of the philosophers. If readers borrow these books from a library, those books will start the process of linguistic communication immediately. If a philosopher is a professor teaching philosophy in a university, he may set in motion another process of linguistic communication that functions on a large scale, too. He disseminates his philosophical thoughts to his students. If his students also become professors in future, those professors may continue to disseminate his philosophical thoughts to their students, and so on, through time. When people communicate using language, each is potentially able to communicate with all who use the same language. If a philosopher offers a rational and applicable philosophical thought, all may embrace it. So in each state of this world, people usually hold the same or similar mainstream philosophical values. People unite in their thinking because they all hold one set of mainstream philosophical values in the state. These philosophical values bolster the building of the state and guide the operation of the state.  

                My reasoning is that the spread of philosophy relies on linguistic communication. There are various processes of linguistic communication used in support of the spread of philosophy. To elaborate on the correlation between philosophy and the processes of linguistic communication, we need to use a special method, as follows. We consider the creation and spread of philosophy to be the activities of producing products in one certain economic sector. That means that we can regard a philosophical idea as a product produced by a philosopher. Producing and supplying this product involves various processes of linguistic communication.

First, before production, the philosopher needs raw materials. The philosophical ideas created by philosophers of the past make up the major portion of the raw materials he uses when he plans to create his own philosophical ideas, in view of the specific and current need in the society. He needs to process them. He processes them by reading philosophical books by those philosophers of the past. He may also listen to philosophical lectures given by contemporary philosophers in order to digest the views of other philosophers as raw materials. These activities are also activities of linguistic communication. He needs to be involved in a process of linguistic communication in order to obtain the raw materials he needs. Then he can think. When he thinks, he digests the ideas offered by the other philosophers he is studying. He may make use of some of their ideas in producing his products. This process may start when he is a youth. For example, when he is a student in a university, he listens to the lectures given by philosophers and reads books, both for his classes and beyond the needs of his current classes. These provide the raw materials he will need in the future.

Second, when he creates his own philosophical ideas using raw materials, he enters a process of production. This process of production is also a process of linguistic communication because when he creates his own philosophical ideas, he usually writes down his philosophical idea and his behavior of writing is the behavior of linguistic communication. A case in point is that when a philosopher creates his idea or thought, he always thinks of the masses likely to embrace and put into practice his idea or thought. When he writes his book, he has already commenced the process of linguistic communication. So when he thinks and writes, he probably has already identified the people with whom he is going to communicate, because the condition for one to communicate is that there exists at least one person who acts as an information receiver. Without this information receiver, one will not speak or write. Linguistic behavior is communicative behavior. Communication involves the party that sends out information and the party that receives information. According to this logic, it is evident that when a philosopher writes a book or gives a lecture, he must have a group of people reading his book or listening to his lecture because his behavior of writing and speaking is linguistic behavior.

Ludwig Wittgenstein writes that “Thought sometimes means a process which may accompany the utterance of a sentence and sometimes the sentence itself in the system of language.”² He continues that “The understanding of a sentence is as much something that happens to me as is the hearing of a sentence; it accompanies the hearing.”³ A philosopher writes and speaks in the process of thinking. The process in which he thinks and the process in which he writes or speaks are almost the same single process. He may come up with the idea first, and then write or speak, but that he comes up with the idea means that he has already made a draft in his mind. The real process of writing with a pen and a piece of paper or speaking may be a process of presenting his idea only.

Third, after his philosophical idea enters the “market of ideas” for circulation, he further enters into the countless processes of linguistic communication that run on a larger scale. If he gives a lecture to students in a college, he communicates with many people. As noted earlier, these students may also further help him disseminate his philosophical ideas to more people, especially if they also become professors teaching students. People construct many processes of human-chain linguistic communication. If he propagates his idea in the form of book, bookstores may sell thousands of copies of his book to thousands of readers, and libraries may lend his book to many readers. The process of marketing his book is a process of linguistic communication. The market is open to the public. The process of linguistic communication in relation to marketing his book is also open to all. As a result, he is able to communicate with all across the state. Then, through the related process of linguistic communication, the masses embrace and put into practice his philosophical ideas. That means that his idea, which has become the idea of the masses, will be shown in action. As individuals that make up the masses are usually in the same situation and have the same demands, it is very likely that his philosophical idea will be needed and embraced by all of them, or at least the majority of them, provided that the idea is rational and applicable. Then the masses may act under the guidance of his idea. His idea may influence the operation of the state, as the power holder of the state needs to satisfy the changing demands from the masses. As people can communicate with one another using language, a philosopher may become an instructor guiding the operation of the state.

                In other words, as language is a common property used by all within the state, it enables one person to communicate with all others within the state, if there is the need for such communication. As long as people are able to use language, they may communicate with all others. The reach of linguistic communication is the reach of the operation of the state. At the same time, the reach of the functioning of philosophy, created using language, is also at least as extensive as the reach of the operation of the state. A thought can be a means used by people to guide all of the operations of their state. After people create a thought successfully, it may spread across the state, sooner or later. Assuming that some people launch a social or political movement under the influence of a thought, this movement usually at least runs across the state. In other words, we seldom see that a social movement is regional. As noted earlier, in the nineteenth century, European states witnessed the rise of workers’ movements. The workers’ movement in each European state ran across the state. Usually there was a national organization of workers able to organize industrial action nationwide or state-wide. The workers of different regions might support each other. The workers of different nation-states might also support each other. But usually people waged the workers’ movement within each nation-state. As workers within each nation-state communicated with one another using the same language, some leaders of the working class organized workers within each state, although the ideology influencing the workers might run across the borders of the state.

       A civil rights movement is another kind of social movement that may run across the state because people can disseminate a related idea across the state. For instance, from approximately the 1950s to the 1980s, the civil rights movement became a worldwide political movement for equality before the law. Although the spread of the civil rights movement in any state might be restricted to a region, as the problems of the civil rights might occur only in a region, the idea of advocating for civil rights spread across the state. For example, in the United States, the civil rights movement was aimed at abolishing the laws of racial discrimination against African Americans and other disadvantaged groups. Between 1954 and 1968, it spread across the nation-state, although people more actively joined the civil rights movement in the south of the United States because the problem of civil rights was more prominent there. Early in the twenty-first century, we see that in many states, including the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, people participate in environmental protection movements, peace movements, animal rights protection movements, and so on. These movements also usually run through the whole state. People or organizations that push the related movements are usually guided by a certain philosophical idea. These movements usually run across the state. At the same time, the authorities may also accept some of the related philosophical ideas influencing these movements. Some rational philosophical ideas, offered by philosophers, finally become part of the mainstream values or philosophical thought of the related states.

                This case indicates that people, forming a state, no longer directly interact with each other only. People largely do not gain the relevant consciousness of the state because of their day-to-day, face-to-face interactions realized through their visual observation. The state often has a large population. It is a very large human community. Interactions among people within the state are no longer limited to the interactions realized through face-to-face contact. The thoughts or the values play an important role in the organization of the state in this case. The role played by thoughts or the values is very special. When a state grows large, a thought or the values play a role across the state because humans can use language on a large scale, rather than using it on a small scale through face-to-face contact. Then millions of people can embrace the related thought or values across the state. So following the formation of a state, a thought or values may support the organization and the operation of the state. People unite with one another on the basis of this thought or values. They formulate the best principles for the operation of the state and try to ensure the realization of justice. Then philosophers continue to create thoughts that serve as a foundation for the production and the spread of philosophical values. A system of philosophical values comes into being.

2. The Value of Philosophy

As noted earlier, as the masses seek a sort of philosophical thought, philosophers supply philosophical thoughts to the masses through a process of linguistic communication across the state. If the masses embrace philosophical ideas provided by the philosophers, philosophers come to influence them. Then the state comes under the influence of philosophers, if the state is under the influence of the opinions of the masses because the masses can exercise their influence on the state. So philosophy may be created in this context. Then, I argue that philosophy factors into the building of the state. Philosophy becomes part of the spiritual power that influences the building of the state. This situation differs from the situation seen in a tribe. Since the days when people disbanded their tribes to form their state, a change has taken place in the method of organizing their community. The creation of philosophy has been part of the building of the state, a unique phenomenon in the civilized society. In a tribe of a primitive society, people united because of kinship. In a state of a civilized society, people unite, crucially or essentially, because they share the same values, in some sense. These values gradually take shape in the context that philosophers create philosophy in the process of linguistic communication between philosophers and the masses. So the creation of philosophy is part of the building of the state. Of course, not all parts of philosophy are related to the state. The philosophy of science may not be directly related to the building of the state. But the operation of the state absolutely depends on the functioning of certain values that stem from a philosophy. This is a notable attribute of the operation of the state. The operation of a state needs to be directly guided by values that are created by a philosophy. The so-called ideology of the state, a concept used by some scholars, such as the Marxist scholars, is actually a system of values stemming from a philosophy. In other words, when people found a state, the state adopts a philosophy as the one providing mainstream values. The state relies on a series of leading philosophical ideas forming the values to underpin the operation of the state. Citizens, holding the same values because of education received in the process of linguistic communication, learn to agree with one another on the principles of organizing the state. These values help maintain the unity and cohesion of the entire state. The values form a foundation stone for the formation of the state. The shared values become a factor in the formation of a state.

If people want to form a new state, they need to adopt some values as a spiritual foundation of the state, too. Even people inhabiting adjacent regions of different countries or communities may take the initiative to jointly form a state because they share the same values. That means that while people share the same values, they may be motivated to jointly form a state. Take the following case as an example: When the thirteen colonies of North America declared their independence in the eighteenth century, they shared the same philosophical values. They had the same spiritual pursuit, which motivated them to make an agreement on the principle of building a nation-state, even though each of these colonies had its own body politic. They finally formed one state on the basis of this spiritual pursuit because a unified philosophical system, or a unified system of values, could serve as a foundation for them to build one unified state. In other words, once people embrace a philosophical system or a system of values, this philosophical system or the system of values may soon play a role in the building of the “body social.” With a body social being built, people may sooner or later build their body politic. A state will emerge. Therefore, stressing that a common belief was essential for the formation of a society in the United States, de Tocqueville wrote that:

Dogmatic beliefs are more or less numerous at different periods. They come into existence in various ways and can change both form and substance. But it can never happen that there are no dogmatic beliefs, that is to say, opinions which men take on trust without discussion. If each man undertook to make up his mind about everything himself and to pursue truth only along roads that he himself had cleared, it is unlikely that any large number of people would ever succeed in agreeing on any common belief […] For without ideas in common, no common action would be possible, and without common action, men might exist, but there could be no body social. So for society to exist and, even more, for society to prosper, it is essential that all the minds of the citizens should always be rallied and held together by some leading ideas. ⁴

The leading ideas, playing a role in the formation of body social in the writing of de Tocqueville, were also the leading ideas playing a role in the formation of body politic that took place shortly thereafter. Every state is built on the basis of a corresponding society. When people uphold a common belief in the society, this common belief will serve as a basis for the formation of a common belief in the state. So philosophy that generates ideology, including people’s ideas, thoughts, theories, and spirit, shown in the various forms of expression of language, is a special or potential resource provided by the society for the formation and operation of the state. This ideology generates values. Every state is built on the basis of certain values that are held and practiced by the masses in the society. This is a role played by philosophy in the building of the state.

                Philosophy also plays another role in the building of the state. This role is that philosophy participates in the construction of the morality of the society. The reason is that humans build their state over the existing society. Although the building of the state often relies on the use of coercion, and humans build their states through the use of force, the role played by spirit is still essential. The state needs to rest on the basis of an orderly society, and keeping the order of the society depends not only on the use of force, but also on the role played by social morality, because social morality can help adjust the relationship between one person and another, persuade people to conscientiously keep the norms of social conduct, and enable people to realize social harmony. Morality even works beyond the reach of the functioning of the government. Philosophy provides ideas as a foundation for the construction of social morality. Of course, when we discuss the issue of law, we all know that the governance of the state tends to rely on the use of law in contrast to the governance of the society, which tends to depend on morality. This does not necessarily mean that the construction of social morality cannot play a role in the building of the state. If the moral idea is advocated by ordinary people as non-professionals in the course of spoken communication, that is human-chain linguistic communication; this moral idea may play a role in the building of a folk society only. But if the moral idea is advocated by philosophers, as professionals in the process of written communication, that is, long-distance direct linguistic communication, the social morality they advocate will also display its power. So ethics, disseminated by philosophers, helps the society enhance the level of morality. The state tends to have recourse to ethics.

In ancient China, the rulers of various times embraced Confucianism, which advocated the moral idea of kindheartedness and justice because this moral idea was conducive to the consolidation of the rule of the regime, although on a few occasions, the rulers denounced or jettisoned it. Confucianism propagated a series of codes of ethics including the so-called three cardinal guides and five constant virtues. The three cardinal guides referred to moral idea that the ruler guided the subject, the father guided the son, and the husband guided the wife, and the five constant virtues stressed benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and fidelity. Morality even served as a spiritual foundation for the operation of the state. Morality tended to hold a higher status than law in the operation of the state. In Europe, philosophers also disseminate morality, and the dissemination of morality is also largely in concert with the operation of the social system. In feudal times, the leading social classes stressed the moral idea that people ought to subordinate themselves to the feudal hierarchy. Loyalty to the ruler was considered moral. Dignity, honor, and honesty were also important contents of morality. At the same time, a very important tenet of morality was that people should show religious piety and reverence toward God. Since early modern times, morality has also played a role in the building of the corresponding society. This is conducive to the building of the state. As humans have built states under the guidance of the principle of liberalism, they disseminate the moral idea that the state should protect all the freedoms, without infringing on the rights or freedoms of others. People have been accentuating notions such as duty, obligation, principle of conduct, and virtue since the days when some leading philosophers stressed them. For example, Immanuel Kant especially stressed the need for enhancing the levels of morality when he expounded his philosophy of morality by engaging in his critiques of pure reason, practical reason, and judgment. Since then, people have introduced the idea of social morality into the domain of politics to serve the operation of the state. They have constructed political ethics. Philosophers have been studying and propagating the idea of political morality concerning fairness, equality, freedom, humanitarianism, and so on. In terms of evaluating the rulers or power holders, people have set standards of values in distinguishing competence from incompetence, loyalty from betrayal, merits from faults, kindheartedness from ruthlessness, integrity from corruption and greediness, and justice from injustice. In terms of evaluating ordinary political participants, they have set up a standard of values in distinguishing good from evil, right from wrong, honor from disgrace, and so on.  Philosophers have found a way to participate in the operation of the state directly or indirectly by disseminating their ideas of morality.

                Philosophy also plays another role: Some branches of philosophy may lay a theoretical foundation for people to formulate the political guidance of operating the state, especially in modern times. In early modern times, capitalism was poised to replace feudalism, and nation-states emerged. Then, the situation showed that philosophy might be able to play another special role in the organization of the state. As the philosophy of law and political philosophy flourished, new thoughts started to lay a theoretical foundation for people to formulate the principle of operating the state. Discussions about the sovereignty of the state, the forms of government, and citizens’ freedoms, rights, and obligations entered the domain of politics directly in the building of the state. These philosophical ideas then gave support to the operation of the state, because the societal elite propagated them, the masses embraced them, and the authorities adopted them. Philosophers have become the creators of the ideologies needed by the operation of the state and, in particular, the creators of the thoughts in the building of free and democratic states ever since. Thus, philosophers have been enabled to use philosophy to guide political life within the state, albeit indirectly. It seems that they participate in the operation of the state, as they, armed with their thoughts, can exercise their influence on the state. Of course, they participate in the operation of the state in ways very different from the way politicians operate the state. They do not work in specified administrative posts; they do not earn salary as public employees; and they do not express their opinions on the daily affairs of the state. But their views, theories, and thoughts may hold a lofty status in guiding the operation of the state. As long as people propagate, accept, and uphold their thoughts and theories, they will leverage their influence anywhere and anytime. But they do leverage their influence persistently and widely in the state. In particular, when people put into practice a new philosophy to build a new state, philosophers or thinkers usually play a leading role in the formation of that new state.

During the period of revolution, both in the West and in the East in early modern times, there was always a philosophical idea behind a revolution. When a revolution broke out, there would be one new school of philosophy that was attractive to many, and some political “avant-gardes” would disseminate this school of philosophy, and people would expect it to replace the old. If the revolution succeeded, the new philosophy became the dominant philosophy in the operation of the state. During the American Revolution in the eighteenth century, a group of well-educated revolutionaries, influenced by philosophers such as Locke or Rousseau, functioned as media in the spread of the ideas of human rights and democracy. Then they participated in the founding of the state. Specifically, when revolutionaries drafted the American Declaration of Independence, they indicated that all men were created equal, and each was endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people founded a new state under the influence of those progressive ideas. Similar is the case of the French Revolution, in which revolutionaries were conspicuously influenced by the philosophy of Enlightenment, including the philosophy advocated by Rousseau, Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet), Denis Diderot, and others, who disseminated the ideas of natural law, freedom, and the rights of human beings. That is, this philosophy was influential. As all revolutions resulted from the propagation of certain progressive ideas, those who were capable of spreading those ideas were often the people who launched revolutions. Those people were usually the men of letters, such as writers. Therefore, some writers were particularly interested in the discussion of political issues prior to the outbreak of the French Revolution. Analyzing the origin of the French Revolution, de Tocqueville tells us that the French writers were keenly interested in all that concerned the government of the nation. He writes that:

The political programs advocated by our eighteenth-century writers varied so much that any attempt to synthesize them or deduce a single coherent theory of government from them would be labor lost. Nevertheless, if, disregarding details, we look to the directive ideas, we find that all these various systems stemmed from a single concept of a highly general order, their common source, and that our authors took this as their premise before venturing on their personal, often somewhat eccentric solutions of the problem of good government.⁵

That means that as men of letters spread philosophical knowledge provided by philosophers, they actively participated in debate about the government. Because of this, they became the leaders of the masses of the age.

                Needless to say, the influence of philosophy was the linchpin. Philosophers created new philosophies. This is because values, stemming from the existing philosophy created by philosophers, laid a foundation for the operation of the state. Revolutionaries who built the state later also needed such philosophy. As revolutionaries propagated these philosophies, they became media in the spread of philosophy. We can discern this phenomenon: A state was replaced by another due to a change in values. When a revolution broke out, philosophy might play a role in mobilizing and guiding the masses in the revolution. Philosophical thoughts might influence many people because some people could disseminate them as media. This situation indicates that people can use mass media, elections, demonstrations, and other forms of linguistic presentation for public communication in political life, and people can also use cultural means to perform public communication in political life; these are the means used in disseminating a philosophical idea. Human media can also play a role, as the role of revolutionaries in history indicates. Particularly, when a revolution, or a movement against the existing state under the influence of a philosophical idea is in progress, philosophy, created by philosophers, may reflect the opinions and hopes of the masses. If these philosophical thoughts are well known, the masses can also make their wishes known by upholding the related philosophy, thereby forcing the authorities to heed their demands and solve their problems. Thus, debates about social issues are often also debates about philosophical questions. People interpret social issues through philosophical debates. Philosophy guides people in their effort to realize justice because people expect social issues to be dealt with as required by a principle set according to a philosophical idea.

Philosophy functions as a medium in the mobilization of the masses, too. Describing the situation in the years immediately before the outbreak of the French Revolution, de Tocqueville mentions that the French people participated in the discussions of the origins of society, the nature of government, and the essential rights of man. All who suffered under the yoke of the administration enjoyed the literary excursions into politics. Taxpayers aggrieved by the injustices of the taille welcomed the idea that all men should be equal. Farmers whose land was devastated by a noble neighbor’s rabbits rejoiced at hearing it declared that privilege of any kind whatever was condemned by the voice of reason.⁶ 

                This means that philosophy presupposes another domain in which people operate the state. A philosopher does not hold any state power, but he provides a guide to the operation of the state that anyone may be willing to obey, if his philosophical ideas meet the demands of the times. If his philosophical ideas meet the demands of the times, the masses may be willing to embrace them.

The description above means that unlike the operation of a tribe, the operation of a state depends on two kinds of resources from beginning to end. One kind of resource is coercion, used by the authorities of the state. Another kind of resource is values utilized by the authorities of the state. The values are originally created by philosophers. Although without the coercion used by the authorities of the state, the state cannot remain unified, coercion cannot replace the resource represented by the values in the operation of the state. Although people usually believe that politicians are responsible for the operation of state, they cannot deny the role of philosophers in the operation of the state. Politicians issue commands in the operation of the state. People, acting as philosophers, give interpretations in the operation of the state. Though the governance of the state relies on coercion, people also operate the state according to the values shared by all the citizens, and these values are primarily or largely created by philosophers. It is a unique characteristic of the state, as the operation of the state comes under the influence of human thoughts. If we assume that in a tribe of a primitive society the chief, acting as governor of the tribe, also issued commands in the operation of a tribe, the role played by philosophers in the operation of the state is unique. This is because the idea held by the tribal chief who receives no education is often common sense or direct and concrete experience of production and living or rudimentary social consciousness while the idea created by a philosopher who is well educated is usually complex, systematic, abstract, and professional. This is because the state takes shape in the process of the development of both spoken and written communication, which helps people accumulate and disseminate knowledge and thought, and people, in the civilized society, are enabled to create philosophy that is likely to become a resource for the operation of the state in the processes of both spoken and written communication. This means that there are two different ways of operating the state. The government operates the state using the language of command as it issues administrative orders or make laws on behalf of the state. Philosophy, as a resource used for the operation of the state, functions through the interpretations given using language in the operation of the state. In comparison with the command in the form of the administrative order or law, the interpretation in the form of philosophy is equally powerful, even though administrative order and law are backed by coercion. That is, philosophy is backed by reason. For example, if we compare the characteristics of philosophy and those of law, we find that philosophy and the law work in different ways, but they also require each other for the proper operation of the state.

A law may force people into accepting an order presented with coercion. But philosophical thought may make each person make “law” himself in his mind through giving an interpretation and making the interpretation understood in realizing justice. A philosophy presupposes a process of linguistic communication in the type of interpretation. If the “law” in the mind of the masses is in conformity with the law made by the state, the masses will voluntarily and actively obey the law of the state. If not, the masses may find chances to resist the implementation of the law of the state. When a revolution breaks out, the revolution may indicate that there is a conflict between the existing law made by the state and the “law” made by each person, himself, according to a sort of philosophy. Although the law is a principal tool used by the state for the daily operation of the state, the “law” made by people is also a power. This power is sometimes able to overwhelm the law made by the state if the “law” made by people is firmly implemented by them, as proved by many cases of revolution in modern times. That is, a revolution may fail, but quite a number of the major revolutions in history succeeded. As history tells us, in the confrontation between the law implemented using force and the “law” made by the people in their own minds, the former may remain intact for a period of time, but it will not be able to override the latter in the end, because the latter will eventually become a belief, and a belief will sooner or later become a tremendous social power released across the whole society. If the masses embrace a belief, this belief may make the masses act in unison to persistently go in one direction on their own initiative. For the purpose of this belief, the masses will spare no effort in their pursuit, and finally will generate an irresistible social power, against which even the power holder cannot stand. This means that when the ruler of a state embraces a political philosophy embraced by the masses, he will become powerful. When the ruler of a state insists on a political philosophy that is gradually abandoned by the masses, he will become feeble and fragile. Sometimes the philosophical thought, propagated by giving an interpretation, can become a force so powerful that it is impossible to conquer it using the language of command and by relying on coercion. Describing the power of ideas, in the course of which the changes of ideas lead to the occurrence of waves of political changes, and hence to the progress of civilizations in history, Mill observes that:

One person with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests. They who can succeed in creating a general persuasion that a certain form of government, or social fact of any kind, deserves to be preferred, have made nearly the most important step which can possibly be taken towards ranging the powers of society on its side. On the day when the proto-martyr was stoned to death at Jerusalem, while he who was to be the Apostle of the Gentiles stood by “consenting unto his death,” would any one have supposed that the party of that stoned man were then and there the strongest power in society? And has not the event proved that they were so? Because theirs was the most powerful of then existing beliefs. The same element made a monk of Wittenberg, at the meeting of the Diet of Worms, a more powerful social force than the Emperor Charles the Fifth, and all the princes there assembled. But these, it may be said, are cases in which religion was concerned, and religious convictions are something peculiar in their strength. Then let us take a case purely political, where religion, so far as concerned at all, was chiefly on the losing side. If any one requires to be convinced that speculative thought is one of the chief elements of social power, let him bethink himself of the age in which there was scarcely a throne in Europe which was not filled by a liberal and reforming king, a liberal and reforming emperor, or, strangest of all, a liberal and reforming pope; the age of Frederic the Great, of Catherine the Second, of Joseph the Second, of Peter Leopold, of Benedict XIV, of Ganganelli, of Pombal, of Aranda; when the very Bourbons of Naples were liberals and reformers, and all the active minds among the noblesse of France were filled with the ideas which were soon after to cost them so dear […] It was not by any change in the distribution of material interests, but by the spread of moral convictions, that Negro slavery has been put an end to in the British Empire and elsewhere. The serfs in Russia owe their emancipation, if not to a sentiment of duty, at least to the growth of a more enlightened opinion respecting the true interest of the State. It is what men think that determines how they act.⁷

That is, in the short run, the state may use its power to select one school of philosophy most suitable to it and curb the other schools of philosophy not suitable to it. The state may control the spread of philosophy within its territory. But in the long run, the spread of philosophy will force the state to accept this philosophy. Then the state will need to adapt itself to the spirit and values stemming from this philosophy. The state is usually active while the society is usually passive. However, when a philosophy becomes a guide of the masses, or their belief, in the society and the society moves in a new direction guided by this new philosophy, the state is unable to effectively stop the movement of the society in this new direction. Therefore power holders in the state very often look powerful. But when the society moves in a new direction, the related philosophy or thought may become a tremendous force overwhelming all political forces that oppose it. The evolution from feudalism to capitalism, and from despotism to democracy in modern times in Europe proves that it is a spiritual force or an ideal embraced by the majority of the people that pushes the progress of those states forward. Philosophy may be suppressed by power if philosophy conflicts with political power. But if a philosophy is accepted and adhered to by the majority of people, the will of the society will overwhelm the will of the authorities in the state, sooner or later. Philosophy may become a force that no political power is able to defeat. This is a phenomenon that often occurs in a state. That means that, although people might come under the influence of an idea, such as one deriving from primitive religion in a tribe, in the context of spoken communication, the influence of the idea is weak. But in a state, people come under the influence of values stemming from a philosophy created by people chiefly in the context of written communication. The influence of these values is enormous. The operation of the state is strongly influenced by the philosophical idea embraced by people within the state.

                The practice of operating the state in the Western world may particularly shed light on this case. Nearly all the states in the Western world experienced the Enlightenment movement or bourgeois revolution in history. Now they are operated under the guidance of the values of liberty, equality, and democracy. To a large extent, the operation of the state depends on the operation of these values rather than the use of coercion. These values effectively guide the behavior displayed by the citizens of each state. These values play a greater role in the operation of the state. For example, the citizens of any Western state largely hold the values of liberalism today. Each Western state also holds similar values. If an issue of human rights infringement arises in a certain Eastern state, major Western states will come forward to call on the authorities of that Eastern state to respect human rights. They act in unison. I do not think that they coordinate their action. They act in unison because they are guided by values stemming from a philosophical thought created by the same group of philosophers. Although they are different states, they are, in some sense, under the spiritual leadership of the same group of philosophers. They share the same values, which sometimes work like an invisible command issued to all of them. When the majority of the citizens embrace leading values, the citizens will always enjoy the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly because exercising their freedoms, they tend not to express any opinion against the fundamental principle of operating the state, because people operate the state according to the same values. Citizens are usually in agreement with the government on the principle of operating the state. Therefore the governments of those states show a higher degree of tolerance toward the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly. By contrast, the authorities of some Eastern states in the world do not hold values embraced by all the citizens. They usually do not accept the values of Western democracy. As a result, the authorities curb the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly in these states because if citizens are allowed to have all freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly, they may express opinions that are in conflict with the fundamental principles used in operating the state, and hence, may threaten the rule of the authorities.

                It is evident that if a state does not adopt the values embraced by all or the majority, the citizens of the state will largely be unable to enjoy the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly. If the values adopted by the authorities are originally embraced by all people, but later, a portion of the people or even the majority of the people relinquish these values and turn to embracing other values, the authorities may grant the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly to the citizens in the beginning. But they may then restrict these freedoms later because, when the values upheld by the authorities become unacceptable to the masses and hence inapplicable, the authorities will turn to the use of coercion to maintain their rule. So if the citizens of a despotic state hope to enjoy the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly, they need to find the values suitable to them first. Without a system of values or a philosophical thought suitable for them that is likely to be embraced by all or the majority of people because of its rationality and applicability, citizens will never enjoy the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly. In other words, the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly belong forever to the citizens in the state under the guidance of a system of values suitable for and embraced by all or at least the majority.

                Here we cannot help thinking of the issue of the constitution, because people usually set forth the provisions of the freedoms of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly in the constitution. That is, a constitution is often made in the building of the state among many states in modern times. But some states do not guarantee civil rights, even though there is a constitution defining the grant of those civil rights to the citizens. We also see that free elections are not held in some states, even though their constitution requires the election of the officials. We also see that the representative body is a rubber stamp in some states, even though there is a constitution defining the representative body as the supreme authoritative body of the state. And we see that the masses, joining a peaceful demonstration in the street, are sometimes brutally put down in some states, even though the constitution stipulates that citizens have the right to wage a demonstration. In short, the constitution is a mere formality in some states. People may ask one question about these phenomena. For example, people may ask why the application for waging a peaceful demonstration is always turned down by the government even though the constitution expressly grants the right of waging a peaceful demonstration? My answer is that, studying the overall situation, we see that the reason that the provisions of the constitution for the freedoms and rights of citizens are implemented in good faith in Western states today is that there is an invisible supreme authority behind the constitution that all citizens, including the power holder himself, are willing to comply with, unconditionally and all the time. This authority springs from the values accepted by all. As all the citizens accept these values, they obey the constitution made under the guidance of these values. By contrast, if a state does not have values that are accepted by all, the government usually does not carry out the provisions of the constitution with respect to the freedoms and rights of the citizens, because the ruler fears that if he gives the freedoms and rights of citizens to all, the values he or the ruling group holds will be replaced. So again, the constitution, reflecting the spirit of liberty and democracy, belongs forever only to the people living in a state in which all, or at least the majority, accept and uphold the values guiding the operation of the state.

                A sort of human thought is an important resource in the operation of the state now, and this resource is sometimes even more important than the tool of coercion possessed by the authorities. When people form their community, the authorities always use coercion in the operation of that community. However, I argue that while humans use language, they extend the reach of linguistic communication. This creates another crucial condition for people to operate their community in which they can realize justice. As people use language, they interpret the objective world so as to create their ideas through reasoning. Justice always comes from an idea. In a fundamental sense, justice cannot stem solely from the use of coercion. If the use of coercion is for the purpose of realizing justice, the coercion must be used under the guidance of a reasonable idea. Any systematic idea created by humans needs to be based on a philosophy. Philosophy creates the power of interpretation that supports the operation of the state. This power is humanistic and reasonable. As people can give an interpretation and display the power of interpretation, they can realize justice, at least to some extent. As philosophers offer reasonable philosophical ideas to the masses in order to persuade the masses to accept their philosophical ideas, they always intentionally come up with the philosophical ideas in relation to the building of society and state to serve the cause of justice. This is because philosophers who create philosophical ideas and values work in a different domain. Unlike politicians, they are not involved in the conflict of interest, as they do not directly exercise power in the operation of the state. Philosophers live in different times, including ancient, medieval, and modern times. Philosophers who create philosophical ideas come from different states. As they are not involved in any interest related to any particular state, they contribute reasonable ideas to humans. True and rational philosophical ideas are those that can be applied in any state. Although some philosophical ideas contributed by philosophers prove inapplicable or incorrect because of the misjudgment of the philosophers, the philosophical ideas selected and embraced by the masses are usually useful and are not usually against the cause of realizing justice. This is because, by using language, philosophers are able to perform long-distance linguistic communication. By performing long-distance linguistic communication, philosophers can stand aloof from the conflict of interest, as they usually offer their ideas and thoughts to humans, almost regardless of the restrictions of the times, and the borders of the states. This situation occurs when humans communicate using language beyond the restrictions of time and space. 

3. The Time and Space of Philosophy

The Time of Philosophy  

While philosophers disseminate philosophy in a certain form of linguistic presentation, they communicate over long distances and over a long span of time, so philosophy functions in a special process of linguistic communication. Specifically, philosophy only functions over the long term. As such, we see that, following the founding of the state, the founder adopts a series of ideas, principles, customs, or traditions in the operation of the state. He comes under the influence of the existing social ideas and thoughts, including some philosophical ideas. As the ideas of philosophy arise from the society, and the society takes form before the formation of the corresponding state, the state comes under the influence of the existing society. Given that people perform political linguistic communication―linguistic communication performed for the organization of the state―such as issuing a decree, the political linguistic communication may come under the influence of the existing social linguistic communication― linguistic communication performed for the organization of the society―performed to create philosophy. For example, if a political decree is issued because the authorities hold an idea or certain values, philosophy may be involved in the operation of the state. But the time span of operating the state may be extended as the time span of putting into practice a sort of philosophy is usually longer. A phenomenon we often see is that the power holder adopts one philosophical thought as the orthodox thought before assuming power, rather than adopting it as the orthodox thought after assuming power. The power holder takes this philosophical thought as the philosophical foundation for his rule or for his governance. We seldom see that a power holder creates a philosophical thought on his own and rules or operates the state with this philosophical thought, although there may be some rare exceptions.

                In ancient times, kings or emperors claimed to have the divine right to rule the state. They tried to legitimize their rule and ensure the longevity of their rule. But although they propagated the idea of divine right, this idea may be traced to an old religious idea from the Bible or scripture in the beginning. From early modern times onward politicians of European states, the United States, and Canada have been advocating the idea of the people’s sovereignty, laying a new foundation for state governance. This thought largely originates with the philosophers and thinkers who emerged in the movement of Enlightenment in early modern times. A case in point is that politicians in the American Revolution struggled for independence and founded a nation-state in North America in the eighteenth century. They took power in this new nation-state. But the philosophical thought that they upheld came mainly from the philosophers and thinkers who had lived before their era. The politicians, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were influenced more or less by Locke from Britain and Rousseau and Montesquieu from France. Similarly, Lenin led the Russian Revolution, which led to the overthrow of the rule of Tsar in Russia, and built the Soviet regime in the early twentieth century. He was influenced by Karl Marx, a German philosopher.

               These examples indicate that a sort of philosophy and a political decree function over different spans of time, and accordingly, a philosopher and a politician or a statesman (hereinafter referred to as “a politician”) also work over different spans of time. A sort of philosophy works over a comparatively long span of time, while a political decree works over a comparatively short span of time. A philosopher works over a comparatively long span of time, while a politician works over a comparatively short span of time. As such, if a politician issues a political decree under the influence of a philosophy, or if a politician comes under the influence of a philosopher, people may extend the time span of operating a state because now people operate the state under the influence of a spirit, namely, a philosophical idea in this case, that runs over a long span of time. If people change a government, the new government may still run under the guidance of the same spirit under the condition that people still uphold the original philosophical values. People may enable the state to continue its operation over a longer period of time. That means that a state does not take shape in one day, and will not dissolve in a short period of time, either. People operate the state according to certain values that work over a long period of time. The practice of founding a state may also show that a human thought may help the state to subsist over a longer period of time. If a state happens to be founded by a politician according to certain values he has mainly contributed himself, this state tends to subsist over a shorter period of time, as the values contributed by this politician may not suffice to attract or continue influencing the masses over a long period of time. This is because the values contributed by a politician may not be based on a systemized theory. A politician usually cannot equal a philosopher in creating a theory or a thought, if we assume that the profundity and the systematization of thought are important or crucial when humans present a theory or a thought. In other words, the idea contributed by a politician in the background of specific circumstances may not reach the level of the theory contributed by a philosopher on the basis of reason, and may not be based on the summarization of the theories contributed by all preceding philosophers. Therefore, a state founded on the basis of the values stemming from the theory of an excellent philosopher or a group of excellent philosophers, tends to subsist over a longer period of time. The case of the vicissitude of the Republic of China in modern times can bear testimony to this view.

                The Republic of China was short-lived in Mainland China in the first half of the twentieth century, at least partly because the system of values used for the building of this state, the Three Principles of the People, was created by its founder, Sun Yat-sen, who was a politician. By contrast, the People’s Republic of China that shortly thereafter replaced the Republic of China in Mainland China was founded on the basis of a system of values borrowed from an influential philosopher, namely, Karl Marx. The Marxist system of thought is based on a well-developed theory, and proves very influential under certain historical conditions, although the Marxist thought cannot be everlasting, either.

                In a nutshell, human thought is an undeniable variable in the operation of the state. Assuming that humans are always under the influence of their thoughts, the thoughts they choose often dictate the destiny of the state. The state always comes under the influence of a thought. But there are also different thoughts, and different thoughts play different roles. Some thoughts are powerful and promising, while others are not. If people adopt a powerful and promising thought, the state may be full of vitality and may continue to develop. This is because the thought may crucially support the existence of the state. Once people embrace a thought, they will uphold it over a long period of time. Then politicians may operate the state according to this thought over a long period of time.

                Humans may enable a state, formed by them, to subsist over a very long period of time. My reasoning is that since a politician is able to communicate with the masses, we usually assume that this politician is a public figure able to speak to, or in, public. However, this politician is usually able to speak to his contemporaries only. For example, the president of the United States is able to speak to the American people during his presidency. However, he is usually unable to continue to speak to the American people after his retirement or death, unless he maintains some influence after his retirement or death. Usually former presidents lose their influence after their retirement or death. By contrast, an outstanding philosopher may communicate not only with his contemporaries, but also with future generations, because the philosophical books he writes communicate with future generations on his behalf if his philosophy is valuable and interesting to the future generations. That means that a politician is, in fact, an operator who operates the state over a short span of time because he holds power only over a short period of time, whereas a philosopher is a guide of thought who provides a thought to the operation of the state over a long span of time; although he may also propagate his philosophy over a short span of time, other people may continue to propagate his philosophy over a long span of time. If a politician speaks to the people, his ideas and proposals are usually restricted to current affairs, and therefore applicable only over a comparatively short span of time. A politician communicates with the people of his times. He is usually unable to communicate with many generations of people. By contrast, a philosopher may be able to communicate with many generations of people because his philosophy is generally applicable over a comparatively long span of time. He offers his philosophy, and it might work in the operation of the state over a long span of time. So, in a historical view, a philosopher is more influential than a politician if this philosopher influences many generations of people. Caesar, a dictator of Roman times, was usually able to communicate with the Roman people only by issuing commands, whereas Cicero, a philosopher of Roman times, was perhaps able to communicate with the people of all following generations through his philosophical books.

                Another example: George Washington, the first president of the United States, largely stopped communicating with the Americans as a politician after his death, but Thomas Paine has been communicating with the American people through his books even after his death. In other words, when a president fulfills his duty, he will make speeches or write articles. His presentations usually apply to his current situation. By contrast, the thoughts created by philosophers continue to exist over a long period of time, as long as they are reasonable, applicable, and valuable. A politician is present for a short period of time for the operation of a state, whereas a philosopher may be present in a long period of time for the operation of a state. In some sense, in a short period of time the state is under the control of politicians, but in a long period of time the state is under the influence or tutelage of philosophers. The result is that the involvement of philosophers changes the method of operating the state because the philosophical ideas they create influence the operation of the state. Armed with philosophy, those who operate the state become far-sighted, intelligent, and reasonable. They serve not only the interest of the present, but will also accommodate the interest in the future when making decisions in the operation of the state. They will uphold their principles in the operation of the state in the interest of all people, or the vast majority, over the long run. They will pursue and maintain a system of values in the long run. They will have a long-term spiritual pursuit. That means that a state goes on to exist as a new generation emerges. Although a new generation will grow and the old generation will pass away, the state may continue to exist and function on the same principles. If one generation passes away, the following generations may continue to carry out the cause of the preceding generation, because the same philosophy may continue functioning over a long period of time.

                These descriptions illustrate that philosophers offer their philosophical thoughts to address the issues faced by people over a long period of time. The subject matter of the philosophical books written by philosophers, or the subject matter of the lectures given by philosophers, are usually about the fundamental issues of human society, including the issues addressed in metaphysical methods. Since these issues are fundamental, they are faced by people of many time periods. People in ancient times faced them. People in modern times may also face them. The questions asked by the people of ancient times in the domain of philosophy may also be those asked again by the people of modern times. Accordingly, the interpretations given by philosophers throughout history may be considered to be the answers given to the philosophical questions of both ancient and modern times. In other words, the issues addressed by philosophy are very often the permanent issues faced by all human societies. The books of philosophy are very often read by people who live in different times. The books of politics, economics, and society may not be read through all periods of time.

                If we assume that all books about philosophy, politics, economics, and society provide knowledge to the power holder operating the state, as well as to the masses who accept the power holder’s operation of the state, the books of politics, economics, and society, particularly, the books about the current politics, economics, and society, may not be read by people living in different periods of time. This is because if a change takes place in political, economic, and social life, the knowledge provided by those books may no longer fit the situation. But people may still read the philosophical books because the state or the society always faces those issues addressed by philosophical books. The life cycle of books about philosophy is longer than that of books about politics, economics, and society, particularly the books about the current political, economic, and social situations. For example, people always face issues related to fairness, equality, justice, and so on, even though they live in different times. By contrast, people only discuss temporarily the issues about a specific public policy implemented by a specific government under the specific circumstances. The related books to the specific situation only fit a certain period of time. This means that, generally speaking, philosophical books perform communication over a long period of time. For example, people are still reading the books by Plato and Aristotle. This means that the communication started by Plato and Aristotle more than two thousand years ago continues today. Philosophical books that provide a spiritual guide may be useful for many years. Thus, the philosophical thought lays a stable spiritual foundation for the building of the state over a long period of time.

The Space of Philosophy  

Long-distance communication performed by philosophers also functions on a large scale. As people spread philosophy, they extend the reach of communication. Thus, citizens may embrace a philosophy that comes from outside the state, and this philosophy may function in the operation of the state on a larger scale later. The philosophical ideas adopted by people in the operation of the state may be the achievement made by humans from another state. The philosophical ideas embraced by a state may be a common asset of humans. The philosophical ideas embraced by that state may not have been created only within its own borders. That means that there is a community of civilization that may develop across the borders of a state. The community of civilization cannot be simply equated with the state. The spread of philosophy may presuppose the existence of linguistic communication across the borders of the state. The philosophical ideas may contribute values to many states, if many states need them. So as many states need them, they may contribute universal values.

                To put it another way, while humans disseminate philosophy, they extend the reach of communication. They may disseminate philosophy across the borders of the state. By contrast, while humans issue an administrative order, this administrative order is only effective within the territory of a state. The reach of communication that spreads philosophy is longer than the reach of communication that issues an administrative order. That is, assuming that philosophy is a thought involving a process of communication, a portion of information receivers may be outside the territory of a state, although another portion of information receivers usually stay within the territory of the state. This is a phenomenon of civilization. Different states may share the achievements of human civilization. People not only build the state on the basis of the civilization created by one nation, but also often build their state on the basis of the civilizations created by other nations, to a varying extent.

                This characterizes how a state is different than a tribe. In the era when people formed a tribe, the tribe was usually or largely isolated. A tribe seldom stayed in contact with other tribes except the adjacent ones. People communicated with one another on a small scale. The experience of operating the tribe was not substantially shared by many tribes. People usually accumulated the related experience within the tribe. Since humans entered the era of civilization, they have formed states. When people form a state, they may embrace certain values or a kind of philosophy introduced from another state if they think that the related values or philosophy are rational and applicable. They may build a state, not only on the basis of the civilization they create, but also on the basis of the civilizations created by other nations in the world. For example, since the rise of liberalism in Europe in early modern times, many states have embraced it. Linguistic communication is essential in this aspect.

                This is similar to the case of economic activities, in a certain respect. If a state adheres to its model of autarchic economics, it uses its own resources for economic growth. If a state adopts a free-trade model of economics, it also uses external resources for economic growth. Similarly, a state may accept the values or philosophy introduced from another state. If the values or philosophy are rational and applicable, the state may rely on these values or this philosophy to make itself strong, lively, and promising. This happens in the era of the growth of states. This is because the era of the growth of states is also the era of using language, particularly written language. Philosophers spread their philosophy using various media, and they communicate with people on a large scale. Thus, many states may share spiritual resources, and these philosophers may even build their presence in different states. That means that philosophy moves across state borders. If a state embraces a promising philosophy from another state, it may become strong and lively. All states realize concurrent development. If one state makes progress, other states will benefit as well. All states keep abreast of the progress of civilization.

                Of course, not all philosophies spread across state borders. Not all philosophers communicate across state borders when they give their philosophic lectures or write their philosophic books. When the philosophers and thinkers of ancient China gave their lectures or wrote their books, they supposed that their listeners and readers were just the Chinese. For example, when Confucius expressed his philosophical view to eulogize the feudal system represented by the ethics and rites of the Zhou Dynasty (1122–256 BC), he supposed his listeners to be Chinese because only the Chinese knew the history and culture of the Zhou Dynasty. His philosophy was offered to the Chinese people. At that time, the philosophers of ancient China had only the view of “all under heaven” instead of the view of the world, because they had no notion of the world. As a result, the Chinese philosophical thought seldom spread to other areas except for a few neighboring states, in early times. This is not only because Chinese history and culture differed from those of other states, but also because the philosophers in the past already locked on their listeners or readers in communication when they were thinking. So it is difficult, if not impossible, for other states to learn philosophical ideas that lack universal values that could be embraced by states with different cultural backgrounds.

                However, there are some philosophies that spread across the borders of the states. Some philosophical thoughts do spread to different states because they are needed by many states. Some philosophical thoughts are even universally applicable in the world and spread to many areas in the world because they are actually needed by all the states. That means that there are some philosophical thoughts capable of spreading across the borders of a state. The ideas of human rights and democracy advocated by the Enlightenment movement thinkers in early modern times spread to many states. This situation particularly occurs in the times of the nation-state when humans extend the reach of their communication and interaction. This is not only because economic success in the West makes the peoples of the Eastern nations want to learn from the West in many respects, but also because those Enlightenment movement thinkers in Europe supposed all humans to be their target listeners and readers when they came up with their philosophical thoughts and wrote their philosophical books, just before or in the times of capitalism—the times of globalization in their economic lives. They were determined to communicate with people in many states. For instance, writing his book, A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau announced:

As my subject interests mankind in general, I shall endeavour to make use of a style adapted to all nations, or rather, forgetting time and place, to attend only to men to whom I am speaking. I shall suppose myself in the Lyceum of Athens, repeating the lessons of my masters, with Plato and Xenocrates for judges, and the whole human race for audience.⁸

And many states have been learning these philosophical thoughts ever since.

In other words, designing their process of communication for the peoples living in many states, philosophers have been trying to offer a system of values or philosophy to the peoples living throughout the world. They have been disregarding the unique characteristics of the culture or ethnicity of each state. They have even been committed to contributing a system of values or thought universally applicable for all states, that is, universal values or thought. Thus, many states have benefited from their contributions. This trend can be traced back to the times of the Enlightenment movement, which is also often a factor leading to a change in the society, and sometimes even leading to revolution. As de Tocqueville writes:

The French Revolution’s approach to the problems of man’s existence here on earth was exactly similar to that of the religious revolutions as regards his afterlife. It viewed the “citizen” from an abstract angle, that is to say as an entity independent of any particular social order, just as religions view the individual, without regard to nationality. […] It did not aim merely at the rights defining the rights of the French citizen, but sought also to determine the rights and duties of men in general towards each other and as members of a body politic.⁹

He continues:

It was because the Revolution always harked back to universal, not particular, values and to what was the most “natural” form of government and the most “natural” social system that it had so wide an appeal and could be imitated in so many places simultaneously.¹⁰

That means that the reach of communication that spread the philosophy advocated by those French thinkers was longer than the reach of operating a state. As a result, many rational, reasonable, advanced, scientific, and applicable philosophies spread in an area larger than the territory of a state, as many states embraced them. Since then, humans have been able to highlight and revitalize the values or the thought of a state because the state is able to import values or thoughts across the borders. Whenever people living in a state try to import values or philosophical thoughts from another state, there is a reason. People will not import values or thoughts from another state unless they need those values or thoughts. For example, China imported Marxism from Germany through Russia in the twentieth century because, at that time, a significant proportion of Chinese intellectuals questioned, criticized, and dumped the Chinese traditional values, namely Confucianism, in the wake of a state crisis caused by both internal social turmoil and external pressures, such as the pressure put on China by various foreign powers. Marxism has functioned as the system of core political values of the state called the People’s Republic of China for a long period of time. One can find similar situations in many other states in Asia, Africa, and Latin America that have embraced the values of Western democracy offered by some philosophers from Europe and the United States since the end of World War Two. For example, many states in Africa and Latin America now accept the democratic system. This is why people have made political progress earlier or later in those states since the days when those states realized national independence. That means that after people create philosophy and disseminate it through a process of linguistic communication, philosophy plays a role in the operation of the state. Unlike tribal people, the people of a civilized society no longer passively adapt themselves to the self-operation of their community. They now proactively put into practice their own thoughts in the operation of their community. Philosophical thoughts also spread across the borders of the state.

                This is due to the fact, I argue, that when people create their philosophy, they engage in deep and systematic thinking. Such activities are the reflection of the inclination of their subjective world. Their subjective world always has an object. Such an object can be abstracted. Such an object, abstracted by people in their thinking, may be the same everywhere throughout the world. The reason is that humans from all nations may have something in common. They may have the same human nature though their personality varies. They may have the same sympathies in certain circumstances. They may have morals that are similar in essence. They may have the same basic knowledge of society as a result of an interpretation given by someone they both have access to. They may have similar wishes for improving their survival and living conditions. They may have the capability of finding their common ideas in the operation of their societies and states, despite having some different ideas in some respects. Although they may have their own traditional cultures, specific ways of thinking that are indigenous to their specific societies, specific experiences in relation to the growth of their nations, and certain specific forms of beliefs, and so on, they use the same logic and they may use the same reasoning process. That is, all nations use the same logic and the same reasoning unless they are misled by some incorrect ideas or judgments in some special circumstances. This is the reason why a certain philosophy, using scientific logic and advocating human reason, may spread throughout the world beyond the borders of each nation-state. In other words, certain ways of thinking are shared by all nations in the world. This possibility cannot be ruled out.

                I argue that differences of nations in culture and in some other respects do not necessarily impede the spread of philosophy, but may be a condition for the spread of philosophy throughout the world. That is, philosophy may spread across the borders of the state because of the uneven development of philosophy among different nations throughout the world. In terms of the thought trend that runs throughout history, I argue, for example, that the peoples of South Asia or West Asia or East Asia, for example, have all created their own schools of philosophy. These schools of philosophy often fit the construction of a social hierarchy, or the formation of an agricultural society. In some sense, these schools of philosophy have some ideas, values, and inclinations in common. They cannot spread widely because the academic level of the school of philosophy of each region is similar in some sense. In other words, each region does not need to import the idea from another region and substitute it for its own idea because the idea from another region may not be substantially advanced or progressive. As a result, the philosophy of each region resembles local culture, which cannot be disseminated across the borders of the state. Such philosophy cannot break away from the local culture. Such philosophy is local or parochial.

                By contrast, philosophical ideas created by the Europeans during the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century, prove quite different. As European intellectuals came up with a series of philosophical ideas advocating freedom, equality, fraternity, and democracy, which opposed the principles of constructing and maintaining the feudal system or the conservative society, those ideas became very attractive, influential, and powerful because they ascended to the historical stage with a scheme of building a new society—one heralded as the one in which all enjoy freedoms, all are equal, all love all, and all people are the sovereigns of the state; that is, a society that makes the final emancipation of human beings possible. As those philosophical ideas are unique, rational, and also realistic, they are not only badly needed by the peoples of European states, but also needed and welcomed by the peoples of the states of all other regions. As many states outside Europe—throughout the world—lack those philosophical ideas, people disseminate them throughout the world. As these philosophical ideas advocate the construction of the society distinct from the traditional society, dubbed “the agricultural society” or “the feudal society,” they force a fundamental change of the traditional society. This culminates in the growth of a new society everywhere, in tandem—these philosophical ideas reflect logic and reason.

                As this new society requires that all its members have citizenship, including voting rights, people build democratic states. Citizens have the freedoms of speech, assembly, religious belief, and so on. As people have abolished the privileges of feudalism, the economy of commodities thrives, paving the way for the development of capitalism. This hastens the building of nation-states. This change sweeps the world. The advancement of some states leads to the advancement of all other states because people circulate philosophical ideas throughout the world. Every state feels the impact of these philosophical ideas, to some extent.

                While politicians usually work within the territory of the state, philosophers may reach every corner of the world because philosophical ideas they create can move across the borders of the state. As noted earlier, politicians from all Western countries usually have the same ideas about human rights, freedom, and democracy. They have their own nationalities, their own national backgrounds, and they may even speak different languages. Yet they all accept the spiritual guidance of the same group of philosophers. Theses philosophers include Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Kant. These philosophers guide all these states in their advancement. If a state is active in embracing rational philosophical ideas from abroad, it may make progress, along with all other advanced states. All the states are no longer spiritually insulated from each other. All the states on earth may be interlinked with one another by one thought or several thoughts offered by philosophy. Humans will finally build a community of thinking and jointly make progress in civilization under the guidance of this thinking. Humans may build their states with their thought coming from the same spiritual hometown.

Notes

  1.  Richard Mckeon ed. Democracy in a World of Tensions: A Symposium Prepared by UNESCO (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951): 318-319.
Giovanni Sartori, The Theory of Democracy Revisited (Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers, Inc., 1987): 104.

  2.  Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Grammar, ed. Rush Rhees & trans. Anthony Kenny (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974): 7.

  3.  Ibid, 41.

  4.  Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. George Lawrence (London: Harper Perennial, 1988): 433-434.

  5.  Alexis de Tocqueville, The Old Regime and French Revolution, trans. Stuart Gilbert (New York: Anchor Books Doubleday, 1955): 139.

  6.  Ibid, 141-142.

  7.  John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Representative Government and Utilitarianism (Chicago: William Benton, 1952): 332.

  8.  Jean Jacques Rousseau, A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (Chicago: William Benton, 1952): 334.

  9.  De Tocqueville, The Old Regime and French Revolution, 12.

10.  Ibid.