以下是本人写的一本书Language and State: An Inquiry into the Progress of Civilization, Second Edition中的一章。

全书共分三个部分。第一部分：语言与国家的形成；第二部分：语言与国家的治理；第三部分：语言与国家的精神。

在第三部分内，有五章。分别是：第十章：历史、第十一章:哲学、第十二章：文艺、第十三章：宗教和第十四章：法律。

下面就是这五章内的第十一章哲学。论述的过程是，先论述语言与哲学的关系，然后论述哲学在国家精神建构中的作用，最后论述哲学的时间和空间（指哲学在文明形成和成长过程中的含义）。感兴趣的读者，欢迎阅读。

Chapter 11: 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 firmly upheld by them, this thought likely generates 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. So long as this  thought is rational and applicable and this thought spreads through the linguistic communication that goes on among all, it can  even guide the operation of the state. If people create a thought for the building of the society or the state, all can share it in realizing this objective. Language allows for a philosopher to communicate with all and hence 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 ancientChina, they disseminated it among all male and female, old and young. All were influenced and infected by Confucianism albeit to a varying extent. When people disseminated the thought of liberty, democracy and fraternity in Europe in early modern times, they disseminated it to all in each of European states. Nearly all embraced this  thought in a certain  way  to a varying extent. In a human society, philosophical thoughts are often created by a small number of  people. These people are philosophers who are often thinkers. These philosophers who create original thoughts, particularly, the original thoughts on the basis of a systematic theory, are a small number of people. Sometimes a school of philosophy, offering an original philosophical thought, is even 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, whenever people form a state, they rely on the guidance of a  value. They build their state because they hold the same value. This value is usually the mainstream value stemming from a  philosophy created by a small number of philosophers. Philosophers become the spiritual instructors of the state. 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 grew up this consciousness of kinship by nature. When people form a state, they operate the state according to a mainstream value held by all or the majority of people in the state. This value often stems from a thought grown up 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.

      So 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 by way of linguistic communication. There are different ways of communication that goes on between philosophers and the masses. When a philosopher gives lectures to students, he disseminates the same thought to many different people. So in ancient times some philosophers founded academies to disseminate their thoughts. In the meantime, along with the development of written communication people transcribed books which allowed for philosophers to disseminate knowledge and thoughts in the society. These philosophers were a small number of people.  Since the development of printing philosophers have reached readers in different places via books written by them and printed by publishing houses. So  in modern times when books are printed, philosophers write many books to promote their knowledge and thoughts. Armed with printing, linguistic communication has become a system of “broadcast” through which the philosophical thoughts, created by a few  people, quickly influence many or even all and then function as a spiritual guide to the operation of the state. Then philosophy converses itself into a social power in the operation of the state.

      That means that language is a powerful tool used by people to converse the thoughts of a few people into the idea of many other people. After philosophers offer the 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. At least the development of philosophy involves a process of linguistic communication that goes on 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 idea across the state. Therefore, whenever people disseminate their philosophical thoughts, they base their act on the corresponding courses of linguistic communication that goes on across the state. They enter into these courses of linguistic communication so as to provide a spirit that unites all in support of the operation of the state and sets the orientation of the development of the state. People keep on learning and embracing the philosophical thoughts as the state needs to  be always supported by a common value stemming from a philosophy and this philosophy needs to be the one upheld by all forming the state. For example, philosophy presupposes that someone who has the knowledge of philosophy gives an interpretation to the others who do not have the 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. The philosophical question, asked by people, may be asked by all. Particularly after a question is raised, people may try to give an answer by using their knowledge. For example, when someone asks one question about society, people may give their systematic and in-depth interpretation of the relevant question by 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 are usually of different levels of literacy because they receive the education of different levels. If a philosophical book, written by a philosopher, is abstruse or recondite, his philosophical thought may not be easily understood by ordinary people who receive less education. The conversion of the thoughts of a few into the idea of many may not be so easy and smooth. Yet the interpretation given by using language may help solve this problem. So long as ordinary people receive basic education and hence are able to perform basic linguistic communication with others for all purposes, ordinary people can understand those abstruse or recondite thoughts through an interpretation given by those who help popularize the said philosophical thoughts such as the teachers teaching philosophy in class or some authors writing common philosophical books popularizing the said original philosophical thoughts. When people disseminated democratic thoughts to the masses in European states in the eighteenth or nineteenth century, many intellectuals took part in the cause of disseminating those democratic thoughts. Some politicians directly propagated the relevant thoughts by giving speeches in the 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 thought. Though workers received the education of the level lower than that of the education received by intellectuals, they were equally influenced by the same thought because some people gave interpretations. J. Plamenatz writes that:

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

Why could a socialist thought influence the working class? My view is that interpretations given by using language enabled the same  philosophical thought to be shared by all despite that people received the education of different levels and the levels of their literacy varied.

      That philosophers can communicate with all across the state by using language can also be shown by the fact that philosophical thoughts, created by philosophers, may function as a spiritual guide to the operation of the state in the sphere  out of the control of philosophers themselves. Philosophers work and live in a certain region.  Yet, performing linguistic communication, they  communicate, by using media, with those who work and live in other regions.  Language, used by them, enables them to save their philosophical thoughts on those media which help them disseminate their thoughts to many other people. For example, after they write their books and have those books published, those 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 the said books from a library, those books will start the relevant process of linguistic communication for the same purpose 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 thought to his students. If his students also become professors in future, then those professors may continue to disseminate his philosophical thought to their students so on and so forth. 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 value. People unite in mind because all uphold one mainstream philosophical value in the state. This philosophical value bolsters the building of the state and guides the operation of the state.  

      My reasoning is  that the spread of philosophy relies on linguistic communication. There are various processes of linguistic communication that goes on in support of the spread of philosophy. To elaborate a 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. What are these raw materials to be used by this philosopher? The philosophical ideas, created by erstwhile philosophers, are the major portion of those raw materials to be used by him when he plans to create his own philosophical idea in view of the specific and current need in the society. He needs to process them. The way he processes them is that he reads philosophical books by those erstwhile philosophers. He may also listen to the philosophical lectures given by the contemporary philosophers in order to digest the views of other philosophers as raw materials. These activities, performed by him, are also actually the activities of linguistic communication. He needs to be involved in a process of linguistic communication in order to obtain the said raw materials. Then he can think. When he thinks, he digests the ideas offered by the preceding philosophers. He may make use of some of them 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 or reads books. Then he obtains the raw materials for the purpose of using them in future. He may also get these raw materials by reading books written by many philosophers after class.

Second, when he creates his own philosophical idea by 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 idea, he usually writes out 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 whom he is going to communicate with 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 one 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 runs 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 idea to more people if they also become professors teaching students. People construct the countless 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 countless readers. The process of marketing his book is a process of linguistic communication. 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 capacitated to communicate with all across the state. Then, as a result of the related process of linguistic communication the masses embrace and put into practice his philosophical idea.  That means that his idea that has become the idea of the masses will be shown in action. As the masses are usually in the same situation and have the same demand, it is very likely that his philosophical idea is needed and embraced by all of them or the majority of them, provided that it 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 demand from the masses. As people can communicate with one another by using language, a philosopher may become a spiritual 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 to communicate with all others within the state if there is the need for such communication. So long as people are able to use language, they may communicate with all. The reach of linguistic communication is the reach of the operation of the state. In the meantime, the reach of the functioning of philosophy, created by using language, is also at least the reach of the operation of the state. A thought can be a means used by people to guide the ubiquitous operation 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 movement. The workers movement in each European state ran across the state. Usually there was at least 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 by using the same language, some leaders of working class organized workers within each state though the related ideology, influencing the workers, might run across the borders of the state.

Civil rights movement is another social movement that may run across the state because people can disseminate a related idea across the state. For instance, from approximately 1950s to 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 only occur in a region, the idea of advocating the civil rights spread across the state. For example, in the United States the civil rights movement, aimed at abolishing the laws of racial discrimination against African Americans and other disadvantaged groups between 1954 and 1968, spread across the nation-state though people more actively joined the civil rights movement in the south of the United States because the problem of civil rights was more protrusive there. Nowadays we see that in many states, including theUnited Statesand the Federal Republic of Germany, people witness environmental protection movements, peace movements, animal right protection movements and so on. These movements also usually go on nationwide. People or organizations that wage the related movements are usually guided by a certain philosophical idea. These movements usually run across the state. In the meantime, the authorities may also accept some of the related philosophical ideas influencing the abovementioned movements. Some rational philosophical ideas, offered by philosophers, finally become part of the mainstream value 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 have no longer been the interactions realized through face-to-face contact only. The thought or the value plays an important role in the organization of the state. When a state grows large by population, the thought or the value plays a role across the state because humans can use language on a large scale instead of using it on a small scale through face-to-face contact. Then millions of people can embrace the related thought or value across the state. So following the formation of a state, a thought or value may support the organization and the operation of the state. People unite with one another on the basis of this thought or value. They formulate the best principle for the operation of the state and try to ensure the realization of justice. Then philosophers keep on creating 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 that enables them to communicate with the masses across the state. Then if the masses embrace some 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 as the masses can exercise their influence on the state. So,  philosophy may be created in this context. Then, I argue that philosophy, created by humans, 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 by us in a tribe. The reason is that 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 the primitive society people united with each other because of kinship. In a state of the civilized society people unite with each other crucially or essentially because they share the same value in some sense. The same value takes shape when philosophers create philosophy in the process of linguistic communication that goes on among philosophers themselves and between all philosophers as a whole and the masses. So the creation of philosophy is part of the building of the state. Of course, all parts of philosophy are not 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 needs to depend on the functioning of a certain value which stems 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 a value which is created by  a philosophy. The so-called ideology of the state, a concept especially used by some scholars such as the Marxist scholars, is actually a value system stemming from a philosophy. In other words, when people found a state, the state adopts a philosophy as the one providing a mainstream value. The state relies on a series of leading philosophical ideas forming the value to underpin the operation of the state. Citizens, upholding the same value because of education received in the process of linguistic communication, actually turn out to agree with one another on the principle of organizing the state. This value helps maintain the unity and cohesion of the entire state. The value is a foundation stone for the formation of the state. The shared value becomes a factor in the formation of a state. If people want to form a new state, they also need to adopt a value as a spiritual foundation of the state. Even people, inhabiting adjacent regions of different countries or communities, may take initiative to jointly form a state because they share the same value. That means that while people share the same value, 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 actually had the same spiritual pursuit that could motivate them to make an agreement on the principle of building a nation-state even though each of these colonies had 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 value system, could serve as a foundation for them to build one unified state. In other words, once people embrace a philosophical system or a value system, this philosophical or value system may soon play a role in the building of  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 theUnited States, de Tocqueville writes 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 later. 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 the common belief in the state. So philosophy that generates ideology, including people’s idea, thought, theory 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 society. Although the building of the state relies on the use of coercion as humans often 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 not only depends on the use of force but also relies 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 norm of social conduct and enable people to realize social harmony. Morality even works beyond the reach of the functioning of the government. Philosophy provides some 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 fact that the governance of the society tends to depend on morality. This, however, 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. Yet if the moral idea is advocated by philosophers as professionals in the process of written communication, namely, long-distance direct linguistic communication, social morality, advocated by them, 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. So in ancient China the rulers of various times embraced Confucianism that advocated the moral idea of kindheartedness and justice because the moral idea, advocated by Confucianism, was conducive to the consolidation of the rule of the regime though 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, of which the three cardinal guides referred to it that the ruler guided the subject; the father guided the son; and the husband guided the wife, and 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 in the operation of the state than law. 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 morality that people ought to subordinate themselves to the feudal hierarchy. Loyalty to the ruler was morality. Dignity, honor and honesty were important contents of morality. In the meantime a very important commandment of morality was that people should show religious piety and reverence toward God.  Since early modern times morality has also been playing 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 an idea of morality that the state should protect all the freedoms, not infringing the right had by others or not affecting the freedom had by others. People have been accentuating the notions such as duty, obligation, principle of conducts and virtue since the days when some leading philosophers stressed them. For example, Immanuel Kant especially stressed the need of 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  a standard of value in distinguishing competence from incompetence, loyalty from betrayal, merits from faults, kindheartedness from ruthlessness, being free from corruption from greediness and justice from injustice. In terms of evaluating ordinary political participants, they have set up a standard of value in distinguishing good from evil, right from wrong and 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 idea of morality.

       Philosophy also plays another role as some branches of philosophy may lay a theoretical foundation for people to formulate the political guidance of operating the state. It especially plays this role 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 form of government and citizens’ freedoms, rights and obligations directly entered the domain of politics in the building of the state. The related philosophical ideas then gave the spiritual support to the operation of the state after the societal elite had propagated them, the masses embraced them and the authorities adopted them. Philosophers have become the creators of the ideology needed by the operation of the state and, in particular, the creators of the thought in the building of a free and democratic state 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 can exercise their influence on the state with their thoughts. Of course, they participate in the operation of the state in the way very different from the way politicians operate the state. They do not work on 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. So 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.

For instance, during the period of revolution either in the West or 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 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. So 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 Declaration of Independence, they indicated that all men were created equal and they were endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights such as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Then 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 rights of human beings.  That is, the related philosophy was influential. As all revolutions especially 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 indicates 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 the debate about the government. Then they even became the leaders of the masses of the age.

      Needless to say, the influence of philosophy was the linchpin. Philosophers created philosophy. 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 such philosophy, they became media in the spread of such philosophy. We can discern this phenomenon that a state was replaced by another due to a change in value. 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, election, demonstration 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, which include 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 going on, philosophy, created by philosophers, may reflect the opinions and hopes of the masses. If those philosophical thoughts are well-known, the masses can also make known their wishes by upholding the related philosophy and hence force the authorities to mind their demand and solve their problems. Thus debates about social issues are often also the ones about philosophical questions. People interpret social issues through the debate about philosophy. 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 indulged themselves in the discussion 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  

      That means that philosophy presupposes another domain in which people operate the state. A philosopher does not hold any state power, but he provides a spiritual guide to the operation of the state that anyone may be willing to obey if his philosophical idea meets the demand of the times. If his philosophical idea meets the demand of the times, the masses may be willing to embrace it.

      The above description means that unlike the operation of a tribe, the operation of a state depends on two kinds of resources from the beginning to the end. One kind of resource is coercion used by the authorities of the state. Another kind of resource is value utilized by the authorities of the state. The value is 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 value 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 either. 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 the primitive society the chief, acting as the 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 in the state. This is because the state takes shape in the process of the development of both spoken and written communication and people also 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 is a phenomenon occurring in a civilized society. This means that there are two different ways of operating the state. The government operates the state by 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 by 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  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 law work in different ways, but they also require each other to be cooperative.

A law may force people into accepting the order represented by it with coercion. But philosophical thought may make each make “law” by himself in his mind by way of 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 in mind 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 in mind by people is also a power. This power is sometimes able to overwhelm the law made by the state if the “law” made in mind by people is firmly implemented by people, 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 succeed as history tells us that in the confrontation between the law implemented with force and the “law” made by the people in their own mind by themselves, the former may remain intact in a period of time, but it will not be able to override the latter in the end because the latter will become a belief after the people make their “law” in their mind by themselves for a long period of time 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 as a result of their own initiative. For the purpose of belief, the masses will spare no effort in their pursuit and finally generate the social power irresistible by anybody, including any power holder. 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 which 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 for it to  be conquered by anybody utilizing the language of command and relying on coercion. Describing the power of idea in the course in which  the changes of  ideas  led to the occurrence of waves of political changes and hence the progresses of civilization 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 inRussiaowe 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 value stemming from this philosophy. The state is usually active while the society is usually passive. However, when a philosophy becomes a spiritual guide of the masses 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 even become a tremendous force overwhelming all political forces that oppose it. The evolvement 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 ahead with the progress of those states. Philosophy may be suppressed by power if philosophy conflicts with political power. Yet, 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 though people might come under the influence of an idea such as the idea deriving from primitive religion in a tribe in the context of spoken communication, the influence of the idea was weak. But in a state people come under the influence of a value stemming from a philosophy created by people chiefly in the context of written communication. The influence of the value 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 baptism of 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 larger extent the operation of the state depends on the operation of these values instead of the use of coercion. These values guide effectively 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 value of liberalism today. Each Western state also holds the similar value. If an issue of human rights infringement arises in a certain Eastern state, major Western states will come forward to call 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 a value stemming from a philosophical thought created by the same batch of philosophers. Though they are different states, they are, in some sense, under the spiritual leadership of the same batch of philosophers. They share the same value that sometimes works like an invisible command issued to all of them. When the majority of the citizens embrace a leading value, the citizens will always enjoy the freedoms of speech, press and assembly because exercising their freedoms, they tend not to express any opinion against the fundamental principle of operating the state just due to the fact that people operate the state according to the same value. 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, press and assembly. By contrast, the authorities of some Eastern states in the world do not hold a value embraced by all the citizens. They usually do not accept the value of Western democracy. As a result, the authorities curb the freedoms of speech, press and assembly in these states because if citizens are allowed to have all freedoms of speech, press and assembly, citizens may express different opinions that may be in conflict with the fundamental principle of operating the state and hence may threaten the rule of the authorities.

So it is evident that if a state does not adopt a value embraced by all or the majority, the citizens of this state will largely be unable to enjoy the freedoms of speech, press and assembly. If the value, adopted by the authorities, is originally embraced by all people, but later a portion of the people or even the majority of the people relinquish this value and turn to embracing another value, the authorities may grant the freedoms of speech, press and assembly to the citizens in the beginning, but restrict these freedoms in the end because when the value, upheld by the authorities, becomes unacceptable by the masses and hence inapplicable, the authorities will turn to relying on the use of coercion to maintain their rule to a greater extent. So if the citizens of a despotic state hope to enjoy the freedoms of speech, press and assembly, they need to find a proper and right value first. Without a value or philosophical thought 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, press and assembly. In other words, the freedoms of speech, press and assembly belong forever to the citizens in the state under the guidance of a value embraced by all or at least the majority. Here we cannot help thinking of the issue of constitution because people usually set forth the provisions of the freedoms of speech, press and assembly in the constitution. That is, nearly all the states have made the constitution so far. Yet some states do not always guarantee civil rights though there is a constitution defining the grant of those civil rights to the citizens. Besides, we see that no free election is held in some states though the constitution requires the election of the officials. We also see that the representative body is a rubber stamp in some states though there is a constitution defining the representative body as the supreme authoritative body of the state. We also see that the masses, joining a peaceful demonstration on the street, are sometimes brutally put down in some states though the constitution defines that citizens have the right of waging a demonstration. In short, the constitution is a mere formality in some states. People may ask one question about these phenomena. My answer is that,  studying the overall situation, we see that the reason that the provisions of the constitution about freedoms and rights of citizens are really implemented in good faith in Western states today is that there is an invisible supreme authority behind the constitution that all the citizens, including the power holder himself, are willing to unconditionally comply with all the time. This authority is the value accepted by all. As all the citizens accept this value, they obey the constitution made under the guidance of this value. By contrast, if a state has no value accepted by all, the government usually does not carry out the provisions of the constitution about the freedoms and rights of the citizens because the ruler fears that if he gives the freedoms and rights of citizens to all, the value, held by himself or the ruling group, will be replaced. So again the constitution,  reflecting the spirit of liberty and democracy, only belongs forever to the people   living in a state in which all, or at least the majority, accept and uphold the value guiding the operation of the state.

      A sort of human thought has been 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 situation also 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 by reasoning. Justice always finally 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 in relation to any state, they contribute reasonable ideas to humans. True, rational philosophical ideas are those that can be applied in any state. Although some philosophical ideas, contributed by some philosophers, prove inapplicable or incorrect because of the misjudgment made by the philosophers, philosophical ideas, selected and embraced by the masses, are usually useful and these philosophical ideas are usually not 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 restriction 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. They communicate over a long span of time. Then philosophy functions in a special process of linguistic communication. Specifically, philosophy only functions in the long run. As such, we see the fact 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 for the organization of the state― such as the political linguistic communication that issues a decree, the political linguistic communication may come under the influence of the existing social linguistic communication―linguistic communication for the organization of the society ―that creates philosophy. For example, if a political decree is issued because the authorities hold an idea or a value, 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, often seen by us, is that the power holder adopts one philosophical thought as the orthodox thought before assuming the power rather than adopting it as the orthodox thought after assuming the 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 by himself and rules or operates the state with this philosophical thought though there may be some rare exceptions. In ancient times, kings or emperors claimed to have the divine right of ruling the state. They tried to legitimate their rule and ensure the longevity of their rule. Yet, although they propagated the idea of divine right, this idea might be traced to an old religious idea from the Bible or a scripture in the beginning. From  early modern times onward politicians of European states, theUnited StatesandCanadahave been advocating the thought 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 fromBritainand Rousseau and Montesquieu fromFrance. Likewise,  Lenin led the Russian Revolution leading to the overthrow of the rule of Tsar inRussiaand built the Soviet regime in the early twentieth century. He was influenced by Karl Marx, a German philosopher.

These circumstances mentioned above 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 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 value. People may extend the life cycle of the state. 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 a value that works over a long period of time. The practice of founding a state may also show that a human thought may prolong the life cycle of the state. If a state happens to be founded by a politician according to a value contributed mainly by this politician himself, this state tends not to have a long life cycle as the value, contributed by this politician, may not suffice to attract, or keep on influencing, the masses in a long period of time. This is because the value, contributed by a politician, may not have a systemized theory as its foundation. 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 theorists. Therefore a state, founded on the basis of a value stemming from the theory of an excellent philosopher or a batch of excellent philosophers, tends to have a long life cycle. 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 the Mainland China in the first half of the twentieth century at least partly because the value system 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 later replaced the Republic of  China in the Mainland China was founded on the basis of a value system borrowed from an influential philosopher, namely, Karl Marx. The Marxist thought commands a well-developed system of theory and proves very influential under certain historical conditions though the Marxist thought also has its own life cycle.

In a nutshell, the human thought is an undeniable variable in the operation of the state. Assuming that humans are always under the influence of their thought, the thought, chosen by them, often dictates the destiny of the state. The state always comes under the influence of a thought. Yet there are also different thoughts. Different thoughts play different roles. Some thoughts are powerful and promising while some others are not. If people adopt a powerful and promising thought, the state may be full of vitality. The state may continue to develop. This is because the thought may crucially support the subsistence of the state. Once people embrace a thought, people 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.

        That is, humans may extend the life cycle of the state. 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 the public. However, this politician is usually able to speak to his contemporaries only. For example, the president of theUnited Statesis 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 still maintains some influence after his retirement or death. Usually those former presidents lose their influence after their retirement or death. By contrast, an outstanding philosopher may not only communicate with his contemporaries but also communicate with the future generations because the philosophical books, written by him, communicate with the future generations on his behalf if his philosophy is valuable and interesting to the future generations. That means that a politician is, in fact, a operator who operates the state over a short span of time because he merely holds power over a period of time, whereas a philosopher is a spiritual guide who provides a spiritual guide to the operation of the state over a long span of time because although he may also propagate his philosophy over a short span of time, some other people may propagate his philosophy over a long span of time. If a politician speaks to the people, his idea and proposal are usually restricted to the current affairs and hence applicable 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, in general, applicable over a comparatively long span of time. He offers his philosophy that can 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 the Roman Times, was usually only able to communicate with the Romans by issuing his commands, whereas Cicero, a philosopher of the Roman Times, was perhaps able to communicate with the people of all following generations by writing his philosophical books. One late president of theUnited Stateswas perhaps only able to communicate with the American people of his times, whereas one late political philosopher of theUnited   Statesmight be able to communicate with many following generations of Americans. For instance, 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 since his death. In other words, when a president fulfills his duty, he will make speeches or write articles. His presentations usually apply to the then situation. By contrast, the thoughts, created by philosophers, subsist in a long period of time so long as they are reasonable, applicable and valuable. A politician is present in 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 philosophy created by them influences the operation of the state. Armed with  philosophy, those who operate the state become far-sighted, intelligent and reasonable. They will not only serve the interest of the present but also accommodate  the interest in the future when making a decision in the operation of the state. They will uphold a principle in the operation of the state in the interest of all or the vast majority in the long run. They will pursue and maintain a value in the long run. They will have a long-term spiritual pursuit. That means that a state goes on to subsist while a new generation emerges. Though a new generation will grow and the old generation will pass away, the state may continue to subsist and function in the same principle. If one generation passes away, the following generations may continue to carry out the cause of the preceding generation because the same philosophy may keep on functioning over a long period of time.

       All above descriptions indicate that philosophers offer their philosophical thoughts to address the issues faced by people over a long period of time. The subject matters of the philosophical books written by the philosophers, or the subject matters of the lectures given by the philosophers, are usually about the fundamental issues of the human society, including the issues addressed in a metaphysical method. Since these issues are fundamental, they are faced by people of many times. 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 the ones 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, economy and society may not be read in all the periods of time. If we assume that all the books about philosophy, politics, economy and society provide knowledge to the power holder operating the state as well as the masses accepting the power holder’s operation of the state, the books of politics, economy and society, particularly, the books about the current politics, economy 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, knowledge, provided by those books about politics, economy and society, may no longer fit in with the situation. But people may still read the philosophical books all the time 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 the books about politics, economy and society, particularly, the books about the current political, economic, and social situations. For example, people always face the issues about 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 only fit in with a certain period of time. This means that, generally speaking, philosophical books perform the communication of a long period of time. For example, people keep on reading the books by Plato and Aristotle. This means that the communication, started by Plato and Aristotle more than two thousand years ago, still continues today. If some philosophical books provide a spiritual guide, this 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  

On the other hand, long-distance communication, performed by philosophers, also functions on a large scale. My reasoning is that people spread philosophy while they extend the reach of communication. Thus, citizens may embrace a philosophy that comes from outside the state and this philosophy functions in the operation of the state on a large scale later. Philosophy, adopted by people in the operation of the state, may be the achievement of human civilization made by humans from another state. Philosophy, embraced by a state, may be a common asset of humans. Philosophy, embraced by that state, may not be 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. Philosophy may presuppose the existence of linguistic communication that goes on across the borders of the state. Philosophy may contribute a value to many states if many states need it. So as many states need it, it may contribute a universal value.

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 form involving a process of communication, a portion of information receivers may remain outside the territory of a state though 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 some other nations to a varying extent. This case characterizes a state different from  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 into the era of civilization, they have formed states. When people form a state, they may embrace a value or a kind of philosophy introduced from another state if they think that the related value or philosophy is rational and applicable. They may build a state not only on the basis of the civilization created by themselves but also on the basis of the civilizations created by some other nations in the world. For example, since the rise of liberalism in Europe in early modern times, many states have been quick to embrace it. Linguistic communication is essential in this aspect. This case is more or less similar to the case of economic activities in a certain aspect. If a state adheres to its model of autarchic economy, it uses its own resources for economic growth. If a state adopts a free trade model of economy, it additionally uses the external resources for economic growth. Similarly, a state may accept the value or philosophy introduced from another state. If the value or philosophy is rational and applicable, the state may rely on it 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. Then philosophers spread their philosophy by using various media. They communicate with the people on a large scale. Thus many states may share spiritual resources. Then, these philosophers may even build their presence in different states. That means that philosophy moves across the borders of states. 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 any progress, other states will gain a benefit from it. All states keep abreast of the progress of civilization.

      Of course,  not all philosophies spread across the borders of the states. Not all philosophers communicate across the borders of the states when they give their philosophic lectures or write their philosophic books. When the philosophers and thinkers of ancientChinagave their lectures or wrote their books, they supposed that their listeners and readers were just Chinese. For example, when Confucius expressed his philosophical view to eulogize the feudal system represented by the ethics and rites of Zhou Dynasty (1122 -256 BC), he supposed his listeners to be Chinese because only Chinese knew the history and culture of Zhou Dynasty. His philosophy was offered to Chinese. At that time the philosophers of ancientChinaonly had 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 exceptChinaor a few neighboring states in early times. It is not only because the 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 it as it lacks a universal value that may be embraced by many states with different cultural backgrounds. However, there are indeed some other 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 so many areas in the whole 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 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 find themselves in need of learning 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, namely, the times of the globalization of their economic life. They were determined to communicate with people in many states. For instance, writing his book A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau writes that:

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

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

In other words,  designing their process of communication as a process of communication with the peoples living in many states, philosophers have been trying to offer a value 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 been even committed to contributing a value or a thought universally applicable for all states, namely, the universal value or thought. Thus many states have gained a benefit from their contribution. This trend can be traced back to the times of Enlightenment movement, which is also often a factor leading to a change in the society and sometimes even leading to a revolution in history.  So de Tocqueville writes that:

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 that  “ 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. Thus, since then humans have been able to highlight and revitalize the value or the thought of a state because the state is able to import a value or a thought across the borders. Whenever people, living in a state, try to import a value or a philosophical thought from another state, there is a reason. People will not import a value or a thought from another state unless they need it. For example, China imported Marxism from Germany through Russia in the twentieth century because at that time a significant portion of the Chinese intellectuals questioned, criticized and dumped the Chinese traditional value, namely,  Confucianism in the wake of a state crisis caused by both the internal social turmoil and the external pressure such as the pressure put by various foreign powers on China. Marxism has functioned as the core political value of the state called the People’s Republic ofChinafor a long period of time. One can also find similar situations in many other states in Asia, Africa and Latin America that have embraced the value of Western democracy offered by some philosophers from Europe and theUnited Statessince 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 a 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 their activities of 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, forming all nations, may have something in common. They may have the same human nature. They may have the same sympathies. They may have the idea of morals which are similar in essence. They may have the same basic knowledge of the society as a result of an interpretation given by someone to the other. They may have similar wishes in improving their surviving and living conditions. They may have the capability of finding out their common idea in the operation of their society and state despite that they have some different ideas in some aspects.  Though they may have their own specific traditional culture, some specific ways of thinking indigenous to their specific society, certain specific experience in relation to the growth of their nation, and certain specific form of their belief and so on and so forth, they may have the same logic of thinking and they may have the same human reason. That is, all nations use the same logic and have the same reason. 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.

            In the meantime, I argue that certain differences of nations in culture and in some other aspects 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, such as the peoples of South Asia or West Asia or East Asia, all have created their own schools of philosophy. Those schools of philosophy often fit in with the construction of a social hierarchy and the formation of an agricultural society. In some sense those 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 hence let it substitute 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 Europeans through Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century, prove quite different. As European intellectuals came up with a series of the philosophical ideas advocating freedom, equality, fraternity and democracy respectively 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 heralded as the one in which all enjoy freedoms, all are equal, all love all and all are the sovereigns of the state, namely, a society that makes the final emancipation of human beings possible. As those philosophical ideas are unique, rational, and also realistic, they are actually not only badly needed by the peoples of European states but also needed and vehemently welcomed by the peoples of the states of all other regions. As the states outside Europe throughout the world lack those philosophical ideas, people disseminate them throughout the world. As those philosophical ideas advocate the construction of the society distinct from the traditional society dubbed the agricultural society or the feudal society, they force the fundamental change of the traditional society and this situation culminates in the growth of a new society everywhere if in tandem. Those philosophical ideas just reflect logic and reason.

As this new society requires that all the members of the society have citizenship including voting right, people build democratic states. Citizens have the freedoms of speech, assembly and religious belief and so on. As people have abolished the privileges of feudalism, the economy of commodities thrives and paves a way for the development of capitalism. Then people hasten 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. No state is not under the impact of those philosophical ideas if to a varying extent.

While politicians usually work within the territory of the state, philosophers may reach every corner of the world because philosophical ideas created by them can move across the borders of the state. As noted earlier, politicians from all Western countries usually have the same idea about human rights, freedom and democracy. They have their own nationalities. They have their own national backgrounds. They may even speak different languages. Yet all of them accept the spiritual guidance of the same batch of philosophers. Theses philosophers may include Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesqueue and Kant. These philosophers guide relevant states in their advancement. If a state is active in embracing rational philosophical ideas from abroad, this state may make a progress along with all other advanced states. All the states are no longer spiritually insulated from all other states. 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 the progress of 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; please also see Giovanni Sartori, The Theory of Democracy Revisited (Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers, Inc., 1987), 104.

  2. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Grammar, edited by Rush Rhees and translated by Anthony Kenny (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974), 7.

  3. Ibid., 41.

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

  5. Alexis de Tocqueville, The Old Regime and French Revolution, translated by 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.