Philosophical Theories of the State - Ping (Translation of Famous Works)

Author: (English) Bosanquet, translated by Wang Shujun
Publisher:
Publishing Date:
Features: This book attempts to explain the fundamental concepts of what I consider true social philosophy. It critiques and interprets the theories of some famous thinkers, merely to present these ideas clearly. This is the sole purpose of this book; moreover, with the exception of serving as examples, I have intentionally avoided discussing practical applications. I am convinced that a deeper understanding of the basic principles would indeed greatly help in handling practical problems more reasonably. However, in my view, to achieve a deeper understanding, one must set aside the actual issues that spark intense factional disputes and thoroughly examine the relevant concepts. I also believe that the influence of these ideas on practical discussions, in a sense, will make such discussions deviate from philosophical theory. The principles I propose can eliminate many factional biases, draw attention to the clues for understanding facts, and thus regard some practical "social" problems as life and spiritual issues that can only be addressed through profound experience and methods adapted to their subtlety. As a result, such discussions will be given greater importance—if one may say so—and will achieve the independence and thoroughness befitting their significance. The work of social reformers should not be seen as merely subordinate to sociological theories, just as the work of doctors should not be seen as merely subordinate to physiology. Such specialization does not hinder the transformation between facts and ideas in theory and practice. On the contrary, it often promotes such transformation by increasing the complementarity of both sides and enhancing rational communication between them. Philosophical readers will see that the essence of the theory proposed here can be found not only in the works of Plato and Aristotle but also in those of many modern writers, especially Hegel, T.H. Green, Bradley, and Wallace. Now, for someone who cannot surpass these predecessors to write another book in the same way, readers may well question the justification for doing so. On this point, I would like to briefly explain. First, it goes without saying that discussing issues with any generation requires the use of contemporary language; I might even say that the greatness of a tradition deserves timely attention. However, particularly regarding Green, although I follow many of his arguments, two special reasons make me want to express my independent views. One is my attempt to apply recently proposed psychological concepts to the theory of state coercion and the theory of real will or public will, and to explain the relationship between social philosophy and social psychology. Regarding mimetic theory—which this book does not allow me to discuss here—I will briefly address it in an article to be published in the journal The Mind. Another reason is that I am convinced the era when thinkers like Green carefully weighed the importance of the state to its members has passed. I discuss this issue in the main text of this book (Chapter 10); but I want to emphasize that I believe our increasing experience with the various "classes" in society proves that the essence of happiness and character is the same throughout the social unity. I suspect any doubt about this stems from insufficient social experience. There is something that seems certainly worth noting: while the adverse factors affecting the poorer classes in the nation are now receiving the attention they deserve, allowing for remediation, this has instead caused serious confusion. The zeal of the advocates has led them to denigrate the very people they intend to protect. When they prove that under certain conditions the character of the "poor" is not unusual, they overlook the fact that, generally speaking, the "poor" are no different from others. The very important distinction between poor and immoral families is ignored. Moreover, it seems possible that, if certain crime-ridden areas are excluded, immoral families among the poor are no more numerous than among the rich. Some pretend to be familiar with the situation, arbitrarily using terms like "slums" and "ghettos" to describe areas inhabited by tens of thousands of respectable citizens. It will surely astonish our descendants that our democratic age has blurred the long-standing tradition of believing in the character of the poor. Earlier theories undoubtedly contained some falsehoods, but not to the extent of today’s, which are far removed from the facts; now is the time to bring the truth they contain back into focus. I must repeatedly state that I raise these points not to provoke debate. None of these statements contain anything that a serious scholar cannot accept. I merely wish to maintain my view that the freedom of the real will and the greater self is a matter of universal concern, not just the hopes and fantasies of the "educated." Indeed, although a student who neglects cultural education will become uncultured, one must never forget that, in today’s context, citizens who earn a living through manual labor possess valuable intellectual elements that the cultural class largely lacks. Therefore, I believe that no matter how incomplete this book may be, it will never lack a connection between its subject matter and the ordinary lives of people in various countries. Sociologists should avoid mere optimism but should not fear giving full importance to their object of study. These half-practical goals have unfortunately led social philosophers to adopt a tendency, if not hostile, then indifferent, attitude toward their subject matter. They do not believe in reality as much as botanists believe in plants or biologists in life processes. As a result, the achievements of social theory have been poor. No scholar can truly evaluate the object of their research, which they often defend. Except for Hegel and Bradley, all major writers have, to some extent, held this attitude. Therefore, I dare say that none of them can fully grasp the greatness and perfection of life from the various aspects of ordinary practical life. Others adopt a different attitude, which does not mean advocating ignorance, nor does it mean obstructing the development of a true social logic. They are convinced that an actual society is an incomparably more advanced creation than a steam engine, a plant, or an animal; and they believe that using their best thoughts to analyze this society is not excessive. Those who are not enthusiastic about studying the actual society will not be enthusiastic about studying a better society, even if they have one. "Your America is here, not elsewhere."