philosophy of right-第44章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


existing　state　has　anything　to　do　with　reasons；　these　reasons　are　culled　from　the　forms　of　the　law
authoritative　within　it。　

The　philosophical　treatment　of　these　topics　is　concerned　only　with　their　inward　side；　with　the
thought　of　their　concept。　The　merit　of　Rousseau's　contribution　to　the　search　for　this　concept　is　that；
by　adducing　the　will　as　the　principle　of　the　state；　he　is　adducing　a　principle　which　has　thought　both
for　its　form　and　its　content；　a　principle　indeed　which　is　thinking　itself；　not　a　principle；　like
gregarious　instinct；　for　instance；　or　divine　authority；　which　has　thought　as　its　form　only。
Unfortunately；　however；　as　Fichte　did　later；　he　takes　the　will　only　in　a　determinate　form　as　the
individual　will；　and　he　regards　the　universal　will　not　as　the　absolutely　rational　element　in　the　will；　but
only　as　a　'general'　will　which　proceeds　out　of　this　individual　will　as　out　of　a　conscious　will。　The
result　is　that　he　reduces　the　union　of　individuals　in　the　state　to　a　contract　and　therefore　to
something　based　on　their　arbitrary　wills；　their　opinion；　and　their　capriciously　given　express　consent；
and　abstract　reasoning　proceeds　to　draw　the　logical　inferences　which　destroy　the　absolutely　divine
principle　of　the　state；　together　with　its　majesty　and　absolute　authority。　For　this　reason；　when　these
abstract　conclusions　came　into　power；　they　afforded　for　the　first　time　in　human　history　the
prodigious　spectacle　of　the　overthrow　of　the　constitution　of　a　great　actual　state　and　its　complete
reconstruction　ab　initio　on　the　basis　of　pure　thought　alone；　after　the　destruction　of　all　existing　and
given　material。　The　will　of　its　re…founders　was　to　give　it　what　they　alleged　was　a　purely　rational
basis；　but　it　was　only　abstractions　that　were　being　used；　the　Idea　was　lacking；　and　the　experiment
ended　in　the　maximum　of　frightfulness　and　terror。　

Confronted　with　the　claims　made　for　the　individual　will；　we　must　remember　the　fundamental
conception　that　the　objective　will　is　rationality　implicit　or　in　conception；　whether　it　be　recognised
or　not　by　individuals；　whether　their　whims　be　deliberately　for　it　or　not。　We　must　remember　that　its
opposite；　i。e。　knowing　and　willing；　or　subjective　freedom　（the　only　thing　contained　in　the　principle
of　the　individual　will）　comprises　only　one　moment；　and　therefore　a　one…sided　moment；　of　the　Idea
of　the　rational　will；　i。e。　of　the　will　which　is　rational　solely　because　what　it　is　implicitly；　that　it　also　is
explicitly。　

The　opposite　to　thinking　of　the　state　as　something　to　be　known　and　apprehended　as　explicitly
rational　is　taking　external　appearances　…　i。e。　contingencies　such　as　distress；　need　for　protection；
force；　riches；　&c。　…　not　as　moments　in　the　state's　historical　development；　but　as　its　substance。　Here
again　what　constitutes　the　guiding　thread　of　discovery　is　the　individual　in　isolation　…　not；　however；
even　so　much　as　the　thought　of　this　individuality；　but　instead　only　empirical　individuals；　with
attention　focused　on　their　accidental　characteristics；　their　strength　and　weakness；　riches　and
poverty；　&c。　This　ingenious　idea　of　ignoring　the　absolute　infinity　and　rationality　in　the　state　and
excluding　thought　from　apprehension　of　its　inward　nature　has　assuredly　never　been　put　forward　in
such　an　unadulterated　form　as　in　Herr　von　Haller's　Restauration　der　Staatswissenschaft。　I　say
'unadulterated'；　because　in　all　other　attempts　to　grasp　the　essence　of　the　state；　no　matter　on　what
one…sided　or　superficial　principles；　this　very　intention　of　comprehending　the　state　rationally　has
brought　with　it　thoughts；　i。e。　universal　determinations。　Herr　von　Haller；　however；　with　his　eyes
open；　has　not　merely　renounced　the　rational　material　of　which　the　state　consists；　as　well　as　the
form　of　thought；　but　he　has　even　gone　on　with　passionate　fervour　to　inveigh　against　the　form　and
the　material　so　set　aside。　Part　of　what　Herr　von　Haller　assures　us　is　the　'widespread'　effect　of　his
principles。　This　Restauration　undoubtedly　owes　to　the　fact　that；　in　his　exposition；　he　has
deliberately　dispensed　with　thought　altogether；　and　has　deliberately　kept　his　whole　book　all　of　a
piece　with　its　lack　of　thought。　For　in　this　way　he　has　eliminated　the　confusion　and　disorder　which
lessen　the　force　of　an　exposition　where　the　accidental　is　treated　along　with　hints　of　the　substantial；
where　the　purely　empirical　and　external　are　mixed　with　a　reminiscence　of　the　universal　and
rational；　and　where　in　the　midst　of　wretched　inanities　the　reader　is　now　and　again　reminded　of　the
loftier　sphere　of　the　infinite。　For　the　same　reason　again　his　exposition　is　consistent。　He　takes　as　the
essence　of　the　state；　not　what　is　substantive　but　the　sphere　of　accident；　and　consistency　in　dealing
with　a　sphere　of　that　kind　amounts　to　the　complete　inconsistency　of　utter　thoughtlessness　which
jogs　along　without　looking　behind；　and　is　just　as　much　at　home　now　with　the　exact　opposite　of
what　it　approved　a　moment　ago。　

Addition：　The　state　in　and　by　itself　is　the　ethical　whole；　the　actualisation　of　freedom；　and　it　is　an
absolute　end　of　reason　that　freedom　should　be　actual。　The　state　is　mind　on　earth　and　consciously
realising　itself　there。　In　nature；　on　the　other　hand；　mind　actualises　itself　only　as　its　own　other；　as
mind　asleep。　Only　when　it　is　present　in　consciousness；　when　it　knows　itself　as　a　really　existent
object；　is　it　the　state。　In　considering　freedom；　the　starting…point　must　be　not　individuality；　the　single
self…consciousness；　but　only　the　essence　of　self…consciousness；　for　whether　man　knows　it　or　not；
this　essence　is　externally　realised　as　a　self…subsistent　power　in　which　single　individuals　are　only
moments。　The　march　of　God　in　the　world；　that　is　what　the　state　is。　The　basis　of　the　state　is　the
power　of　reason　actualising　itself　as　will。　In　considering　the　Idea　of　the　state；　we　must　not　have　our
eyes　on　particular　states　or　on　particular　institutions。　Instead　we　must　consider　the　Idea；　this　actual
God；　by　itself。　On　some　principle　or　other；　any　state　may　be　shown　to　be　bad；　this　or　that　defect
may　be　found　in　it；　and　yet；　at　any　rate　if　one　of　the　mature　states　of　our　epoch　is　in　question；　it　has
in　it　the　moments　essential　to　the　existence　of　the　state。　But　since　it　is　easier　to　find　defects　than　to
understand　the　affirmative；　we　may　readily　fall　into　the　mistake　of　looking　at　isolated　aspects　of　the
state　and　so　forgetting　its　inward　organic　life。　The　state　is　no　ideal　work　of　art；　it　stands　on　earth
and　so　in　the　sphere　of　caprice；　chance；　and　error；　and　bad　behaviour　may　disfigure　it　in　many
respects。　But　the　ugliest　of　men；　or　a　criminal；　or　an　invalid；　or　a　cripple；　is　still　always　a　living　man。
The　affirmative；　life；　subsists　despite　his　defects；　and　it　is　this　affirmative　factor　which　is　our　theme
here。　

Footnote：　I　have　described　the　book　sufficiently　to　show　that　it　is　of　an　original　kind。　There　might　be
something　noble　in　the　author's　indignation　by　itself；　since　it　was　kindled　by　the　false　theories；　mentioned
above；　emanating　principally　from　Rousseau；　and　especially　by　the　attempt　to　realise　them　in　practice。　But　to
save　himself　from　these　theories；　Herr　von　Haller　has　gone　to　the　other　extreme　by　dispensing　with　thought
altogether　and　consequently　it　cannot　be　said　that　there　is　anything　of　intrinsic　value　in　his　virulent　hatred　of
all　laws　and　legislation；　of　all　expressly　and　legally　determinate　rights。　The　hatred　of　law；　of　right　made
determinate　in　law；　is　the　shibboleth　whereby　fanaticism；　flabby…mindedness；　and　the　hypocrisy　of　good
intentions　are　clearly　and　infallibly　recognised　for　what　they　are；　disguise　themselves　as　they　may。　

Originality　like　Herr　von　Haller's　is　always　a　curious　phenomenon；　and　for　those　of　my　readers　who　are　not　yet
acquainted　with　his　book　I　will　quote　a　few　specimen　passages。　This　is　how　he　lays　down　his　most　important
basic　proposition：　'Just　as；　in　the　inorganic　world；　the　greater　dislodges　the　less　and　the　mighty　the　weak　。。。。　so
in　the　animal　kingdom；　and　then　amongst　human　beings；　the　same　law　appears　in　nobler'　（often；　too；　surely　in
ignobler？）　'forms'；　and　'this；　therefore；　is　the　eternal；　unalterable；　ordinance　of　God；　that　the　mightier　rules；　must
rule；　and　will　always　rule'。　It　is　clear　enough　from　this；　let　alone　from　what　follows；　in　what　sense　'might'　is　taken
here。　It　is　not　the　might　of　justice　and　ethics；　but　only　the　irrational　power　of　brute　force。　Herr　von　Haller　then
goes　on　to　support　this　doctrine　on　various　grounds；　amongst　them　that　'nature　with　amazing　wisdom　has　so
ordered　it　that　the　mere　sense　of　personal　superiority　irresistibly　ennobles　the　character　and　encourages　the
development　of　just　those　virtues　which　are　most　necessary　for　dealing　with　subordinates'。　He　asks　with　a
great　elaboration　of　undergraduate　rhetoric　＇ibid。＇　'whether　it　is　the　strong　or　the　weak　in　the　kingdom　of
science　who　more　misuse　their　trust　and　their　authority　in　order　to　achieve　their　petty　selfish　ends　and　the　ruin
of　the　credulous；　whether　to　be　a　past　master　in　legal　learning　is　not　to　be　a　pettifogger；　a　leguleius；　one　who
cheats　the　hopes　of　unsuspecting　clients；　who　makes　white　black　and　black　white；　who　misapplies　the　law　and
makes　it　a　vehicle　for　wrongdoing；　who　brings　to　beggary　those　who　need　his　assistance　and　tends　them　as
the　hungry　vulture　tends　the　innocent　lamb'；　&c。；　&c。　Herr　von　Haller　forgets　here　that　the　point　of　this　rhetoric
is　to　support　his　proposition　that　the　rule　of　the　mightier　is　an　everlasting　ordnance　of　God；　so　presumably　it　is
by　the　same　ordinance　that　the　vulture　rends　the　innocent　lamb；　and　that　hence　the　mighty　are　quite　right　to
treat　their　unsuspecting　clients　as　the　weak　and　to　make　use　of　knowledge　of　the　law　to　empty　their　pockets。　It
would　be　too　much；　however；　to　ask　that　two　thoughts　should　be　put　together　where　there　is　really　not　a　single
one。　

It　goes　without　saying　that　Herr　von　Haller　is　an　enemy　of　codes　of　law。　In　his　view；　the　laws　of　the　land；　are
on　the　one　hand；　in　principle　'unnecessary；　because　they　spring　self…explanatory　from　the　laws　of　nature'。　If
men　had　remained　satisfied　with　'self…explanatory'　as　the　basis　of　their　thinking；　then　they　would　have　been
spared　the　endless　labour　devoted；　since　ever　there　were　states；　to　legislation　and　legal　codes；　and　which　is
still　devoted　thereto　and　to　the　study　of　positive　law。　'On　the　other　hand；　laws　are　not　exactly　promulgated　for
private　individuals；　but　as　instructions　to　puisne　judges；　acquainting　them　with　the　will　of　the　high　court'。
Apart　from　that；　the　provision　of　law…courts　is　and　all　over　the　place）　not　a　state　duty；　but　a　favour；　help
rendered　by　the　authorities；　and　'quite　supererogatory'；　it　is　not　the　most　perfect　method　of　guaranteeing　men's
rights；　on　the　contrary；　it　is　an　insecure　and　uncertain　method；　'the　only　one　left　to　us　by　our　modern　lawyers。
They　have　reft　us　of　the　other　three　methods；　of　just　those　which　lead　most　swiftly　and　surely　to　the　goal；
those　which；　unlike　law…courts；；　friendly　nature　has　given　to　man　for　the　safeguarding　of　his　rightful　freedom'。
And　these　three　methods　are　…　what　do　you　suppose？　…　（1）　Personal　acceptance　and　inculcation　of　the　law　of
nature；　（2）　Resistance　to　wro