美国左派民主党疯狂的国家观 (中英文版)

很明显一个无视人类理性缺陷，并将它的缺陷无限放大的疯狂社会，又怎么可能是最完美、最善、最高的国家，我们就先以曾经被认为是人类文明标志的，一男一女、一夫一妻这个婚姻观念，来看看这个问题。一男一女、一夫一妻的婚姻观，原本就是宗教概念，来自于《圣经》，来自人类与上帝交流最密切的远古时期，来自神秘宇宙深处，是与永生、永恒的终极世界联系在一起的，它最符合人伦常理，经过几千年实践也证明了，它是最为美好温馨的传统习俗，是最稳定的一种社会微结构，能够保证人类的下一代健康幸福地成长。显然一男一女、一夫一妻的婚姻观并不是理性的产物，理性得不出这样的婚姻观，因为根据理性没有伤害别人既为善的原则，可以得出无数的奇谈怪状的婚姻观，如同性、乱伦、人兽婚姻等，这些结论难道不都是荒唐恐怖、骇人听闻的吗？可这些确实就是，左派思想家宣传的社会观、国家观，从人伦常理上说它疯狂一点也不为过，那他们为什么会存在呢？就在于人类理性的缺陷，从上面我们知道，如果失去了信仰，没有了神，理性确实无法否定它们的合理存在。可是今天的左派思想家却试图用有缺陷的理性，来推翻一男一女、一夫一妻这个传统的，最合理的婚姻观，推行同性、乱伦、人兽婚姻等，奇谈怪状的婚姻观，妄图用理性构建一个无神的、理性社会，也就是疯狂的、无视人伦常理的社会，这不是反人类那什么是反人类？也正因为这些，才有今天美国社会的混乱与疯狂，所以柏拉图等人的理性的、普遍的国家，根本就没有存在的基础。

可以看出，这些左派思想家本质上就是追求无神论，真正目的就是推翻上帝，以他们的理性来取代上帝，于是他们将成为人类新上帝，指引、领导人类的新生活，也使他们笼罩在被崇拜的光环、荣耀中，对于人类是否会疯狂或者毁灭，并不是他们关心的问题，这才是美国左派思想家的真实想法，这才是这些人孜孜不断追求的主要目的。一个人若不是出于自身私利，即使是不承认理性的缺陷，也会得出类似于早期的左派社会学家图尔干的结论，宗教是为了稳定人类社会的秩序而创造的，同样来自于宗教的一夫一妻、一男一女的婚姻观，也是为了人类社会的稳定而存在的，不可能去随便推翻、打破它，但这个底线对于今天的左派思想家来说，根本就不存在。

我们不仅从人伦常理上可以看到，左派思想家理性、普遍的国家观的巨大缺陷与疯狂，而且在现实生活中，我们也可以看到，这种由理性、普遍的国家观构筑的世俗国家，动荡不安的命运。人类历史上有一个社会，与美国左派政治家的追求最为接近，就是东方世俗社会，在这些国家中，宗教是遁世、归隐的，它的主要宗教佛、道，讲究修炼、无为，尽量避免与世俗社会接触，于是留下巨大的空间给世俗政府，世俗政府有着巨大的权力，对生活有着决定性的影响，这不正是左派思想家所追求的社会吗？是佛、道这样遁世宗教产生了东方世俗社会，还是世俗政府的强大压抑了宗教，从而造成了不得不遁世、归隐的佛、道，这是个先有鸡还先有蛋的问题，谁也无法回答，只能说可能是相辅相成吧。可是在东方世俗社会几千年的历史上，国家基本上以发展、高峰、崩溃这样的方式动荡不已，在改朝换代的轮回中挣扎，没有不亡的国，从来没有长盛不衰的国家，这只能说明一点，左派思想家普遍、抽象的国家观念是有问题的。

为什么呢？这是因为我们无数次论述过的，人性并不是完美的，善、理性的，人类向往善、理性，但本身却是自私、贪图享乐、贪生怕死的，人类无法抵御贪婪、堕落的诱惑，时常处于罪恶状态，这就是没有一个世俗思想家所设想的理想国，能够长久存在的原因，因为组成社会的个人时常处于罪恶状态，他们组成的社会又怎么可能处于理想状态？人如果没有制约必然走向堕落、贪婪，同样没有制约任何国家都将走向它的反面，根据阿奎那重新诠释的著名的六种政体划分，也就是，君主政体、贵族政体、民主政体，暴君政体、寡头政体、多数暴政，实际上是三种政体及它们的反面。他认为在没有教会制约的情况下，人类社会在君主制下必然产生暴君，贵族制下必然导致寡头，民主制下的结局就是多数暴政，这是无比正确的观点。其实这些在非基督教社会里，都是些习以为常的现象，在以色列的王朝中，在东方世俗社会的王权专制社会里，每一个王朝都会出现几个暴君而导致改朝换代，古希腊的民主政体同样以多数暴政而结束。阿奎那是13世纪的人，他对民主政体有这么深刻的认识，我是无法想象的，也常使我作为一个东方人羞愧无比，我实在不知我们这个东方社会在宪政距离上，离西方社会有多远。很多人总以为当代美国的政体，三权分立，互相制衡等可以永远存在下去，但是没想到阿奎那在几百年前，就如此尖锐地指出，如果没有教会的制约，任何民主政体，当然包括美国这样的政体，同样必然走向多数暴政，而且从目前的情况来看也确是如此。而在基督教社会里，无论是君主政体还是民主政体，由于人性自私、贪婪的本性，难免也磕磕碰碰，但由于教会的制约，政权的稳定性与非基督教社会不可同日而语。法国的卡佩王朝至波旁王朝之间有一千多年，虽然其间经历了瓦卢瓦王朝，但是瓦卢瓦王朝与卡佩王朝，以及波旁王朝都是表亲关系，它们之间并没有经历任何流血事件，就完成了王朝的顺利过渡。英国国王中，从威廉一世到现在的伊丽莎白女王之间，所有的国王都有血缘关系，延续了一千多年，虽然也经历了几次王位争夺战，但除了金花雀王朝的红白玫瑰之战，较为惨烈外，其他都是些局部战争，对社会基本上没有造成破坏。如果从民主政体而言，英国自光荣革命后的宪政体制，延续至今已经三百多年，美国立宪至今也有二百多年，直至今天才有出现致命的危机，而原因就是非基督教化、世俗化，这些都是古希腊民主制短短的四十年黄金岁月，无法比拟的。所以你不得不佩服阿奎那思想的穿透力，不得不佩服真正思想家的伟大

从这些历史经验也可以看到，国家、教会这种两头蛇并存的社会结构，能够很好地促成社会的稳定，它的本质原因就在于我们论述过的，基督教的人性二重论可以很好地解决，人类自私天性与传统美德之间的矛盾，所以建立在这种人性二重论之上的，政教分离的基督教国家理论，同样是极其合理的。基督教认为人性是贪婪堕落的，人带着原罪来到这个世界，天然倾向于犯罪、淫荡、物质享乐，这些是真实可信的，与经验主义的结论是相同的，与现实生活也是相符的。基督教又与理性主义一样认为，人类可以拥有美德，同时认为这些美德是，残留在人类内心深处的伊甸园的美好回忆，是天堂的印象。只是人类由于原罪，已经失去了获得这些美德的内在动力，人类已经无法通过自己的努力获得美德，基督教认为要重新获得美德，只通过上帝的恩宠，通过信仰。在这点上基督教，与任何世俗的道德哲学都截然的不同，经验主义试图将美德建立在利益之上，而理性主义试图通过并不存在的，对理性的追求，来获得美德，从与经验主义、理性主义的对比中可以看到，基督教与世俗道德哲学的最大不同就在于，多了一个信仰因素，并相信只有通过信仰才可以获得美德。基督教相信上帝、宇宙神秘力量的存在，相信人类可以来到一个永生、永恒，超越死亡、神圣、美好的终极世界，它认为美德是终极世界的神圣秩序，人类只有践行这些美德才能够来到终极世界、才能够获得拯救进入天堂，而这一切都是建立在信仰之上的，所以信仰，也就成为人类摆脱利益、物质享受、荣誉虚荣的诱惑，趋向道德的动力，而且是唯一动力。于是人们在信仰的驱使下走向道德，信仰也就成为人类自私的天性与传统美德之间的粘合剂，由此也可见宗教信仰的魔力，对社会的巨大良性作用。

基督教社会根据这种，建立在人性的二重性上的国家理论认为，世俗政府与基督教会应当分离地同时存在，世俗政府是为了贪婪堕落的人性而存在的，它是物质的、享乐的、现实的，它手持的是上帝的物质之剑，基督教会是为了信仰而存在，它是精神的、超越的、道德的，它手握着上帝的精神之剑，他们认为一个正常的社会二者是不可分离、缺一不可的，这两者关系有如二头蛇一般，互相帮助、互相提携。由于基督教道德观，将人类追求物质享乐与道德高尚，这两个矛盾的人性都综合考虑在内，并将它们分离处理，形成两个不同的系统，国家与教会，让它们互相督促、互相监督，避免各自的缺点，所以基督教社会的国家是非常稳定有序的。而且美国建国后的历史同样证明了，代表信仰、精神的教会应该尽量占据主导地位，这样的社会才最为强大、最为繁荣，也就是奉行国家不得干涉教会事务、教会却可以干涉国家事务，这种更先进的政教分离观的社会最为合理。而世俗哲学家的国家理论，不承认人性是贪婪堕落的，他们相信人类是理性的，相信人类通过自身，就可以达到至善至美的最高境界，可以达到最理想的国家，所以他们的国家理论中，没有教会这种代表信仰、精神力量的存在，也就根本无法对人性进行制约，所以历史上从来没有出现过，柏拉图等人所设想的理想国家，最接近他们设想的东方世俗社会，也是动荡不安的，离他们的理想十万八千里。

As discussed before, the traditional separation of politics and religion, like two-heads snakes, was once the best social structure in human history. The church’s restriction on the state prevented the state from becoming an autocratic Leviathan monster, while the state counterbalanced the church. Thus, the church was exempt from the barbarism and ignorance of the unity of church and state so that human society could develop steadily and orderly. However, there is a different scene in all non-Christian societies in human history. They always regarded the state as an ideal, the highest form of human existence, such as Plato’s ideal state. Plato believed that the state is the embodiment of good, the perfect expression of rationality. Aristotle also believed that human history has gone through several stages: family, workshop, and city-states. And city-states are the perfect formation, the embodiment of Justice. Hegel believed that “the nation is the highest form of objective spirit, the realization of ethical ideas, and an absolute self-contained rational thing. The basis of the nation is a will that can realize its own rational force. In his view, the nation is free, eternal, and absolute, the realization of the ethical spirit and independence of human will. It is the highest developmental stage and organization of the human community. Human society will eventually develop to the national stage.” Putting aside these obscure philosophical languages, in our popular words, Hegel believed that the nation is the final and best result of human rational thinking on human society and the final and best existing form of human society. It is free, eternal, and absolute, not subject to human will; each of us can only submit to the nation. Hegel’s view is actually very familiar to us; moreover, all these are well-known facts. We can also know what today’s nation theories of our secular society have inherited from this. The above is only a slight mention of several representative state theories in non-Christian society. There are many others, for example, Confucianism’s rule of the sage king. Confucianists believe that a country should be led by an emperor who knows the truth of Confucianism; that is to say, a country led by a sage king is the perfect society. In fact, the nation theories all the above are very similar. They consider the nation the perfect, best, and highest form of human existence. But it is a pity that this great and lofty ideal nation has never been realized in human history. Countries have never existed in this ideal way envisioned by secular thinkers.

While these philosophers are boasting, in fact, their concept of the state has been deeply imprinted by atheism. The abstraction they think about is not genuine universal and abstract, but just atheistic universality and abstraction. The universality and abstraction they talk about have excluded God. For thousands of years in human society, has a Godless and atheistic society really existed? Even in the most secular society, there is primitive ghost worship, fetishism, etc. How universal and abstract is to exclude the most common God in human society? You may think that I am quibbling, but Schopenhauer and others had used Kant’s antinomy to refute Kant’s own morality. Kant’s moral philosophy is rationalism, which thinks humans can naturally get morality. However, Kant’s antinomy holds that reason is indeed defective. It is powerless in dealing with the ultimate problems of infinity and finiteness, God and godlessness. Therefore, Kant’s rationalism is flawed. (Friends who want to know more can refer to Chapter 2 of this book or search Kant’s antinomy and Schopenhauer’s criticism of Kant’s morality.)

Universality and abstraction do have practical meaning in the discussion of ordinary matters. The reason is also the ability of humans to be different from animals. However, in the ultimate issue, the reason is powerless. We cannot abstract and generalize from God because God is one, Infinite, universal, and all. The reason is originally under God but wants to transcend God; how is this possible? Thus, How does a universal world exist without God? How does a godless morality exist? I have stated that you can’t find a universal world without gods, fairies, and fetishism in reality. That is, universality cannot surpass God, and the concept of God is universal. So even, In the end, Kant had to admit that “reason is flawed and not enough to rely on completely.” therefore, he introduced the concept of God into his philosophy. It is not my sophistry, but that godless world doesn’t exist. It is impossible and absurd for reasons to surpass God. The crazy American leftist thinkers ignore the flaws of human reason, ignore that there has never existed an atheistic society, and ignore the reality that the rational ideal state of Plato and others in human history has never been realized. They take the inference from flawed human reason as the discipline of human society, use it to replace God and religious beliefs, and build a country. What a terrible thing it is? How ridiculous and terrifying will the consequences follow this? And how much madness and chaos will be dragged into human society? Human society will eventually collapse with it.

Is such a crazy society the most perfect, the best, and the highest nation? Which ignores and magnifies the defects of human reason infinitely. Let’s look at the marriage concept of monogamy, a man and a woman, once considered the symbol of human civilization. The marriage concept of monogamy, a man and a woman, is originally a religious concept. It comes from the “Bible,” from ancient ages when humans and God communicated most closely, and from the depths of the mysterious universe. It is connected with the ultimate world of eternal life and eternity, most in line with the common sense of human ethics. Through thousands of years, the practice has proved that it is the best and warm traditional custom and the most stable social microstructure, which can ensure the healthy and happy growth of the next generation. Obviously, the marriage concept of monogamy, a man and a woman is not the result of reason; reason cannot generate such a concept of marriage. According to the principle of rationality, no harm to others is good, so we can draw countless strange concepts of marriage, such as the marriage of homosexuals, the marriage in Incests, the marriage between humans and animals, etc. Aren’t these conclusions all absurd and terrifying? It is not an exaggeration to say that they are crazy from the common sense of human ethics. They just lie in the flaws of human reason. However, these will prevail in the society and state promoted by leftist thinkers. Then why can this society and state exist? only because human reason has flaws. We know from the above that if faith is lost and God is gone, reason cannot deny these crazy marriage concepts of rational existence. However, today’s leftist thinkers are trying to use the flawed reason to overthrow the traditional and most reasonable marriage concepts of monogamy, a man and a woman. They promote strange concepts of marriage, such as homosexual marriage, incest marriage, and human-animal marriage. They use reason to build an atheistic and rational society, which is crazy and ignores the common sense of human ethics. If this is not anti-human, then what is anti-human? It is actually because of this that American society falls into chaos and madness today? Therefore, the universal, abstract, atheistic, rational states of Plato and others have no basis for existence at all.

It can be seen that these leftist thinkers are essentially pursuing atheism, and their real aim is to overthrow God and replace God with their rationality. Then they will become the new God, guide and lead a new life of humans, making them enveloped in the halo and glory of being worshiped. Whether human beings will be crazy or destroyed is not their concern. This is the actual thought of the American leftist thinkers, and this is the primary purpose of their continuous pursuit. If a person is not out of self-interest, even if he does not recognize the flaws of reason, he will come to a conclusion similar to the early leftist sociologist Durkheim. Durkheim suggested that religion was created to stabilize the order of human society. The marriage concept of monogamy, one man and one woman from religion, was also created for the stability of human society. Of course, this marriage concept is impossible to overthrow or break casually, but this bottom line does not exist for today’s leftist thinkers.

From the perspective of the common sense of human ethics, we not only can see the leftist thinkers’ massive flaws and craziness of the rational and universal ideas of the state. And in real life, we can also see that this secular state is turbulent in fate, which is constructed by a theory similar to rational and universal ideas. There is a society in human history closest to the pursuit of leftist thinkers in the United States. This is the eastern secular society. In these countries, religion is reclusive and secluded. Its main religions, Buddhism and Taoism, paid attention to cultivating vital energy and non-action and tried to avoid contact with secular society, leaving a huge space for the secular government. The secular government had tremendous power and had a decisive influence on life. Isn’t this the society that leftist thinkers are pursuing? Do the secluded religions like Buddha and Dao give rise to the eastern secular society? Or does the powerful secular government suppressing religion result in the Buddha and Dao having to retreat from the world? This is a question of the chicken and the egg; no one can Answer. I can only say that they may complement each other. However, in the history of the eastern secular society for thousands of years, the country has almost disordered in development, peaks, and collapse, struggling in the cycle of changing dynasties. No one of the secular countries is immortal, and there has never been a country that can remain prosperous. It can only show that leftist thinkers’ universal and abstract concept of the state is problematic.

Why? We have discussed countless times that human nature is not perfect, good, and rational. Humans yearn for good and rationality but are selfish, love pleasure, covet life, and fear death. Humans cannot resist the temptation of greed and depravity and are often in a state of sin. This is why no ideal country envisioned by secular thinkers can maintain for a long time. The individuals who make up a society are usually in a state of sin; how can the community they constitute remain in an ideal state? If people are not restricted, they will inevitably go to depravity and greed. Similarly, any country without restrictions will go to its opposite. According to Aquinas’s reinterpretation of the famous category of six regimes, namely, monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, tyranny, oligarchy, and majority tyranny, they are actually three regimes and their opposite. He believed that in the absence of the restriction of the church, human society would inevitably generate tyrants under the monarchy, oligarchs under the aristocracy, and majority tyranny under the democratic. This is a damn right idea. In reality, these are common phenomena in non-Christian societies. In Israel’s dynasties, in the autocratic monarchy of the eastern secular society, each dynasty appears some tyrants, which conducts to the change of dynasties. Ancient Greek democracy also ended with majority tyranny. Aquinas was a man of the 13th century. I can’t conceive how he had such a sharp understanding of democracy, which often shames me as an oriental. I really don’t know how far our eastern society distances from westerns’ in the constitution. Many people always think that the modern American political system, the separation of powers, the mutual checks and balances, etc., can last forever. However, Aquinas pointed out so sharply hundreds of years ago that without the restriction of the church, any democracy, including the democratic system of the United States, will inevitably slide into majority tyranny. And the current situation proves this true. In a Christian society, whether it is a monarchy or a democracy, there will inevitably be some bumps in development due to the selfishness and greed of human nature. However, because of the church’s constraints, the stability of the regime is different from non-Christians.

France has more than a thousand years between the Capet dynasty and the Bourbon dynasty. Although it experienced the Valois dynasty during the period, the Valois, the Capet, and the Bourbon dynasty were all cousins; They completed the smooth transition of the dynasty without any bloodshed. All British kings have blood relations from William I to the current Queen Elizabeth. And the regime has lasted for more than a thousand years. Although they have also experienced several battles for the throne, except the red and white rose battle of the Canary Dynasty, which was relatively fierce, the others were local wars, which basically did not cause damage to society. From the perspective of democracy, the British constitutional system lasted for more than 300 years after the Glorious Revolution. The United States has established a constitution for more than 200 years. Only today has there been a fatal crisis, which is just caused by non-Christianization and secularization. Ancient Greek democracy can’t compare with them, whose golden years only sustained forty years. So you have to admire the penetrating power of Aquinas’ thoughts and compliment the greatness of real thinkers

From these historical experiences, we can also see that the two-headed style social structure of the state and the church can well lead to social stability. Its essential reason lies in what we have discussed. The dualism of human nature in Christian ethics can well resolve the contradiction between selfish human nature and traditional virtues. The separation of state and religion of the Christian states based on this dualism of human nature is also extremely reasonable. Christianity believes that human nature is greedy and depravity. Humans come to this world with original sin and are naturally inclined to crime, licentiousness, and material enjoyment. These are true and credible. They are the same as the conclusions of empiricism and in accord with real life. At the same time, Christianity, like rationalism, believes that humans can get virtues and believe that these virtues are the sweet memories of the Garden of Eden, the impression of heaven left in the heart of humans. Humans only lost the inner power to obtain these virtues because of the original sin. Humans have been unable to obtain the virtues through their own efforts. At that same time, Christian ethics believe that virtue should be regained only through the grace of God and faith in God. In this regard, Christian ethics is completely different from any secular moral philosophy. Empiricism tries to base virtue on interests, while rationalism tries to obtain virtue through reasoned pursuit, but this does not exist. From the comparison with empiricism and rationalism, we can see that the most significant difference between Christian ethics and secular moral philosophy is that Christian ethics has an additional factor of faith and believes that humans obtain virtue only through faith. Christian ethics believes in the existence of God and the mysterious forces of the universe and trusts that humans can come to an ultimate world that is immortal, eternal, sacred, and beautiful, transcending death. It assumes that virtues are the sacred order of the ultimate world. Humans can only get salvation and access to heaven by practicing these virtues of the ultimate world based on faith. Therefore, faith becomes the driving force for humans to eliminate the temptation of interest, material enjoyment, honor, and vanity, leading to morality. Faith is the only driving force. As a result, faith drives people to move towards morality, and faith becomes the glue between selfish human nature and traditional virtues. This also shows the magical power of religious faith and its substantial positive effect on society.

According to this state theory based on the duality of human nature, the Christian society believes that the secular government and the Christian church should exist separately and simultaneously. The secular government exists for the greedy and degraded human nature. It is material, hedonistic, realistic, and holds God’s material sword. And the Christian church exists for faith; it is spiritual, transcendent, moral, and holds the spiritual sword of God. They think that the two swords are inseparable and indispensable in a normal society. Their relationship is like a two-headed snake, helping and supporting each other. Christian ethics considers the two contradictory human natures, namely, the pursuit of material pleasure and the pursuit of moral nobility. It separates them to form two different systems, the state, and the church, so they can supervise each other and avoid their own flaws. Therefore, the country in the Christian society is very stable and orderly.

Moreover, the history of the United States has also proven that the church representing faith and spirit should dominate society as much as possible. This kind of society is the strongest and most prosperous; that is to say, the state must not interfere in church affairs, but the church can intervene in state affairs. A society with a more advanced view of separation of state and church is the most reasonable. The secular philosophers’ state theory does not recognize that human nature is greedy and depraved. They believe that humans are rational and can reach the perfect state through themselves, and humans can shape an ideal country. Therefore, there is no church representing faith and spiritual power in their state theory, so they can not restrict human nature. Thus, an ideal country conceived by Plato and others in history has never appeared. The country closest to the ideal country created by Plato and others is the eastern secular society, but they are always in turmoil, far away from their ideals.

On this basis, let’s discuss in detail why the eastern secular society, which is closest to Plato’s rational and universal country, has been in the cycle of changing dynasties? Because there is no faith or weak faith in the society, the secular regime of the eastern secular society is composed of purely greedy and depraved people. Without the restriction of religion, the greed and corruption of the secular regime flow out arbitrarily. And morality soon completely degenerated, and society was hard to sustain, finally collapsing, turmoil, and war. All these prove that the rational and universal theory of the state is problematic. Of course, this is a vast subject. Due to limited space, we can only briefly talk about it. The specific reasons are as follows: first, in the eastern secular society, the church gradually shrank and weakened, eventually becoming a tool of the state and dispensable. Although there were no firm religious beliefs in each dynasty’s early days, the founders of the dynasty were still alive. They also knew the abuses and cruelty of the previous dynasties; the morality was generally healthy and clear. Because there was no restriction through church and faith, there were more and more rampant villains in the development of society. In the middle and late stages of each dynasty, The society was filled with plenty of villains calling white black, calling a stag a horse. The community’s morality had decayed, and such a society would inevitably collapse and perish. Second, due to the shrinking and weakening of the church, all power belonged to the secular government. It could do whatever it wanted, completely ignoring any morals and beliefs. This kind of society would inevitably go into a police state and use violence to enforce its own will. In the 2,000-year history of eastern secular society, any dynasty’s army, police, and prison were highly formidable. Such a country could ignore any public opinion and act by its own will. It is also the reason why I, as an Oriental, don’t think “1984” is so classic because the 2,000-year autocratic monarchy society in the East is a more classic police society, a typical Leviathan monster. In such a society, the country had become a monster that swallowed everyone, including the bureaucratic group itself, including all royal relatives and nobles.