欧克肖特政治哲学要义新释

摘要： 主张“哲学与实践相分离”是欧克肖特一贯的思想立场。他指出现代哲学深深地陷入理性主义的窠臼。他对政治中的理性主义的批判的目的就是让哲学和政治实践恪守各自的领域。现今理性主义过多地与政治实践纠缠在一起，而现在正是要区隔它们的时候。

Abstract: The relative separation between philosophy and practice is Oakeshott’s consistent viewpoint. He denotes that modern philosophy is stuck in rationalism. His critique of rationalism in politics is to let philosophy and practice abide by one's own duty. Rationalism, which is now excessively in close relation with politics, must be stripped from it.

关键词： 哲学；实践；行为

Key words: philosophy；practice；behavior

中图分类号：B0 文献标识码：A文章编号：1006-4311（2010）35-0316-03

Rationalism aims at bringing the behavior into clear frame, which made the tradition of politics cut apart incoherently. It wants to prove its own correctness in theory and practice. Oakeshott’s criticism is resulted from his reflection to the modern philosophy. This paper attempts to discover the theoretical foundation of Oakeshott’s political philosophy while dealing with two key concepts about it.

1Philosophy and Practice as Modes of Experience

Oakeshott insists that philosophy should avoid becoming tool of ideological and political propaganda. Philosophy should adhere to the attitude of "radical subversion". Nevertheless, his attitude of subversion is not shown in a kind of theory which would bring about political revolution, but in his view of "experience as a whole". Oakeshott does not offer this view with the mysterious veil. He just denotes that we would receive more consistent understanding about world in the mode of "whole experience". According to Oakeshott, the dualism about the relation of “experience” and “the object of experience” would have less acceptability than the doctrine such as “there is only an experience world as whole”[1].

There is no other work expressing philosophy of Oakeshott more directly than experience and their mode.This early work is mainly benefited from thoughts of Bradley and Hegel. It learns from Plato, Aristotle and Spinoza too. In fact, Oakeshott played an important role in the research community of British Neo-Hegelian at the beginning of 20th century. In this book, he tries hard to show there is no essential difference between "experience of the world" and "the world itself ". Modes of science, history and practice are all different visual angles in understanding experience.Each mode of experience tries hard to proceed from its own assumption and acquires total understanding of experience. Meanwhile, every kind of mode is abstract understanding of the sole world. Due to the contradictories between various modes, people should not endorse any certain mode and deny another one absolutely.

Certainly, it is impossible for us to survey the theory of modes of experience completely. So this paper must expressly consider the view of "the separation between philosophy and practice ". In experience and mode, Oakeshott denotes that philosophy should not criticize in an external way. Philosophy and practice may be two different fields which discriminated against each other. Then the former should not aim at repelling the latter. Philosophy must not be interfered fundamentally by instruction from practice, and similarly practice needs not subject to the guidance of philosophy principally.

Philosophy should not be any system which consists of extrinsic concepts. Any extrinsic concept can not define philosophy, and philosophy needs not to introduce any external concepts. Therefore, philosophy would not allow the scope and standard of itself to be provided by practice. People must keep philosophy from disturbance of feel and effect which is brought forth in practice. Except itself, philosophy can acknowledge any other authority.

However, the purpose of rationalism in philosophy is to replace all of other modes of experience and then secure a systematical understanding of the world. But the experience of the world is unique. Practice has its external features while philosophy contends with it through critique. But the strength of critique of philosophy does not give itself right of replacing practice. Philosophy won't be able to provide any specific instruction for practice.

According to Oakeshott, philosophy is relevant to actual life, but the relation of them should not be elevated artificially. In other words, philosophy can't fundamentally control practice. Just as Franco reviews，rationalism in politics results in ruin of practice, but the latter is the inviolable fountain of politics.[2]

2Practice as "Behavior in Change"

Oakeshott argues that philosophy had no absolute relation with practice, because he believes the concrete situation in actual life can't be considered by philosophy. According to Oakeshott, practice is defined as the behavior in change, unable to obtain absolute consistency.[3] Practice is formed by behavior. It is action itself and total behavioral. People always try to change their life momentarily. Action should be understood as thing in a kind of transition in this world. People always ask “what the world is”, but the world is unstable, transient and variable indeed. This is the key to understand the concept of practice correctly. Oakeshott thinks that we should expect neither eternal truth which contained in a system of concept, nor any consistent theory which keeps up with behavior. Truth always can not catch up on behavior. Any endeavor of constructing system of philosophy to exercise control over behavior would be futile eventually.

Oakeshott has pointed out the key characteristic of practice which is composed of changing behaviors in the world. Through emphasizing practice as a behavioral field, Oakeshott wants to show that we are always demanded to take action in specific environment. Thought can be assumed, suspected, criticized and regained, but the behavior is transient and final once it has been done. It is irrevocable, unable to be cancelled. This hints that practice always submits to the sense of urgency, because problem must have been solved before it slips away.

Practice includes assumption, and has no doubt about its authenticity. There is certain tension between “ought to be” and “be in fact”. Philosopher hopes their thought has unified system, but behavior in reality is always linked to change. Attempting to dispel all contradiction and difference of practice, rational philosophy will cause disasters. We have no adequate reason to change the contradiction in present practice. Contradiction and difference can be tolerated. Further more, they are necessary for us to behave effectively.

Practice and philosophy are very different in eyes of Oakeshott. Practice is in the change, and is restrained by an urgent matter. It needs not the stabilization as in the system of philosophy, but it must have the ability to make a decision in the changing situation. In other words, it is inappropriate for practice to be command by philosophy. Practice is in the world filled with value. It attempts to define such concepts as “good”, “right” and “ought”. Philosophy should not construct any system of value or principle of correct behaviors, but try to understand them.

3Conclusions

Oakeshott’s viewpoint of the relation of philosophy and practice is the basis of his critique of rationalism in politics. The relative separation between philosophy and practice shows that Oakeshott keeps at a distance with a complete system of philosophy, which is feature of rationalism. As known by all, rationalism is the most remarkable fashion of modern philosophy. but what is wrong with rationalism？Oakeshott acknowledges the necessity of systematic knowledge, but he argues that it is insufficient for practice. Thus he primarily contends against rationalism in politics. Oakeshott thinks of politics as practical activities. But rationalism in politics tries to convert political activities into abstractions. It creates the illusion of certainty, and then leads people to believe that all problems can be solved certainly. Since it misconceives the relation of philosophy and practice, and so misconceives the relation of philosophy and politics too, it has harmful effects on political activities. Oakeshott tries to promote the politics of civil association4. He seeks to have us cultivate our characters. Individual’s independence would not be product of rational political system, but his own ability to understand the hints in tradition.

Notes:

[1]Michael Oakeshott. Experience and Its Modes[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933:21

[2]Paul Franco. The Political Philosophy of Michael Oakeshott [M].New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990:113

[3]Michael Oakeshott. On Human Conduct[M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975:55

[4]Michael Oakeshott. On Human Conduct[M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975:102-108

译文：

政治理性主义旨在把政治行为纳入明确的框架之中，使得政治实践传统被分割得支离破碎。虽然这种理论的弊端公众都略有感知，但是它仍然要在实践中拼命地证明自身的正确性和可延续性。欧克肖特对政治中的理性主义的批评源于他对现代哲学的反思。本文试图通过对欧克肖特的“哲学”与“实践”这两个概念辨析中阐明其政治哲学的主旨和理论基础。

1“哲学”与“实践”――两种经验的模式

欧克肖特认为哲学应避免沦为意识形态和政治鼓吹的工具，哲学应秉持“激进的颠覆”的态度。但他的颠覆性的态度并不表现为一种倾向政治革命的理论，而主要体现在“经验作为一个整体”的哲学主张中。欧克肖特并没有给予“经验整体”以神秘的面纱，他只是认为在“经验整体”中，世界将会得到更为一致的理解。他反对设立“经验”与“经验对象”相区分的二元论的观点，认为“只存在一个作为整体的经验世界”的观点更为可取。

《经验及其模式》（Experience and Its Modes）最直接地表达了欧克肖特的哲学思想。这本早期著作受益于黑格尔和布拉德雷，同时也熔合了柏拉图、亚里士多德和斯宾诺莎的思想，因而在20世纪初英国新黑格尔主义学派中独树一帜。在这本书中，他力图表明 “世界本身”与“对世界的经验”之间没有本质的区分。科学、历史和实践的模式都是对经验的三种不同理解视角。每一种经验的模式都力图从自己的假设出发对经验作总体的理解。同时，每一种模式也都是对经验整体的抽象理解，各种模式之间相互矛盾，故而学者不应当武断地肯定某种模式同时又贬斥另一种模式。

当然，我们不可能完整地考察欧克肖特的经验模式学说，因此本文必须重点考虑欧克肖特的“哲学与实践相分离”的观点。在《经验及其模式》这本书中，欧克肖特认为哲学批判不应是外在的，哲学包含的不是简单的对于不同经验模式的排斥。他主张哲学与实践是两个不同并且各自排斥的领域。哲学必须不受实践假设的干扰，而实践也不必谦恭地等待哲学的指导。

哲学不应当是由外在概念构成的理论体系，后者无法定义前者，前者也无需引进后者。所以，哲学不允许自身的领地要由外部实践来划定。哲学要免于在实践中产生的情绪的干扰，除了它自身，哲学不承认任何权威。

哲学中理性主义总是试图取代别的经验模式以确保对世界的系统建构。实践具有明显的外在特性，而哲学总是抓住这点不放。不过，哲学的批判力量并没有赋予其取代实践的权利。哲学也不能给予实践任何明确的指引。

欧克肖特认为，哲学虽然和实践不是全然无关，但它们二者的联系不能被人为放大。换言之，哲学不能原则性地掌控实践。正如欧克肖特研究者弗兰克所言，哲学理性主义引入政治领域的后果必然是摧毁政治实践，而政治实践才是政治的神圣源泉。

2作为“变化的行为”的实践概念

欧克肖特之所以主张哲学与实践不具备绝对的必然联系，是因为他相信实际生活中的具体情形不能被哲学考虑到。欧克肖特认为实践是变化中的行为，无法获得完全确定的一致性理解。实践由行为构成，它是行动本身，是行为的总和。人们随时尝试去改变生活。行为应当被理解为一种不断改变之物。人们总是问“世界是什么”，但世界终究是易变的，不稳定的以及短暂的。这就是正确理解欧克肖特实践概念的关键。他认为我们不应期望任何概念式的关于外在实践的真理，也不应当尝试建构能够与行为保持同步的理论体系，真理总是赶不上行为的脚步。任何建构规范实践行为的全面性哲学体系的努力最终都是徒劳的。

欧克肖特指出了实践的关键特点：它是世界中变化的行为。通过强调实践是行为领域，欧克肖特想展示这样一个情形：我们总是被要求果断地去行动。思想可以被假定，被怀疑，被批判以及被收回，行为却是短暂且也是最终的，一旦做了，便无法撤消。行为是不可撤消的，这暗示了实践总是服从于紧迫感，因为它必须在问题溜走之前解决它。

实践包含了假设，并且还毫不怀疑的认为此类假设是真实的。在“是”与“应当”之间总是保持了一定的张力。哲学家总希望他们的思想具有系统的整体性，而现实中的行为总是与变化联系在一起。理性主义尝试消除我们实践中所有的矛盾和差异必会招致灾难。我们没有理由去改变现存的任何实践中的矛盾，矛盾和差异不只是可容忍的，而且对于也是有效行动所必须的。

因此，在欧克肖特眼里，实践和哲学是很不相同的。实践是变化中的行为，并被眼下紧急的事件所约束，它不需要哲学的稳定的体系性，但它必须拥有在不断变换的情形中做出决断的能力。简言之，让政治实践服从于哲学理论是很不合适的。实践是个充满价值的领域，它总是尝试去明确什么是“好的”，“正确的”以及“应当的”。哲学并不去构建世界的价值观或是正确行为的原则，而只是尝试去理解它们。

3结论

“哲学”与“实践”之区分是欧克肖特批评政治的理性主义的理论基础。“哲学”和“实践”应相区隔的观点显示了欧克肖特对任何完整的哲学体系的厌恶，因为完整的哲学体系往往是理性主义的特征。如众所知，理性主义是近代哲学最为著名的范式，但理性主义有什么错？欧克肖特承认确然性知识的必要性，但认为这对实践来说还不是充分的。因此，他竭力批评哲学理性主义介入政治。欧克肖特认为政治属于实践行为，而政治中的理性主义却力图使政治行为受控于为抽象的指示。它引发了确然性的幻像，诱使人们相信所有的问题可以通过抽象的指示普遍地加以解决。由于混淆了哲学与实践之间的关系，因而也混淆了哲学与政治之间的关系，政治中的理性主义对于政治危害甚多。欧克肖特力争促进公民联合型政治，以便培育人们的德性。个体的独立性不可能是理性政治体制的产物，而是理解实践政治传统的暗示的能力之后果。

参考文献：

[1][英]迈克尔・欧克肖特，张汝伦译.政治中的理性主义[M].上海:上海译文出版社，2004.

[2][英]迈克尔・欧克肖特，吴玉军译.经验及其模式[M].北京：文津出版社，2005.

[3][英]迈克尔・欧克肖特，顾玫译.哈佛讲演录―近代欧洲的道德与政治[M].上海:上海文艺出版社，2003.