近代自然法论者的自由观及其方法论局限

On the Ideas of Freedom and Methodological Limitation of Hobbes,Locke,Rousseau and Kant

17世纪以来的近代自然法论者如霍布斯、洛克以及卢梭和康德等,真正开始根据人自身内自然的、精神的和道德的自由本性来解释和建构理性的政治共同体。然而由于他们静止地固执于某种单一的人类本性,或者自然的、或者道德的、或者理性的自由本性来认识和解释个人、国家及法律的实践准则,将个人自身内作为有机整体存在的自然、道德及理性三种必然性自由本性分离或对立起来,因而在理论或实践上造成一种自由排斥、僭越或压迫另外一种自由,在方法论上则造成事实、价值及逻辑三种必然性原则的相互对立和分离、或者相互混淆和僭越。

It is such modern natural-law theorists as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant since the 1600s who constructed political society and its law and moral practical principles. They interpreted the necessity and actuality of individual freedom and fight on the basis of human nature such as natural, moral and rational freedom. However, they realized and interpreted practical behavioral principles or right foundation of individual, state and law only according to Metaphysic reason principle, i.e., fixedly insisting on some specific human nature, or natural, moral or reasonable nature. They made the three necessary free natures like nature, moral and reason which exist in human nature as a whole organism separate or opposite to each other, leading to the situation of one freedom excluding the other freedom theoretically and practically, and the situation of fact, value and logical reason, the three necessity principles, opposite, separate, mixed up or arrogating to one another methodologically.