古典音乐花园
古典香
文章简要介绍英国经验主义哲学大师约翰洛克的生平及著作。作为影响启蒙运动的先驱，约翰的哲学和政治理念让后人受益颇多。
John Locke
Life
流年
John Locke was born at Wrington, a village in Somerset, on August 29, 1632. He was the son of a country solicitor and small landowner who, when the civil war broke out, served as a captain of horse in the parliamentary army. “I no sooner perceived myself in the world than I found myself in a storm,” he wrote long afterwards, during the lull in the storm which followed the king’s return. But political unrest does not seem to have seriously disturbed the course of his education. He entered Westminster school in 1646, and passed to Christ Church, Oxford, as a junior student, in 1652; and he had a home there (though absent from it for long periods) for more than thirty years — till deprived of his studentship by royal mandate in 1684. The official studies of the university were uncongenial to him; he would have preferred to have learned philosophy from Descartes instead of from Aristotle; but evidently he satisfied the authorities, for he was elected to a senior studentship in 1659, and, in the three or four years following, he took part in the tutorial work of the college. At one time he seems to have thought of the clerical profession as a possible career; but he declined an offer of preferment in 1666, and in the same year obtained a dispensation which enabled him to hold his studentship without taking orders. About the same time we hear of his interest in experimental science, and he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1668. Little is known of his early medical studies. He cannot have followed the regular course, for he was unable to obtain the degree of doctor of medicine. It was not till 1674 that he graduated as bachelor of medicine. In the following January his position in Christ Church was regularized by his appointment to one of the two medical studentships of the college.
1632年8月29日，约翰洛克出生在萨默塞特郡的灵顿小村。他的父亲是律师兼小地主，内战爆发后入伍担任议会军的骑兵队长。在国王回国后的暴风间歇期，洛克后来在书中写到，“我还没意思到自己的存在，就已身处暴风之中了”。政治上的骚动并没有打断洛克的教育，1646年他进入威斯敏斯学校，随后于1652年转到牛津的基督教堂学院读初中，并在那里有了一个他很少光顾的家，直到1684年被皇家剥夺学生资格。大学里的研究课题与他格格不入，他本人而言宁愿学习笛卡尔的哲学，而不是亚里士多德；但是很明显他却屈从了上级的要求，因为1659年他被选为高级学生身份，并在随后的三四年里担任学院的辅导工作。他似乎一度想把文职工作当作毕生的职业，但他拒绝了1666年的晋升机会，并获得豁免权，可以在保留学生身份的同时不履行命令。大概与此同时，我们听闻他开始对实验科学感兴趣，并于1668年当选皇家学会会员。他的早期医学研究鲜为人知，应该没可能学完全部课程，因为他没能获得医学博士学位。直到1674年他才毕业拿到医学学士学位。第二年的一月，他任职于学院两个医学学生会的一个，并开始正常上班了。
His knowledge of medicine and occasional practice of the art led, in 1666, to an acquaintance with Lord Ashley (afterwards, from 1672, Earl of Shaftesbury). The acquaintance, begun accidentally, had an immediate effect on Locke’s career. Without serving his connection with Oxford, he became a member of Shaftesbury’s household, and seems soon to have been looked upon as indispensable in all matters domestic and political. He saved the statesman’s life by a skillful operation, arranged a suitable marriage for his heir, attended the lady in her confinement, and directed the nursing and education of her son — afterwards famous as the author of Characteristics. He assisted Shaftesbury also in public business, commercial and political, and followed him into the government service. When Shaftesbury was made lord chancellor in 1672, Locke became his secretary for presentations to benefices, and, in the following year, was made secretary to the board of trade. In 1675 his official life came to an end for the time with the fall of his chief.
洛克在医学方面的学识和偶尔的艺术行为让他有机会在1666年结识了艾希里勋爵，并在1672年结识了沙夫茨伯里伯爵。偶然的相遇对洛克的职业产生了巨大的变化。他割断与牛津的关系，成为沙夫茨伯里伯爵家庭的一员，不久似乎就成了无论在家庭还是政治问题上都不可或缺的人物。洛克以高超的手法挽救了这位政治家的生活：为她的子嗣办了一场门当户对的婚姻，在她被禁闭期间的悉心照料，指导护理和教育她的儿子——后来成为著名的Charcteristics一书的作者。1672年沙夫茨伯里伯爵被任命为大法官，洛克又成了她的负责僧侣陈述的秘书，并于次年担任贸易局的秘书。1675年，随着上司的垮台，洛克的公职生涯也暂告结束。
Locke’s health, always delicate, suffered from the London climate. When released from the cares of office, he left England in search of health. Ten years earlier he had his first experience of foreign travel and of public employment, as secretary to Sir Walter Vane, ambassador to the Elector of Brandenburg during the first Dutch war. On his return to England, early in 1666, he declined an offer of further service in Spain, and settled again in Oxford, but was soon induced by Shaftesbury to spend a great part of his time in London. On his release from office in 1675 he sought milder air in the south of France, made leisurely journeys, and settled down for many months at Montpellier. The journal which he kept at this period is full of minute descriptions of places and customs and institutions. It contains also a record of many of the reflections that afterwards took shape in the Essay concerning Human Understanding. he returned to England in 1679, when his patron had again a short spell of office. He does not seem to have been concerned in Shaftesbury’s later schemes; but suspicion naturally fell upon him, and he found it prudent to take refuge in Holland. This he did in August 1683, less than a year after the flight and death of Shaftesbury. Even in Holland for some time he was not safe from danger of arrest at the instance of the English government; he moved from town to town, lived under an assumed name, and visited his friends by stealth. His residence in Holland brought political occupations with it, among the men who were preparing the English revolution. it had at least equal value in the leisure which it gave him for literary work and in the friendships which it offered. In particular, he formed a close intimacy with Philip van Limbroch, the leader of the Remonstrant clergy, and the scholar and liberal theologian to whom Epistola de Tolerantia was dedicated. This letter was completed in 1685, though not published at the time; and, before he left for England, in February 1689, the Essay concerning Human Understanding seems to have attained its final form, and an abstract of it was published in Leclerc’sBibliotheque universelle in 1688.
洛克的身体状况不是很好,体质较差,还饱受伦敦气候的折磨,从工作的烦扰中逃脱后,他就离开伦敦开始调养. 十年前,他第一次出国旅行,还做过公务员---勃兰登堡选举代表的大使Walter爵士的秘书. 1666年的上半年,洛克拒绝了一份西班牙的工作,回到英格兰,并在牛津安顿下来;然而他却受Shaftesbury的极力劝说去了伦敦,并在那生活了很长一段时间. 1675年,他辞去工作,到气候温和的法国南部旅游,并在蒙彼利埃待了几个月.他旅行期间的日志有很多对名胜古迹,风速传统和社会体制的详细描述. 这些日志还隐约透露了洛克的一些反思,并体现在他的著作中. 1679年,洛克回到伦敦,他的保护人临时重新掌权.他似乎并未参与Shaftesbury的阴谋,但是城门失火殃及池鱼,他也受到连带怀疑,出于谨慎,他意欲前往荷兰寻求庇护1683,荷兰之旅遂行,这离Shaftesbury溃败逃亡而死还不到一年. 即便在荷兰,他也有被英国政府引渡逮捕的危险,于是,他不断地搬迁,使用化名,连会朋友也要秘密进行.他在荷兰的住所成了政治活动的据点,其中不乏密谋发动英国革命的人士.至少,它为洛克带来了文学工作的愉悦,还有友谊. 值得一提的是,洛克与(荷兰阿明尼乌派)教士的领导人Philip 成了挚友,洛克的一书即是纪念他的.该书于1685年书罄,但并未出版;在他前往英格兰之前的1689年二月,似乎已经成书,其摘要于1685年出版在通用图书馆杂志。
The new government recognized his services to the cause of freedom by the offer of the post of ambassador either at Berlin or at Vienna. But Locke was no place hunter; he was solicitous also on account of his health; his earlier experience of Germany led him to fear the “cold air” and “warm drinking”; and the high office was declined. But he served less important offices at home. He was made commissioner of appeals in May 1689, and, from 1696 to 1700, he was a commissioner of trade and plantations at a salary of L1000 a year. Although official duties called him to town for protracted periods, he was able to fix his residence in the country. In 1691 he was persuaded to make his permanent home at Oates in Essex, in the house of Francis and Lady Masham. Lady Masham was a daughter of Cudworth, the Cambridge Platonist; Lock had manifested a growing sympathy with his type of liberal theology; intellectual affinity increased his friendship with the family at Oates; and he continued to live with them till his death on October 28, 1704.
新政府认可洛克对自由事业所作的贡献，并给他提供柏林或者维也纳大使的职务。但洛克并不急于上任，他之所以担心是考虑到自己的身体状况。早期在德国的经历让他对寒冷的空气和喝温酒产生了惧怕，所以婉拒了这份职务， 不过他在家里担任了职位较低的职务。1689年他被任命为上诉专员，并于1696至1700年之间担任贸易和种植园专员，年薪L1000。公务使得洛克不得不往返于市区和乡下，不过他还是努力维持在乡下生活。1691年有人劝他在位于艾塞克斯郡奥茨的玛珊夫妇的庄园永久定居。玛珊夫人是剑桥柏拉图主义者卡德沃斯的女儿，洛克对他的自由派神学逐渐流露出同情。学术上的相似性增加了他与这个家庭的友谊，并在那里一直生活到老，也就是1704年10月28日。
2. Writings
著作
With the exception of the abstract of the Essay and other less important contributions to the Bibliotheque universelle, Locke had not published anything before his return to England in 1689; and by this time he was in his fifty-seventh year. But many years of reflection and preparation made him ready at that time to publish books in rapid succession. In March 1689 his Epistola de Tolerantia was published in Holland; an English translation of the same, by William Popple, appeared later in the same year, and in a corrected edition in 1690. The controversy which followed this work led, on Locke’s part, to the publication of a Second Letter (1690), and then a Third Letter (1692). In February 1690 the book entitled Two Treatises of Government was published, and in March of the same year appeared the long expected Essay concerning Human Understanding, on which he had been at work intermittently since 1671. it met with immediate success, and led to a voluminous literature of attack and reply; young fellows of colleges tried to introduce it at the universities, and heads of houses sat in conclave to devise means for its suppression. To one of his critics Locke replied at length. This was Edward Stillingfleet, bishop of Worcester, who, in his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity (1696), had attacked the new philosophy. It was the theological consequences which were drawn from the doctrines of theEssay, not so much by Locke himself as by Toland, in his Christianity not Mysterious, that the bishop had chiefly in view; in philosophy for its own sake he does not seem to have been interested. But his criticism drew attention to one of the least satisfactory (if also one of the most suggestive) doctrines of the Essay — its explanation of the idea of substance; and discredit was thrown on the “new way of ideas” in general. In January 1697 Locke replied in A Letter to the Bishop of Worcester. Stillingfleet answered this in May; and Locke was ready with a second letter in August. Stillingfleet replied in 1698, and Locke’s lengthy third letter appeared in 1699. The bishop’s death, later in the same year, put an end to the controversy. The second edition of the Essay was published in 1694, the third in 1695, and the fourth in 1700. The second and fourth editions contained important additions. An abridgement of it appeared in 1696, by John Wynne, fellow of Jesus College, Oxford; it was translated into Latin and into French soon after the appearance of the fourth edition. The later editions contain many modifications due to the author’s correspondence with William Molyneux, of Trinity College, Dublin, a devoted disciple, for whom Locke had a worm friendship. Other correspondents and visitors to Oates during these years were Isaac Newton and Anthony Collins, a young squire of the neighborhood, who afterwards made his mark in the intellectual controversies of the time.
在1689年返回英国之前,洛克没有出版任何作品,除了一些论文的摘要和不太重要的给通用图书馆的投稿,此时他已57岁. 多年的思考和积淀使他文思才敏,新书很快写就.1689年3月,他的在荷兰出版,英译本也在当年晚些时候由Willian Popple 出版,并于1690年刊出修正版.该书引起广泛争议, 导致洛克又于1690年和1693年分别发表了《再论宽容》和《三论宽容》.1690年二月《二论政府》出版,同年三月出版了期待已久的--他为该书付出了21年的心血.该书取得巨大的成功,并引来众多文人的攻讦.年轻的教员试图将新作带进大学校园,议会大佬们则秘密商议如何压制它. 洛克详细答复了伍斯特主教Edward Stillingfleet的批评,他在一书中攻击洛克新书中的哲学观点.该观点是从《the Essay》教义推论得到的结果，与其说是洛克的观点，还不如说是Toland的观点，他在《基督教并不神秘》一书中有述，这一点Edward Stillingfleet看得很清楚。1697年1月写了一封《致Edward Stillingfleet主教》，算是回复。他则在五月份答复了洛克，同年8月洛克回复了他，并在1698年又回给洛克；1699年，洛克写了第三封长篇大论的回信，同年Edward Stillingfleet主教去世，该争论终于停止。《the Essay》第二版第三版分别出版于1694和1695年，次年牛津 耶稣学院的John Wynne 编写的节略版面世。该简本被翻译成拉丁文，并在第四版翻译成了法文。其后的版本作了许多修改，这得益于作者与三一学院的虔诚门徒威廉莫利纽克斯的一些交流，洛克与他有着深厚的友谊。在奥兹期间还有其他访客和交流人员，如艾萨克牛顿和安东尼科林斯乡绅，这位乡绅和后来在知识争论中也留下了自己的一笔。
Other interests also occupied Locke during the years following the publication of his great work. The financial difficulties of the new government led in 1691 to his publication of Some Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering of Interest, and Raising the Value of Money, and of Further Considerations on the latter question, four years later. In 1693 he published Some Thoughts concerning Education, a work founded on letters written to a friend, and in 1695 appeared The Reasonableness of Christianity, and later A Vindication of the same against certain objections; and this was followed by a second vindication two years afterwards. Locke’s religious interest had always been strongly marked, and, in he later years of his life, much of his tie was given to theology. Among the writings of his which were published after his death are commentaries on the Pauline epistles, and a Discourse on Miracles, as well as a fragment of aFourth Letter for Toleration. The posthumously published writings include further An Examination of Father Malebranche’s Opinion of Seeing all things in God, Remarks on Some of Mr Norris’s Books, and — most important of all — the small treatise on The Conduct of the Understanding which had been originally designed as a chapter of the Essay.
在他的巨著出版之后，洛克在其他感兴趣的领域也花了不少时间。新政府的财政困难促使他在1691年发表《对降低利率提高币值的考量》，并在4年后发表了《对提高币值的再思考》；1693年发表了以书信为蓝本的《教育思考》，1695年发表了《基督教的合理性》并于随后发表了《基督教合理性辩护》。洛克有着鲜明的宗教烙印，晚年也致力于神学。他死后出版的作品包括《对Malebranche教父上帝创造一切观点的审视》《Norris选集评注》以及一篇非常重要的小论文《理解行为》，该论文曾被设计为《the Essay》的一个章节。
Two Treatises of Government
《政府二论》
In Two Treatises of Government he has two purposes in view: to refute the doctrine of the divine and absolute right of the Monarch, as it had been put forward by Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, and to establish a theory which would reconcile the liberty of the citizen with political order. The criticism of Filmer in the first Treatise is complete. His theory of the absolute sovereignty of Adam, and so of kings as Adam’s heirs, has lost all interest; and Locke’s argument has been only too effective: his exhaustive reply to so absurd a thesis becomes itself wearisome. Although there is little direct reference to Hobbes, Locke seems to have had Hobbes in mind when he argued that the doctrine of absolute monarchy leaves sovereign and subjects in the state of nature towards one another. The constructive doctrines which are elaborated in the second treatise became the basis of social and political philosophy for generations. Labor is the origin and justification of property; contract or consent is the ground of government and fixes its limits. Behind both doctrines lies the idea of the independence of the individual person. The state of nature knows no government; but in it, as in political society, men are subject to the moral law, which is the law of God. Men are born free and equal in rights. Whatever a man “mixes his labour with” is his to use. Or, at least, this was so in the primitive condition of human life in which there was enough for all and “the whole earth was America.” Locke sees that, when men have multiplied and land has become scarce, rules are needed beyond those which the moral law or law of nature supplies. But the origin of government is traced not to this economic necessity, but to another cause. The moral law is always valid, but it is not always kept. In the state of nature all men equally have the right to punish transgressors: civil society originates when, for the better administration of the law, men agree to delegate this function to certain officers. Thus government is instituted by a “social contract”; its powers are limited, and they involve reciprocal obligations; moreover, they can be modified or rescinded by the authority which conferred them. Locke’s theory is thus no more historical than Hobbes’s. It is a rendering of the facts of constitutional government in terms of thought, and it served its purpose as a justification of the Revolution settlement in accordance with the ideas of the time.
在《政府二论》中，洛克有两个目的：其一是反驳罗伯特菲尔默《君权轮》中的君权神受和绝对权力主义，其二是建立一种调和公民自由和政治秩序的理论。在第一论中对菲尔默的批判比较完整，使得他的亚当绝对权力以及作为亚当后裔的国王的绝对权利理论黯然失色。洛克的辩驳不可谓不出色：他详尽的批文使得这个荒唐的论点本身显得令人生畏。虽然洛克并未明确引用霍布斯的言论，但在论及君主专制主义就是保持君主和民众的自然状态时，他的脑海中就是霍布斯理论。第二论中详述的有用的教义则成为后代社会和政治和哲学的基础。财产的源头和合法化来自劳动；契约和同意是政府执政的基础并限制政府的权力范围。两种教条都暗含着自然人的独立性这一观点。自然状态不受政府约束，但正如政治社会一样，要受道德的约束，即上帝之法。人生而平等，如何行事是他的自由，至少在一切资源都充裕的原始条件下是这样的。洛克认为随着人类繁衍土地不足，需要制定凌驾于道德和自然状态的准则；但是政府并不源于这种经济需求，而是另有其源。道德约束总是有效的，但并不总被遵守。自然状态下每个人都有权利处罚违规者：当人们为了更好的管理法规而将权力下放给某些人员时，公民社会就出现了。因此政府的创立源于社会契约，其权力是有限的并承担互惠的义务，当然也可以被授权人修改和撤回。洛克的理论并不比霍布斯新颖，它只是用思考的方式对宪政政府的另一番描述，并为大革命清算辩护，这在当时也是符合时宜的。
Letters on Religious Toleration
《宗教宽容论》
Locke’s plea for toleration in matters of belief has become classical. His Common-Place Book shows that his mind was clear on the subject more than twenty years before the publication of his first Letter. The topic, indeed, was in the air all through his life, and affected him nearly. When he was a scholar at Westminster, the powers of the civil magistrate in religious matters were the subject of heated discussion between Presbyterians and independents in the assembly of divines that held its sessions within a stone’s throw of his dormitory; and, when he entered Christ Church, John Owen, a leader of the independents, had been recently appointed to the deanery. There had been many arguments for toleration before this time, but they had come from the weaker party in the state. Thus Jeremy Taylor’s Liberty of Prophesying appeared in 1646, when the fortunes of his side had suffered a decline. For Owen the credit has been claimed that he was the first who argued for toleration “when his party was uppermost.” He was called upon to preach before the House of Commons on January 31, 1649, and performed the task without making any reference to the tragic event of the previous day; but to the published sermon he appended a remarkable discussion on toleration. Owen did not take such high ground as Milton did, ten years later, in his Treatise of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes — affirming that “it is not lawful for any power on earth to compel in matters of religion.” He abounds in distinctions, and indeed his position calls for some subtlety. He holds that the civil magistrate has duties to the church, and that he ought to give facilities and protection to its ministers, not merely as citizens but as preachers of “the truth”; on the other hand he argues that civil or corporeal penalties are inappropriate as punishments for offences which are purely spiritual.
洛克对信仰宽容的辩解非常经典，他的常备书籍表明早在出版第一篇论文的20年前就开始关注这个主题了。诚然，这个主题影响了他一生，却始终悬而未决。他在威斯敏斯求学时，地方民事法官在宗教事务方面的管理权利就是长老会和独立派在牧师例会时激烈的讨论话题，例会地点离他的宿舍仅一步之遥。进入基督教堂学院后，独立派代表人物约翰欧文刚履新接任院长职位。之前已经有很多关于宽容的辩论，但大多出自弱小的派系。1646年杰里米泰勒出版《自由预言》，此时他的派系已不占上风了。对欧文赞誉源于他在自己的派系最占上风的时候呼吁宽容；他1649年一月31日，他被请到下议院布道，决口不提前一天发生的惨剧，但在公开的布道上他增加了对宽容的热烈讨论。欧文没有像弥尔顿在10年后发表的《论公民权利在宗教事业》中那样高调，他认为“涉及宗教的任何强迫行为都是不合法的”。他强调差异性，而且他的职位使他不得不小心行事。欧文还主张民事法官对教堂负有义务，为教堂提供基础设施并以公民和真理传递者的双重义务保护牧师，另外他还呼吁对于精神上的冒犯，民事或者肉体上惩罚是不妥当的。
The position ultimately adopted by Locke is not altogether the same as this. He was never an ardent puritan; he had as little taste for elaborate theologies as he had for scholastic systems of philosophy; and his earliest attempt at a theory of toleration was connected with the view that in religion, “articles in speculative opinions [should] be few and large, and ceremonies in worship few and easy.” The doctrines which he held to be necessary for salvation would have seemed to John Owen a meager and pitiful creed. And he had a narrower view also of the functions of the state. “The business of laws,” he says,
洛克的立场与此不完全相同，他压根就不是狂热的清教徒。他对精心构造的神学和晦涩的哲学体系同样的毫无兴致。他第一次尝试写作宗教宽容方面的论著也是着眼于宗教文章的观点应该少而博大，宗教仪式应该简易。洛克所认同的教义在欧文看来也许太过贫乏而令人感伤，其对政府功能的视野也更狭小。 洛克认为“
is not to provide for the truth of opinions, but for the safety and security of the commonwealth, and of every particular man’s goods and person. And so it ought to be. For truth certainly would do well enough, if she were once left to shift for herself. She seldom has received, and I fear never will receive, much assistance from the power of great men, to whom she is but rarely known, and more rarely welcome. She is not taught by laws, nor has she any need of force, to procure her entrance into the minds of men. Errors, indeed, prevail by the assistance of foreign and borrowed succors. But if truth makes not her way into the understanding by her own light, she will be but the weaker for any borrowed force violence can add to her.
法律的职能不是保证观点的真实性，而是保障国民整体、个人财产和人身的安全性。”这也应该是法律的义务。法律可以很好的保障真理，只要她自身不发生变化。她几乎不会——我认为绝不会——受到她毫不了解也不受欢迎的伟大人类的影响；她不受法律教唆也不必接受外力以进入人的大脑。谬误则会借助外力肆意盛行，但如果真理不是自发的被人所理解，她就很容易成为弱势的一方，因为任何外在的冲突都会影响到她 。
A church, according to Locke, is “a free and voluntary society”; its purpose is the public worship of God; the value of worship depends on the faith that inspires it: “all the life and power of true religion consists in the inward and full persuasion of the mind;” and these matters are entirely outside the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate. Locke therefore (to use later language) was a voluntary in religion, as he was an individualist on questions of state interference. There is an exception, however, to his doctrine of the freedom of the individual in religious matters. The toleration extended to all others is denied to papists and to atheists; and his inconsistency in this respect has been often and severely criticized. But it is clear that Locke made the exception not for religious reasons but on grounds of state policy. He looked upon the Roman Catholic as dangerous to the public peace because he professed allegiance to a foreign prince; and the atheist was excluded because, on Locke’s view, the existence of the state depends upon a contract, and the obligation of the contract, as of all moral law, depends upon the divine will.
按照洛克的说法，教堂是一个“自由自愿的社区”；其目的是公共朝圣，其朝圣之价值在于该行为所激发的信心：“所有宗教的生命和力量在于内心和思想的彻底皈依”，而这些与民事法官的裁定毫无关系。因而洛克是个宗教自愿者，正如在国家干预问题上他选择独立一样。然而，他的宗教事务上的个人自由教义有一个例外：宽容不适用于天主教徒和无神论者。他在这一点上表现得自我矛盾一直为人诟病。很明显，洛克这么做并非出于宗教原因，而是考虑到国家政策；他认为罗马天主教危及公共和平，因为其宣誓效忠外国王子；无神论者被视为例外则源于洛克认为国家的存在依赖于契约和契约的义务，就像任何道德规则都依赖于神的意志。
http://article.yeeyan.org/view/303815/267181
