古典音樂花園
古典香
文章簡要介紹英國經驗主義哲學大師約翰洛克的生平及著作。作為影響啟蒙運動的先驅，約翰的哲學和政治理念讓後人受益頗多。
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，約翰洛克出生在薩默塞特郡的靈頓小村。他的父親是律師兼小地主，內戰爆發後入伍擔任議會軍的騎兵隊長。在國王回國後的暴風間歇期，洛克後來在書中寫到，“我還沒意思到自己的存在，就已身處暴風之中了”。政治上的騷動並沒有打斷洛克的教育，1646年他進入威斯敏斯學校，隨後於1652年轉到牛津的基督教堂學院讀初中，並在那裏有了一個他很少光顧的家，直到1684年被皇家剝奪學生資格。大學裏的研究課題與他格格不入，他本人而言寧願學習笛卡爾的哲學，而不是亞裏士多德；但是很明顯他卻屈從了上級的要求，因為1659年他被選為高級學生身份，並在隨後的三四年裏擔任學院的輔導工作。他似乎一度想把文職工作當作畢生的職業，但他拒絕了1666年的晉升機會，並獲得豁免權，可以在保留學生身份的同時不履行命令。大概與此同時，我們聽聞他開始對實驗科學感興趣，並於1668年當選皇家學會會員。他的早期醫學研究鮮為人知，應該沒可能學完全部課程，因為他沒能獲得醫學博士學位。直到1674年他才畢業拿到醫學學士學位。第二年的一月，他任職於學院兩個醫學學生會的一個，並開始正常上班了。
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.
洛克在醫學方麵的學識和偶爾的藝術行為讓他有機會在1666年結識了艾希裏勳爵，並在1672年結識了沙夫茨伯裏伯爵。偶然的相遇對洛克的職業產生了巨大的變化。他割斷與牛津的關係，成為沙夫茨伯裏伯爵家庭的一員，不久似乎就成了無論在家庭還是政治問題上都不可或缺的人物。洛克以高超的手法挽救了這位政治家的生活：為她的子嗣辦了一場門當戶對的婚姻，在她被禁閉期間的悉心照料，指導護理和教育她的兒子——後來成為著名的Charcteristics一書的作者。1672年沙夫茨伯裏伯爵被任命為大法官，洛克又成了她的負責僧侶陳述的秘書，並於次年擔任貿易局的秘書。1675年，隨著上司的垮台，洛克的公職生涯也暫告結束。
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.
洛克的身體狀況不是很好,體質較差,還飽受倫敦氣候的折磨,從工作的煩擾中逃脫後,他就離開倫敦開始調養. 十年前,他第一次出國旅行,還做過公務員---勃蘭登堡選舉代表的大使Walter爵士的秘書. 1666年的上半年,洛克拒絕了一份西班牙的工作,回到英格蘭,並在牛津安頓下來;然而他卻受Shaftesbury的極力勸說去了倫敦,並在那生活了很長一段時間. 1675年,他辭去工作,到氣候溫和的法國南部旅遊,並在蒙彼利埃待了幾個月.他旅行期間的日誌有很多對名勝古跡,風速傳統和社會體製的詳細描述. 這些日誌還隱約透露了洛克的一些反思,並體現在他的著作中. 1679年,洛克回到倫敦,他的保護人臨時重新掌權.他似乎並未參與Shaftesbury的陰謀,但是城門失火殃及池魚,他也受到連帶懷疑,出於謹慎,他意欲前往荷蘭尋求庇護1683,荷蘭之旅遂行,這離Shaftesbury潰敗逃亡而死還不到一年. 即便在荷蘭,他也有被英國政府引渡逮捕的危險,於是,他不斷地搬遷,使用化名,連會朋友也要秘密進行.他在荷蘭的住所成了政治活動的據點,其中不乏密謀發動英國革命的人士.至少,它為洛克帶來了文學工作的愉悅,還有友誼. 值得一提的是,洛克與(荷蘭阿明尼烏派)教士的領導人Philip 成了摯友,洛克的一書即是紀念他的.該書於1685年書罄,但並未出版;在他前往英格蘭之前的1689年二月,似乎已經成書,其摘要於1685年出版在通用圖書館雜誌。
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.
新政府認可洛克對自由事業所作的貢獻，並給他提供柏林或者維也納大使的職務。但洛克並不急於上任，他之所以擔心是考慮到自己的身體狀況。早期在德國的經曆讓他對寒冷的空氣和喝溫酒產生了懼怕，所以婉拒了這份職務， 不過他在家裏擔任了職位較低的職務。1689年他被任命為上訴專員，並於1696至1700年之間擔任貿易和種植園專員，年薪L1000。公務使得洛克不得不往返於市區和鄉下，不過他還是努力維持在鄉下生活。1691年有人勸他在位於艾塞克斯郡奧茨的瑪珊夫婦的莊園永久定居。瑪珊夫人是劍橋柏拉圖主義者卡德沃斯的女兒，洛克對他的自由派神學逐漸流露出同情。學術上的相似性增加了他與這個家庭的友誼，並在那裏一直生活到老，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年返回英國之前,洛克沒有出版任何作品,除了一些論文的摘要和不太重要的給通用圖書館的投稿,此時他已57歲. 多年的思考和積澱使他文思才敏,新書很快寫就.1689年3月,他的在荷蘭出版,英譯本也在當年晚些時候由Willian Popple 出版,並於1690年刊出修正版.該書引起廣泛爭議, 導致洛克又於1690年和1693年分別發表了《再論寬容》和《三論寬容》.1690年二月《二論政府》出版,同年三月出版了期待已久的--他為該書付出了21年的心血.該書取得巨大的成功,並引來眾多文人的攻訐.年輕的教員試圖將新作帶進大學校園,議會大佬們則秘密商議如何壓製它. 洛克詳細答複了伍斯特主教Edward Stillingfleet的批評,他在一書中攻擊洛克新書中的哲學觀點.該觀點是從《the Essay》教義推論得到的結果，與其說是洛克的觀點，還不如說是Toland的觀點，他在《基督教並不神秘》一書中有述，這一點Edward Stillingfleet看得很清楚。1697年1月寫了一封《致Edward Stillingfleet主教》，算是回複。他則在五月份答複了洛克，同年8月洛克回複了他，並在1698年又回給洛克；1699年，洛克寫了第三封長篇大論的回信，同年Edward Stillingfleet主教去世，該爭論終於停止。《the Essay》第二版第三版分別出版於1694和1695年，次年牛津 耶穌學院的John Wynne 編寫的節略版麵世。該簡本被翻譯成拉丁文，並在第四版翻譯成了法文。其後的版本作了許多修改，這得益於作者與三一學院的虔誠門徒威廉莫利紐克斯的一些交流，洛克與他有著深厚的友誼。在奧茲期間還有其他訪客和交流人員，如艾薩克牛頓和安東尼科林斯鄉紳，這位鄉紳和後來在知識爭論中也留下了自己的一筆。
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.
在他的巨著出版之後，洛克在其他感興趣的領域也花了不少時間。新政府的財政困難促使他在1691年發表《對降低利率提高幣值的考量》，並在4年後發表了《對提高幣值的再思考》；1693年發表了以書信為藍本的《教育思考》，1695年發表了《基督教的合理性》並於隨後發表了《基督教合理性辯護》。洛克有著鮮明的宗教烙印，晚年也致力於神學。他死後出版的作品包括《對Malebranche教父上帝創造一切觀點的審視》《Norris選集評注》以及一篇非常重要的小論文《理解行為》，該論文曾被設計為《the Essay》的一個章節。
Two Treatises of Government
《政府二論》
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《政府二論》中，洛克有兩個目的：其一是反駁羅伯特菲爾默《君權輪》中的君權神受和絕對權力主義，其二是建立一種調和公民自由和政治秩序的理論。在第一論中對菲爾默的批判比較完整，使得他的亞當絕對權力以及作為亞當後裔的國王的絕對權利理論黯然失色。洛克的辯駁不可謂不出色：他詳盡的批文使得這個荒唐的論點本身顯得令人生畏。雖然洛克並未明確引用霍布斯的言論，但在論及君主專製主義就是保持君主和民眾的自然狀態時，他的腦海中就是霍布斯理論。第二論中詳述的有用的教義則成為後代社會和政治和哲學的基礎。財產的源頭和合法化來自勞動；契約和同意是政府執政的基礎並限製政府的權力範圍。兩種教條都暗含著自然人的獨立性這一觀點。自然狀態不受政府約束，但正如政治社會一樣，要受道德的約束，即上帝之法。人生而平等，如何行事是他的自由，至少在一切資源都充裕的原始條件下是這樣的。洛克認為隨著人類繁衍土地不足，需要製定淩駕於道德和自然狀態的準則；但是政府並不源於這種經濟需求，而是另有其源。道德約束總是有效的，但並不總被遵守。自然狀態下每個人都有權利處罰違規者：當人們為了更好的管理法規而將權力下放給某些人員時，公民社會就出現了。因此政府的創立源於社會契約，其權力是有限的並承擔互惠的義務，當然也可以被授權人修改和撤回。洛克的理論並不比霍布斯新穎，它隻是用思考的方式對憲政政府的另一番描述，並為大革命清算辯護，這在當時也是符合時宜的。
Letters on Religious Toleration
《宗教寬容論》
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.
洛克對信仰寬容的辯解非常經典，他的常備書籍表明早在出版第一篇論文的20年前就開始關注這個主題了。誠然，這個主題影響了他一生，卻始終懸而未決。他在威斯敏斯求學時，地方民事法官在宗教事務方麵的管理權利就是長老會和獨立派在牧師例會時激烈的討論話題，例會地點離他的宿舍僅一步之遙。進入基督教堂學院後，獨立派代表人物約翰歐文剛履新接任院長職位。之前已經有很多關於寬容的辯論，但大多出自弱小的派係。1646年傑裏米泰勒出版《自由預言》，此時他的派係已不占上風了。對歐文讚譽源於他在自己的派係最占上風的時候呼籲寬容；他1649年一月31日，他被請到下議院布道，決口不提前一天發生的慘劇，但在公開的布道上他增加了對寬容的熱烈討論。歐文沒有像彌爾頓在10年後發表的《論公民權利在宗教事業》中那樣高調，他認為“涉及宗教的任何強迫行為都是不合法的”。他強調差異性，而且他的職位使他不得不小心行事。歐文還主張民事法官對教堂負有義務，為教堂提供基礎設施並以公民和真理傳遞者的雙重義務保護牧師，另外他還呼籲對於精神上的冒犯，民事或者肉體上懲罰是不妥當的。
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,
洛克的立場與此不完全相同，他壓根就不是狂熱的清教徒。他對精心構造的神學和晦澀的哲學體係同樣的毫無興致。他第一次嚐試寫作宗教寬容方麵的論著也是著眼於宗教文章的觀點應該少而博大，宗教儀式應該簡易。洛克所認同的教義在歐文看來也許太過貧乏而令人感傷，其對政府功能的視野也更狹小。 洛克認為“
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.
法律的職能不是保證觀點的真實性，而是保障國民整體、個人財產和人身的安全性。”這也應該是法律的義務。法律可以很好的保障真理，隻要她自身不發生變化。她幾乎不會——我認為絕不會——受到她毫不了解也不受歡迎的偉大人類的影響；她不受法律教唆也不必接受外力以進入人的大腦。謬誤則會借助外力肆意盛行，但如果真理不是自發的被人所理解，她就很容易成為弱勢的一方，因為任何外在的衝突都會影響到她 。
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.
按照洛克的說法，教堂是一個“自由自願的社區”；其目的是公共朝聖，其朝聖之價值在於該行為所激發的信心：“所有宗教的生命和力量在於內心和思想的徹底皈依”，而這些與民事法官的裁定毫無關係。因而洛克是個宗教自願者，正如在國家幹預問題上他選擇獨立一樣。然而，他的宗教事務上的個人自由教義有一個例外：寬容不適用於天主教徒和無神論者。他在這一點上表現得自我矛盾一直為人詬病。很明顯，洛克這麽做並非出於宗教原因，而是考慮到國家政策；他認為羅馬天主教危及公共和平，因為其宣誓效忠外國王子；無神論者被視為例外則源於洛克認為國家的存在依賴於契約和契約的義務，就像任何道德規則都依賴於神的意誌。
http://article.yeeyan.org/view/303815/267181
