political philosophy has always been an important way of thinking and logical structure that guides people's organizational structure, and political philosophy is very similar to natural science. The failure of a science-derived technical practice may lead to An irreversible huge injury, such as the Chernobyl nuclear accident, or the Fukushima nuclear power plant, the scientific paradigm behind it is supported by the purpose of making it more convenient and accessible to people, and the development of science for human beings. The main purpose is security and survival, and the same goes for political philosophy. However, the failure of political philosophy may bring great pain to society, and its power is no less than the failure of scientific and technological practice, such as the organized and planned massacre supported by a theory, or the disregard of a balance of political factors , insisting on the use of a destructive weapon brought about by technological science; nuclear weapons. This kind of disaster is more dangerous than the former, because often politicians are not necessarily able to control their emotions. Even as a professional politician, all he can do is to ensure that he plays with the opponent under the most rational thinking.
The madness of the 18th century brought various interpretations of the word revolution, a destruction of one's own social fabric and the resulting revolt just as Enlightenment scholars called for a rebalancing of unequal rights and a rebalancing of natural rights. Explain that this negation of the spiritual value monopolized by the religious society in the past is more of a change in the social structure. People no longer believe in the certainty that "endure hardship in this world and be rich in the next life", because heaven, God, and revelation are all People themselves create for their own desires, so why do you have the right to inherit the power brought by the obligations of the predecessors and enjoy everything brought by it endlessly under this condition? Therefore, the light of enlightenment blew away this spiritual sustenance, and people began to look for ways to re-understand others, and communism was one of them.
In human history, there has never been such a huge change as in the first half of the 20th century. The system of the world has been gradually formed, and civilization has continued through guns. The powerful strength of Western philosophy and science has made all other civilizations feel sad pale, yes, even if people have huge doubts, but you can't deny that the system of the value of political philosophy began to be gradually pushed from the west to the world, on November 7, 1917, Vladimir Ilyich Wu The riots of the entire Bolshevik bloc led by Ryanov on the basis of the ideas of Karl Heinrich Marx directly made the world feel for the first time that the threat to its own civilization was so close, because the last French Revolution was at most The impact is on Western society, and the impact of the communist revolution, even the Western society where it originated, was shocked, because it is unbelievable, the situation in Russia and Marx's theory of revolution match, but Russia is unable to complete The "communism" that Marx advertised, obviously, when a social system that you can't cover in your lifetime, when it was still in a conceptual state, the Russians took it out, and they were crazy like Back then, when the French Revolution exported its own values, bloody storms were inevitable. The rioters at the bottom realized this opportunity and revolted one after another, regardless of whether it could mature or not.
In the end, new regimes were established, but just as Marx lacked the idea of a "cheap government", there was a group of intellectuals to help the communist system build bones and flesh, and they all rejected Marx's idea that it was nothing more than It's a rehash of Plato's Republic, or a retelling of Thomas More's Utopia. Because the current task of political philosophy has not been completed, and even the collective enlightenment of the elite group has not been achieved, thinkers are constantly arguing in their respective theoretical confrontations. So, it seems a little out of place to start talking about communism, or it's too early, or maybe it should be said; Karl Marx's sword is slanted, instead of following the rules of the past political philosophers and then moving forward. However, the organization has been established and the structure has become a fact. When political philosophers looked at this new country, they all responded negatively, because this is not a new organizational structure, this is not the emancipation of people's self-realization, its The essence comes from patriarchy, which is the inner core of feudalism, which does not conform to the concept of human rights established by the Enlightenment. Times, people have to fight again for general freedom. So, as we gradually began to accept another political structure that had been formally established in the 18th century until the present day's gradual structure, we knew very well that we had to choose this system, which was not the best, but by no means the worst. Yes, this is the rule of law that we have to seek, because it is difficult for us to believe that a person's subjective judgment can be absolutely in line with the general will in the human history that has gone through thousands of years, so we must not The second choice is to choose the rule of law, which is probably the reason why Plato had to write the "Law" in his later years.
I firmly believe that the ultimate political philosophical problem of man cannot be solved by the rule of law, but we have to make a space for ourselves and others, because I am unwilling to give up the reasonable rights that I should enjoy under my own independent judgment, and I do not want to be a person who lacks obligations but is Slaves at the mercy of a ruler with unlimited power.
And the collapse of totalitarianism is inevitable and irreversible, because it is impossible for a person to give his power to another person for life, even if he does appear to be impartial.
Because
great people are often bad people. -----Lord Acton
View more about Bridge of Spies reviews
