從文藝復興到復興之路-李世默

博洛尼亞——這裏是世界上最古老的大學, 歐洲文藝復興的搖籃之一，讓人想起了500年前文藝復興初期曾經居住在這附近的一位偉大的意大利人、現代史上首位政治學者——尼可羅•馬基雅維利。在馬基雅維利寫給友人弗蘭西斯科•維托里的信中，這名佛羅倫薩共和國國務秘書講述了自己在距此不遠的鄉村裏的流放生活。在漫長而平靜的日子裏，每當夜深人靜的時候，馬基雅維利總會換上宮廷的華服，進入自己的書房。在那裏，他廢寢忘食地閲讀先哲遺篇，與古賢心照神交。只有在那樣的漫漫長夜裏，他才感覺不到飢餓乾渴，也不再懼怕死亡。在那裏，他寫下了流傳百世的代表作《論李維》。在此書中馬基雅維利將政治制度分成三個大類：君主制度、貴族制度和民主制度；而每種制度又有相對應的墮落形態。君主制度可能墮落為暴君統治；貴族制度可能墮落為寡頭統治；民主制度可能墮落為放蕩無度的混亂。

馬基雅維利代表着文藝復興的精神內核——求知求真的精神。正是這樣開明的觀點促成了人類所有活動領域的各種偉大發現，創造了現代世界。然而，與其它大規模文化哲學運動一樣，文藝復興的理念已經逐漸變得抽象、教條——成為處理人類事務無論何時何地都必須遵照的公理。封閉僵化的心態取代了求知求真的精神。在政治治理領域，人們開始迷信作為三種制度之一的民主制度是絕對正確的；而選舉在任何時候都是解決所有社會、政治和經濟問題的靈丹妙藥。

但歷史經驗告訴我們，事實並非如此。是的，民主制度非常成功地推進了西方的工業化，並在最近幾個世紀中使西方站在了世界之巔。不過，當民主制度被移植到非西方國家時，收效良莠不齊，甚至許多地方被搞得一塌糊塗。事實上，如果我們仔細研究當代的西方世界，我們可以發現，歐洲和美國的民主制度正在朝着馬基雅維利曾經預警過的墮落形態發展。非常有趣的是，今日歐洲最有能力的政治家（指意大利總理馬里奧•蒙蒂）恰好也是歐洲唯一一名非選舉產生的領導人。

問題是，直到最近幾十年以前，我們一直找不到選舉民主的反例。近代史上有許多民主治理失敗的例子，卻難以找到其它治理體系取得明顯成功的例子。

直到世人將目光投向中國。人們無法繼續忽略這一文明古國的復興和其優勢所產生的重要意義。十數億人民從四分五裂的廢墟和赤貧的苦厄中站了起來，撐起了世界第二大經濟體。中國在沒有進行一次選舉的情況下，創造了這樣的奇蹟。可以説，今日的中國是一個實驗性社會：創業精神推動着中國經濟的增長；各級政府都在廣泛開展着政治實踐；藝術創造力使中國成為世界上最具活力的當代藝術基地。中國目前仍有許多問題，其中不乏嚴峻的挑戰，但或許我們正在經歷的，是另一場文藝復興的開頭。

中國復興之際，擺在全世界政治和知識界精英們面前的是兩條路。一條是否認中國：這是一條簡單易行的道路，因為在許多人封閉僵化的思想裏，只需先驗判斷就可以否定掉所有與民主、人權等普世真理相悖的事物。對這部分人來説，根本無需研究中國就能得出結論：中國不可能是特例，所以必將無可避免地走向失敗。許多年來，他們一直預測中國會垮掉。當預言落空時，他們便將中國崩潰的時間點再推遲一二十年，然後坐等預言再次落空。

另一條路，是將中國的復興看做一種契機，去重拾那曾經孕育現代世界的求知求真精神。或許現在是以開明心態去研究中國現象的時候了；或許根本不存在唯一一套有效、公正地組織人類社會的原則。你們可以看到，在西方的政治、知識話語體系中，人們似乎對可檢驗的命題不再感興趣。人們不再像文藝復興早期那樣，將觀點先作為假説提出來，而是直接奉為信條。以中國為例，接受多元化的世界或許會帶給西方一個絕好的機會，為陳腐的知識界樹立新風。

讓我們緬懷另一位意大利先哲，那就是那不勒斯的哲學家詹巴蒂斯塔•維柯。在文藝復興的早期，維柯對永恆的普世真理提出了質疑。他首先提出了關於文化的獨特性的觀點，並鼓勵世人接受文化的多樣性。誠然，與維柯的思想相反的笛卡爾、盧梭和康德在啓蒙運動中佔了上風，但正如當代政治理論家以賽亞•伯林所説，維柯的思想，不但從實踐上，更從原理上直接挑戰了所謂的絕對真理和基於其上的完美社會。當西方領導着世界朝着所謂不可阻擋的普世理想前進時，這些文藝復興早期的思想被抹殺了。

或許當代東方的這場新文藝復興能夠重新喚醒沉睡的西方。（英文原文見第2頁。）

  FROM RENAISSANCE TO RENAISSANCE  

Bologna -- In the world’s oldest university, a cradle of the European Renaissance, one is reminded of a great Italian who lived at the onset of that Renaissance half a millennium ago - the first political scientist Niccolò Machiavelli. In one of his letters to his friend Francesco Vettori, the Florentine Secretary talked about his days in exile in a village not far from Bologna.

After each long and uneventful day, when all were asleep, Niccolò would put on his royal garment and enter his study. There, for many hours, he would read the ancients, converse with them. And in those long hours of the night he felt no hunger, no thirst, and he no longer feared death. It was there that he wrote his seminal work, Discourses on Livy. In it, Niccolò classified all political systems into three types: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. He wrote that each had its degraded form. Monarchy could degrade into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, and democracy into licentiousness.

Niccolò represented the fundamental spirit of the Renaissance, the spirit of inquisitiveness. It was that open-minded outlook that drove great discoveries in all spheres of human activities and created the modern world. But over time, as most sweeping cultural and philosophical movements do, the ideas of the Renaissance became abstract and absolute doctrines - a set of universal axioms that must be applied to organize human affairs across all times and places. Inquisitiveness gave way to moral and intellectual certitude. In the realm of political governance, it means that democracy alone, among all other possible systems of governance, is infallible. Election is the magical solution to all social, political and economic ills anywhere, at any time.

But we know from empirical evidence that it is not so. Yes, democratic institutions have been highly successful in delivering the industrialization of the West; it allowed it to dominate the world in recent centuries. Yet, when it is implemented in non-Western cultures, the record is spotty at best, and miserable in many instances. Indeed, if we examine the contemporary West, one might argue that democracy in both Europe and America is edging dangerously towards what Niccolò forewarned as its degraded form. It is interesting to note that arguably the most competent statesman in Europe today is also its only unelected leader (Mario Monti).

The problem, however, is that up until recent decades, there really has not been a counter example to electoral democracy. There have been many failures of democratic governance but not any notable success stories of other systems of governance either.

That brings us to China. The significance of the re-emergence and ascendancy of the Middle Kingdom can no longer be ignored. More than one billion people of a dismembered state have risen from abject poverty to make up the second- largest economy in the world. And it has happened without a single election.

Indeed, today’s China, like Renaissance Europe, is an experimental society. Entrepreneurship drives its economy; political experiments are conducted at all levels of government; artistic creativity has made the contemporary Chinese art scene one of the most vibrant in the world. Many problems exist, some are severe, nevertheless we may very well be witnessing the formative stage of another renaissance.

As the Chinese renaissance unfolds, the world’s political and intellectual elites have two options. One is to deny it. This is the easy route because, in the closed minds of many, any ideas that are counter to the accepted universal truths of democracy and human rights are rejected a priori. To them, there is no need to examine the Chinese case as for certain it cannot exist and it must be on its way to inevitable failure. For many years, they have predicted China’s collapse. Such a collapse has not happened, so they simply postpone the projected date by another decade or two and sit and wait.

The other is to see it as an opportunity to reignite the inquisitive outlook that gave birth to the modern world. Perhaps it is high time that we study the Chinese phenomenon with an open mind. Perhaps there isn’t a singular set of fundamental organizing principles of human society that is effective and righteous. In the current political and intellectual discourses of the West, people no longer seem interested in testable propositions. Ideas are no longer posed as hypotheses, as they were at the beginning of the Renaissance, but as articles of faith. And, perhaps, with China’s example, a healthy acceptance of plurality offers a chance for the West to rejuvenate its ossified intellectual ethos.

This brings to mind another great Italian, the Neapolitan philosopher Giambattista Vico. In the early days of the Renaissance, Vico questioned the doctrine of timeless universal truths. He originated the notion of the uniqueness of cultures and advocated the acceptance of their plurality.

As the contemporary political scientist Isaiah Berlin noted, Vico’s ideas directly challenged the notion of absolute truths and a perfect society founded on them, not merely in practice but in principle. Of course, the opposing ideas of Descartes, Rousseau and Kant came to dominate the Enlightenment. As the West led the world in what has been propagated as inexorable progress towards the universal ideal, those early voices of the Renaissance were silenced.

Perhaps the contemporary renaissance in the East could serve to reawaken the West.

（本文英文版發表於《南華早報》： http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1099245/renaissance-east、赫芬頓郵報： http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-x-li/china-renaissance_b_2254288.html，觀察者網中文全文首發。）