The theory of geographical environment was actually criticized by many scholars later on. Because this theory is also untenable today. For a country's social system and political system, how can it be said that the so-called soil, climate, area, and lifestyle of the country are the main factors, or that these environments will certainly have an impact on a nation's personality style, rather than playing a decisive role? This is obviously difficult to establish today.
Why is it difficult to make such a statement today?
This has a historical background. Because in the 18th century, countries were basically independent of each other, and international exchanges were very limited. At that time, apart from Western Europe, which was their own territory as they knew it, countries outside of Western Europe, such as the African continent, the American continent, China and Japan in the East, knew very little and rarely had direct relations with these foreign countries.
Although the Middle Ages had already seen the process of the Crusades and various wars, such as the discovery of the American continent by Columbus in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, which led to a change in the world's map, Europe and Africa were once one continent in history. Later, with the gradual movement of the Earth, the distance between them increased. However, the relationship between Europe and Africa is closer than that between Europe and Asia, due to historical reasons.
So, the entire North African region is under European control. From Spain, France, and Italy, they basically cover the entire country of North Africa. Most African countries, mostly European colonies, were not able to achieve independence until the mid-20th century. That is to say, from the 18th century to the mid-20th century, Africa was under European colonial rule.
So, Europeans' understanding of their own territory basically means that we can see the land under their noses, which was established in this way, or according to this culture, tradition, or even environment. Therefore, through this experience, they formed a universal understanding that all countries can determine their spiritual outlook based on their geographical environment. This is Montesquieu's attempt to draw a universal conclusion.
This conclusion can certainly be used by some rulers in history to explain the particularity of their power, and even the legitimacy of their power. For example, the emperor of the Qing Dynasty would say, 'Why should I implement dictatorship? Because my territory is too big and my population is too large. Therefore, geography determines my system, and we can only continue like this.'. But so far, no one dares to say so.
If we only talk about geographical determinism, then the public will definitely not want it. They will ask why we cannot implement democracy because of the large population? Are we not practicing democracy because of our large population?
Of course, this logic is valid. However, it is not feasible in practice. Because the reality of China is not just a large population, when we talk about it here, we are actually trying to say that Montesquieu wants to provide us with almost a summary of a country's social environment from a special, specific, and individual natural environment, and wants to promote this as a universal principle.
If we only listen to his first point, we can still accept it. That is to say, let's not say it has absolute significance, but we also acknowledge its role. The natural environment determines the spiritual outlook of a country. For example, why do northerners and southerners have different personalities?
It is precisely because of the different living environments and climatic conditions they are in. For example, why do people from the south not accept the traditional way of life after arriving in the north? For example, when people from Shanghai come to the north, their language is difficult for others to understand, while when people from the north move to the south, they are considered vulgar due to the differences between two opposing cultures.
However, you cannot say that we have a unified culture in the Central Plains and consider other cultures as vulgar while considering yourself a noble culture. This is obviously inappropriate.
So, it is right to respect the cultural characteristics of different regions. That is to say, the geographical environment can affect (not determine) the environmental characteristics of a region.
But if we generalize this point and say that every country in the world is like this, then it's not right. Where is it wrong?
It's not that this principle cannot be universally applied. If that's the case, it would violate the basic premise of its conclusion. Rather, it's a logical mistake, that is, the two conflicts and contradictions it faces. If we can regard a country's specific social environment, natural environment, and geographical environment as determining its spiritual outlook and social system, it means that we are already engaged in a logical induction activity from special to general.
It is a logical induction process, but in this logical induction process, we will find an important problem that the conclusion it gives does not have the possibility of covering various special situations.
For example, when a person is dead, we see that Zhang San has died and Li Si has also died, gradually dying. Then we say that because Zhang San has died and Li Si has died, and they are all dead, everyone will die.
This is inductive reasoning, which starts from A being X, B being X, C being X, and continues until all elements are X. This process is called induction.
Of course, in the process of induction, we will find that we can derive a universal principle, that is, to derive a universal conclusion through concrete examples. This conclusion is different from the specific process, and it must go beyond an abstract to concrete case, or concrete example, and become an abstract theory.
This abstract theory is applied to all universal objects, and the universality of a principle does not necessarily mean that it has universality itself, but rather that the principle itself can be universally applied to different objects, which is called its universality.
Universality means that it is not an idea itself that is universal, but rather that the idea can be universally applied to all objects, so the concept of universality is used as a verb. It is not used as a name, universality is not an attribute, it is a regulation of an action that can be universally applied to all situations. This is called universality.
If we understand it from this perspective, Montesquieu's understanding of universality, or his rules for different countries from his point of view, that all countries can be discussed in this way, has a logical deviation in itself.
The final conclusion he gave does not have such a principle that can be universally applied to all countries. Because its premise is that all countries have their own particularities. If every country has its own uniqueness, and each different country determines its social system based on its natural environment, climate conditions, and so on, then we cannot have a universal principle to dictate what kind of system this country should adopt.
The premise is established that you cannot have a unified standard, but your final conclusion provides a unified standard.
So, this creates a logical deviation. So, it should be noted here that Montesquieu and his French thinkers, as we often say, have the biggest problem of not pursuing logical consistency. They do not pay much attention to the various logical problems that arise in the intermediate links, because these are not the issues they consider.
The question they consider is whether this theory can explain what the ideal country he understands looks like. Their purpose is to explain reality, not to construct a self justifying theory.
If it is used to construct a self justifying theory, he will make the logical relationships between them more rigorous, but this is not his job. If he is constructing a logical deduction theory, it is not called French philosophy, let alone Enlightenment philosophy. If he can do this better than Kant, then what else should Kant do.
So, this is precisely the result of its historical limitations.
When we talk about philosophers, we always talk about the theories of other philosophers, including considerations of reality. Reading is not purely about reading the history of philosophy, philosophy is not the history of philosophy, but philosophy cannot be separated from the history of philosophy. Because there is no history of philosophy, it is equivalent to having no philosophy. Why?
Because you don't understand the history of philosophy, you can't start, you don't know where ideas start, you don't know how our predecessors did it. Our philosophy cannot be like sleeping in last night and discovering the truth, and then waking up today and realizing that you are a philosopher.
Philosophy is based on the same questions that have been extensively considered by our predecessors. We need to respect the philosophical ideas obtained by our predecessors, think about our own problems based on them, and answer past questions from our own perspective. Therefore, if you do not base your discussion on the history of philosophy, how can you talk about philosophy? It can only be groundless and cannot be discussed without a source.
