When we look back to ancient times, I strive to seek out and excavate its essence, so as not to mistake actually quite different situations as the same, or fail to distinguish the differences between seemingly similar ones.
These principles of mine are not my prejudices but are carefully selected from the characteristics of various things.
Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws
Then he went on to say,
One will not find in my book any bold and unrestrained strokes... My writings do not imply any criticism of the established political systems of any country. Each country will find in this book the reasons for the principles it follows; and it is very natural for us to draw the conclusion that only those who are fortunate enough to be born with the ability to understand the entire political system of a country can offer suggestions for its reform.
Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws
That is to say, he does not completely rule out the existing system or the previous institutional framework. We do not oppose it. However, what I want to tell you is that to what extent your current system conforms to this description of the system that I have provided. If it does not conform, then it needs to be reformed.
In the broadest sense, law is the necessary relationship derived from the nature of objective things.
Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws
Therefore, in 18th-century French philosophy, the understanding of law actually originated from the understanding of laws, and these laws did not stem from artificial concepts but from the nature of things and the natural, inherent relationships between things, rather than artificially imposed ones.
This relationship, he called it an inevitable one.
So, he said again,
In the broadest sense, law is the necessary relationship derived from the nature of objective things. From this perspective, all existences have their own laws; God has His law; the material world has its law; the "prophets and sages" above mankind have their laws; animals have their laws; and human beings have their laws.
Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws
Therefore, it is the case that all things have the existence of law, not just humans. What is the basis for the inevitability of the existence of all things?
The basis lies in the existence of such rationality. Here, the concept of "rationality" is different from that used by later philosophers. As we emphasized earlier, the French Enlightenment was distinct from that of Germany and Britain in two core words: one is rationality and the other is religion.
And reason is used to refute religion. When the concept of reason is acquired, the concept of religion can thus be doubted.
So, this rational "it" is indeed not the rationality (Reason) we usually talk about. The concept of rationality is Reason, and Reason is what we usually referred to as "reasoning activities" before, or simply put, reasoning. Therefore, rationality is achieved through reasoning, through our basic, simple, or instinctive reasoning activities about a thing.
Why is it said to be instinctive?
It is something that doesn't require you to deliberate over it, doesn't need to be explained by a certain theory, and doesn't rely on a preconceived notion. You can directly sense that this thing should be like this and not like anything else. This kind of thing should be recognized in this way and not by any other means.
And this kind of thing is just like the fact that people are mortal, or that people are just like animals. This conclusive statement is not because some philosopher said, "People are mortal," so we believe that people are mortal. Instead, it is a kind of cognitive activity formed based on a fundamental, empirical, and common-sense judgment. And the process of this cognitive activity unfolding is called reason.
Therefore, the concept of reason throughout France is very empirical rather than purely rational. So, in a strict sense, it would be more appropriate to translate "reason" here as "intellect", but it cannot be regarded as intellect either, because the "wisdom" in intellect corresponds to the English word "Understanding", which is a sign of having intellect. If you can understand a thing, it indicates that you have intellect, which is a sign of intellect.
Therefore, having reason is a basic ability for each of us. However, this statement cannot be reversed. Or to put it another way, because you are a human being, you also have reason. These are two different concepts and two different levels. Understanding is a natural ability, meaning you can understand a thing. But when it rises to a higher level, it is called Reason, which means you have the ability of reason.
Among all the French Enlightenment thinkers, they covered both aspects, but the prominent one was the aspect of Reason. Why was it not the aspect of Understanding that was highlighted?
Because the level of "Understanding" is precisely emphasized in British empiricism. In Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" and Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding", both books' comprehension of the concept of intellect is "understanding", which is their examination of people's general understanding ability, such as reasoning activities and causal relationships. For instance, "where there is a cause, there must be an effect", this is called causal inference, which is "understanding" rather than "reason".
It is the ability that a normal person generally possesses to know that when a thing happens, it will inevitably lead to such a result. You don't need profound knowledge to have it. Common people all know that "there is a cause and there is an effect", which is a basic logic. This is called understanding. Philosophers like Hume, they want to examine how such an ability is established and doubt why we should believe that there is a cause and there is an effect.
To still doubt this thing, there must be a cause and effect, which has long been determined. The common understanding is that it is because people have rational abilities that it can be established. Hume says no. Why is that?
It is entirely due to habit that we habitually believe that the occurrence of an event must have a result. Because this event has happened before, it will surely happen again in the future. Therefore, this is a kind of habitual reasoning.
This habit is actually an associative activity, a psychological associative activity of human beings. Therefore, in Hume's view, logic and psychology are mixed together. British philosophers emphasized understanding more than reason; however, in the eyes of French philosophers, they emphasized reason, which is the essence of rationality itself.
Therefore, the rationality lies in that we human beings can understand the relationships between things through such rationality. If human rationality can recognize the relationships between things, we can confirm that there are laws (Law) among all things. And human beings do have such ability to understand the relationships between things, so there must be laws existing among things.
And there exists such a relationship among things precisely based on human rational ability and consciousness. Its logic is such a logic. So, although it is a seemingly simple sentence and there is no obstacle in understanding it on the surface, if you analyze it carefully, there is a logical deduction process hidden behind it.
Of course, it is also very easy for us to refute this logical deduction. Why does it follow that because humans have the ability of rational thinking, they can recognize the relationships between things? Or why can it be said that humans can necessarily recognize such relationships between things? This statement can also be put this way: How can it be proved, or why can it be proved, that there exists such a necessary relationship between things, and then infer that humans also possess such rational ability?
It can be said that this is a logical issue, that is to say, can the set of arguments given by Montesquieu hold water?
That is one way for us to test our own judgment on this issue. Let's take a look at how Montesquieu argued.
Although all things in the universe have their own laws, and human society, like the physical world, has its unchanging laws, the intelligent world does not always abide by its own laws as the physical world does. This is because individual "intelligent beings" are limited by their nature and thus make mistakes; and on the other hand, independent action is their nature. Therefore, they do not always follow their original laws; and even the laws they themselves have established, they do not always abide by.
What does this indicate?
The laws governing human society are different from those in nature. The second question is, what causes the gap between these laws?
It is because people always fail to abide by this law. Why do they not abide by it? It is due to the limitations of their own nature. But what are these limitations of nature?
This inherent limitation is human nature, human instinct. Because you can never act according to possible laws, human society is always poorly governed. So, this is also Montesquieu's judgment. We often raise two questions or two judgments. What we need to examine is whether they can stand up to scrutiny philosophically and logically, or if there are any problems.
Earlier, we mentioned two issues concerning Montesquieu's work, "The Spirit of Laws", which at the beginning of the book sets up discussions about nature, the origin of law, and necessity. These issues have already been raised before, that is, he needs to find a starting point for Reason, and this starting point must be non-empirical. Therefore, some fundamental a priori rational principles must be established to define the existence of this so-called law, which has a rational basis.
The existence of the according-to itself is inevitable, and this inevitability determines that it cannot possibly be derived from natural terms such as society, customs, environment, etc., or from conditions stipulated by experience.
