The Conflicts And Reconciliation Between "Good Man" And "Good Citizen"

The conflicts and reconciliation between "good man" and "good citizen" is a crucial question for consideration faced by the human race, when he moved from the primitive state to the so called "societal animals" and "political animals". As a race with intellect, people, especially those great geniuses are deeply aware of their deep care and concern for their perfection and health of their souls, and make great efforts to become "the best man"; meanwhile, man can only live "in association with others","Men are political animals," as asserted by Aristotle. As individuals, man can live alone, but as a whole, man cannot live from isolating himself from the society. Thus, for the existence and welfare of the whole human being, we need to devote ourselves to others, especially those of our compatriots and citizens in the same political community. Then what is the relationship between the two? Which comes first? In the final analysis, it points to this:How can man deal with the order or hierarchy between the two to benefit most for him?Western classical rationalist philosophy based its thinking on the ground that philosophical life, as a relentless questioning and quest for moral wisdom, can or should somehow transcend (not to say guide) political and moral life. This in reality is the most crucial and the most subtle question for classical political philosophy. The "Socratic turn" of philosophy is the most forceful and wisest response ever made to this question. On the one hand, through elaborating the difference and conflicts between philosophy and politics, or rather, between "good man" and "good citizen", it bring to light the possible bad results stemming from those conflicts; on the other hand, it draws our attention to the lives in the city and among the citizens and lays bare the complexities and irreconcilable tension between philosophical or moral virtue and civil virtue. The possibility of reconciliation may find its origin in the philosopher's self-awareness of his civil obligation and his thinking of the possibility of philosophizing. Hence the mission of Socrates and his successors as political philosophers thus turns to be the apology or defense on behalf of philosophy against the tribunal of the political community and for the political community.The enlightenment of modern philosophy, originated from those philosophers in the16th and17th century, attempted to invent a whole new interpretation on the relationship between the virtues of "good man" and "good citizen". This new thinking was based on the belief:they asserted that they can overcome or avoid those tensions, problems and contradictions that dominated the classical rationalism. To achieve this goal, generally speaking, modern philosophers transform in two aspects: first, they take the rejected the philosophical or theological dimension in the traditional rationalism as "visionary" or "idealism", and separated it, which is the so-called "political disenchantment". This disenchantment seems to have elevated philosophy or theology from "human wisdom" to "divine wisdom", but in effect have rent philosophy and theology, politics and human life into pieces. As a result, the love or pursuit of the truth is taken for the gratification of some other more natural or deeper needs and enthusiasms, and becomes purely personal and has nothing to do with the political. Society or politics is no longer viewed as pointing to things other than oneself, and hence the possibility of transcending oneself is lost. Second, starting from insight into the eternity and necessity in the human nature, they "realistically" interpret anew and re-construct the political life, and thus changed the nature of politics. They have faith in such a promise:if the enlightened masses are nurtured under this new principle, they will find a life of peaceful consensus and calm satisfaction under the guidance of the new principles.Rousseau, in France, the center of Enlightenment Movement in Europe, in its climax, was the first to launch an attack on the enlightenment philosophy, so he was viewed as a "monster" and "pessimist". But undeniably, he indeed realized clearly and profoundly the detriments and negative consequences of modern political philosophy, which can be summarized as follow:the degrading of the character or taste of man and politics and the vicious circle between the two will result in the total destruction of human intellects. Starting from this insight, Rousseau proposed his ideas of natural education. He tried to bridge the gap between the intellectually mature human beings, the product of the fully developed individuals from their natural aptitude, and the liberal democracy in politics based on the intellectually mature human beings, to pave the way for the possibility of the exaltation of human race and its political virtue. As he was acquainted with the classical rationalist philosophy, knew deep in his heart that the reconciliation or even identity between the virtues of "good man" and "good citizen" may not be a realistic solution, it may only be a criterion for the "soul's eye". This criterion is for the measurement and criticism of the existing politics, and brings its limitations to the fore. So to speak, Rousseau's natural education is essentially only "in speech" but not "in deed". This explains why he gives the impression of being ambiguous and contradictory, as he always deliberately pay much attention to the distinction of different objects.