如果把自由在最一般的意义上定义为一种不存在对于思想和行为的障碍的状态，那么世界上没有任何一个民族在任何时候拒绝这种自由，但它们对于自由的理解与追求的方式各不相同。就此而言，在这里使用具有强烈的西方色彩的"自由"这个词，在某种程度上也就抹杀了它对于不同的文化传统来说必然具有的某些不可通约的特性。就中国的情况来说，从近代以来，以西方的"自由"反对自身传统中的"专制"，已经是一个持续了一百多年的话题。这个话题至今仍在持续，说明了这种要求的生命力。但这只是问题的一半。如果我们相信对于自由的追求是人类社会进步的唯一动力这样一个基本的命题，那么就必须承认，如果在中国文化传统中没有一种对于自由的执着，也就没有几千年来中国文化的存在与发展。

　　如果承认中国传统文化中存在着某种类似于自由的思想观念，那么在这里不仅有一个语言之间转换的问题，即在中国和西方文化的系统之间对围绕"自由"而展开的各种思考进行一系列的概念与语境的等值的替换，而且更重要的是必须在具体的对话环境中通过中西方历史上自由观念的发展的对比，揭示出这两种自由观的相对价值及其缺陷所在，从而最终为人们对自由的更为普遍，也更为具体的理解提供一种新的可能的线索。

一、西方政治传统中的自由观念

　　古代希腊文化是西方政治思想的渊源，也有不少的政治思想家把西方近代产生的自由主义观念一直往后延伸到古希腊，并以此证明西方文明从一开始就孕育了自由观念的萌芽。在政治思想中，这被称为"伟大的历史传统"的神话。然而，对古代希腊政治思想的实际考察证明，虽然不能说在当时人们的观念中没有自由的思想，但同时应该承认的是，这种对于自由的理解与现代西方的自由观念是具有相当的不同的内涵的。实际上，现代西方的自由思想是近代政治和社会发展的产物，或者说是一种自由的现代表达方式，是古希腊之后，西方政治思想中对于自由的思考经过一系列的转换最终的产物。

　　在荷马时代的希腊人中间，人们很难找到一种对于自由的正面的体验与感觉。普罗米修斯向人们反复说明追求自由的代价，西西福斯则向世人述说命运的无奈，至于俄迪浦斯王子的传说，则更是典型地体现了一种希腊人对于自由的绝望。翻阅古希腊典籍，能够找到的对自由最早的表述之一是由赫西阿德做出的。在他的一首诗歌中，一只老鹰对被它捕获的夜莺宣称："是什么让你如此颤栗，你已经被一个比你更强者所捕获，只能随我四处游历。如果我愿意，你也许会成为我的盘中之羹，也许会重获自由。只有蠢货才会反抗强者。

　　这里反映的是对自由最通常的理解，即一种与奴役相对的状态。当然，从某种意义上说，自由永远只能通过对比加以认识。由于古代希腊城邦普遍存在奴隶制度，各城邦的政治制度也各不相同，所以奴隶与自由民的对比，以及不同城邦公民生活模式的对比就十分自然地成为人们对于自由的理解的出发点。不过，在古希腊，以这种方式理解的自由可能被称为某种"权利"要更为妥当一些。在古希腊的政治思想家当中，亚里斯多德曾经多次提及自由的概念，比如说，在谈到寡头政体与平民政体的区别时，他写道：如果"一个城邦组织内，全部都是自由的公民，而富于资财的人则限于其中的较小部分；其一以自由为标帜，另一则以财富为依据，这些就是寡头和平民两派各各据以争取统治权力的实际基础。" 在论及城邦获得优良的政治生活所必须的基本条件的时候，他又表示："除了财富与自由之外，正义的品德和军人的习性（勇毅）也是不可缺少的要素。人们倘使要共处于一个城邦之中，就应该各各具有这些要素。前两个要素为城邦所由存在的条件，后两个要素则为城邦所由企求并获致优良生活的条件。" 亚里斯多德并且认为，如果在一个城邦中实现了政治的正义，那么人们就将"在为了达到自足的目的而共同生活的人们之间发现，他们是自由的，而且或者在比例方面，或者在算术方面彼此平等"。

　　亚里斯多德用"自由"这个概念来表达对于某些政治权利的拥有，这应该是没有什么疑问的。实际上，在古希腊，自由民与奴隶最大的差别，也就在于是否拥有参与城邦政治生活的权利。当然，在亚里斯多德的理解之外，在古希腊还存在着另一种对自由的理解，那就是伯利克里的理解。他在其著名的《葬礼上的演说辞》中说："我们在政治上的自由扩展到日常生活之中，……但个人生活中的这一切并没有使我们作为公民无视法律。我们的保障在于这样的一种信念，它告诫我们服从管理者和法律，……在雅典，我们按照自己的喜好生活，但我们时刻准备面临一切挑战。虽然我们的习惯来自于闲暇而非辛劳，我们的勇气来自于自然而非人为，但我们却乐意面对危险，我们既不必刻意经历艰辛，但在必要的时候又能够无畏地面对它们，因而比起从来不曾从艰苦中脱身的人们来说，我们具有双倍的优越。"

　　伯利克里在这里是拿斯巴达与雅典作对比，说雅典人具有比斯巴达人更多的自由，意思是说与斯巴达人相比，雅典人具有一种更加自在舒适的生活方式，也就是说，雅典与斯巴达相比，对于它的公民们施行较少的强制。这仍然是一种相对而言的自由。当然，它的意义在于不仅意味着一种政治上的权利，而且也意味着一种对于个人生活方式的自主选择。这是近代以来西方自由思想的一个基本出发点。从这个意义上说，斯巴达和其他不那么自由的城邦的存在使雅典人更加珍视和发挥他们所享有的自由，更强化了他们的自由的意识。在罗马的政治思想中，我们也可以发现同样的特点（即通过与奴役的对比发现自由）存在。从这里也许可以得出一个附带的结论，那就是在自由的问题上，一种与不自由的对比的存在本身，是对自由的一个重要的促进因素，而对古代中国来说，这种对比的缺乏也许是人们不能更多地从政治与法律的角度界定自由的一个原因。

　　但也不应该把伯利克里对于雅典自由的赞颂过于理想化，因为无论雅典人还是斯巴达人，对于城邦来说都有一种绝对服从的义务，而他们所能够拥有的自由，不过是城邦允许之下的自由。关键在于，任何公民都不具有反抗城邦哪怕是不公正不合理的行为的权利，苏格拉底之死就是一个典型的例子。这是古代的自由与近代的自由的一个最大的差别所在。苏格拉底之死，以及雅典城邦在伯利克里之后迅速的衰败，使柏拉图对于雅典的自由，以及体现这种自由的民主制度采取了一种极端怀疑的态度。他相信，一种真正的政治，需要的不是个性选择的自由，因为人性的弱点的客观存在必然使这种自由变成一种对个人欲望的放纵。对于柏拉图来说，政治的根本，应该是某种确定的秩序即"正义"，是理性对于"意见"和欲望的绝对的支配。这种支配既体现在同一个人的身上，也体现于一个城邦之中，即哲学家对于公共生活的统治。

　　如果用后代的自由观念来重构柏拉图的思想，那么可能提出这样的一个问题，即真理与自由的关系应该是怎么样的？尽管柏拉图本人并没有明确表达这样的思想，但我们还是可以设想在柏拉图的思想体系中，按照理性生活并且彻底控制了自己的欲望的人是否自由。相信柏拉图应该能够做出一个肯定的回答。这里为后来自由与必然的关系的讨论提供了最初的基础。但是，这种"自由"既不近人情，如同后来亚里斯多德所批判的那样；又具有过分强烈的精英主义的色彩，因为按照柏拉图的理论，只有极少数的人才能具有这种按照理性生活的资格。具体到实际的政治生活当中，柏拉图希望的，显然是为象苏格拉底那样的思想家保证一种思考的自由，但矛盾在于，他所设想的理想国中虽然为哲学家保留了最高统治者的位置，但同时也已经排除了自由思想的任何可能性，因为他设想的是一种完全静止、僵化的、当然按照他的理论也是完美的公共生活的模式（理想国的制度还可以有改进的余地吗？），所以苏格拉底的命运在那里大概也好不了多少。

　　柏拉图在《理想国》中的设想在相当大的程度上后来被他自己所放弃，所上所说，亚里斯多德对于自由的理解又重新回到了常识的水平上来，亚里斯多德曾经表示，在一种良好的宪法下的生活是一种安全的而非奴役的生活，而这种观点也被托马斯·阿奎那所继承，他并且认为这种生活是自由而且安全的（libertatern et salutem），这是罗马到中世纪之间政治思想中关于自由的观念的一个基本内容。如上所说，与古希腊人一样，罗马人的自由最初同样是罗马人相对于奴隶或者罗马之外的其他民族的人的自由，它同样表现为某些政治与社会的权利。但除此之外，在古罗马，人们对于自由的理解又增加了新的内容，这就是所谓的"共和主义"的传统对自由的理解。这种理解包括两个方面的内容，首先是关于法律与自由的关系。古罗马的政治思想家如西塞罗等人都强调自由应该受到法律的调整从而使其区别于"放任"（licence）。西塞罗本人曾经写道："任何事物如果走向极端--无论是天气、收成还是人的健康--都会成为它的反面，对于一个国家的政治生活而言尤其如此。极端的自由，其结果只会是极端的奴役，这无论对于人民全体还是公民个人来说都同样正确。纯粹的自由将导致政治上的专制，这将是最不公正的和最残暴的奴役状态。"

If freedom is defined in its most general sense as a state of absence of any obstacle to human thoughts and actions, then no nation in the world would reject this kind of freedom at any time, thought they may understand and pursue freedom in different ways. The term "freedom" as is used here carries strong Western connotations, which to some extent obliterates the special characteristics necessarily possessed by other cultural traditions. As far as China is concerned, in the modern era, the fight against "autocracy" by means of Western "freedom" has been a topic lasting for more than one hundred years. The topic continues to last, indicating the vitality of this demand. But this is only half the story. If we believe this basic proposition that the pursuit of freedom is the only driving force behind the progress of human society, we have to admit that if there has been no persist pursuit for freedom in the cultural tradition of China, there would be no existence and the development of Chinese culture over the past thousands of years.

If we admit that, in Chinese traditional culture, there is a concept somewhat analogous to the Western notion of freedom, then we are not only confronted with the problem of language transit, that is, the equivalent switching of a series of concepts and contexts between Chinese and Western cultural systems when reflections are conducted concerning the notion of "freedom". More importantly, we are also confronted with the task of discovering the relative values of those two concepts of freedom and their inadequacies by contrasting, under the specific contexts of dialogue, the historical development of the concept of freedom in China and in the West. In this way, we can provide possible new clues for an understanding, at once more general and specific, of the concept of freedom.

Part I: The Concept of Freedom in the Western Tradition

The ancient Greek culture is the origin of Western political thought. Many political thinkers trace the concept of freedom as developed in the modern period in the West back to ancient Greece and indicate that, from the outset, Western civilization contained the earliest notion of freedom. In political thought, this is called the myth of "great historical tradition". However, an actual examination of the ancient Greek political thought would indicate that, though we cannot say that ancient Greeks had not idea of freedom, their understanding of freedom differed considerably from the notion of freedom developed in Western modern history. As a matter of fact, the Western concept of freedom in the modern period was the product of its modern political and social development. Or we can say that the modern expression of freedom is the ultimate product of Western political thought after a series of shifts in the reflections on freedom since the ancient Greece.

Among the Greeks of the Homer period, it is difficult to find a positive feeling and experience of freedom. Prometheus reiterates the price for pursuing freedom and Sisyphus explains to the populace the impossibility to fight against one's fate. The story of Oedipus Rex typically embodies the despair of ancient Greeks in their quest for freedom. In ancient Greek literature, the earliest articulation of freedom is made by Hesiod in one of poems, in which the eagle says to his prey " Why do you shiver so?/ You have been captured by a more powerful predator/ You can only travel around with me/ If I am willing, you could be my meal/Or I can set you free/ Only the stupid will rebel."(1)

This is the most general understanding of freedom, as a state opposite to enslavement. Of course, to some extent, freedom can be understood only in this way. Because of the institution of slavery in all the city-states in ancient Greece and because of the different political system within those city-states, the contrast between the slaves and the free people and the contrast in the mode of civic life between different city-states naturally served as a foundation on which people understood the concept of freedom. However, the freedom understood in this way by the ancient Greeks might be more properly considered to be a right. Among ancient Greek political thinkers, Aristotle made many references to the concept of freedom. For example, when referring to the distinction between oligarchy and democracy, he wrote: "if within a city-state all people are free citizens, rich people would only account for a small proportion. Some are marked by freedom while others are marked by their property. Those are the actual foundations on which those representing oligarchy and those representing democracy struggle for the power of government."(2) When talking about the necessary conditions for the city-states to obtain excellent political life, he says: " Apart from wealth and freedom, the quality of justice and the quality of a soldier (bravery) are also indispensable. If people are to co-exist in a city-state, they should possess those qualities. The first two qualities are necessary for the existence of the city-state while the later two qualities are the conditions that a city-state should attempt to pursue and with which it can obtain excellent life."(3) Aristotle further believes that "if political justice could be realized in a city-state, among people who co-exist for the purpose of attaining self-sufficiency, they will find they are free, equal in proportion, or in mathematical terms." (4)

There should be no doubt that Aristotle used the concept of freedom to indicate the possession of certain political rights. Actually, in ancient Greece, the great difference between free people and slaves lies in whether a person possessed the right to participate in the political life of the city-state. Of course, besides Aristotle's understanding, there was another type of understanding of freedom prevalent in ancient Greece, which was represented by Pericles. In his famous Address at a Funeral, he proposes: " Our political freedom has spread to our daily life. ……. But all those in our personal life have not made us indifferent to law as citizens. Our guarantee lies in a belief, which constantly reminds us of the need to obey our administrators and the law, ……. In Athens, we live according to what we like but we are always ready to meet all challenges. Although our habits derive from leisure instead of labor and our courage is natural rather than artificial, we are willing to face hazards. We do not have to undergo those unnecessary hardships but we are ready to face those hardships fearlessly when it is necessary. Therefore, compared with those who have never been out of hardships, we possess double advantages."

Here, Pericles was making a comparison between Sparta and Athens. By saying that Athenians possessed greater freedom than the Spartans, Pericles implies that compared with the Spartans, the Athenians enjoyed a more comfortable and leisurely way of life. It further implies that Athens imposed fewer restrictions on its citizens than Sparta. This was still a relative kind of freedom. Of course, it not only implies political right but also implies the autonomous choice of one's personal life. This is the basic premise of the concept of freedom in the West since the modern period. In this sense, the existence of Sparta and other less free city-states made the Athenians value and exercise the freedom that they possessed and further reinforced their awareness of freedom. In the Roman political thought, we can discover the existence of similar features (by means of contrasting with enslavement). Here we might arrive at an incidental conclusion that, on the issue of freedom, the existence of the contrast between freedom and enslavement constitutes an important contributing factor to freedom. But for ancient China, the lack of such a contrast perhaps explains why people failed to define freedom from the political and legal perspective.

Nevertheless, it is not proper to idealize Pericles' glorification of Athenian freedom because both the Athenians and the Spartans owed the obligation of absolute obeying the city-states to which they belonged. The freedom that they could enjoy was within the limits granted by their city-states. The point is that any citizen had no right to rebel against the unfair and the unjust actions of the city-states. The death of Socrates serves as a typical example in this respect. This is the greatest difference between the ancient and the modern forms of freedom. The death of Socrates and the rapid decline of the Athenian city-states after Pericles made Plato extremely skeptical about the Athenian freedom and the democratic form that embodied this freedom. He believed that a genuine form of politics does not require the free choice of individuality because the objective existence of thee weaknesses of humanity necessarily turns this kind of freedom into an indulgence in personal desires. For Plato, what is fundamental to politics is a kind of definite order, that is, justice or the absolute domination of reason over the "wishes" and the desires. This domination can be manifest in the same person or in a city-state, that is, the government of the public life by a philosopher.

If we reconstruct Plato's thoughts by means of the later-day concept of freedom, a question might be raised: what should be the relationship between truth and freedom? Although Plato himself did not provide any definite expression of such thoughts, we can still ask whether, according to Plato's ideology, the person who lived by the principle of reason and completely controlled his personal desires is free. We know that Plato would give an affirmative answer to this question. Here, an initial foundation was provided for a later-day discussion concerning the relationship between freedom and inevitability. However, this type of freedom is not in accordance with human nature, as is pointed out by Aristotle in his critique. On the other hand, it is overly tinted with elitism because according to Plato's theory only a very limited number of people could live by the principle of reason. In the actual political life, what Plato wished was surely to guarantee a sort of freedom of thought for such thinkers as Socrates. But the contradiction is that although he reserved for philosophers the status of the highest ruler in his republic, he has also eliminated any possibility of free thinking because what he conceived was a mode of public life that was totally static, rigid, which he regarded as perfect (or is there any room for improvement in his republic?). It is therefore natural that Socrates did not have a good time there.

To a large extent, the ideas which were proposed by Plato in his Republic were later rejected by himself. Aristotle's understanding of freedom came back to the level of common sense. Aristotle once said that a good life under constitution is a life of safety rather than a life of enslavement. This idea was inherited by Thomas Aquinas, who further believed that such a life was both "libertatern and salutem". This idea constituted the basic content of the concept of freedom during the period from ancient Rome to Middle Ages. As is mentioned above, like ancient Greeks, the initial Roman conception of freedom is the kind of freedom that Romans enjoyed in comparison with the slaves and other races outside Rome. Freedom was also incorporated as some political and social rights. But apart from that people in ancient Rome developed some kind of new understanding concerning freedom, that is, the understanding of freedom in the so-called "republicanist" tradition. Such an understanding includes the following two aspects. There is the relationship between law and freedom. Political thinkers in ancient Rome, like Cicero, all emphasized that freedom should be regulated by law in order for people to differentiate freedom from "license". Cicero himself wrote that "Anything that goes to the extreme will be its opposite, whether it is the climate, the income, or the health of man. It is especially true for the political life of a nation. Extreme freedom would result in extreme enslavement. This is equally applicable to the general public as a whole and to the individual citizens. Complete freedom would lead to political tyranny, which is the most unjust and most cruel state of enslavement."(5)

The "republicanist" tradition stresses the subordination of freedom to law. But the law is not the arbitrary law. Cicero pointed out that "freedom can find its proper place only when the public has commanded the supreme power of the state."(6) That is to say, a basic condition for freedom is that the general public as a whole can become the framers of law. This is where the essential spirit of "republicanism" dwells. Augustine also believed that the pursuit of freedom and honor made Roman people create admirable achievements(7).In addition, the "republicanist" tradition stresses the role of the natural law and stressed the ultimate agreement between the law in reality and the natural law. This is the second guarantee for the freedom of the citizens in the "republicanist" tradition. Because political thinkers from Cicero to Aquinas all emphasized the inner cohesion between natural law and reason, it is easy to come to the conclusion that freedom is subordinated to law and hence to reason.

The second peak in the development of the "republicanist" thought happened in the Renaissance Italy. Since the beginning of the 14th century, the relationship between the political system and freedom had become one of the important issues that aroused the concern of the Italian humanists. The republic of Florence at that time served as the typical example for their study. One of the early humanists Coluccio Salutati wrote in a letter in 1369 that there was nothing nobler, greater and more valuable than freedom. Freedom was a "dulce libertatisfrenum", which implies a life under the law, a law that governs all people and is established according to the most fair principle of equality. Leonardo Bruni further elaborated on Cicero's ideas by pointing out that the Florentine system made it possible to establish definite legal norms for people's political life, a fact which constituted the strengths of the Florentine system. Different political forces within the state achieved proper balance, which, fundamentally speaking, provided a legal guarantee for freedom. He alleged that there would be no republic if there was no law and that life would be meaningless without freedom(8). Another humanist Alamano clearly asserts in his 1479 dialogue On Liberty that "political freedom dwells in the possibility of a free life within the confines of law and mores". At the same time, he believes that a sensible man can bring his passion under the control of reason and realize the possibility of freedom. By contrast, an insensible person would be dominated by his passion and turn his freedom into endless dissatisfaction and misfortune(9). Dante also believes that a man is free if he lives by the principle of reason. On the contrary, if he allows himself to be dominated by his desires or the will of others, he will be cast into an enslaved state. A corrupt political system would reduce people into mere slaves while a just system could help people develop into citizens of virtue and integrity.

Generally speaking, the republicanists uses the law formulated by the citizens as an intermediary to unify freedom and imposition. According to their view, if the law of the state is framed by the people of the state and if such a law is the reflection of their common will, then the compliance with the law would naturally become the result of their voluntary choice. This is because under such circumstances, they are not obeying others but obeying themselves. Therefore, just as they are free when they formulated their constitution, they are also free when they are obeying the law. In this way, from the perspective of the republicanists, the issue of freedom is transformed into the problem of the jurisdiction of the state power. To put it in another way, the republicanists first of all believe that the imposition inherent in the state is the imposition by a group of people over another group of people, not the imposition by the state over its citizens. Therefore, if the political power is controlled by all citizens, then the state can be said to have achieved universal freedom.

The republicanist tradition emphasizes the conformity between public will, law and freedom and its superiority is quite obvious when all the citizens are examined as a whole. But when the individual freedom of the citizens is taken into account, this type of thought will inevitably encounter its paradoxes. Because in fact it is virtually important that the law is a product of universal agreement, we may well ask whether the person who has to obey the law that he himself does not agree with is free? Rousseau was clearly aware of the problem that in actual politics it cannot be guaranteed that every law can win the universal support from the citizens. If the principle of majority vote is adopted, it is inevitable that the law as is finally passed does not conform to the will of a proportion of citizens. Rousseau believes that this should not change the basic proposition that the compliance of public opinion is the political freedom. As for those people who hold a different position from the public opinion, the state has the right to force them, by means of imposition, to accept the decisions by the public opinion, that is, to force "freedom" on them. Rousseau's inference is that the law should be the incarnation of the "public will" and, for individual citizens, whether or not he agrees with a particular law (which is the incarnation of the "public will"), he has to comply with it in order to achieve his true freedom. In other words, the compliance with the public will is actually a reflection of freedom. Rousseau's theory in fact hypothesizes an agreement between the public reason and the individual reason. But his practice of identifying the "public will" with the majority opinion has considerably neglected the independent significance of the individual will, which, in the view of later thinkers, provided a basis for a totalitarian political theory. It is obvious that in the "republicanist" tradition, the problematic relationship between freedom and imposition was not really worked out. Although Kant proposed the self-discipline of reason as the condition for moral freedom, freedom was still required to comply with the inevitable. However, since this self-discipline cannot be simply equated with the logical uniformity, the so-called "necessity" lacks corresponding criteria. Thus in Hegel's juristic philosophy, reason was once again identified with the will of the state.

In Western Europe after the 15th century there was a period of active development for the absolutist states. From that time on, the power of the state experienced unprecedented growth and in the face of the completely strengthened state power, the individual could only feel a sense of helplessness. Therefore, even though the republicanist tradition reached another peak among the English revolutionaries after the 1640 English Revolution, many philosophers remained skeptical whether the republicanist mode could possibly work out the relationship between the liberty of citizens and the imposition of the state under the condition of modern states. It was Hobbes who gave the fullest articulation of this skepticism. Hobbes had a deep fear of the wars and the turmoil that happened between the English revolutions. He wished that there could be some absolute order which could assure people that certain of the basic human liberties and rights would not remain mere abstract and theoretical promises.

The impression that Hobbes left on later generations is that he was an advocate of absolute monarchy. However, the role that he played for the modern development of liberalism is similar to that of a founder because it was he pointed out that the purpose of the government was to protect some of the basic human rights. People had already possessed the right of freedom (the natural right) long before the advent of government. With the advent of government, freedom existed only in the broad space outside the legal prohibition imposed by the government. He specifically asserts that "in those places which do not fall under the jurisdiction of the rulers, the subjects have the right to act or not to act according to their own judgment."(10) Those are precisely the two basic propositions of modern liberalism. Of course, the basic human rights listed by the liberalists as fundamental human freedom had yet to undergo a process of gradual development. They originated from the laws during the religious reformation (the freedom to interpret religious doctrines). Martin Luther once expressed: " Unless all the man-made laws (referring to the ecclesiastical laws --- by the author), whatever their content, are completely abolished, there would be no hope of solving the problem. Only when we have possessed the freedom brought by the gospel can we make our judgments according to it and guide our life."(11)

The concept of freedom as represented by Hobbes and elaborated by Locke had obvious distinctions from the "republicanist" tradition. They maintained an absolute interpretation of freedom, that freedom is a state of absence of any restriction. For instance, Hobbes believes that "freedom is simply a state in which there is no obstacle to action." (12)They further believe that before the advent of the state, there was no imposition on any individual, hence every individual enjoyed real freedom. Of course, nature and other people would somehow constitute some kind of imposition and restriction on an individual, but this should by no means be equated with the lack of political freedom. The notion that man enjoyed his basic freedom before the advent of the state was later summarized as the theory of "divinely endowed human rights" and became universally accepted. Both Hobbes and Locke believed that the state is founded to ensure that people could naturally enjoy their freedom and rights. The purpose of the state itself determines the boundary of its legal action, that is, it must not deprive or jeopardize those liberties. Liberalists including Hobbes and Locke all admit that the existence of the state and its activities must impose some restrictions on the otherwise infinite freedom. This means that their political perspective was based on the premise of the absolute opposition between the state and freedom. This is their major difference from the republicanists. They never attempted to discover anything that could possibly unify freedom and imposition. Instead, they openly admit that imposition is the deprivation of freedom. They emphasize that the state's restrictions on individual freedom must not encroach upon the guarantee of basic personal liberty (fundamental human rights). Outside the legal restrictions, people could enjoy total freedom. Furthermore, since people establish their state for the purpose of protecting their freedom, they have the legitimate right to revolt against their state if the state seriously endangers their freedom and rights.

To sum up. Liberalists put forward a totally new definition of the relationship between freedom and law. Here, law becomes a mere instrument whose task is to provide concrete guarantee for freedom. In addition, the traditional "republicanist" subject of the relationship between freedom and mores was no longer mentioned. As man's "natural right", freedom directly appeals to man. Or, in the words of Spinoza, "we must regard the natural state as having neither religion nor law, therefore, there is no crime or mistakes. …we believe that the natural state preceded the law and the divine revelation. It does not stem from ignorance. Everybody is born free."(13)

The notion that freedom lies outside the legal restrictions was an important transformation in the Western interpretation of freedom in this period and this transformation significantly broadened the category of freedom. In contrast to the "republicanist" conception of freedom, the liberalists' understanding had obvious advantages because under certain circumstances the truth is not always with the majority. Moreover, in the actual political life, the majority does not really have the right to make political decisions. As far as the liberalists are concerned, Rousseau's and Hegel's interpretation of freedom not only provided foundation for the "tyranny of the majority" but also made possible the political imposition in the name of majority by some political forces. Historically, modern liberalists took freedom, one of the basic components of the naturally endowed human rights, as the premise of all legal and political systems and individual freedom could be guaranteed as long as such freedom did not obstruct the equivalent rights of others. The emergence of modern liberalism in Western Europe was a revolt against the then emerging tyrannical states, a reaction to ensure the freedom of citizens when the individual is confronted with the reinforced state power. In other words, while the state is acquiring an unprecedented power, its citizens are also endeavoring to discover a system that can guarantee the personal liberty and can be used to counterbalance the reinforced state power. It can be said that this is a natural expression of the concept of freedom in an era of tyrannical states. Or we can say that the emergence of this concept of freedom, which differs from its ancient counterpart, is somewhat inevitable. Therefore, the concept of freedom as represented by modern liberalism is the result of a distinctive understanding of the nature of the state and the relationship between the state and the society. It is also a form of rebellion against the modern tyrannical states. Undoubtedly, it is also the ultimate outcome of the gradual awakening of the individual consciousness. This type of interpretation of freedom served as the groundwork for all the political and legal systems of the modern state. From one aspect, this testifies to a basic choice that people made in pursuing their political freedom under the condition of modern states. Generally speaking, the concept of fundamental human rights as established by liberalism that any individual possesses some basic liberties which the state must not encroach upon or deprive under any circumstances has become a common understanding in Western political thought. It serves as the fundamental premise for any political discussion.

Nevertheless, there are some insurmountable problems inherent in the interpretation offered by modern liberalism. On one hand, the liberalists believe that man can enjoy full freedom in a natural condition devoid of the state. On the other hand, they admit that freedom is impossible because of the existence of various restrictions such as the conflicts among different individuals. Freedom may even turn into a struggle of "the entire population of one group against the entire population of another group," hence making the establishment of the state necessary. In this sense, the state can both guarantee and restrict human freedom. Since the natural state is nothing more than an illusion --- the majority of social-contract theoreticians admit this, fundamentally speaking, freedom is still located within the state, not outside the state. It is precisely on this point that Burke used the "English freedom" to criticize the abstract concept of freedom proposed by the French Revolution. Secondly, although some basic rights such as life and property became recognized as "naturally endowed liberties", such liberties would be completely abstract for those who do not possess any property. As for the question whether individual freedom can be fully exercised under the condition of not jeopardizing the freedom of others, it is a proposition that has never been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Although modern liberalism played an important role in many countries in fighting against political tyranny, striving for the equal rights of citizens, and broadening political freedom, this doctrine of freedom is often too abstract to grasp, for it neglects many of the actual social and economic conditions. As pointed out by Rousseau, man is born free but he is still in eternal enslavement. It is also the dilemma that Sartre has revealed concerning human freedom.

Another basic characteristic of modern liberalism is that it is largely separated from morality and from the community of human society. Because of this, freedom can be the freedom of the strong to bully the weak; it can also be the freedom of those social members who possess certain amount of social resources to infinitely expand their personal interests. With regard to the former, Liang Qi Chao presented some fairly perceptive commentary. His explanation of the modern concept of freedom is: "Previously only those in positions of dominance are the strong men and now the dominated can also become the strong men. …When two strong men meet and two strong powers co-exist, they counteract on each other and the two powers become equal. Therefore, the right of freedom is the same thing as the strong power."(14) With respect to the latter, the actual social and political life in the modern period can provide some sufficient illustrations. One of the typical examples is whether the absolute freedom should be guaranteed in scientific research? Should the freedom to clone human being be guaranteed? Augustus wrote: " For those souls that rejoice over their own freedom and refuse to serve the God, they will be deprived of their control over their body that they originally possessed. Because they have intentionally rejected the God above them, they will have to lose the servants that are below them. In fact, they can no longer have control over their own actions. If otherwise they had obeyed the God, they would have been able to do so."(15) What Augustus was driving at was that freedom itself should be brought within some internal moral limits.

Post-modernist thinkers have conducted sufficient criticism over the inconsistencies inherent in the ideas of freedom since the Enlightenment. Their criticism focuses on two aspects. First, the criticism is directed toward the abstractness of modern liberalism. It is believed that the so-called "natural rights" were mere illusion. Foucault points out that there has never been such a thing as "primitive free space". He claims: "I am only concerned with the fact that all human relations are largely a relationship of powers."(16) Secondly, the criticism is directed at the kind of thinking in the Western intellectual tradition since the enlightenment, which completely identified reason and self-consciousness with freedom. Post-modernists judged such a practice as an absolute illusion and believe that what is really reflected by the so-called moral awareness is no more than a form of internalization in people's thought of the social relationship between power and control.

In his Genealogy of Morality, Foucault undertook some interesting reflections on the ethical concepts in ancient Greek and Roman period. According to Foucault, in ancient Greek and Roman culture, ethical concepts reflect the relationship between the individual and himself. They reflect the individual's command of his personal life and the purpose of education is to make people become better masters of themselves. Foucault goes on to say that while Kantian ethics emphasizes the individual's duty and obligation to others, the ethics in ancient Greece and Rome stressed the individual's control and command over his desires. At the same time, Greeks and Romans believed that the reason, which could perfectly control a person, could also perfectly control the whole city-state. It is clear that Foucault advocates ancient Greek and Roman culture as an alternative to modern civilization. He believes that such a culture might overcome the imposition brought by modernization on the so-called the internalization of man. Foucault hopes that a reconstruction of individual might be realized and the reconstructed individual might be able to, in a refined form, have totally new experiences of pleasure and desires. Of course, Foucault does not believe that the Greek and Roman concepts of ethics can be directly applicable to modern situation. In his words, "to re-examine the ancient Greeks today does not mean that we must regard Greek ethical concepts as our highest framework of reference. The key point is that the European intellectual tradition can renew Greek ideas and will value such an experience in order for people to obtain their complete freedom."(17)

Foucault believes that "the classical period has lost the awareness of the self as an autonomous mechanism … therefore some questions have been posed to us as they were posed to the ancients. As far as I am concerned, the pursuit of different styles among different people was what the different ancient groups had been doing and this has become the goal which we once again try to achieve"(18). He points out that the question is not simply "the discovery of the self" or the discovery of the inner existence of the self. It is a matter of constant creation of self. Foucault claims that his mission is to discover a space of freedom and a structure that may enable us to exist as self-sufficient entities."(19) For Foucault, the so-called liberty is a constant process of moral practice whereby the individual can arrive at a kind of self-command or self-contemplation. Freedom is the "ontological condition of ethics" and ethics "is an exquisite form by which the ethics can be realized."(20) While not neglecting the social and political conditions of freedom, Foucault stresses that the individual still has the ability to produce the freedom of practice by means of self-definition and self-control. Finally, he insists that the exercise of this ability may well become an important condition for the individual to break away the restrictions imposed by the society upon that individual. Foucault's thoughts on freedom may provide an important starting point to help us understand the concepts of freedom in Chinese intellectual traditions.

Part II: Chinese Ancient Concepts of Freedom

In ancient China, there was the usage of the concept of freedom, for example, in the Yu poem "The Peacock Flies Southeast", we have those lines: "If I brood with anger for a long time, how can you be free." There is the denotation of freedom in the sense of Western tradition. However, the concept had not been used in the context of moral and political pursuit until modern China, especially in orthodox Confucianism. But this is not to conclude that there was no individual pursuit of freedom in traditional Chinese culture. The pursuit of freedom by Jiao Zhongqing's wife as a representative of ordinary Chinese woman embodies a wish hidden in everyone's subconscious world. It is impossible that traditional Chinese culture has no response to such an important issue. Of course, the response might have been made in the entirely traditional Chinese category.

It may well be said that the traditional Chinese concept of freedom was formed during the periods of Spring and Autumn (c. 770-476 B.C.) and Warring States (c. 475-221 B.C.). It was developed into a system of thought in the Confucianist culture. The idea of freedom provided the traditional intellectual with a philosophy imbued with a strong sense of transcendentalism.

Any study of traditional Chinese ideas must start with the "devotion of oneself to the re-establishment of rites" advocated by Confucius. In fact, the social and political context that Confucius lived in was quite similar to that in which Socrates and Plato lived. It was characteristic of a downfall of the traditional values and customs in social and political lives and of the rapid development of the idea of freedom among the intellectual (the traditional Chinese saying is "rites destroyed the music collapsed"). And the remedy they prescribed for the social instability caused by such downfall was also similar: Plato's ideas and Confucius's "rites". Nevertheless, there were differences between Plato's "ideas" and Confucius's "rites". First, the application of Plato's ideas to politics has a strong flavor of elitism. That is to say, the knowledge of ideas are privileged to only a few social members. Accordingly, he elaborated a political pattern of social hierarchy. Confucius's "rites" are short of this feature, since rites are available to all through learning. Although "rites should not be applied to the plebian and penalty should not be imposed upon the official", Confucius emphasized that "education must be enforced among all classes of people."(21) Thus, "rites" are regarded as both political criteria in the society and norms of personal cultivation, and rites become the foundation of "self-cultivation, family maintenance, state administration and country unification." Secondly, another important difference between the "ideas" and "rites" lies in the fact that "rites" are characteristic of practice and demand their embodiment in everyday life, with no exception of gentleman. Thus, rites become a life style (in Foucault's terms) that common people imitate and an expression of world-view. Contrary to this, the ideas in Plato, as highly conceptualized logos expressed through language, have only the function of social control in practice but no applicability in universal human life.(22) It is because rites have the above-mentioned two features that Confucius tried his best to fulfill them though he knows that was impossible and took the re-establishment of rites as a mission for the rest of his life(23). But the objective results of his theory and practice were not to push society back to the ancient times (Of course, Plato failed, too). On the contrary, they provided a medium for the development of a new life style and new philosophy. Here, measure takes the place of aim. The thought derived from "rites" later became a bondage used by the ruling class to curb people's freedom, but at the same time it turns out to be the starting point of personal development through self-cultivation. That is why "rites" have advantages over "ideas". Therefore, it is wrong to deny the negative effect that "rites" produce upon individual freedom in the history of China; but while we recognize the negative effect produced by the thought of rites, we have to see that it at the same time possibly provided opportunity for the development of individual freedom, or provided a particular understanding of freedom. It is in this sense that an American scholar says that the striking characteristic of the East Asian thought lies in the universally accepted proposition that human being can consummate themselves through self-cultivation in everyday life.(24)

The key why Confucianism can provide such a possibility is that when Confucius proposed his theory of "rites", he did not exert a set of strict social and political criteria of behavior but a plan for the cultivation of a perfect personality. Confucius's thought about personal consummation includes the following aspects. First, he advocated a positive attitude towards secular life. Although he believed in "fate", what he stressed was a transcendental attitude towards material wealth and luxurious life. Thus he said "One's life is determined by fate."(25) This is at the same time a breadth of vision indifferent to fame and wealth noble to an individual, thus "it is fate whether Dao works or stops to work."(26) But this is not at all a pessimistic world-view. Otherwise, we would never have had the progressive spirit of "Fate has its way but a gentleman will make unremitting efforts to improve himself"(27) which has encouraged Chinese intellectuals for two thousand u years. This thought was further developed by Mencius, who says that, as for "reason" or the "Dao", one get it when pursuing it and loses it when stopping the pursuit, which means that pursuit helps obtaining and the pursuit lies in the individual; One does not get it though he has pursued and the obtaining of it depends on fate, which means that the pursuit does not help the obtaining and the pursuit lies outside of the individual."(28)

Secondly, Confucius believed in the possibility that there existed the universality of perfect personality. One characteristic of Confucianism is that its flavor of ethics is stronger than that of epistemology. The issue of possibility of the knowledge pf truth that has perplexed Western philosophers hardly exists in Confucianism. If morality may also be called truth, Confucius would be an optimist in this case. Once he asked himself: " Is benevolence far?" and answered: "When I want to exert benevolence, benevolence comes to me."(29) In fact, Confucianism is different from Kantian theory, which separates truth from morality. On the contrary, Confucius was like Socrates, believing "Knowledge is virtue" and "if one wants to attain self-cultivation, he must set right his mind first; if one wants to set right his mind, he must purify his desire first; if one wants to purify this desire, he must know the world first."(30) In the case of the possibility of knowledge, Confucianism also admits the difference between true knowledge and wrong views, which, however, is not as sharp and even opposite as that in Western philosophy. Mencius once said: "We are all human beings, some of us cherish lofty ideals while others are devoted to the gratification of bodily needs, why?" He then answered: "The sensory organs are closed to the external world if they are not used. Objects acting upon objects act upon the sensory organs."(31) Thus, the difference lies only in the fact whether one is able to or wants to know the external objects, not in the ability of knowledge itself.

Thirdly, Confucianism emphasizes the unlimitedness of personal perfection, that is, anyone can become a sage. This can be regarded as another advantage of Confucianism over Christianity for, like Christianity, Confucianism stresses a humble attitude when human beings confront nature and society and stresses personal cultivation and personal perfection. But at the same time, it takes a positive attitude towards the value of human beings. A French scholar comments: "what the master cares about is not an abstract philosophy about human beings, but an art of life that comprehends psychology, ethics, and politics. Morality is the result of an individual's efforts, not an innate attribute of the nobles."(32)

Fourthly, different from the emphasis on moral law in Kantian theory, Confucianism stresses an attitude of imitating nature and union with nature. This attitude seeks for an intrinsic harmony and union with the universe and humanity. In The Writings of Zuo Qiuming, Zuo says, "The rites are the laws of heaven, the justice of earth , and the codes of behavior of people."(33) Confucius also believed that "the right world-view of a gentleman should be vigorous and civilized, harmonious with heaven and in conformity with humanity."(34) The ideal state should be " following one's inclinations but never breaking the rules."(35) Mencius further expounded the thought, proposing his theory of "devoting the mind", "understanding the disposition", and "following the law of heaven", that is, "if one devotes his mind, he will understand his disposition; if one understands his disposition, he will know the law of heaven. Keep the mind, maintain the disposition, you will follow the law of heaven then."(36) By devoting one's mind and understanding one's disposition, one can know the world, thus "everything will be in me. By reflecting on oneself, one becomes sincere. What pleasure is in this!"(37) Mencius explained the concept of "sincerity" as follows: "Sincerity, the way of nature; seeking sincerity, the way of humanity."(38) Later, Zhu Xi made a very concise explanation about the relationship between "logic" and "disposition", saying that "disposition is the logic of nature. A man in possession of the disposition is in possession of everything."(39) This means that there exists a harmony between humanity and universe in intrinsic logic and structure. Mencius says, "A gentleman will be of another state when he passes away and will be of divinity when lives. He will be in union with heaven and earth wherever he goes. Can this be a trivial complementation?"(40)

This concept was further developed by Zhang Zai of the Southern Song Dynasty into "the unity of universe and humanity." He explained that "a Confucianist becomes sincere for his wisdom and becomes wise for his sincerity, hence the unity of the cosmos and humanity."(41) He said again, "If nature and humanity are kept apart from each other, there is no sincerity; if nature and human beings know differently, there is no wisdom to the utmost. What we call sincerity and wisdom is simply disposition and the law of heaven co-exist similarly in everything."(42) Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi proposed a theory of the organic whole of nature and humanity, believing that "a human being is human because he shares the justice of nature."(43) "The universe and humanity are never separated. Thus never talk about union."(44) Cheng Hao even said "what is of benevolence is completely blended with the objects as an organic whole."(45) " A sage is one with divinity and nature."(46) Wang Shouren, the representative of subjective idealism in the history of Chinese philosophy, said, "the mind is the Way; the Way is Nature; the knowledge of mind is the knowledge of the Way and of Nature." (47) The Song and Ming Confucianism expounded upon the sentence "humanity is the mind of heaven and earth" in the Book of Rites. Zhang Zai said that his meant humanity "is the heart of heaven and earth, thus heaven and earth are one with me."(48) Feng Youlan explained that "to set the heart for heaven and earth is to develop the human thought to the utmost and everything in the world and the law of the world are understood to the utmost."(49) It is clear that these scholars were just trying to provide an epistemological interpretation for the Confucianist morality. The union between epistemology, which starts from the knowledge of human life and comes to the knowledge of universe and then returns to the knowledge of human life, is an important feature of traditional Chinese thought.

Fifthly, different from the relativism in morality, Confucius praised a spirit that morality was higher than anything else, saying "people with lofty ideals will never do harm to benevolence for the sake of survival but will sacrifice themselves for the sake of benevolence."(50) Here "benevolence" can be interpreted as a moral ideal and also as a concept of moralized social justice. A very famous saying by Mencius is: "Life, my desire; justice, my desire too. When I cannot have both of them at the same time, I will maintain justice at the expense of my life."(51) This spirit of maintaining justice at the cost of life became the spiritual pillar of the ancient Chinese intellectual. It was expressed both as an opposition against feudal ruling system and as an defense of national cause. The most recent example was the attitude of the six gentlemen in the Reform of 1898.

At last, the ethics of Confucius expresses a feature of self-cultivation-centralism, but its final aim is still the concern for society and common people, even love. This is why "an intellectual is no intellectual if he does not maintain justice, thus shouldering heavy responsibilities. Isn't benevolence heavy once you take it as your task? Isn't benevolence lofty since you take it as your task until the day of your death?"(52) In accordance with the concept of benevolence, this social concern and human love have become a lofty ideal of life among ancient Chinese intellectuals. Confucius defined a gentleman as a person whom "one can entrust his infant to, appoint heavy tasks to, and who will never forsake his ideas for his own sake. What is a gentleman? A gentleman is a human being."(53)

The above-mentioned aspects of Confucianism were developed by some Confucianists in history, especially Mencius, who particularly expounded upon the aspect of self-cultivation and self-improvement with everlasting efforts. He said: "human beings who are different from animals and fowls are those gentlemen."(54) "The attaining and losing lies in me since I gain when I pursue and lose when I give up."(55) "What kind of person is Shun? And what kind of person am I? We are similar as long as we try our best to benefit the society."(56) This proposition was later expounded as "everyone can be a Yao or Shun."(57) And this became the core of his theory of "cultivation of disposition." Zhou Dunyi of the Southern Song Dynasty provided further explanation, saying "can we learn to be sages? The answer is yes. Are there any good ways? The answer is concentration, which means absence of desires. The absence of desire makes one tranquil and modest, energetic and upright. Being tranquil and modest makes one wise, and wisdom makes one open-minded; Being energetic and upright makes one fair and just, and fairness and justice make one broad. Wisdom, open-mindedness, justice and breadth: attributes of a sage!"(58)

Compared with Confucius, Mencius even more emphasized the spirit of free responsibility of the subject. He explicitly said, "Benevolence is applied to the relation between father and son; justice, to that of monarchy and subjects; courtesy, to that of host and guest; wisdom, to persons of virtue. Fate determines the necessity for the sages abide by the law of the universe, but this necessity is also rooted in the human nature of the sage. Therefore, the sage does not allow himself to be solely dictated by fate"(59) This thought is similar to Satre's free choice in a sense but not as pessimistic as Satre's. Mencius explained the manner of a gentleman as "living under heaven, standing above earth, and acting according to the Way of the universe; when having a successful career, coming among the plebian; when not having a successful career, taking peremptory actions. Wealth will not make him loose; poverty will not move his ideals, and Power or force will not subdue him. Only this makes a person a man of nobility."(60) Mencius, starting from his theory of personal cultivation, even believed that pains and ordeals in this life are all means for an individual to perfect his personality. His most quoted motto is: " When heaven appoints a person to undertake a great mission, he must first of all suffer from a spiritual pain, undergo physical hardships and be distracted from his actions. In this way, his soul will be touched upon and he can develop a spirit of perseverance and endurance. He will be strengthened to perform what he could not perform."(61)

Xun Kuang emphasized the objectivity of "justice" and "courtesy." For him, "justice" and "courtesy" were not something a legislator prescribed arbitrarily or blindly. They were constructed as objective realities rather than as ethical qualities. They were products of history, thus derived from an origin of rationality. The rationality of social order lied in them. (62) That is to say, "Heaven operates according to seasons, earth contributes its wealth, and human society is organized with order. This constitutes heaven-earth-humanity trinity"(63)

In addition, Confucianism was supplemented by other traditional thoughts, especially by Taoist thought. The core of Taoism can be summarized as a kind of "pan-naturalism", that is, a tendency of thought that unifies the universe and human world into Nature. This thought is similar to Rousseau's notion, which believes that civilization means the degeneration of human nature. In Taoism, especially in Zhuang Zhou, the essential way for human race to realize freedom is by eliminating all "pollutions" of civilization, by following and developing human nature completely. Zhuang Zhou called this human nature "De"(the power of Tao). He said: "At the very beginning there was void. Void was not named and the universe started from it. From the universe there came the physique. Thus objects came into being due to the power of the Way."(64) Zhuang put Nature and Humanity in opposition. He even pointed out in a metaphor: "Heaven is intrinsic and Humanity is extrinsic. … That cattle and horses have four feet is determined by heaven. Haltering the heads of horses and penetrating the noses of the cattle are done by human beings."(65) Zhuang reiterated that, observing Nature, man can gain true happiness, hence freedom; if man imposes his will upon Nature in order to change it, man will impose a bondage upon himself as a consequence. That is to say, "the legs of wild ducks are short, but they become disadvantageous when extended; The legs of cranes are long, but disaster will result if shortened. Therefore, something that is long by nature should not be extended artificially and something that is short by nature should not be extended arbitrarily. Otherwise, there will be disaster."(66)

The Taoist idea of emulating nature constitutes an important complement to the Confucian doctrine. Although both the Confucian and the Taoist doctrines may have some differences concerning the notion of "the Way", some Taoist notions of emulating nature provided a major framework of reference for the Confucianists in comprehending some of the difficult concepts like the "divine reason" and "disposition". As a matter of fact, the Golden Mean had already contained the type of thought that roughly corresponded to the notions of "the intangible Way" and "following nature" contained in the doctrines of Lao Tzu and Zhuang Tzu. The Golden Mean propounds that "Therefore, the supreme sincerity is without sound, and that which is without sound will last; and that which lasts will hold together; and that which holds together will expand; and that which expand will be profound and far reaching; and that which is profound and far reaching will remain high and bright; The profound and the far-reaching can provide firm support and the high and the bright can supply broad inclusiveness. The expansive can result in fruition. The profound and the far-reaching harmonizes with the earth while the high and the bright harmonizes with heaven."(67) This is what is meant by "the consummation of morality to provide firm support ". The later elaboration of the traditional Confucian concept of the "sage" by Wang Bi in the East Han Dynasty contained similar Toist notions of obedience to nature and non-government: "So the Sage has insights into the law of nature and into the principles of the universe. Therefore he rules by non-government and act in coordination with nature."(68) In addition, although the Confucian doctrine is characterized by positive aggression, the orthodox Confucian theories is also always coupled by notions of "following nature", "tranquility of mind", and "non-action", providing the ancient Chinese intellectuals with a major frame of reference for self-contemplation. When we appreciate the following poem While Drinking by Tao Qian, we are bound to perceive a spontaneous glorification of nature and liberty:

I built a cottage in the midst of men
Yet there is no clamoring of horses and wagons
Pray how can you make it so?
When your heart is far away, your home is also secluded.
I pluck chrysanthemums under the eastern hedge,
Away in the distance the Southern Mountain appears.
The mountain air is good by day and by night.
The flying birds are circling round and round.
In this there is true meaning,
Try to say it and words will fail you.

Feng Youlan claims that this concept of freedom represents a spontaneous detachment from restrictions. Especially when the intellectuals are cast into adversity and "withdraw from the political world to devote themselves to the perfection of their temperament", this doctrine provides them with infinite possibilities to identify themselves with nature and to come to an in-depth understanding of their own humanity and character. This is well demonstrated in the life style and the thoughts of the "Seven Sages of the Bamboo Forest". Their bohemianism or freedom is most vividly described by a line from Ruan Ji: "Who says that things are difficult in this world? / Freedom may enable one to have a lifetime of self-satisfaction."(69) It is not advisable to regard such an attitude simply as a form of self-comfort for intellectuals in adversity. Generally speaking, "the combination of Confucianism and Taoism" is the typical feature of the intellectual life in Chinese tradition.

It is based on those characteristics as mentioned above that people have come to the general conclusion that the Confucian doctrine displays strong humanistic qualities. Lin Yu Tang made a summary of the spirit of the Confucianism and he believes that "the emergence of humanism in Chinese tradition has as its objective to enlighten. By enlightenment, we mean both wisdom and reason, which indicates a harmony between emotion and reason."(70) To be specific, this humanist spirit expresses itself as a thought of human-centralism. Xun Kuang said: "Water and fire have air in them but no life; grass and woods have life in them but no perception; fowls are animals have perception but no sense of justice. Human beings have air, life, perception, and justice, thus being the most noble creature under heaven."(71) Dong Zhongshu said: "Man governs everything below him and unifies with heaven and earth. Thus man remains unparalleled in his nobility in the universe."(72) Meanwhile, the idea comprehends the optimistic spirit that human beings can know the laws of human life and of the universe, e.g. "Li"(logic) or "Dao"(the Way). In one word, it reiterates the ideal of freedom which is realized through the harmony and unity between humanity and nature, as is further expounded in the following text.

Starting those premises, we can infer that within the larger framework of the Confucianism there is a distinctive ideal of personal freedom. The ideal is that a universe of infinite freedom can be created by comprehending the moral and the natural law and by a willing personal coordination with nature and the society. On the other hand, this does not automatically imply that one should always be subservient to the existing natural or social order. The foundation of a gentleman's words and action is the "Way". Therefore, in its most essential aspects, Confucianism still contains an element of rebellious spirit.

Part III: The Complementary Nature between Chinese and Western Concepts of Freedom

To undertake a comparison between Chinese and Western political traditions is a very challenging task because both of these traditions, being long in history and substantial in content, consist of many different and even contradictory components. To some extent, it is still unresolved whether either of them can be legitimately regarded as an autonomous system. Therefore, any attempt at a simple comparison will necessarily be one-sided and inexact in one way or another. It is with a clear awareness of those possible limitations that we attempt to arrive at some tentative conclusion.

First of all, we can find that, in the development of Western political tradition, the understanding of liberty was divided into distinctive stages and the understanding at each stage was characterized by different implications. If we exclude the ancient Greek understanding of freedom as an independent stage of development, we can say that both the republicanist tradition and modern liberalism have come up with some very different interpretations of freedom. The former emphasizes on the congruity between liberty and law and the congruity between freedom and reason. A further analysis would reveal that this congruity can be interpreted as the self-identification of the moral agent. The only difference is that the former is direct and unmediated while the latter must be mediated by reason.

To look from the positive side, we will find that the republicanist interpretation of liberty highlights the congruity between freedom and law and reason. To look from the negative side, we will find that it emphasizes on proper limitation of freedom and the division between liberty and license. Admit it or not, personal liberty is always restricted by the liberty of others and by the objective conditions of society under any social circumstances. On this point, the republicanist tradition of liberty has its grain of truth. However, this type of interpretation has its intrinsic limitations and contradictions. This is because, first of all, law as an expression of the collective will of the citizens can only be regarded as a hypothesis under most cases of social practice. No citizen can legislate for himself and still be able to maintain an agreement with his fellow countrymen. Law in general is largely a form of historical accumulation and, at its best it is the result of the minority's compliance with the majority during specific historical periods. As is mentioned above, the republicanist tradition has failed to put forward any satisfactory answer on the issue whether an individual citizen's compliance with law is an indication of his personal will. Political thinkers since Rousseau's time have substituted "the public will" or "reason" for law and emphasized the identity between the personal will, reason and liberty. What is actually meant by all this is that true liberty is always in conformity with reason. From an abstract perspective, this is a plausible statement. But the problematic nature of this statement becomes immediately manifest when we take into consideration whether it is legitimate to bring a judgment of reason into the political sphere. Rousseau's attempt to identify the "public will" with the majority decision has always met with severe criticism by the liberalists. For a simple fact is that truth or reason is not always with the political majority. Therefore, even though liberty means compliance with reason, the conclusion is not necessarily that liberty implies compliance with the majority because here the possibility of "tyranny of the majority" is suggested. The tyrannical nature of Hegelian concept, which identifies reason with the will of the state or the interests of the state, is even more obvious because, according to this concept, reason can be a disguise for the will or the interests of the minority.

On account of the inadequacies as are mentioned above, the republicanist concept of freedom appeared especially powerless during the period when modern nation state emerged whose state power has been comprehensively strengthened. This is because objectively it has been turned into a restriction of personal freedom, which cannot otherwise impose any institutional control over the action of the state. The presence of those inadequacies is the key reason for the fact that the republicanist tradition finally gave way to the liberalist interpretation of freedom in the modern times. Liberalists tended, by means of the concept of natural rights, to make absolute the freedom of life, property, thought and speech and to transform those forms of freedom into the foundation of modern nation and its legal system. Although the theory of natural rights and natural law is a mere hypothesis, it finally won general recognition in the West, which indicates that the liberalist interpretation of freedom promises to provide a fundamental guarantee for personal liberty under the new political context of modern nation states. At the same time, it indicates that those personal liberties, sometimes termed as "natural rights", have gradually been accepted in modern society as a fundamental human condition. It is an indication of social progress. In other words, the fundamental freedom that liberalists were trying to safeguard could now been accepted as a basic political condition of modern society. That is to say, the boundary of liberty has been extended beyond those basic liberties.

For the first time in human history, the liberalist concept of freedom provided a truly specific definition for personal life, both theoretically and legally making the guarantee of those fundamental liberties the fundamental purpose of the state and the society. This concept also developed freedom into a human right that all citizens could equally enjoy, regardless of their differences in social status, education and wealth. Those are the advantages of the liberalist tradition over the republicanist tradition, which constituted the most fundamental reason for the significant promotion of the cause of liberty of humanity in the modern world. But on the other hand the liberalist concept is coupled with some major difficulties and inadequacies. First of all, such a concept appears rather abstract. That is to say, what is guaranteed is merely the possibility of freedom rather than the actual freedom itself. For those whose social status and other random factors determine that they do not possess or hardly possess the conditions of freedom, freedom has literally and largely become meaningless. Because early liberalism emphasizes limitations on the actions of the state, this problem has become all the more serious. Although the liberalists since the beginning of utilitarianism have become aware of the society's obligation to provide certain necessary conditions for the individuals to fulfill their basic liberties, liberalism still lacks a personalized criterion because the utilitarian argument focuses on the maximization of social utilities.

Secondly, liberalism expressed itself in the form of individualism, therefore it only acknowledges some minimum limitations on personal liberty, that is, not impinging on the equal freedom of others. It is apparent that such a notion ignores the free society or the free conditions, as is demonstrated in Locke's theory. Furthermore, the liberalist conception also relinquishes the moral requirements of the free subjects. Locke's solution was to allow religion to accomplish this task, but the mainstream liberalism was to circumvent this difficult problem by isolating politics from morality. In this aspect, liberalism can be characterized as a complete reaction of the republicanist tradition, which becomes the main reason for its incurring much criticisms from socialism and other doctrines outside liberalism itself.

In comparison with the West, the concept of liberty in Chinese tradition displays some similarities to the republicaist tradition---the emphasis on freedom and reason (the concepts of "divine reason", "the way", and "nature" in the Chinese tradition) and on the inner restriction of liberty. Of course, such a characteristic makes it inevitable that the Chinese intellectual tradition shares some of the defects of the republicanist tradition. In order words, the excessive emphasis on "reason" and "nature" might override personal liberty and the individuality. Especially since the Song Dynasty, the influence of orthodoxy and, more importantly, the increasingly arbitrary nature of the political rule put "the divine reason" in complete opposition to "human desires". "Reason" became a mere instrument employed to repress personal liberty through the internalization of the political order. This is why many intellectuals such as Lu Xun since the May 4th Movement have described the Chinese history as a history of human slaughter conducted by the Confucian and feudal ethical code. Such an ethical concept of freedom demonstrates some of its paradoxes. For instance, Liang Shu Ming asserts: "The Chinese are in a position between freedom and non-freedom --- they do not enjoy absolute freedom but they are not totally deprived of their freedom."(73) There is no equivalent to the modern Western liberalism in Chinese intellectual tradition. Faced with the increasingly powerful totalitarian state, the individual virtually had no means whatsoever of protecting his freedom and other legitimate rights.

This question deserves further discussion. The ancient China was a society of low stratification and an important characteristic of traditional Chinese culture is the unity of society and politics. In ancient China, the orthodox ethical code functioned much like the Western law. It served both as a form of social and moral standards and as a form of political standards. In the traditional Western thought, liberty was always defined in connection with politics and law. Therefore, although the republicanist tradition emphasizes the deference of freedom to law, strictly speaking, the law in this tradition is merely regarded as an institutionalized intermediary. The agent of freedom achieves an inner union with itself through the mediation of law. Secondly, the nature of equality inherent in law enables it to develop into an important tool for the guarantee of freedom. This possibility has been turned into reality in the liberalist tradition. In contrast, in traditional Chinese thought, the Ethical Code does not function as an intermediary similar to the Western law. It lays greater emphasis on the control and the elevation of the individual, therefore it is possible that personal freedom will be in a state of constant repression. On the other hand, the hierarchical nature and the relative indeterminateness of the Ethical Code itself prevent the Code itself from developing into an effective instrument to restrict the power of the government in practice. Those are the inherent deficiencies of Chinese tradition on matters of freedom.

On the other hand, compared with the Western concept of freedom, the Chinese concept has some distinctive advantages and they can be described as the following. First, because Chinese ancient tradition emphasizes from the outset the unity between Ethics, the Way, and the "Divine Reason" in the development of an individual's personality, it has fundamentally precluded the possibility of interpreting liberty as license. It stresses the congenial and harmonious relationship between the development of personal freedom, society and nature, therefore it is possible to prevent extreme individualism and the increasingly obvious conflicts and contradictions between man and nature typical in the Western cultural tradition. Of course, we should not say that the Chinese tradition overlooks the existence of those conflicts. Xun Tzu points out that "desire and evil belong to the same thing. Desires are many and materials are meager. Conflicts arise thereof."(74) Fortunately, the Chinese found a unique way to adjust this kind of conflicts. Lin Yu Tang also points out that "although the humanistic spirit inherent in the Chinese tradition have failed to evolve into the Western legal system, it nevertheless has helped the formation of a relatively peaceful and tolerant culture in which individuality is relatively free to develop. By contrast, the Western cultural mode which is largely characterized by force and aggression runs counter to the theory of Golden Mean."(75)

Next, the Chinese tradition emphasis the possibility of attaining infinite perfection by means of self-cultivation. This perfection of personality is realized largely through an understanding of the objective laws of nature and society and through the self-adjustment based on this understanding. Therefore, to a great extent, the Chinese tradition can overcome the conflicts between the individual and nature and the conflict between the individual and society as expounded by the liberalist ideas of the West, conflicts that tend to arise when there are limited natural and social resources in the human society.

Thirdly, the notion of reliance on nature as proposed by the traditional Chinese concept of freedom provides a possible solution to the relationship between an individual and another individual and between man and nature. In contrast to the Western ideas, nature is not proposed as an opposite of human society. Neither is it an object for human conquest. It is the source of human inspiration and human ideas and the basis for human thought and action. It is the place for the cultivation of human temperament and for self-entertainment through the realization of complete unity with it. It is the companion with which it is possible to maintain a relationship of coordination for fulfilling personal freedom. The Chinese tradition regards human society as an integral component of the larger universe and stresses their internal unity. In a certain sense, this tradition has worked out the problem created by Western liberalism. When translating Mill's On Liberty, Yan Fu proposed his understanding of freedom: " Freedom means to be able to do whatever one desires within the limits of reason. It is like the independent life of someone in the wilderness. Is there any limit to his realm of freedom? Whether he is willing to do good or do evil, all depends on himself. There is nobody out there who can forbid all that he does. But if he enters human society and insists that he must enjoy freedom where everybody else is enjoying his freedom and still accepts no limitation, then he is inside a world of power politics and conflicts will be inevitable. Therefore, one can joy his freedom only under the condition of not endangering the freedom of others. This is the highest principle with which a gentleman can rely on in his government of the country."(76) Although Yan Fu might not be correct in his understanding of the Western concept of freedom from the perspective of Chinese intellectual tradition, he can still provide us with some important edification if we regard his interpretation as an explanation undertaken by a Chinese within the framework of his native cultural tradition.

Finally, the "Ethical" understanding of freedom is somehow different from the emphasis on the unity between freedom and reason in the Western tradition. To a great extent, the "Ethical Code" as an imitable mode of life can surmount the abstract nature inherent in reason, thereby turning freedom into a highly individualized mode of life. Li Ze Hou asserts that the most significant contribution of Confucius is his having internalized the external ethical code into an inner self-awareness of the subject. In this way, it can come closer to the actual feeling of life, emotional experience and the common sense of life.(77) Li Ze Hou further points that the transformation created by Confucius demystified the otherwise mystical "Ethical Code" and made "the cultivation of one's temperament" into a historical responsibility and a supreme duty possible to accomplish for individual members of society. In this way, the dignity of the individual, together with his initiative, his independence and his sense of historical responsibility, becomes significantly enhanced.

If we define liberty as a state in which human thought and action incur no external limitations, the achievement of liberty will have to depend on two essential conditions: the elimination of external obstacles and the enhancement of the behavioral competence of the free agent. In the entire process of human pursuit of freedom, the Western tradition emphasizes on the former while the Chinese tradition stresses the latter. Therefore, we might come to the conclusion that the Chinese concept and the Western concept regarding the issue of liberty can complement each other. For the Chinese, the acceptance of the Western concept of liberty, especially the liberalist concept of liberty, may well serve as an important precondition for the genuine guarantee of our freedom. Likewise, the interpretation of liberty as represented by the Chinese tradition may supply possible conditions for a coordinated and infinite development of humanity's quest for liberty.
Notes: