English "compromise" compromise originated in ancient Rome, it refers to the settlement of disputes, through fair and neutral third parties that the arbitrator's decision to make mutual commitment (mutual commitment). This verbal contract can avoid court courtroom. Thereafter, the compromise has a second meaning, and the arbitrator is elected as the representative of the relevant party or community. From the 16th century to the late 18th century, despite the increasing exchange of ideas between Britain and France, the understanding of compromise between the two countries was very different.
The British author believes that compromise is a virtue or virtue. Haywood, Shakespeare to Swift or Bonnett, dozens of British writers use the word "compromise" in a positive or at least neutral context and are remarkably consistent. In their view, compromise means bargaining, in order to reach an agreement that could not have been reached. This means that compromise is the only way to replace violence. At this point, even Christ is called a compromise, because it mediates the conflict, many writers openly talk about the advantages of compromise. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the classical meaning of the fair and neutral third party arbitration, which was contained in the compromise, gradually vanished, replaced by the voluntary agreement of the common agreement, contract, covenant or group of people.
In France, before the second half of the 16th century Kochiye, Montaigne and Sharon had been worried about "compromise". Gao Naizi, Descartes and even Rousseau, Kezzo and other different times and style of the author, one by one because of compromise affect "his conscience", "his virtue", "his own" and worry. For the French, "compromise" both before and now is a dangerous word. At the end of the sixteenth century, the French were more and more wary of compromise, and the British were more and more enthusiastic about compromise.
"Compromise" a book reveals that Britain and France political ideology parted ways, in the different understanding and use of compromise has been confirmed. At the beginning of the 17th century, compromise in England expressed a peaceful agreement, not implicitly impartial neutral arbitrator presence. In England, the parliament won the final victory, and the different versions of the social contract theory became more popular; in France, the whole 17th century experienced the rise of centralization and political despotism. At the end of the seventeenth century, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the French became increasingly familiar with the representatives of the individual's will and the social contract theory, personal representatives and self-expression, as part of the collective imagination of the French, that any " It is difficult to long-term impact it.
In the second half of the 16th century, why did the compromise between England and France be so different? Mainly due to cross-strait individual self-perception has undergone some changes. Attention to the individual is about to become a unique independent individual, but also understand themselves as one or several members of the group, others also understand them. Since the 16th century, the center of French individualism is the self-authenticity in the context of secular, religious and philosophical background, which is linked in some way to the rise of modern state and despotism. In the author's view, compromise has become an unreliable practice, especially at the political level, by insisting on rational infiltration of will. This is a belief in individualism. In the 16th and 17th centuries, it was not possible for court or tertiary meetings to represent personal thoughts. In accordance with the views of the classical people, on behalf of the subordinate people is self-deprecating identity, and in the inner field, people can not be represented as individuals, very skeptical of other individuals and representative of the subject of political authority requirements. They reject other people "for their interests" endorsement ideas.
At this point, the Roman law in the vast majority of the prevalence of Europe, and common law in England was a unique success. The lords managed to assimilate the king with the kingdom and even restrict the power of the king to limit the growing rights of civilians. McFarlane argues that the British believe that the constituent society is autonomous, equal, and units are independent individuals, and that fundamentally, such individuals are more important than any larger voter group. In the mid-17th century the United Kingdom, "people" are not organic whole, but individual collections. This is a centrifugal individualism. By the middle of the seventeenth century, the British parties understood that individuals were the best providers of political power. Political, territorial and religious differences paralyzed the French three-level meeting, and the British parliament succeeded in overcoming these difficulties. Today, most scholars agree that the glorious revolution of 1688 was in fact a compromise between the Whig and Tory parties on the attitude of the monarchy, or that the parliament advocated compromise with the monarch's demands.
France's centripetal individualism, the British centrifugal individualism difference, led to the two different contract theory, but also led to a different understanding of compromise. The various versions of the French contract are lacking the two "new" compromises necessary criteria: the assumption that the individuals involved in the contract are equal to each other, and / or the moment when they entrust their rights to the other Creating the authority of the arbitrator, rather than simply recognizing authority. As a result, the political changes in the two countries have created a very different way, and the two countries have embarked on different ways of modernization.
Compromise is difficult, but if there is no compromise, you can not manage a democratic country. "The spirit of compromise" (Amy Gottman, Dennis Thompson, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press) will refuse to compromise and the ruling campaign of the current US democracy permanent activities linked. The election of public office need to fight against compromise thinking, to insist on mobilizing voters, suspicious opponents of the principle to win the election. And good government needs the opposite attitude and practice, compromise thinking so that politicians tend to adjust their own principles and respect for the opponent, help them appreciate and use the opportunity to compromise.
Historical compromises, such as the Reagan administration's rebellion in 1986 and the 2010 Obama administration's health reform, were hard to come by, but only the compromise between tax reform took place between the two parties. The compromise and failure of compromise in these American politics can provide a lot of reference for people to change and adjust the existing political system, procedures and ways of thinking, so as to strike a better balance between election and governance. In contemporary politics, there should be more extensive cooperation.
The British author believes that compromise is a virtue or virtue. Haywood, Shakespeare to Swift or Bonnett, dozens of British writers use the word "compromise" in a positive or at least neutral context and are remarkably consistent. In their view, compromise means bargaining, in order to reach an agreement that could not have been reached. This means that compromise is the only way to replace violence. At this point, even Christ is called a compromise, because it mediates the conflict, many writers openly talk about the advantages of compromise. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the classical meaning of the fair and neutral third party arbitration, which was contained in the compromise, gradually vanished, replaced by the voluntary agreement of the common agreement, contract, covenant or group of people.
In France, before the second half of the 16th century Kochiye, Montaigne and Sharon had been worried about "compromise". Gao Naizi, Descartes and even Rousseau, Kezzo and other different times and style of the author, one by one because of compromise affect "his conscience", "his virtue", "his own" and worry. For the French, "compromise" both before and now is a dangerous word. At the end of the sixteenth century, the French were more and more wary of compromise, and the British were more and more enthusiastic about compromise.
"Compromise" a book reveals that Britain and France political ideology parted ways, in the different understanding and use of compromise has been confirmed. At the beginning of the 17th century, compromise in England expressed a peaceful agreement, not implicitly impartial neutral arbitrator presence. In England, the parliament won the final victory, and the different versions of the social contract theory became more popular; in France, the whole 17th century experienced the rise of centralization and political despotism. At the end of the seventeenth century, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the French became increasingly familiar with the representatives of the individual's will and the social contract theory, personal representatives and self-expression, as part of the collective imagination of the French, that any " It is difficult to long-term impact it.
In the second half of the 16th century, why did the compromise between England and France be so different? Mainly due to cross-strait individual self-perception has undergone some changes. Attention to the individual is about to become a unique independent individual, but also understand themselves as one or several members of the group, others also understand them. Since the 16th century, the center of French individualism is the self-authenticity in the context of secular, religious and philosophical background, which is linked in some way to the rise of modern state and despotism. In the author's view, compromise has become an unreliable practice, especially at the political level, by insisting on rational infiltration of will. This is a belief in individualism. In the 16th and 17th centuries, it was not possible for court or tertiary meetings to represent personal thoughts. In accordance with the views of the classical people, on behalf of the subordinate people is self-deprecating identity, and in the inner field, people can not be represented as individuals, very skeptical of other individuals and representative of the subject of political authority requirements. They reject other people "for their interests" endorsement ideas.
At this point, the Roman law in the vast majority of the prevalence of Europe, and common law in England was a unique success. The lords managed to assimilate the king with the kingdom and even restrict the power of the king to limit the growing rights of civilians. McFarlane argues that the British believe that the constituent society is autonomous, equal, and units are independent individuals, and that fundamentally, such individuals are more important than any larger voter group. In the mid-17th century the United Kingdom, "people" are not organic whole, but individual collections. This is a centrifugal individualism. By the middle of the seventeenth century, the British parties understood that individuals were the best providers of political power. Political, territorial and religious differences paralyzed the French three-level meeting, and the British parliament succeeded in overcoming these difficulties. Today, most scholars agree that the glorious revolution of 1688 was in fact a compromise between the Whig and Tory parties on the attitude of the monarchy, or that the parliament advocated compromise with the monarch's demands.
France's centripetal individualism, the British centrifugal individualism difference, led to the two different contract theory, but also led to a different understanding of compromise. The various versions of the French contract are lacking the two "new" compromises necessary criteria: the assumption that the individuals involved in the contract are equal to each other, and / or the moment when they entrust their rights to the other Creating the authority of the arbitrator, rather than simply recognizing authority. As a result, the political changes in the two countries have created a very different way, and the two countries have embarked on different ways of modernization.
Compromise is difficult, but if there is no compromise, you can not manage a democratic country. "The spirit of compromise" (Amy Gottman, Dennis Thompson, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press) will refuse to compromise and the ruling campaign of the current US democracy permanent activities linked. The election of public office need to fight against compromise thinking, to insist on mobilizing voters, suspicious opponents of the principle to win the election. And good government needs the opposite attitude and practice, compromise thinking so that politicians tend to adjust their own principles and respect for the opponent, help them appreciate and use the opportunity to compromise.
Historical compromises, such as the Reagan administration's rebellion in 1986 and the 2010 Obama administration's health reform, were hard to come by, but only the compromise between tax reform took place between the two parties. The compromise and failure of compromise in these American politics can provide a lot of reference for people to change and adjust the existing political system, procedures and ways of thinking, so as to strike a better balance between election and governance. In contemporary politics, there should be more extensive cooperation.
评论
发表评论