凡未经许可擅自转载本站文章者，将被授予“学术臭虫”称号！
老徐的反理论联系实际观点之评析
高翔南
我所知道的老师关于这个观点的最初的明确的表达是在中国民商法网上登载的演讲稿《两种民法典起草思路——新人文主义对物文主义》在回答最后一名提问者时提出的，相关回答如下：“关于脱离实际，我倒是一点都不犯愁，因为我是主张理论脱离实际的。我在十几年以前就主张理论脱离实际的，才能称之为理论，理论是对现实的超越。一天老是跟现实若即若离的，至少不是什么好的理论，或者说不是一种纯粹的理论。”（文章上传时间为 2002 年），但在《民法的人文精神》一书的收录中，不知道因为什么原因却删除这名提问者的问题，自然也删掉了老师的回答。另外的比较明确的表达在《在法学与文学之间的 30 年》第 42 页“理论法学钥匙说”和第 432 页：“我的另类还表现为我公开叫嚷‘理论脱离实际，以建立真正的理论'。这样的观点不为中国的普遍理论所容。”在《民法哲学》中对这个观点有一个比较模糊的表达：“ …… 他们对我的理论有以下评论：‘玄之又玄'；‘与其说是为了解决问题，不如说是为了满足自己的审美趣味'；‘法学的使命是解决问题，谈那么多多余的东西干什么'，我把反对我的理论倾向解释为实证主义，即强调感觉经验，排斥形而上学的主张。对于这些诘难，我想说的是，民法哲学虽然不解决具体的操作问题，但解决元问题或根本问题，或训练人们更好地解决问题的思维。”
可能由于我接触民法接触得比较晚——我在 2006 年才开始接触民法，所以看到老师的话“在十几年前就已经主张理论脱离实际”实在让我大吃一惊，如果以文章（《两种民法典起草思路》）在中国民商法网首次上传时间 2002 年为起点往前推十几年，那差不多是 1990 年左右，也就是老师的第一本专著《民法基本原则解释》的诞生之时。在 2007 年暑假我以当时的目光看着本书时，除了拍案称绝外，丝毫没有体会到这本书“理论脱离实际”之处。因为这本书《民法基本原则解释》里的论点基本已经成为学界通说，看上去指导着新的理论，也影响着实践。
于是我似有所悟，或许一些人所指称的“理论脱离实际”，仅仅是在说老师的理论脱离了现在的实际，并不是将来的实际，而老师所主张的理论脱离实际，脱离的也仅仅是现在的实际，而不是将来的实际。
只是在未来之前，事情总是显得有些无奈。这样的事例在历史的眼中一定是稀松平常的。它早已听惯了许许多多的布鲁诺在烈火中的呐喊：“未来的人会了解我！未来的世界会了解我的价值！”它也懒得去计较还有多少塞尔维特多少伽利略会出现，会因为怎样的“脱离实际”而受到怎样的对待？何谓脱离实际？不过是阳春白雪，曲高者和寡；不过是终于在中国这片广袤的土地上出现了一个人，一个为了理论而理论的纯粹的知识贵族。
强调为了理论而理论，才不会屈膝于现有的支配观念之下，敢于大声为人类说出真相。这恰如《皇帝的新衣》里的那个天真小孩，他只是想说，他不是为了什么而说；强调为了理论而理论，理论才能真正地成为现实的指导者，成为现实发展的指向标——没有废除奴隶制这样“脱离实际”的理论，美国的南方仍然是蓄奴者的天堂；没有“人民主权”、“社会契约”这样“脱离实际”脱离到海里去了的理论，法国人估计到现在还在对着某某几世卑躬屈膝，还没有意识到自己也是可以成为主人的。强调为了理论而理论，才不会急功近利，目光短浅，才能让学者成为民族，人类的思考着的大脑，才会诞生一篇写了八年的论文《从客体到主体——国家观念小史》
对此，我对 于 老师的主要的部分观点（因为有价值的观点实在是浩如繁星，无法穷举）进行了拾贝式列举，分为两部分：第一部分是（脱离理论当时的实际）已经变成了实际的；第二部分是（脱离现在的实际）尚未变成实际的。
（一） 已经变成了实际的
1.诚信原则的帝王条款地位深入人心，破语义说而使得一般条款说成为通说。
2.创立的物文主义概念流传开来，在目前的 Google 上，有 4920000 条搜索结果（数据统计截止于 2010 年 7 月 1 日凌晨 0 ： 13 分）。
3. 在《认真对待民法典》一书中，收录的论文为唤醒学界走出恋德癖的迷梦而居功至伟。
4.《人身关系流变考》一文使得从来备受冷落的人、身关系重回研究的聚光灯下。
……
（二）尚未变成实际的
1. “理论脱离实际”的理论研究思想。
2. 对于立法语言中以“诚信取得”取代“善意取得” 。
3. 一切人共有的物。
4. 民法典会消亡 。
5. 对于平等原则批判的观点 。
6. 性命境人性论。
7. 主观价值论的观点（与官方哲学冲突）。
8. 普及罗马法教育的法学教育观点 。
9. 民法并非纯粹私法的观点。
……
君不见多少论文、书籍一唱而绝无人追随，而老师的《民法的基本原则解释》一版再版；君不见人文学派的队伍愈加强大人文理论愈加深入人心，古有“凡有井水处，皆有柳永词”，今有“凡是法律人，皆能颂徐著”；忽然发觉可笑的是，竟然是一批学者说老师的观点“脱离实际”，却未尝闻从事实务工作的人说老师的观点“脱离实际”，实在是讽刺之甚，在当当网的老师的书的评论下写着“徐国栋是当今民法学界数一数二的顶尖高手，读他的书一定有收获！”学生偶尔逛逛法律论坛，见一律师的博客中这么写道：“人大民商法虽然人数众多，但一个远离京城的徐国栋就能撬动他们！”学生心生骄傲之际，也不由得对这个“脱离实际”的名号感到疑惑：老师到底是脱离了那些学者的实际，还是真的脱离了实际？人人争购的徐著是脱离实际，而那些一版而绝的著作就不是脱离实际？康德的书够脱离实际了，但至今仍为人们所研读；黑格尔的书那也够脱离实际了，至今也在为人们所研读。一版一版又一版，一代读完再一代，几乎是法律人必读书目的徐著到底是怎么个“脱离实际”法，我忽然发现我已经搞不清楚了。
学生就此承认，学生上面的分类是错误的，上面的两个分类应当是：（脱离了当时主流学说实际的）已经变成了现在主流学说实际的和（脱离了现在主流学说实际的）尚未变成现在主流学说实际的。学生有一个揣测：一些人之所以大肆强调理论不能脱离实际，原因仅仅是因为没有什么理论，只好把在实际中存在的东西进行些事实性的描述，冒充理论；而老师的理论，虽然在当时看起来似乎和实际没有什么关系，但它对于实际的影响则是潜移默化的，会逐渐为实际所接受，并最终变成了实际。如果用福柯的话来说，则是那一部分人对于事物进行的是“历史性的描述”，而老师对事物进行的则是“哲学性的描述”。历史性的描述只需要描述者识字、会写字、表达能力较好即可；而哲学性的描述则需要描述者有着超凡绝伦的天赋与智慧，对材料进行深加工的本领。呵呵，从另一个角度说：老师只是“反理论联系实际”，却没有办法阻止实际去联系理论。主动方不一样，虽然结果都是理论和实际产生了勾连。
老师学术年龄刚刚过半，未来会有怎样的发展不可预知，实在是令人翘首以盼，拭目以待，洗耳以听啊。
最后，学生作歪诗一首结束本文：
新读徐师数篇文，
自余吟著皆无味。
气势豪逸复奇崛，
独秀一枝天下魁。
Comments on “Theory for Theory's Sake” by Professor Xu Guo Dong
The first time I know the point mentioned by Professor Xu Guo Dong is on the website Chinese Civil Law . There was one speech of his. In the speech Two different approaches to the Chinese Civil law Code: New humanism vs. material-centralism when he was answering the last question, he said: “I am not worried about my theory isolating from the practice. I have held this view for over ten years that only those theories which performed for its own sake and not for some ulterior end can be the real theories. Transcendent is transcendent. Always lingering in the practice you'll never trans.” But for some unknown reason, this part is eliminated in the Humanistic Spirit of Civil Law , the collection of speeches by Professor Xu. Another expression of this point is on the pages 43and 432 of My Three Decades Between Literature and Law , “ We always said that the theory cannot give the key to one special case. But I tell you that the theory gives you the know-how to the key, which means it can tell you how to design, form, or produce a key.” My distinctive is also distinct for that I publicly advocate ‘the theory for theory's sake' which is not compatible with popular view in Chinese academia...” There was one absurd version in Philosophy of Civil Law , too: “…they have such comments on my theory, like ‘more mysterious than you can imagine' ‘…rather than solve the real problem but to cater to his own aesthetic appreciation…' ‘the task of law is to solve the real problem, why does he talk so many unnecessaries?',I call all of these views ‘ pragmatism', which means that it opposes transcendentalism and evaluates assertions solely by their practical consequences. All I want to say is, yes, the philosophy of civil law doesn't solve the real problem, but it trains the brain of people to let them to find the better solutions. The philosophy of civil law solves the fundamental problems and the principles.”
Maybe it was because that I started to learn the civil law late, started in 2006, so it was to my surprise that my supervisor claimed ‘theory for theory's sake' over ten years ago. Because if we cut ten years off from the 2002(the time of speech Two approaches to the Civil law: New humanism vs. material-centralism) ,that was 1990s while the first masterpiece Explanations on the Principles of Civil Law of Professor Xu came into the world! But the points in that book have almost become the popular views in China and I cannot find any isolation between that book and so-called practice in my summer vocation of 2007.At that time all I can say about the feeling of reading that book is cool and fabulous.
So maybe, just maybe, theories of Professor Xu is just isolating from now practice, they aren't isolating from future practice. But what I said is something sad and illogical, am I? We have emphasized on the ‘Practice is the sole criterion for testing truth' for three decades and my supervisor is persisting for three decades alone, too. Such loneliness in the eyes of history may be some routine, something boring and lack of funny. It has heard tens of thousands of Brunos cried in the big fire “The future people will understand me! The future will know the value of me!” It will never lift a finger on how many Servetuses or Galileos will be ill-treated while they find something that is for its own sake and didn't care the feelings of the practice. So what is isolation from the reality? That means the practicing people cannot understand you and regard you as some freak. My supervisor is a lonely knowledge aristocrat in here 960,000 square kilometers.
Only when the theory performs for its own sake, it can disclose the truth for human being and be brave while it face the ruling idea. It just like the na?ve child in Kejserens Nye Kl?der, he just wants to speak nothing else but the truth for nothing else but the truth. He doesn't speak for the king, the kingdom or the people. He speaks truth for the truth. Only when the theory performs for its own sake, it can be the guilder, the introducer of the practice. Without the theory of emancipation of black slaves, the South of America is still the paradise of slave-owners; without the surreal theory of ‘Social Contract. ‘Sovereign of people', French people still practice courtesy while facing the monarch. Only someone hold this view that the theory should perform for its own sake, that he could spend 8 years on one treatise From Object to Subject: The Brief History of The Conception ‘Republic '.
Countless thesis, works and treatises in China disappeared in the end with the only meaning of its existence is wasting some paper. But Professor Xu's works is always long-lasting and always becoming popular. So sometimes I find it was a little ironic that there were some scholars to comment that Professor Xu is isolating from the practice. Hardly any lawyers or justices said Professor Xu is isolating from the practice. The real practice-doers are always willing to read his works and find some inspirations they need. Maybe on the other side, Professor Xu doesn't want to consider too much of practice, but the practice is very pleasure to take his points into consideration.
Hope my supervisor Professor Xu will give us more surprises and fantasies in the future as long as he is not old as an outstanding scholar.
声明：站内文章均仅供个人研究之用，如有侵权，请权利人来信告知。
站内未注明作者之文章均为原创，如要使用或转载请来信告知。
前期统计IP计数2320，新计数从2003年11月3日开始运行。
