On the Construction of Contemporary Philosophy: Notes on Formal Logic (1)

1, we said in our previous notes and the previous section that we intend to make up for the lesson of formal logic, and intend to take Chen Bo's "Fifteen Lectures on Logic" as a model for the main contents, key issues and thinking methods of contemporary formal logic or mathematical logic. Now, let's get started with this one thing.

2, Chen's "Fifteen Lectures on Logic" is a popular reading book written for college students, which belongs to the "Famous General Studies Lecture Book Series". In 2000, the department of books is a large-scale multidisciplinary youth popular reading series project initiated by Wen Rumin of Peking University, and it is also a series of textbooks for general education courses in university quality education, named "Famous General Studies Lecture Book Series". Liao Mingchun's "Fifteen Lectures on the Transmission of the < Zhou Yi >" that we are studying, like Chen Bo's "Fifteen Lectures on Logic" that we intend to study here, belongs to this general book system.

The so-called "general knowledge" in the so-called "Famous General Studies Lecture Book Series" here is neither a professional teaching book, nor a compression or simplification of professional courses, but a popular science book suitable for the quality education and personality literacy of general non-professional college students. Therefore, the requirement of such a topic positioning, that is, to enter it, to be outside, and not to leave its sect, to be able to do the learning straight and can be popularized, in fact, the author's writing is very high. Previously, I had seen a set of books published by the Beijing Publishing House in 2009, such as Zhao Puchu's "Buddhist Common Sense Answers", Wang Kunlun's "On the Characters of the Dream of the Red Chamber", Li Changzhi's "Criticism of Lu Xun", etc., which also had such a meaning. As far as Chen Bo's experience in writing "Fifteen Lectures on Logic" is concerned, it took nearly three years to complete the book from the time he accepted the invitation in 2005 to publish the book in 2008.

3, we would like to think here, before formally studying the notes of Chen Bo's "Fifteen Lectures on Logic", first make a brief introduction to Chen Bo's logic philosophy or philosophical logic, and even general logic ideas, that is, his philosophy. The key word here is: contemporary philosophical construction. We know that if it comes to philosophical questions, here from general or universal logic to philosophy, then there will be a lot of controversy, and this should not be strange, it is normal. In this regard, as Husserl said in His Studies in Logic (Volume I), it seems that people use the same logic only to express different ideas, or that people can only express different ideas if they use the same logic. Therefore, some of Chen Bo's logical philosophical ideas introduced here should also be viewed in the same way. In other words, you may disagree with Chen Bo's philosophy of logic, but this should not be the same form of study and study of formal logic, especially modern and contemporary mathematical logic. This incident, in the words of Mr. Lu Xun, is not to spill the bath water and the child together. Chen Bo's specialty is mathematical logic and the study of linguistic analytic philosophy, such a rationalist ancient Greek path of loving the philosophical tradition of wisdom.

4, One of the main ideas of Chen Bo's logic philosophy is to face real problems and speak his own words. Originally, this was a general requirement for philosophy, the most basic but also the highest. When people reach middle age, you will know how difficult it is to talk about yourself! And most of the time, we don't actually have anything to say about ourselves?! Therefore, I personally appreciate and agree with Chen Bo's point of view of speaking his own words. The new rational self-enlightenment is such a requirement; the ancient Greek philosophers also have the love wisdom that philosophy is such a good thinking, good speech, and good life. Chen Bo advocated a return to such a love wisdom. To this end, he raised an innovative hermeneutic question, advocated a shift from the Six Classics to the Six Classics, and called on the study of Chinese philosophy to actively respond to and integrate into the broader vision of international philosophical research, which he himself practiced. It should be said that this is still a good way for philosophy to speak The knowledge and action of Chinese. Of course, there is still a lot of work to be done here, and the conditions for reconstructing contemporary (Chinese) philosophy are already in place.

5, Chen Bo on the issue of philosophical methodology, in the article "The Hermeneutics of Creation, When Helping Modern Scholars Cultivate the Correct Attitude of Dealing with "Tradition"" (Note: The font in the following quotation is now bold and bold): From "Ben" to "New", towards creative interpretation.

There are also two different ways to do the study of the original text and the history of philosophy: one is to focus all attention on reading, understanding the original text, and then sorting out and interpreting it, and striving to faithfully and accurately introduce and disseminate it to the public. The second is to follow the path of "hermeneutics of creation" proposed by Fu Weixun. I (Chen Bo) greatly appreciated Fu Weixun's "hermeneutics of creation" and felt that he had made the relevant steps, links, and gist very clear, which were quoted in detail as follows:

The hermeneutics of creation as a general methodology is divided into five dialectical levels, and it is not allowed to jump beyond the ranks arbitrarily. These five levels are: (1) The "actual" level ——— "what did the original thinker (or canon) actually say?" ;(2) "Meaning "hierarchy——— "What did the original thinker want to express?" Or "What exactly does he mean?" ;(3) "Implications" are "levels——— what might the original thinker have to say? Or "What is the possible implication of what the original thinker said?" ;(4) "When it means "level ———" what should the original thinker (originally) say? Or"What should the interpreter of creation say for the original thinker?" ;(5) "Must be said" level——— "what must the original thinker say now?" Or "In order to solve the ideological problems that the original thinker failed to complete, what must the hermeneutics of creation practice now?" ”

……

In the broad sense, the hermeneutics of creation consists of five levels, and in the narrow sense, it refers specifically to the "must be" level. If the respective functions of the five levels are redefined in a narrow sense, then the "real predicate" level belongs to the original textual examination of pre-hermeneutics, the "meaning" level belongs to the analysis of textual hermeneutics according to the interpretation of words, the "implicit predicate" level belongs to historical hermeneutics, and the "when predicate" level belongs to critical hermeneutics; the "must-predicate" level is really the hermeneutics of creation in the narrow sense, but the creative thinking at this level cannot be arbitrarily freely or extracted from the other four layers.

The hermeneutics of creation is firmly opposed to any "violent" method of completely destroying tradition, nor does it recognize the possibility of creating a whole new tradition of thought without careful discussion of these subjects. The hermeneutics of creation takes the middle way between the conservative position of traditionalism and the adventurous position of anti-traditionalism, advocating the continuation of the ideological and cultural tradition. The creation of hermeneutics should help modern scholars to cultivate a correct approach to "tradition" in their approach to learning.

6, the above-mentioned citation, about Chen Bo's great appreciation of Fu Weixun's pioneering "creative hermeneutics" methodology in the "real meaning", "meaning", "implication", "when the verb" and "must be verb" and other five-level analysis, especially the "must be verb" level is really a narrow sense of creation hermeneutics, but this level of creative thinking can not be arbitrarily freely or extracted from the other four layers. The hermeneutics of creation takes the middle way between the conservative position of traditionalism and the adventurous position of anti-traditionalism, advocating the continuation of the ideological and cultural tradition. The creation of hermeneutics should help modern scholars to cultivate a correct approach to "tradition" in their approach to learning.

Fu Weixun and Chen Bo, such a hermeneutic phenomenological methodology that integrates linguistic analysis, does have a great enlightening effect on breaking some difficult problems in our own contemporary traditional classical interpretation work. For details, we have selected some of the issues cited in an interview with Chen Bo and a speech today. Of course, we can all discuss these issues. Our main concern here is logic. As mentioned above, the philosophical and methodological problems of logic here are only a preface, and the main thing itself is to face logic and do correct and effective thinking derivation and thinking training. In the most basic sense, we should regard it as a kind of skills and methods that can be called "algorithms", and with the rapid development of computers, computers, the Internet and artificial intelligence in modern times, these algorithm problems at the operational level can actually be done by computers or computers instead of the human brain, but the basic training or skills should still be mastered; and the idea of logic or meta-logic, etc., that is, only the human brain can have and can do things. This matter has been discussed in our previous reading notes, and I will not repeat it here.

7, Finally, with regard to the basic knowledge of logic, basic skills and logic research, each person makes trade-offs according to the specific situation of each person. Of course, if your sense of logic is very poor and you can't always find it, you can also not learn it, but only work on non-logic or hyper-logic such as poetic problems, that is also OK. I am only saying that logic is generally a necessary basic training and a quick passage for philosophical thinking. For Western philosophy, especially dialectics, the basic training of formal logic is a must, otherwise it cannot be entered.

8, today's excerpts from Chen Bo's "Almost the entire Chinese philosophical community are doing "history of philosophy", and few people are really doing "philosophy"", "The hermeneutics of creation is helpful for modern scholars to cultivate a correct attitude towards "tradition"" and Jiang Yi's "The Dilemma of Chinese Philosophy: Still Not Recognized in the International Philosophical Community" and other three articles for reference.

(Zhang Mantian drafted and made headlines on January 20-21, 2022 at The Yincai Building, No. 18, University East Street, Saihan District, Hohhot.) ）

【Appendix 1】

Peking University Chen Bo: Looking around, the domestic philosophical circles are almost completely "historical" research

University Humanities 2020-09-23

Editor's Note: Thanks for the authorization! The following article comes from the Academic Watchman WeChat public account of Renmin University Publishing House, written by Chen Bo.

Interview | Chen Bo: Almost the entire Chinese philosophical community is doing "history of philosophy", and few people are really doing "philosophy"

On the Construction of Contemporary Philosophy: Notes on Formal Logic (1)

University Humanities 2020-09-23

Editor's Note: Thanks for the authorization! The following article comes from the Academic Watchman WeChat public account of Renmin University Publishing House, written by Chen Bo.

Interview | Chen Bo: Almost the entire Chinese philosophical community is doing "history of philosophy", and few people are really doing "philosophy"

Chen Bo

Bo Chen, Ph.D. in Philosophy, Chinese Minmin University, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor of the Institute of Foreign Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, Peking University, specializes in logic and analytic philosophy. His major works include: "Analytic Philosophy - Criticism and Construction", "Research on The Philosophy of Logic", "Research on Quinn's Philosophy", "Study of Paradox", "Thinking with the Master", "Fifteen Lectures on Logic", "Introduction to Logic", "What is Logic", etc.

————

Liu Yetao: Professor Liu Jingzhao previously gave you a lengthy interview, "Opening Academic Horizons and Insisting on Independent Thinking", published in Jinyang Academic Journal, No. 5, 2007. This interview of mine focuses on what you have done since. Is this okay?

Bo Chen: Very good.

Liu Yetao: In 2012, Peking University Publishing House published your collection of academic essays, "Thinking with the Master". Although this book also collects your research on some specific academic issues, it seems to involve more of your thinking about how to do philosophical work, which is a meta-level methodological discussion. When I read this book, I was particularly impressed by this: what you emphasize is that you should face the philosophical problem itself, not only "according to the lecture", but also "continue to speak", to participate in the international academic community, to participate in the contemporary construction of philosophy. Is this reading experience accurate?

Bo Chen: Very accurate. I have addressed this issue in many chapters of the book, especially in the prefaces to the classics, thinking with the master, "speaking accordingly" and "continuing to speak", "textual interpretation and theoretical innovation", and "Studying philosophy like Damit".

For a long time, two academic traditions have been formed in the literary circles of Chinese: "I note the Six Classics" and "The Six Classics note me". The former emphasizes the repeated reading, in-depth understanding, accurate interpretation, and subsequent introduction and dissemination of classic texts, emphasizes the training of kung fu and the accumulation of knowledge, and emphasizes respect for the sages. This, of course, is conducive to the spread and inheritance of culture and civilization. The latter is another attitude towards reading, emphasizing my reading, my feelings, my understanding, and my thinking. I think the best expression of the latter attitude toward reading comes from the early American poet philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson. He pointedly pointed out: "If genius has an undue influence, then genius itself is enough to be the enemy of genius." "Obedient young people grew up in the library, believing that it was their duty to accept the ideas expressed in the books of Cicero, Locke, Bacon, and others, forgetting that Cicero, Locke, Bacon, and others were only young people in the library when they wrote these books. Emerson asked readers to always remember when confronted with books that the purpose of reading is to open the mind and activate inspiration in order to devote themselves to creation. "We listen to others so that we can speak ourselves!"

Liu Yetao: The problem is that in Chinese intellectual circles, especially in philosophical circles, the tradition of "I note the Six Classics" is too strong, and the "Six Classics Note Me" has hardly formed a climate, let alone formed the so-called "tradition".

Bo Chen: Exactly. As far as the Chinese philosophical community is concerned, the vast majority of scholars and the vast majority of resources have devoted themselves to the study of the history of philosophy. I once wrote that looking around, the domestic philosophical circles are almost the same as "historical" research: the history of Chinese philosophy, the history of Western philosophy, the history of Marxist philosophy, and so on. Scholars who originally studied the principles of Marxist philosophy are also working hard to make Marx's philosophy scholarly, turning the focus to textual research, source flow examination, clarification of righteousness, and so on, and to "Marxism." Scholars who study modern and contemporary Western philosophy are also doing another form of "historical" research, which is nothing more than "contemporary history": devoting their main energy to translating, introducing, paraphrasing, and interpreting the teachings and writings of modern and contemporary Western philosophers. This phenomenon is commonplace in the Chinese philosophical circles, but it is very surprising to think about it carefully: almost the entire Chinese philosophical community is doing "history of philosophy", and few people are really doing "philosophy"; almost all of them are studying the philosophy of others, few people are doing original research and developing their own philosophy; almost all of them are facing the past of philosophy, and few people live in the present and present of philosophy and participate in the contemporary construction of philosophy.

Liu Yetao: But the study of the history of philosophy itself is also a serious academic undertaking, which has been recognized by the international academic community and has great academic value in itself.

Bo Chen: No one denies that. In fact, even for serious study of the history of philosophy, there are two very different paths. One path is to focus all attention on honest reading, understanding the original text, and then sorting and interpreting it, and striving to faithfully introduce and disseminate it to the public. This is an important path, but not the only one, and there is a more valuable path, that is, not to treat the philosophers studied as objects of reverence, but to treat them as partners in dialogue, and sometimes even to think in a different position, for their sake: they should not have spoken this way here, but should have said that; they should have said more here, and done more interesting work. This is the "hermeneutics of creation" proposed by Fu Weixun, advocating that when studying the doctrine of a certain thinker, the following five steps or levels should be considered in turn: (1) "real predicate": what the original author actually said; (2) "meaning": what the original author really meant; (3) "implication": what the original author might say; (4) "dang predicate": what the original author should have said; (5) "creation predicate": as the interpreter of creation, what should I say. By treating the history of philosophy in this way, the historian of philosophy may become an independent philosopher. One such example is the English philosopher Michael Damitt: he began with a creative interpretation of Frege's thought and gradually entered the core areas of philosophy—the philosophy of language, metaphysics, and epistemology—to become an independent original philosopher and a very important contemporary philosopher.

Liu Yetao: It is precisely based on your long-term thinking on such issues that in 2005 you wrote a general preface to the "Translation Series of Foreign Classic Philosophy Textbooks" planned by you and published by the National People's Congress Publishing House: "Return to the Loving Wisdom Nature of Philosophy."

Bo Chen: Thank you for mentioning the preface, which expresses some of my very important ideas about philosophical education. I wrote that it is necessary to reform the philosophy education in China, and the goal of the reform is to return to the "love of wisdom" tradition of philosophy, and the focus of teaching is not to impart a fixed form of philosophical knowledge, but to cultivate students' strong curiosity and interest in philosophical wisdom, as well as to impart the methods, ways and abilities to pursue and explore this wisdom. The specific methods are: (1) return to important philosophical issues; (2) return to rigorous philosophical arguments; (3) return to the masters and classics in the history of philosophy; (4) return to the reflective and critical functions of philosophy; (5) pay due attention to contemporary philosophical controversies and contemporary social reality.

Liu Yetao: Your article "Problem-Oriented, Participating in the Contemporary Construction of Philosophy" published in 2010 more systematically expounded your above ideas. It is said that the core idea of this article is very relevant to your visit at Oxford University from August 2007 to August 2008.

Bo Chen: Indeed. In 2007, my life reached an important juncture, when I was 50 years old, and I was still left with academic time, but it was not too much. My contact in Oxford was Timothy Williamson, who was actually only two years older than me, but was already a well-known philosopher, who was then a Chair Professor of Logic at oxford University, a member of the British Academy of Sciences, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a member of the Norwegian Academy of Sciences, a member of the Edinburgh Academy of Sciences, and several books he published attracted wide attention and great repercussions. In recent years he has received many new titles: Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the European Academy of Sciences, Fellow of the Irish Academy of Sciences, etc. I thought at the time, we are all obsessed with studying the philosophy of others after the butts of others; when we are introducing and studying their philosophy, and their students, our contemporaries, are developing new philosophical theories, are our students introducing and studying the philosophy of their students? When is such a thing a head?!

Liu Yetao: Therefore, after you returned to China, you wrote with enthusiasm that you should change the situation in which "others study philosophy, and we only study other people's philosophy." At least some Chinese philosophers, together with their international counterparts, must face real philosophical problems and participate in the contemporary construction of philosophy. You expand this theme into 7 propositions in turn: philosophy is not the history of philosophy, philosophical research is not the same as the study of the history of philosophy; the source of philosophy is always a problem, a real problem; the refinement of philosophical problems leads to the specialization of philosophical research and leads to the emergence of new branches of philosophy; the principle of philosophical exploration: free discussion, serious criticism; the methodology of philosophical exploration: argumentation, speaking in an academic way; at least some Chinese philosophers should participate in the contemporary construction of philosophy The three-fold task of the Department of Philosophy of Peking University: academic inheritance, original research, and cultural dissemination. More importantly, you don't just beat the drum to encourage others to do it, but first bury your head in it yourself.

Chen Bo: Your statement is true. When I was in Oxford, I thought over and over again, if I really wanted to do something decent in the second half of my life, where would I start? I feel that about Kripke's philosophy, I have systematic words to say, and I have systematic dissenting opinions to publish. So I wrote down a big research project about what I wanted to do, emailed it to Williamson, and to Susan Huck, asking them to judge the future of my proposed work and give me a truthful answer. Williamson himself was a "fan" of Kripke, and he thought that what Kripke said was basically right, but the details needed to be perfected, so he thought that my planned work had no future. Like me, Susan Harker was generally critical of Kripke's work and therefore thought my job was promising, at least worth a try. After much deliberation, I decided to give it a go: my ideas and arguments had not yet been written, and no one could pre-announce their death sentence. I can only use my head to think, even if I am wrong, I hope to be able to figure out where I am wrong, and to die is to die on the way forward. Besides, it's not certain who's right and who's wrong! I first wrote an English paper on Xunzi's philosophy of language, which was published in Blackwell's Journal of Chinese Philosophy. This is my first English paper published in the international journal A&HCI (Arts & Humanities Citation Index), and I refute the idea of Klipke's name theory based in part on Xunzi's doctrine of "convention." Since then, I have written a number of English papers, and after many times the process of rejection, revision, and re-submission is like purgatory, sometimes it may take five or six years for an English paper to be written and published. I am tenacious and have published 13 A&HCI journal papers so far, which is very rare among Chinese philosophical scholars, and may even be the only one. I also have three or four Papers in English in the process of being reviewed or re-revised in international journals. I am a domestic turtle doctor, 50 years old only began to write English papers, international journals can achieve today's results, once again illustrate the following truth: do not try, how to know that it is impossible?! Sincerely, the golden stone is opened, and the work is naturally accomplished.

Liu Yetao: As your doctoral student, I have heard and witnessed your insight, foundation, dedication and fighting spirit, and I am very impressed. You have set a benchmark for our future studies, and we must learn from you!

Bo Chen: In the process of writing and submitting in English over the years, I have gained a lot of personal experience and help from the international academic community. In many cases, even if an international journal rejects a manuscript, anonymous reviewers will write long, careful reviews, and I will repeatedly study and think about these comments, and then revise them. It is in the process of such exploration that I have come to appreciate how to do philosophy according to international academic standards, which I summarize into the following 5 points: (1) speak in an academic tradition; (2) speak in an academic community; (3) say some of my own words for specific topics; (4) give a more rigorous and systematic argument for my own views; and (5) respond moderately to the different views of others.

Liu Yetao: These experiences of yours are of great guiding significance to young scholars in China. In addition, you have hosted many important international conferences in recent years, with topics such as Frege, Quine, Kleepke, Williamson, Paradox, etc.; you also participated in the organization of the "Philosophy Education and Contemporary Society - Conference of Heads of Philosophy Departments around the World", which is one of the centennial celebrations of the Department of Philosophy of Peking University. What are the motivations behind your academic activities?

Chen Bo: My main consideration is that we can no longer do philosophy behind closed doors, we must participate in the international philosophical community, in the contemporary construction of philosophy. It is a useful way to start by understanding and discussing the ideas of some important philosophers. By the way, when I visited Oxford from 2007 to 2008, Williamson once said that China is such a big country, there must be many universities and many philosophy departments, there are many philosophy professors, but it is rare to see Chinese philosophers in international journals, internationally published monographs, and international academic conferences. My own academic efforts in recent years, as well as the international academic conferences I have hosted, can be seen as attempts to change this anomaly.

University Humanities 2020-09-23

Editor's Note: Thanks for the authorization! The following article comes from the Academic Watchman WeChat public account of Renmin University Publishing House, written by Chen Bo.

Interview | Chen Bo: Almost the entire Chinese philosophical community is doing "history of philosophy", and few people are really doing "philosophy"

Chen Bo

————

Bo Chen: Very good.

A photocopy of the cover of one of Chen Bo's books

Dialogue, Interaction, Participation : Entering the International Philosophical Community Author: Chen Bo ISBN: 978-7-300-28339-5 Pricing: 148.00 Publication Date: 2020-07-15 This book is a fairly complete record of the author's dialogue with the international philosophical community, hosting international academic activities, and gradually integrating into the international philosophical community, divided into three series. Episode 1, Interview: Face to Face with the Master. Includes interviews with American philosophers Gila Sherr and Susan Hack, British philosophers Timothy Williamson and Mike Bini, Finnish philosophers von Wright and Jako Hendika, and reports on the Lectures of John Locke by american philosopher Hatri Field at Oxford University. The second series, the actual record of communication: experience and understanding. Earn years or research articles about Quine, von Wright, Susan Hack, Damett, Williamson, Kripke, etc. The third series, hosted the documentary of the international seminar. Included in the review of international seminars sponsored or organized by the author at Peking University.

【Appendix 2】

Chen Bo: The hermeneutics of creation should help modern scholars cultivate a correct attitude towards "tradition"

University Humanities 2020-09-23

Editor's Note: Thanks for the authorization! The following article comes from the Academic Watchman WeChat public account of Renmin University Publishing House, written by Chen Bo.

Interview | Chen Bo: Almost the entire Chinese philosophical community is doing "history of philosophy", and few people are really doing "philosophy"

Chen Bo

————

Bo Chen: Very good.

A photocopy of the cover of one of Chen Bo's books

【Appendix 2】

College Humanities February 26

There are two paths to philosophical research: interpretation and innovation

University Humanities 2020-09-23

Editor's Note: Thanks for the authorization! The following article comes from the Academic Watchman WeChat public account of Renmin University Publishing House, written by Chen Bo.

Interview | Chen Bo: Almost the entire Chinese philosophical community is doing "history of philosophy", and few people are really doing "philosophy"

Chen Bo

————

Bo Chen: Very good.

A photocopy of the cover of one of Chen Bo's books

【Appendix 2】

College Humanities February 26

There are two paths to philosophical research: interpretation and innovation

Chen Bo

Author: Chen Bo

Source: Originally published in China Social Science Evaluation, No. 1, 2017

————

Philosophical research has many paths, from which different paradigms followed by different academic communities are constructed. I have summarized the path of philosophical research into two main points: one is oriented to the original and the traditional, and the other is to the problem and reality. The former focuses on interpretation and inheritance, while the latter focuses on pioneering and innovation. Geographically, the philosophical circles of continental Europe, China and East Asia are biased toward the first path, while the philosophical circles of Britain, the United States, Australia and Canada are biased towards the second path. In this article, I will explore, expound, compare, reflect and comment on these two different paths in light of the reality of contemporary Chinese and foreign philosophical research, so as to teach my colleagues in the domestic philosophical circles.

It is worth mentioning that marked by the publication of the oxford philosopher Williamson's book The Philosophy of Philosophy (2007), the European and American philosophical circles have recently begun to reflect on the tasks, missions, methods, basic presuppositions, and nature of the disciplines of philosophy itself, and meta-philosophy and philosophical methodology research is in the ascendant. The following questions have become a hot topic: Is philosophical research oriented toward language, concepts, or ideas, or, like the natural sciences, toward the outside world itself? Is philosophy part of the overall effort of man to perceive the world? How to evaluate the "linguistic turn" or "ideological turn" that occurred in the study of Western philosophy in the late 19th and 20th centuries? What positive results have they brought and what negative impacts have they had? Or are there any fundamental flaws? Can philosophical research in the "armchair" produce valuable insights about the world? What are the similarities and differences between philosophical research and other natural sciences in terms of objectives and methods? Does philosophical research also need "evidence"? If so, "textual evidence" or "empirical evidence" from the outside world? Are the traditionally important philosophical distinctions, such as "necessity and contingency", "analytical and synthesis", "a priori and posterior", etc., really valid? What is the basis for this? What are the theoretical consequences? Does philosophical research require appeal to "intuition," "imagination," and "thought experimentation"? Does philosophical research need to introduce empirical research methods such as questionnaires? What role do the results obtained by this method play in philosophical polemics? Is it possible to establish a so-called "experimental philosophy"? And all that.

First, facing the original classics and traditions, inheriting culture and civilization

(i) Why should we face classical texts and intellectual traditions

Hegel said: "Everything that is realistic is reasonable", and the realization of a thing has its reasons, reasons and bases for why it is so. In this way, the current situation of Chinese philosophical research may be able to achieve "sympathetic understanding" as much as possible.

"Who am I?" "Where am I from?" "Where am I going?" These near-eternal philosophical questions are confronted by almost everyone, as well as by every culture, nation, nation, and other community. In a way, "where I come from" defines "who I am" and also influences thinking and choosing about "where I'm going." For this reason, for those of us who come after us, the classic texts and intellectual traditions left by our ancestors are of great value, mainly in the following ways:

1. Classical texts are the entrance to our self-knowledge as cultural creatures.

For example, our spiritual world as Chinese, the way of thinking, the way of settling down, the way of living in the world, the habits of life, aesthetic tastes, etc., are all shaped by the ideological and cultural traditions based on the classic texts preserved by our ancestors, which invisibly penetrate into the details of our lives, and understanding these classic texts is, in a sense, understanding ourselves and our current way of life.

By the way, in the Chinese logic community, there are many different opinions expressed by academic colleagues on whether there was logic in ancient China and how to study the history of Chinese logic, and from time to time there are fierce debates. Some scholars cling to the concept that "the study of logic necessarily leads to relations, and logic is a discipline about the formal structure of reasoning", emphasizing that there was no logic in ancient China. I have reservations about this view, which involves both the understanding of "what is logic" and the understanding of traditional Chinese culture. Even if ancient China did not have a "formal" logic like Aristotle's syllogism, the study of the following question is still of great significance: What factors contributed to this "absence"? What are the positive or negative consequences of this "no" in traditional Chinese culture? Let's do another reverse question: In terms of thinking theory, what exactly is in traditional Chinese culture? How did ancient Chinese thinkers think about problems? What are the procedures, patterns, methods and rules to be followed? How can they carry out such arguments as "The Debate of Goose Lake" and "Zhu Zhang Will Speak"? In traditional Chinese texts, are there any discussions on "how to think" and "how to communicate and argue"? Is there any research on the processes, procedures, patterns, laws, rules, methods, techniques, fallacies, etc. of thinking? On these issues, what are the "sameness" and "differences" between the thinking of ancient Chinese thinkers and Western thinkers? What are the reasons for these "same" and "different"? In the study of these issues by overseas sinologists, which ones are correct or enlightening? What claims are wrong? How to improve the way of thinking of the Chinese to be more conducive to the rise of the Chinese nation? As descendants of traditional Chinese culture, it is of course necessary to clarify these issues, and it may be more appropriate for such research to be done by scholars with a background in logic, or even their unshirkable responsibility and mission. As for what to call such research results, such as "history of Chinese logic", "history of Chinese famous debate" or "history of Chinese debate", etc., it is far from that important.

2. Classical texts are reliable carriers of cultural and civilizational inheritance.

I once said: "Classic texts are pearls or gold left behind by the relentless washing of time, fine works left behind by countless pairs of discerning eyes." Although there are many publications from all eras, not many people have real insights and can be passed on to future generations. There are many books whose birth is their death; and some books, when they were first published, may have been hilarious for a while, but time is merciless, and soon disappears from people's vision and is completely forgotten. Only things of real value will be repeatedly checked by future generations, constantly re-read, reviewed and thought. This is so because these scriptures either raise really important questions, or expound truly creative ideas, or make particularly wise arguments about a certain idea, or express them in a particularly contagious way, more often than not, both. ”

3. Classical texts are an important reference for the creation of new ideas and cultures.

In the history of ideology and culture, it is unlikely that the phenomenon of "ten thousand tall buildings rising from the ground" will occur, and the creation of any descendant must be based on the work of predecessors, and the "shoulders of giants" must be used to stand higher and see farther. "Philosophers have to ponder the question: What is 'being' or 'existing' in the world? ——— these 'what' constitute the premise and starting point of our existence and cognition; what beliefs constitute 'knowledge'? What kind of statement, proposition, or belief is the 'truth'? What should the relationship between the individual and society look like? What is 'happiness'? What is 'justice'? What should the relationship between man and nature look like? What is 'beauty'? Concerns and reflections on these issues do not become fundamentally different with the changes in history, changes in the environment, and advances in science and technology. In this sense, the wisdom of previous philosophers still enlightens, guides, and guides us, and the study of the history of philosophy is of great significance. ”

Given the importance of the classical texts, many scholars devote their energies to sorting, interpreting, and interpreting them, doing something of immense merit. Especially considering that in the circulation of history, many ancient classics are incomplete, including many falloffs, misgrafts, falsehoods and intentional pseudo-trusts, and the ancient Chinese writing system without punctuation is almost "heavenly book" for modern Chinese. The collation and interpretation of classical literature is a very professional matter, which requires long-term immersion in well-trained experts and scholars. After that, they sorted, interpreted and evaluated it according to their own understanding, and introduced it and disseminated it to the public. The works of some continental European philosophers such as Hegel, Heidegger, Husserl, Gadamer, Derrida, and others are recognized as obscure even among philosophers in their native language circles, and Chinese scholars rely on their foreign language ability and knowledge to painstakingly translate them into understandable Chinese. All of this work is very valuable and enriches the ideological and cultural resources of contemporary Chinese.

(2) Why most Chinese scholars have chosen to face the original canon and tradition

This situation is caused by a combination of multiple social and individual factors, part of which is forced by the external environment to force them to do so, and part of which is due to their conscious choice.

1. Political and academic systems.

Qin Shi Huang annexed the Six Kingdoms, unified the world, and founded a China with "books in the same text and cars on the same track", and then "burned books and pit Confucianism". The Han Dynasty "deposed hundreds of families and exalted Confucianism" and unified the official ideology. The Sui Dynasty began the imperial examination system, breaking the system of blood lineage and clan monopoly, opening up the way for the rise of the class for the folk scholars (intellectuals), but also bringing them into the orbit of official scholarship. Since then, Chinese scholars have embarked on the path of exhausting the scriptures and seeking an official and a half-job, and their academic vision and ideological freedom have been greatly restricted, and many academic works have appeared in the form of "classic commentaries", and "I note the six classics" has become the most powerful academic tradition. Even if some scholars really want to say something about their own thoughts, they often let them hide under the form of "annotations", and sometimes even give up the right of signature, pretending to be the ancients, trying to blend into the "classics" in order to pass on to future generations. Even people like Wang Mang and Kang Youwei had to "reform the system" and gain ideological support and arguments from ancient times and saints. After the founding of New China, scholars with a background in Western studies, such as He Lin, Hong Qian, and Miao Litian, devoted almost all their energies to the compilation and translation of the classic literature of Western philosophy, and it was difficult to have the energy to create free ideas.

2. Inheritance and tradition.

Generations of scholars have been trained in the above atmosphere, and many things have become habits in repeated operations, and even subtly turned into their own inner choices. Such a teacher teaches such a student, and such a student becomes a teacher, constantly copying according to a roughly fixed template, thus evolving into an "academic tradition". "Familiar" slowly becomes "true knowledge", "commonplace" slowly becomes "natural", only a few mavericks can and dare to escape from the routine, but often are not understood.

In Chinese academic circles, there is a saying that has been popular for a long time, but in fact it is very problematic: "A gentleman does not do it." The former Qin Mozi made a persuasive criticism of this: "[The Confucians] also said: 'A gentleman follows and does not do.'" "The ancients made bows, they made armor, Xi Zhong made cars, and Qiao Hang made boats; but now Bao Han's carmen are all gentlemen, and Yi, Ling, Xi Zhong, and Qiao Chui are all villains and evils." And the people he follows will or do it; but the people he follows are also small people. Mozi's criticism has not received the attention it deserves. When I was in college and graduate school, I often heard the exhortation not to write anything until I was 50. The reality is that many philosophical classics are written by young people, such as Hume's brilliant tome "The Theory of Human Nature" before the age of 30, and Wittgenstein's first draft of "Logical Philosophy" in the trenches of the First World War in his 20s. What I deeply doubt is that if a person does not write anything before the age of 50, will there still be the impulse and ability to create academically after the age of 50?

3. Insight and competence.

A young person is trained in only one academic tradition, only taught by one or more teachers, and only reads a specific type of book designated by a specific teacher, the Chinese tradition of "respecting the teacher and valuing the Tao", and if he is not careful, he may be "expelled from the teacher", and the "teacher" is equivalent to some kind of interest group. It is difficult to expect such students to have the ability to think critically. His intellectual vision is too narrow, his thinking mode is solidified, there is no comparison and identification, and it is difficult to make achievements in academia. On the contrary, scholars such as Yan Fu, Liang Qichao, Chen Yinke, Hu Shi, Feng Youlan, jin Yuelin, etc., laid a very good foundation in traditional Chinese studies from an early age, and then went abroad to study abroad, received Western academic training, and were stirred by the collision of Chinese and Western cultures.

4. Utilitarian considerations.

The scholar is also an ordinary person, he needs the resources to survive, but also has a social status, and must be recognized by society. He usually followed the mainstream values of the society of the time and sought to advance the ranks. Contemporary young scholars face many survival dilemmas, but also face annual assessments, project closures, professional title evaluations, and the selection of various titles. It's hard for them to sit on the cold bench for ten years. Many scholars of contemporary Western philosophy, instead of devoting themselves to a certain study with their foreign counterparts and becoming their interlocutors, still adopt the practice of "history of philosophy", turning the so-called "research" into a "live broadcast", looking for articles and works of foreign scholars who may have some influence, writing Chinese articles of introductory category, and adding a little innocuous "commentary" at the end. Such articles can never be published in international academic journals, but they occupy the main pages of domestic academic journals. An analogy can be made here: if a domestic scholar publishes an article in a journal such as "Chinese Social Sciences" and other scholars write another article to introduce the views and arguments of the scholar, and there is no serious discussion and criticism, and no meaningful expansion of his work, can such an article be published in a domestic academic journal? After publication, I am afraid that it will cause copyright disputes. Domestic academic journals must change the situation in which "introduction and review" articles are rampant and there are few real research articles.

Second, from the "original" to the "new", to creative interpretation

There are also two different ways to do the study of the original text and the history of philosophy: one is to focus all attention on reading, understanding the original text, and then sorting out and interpreting it, and striving to faithfully and accurately introduce and disseminate it to the public. The second is to follow the path of "hermeneutics of creation" proposed by Fu Weixun. I greatly appreciate Fu Weixun's "hermeneutics of creation" and feel that he has made the relevant steps, links, and gist very clear, which are quoted in detail as follows:

……

Below, I will select a few examples from the study of the history of Chinese and foreign philosophy as examples of the application of the "hermeneutics of creation" advocated by Fu Weixun, although the relevant scholars do not know the so-called "hermeneutics of creation", they actually do this, which also confirms the rationale and value of "hermeneutics of creation" from the side.

1. Hume Research and the New Hume Controversy

Hume's philosophy is a fairly old topic, and the "traditional interpretation" of Hume's philosophy holds that Hume's causal and inductive arguments negate the objective necessity of causal relations and the rationality of inductive reasoning, thus threatening the rationality of the entire empirical science, thereby interpreting Hume as a thorough skeptic, even an agnostic. Since the 1980s, an explanation of "causal realism" has emerged, which has led to a fierce "New Hume controversy". Strausson and Wright and others argue that Hume did not equate causality with a constant union between similar objects, but rather that he actually believed in the existence of causal necessity or causal forces in the external world, which are the root causes of this constant union. Their main means of argument are: the emphasis and reinterpretation of certain quotations from Hume that contain Hume's direct denotatory use of causation or causality; and the attempt to show that Hume's skepticism is directed only at our knowledge of causality and not at objective causality itself by distinguishing between "conceiving" and "supposing" and between causality itself in objects and our knowledge of causality Revealing the difficulties that traditional interpretation will encounter: if we interpret causality only as the regularity of succession, excluding any causality in the realist sense, this conformity loses its foundation and is merely chaotic; Hume finally turns to human instincts, natural beliefs, and common sense: although we cannot prove the existence of the external world and causation from reason, and cannot prove the validity of inductive reasoning, our instincts, habits, and common sense require us to believe in the existence of the external world and causation. I also believe that inductive reasoning works. I myself do not agree much with Hume's traditional skeptical interpretation of causality and induction, but have great sympathy for the causal realism that has emerged in recent years.

2. Frege Studies and Neo-Fregeism

Frege wants to attribute mathematics to logic first of all, define the concept of arithmetic with logical concepts, deduce arithmetic truths from logical truths, and ensure the true reliability of arithmetic through the actual reliability of logic, which is called "logicism". Aristotle's subject predicate logic could not take on this task, so Frege himself created first-order and higher-order logic based on principal-function, capable of characterizing relational propositions and multiple quantizations, and began to derive arithmetic from the second-order theory of second-order logic plus axiom V. But Russell later proved that logical contradictions could be deduced from axiom V, the famous "Russell paradox". Upon learning of this result, Frege conceived several unsuccessful remedies, leading him to abandon the logicist conception himself. Logicism in the philosophy of mathematics is dead, and this view was almost universally recognized for a long time. Beginning in the 1980s, scholars such as Crispin Wright, Bob Hale, and Richard Heck found that the Hume principle previously abandoned by Frege was consistent with second-order logic, and from Hume's principle and second-order logic, Piano's axiom of arithmetic could be derived, a result known as "Frege's theorem". Some scholars have questioned Hume's principles, including the Caesar question and the uneven rebuttal. Since then, many scholars have tried to do the following work by limiting second-order logic while retaining the axiom V: first prove the consistency of axiom V with the restricted second-order logic, then deduce the Hume principle from the axiom V and the restricted second-order logic, and finally deduce the axiom of arithmetic from hume's principle and the restricted second-order logic. Such work is called "Neo-Logicism" or "Neo-Fregeism".

In his famous treatise Meanings and Denotations (1892), Frege argued that any name has meanings and denotations, that a statement is a generalized proper name, that its meaning is the idea it expresses, and that its denotation is the true value (true or false) it has. He went on to propose the principle of extension: in a compound expression, if one of the component expressions is replaced by an expression that refers to the same, the resulting new compound expression remains the same. But Frege notes that in the context of indirect quotations and propositional attitudes, the principle of extension encounters counterexamples, such as in "Copernicus believes that the earth revolves around the sun", "Gödel is a great logician" cannot be replaced by "The earth revolves around the sun", although the two sentences have the same truth value. Frege thus proposed his remedy: in the context of indirect quotation and propositional attitude, expressions have indirect meanings and indirect references, and their indirect references are meanings in normal contexts. For example, in the phrase "Copernicus believed that the earth revolves around the sun," Copernicus believed in the idea expressed in the sentence "The earth revolves around the sun," not its true value. Most scholars applaud and cheer for such a remedy, but Kripke found serious problems: it led to infinite regression and infinite stratification of meanings and references, making many ordinaryly understandable sentences incomprehensible and even language learning impossible. For example, "Zhang San believes that Li Si knows that Wang Li believes that Osaka is the capital of Japan", and in the triple transformation of meaning and reference, "Osaka", "Japan", and "the capital of Japan" no longer refer to what we usually understand, and it is not clear what exactly is referred to, and such a view is absurd. Kripke then did two things: to solve the confusion posed by Frege's theory of implications and denotations; as a derivative of solving the problem, he believed that Frege had a theory of kinship similar to Russell's.

3. Modern Chinese Neo-Confucianism

The Dictionary of Chinese Philosophy explains "modern Neo-Confucianism" in this way: "The school of academic thought that emerged in the 1920s, with the continuation of Confucianism's 'Taoism' as its own responsibility and obedience to Song Ming's theory as its main feature, strives to use traditional Confucian theories to integrate, understand Western learning, and culturally explore the process of China's modernization." Liu Shuxian distilled its development trajectory into the structure of "three generations and four groups": the first group of the first generation had Xiong Shili, Liang Shuming, Ma Yifu and Zhang Junjie; the second group of the first generation had Feng Youlan, He Lin, Qian Mu and Fang Dongmei; the second generation of the third group had Tang Junyi, Mou Zongsan and Xu Fuguan; the third generation of the fourth group had Yu Yingshi, Liu Shuxian, Cheng Zhongying and Du Weiming. Cai Renhou summarized the academic contributions of contemporary Neo-Confucianism as follows: (1) expressing the principles of the mind and righteousness, so that the wisdom system of the three religions can be restored to the world; (2) giving full play to the great righteousness of the foreign king and answering the questions of political taoism and deeds in Chinese culture; (3) channeling Chinese philosophy and smoothing the joints of the evolution and development of the history of Chinese philosophy; (4) absorbing Western philosophy, translating the three major criticisms and integrating Kant's philosophy; (5) connecting Chinese and Western philosophy, and channeling the path of Chinese and Western philosophy. Whether such an evaluation is true or not, I dare not beak. At first glance, modern Neo-Confucianism tries to connect traditional Confucian doctrine with contemporary social reality, to integrate with certain ideas of Western culture, and to change and develop them to meet the needs of contemporary society. Can this be counted as a "creative interpretation"? Let's leave it to the relevant experts to judge.

I agree with the following statement: One of the flaws of Neo-Confucianism is that "the great negative impact on traditional Confucian culture on Chinese history and reality is either underestimated or ignored, and even a little criticism is often understated." In my opinion, the personality constructed by Confucian ethics is often problematic, the mediocre qualifications are easy to be pedantic, and the better qualified are prone to hypocrisy, and of course, it does not exclude a small number of Confucian elites who are both virtuous and very capable. This may indicate that there is a problem with the basic theory on which Confucian ethics is based, which has transformed moral training and personality cultivation into a simple matter of personal spiritual cultivation, while seriously ignoring the dimensions of the corresponding socio-political system and economic foundation; it prefers to sing high-key and does not provide any practical guidance. Confucians often say: "Inner Saint and Outer King", "Self-cultivation, Unity of Family, Governance, peace in the world", and even have amazing ambitions: "Establish a heart for heaven and earth, establish a destiny for the people, continue to learn from the saints, and open up peace for all the worlds." It sounds beautiful, but a little thought makes you wonder: Is this a reasonable self-expectation of an intellectual? How to concretely realize such ideals and ambitions? Even those lower-level, sound-sounding Confucian ethics, such as "the old and the old and the old, the young and the young", in the case of very scarce resources for survival, will encounter human dilemmas such as "Guo Ju buried". I believe that Chinese scholars who really want to promote traditional Confucianism must make a great intellectual effort to pull Confucianism from the towering clouds back to a solid ground.

It is also important to note an anomaly: a group of overseas sinologists are also studying Chinese philosophy and Chinese culture, and there is often a fierce debate between them on certain issues related to China, but in such a debate, Chinese scholars or scholars of Chinese descent are often absent. These sinologists sometimes come to some rather strange conclusions, and some even come to be regarded as conclusive conclusions. For example, chad Hansen, a former professor at the University of Hong Kong, in his treatises such as "The Language and Logic of Ancient China", proceeded from the premise that "there is no singular and plural distinction between ancient Chinese nouns" and concluded that old Chinese nouns are very similar to the "material nouns" in Western languages, such as "gold, wood, water, fire, and earth", referring to a specific material form and not abstract concepts, from which he leads to a series of conclusions: "No philosophical system expressed in Chinese in ancient China recognized abstraction in any traditionally important way (Universal) The existence of entities or their function, while Western semantics, epistemology, ontology, or philosophy of mind give prominence to abstraction. There is not even a concept of "truth" in Chinese philosophy: "Chinese thought concentrates on the study of pragmatics ... Less concern is given to semantic truth and falsity and more to pragmatic acceptability. "The 'philosophical theories' of ancient China that were used to evaluate different doctrines did not rely on the true/false distinction that Westerners were very familiar with." If Chen Hansheng's conclusions are true, he can even conclude that there is no philosophy in China, and can philosophy without abstract concepts and truth concepts still be called "philosophy"? I have sent manuscripts on Chinese philosophy and logic to international journals, and some reviewers have asked a whole bunch of questions based on chen's views. If a certain fallacy becomes "mainstream" and "conclusive", it will be very difficult to change it later. Therefore, I advocate that Chinese philosophers, together with their international counterparts, should fully participate in international research related to Chinese philosophy and in the contemporary construction of philosophy. For Chinese scholars, today's conditions and capabilities are at least preliminarily available.

【Some of Chen Bo's Writings】

Analytic Philosophy: Review and Reflection (Second Edition) (Volume 1 and Part II), by Chen Bo and Jiang Yi.

Analytic Philosophy: Criticism and Construction by Chen Bo et al.

"What Is Logic" by Chen Bo.

Fifteen Lectures on Logic (Second Edition) by Chen Bo.

Studies in the Philosophy of Logic (Contemporary Chinese Department of Literature) by Chen Bo.

【Appendix 3】

Jiang Yi | The dilemma of Chinese philosophy: it is still not recognized in the international philosophical community

University Humanities 2020-09-23

Editor's Note: Thanks for the authorization! The following article comes from the Academic Watchman WeChat public account of Renmin University Publishing House, written by Chen Bo.

Interview | Chen Bo: Almost the entire Chinese philosophical community is doing "history of philosophy", and few people are really doing "philosophy"

Chen Bo

————

Bo Chen: Very good.

A photocopy of the cover of one of Chen Bo's books

【Appendix 2】

College Humanities February 26

There are two paths to philosophical research: interpretation and innovation

Chen Bo

Author: Chen Bo

Source: Originally published in China Social Science Evaluation, No. 1, 2017

————

First, facing the original classics and traditions, inheriting culture and civilization

(i) Why should we face classical texts and intellectual traditions

1. Classical texts are the entrance to our self-knowledge as cultural creatures.

2. Classical texts are reliable carriers of cultural and civilizational inheritance.

3. Classical texts are an important reference for the creation of new ideas and cultures.

(2) Why most Chinese scholars have chosen to face the original canon and tradition

1. Political and academic systems.

2. Inheritance and tradition.

3. Insight and competence.

4. Utilitarian considerations.

Second, from the "original" to the "new", to creative interpretation

There are also two different ways to do the study of the original text and the history of philosophy: one is to focus all attention on reading, understanding the original text, and then sorting out and interpreting it, and striving to faithfully and accurately introduce and disseminate it to the public. The second is to follow the path of "hermeneutics of creation" proposed by Fu Weixun. I greatly appreciate Fu Weixun's "hermeneutics of creation" and feel that he has made the relevant steps, links, and gist very clear, which are quoted in detail as follows:

……

1. Hume Research and the New Hume Controversy

2. Frege Studies and Neo-Fregeism

3. Modern Chinese Neo-Confucianism

【Some of Chen Bo's Writings】

Analytic Philosophy: Review and Reflection (Second Edition) (Volume 1 and Part II), by Chen Bo and Jiang Yi.

Analytic Philosophy: Criticism and Construction by Chen Bo et al.

"What Is Logic" by Chen Bo.

Fifteen Lectures on Logic (Second Edition) by Chen Bo.

Studies in the Philosophy of Logic (Contemporary Chinese Department of Literature) by Chen Bo.

【Appendix 3】

First Philosopher 2021-12-17 00:05

University Humanities 2020-09-23

Editor's Note: Thanks for the authorization! The following article comes from the Academic Watchman WeChat public account of Renmin University Publishing House, written by Chen Bo.

Interview | Chen Bo: Almost the entire Chinese philosophical community is doing "history of philosophy", and few people are really doing "philosophy"

Chen Bo

————

Bo Chen: Very good.

A photocopy of the cover of one of Chen Bo's books

【Appendix 2】

College Humanities February 26

There are two paths to philosophical research: interpretation and innovation

Chen Bo

Author: Chen Bo

Source: Originally published in China Social Science Evaluation, No. 1, 2017

————

First, facing the original classics and traditions, inheriting culture and civilization

(i) Why should we face classical texts and intellectual traditions

1. Classical texts are the entrance to our self-knowledge as cultural creatures.

2. Classical texts are reliable carriers of cultural and civilizational inheritance.

3. Classical texts are an important reference for the creation of new ideas and cultures.

(2) Why most Chinese scholars have chosen to face the original canon and tradition

1. Political and academic systems.

2. Inheritance and tradition.

3. Insight and competence.

4. Utilitarian considerations.

Second, from the "original" to the "new", to creative interpretation

There are also two different ways to do the study of the original text and the history of philosophy: one is to focus all attention on reading, understanding the original text, and then sorting out and interpreting it, and striving to faithfully and accurately introduce and disseminate it to the public. The second is to follow the path of "hermeneutics of creation" proposed by Fu Weixun. I greatly appreciate Fu Weixun's "hermeneutics of creation" and feel that he has made the relevant steps, links, and gist very clear, which are quoted in detail as follows:

……

1. Hume Research and the New Hume Controversy

2. Frege Studies and Neo-Fregeism

3. Modern Chinese Neo-Confucianism

【Some of Chen Bo's Writings】

Analytic Philosophy: Review and Reflection (Second Edition) (Volume 1 and Part II), by Chen Bo and Jiang Yi.

Analytic Philosophy: Criticism and Construction by Chen Bo et al.

"What Is Logic" by Chen Bo.

Fifteen Lectures on Logic (Second Edition) by Chen Bo.

Studies in the Philosophy of Logic (Contemporary Chinese Department of Literature) by Chen Bo.

【Appendix 3】

First Philosopher 2021-12-17 00:05

Author Jiang Yi Originally published in Philosophical Dynamics 2014, "The Influence and Dilemma of Chinese Philosophical Research in International Philosophy", it was transferred from the design and philosophy public account ID: PhilosophyDesign

It seems that Chinese philosophy is playing an increasingly important role in the international philosophical arena. Since the 17th World Congress of Philosophy in 1983, Chinese philosophy has returned to the world philosophical stage after several decades of absence, and the voice of Chinese philosophy has reappeared at international congresses of philosophy. After more than ten years of hard work, China finally won the right to host the "24th World Congress of Philosophy" in 2018; the "International Congress of Chinese Philosophy" has been held in many countries and regions in the world for 18 sessions so far, reflecting the extensive influence of Chinese philosophy in world philosophy to a certain extent; the English philosophy journal "Chinese Philosophy Journal", "Tao: Comparative Philosophy Journal", "Eastern and Western Philosophy", "Contemporary Chinese Thought", "Frontiers of Chinese Philosophy" with Chinese philosophy as the main content. It has achieved a certain academic status in the international philosophical circles and has become an important window for philosophers around the world to understand Chinese philosophy; foreign language works on Chinese philosophy and Chinese philosophers published by internationally renowned publishing houses have been disseminated overseas, expanding the international influence of Chinese philosophy. All this seems to show that Chinese philosophy has had a wide influence in international philosophy and has become an indispensable and important content in world philosophy.

It must be admitted that the rise of Chinese philosophy in the international philosophical circles is undoubtedly closely related to China's economic achievements and social development. The achievements of China's reform and opening up have aroused strong concern from the international community about China, which inevitably includes the attention to China's ideology and culture. Although Chinese philosophy and culture have always been an important part of world civilization, Chinese philosophy does not seem to have received as much attention as it does now from more and more Western philosophers. Objectively speaking, another important reason why Chinese philosophy has attracted attention is the unremitting efforts made by overseas Chinese philosophers in publicizing and studying Chinese philosophy.

From the early English translation of Chinese philosophical classics by Mr. Chen Rongjie, to the founding of the Chinese Philosophy Journal and the International Chinese Philosophical Society by Mr. Cheng Zhongying, to the establishment of the "North American Chinese Philosophers Association", these have widely disseminated traditional Chinese philosophical ideas within the scope of world philosophy, so that the ancient Chinese sages and their philosophies have been more and more understood by philosophers and thinkers of different countries.

In addition, since the reform and opening up, the domestic philosophical circles have gradually carried out philosophical academic exchanges with the international philosophical circles, especially the joint academic seminars and project cooperation with international philosophical organizations, which have also greatly promoted the continuous entry of Chinese philosophical thought into the philosophical research of all countries in the world. It should be said that it is precisely the reasons that may not be fully covered by the above that have contributed to the universal influence of Chinese philosophy in the philosophy of the world today.

However, a closer look at and analysis of these international influences of Chinese philosophy reveals some thought-provoking problems.

First of all, whether "Chinese philosophy" is universally accepted by the international philosophical community as an acceptable concept has always been the primary question that Chinese philosophy faces in the process of entering the international philosophical discourse. According to the degree of understanding of Chinese philosophy in the international philosophical community as we know, most philosophers understand "Chinese philosophy" as traditional Chinese philosophy, or even only as Confucianism or pre-Qin philosophy, and rarely regard contemporary Chinese philosophical research as an integral part of Chinese philosophy. Of course, the reasons for this phenomenon are directly related to our own understanding and study of Chinese philosophy.

Due to the division of disciplines, "Chinese philosophy" is regarded as a second-level discipline under philosophy, juxtaposed with other second-level disciplines of philosophy, which leads to the understanding of this discipline by those engaged in the study and teaching of "Chinese philosophy" mainly limited to traditional philosophy. Although modern and contemporary Chinese philosophy has also been included in the scope of Chinese philosophy, due to special problems of the times, this kind of research has rarely been truly understood. In international philosophical discourse, "Chinese philosophy" is mainly regarded as a philosophy in history, rather than a philosophy in China today. Compared with the study of Western philosophy, this "alibi" of Chinese philosophy makes Chinese philosophy only a historical object of study in the study of world philosophy, rather than as a living philosophy that takes place in contemporary China. This kind of "museum-style philosophy" is obviously difficult to enter the mainstream discourse of today's international philosophical research.

Secondly, the study of Chinese philosophy by contemporary Chinese philosophers also fully reflects the characteristics of "Chinese philosophy" being regarded as a "museum-like philosophy". The "Chinese philosophers" here refer not only to philosophical researchers living in Chinese mainland, but also to Chinese scholars engaged in the study of Chinese philosophy overseas.

The research of Chinese philosophy by domestic scholars is mainly concentrated in the study of historical research, and the historiography of Chinese philosophy is regarded as the first lesson in the study of Chinese philosophy, and the use of archaeological evidence to speak has also become an important symbol of the breakthrough in the study of Chinese philosophy. On the contrary, although Western philosophers also attach great importance to historical research and emphasize the interpretation of classical texts, they have a very clear problem awareness of the study of the history of philosophy, and often emphasize finding the basis for ideological views from history, rather than being satisfied with the interpretation and annotation of historical documents.

The fields of study of Western philosophy are all based on questions, and the ideas of philosophers in history are regarded as the intellectual resources to answer these questions and enter the field of philosophical research. It is the ongoing discussion of philosophical issues that has made Western philosophy a contemporary philosophy that is still alive. But the study of Chinese philosophy is primarily a kind of historical study, not a problem study. Researchers of Chinese philosophy mainly try to explain the ideological value of Chinese philosophy through the study of history, thereby highlighting the contemporary significance of Chinese philosophy, rather than using Chinese philosophical thought as a philosophical resource to answer and explain more important and universal philosophical questions. As a result, the study of Chinese philosophy cannot become a common topic in international philosophical research.

University Humanities 2020-09-23

Editor's Note: Thanks for the authorization! The following article comes from the Academic Watchman WeChat public account of Renmin University Publishing House, written by Chen Bo.

Interview | Chen Bo: Almost the entire Chinese philosophical community is doing "history of philosophy", and few people are really doing "philosophy"

Chen Bo

————

Bo Chen: Very good.

A photocopy of the cover of one of Chen Bo's books

【Appendix 2】

College Humanities February 26

There are two paths to philosophical research: interpretation and innovation

Chen Bo

Author: Chen Bo

Source: Originally published in China Social Science Evaluation, No. 1, 2017

————

First, facing the original classics and traditions, inheriting culture and civilization

(i) Why should we face classical texts and intellectual traditions

1. Classical texts are the entrance to our self-knowledge as cultural creatures.

2. Classical texts are reliable carriers of cultural and civilizational inheritance.

3. Classical texts are an important reference for the creation of new ideas and cultures.

(2) Why most Chinese scholars have chosen to face the original canon and tradition

1. Political and academic systems.

2. Inheritance and tradition.

3. Insight and competence.

4. Utilitarian considerations.

Second, from the "original" to the "new", to creative interpretation

There are also two different ways to do the study of the original text and the history of philosophy: one is to focus all attention on reading, understanding the original text, and then sorting out and interpreting it, and striving to faithfully and accurately introduce and disseminate it to the public. The second is to follow the path of "hermeneutics of creation" proposed by Fu Weixun. I greatly appreciate Fu Weixun's "hermeneutics of creation" and feel that he has made the relevant steps, links, and gist very clear, which are quoted in detail as follows:

……

1. Hume Research and the New Hume Controversy

2. Frege Studies and Neo-Fregeism

3. Modern Chinese Neo-Confucianism

【Some of Chen Bo's Writings】

Analytic Philosophy: Review and Reflection (Second Edition) (Volume 1 and Part II), by Chen Bo and Jiang Yi.

Analytic Philosophy: Criticism and Construction by Chen Bo et al.

"What Is Logic" by Chen Bo.

Fifteen Lectures on Logic (Second Edition) by Chen Bo.

Studies in the Philosophy of Logic (Contemporary Chinese Department of Literature) by Chen Bo.

【Appendix 3】

First Philosopher 2021-12-17 00:05

However, a closer look at and analysis of these international influences of Chinese philosophy reveals some thought-provoking problems.

Web pictures

Third, it is precisely because of this special nature of Chinese philosophical research that it is difficult for articles on the theme of Chinese philosophy to be published in major international philosophical journals, and works on Chinese philosophy are rarely published by internationally renowned academic publishing houses. According to the library of Congress, as of 2012, there were 7,204 kinds of books on Chinese philosophy themes, accounting for 0.04% of the 170829 kinds of philosophical books in the library. According to the dynamic database of the overseas dissemination of Chinese culture, there are only 48 works on Chinese philosophy topics published by well-known foreign publishing houses, while among the foreign language books published by domestic publishing houses, the content related to Chinese philosophical themes is even more pitiful, and they are completely buried in political, social, economic and cultural books. According to incomplete statistics, in 2012, domestic scholars published more than 20 papers in international famous journals, and articles on Chinese philosophy topics were mainly published in journals related to Chinese philosophy, such as "Chinese Philosophy Journal", "Dao: Journal of Comparative Philosophy", "Frontiers of Chinese Philosophy" and so on. To some extent, these reflect the current situation of Chinese philosophical research being displayed in international philosophy, but do not match the degree to which Chinese philosophy is receiving general attention.

Finally, through a questionnaire survey of Western philosophers, we found that although more and more Western philosophers are beginning to care about and hope to understand Chinese philosophy, the attitude of Western philosophers to Chinese philosophy is more out of curiosity and less out of academic need, and the questionnaire can clearly show this situation.

First, philosophers rarely discuss and use the theoretical views of Chinese philosophy in formal academic forums, except at special seminars on Chinese philosophy. Second, the range of Western philosophers who really care about and discuss Chinese philosophy is very limited, mainly concentrated among scholars and sinologists who specialize in the study of Chinese philosophy, even at the World Congress of Philosophy and the annual meeting of the American Philosophical Society. Third, the philosophy departments of major Western universities rarely offer Courses in Chinese Philosophy, mainly because the courses cannot meet the academic requirements of university courses, although there are also difficulties in teaching staff.

The so-called "academic requirements of the curriculum" here means that the curriculum must be able to provide a relatively complete and systematic knowledge content, which can help students understand the relevant issues in depth, can trigger students to think and discuss the text and problems, and the course content should be universal, not determined by the interests of teachers. The curriculum content of Chinese philosophy obviously cannot meet these requirements, which is bound to seriously affect the entry of Chinese philosophical thought into the philosophical education system of Western universities.

University Humanities 2020-09-23

Editor's Note: Thanks for the authorization! The following article comes from the Academic Watchman WeChat public account of Renmin University Publishing House, written by Chen Bo.

Interview | Chen Bo: Almost the entire Chinese philosophical community is doing "history of philosophy", and few people are really doing "philosophy"

Chen Bo

————

Bo Chen: Very good.

A photocopy of the cover of one of Chen Bo's books

【Appendix 2】

College Humanities February 26

There are two paths to philosophical research: interpretation and innovation

Chen Bo

Author: Chen Bo

Source: Originally published in China Social Science Evaluation, No. 1, 2017

————

First, facing the original classics and traditions, inheriting culture and civilization

(i) Why should we face classical texts and intellectual traditions

1. Classical texts are the entrance to our self-knowledge as cultural creatures.

2. Classical texts are reliable carriers of cultural and civilizational inheritance.

3. Classical texts are an important reference for the creation of new ideas and cultures.

(2) Why most Chinese scholars have chosen to face the original canon and tradition

1. Political and academic systems.

2. Inheritance and tradition.

3. Insight and competence.

4. Utilitarian considerations.

Second, from the "original" to the "new", to creative interpretation

There are also two different ways to do the study of the original text and the history of philosophy: one is to focus all attention on reading, understanding the original text, and then sorting out and interpreting it, and striving to faithfully and accurately introduce and disseminate it to the public. The second is to follow the path of "hermeneutics of creation" proposed by Fu Weixun. I greatly appreciate Fu Weixun's "hermeneutics of creation" and feel that he has made the relevant steps, links, and gist very clear, which are quoted in detail as follows:

……

1. Hume Research and the New Hume Controversy

2. Frege Studies and Neo-Fregeism

3. Modern Chinese Neo-Confucianism

【Some of Chen Bo's Writings】

Analytic Philosophy: Review and Reflection (Second Edition) (Volume 1 and Part II), by Chen Bo and Jiang Yi.

Analytic Philosophy: Criticism and Construction by Chen Bo et al.

"What Is Logic" by Chen Bo.

Fifteen Lectures on Logic (Second Edition) by Chen Bo.

Studies in the Philosophy of Logic (Contemporary Chinese Department of Literature) by Chen Bo.

【Appendix 3】

First Philosopher 2021-12-17 00:05

However, a closer look at and analysis of these international influences of Chinese philosophy reveals some thought-provoking problems.

Web pictures

In the face of reality, in the study of philosophy on an international scale, Chinese philosophy is getting more and more attention from philosophers, but China's philosophical research has not attracted the interest of more philosophers from all over the world, which is extremely incompatible with China's status as a great power in all countries in the world. Under the new requirements of "Chinese culture going out" put forward today, when globalization has become an important driving force and symbol of China's development and strength, how can Chinese philosophical research really go out and become the mainstream part of international philosophy is indeed an urgent problem that requires us to constantly reflect and solve.