"Contemporary Chinese Philosophy" as the Contextual Significance of the Question

Author: Zhang Peng

He is currently a professor at the School of Humanities of Xidian University, a researcher at the Shaanxi Academy of Social Sciences, an editor of the Journal of Humanities, an adjunct professor at the School of Marxism at Shaanxi Normal University, a visiting professor at the School of Humanities at Xi'an Jiaotong University, and a full-time researcher at Baoji College of Arts and Sciences. His research interests include the construction of contemporary Chinese philosophy and the contemporaneity of Marx's philosophy. He is the author of the philosophical monograph "Research on Aesthetic Thought in the Han Dynasty", and has published many papers in professional academic journals.

In recent years, the discussion on what form "contemporary Chinese philosophy" should take has become a hot topic in the philosophical circles. The conscious raising of this question comes from the historical reflection of the Chinese philosophical circles on their own existence. Mr. Gao Gaohai's call for "China needs to build a contemporary Chinese philosophy" in the article "The Future Development of the Chinese Nation Needs Its Own Philosophical Theory" helps us to seriously think about this issue.

1. Interpretation of the issue of "Constructing Contemporary Chinese Philosophy".

Mr. Gao Gaohai pointed out: "'Philosophy' is the soul of the nation. Philosophy marks the height and depth of a nation's self-consciousness and reflects the level of its mental development and maturity. In this sense, the creation of contemporary Chinese 'philosophy' is essentially to create the 'ideological self' of the Chinese nation. (Gao Gaohai, p. 7) also said: "After more than 20 years of development since the new period, the Chinese philosophical circles are now in a critical period of turning point. Looking at today's domestic philosophical circles, the original research paradigm of 'Ma Zhe', guided by his hot issues, is becoming unclear, and many poor and empty theoretical statements are being ignored as "fake questions". The 'Chinese Studies Fever' in the 80s and the 'Western Studies Fever' since the late 90s seem to inevitably have the weakness of self-talk, and the 'over-interpretation' of texts seems mediocre and trivial due to the lack of ideological spirituality.

However, this seemingly negative situation is actually giving birth to a turning point in the development of Chinese philosophy, because since the beginning of the new period, after the ideological emancipation and conceptual innovation of Marxist philosophy, the comprehensive and in-depth introduction of modern Western philosophical discourse, and the rediscovery of traditional Chinese philosophical resources, the academic taste of Chinese philosophy has become more elegant, and the academic mentality has become more mature and resolute. In the 2l century, the profound changes in contemporary Chinese society are calling for the creation of 'contemporary Chinese philosophy', and exploring and creating a form of contemporary Chinese philosophy that truly has a Chinese temperament and can stand on its own in the world philosophical arena has become the fully conscious mission and ambition of today's mainland philosophers. (Ibid., p. 5) Judging from Mr. Gao Gaohai's above-mentioned appeal, it seems that "contemporary Chinese philosophy" as a problem has the following main implications:

First, the current Chinese philosophical circles are pregnant with a turning point in Chinese philosophy. The meaning of "turning point" here refers to the possibility that philosophy can truly represent China's ideological and cultural identity and truly embody the spiritual character that belongs to China in its historical existence. It can be said that the essence of this issue is the identity, social role, and historical mission of "contemporary Chinese philosophy" in Chinese thought and culture. Specifically, in today's academic context of "Chinese and Western" and "ancient and modern" dialogues, how Chinese philosophy has shifted from the "intellectualistic way" that has been formed as an objectification with Western philosophy as a paradigm to a cultural form that is in line with China's academic characteristics and ideological charm.

As we know, "philosophy" is a disciplinary term that has only entered China in modern times, and its entry into China's ideological and cultural life is due to the establishment of the "philosophy department" of Beijing University and the introduction of some Western philosophy books, especially the publication of Hu Shi's "History of Chinese Philosophy" (Volume I). Later, a group of local Chinese intellectuals such as Feng Youlan, Zhang Yinlin, and Zhang Dainian began to refer to the academic framework of Western philosophy to sort out and explain China's local thought and culture, and Chinese philosophy was born as a discipline. Among them, Mr. Feng Youlan's "Three Histories and Six Books" is the most representative. Mr. Feng Youlan has two couplets, one of which is: "Explain the old state to supplement the new life, extremely wise and modest"; The second is "Three histories to explain the present and the ancient, and the six books are Zhenyuan". These two couplets not only summarize his academic achievements in using "philosophy" to sort out Chinese thought and culture and "continue to speak," but also express his academic philosophy as an intellectual in the period of modern Chinese thought and cultural transformation.

It can be said that the task that Chinese philosophy has to undertake in terms of its mission, realm, and social role is how to supplement the old state with a new life. It is worth noting that after "philosophy" entered China, because of its historical mission of "expounding the old state and supplementing the new life," it had a considerable distance from its original role in Western thought and culture as "explanation" of purely speculative issues such as "existence" and "metaphysics," and this "distance" had an important impact on the later development of Chinese philosophy. This is because China's ideology and culture have historically formed a certain characteristic of "political dependence" (Zhang Peng, p. 30), and when philosophy entered China itself, this explanatory quality of philosophy provided a new function for the legitimacy of political power as a means of explanation and argumentation, while its original mission of "expounding the old state to supplement the new life" and the academic realm of "being extremely wise and modest" were increasingly diluted.

The contradiction between "philosophy in China" and the original characteristics of philosophy is most prominently manifested in the "philosophy textbook" model that has been popular for many years and the corresponding way of thinking. The so-called "philosophy textbook" model refers to the way of editing philosophy textbooks and according to a certain editorial principle of "expert presupposition" to organize the nouns, concepts, propositions, and formulations that appear in philosophical classics into a knowledge system with logical connections, and elevate them to "principles", so as to have a universal role and significance. The basic idea that this way conveys to people is that philosophy, as a universal principle, can be created on the basis of some logical deduction, and has universal validity for all kinds of knowledge objects, and its validity is based on its logical power as a principle. However, this notion is far from the fundamental spirit of philosophy. Therefore, in order to arouse the vitality of Chinese philosophy, we must first get rid of the way of thinking of "philosophy textbooks". This may be the meaning of Mr. Gao Gaohai's "turn".

Second, Marxist philosophy, traditional Chinese philosophy, and Western philosophy are academic resources that must be relied on for thinking about Chinese philosophical issues. After a hundred years of "learning from the West to the East," China's ideological and cultural circles have gradually formed a specific context in which Marxism is the ideology, the original ideological resources are the tradition, and the Western ideology and culture are the academic environment. However, in what sense Marxist philosophy, traditional Chinese philosophy, and Western philosophy should be regarded as academic resources for "contemporary Chinese philosophy" is a prerequisite issue. According to the current custom, Marxist philosophy, traditional Chinese philosophy, and Western philosophy exist as subject classifications, that is, second-level disciplines under the first-level discipline of philosophy. This kind of objectified way of grasping the theory of knowledge obscures the profound problems behind these academic resources, which can be seen from the simplification, conceptualization, and formalization of research methods. Therefore, only when we restore these academic resources to the living ideology and culture of history can they become the constituent elements of contemporary Chinese philosophy. At present, the problem we need to solve is how to break through the research method of Marxist philosophy, traditional Chinese philosophy, and Western philosophy, and find the integration point of the three, so as to transform them into effective ideological and cultural resources.

Thirdly, Mr. Gao Gaohai put forward the following criteria for the creation of "contemporary Chinese philosophy", that is, "to explore and create a contemporary Chinese philosophical form that truly has a Chinese temperament and can stand on its own in the world philosophical arena". There are three key points here: first, there must be a "Chinese temperament"; the second is to "be able to stand on its own feet in the world's philosophical arena"; Third, it should be embodied in the "form of contemporary Chinese philosophy". The word "temperament" is obviously a very Chinese word. "The so-called nature of temperament is also the nature of temperament" (Wang Fuzhi's "Reading the Four Books of the Great Theory", Volume 7), which refers to the uniqueness and proper character of things. In other words, "contemporary Chinese philosophy" is first and foremost "Chinese" and not Western, so it must have its own personality and orientation. The so-called "being able to stand on its own feet in the world philosophical arena" means that as a "contemporary Chinese philosophy" with a "Chinese temperament", it should have the identity of equal dialogue with other philosophies and the right to speak independently on the platform of world philosophical discourse. Only with "dialogue identity" and "right to speak" can we truly gain "self-reliance".

However, since modern times, due to the impact of Western ideology and culture on traditional Chinese culture, we have questioned our own philosophical tradition and lost our memory of the existing cultural identity formed by it. In other words, in the dialogue with Western culture, we lose our original cultural identity, thus forming a state of unequal dialogue. Therefore, for "contemporary Chinese philosophy", it is an unshirkable historical mission and responsibility to find its own cultural identity and form an equal dialogue relationship with Western ideology and culture (philosophy). The so-called "form of contemporary Chinese philosophy" is, in a nutshell, not only to distinguish it from the categories and forms of expression of Western philosophy, but also from the symbolism and intuitive thinking of traditional Chinese thought and culture. However, the current basic situation of the Chinese philosophical circles is that the three ideological systems of "Chinese, Western, and Ma" each speak their own words, and this is a major problem in the creation of "contemporary Chinese philosophy."

In his appeal to the philosophical community to create "contemporary Chinese philosophy", Mr. Gao Gaohai has actually pointed out the direction of contemporary Chinese philosophy, that is, the integration of "Chinese, Western and Malaysian", which has important enlightenment significance for the academic research of the current Chinese philosophical community.

2. The philosophical sages explored "contemporary Chinese philosophy".

Thinking style and path

Over the past 100 years, many academic sages have made positive efforts and made many attempts on how to construct a philosophy that belongs to China. Sorting out their philosophical constructions may give us some enlightenment when interpreting the problems of "contemporary Chinese philosophy" and finding the problem consciousness and expression suitable for the context of Chinese philosophy. Here, the author takes the thinking methods and paths of the three sages Feng Youlan, Xiong Shili and Jin Yuelin as models, from which I can experience their inheritance of traditional philosophy and the exploration of the road of "opening up a new".

Feng Youlan's approach is to philosophize and interpret traditional Chinese thought based on the Western philosophy of "realism", mainly represented by the "Three History" and "Six Books". At the beginning of the "Introduction" to the History of Chinese Philosophy, he pointed out: "Philosophy is a Western term, and if we want to talk about the history of Chinese philosophy, our main work is ~ that is, to select and describe those who can be called Western philosophical names among the various studies in Chinese history" (Feng Youlan, 1961, p. 1), so "the so-called Chinese philosophers are those who can be called Western philosophers in a certain part of Chinese learning." (Ibid., p. 8) His "Three Histories" means the changes of the past and the present, and the academic paradigm adopted by him is "to interpret the West from the West"; The purpose of his "Six Books" is to study the heavens and man, thinking that peace will be open for all generations, and his ideological method is to "aid the people of the West." In this way, he does not "follow the lecture" of the Chinese philosophical tradition, but "continues to speak."

Feng Youlan called his "next lecture" on the framework of Western philosophy a "new science." He pointed out: "After the Song and Ming dynasties, there were two schools of Taoism, rationality and mind. The system we are talking about now is basically a school of science that inherits the Taoism of the Song and Ming dynasties. We say 'in general', because in many respects we are also very different from the theory of science since the Song and Ming dynasties. We say 'undertaking' because we are 'following' the bottom of the Song and Ming dynasties, not 'following' the bottom of the Song and Ming dynasties. Therefore we call ourselves our system neophysis. He also said, "We think that science is the study of reason...... Science is the science of what we call reason. If science is the science of what we call reason, then science can be said to be the most philosophical philosophy.

But this may not be the meaning of what was previously called science, so we call our system the new science. (Liu Mengxi, ed., Feng Youlan, p. 4) It can be seen that in Feng Youlan's academic vision, the "new science" is established along the lines of "continuing to lecture" and "reasoning"; Only by "continuing to speak" rather than "following the lecture" can it be possible to establish a connection between the Western science of "philosophy" and the local "science" and to speak something different from the past. This "differentness" is actually the use of "philosophy" in Western studies to talk about Chinese learning. The reason for this is that, in his view, "science" is reasonable, and the most thorough philosophy is also reasonable, so he can use philosophy, the study of reason, to explain something different from the previous "science."

For "Chinese philosophy", Xiong Shili takes a different approach than Feng Youlan. His works such as "New Theory of Consciousness", "Theory of Body and Utility", "Ming Xin Chapter", and "Yuan Confucianism" show that he did not use Western philosophy as the starting point and criterion to judge "Chinese philosophy", but extracted "new" meanings from China's local cultural traditions.

Xiong Shili believes: "Although Chinese philosophy may be divided into two schools, idealism and materialism, and if it is based on Western studies, Chinese idealism is poor to the root, after all, it is not similar to Western idealism, and Chinese materialism is poor to the root, after all, it is very interesting to Western materialism." "Roughly speaking, the Chinese have never used anatomy to split the universe, which is not a good theory." However, we should observe the completeness of the universe, and we should be in harmony with the divine nature (spirit and matter are inseparable, and people may be separated, so we have to say that we have to say that we are together), and we must always (from the end, the beginning is the end). There is also a beginning, and the end is progressive, and it flows continuously. Thoroughly, it cannot be said that the latecomer is not coming), and the whole is divided (all is not hindered, and the whole is not hindered. Those who pass through this, so they do not grasp the division to be incomplete), and the inside and outside (inside and outside, the false name of the ear), and the other is (it is still said this, and treat each other with each other. The legacy is not stuck in one side), and it reaches the realm of harmony and unhindered. Therefore, although China has the theory of idealism, it should not be thought that there is only a mind and nothing else. (Ibid., Xiong Shili Juan, p. 526) "Since China has no idealistic materialism, why should it follow the example of the West and use these two schools of thought to force the division?" (Liu Mengxi, ed., Xiong Shili Volume, p. 527)

As a result, Xiong Shili put forward the theory that "the body is not the same". The meaning of "body is not two" is not body and non-use, but "not two". "Non-duality" includes "ontology, phenomena are non-dual", "Tao and qi are non-dual", "heaven and man are non-dual", "mind and matter are non-dual", "reason and desire are non-dual", "movement and stillness are non-dual", "knowledge and action are non-dual", "virtue and wisdom are non-dual", "self-becoming and becoming things are non-dual", and so on. (See ibid., pp. 105-106) "Non-two" is also "non-one", which is the wisdom unique to China (the Western method is either one, or two, that is, attached to one or. Z-)。 The purpose of this statement is to define the attitude and method of the "Chinese meaning" of Chinese philosophy.

In Xiong Shili's thoughts and mental journey, we can feel his attachment and dedication to China's local culture. Although he has changed from "old realism" to "new," his "newness" is not the "new" of "aiding Westerners," but the meaning of "the old state and the new life" of "Chinese philosophy" itself. In this regard, Feng Youlan called the development process of Xiong Shili's philosophical system as: "Those who have been in and out of the Buddha for decades, and who seek the Six Sutras and then obtain them." (Feng Youlan, 1999, p. 218) It can be seen that in Xiong Shili's philosophical world, "Chinese philosophy" is neither "Chinese philosophy" in the eyes of Western philosophy, nor "philosophical China" after transplantation of Western studies, but "Chinese philosophy" in China.

If Feng Youlan and Xiong Shili's attitudes and methods of dealing with "Chinese philosophy" are the two poles of each other, then Jin Yuelin's philosophical thinking can be called the "third way". Feng Youlan called Jin Yuelin also a representative of the "new science" that "went on," but Jin Yuelin's main works, such as "Logic," "On the Dao," and "Theory of Knowledge," show that his philosophical thinking is different from Feng Youlan's "new science." The "difference" lies in the fact that Jin Yuelin attaches more importance to the pursuit of the universality of philosophy, which is manifested in his special favor for logic. In Jin Yuelin's view, "the scope of thinking is wider than imagination," "the scope of thinking is logic, the limit of thinking is contradiction, and only contradictions are inconceivable." This means, of course, that only what is antilogical is inconceivable, and what is inconceivable is always logical." (Jin Yuelin, 1985, p. 3)

The universality in logic is the formal universality, which is different from the traditional Chinese idea that the name and reality are the same. For Jin Yuelin, how to maintain the idea of "the name and the reality are the same" in Chinese philosophy and find a logical ontology according to the universal requirements of the logic of philosophy is the ideological problem he faces. In his works such as "On the Dao" and "Theory of Knowledge", he relied on logical tools to formalize the "Dao" in traditional Chinese thought, so that it has a universal character as the ontology of philosophical explanatory presuppositions. Whether this treatment was successful or not, and whether it has the greatest explanatory power, is left to rest here, but his efforts to construct a philosophical system are indicative of the contemporary state of Chinese philosophy.

We can see the problems and contradictions of this "third way" from Jin Yuelin's writings. Out of the practical needs of the discipline of philosophy, Jin Yuelin believes that only by constructing a theoretical system of "Chinese philosophy" can this discipline have both temples and gods; Specifically, it is to integrate the Chinese "Tao" and Western philosophical logic into a whole with a certain philosophical design. In On the Dao, he put forward the category of "Dao-Formula, Energy", and on this basis, he logically explained the evolution process of "possible reality". On this basis, the "main purpose of the "Theory of Knowledge" is to understand knowledge, and "the theory of knowledge is the study of understanding knowledge." (Ibid., 1983, p. 1) He argues that "the object of epistemology is the principle of knowledge. Theory of knowledge is the study of the principles of knowledge." (Ibid., p. 2) The "principle" here is "universal", and this universality is the universal on the basis of logic.

It can be said that both his "Tao - Formula, Ability" and the "Reason" of knowledge are inseparable from the tools of logic, so logic has a particularly important position and significance in his philosophy. However, his logic is no longer purely Western, but "Sinicized." (See Zhang Maoze, pp. 3O-39) From this, we can see Jin Yuelin's painstaking efforts, confusion and helplessness between Chinese and Western cultures. His pursuit of philosophical purity makes his philosophy only niche, marginal, and academic, and it is difficult to have a substantial impact on the identity of Chinese philosophy.

Feng Youlan, Xiong Shili, and Jin Yuelin represent three different paths in their opinions, attitudes, and methods of dealing with "Chinese philosophy". Their exploration of the possible direction of "contemporary Chinese philosophy" has left us with valuable ideological experience for us to create and explore the road of "contemporary Chinese philosophy" today, and also hinted at the problems that may be encountered in the exploration of Chinese philosophy, which is worthy of reference and consideration by future generations.

3. The Context and Problems of "Contemporary Chinese Philosophy".

As mentioned above, both Mr. Gao Gaohai's appeal and the exploration of the philosophical sages are trying to connect "philosophy", a discipline in Western studies, with Chinese thought and culture, which is actually the embodiment of the problem of "ancient and modern and Chinese and Western" in modern China. Therefore, "contemporary Chinese philosophy" as a question is inseparable from the "ancient and modern" and "Chinese and Western" issues. From the perspective of "ancient and modern", "contemporary Chinese philosophy" is inseparable from the observation, trade-offs and choices of the basic characteristics and ways of thinking of traditional Chinese thought and culture. From the perspective of "China and the West", it is inseparable from drawing on Western ideology and culture to grasp, sort out, and describe Chinese philosophy.

First of all, "contemporary Chinese philosophy" must face the challenge of "ancient and modern" issues, specifically the question of how to undertake, and the key lies in how we observe, look at, make trade-offs, and choose our ideological traditions. On the one hand, it is necessary to understand the history of thought, to have a "sympathetic understanding" as Chen Yinke said, and on the other hand, it is necessary to have an awareness of one's own state of existence today, to be clear about "where I am" and "who I am", and most importantly, to understand the basic characteristics and unique ways of thinking of traditional Chinese thought.

Historically, traditional Chinese thought has embodied the pursuit of making a difference in the political life of society. Zhang Hengqu's four sentences express the academic value orientation and mission of Chinese literati: "Establish a heart for heaven and earth, establish a life for the people, continue to learn for the past generations, and open peace for all generations." (Zhang Zaiji, p. 320) The general characteristic of the way of thinking of traditional Chinese thought is that it is harmonious and unconventional, and this way of thinking places its own thinking in its own unique "Taoism". This Tao is the only "Taoist" and "Taoist", thus forming the long-standing ideological culture of "the way of life". Traditional Chinese thought can be represented by Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, and their thoughts all follow the harmonious way of thinking. It can be said that the harmonious way of thinking is the mystery of the harmonious coexistence of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism in traditional Chinese thought, thus constituting the unavoidable historical situation of "contemporary Chinese philosophy".

Secondly, "contemporary Chinese philosophy" must also be considered in the context of "Chinese and Western" dialogue. On this issue, Qian Mu and Feng Youlan represent two completely different views and attitudes. Qian Mu believes that China's academic thought and learning are Chinese, and its origin, development and evolution have their own unique context and rationale, and cannot be viewed in the way of classification of disciplines such as philosophy and science, that is to say, "Chinese" can only be expressed in the Chinese way, not in the Western way. In his academic principle, he insisted that Chinese should speak Chinese. In the face of China's "great changes unseen in 3,000 years" (Li Hongzhang, quoted from Liang Qichao, p. 44), Feng Youlan advocated using the ideological framework of Western philosophy to sort out Chinese learning, so that Chinese learning could be "continued". The two gentlemen's reasoning has its own reasoning, and it is difficult to make an evaluation of right and wrong. What is valuable to us is to use it as a mirror to observe and explore the realistic context of "contemporary Chinese philosophy". Zhuangzi said: "The Tao is made by doing" ("Zhuangzi Qi Wu Theory"), as long as we think and seek unremittingly, then the philosophy that belongs to China will eventually be produced.

Bibliography:

Feng Youlan, 1961: History of Chinese Philosophy, Zhonghua Book Company.

1996: The Second Volume of the Six Books of Zhenyuan, East China Normal University Press.

1999: History of Modern Chinese Philosophy, Guangdong People's Publishing House.

Gao Gaohai, 2004: "The Future Development of the Chinese Nation Needs Its Own Philosophical Theory", Journal of Social Sciences of Jilin University, No. 1.

Jin Yuelin, 1983: Theory of Knowledge, The Commercial Press.

1985: On the Dao, The Commercial Press.

Liang Qichao, 2000: The Biography of Li Hongzhang, Baihua Literature and Art Publishing House.

Liu Mengxi, Editor-in-Chief, 1996: Chinese Modern Academic Classics, Hebei Education Press.

Zhang Maoze, 20o3: A Review of Jin Yuelin's Logic and Philosophy, Shaanxi People's Publishing House.

Zhang Peng, 2009: "The Political Dependence Characteristics of Traditional Chinese Philosophy", Academic Research, No. 6.

Zhang Zaiji, 1978, Zhonghua Book Company.

(Author's Affiliation: Baoji University of Arts and Sciences, Shaanxi Academy of Social Sciences)