Text: Linghu Boguang
Today, let's continue to write about Chinese philosophy, it is recognized that ancient Chinese philosophy is leading in the world, and modern philosophy is backward.
All this is related to science, ancient science has long been proved by practice to be a failure, so it has been replaced by modern science, which is a major progress in human understanding and practice. Expressing history contrary to the facts, or quoting the words of the ancients in disregard of the facts, and rejecting modern science with such absurd words and deeds, are not worth arguing with - what is denied in practice, and then reasoning is purely snake-footed.
I do not deny the fact that the doctrine of Confucius has long been revered in ancient times for the need to rule, and that his ideas have indeed played an important positive role under certain conditions. However, his theory and doctrine are wrong in many things, and the development of Chinese history is also one of the most sluggish existing civilizations - it has the longest written history, but there has been no substantial social progress for a long time, and the West, which has seriously wasted its development time on the premise of taking the lead early, has been overtaken in a short period of time. This kind of stagnation is quite related to the Confucian concept of application to the world.
Objectively speaking, Confucius and Confucianism have enabled the Chinese to lead the world in the internal construction of civilization, and they have played a very important role in our current success, but they have also had a crucial impact on China's sluggish development. The inheritance of the essence must be feasible on the basis of the re-innovation of modern people, and we cannot blindly copy the understanding of the ancients.
Those who have repeatedly struggled with this question come from those who have wandered outside the reading of the history of philosophy.
Since the late Ming Dynasty, when Chinese scholars accepted the "learning" from Taixi, due to the language barrier, they could only deduce the meaning of the original Western language according to the literal meaning of the Chinese translation language, which led to a series of problems. Among them, the obvious one is "Gu Ming" - the name of "Gu" in Chinese, and the meaning of "Si" in Spanish, and the academic community refers to this problem as "reverse case".
"Philosophy" is the best entry point for us to understand this problem.
The so-called "philosophy" in Spanish is composed of "philo" (Greece φιλο) + "sophy" (Greece σοφία). Using historical linguistic methods, "philo" is divided into two words, one is "love" and the other is "belong". So "philosophy" means "love of wisdom," or "wisdom that belongs to wisdom."
In other words, "philosophy" is nothing more than a discourse system (or even a knowledge system) produced by a special mode of thinking in the West.
The emergence of this discourse system began with the ancient Greece's exploration of the origin of the universe (at that time, the way of inquiry could only be metaphysics), that is, the so-called cosmology; It then focuses on a linguistic phenomenon of Greece's natural language, the phenomenon of the word phenomenon. Since this linguistic phenomenon is prevalent in the Indo-European language family (without a linguistic, the languages represented by ancient Greece would not be able to express it), this mode of discourse is also common in the West.
后以metaphysics，或者ontology来命名之。
Later, after the emergence of Christianity, out of the need for mission, religious scholars used this discourse system that had been shaped and permeated all aspects of social life since ancient Greece and Rome, so that "philosophy" turned into "theology", that is, the so-called "theology".
The Renaissance pushed the overall ideology from "theology" to the "rational thinking" of ancient Greece and Rome, and rescued intellectual development from the oppression of "God". Later, Descartes tried to find/define a basis for the certainty of knowledge through this discourse system. "Cartesian contemplation" gives rise to a series of discursive/thought outcomes, which can probably be summed up by the term epistemology.
The final glory of this mode of discourse is concentrated in Germany's idealism/idealism.
The development of natural science in modern Europe benefited from this mode of discourse, which in turn eventually destroyed. In modern times, there are many thinkers who have consciously or unconsciously destroyed this mode of discourse, and some scholars believe that Marx, Nietzsche and Freud are the most representative.
Then came the birth of phenomenology and its impact beyond a century. The birth of phenomenology was marked by the publication of Husserl's Logical Investigations in 1990, and its most influential representative was Heidegger. In particular, Heidegger, a great and systematic reader/insight into Western philosophy, intends to destroy the meaning of "being" ("being" is a Chinese translation of the gerund used by Chinese scholars to "being", which can also be directly translated as "is"), to trace the "original intention" of Western philosophy, and finally put an end to this mode of discourse completely.
So, does China have a "philosophy" – a discursive model that has traditionally been formed and developed in the West?
Who defined "philosophy" as "the doctrine of the worldview", and even considered "philosophy" to be the "ancestor of the encyclopedia", and consciously or unintentionally extracted the word "Western" that should have been placed before the "doctrine of the worldview" and "the ancestor of the encyclopedia"?
Hu Shi believes that "all the study of the vital problems of life, for the sake of fundamentals, to find a fundamental solution: this kind of learning is called philosophy." Feng Youlan believes that philosophy "is a systematic reflection on life." Has this mode of understanding of "philosophy" in modern China unconsciously fallen into the trap of "Western-centrism"?
Or, we can ask, is there "Confucianism" in the West? Let me ask, is there a "Confucianism" in this world that can be removed from the word "China" and generalized?
Furthermore, if we can confirm the fact that there is no "Confucianism" in the West, can we use it as a basis to conclude that Western thinking, Western culture, and Western traditions are inferior to China?
Ancient Chinese philosophy, in the long run, is conducive to the harmonious existence of human beings, and will eventually develop and rejuvenation, the core idea of ancient Chinese philosophy, the unity of heaven and man (the idea of the unity of heaven and man emphasizes the harmonious relationship between man and nature, human beings should respect the laws of nature, and coexist with heaven and earth. ), Yin and Yang Transformation (one of the most fundamental laws of the universe. Everything is in a dynamic equilibrium of the unity of opposites. ), benevolence, righteousness, courtesy, wisdom (covering the fundamentals of being a person and doing things.) etc.
At present, the strong rejuvenation of the country and some of the development and governance concepts advocated by the country also contain a broad carry forward of ancient Chinese philosophical thought. The modern interpretation of the ancient concept of "harmony without diversity" (seeking common development through constructive dialogue and cooperation, and communicating with the world with an open and inclusive mind) in international affairs demonstrates the self-confidence and responsibility of the Chinese nation, and contributes China's wisdom and construction strength to the peaceful development of mankind. Chinese philosophy is a big philosophy, not a narrow small philosophy of the Western nation. Only by adhering to the wisdom of Chinese philosophy can we better face the chaotic world and maintain our inner faith and firmness.
This is difficult for Westerners to understand. Chinese philosophy emphasizes harmony and wholeness, with insight into the deep connection between all things. Western philosophy, on the other hand, often pursues analysis and deconstruction of the individual, causing many people to lose their way in complex relationships. The wisdom of the Chinese nation does not lie in trivial debates, but in grasping and understanding the natural rhythm of the universe, and in resonating with life and nature. Unlike destruction, successful construction depends on many aspects and links.
Obviously, the road to the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, which is becoming clearer and clearer, is not groundless, it is deeply rooted in the history of civilization and cultural accumulation of 5,000 years, and has always carried the common dreams and pursuits of the Chinese people after the baptism of the years. It is also evident that philosophical and Wenhua scientific contributions are also included, otherwise it cannot be explained.
The biggest difference between modern and ancient people is, of course, the difference in understanding. This distinction is based on the premise that humanity as a whole has not developed fast enough so far – if it had been fast enough, we would have already taken the initiative to change our form. However, the difference in understanding is enough to explain the difference, and it is a serious mistake to know only the difference in productivity in practice.
The success of the Chinese in practicing Marxism is by no means only because of Chinese tradition, and Chinese tradition cannot naturally accept Marxism. Marxism was first born on the premise of attaching importance to understanding, especially general understanding, and the tradition of the Chinese people attaches the least importance to general understanding, and it is precisely the opposite error in their attitude toward practice and understanding, which is the fundamental reason why Marxism can be born in the West but cannot be produced in China.
Without the complete defeat of the Chinese in practice, we would never have been forced to accept Marxism by the salvation of the people. The acceptance of Marxism by the Chinese has also undergone a transformation of abandoning many Chinese traditions, which is by no means a natural fit as you say, but you do not admit the fact that all this is not in place, and you have to say that our success is the opposite, just as you have to give Gao Cheng the hat of the originator of modern football.
Marxism is incompatible with Chinese tradition, and there is also a modern expression. The most important contribution made by Marx is to make a breakthrough in general understanding, while what the Chinese have done so far (especially scholars) have mostly focused on specific practices related to Chinese characteristics, and we do not object to the breakthrough in general understanding, but in fact we have always stayed away, which is completely different from Marx's style.
Even Chinese scholars who are constrained by Chinese tradition will not give you such a suggestion of relying on strength to change randomly, and you are not only stubbornly insisting on the mistakes of tradition at all, but even rejecting basic common sense.