Abstract:
With a history of as long as a century the comparative study of Chinese and western philosophies is now running into an embarrassment that there exists incomparability between them. Vis-à-vis such a situation, we should not constrain ourselves to discussion on the issue of so-called “legality of Chinese philosophy,” rather, we should rethink the modality and contents of it and launch a new round of comparative study of Chinese and western philosophies. Instead of relying on the text to conduct examination and study, the new round of comparative study should go deep into the different ways in which people engage themselves in philosophy, come up with results which will not only reveal the special modality and features of Chinese philosophy but also provide, through such a comparison, an explanation to the common ground on which both Chinese and western philosophies are based, and look forward to a renovation in philosophical ideas, so as to pave the way for the comparative study of Chinese and western philosophies and even for the future development of Chinese philosophy as well.
Key words:
Comparison of Chinese and western philosophy; text of philosophy and philosophical activity; the way of existence; renovation of philosophical idea
1. The incomparability of text
Comparative philosophy is a subject that examines and compares different systems of philosophy, and comparison can be conducted either among various subsystems within one tradition or among various traditions. And the comparative study of Chinese and western philosophy is to compare and study the two completely heterogeneous traditions of Chinese philosophy and western philosophy. Compared with the latter, comparative philosophy is a young subject, and there hasn’t been an agreement yet with regard to the nature, method and purpose of the comparison as well as many problems involved in the comparison, so it is imperative to keep on streamlining and discussion over issues involved.
Chinese philosophy, in fact, has been built and developed along with the comparative study ever since it was put under the name of “philosophy.” Moreover, we can also notice that all the countries and nations in the current world put forward the development of the national philosophy of their own and thus the comparison with western philosophy has been set forth necessarily. Even the European and American countries, called as the philosophical capital, can find the philosophical problems of their own in the comparison. Therefore, philosophy in future, no matter in
However, we encounter a great embarrassment just while the comparative philosophy has become well-known and popularly accepted. It is the fact we find the Chinese and western philosophy is practically incomparable. How come one’s got the conclusion of incomparability? Let’s take a look on the comparative study.
The comparison in the past, as we know, is nothing more than the identification and comparison of the homogeneousness and the heterogeneousness of two philosophies. On the view of the comparison of homology, the scholars used to regard the leading philosophy as a criterion, annotating, translating or rewriting their native cultural classics with the philosophical terminology, rule and method. Specifically in
Then, how about the comparison of “Heterogeneousness”?
Although the comparison of heterogeneousness was always done along with the comparison of homology, comparing the heterogeneousness has been rather concentrated only for ten years since the end of last century. Comparing and studying the heterogeneousness of Chinese and western philosophies has made a breakthrough in the theory of Ontology firstly. Ontology is the soul, or the core content, of western classical philosophy, and the pure philosophy or the first principle, and a categorized system which is characterized as the absolute universal meaning and ultimate purpose and organized with the logical method. After realizing the feature of Ontology and again comparing with Chinese philosophy, the scholars found neither the pure conceptional field beyond sense which is similar to Ontology could be available in the Chinese history of philosophy nor any thinking method had been developed accordingly. For a long time, the “Chinese translation of Ontology (Ben Ti Lun, a theory of substance)” was actually not proper because people used to derive its meaning from its name and interpret it as a theory which sought for world origin and noumenon. According to such an understanding, they believed the western “Ontology” was just a theory of “origin” discussing the material elements with which the world was formed. It was misunderstood, so almost no doubt was laid on the existence of “Ontology” also in Chinese philosophy. And consequently it brought on a series of misunderstandings such as the incorrect interpretation of the concepts of transcendence, truth, law, principle, metaphysics and so on. As a result, Chinese and western scholars in a dialogue usually quibbled over the understanding of the concept.[i] After realizing the particularity of western Ontology with transcending and logical features which was substantially different from “Chinese understanding of Ontology”, more and more scholars have given up this translated term of “ Ben Ti Lun”, replacing it by other new translated terms such as “Shi Lun”, “Cun Zai Lun ”, or “Cun You Lun ”, and “Sheng Cun Lun etc.
This is not only the replacement of the translated term but therefore brings on a series of questions which is, since there is no Ontology theoretical system in China as in West and ontology itself is the core of western philosophy, the concepts which are derived from ontology such as subject, object, reason, irrationalness, rationalism and empirism are apparently not matched to Chinese philosophical concepts.
In this way, it is found that we have been making the comparison all the time between the texts of Chinese and western philosophies while the texts can be only the products of acting modes with which different nations are engaged in philosophy. If people act differently, the gap between the texts may become very wide, even to the unmatchable extent.
The difference between languages is a problem, for instance. When we compare Chinese and western philosophies, we have to use the language translation, but it is very difficult to give an exact expression of one original meaning in the translation between the heterogeneous languages. This is the problem of “Incommensurability” called by Kuhn.
Another example is the problems of historical and cultural background. As we know, one philosophy is built on the basis of the distinctive historical and cultural background of its own which can make him difficult to perceive the other traditional concepts. Obviously, the way of judgment is also influenced by history and culture, and thus the problem will still exist how we can judge whether the concepts of other traditions are the same as our own. So, how is it possible to compare the philosophies?
Essentially, it is not the above question yet but the problem of heterogeneousness of philosophical modalities. When we compare Chinese and western philosophies for no matter homogeneousness or heterogeneousness, we usually search for them in the text. However, we find what the western texts describe is the knowledge itself and what is desired in the western philosophy is also the universal knowledge. Although we can not say there is no knowledge in Chinese philosophy, the scholars appraise Chinese philosophy basically concerning value, ideological level, apperception, life significance and so on. From these key words, we can conclude the modality of Chinese philosophy is different from that of western philosophy in which knowledge is the core. Or it can be summarized in a word that desiring for universal knowledge is not regarded as a goal in Chinese philosophy while Chinese philosophy focuses on the transformation of his status of existence so as to acclimate himself to the surroundings and meanwhile endeavor to acquire the consistency with the surroundings.
So, it comes to us what is knowledge. Although the term of “knowledge”, in western culture, bears different meaning and usage in the different context, the most usual and typical expression is to regard knowledge as the real faith which is set up on the objective base and supported with sufficient evidence. It is different from the personal opinion or the subjective faith which is lack of evidence. It is also different from baseless illusion, guesswork, fetish or causeless hypothesis.
However, such a western opinion of knowledge never exists in Chinese philosophy. Chinese people think the knowledge exists in the world and therefore the relation of human beings to knowledge is the interaction of knower and the object. Acquiring the knowledge is the process to reflect oneself and realize the Tao (the way) by the way of his own transformation and apperception. This opinion of knowledge explains the internal relationship between knowledge and the existence of human beings. Therefore we can learn that Chinese people seek for the cultivation of body and mind, and try to acquire the Tao from their living. If it is said that the western people make a study and acquire the universal knowledge from the outside and transcendental world, Chinese people, especially the conservative scholars, spend more time seeking the Tao from the inside and living world, emphasizing the “upgrade” of personality and the “arrival” of certain ideological level. After comparing Chinese philosophy with western philosophy, no wonder some scholars think that Chinese philosophy is featured by the ethical standard which emphasizes particularly on the practice and the interpersonal rapport. Even if it is called ethical standard, however, we can not find any argument in Chinese ethic which usually highly concerns the rational category, the criterion terms and the moral paradox in western Ethnics, while we can find such sensible terms as numbness, fortitude, endurance and benefaction which can not be brought into the western conceptional category. It is the difference caused by the different orientation of two philosophies.
The comparison of heterogeneousness makes scholars find that Chinese and western philosophies, embodied in the texts, show completely various modalities no matter in their terms or in their connotation. And also western philosophy is the theory only about theory, using the method of logics and bearing the universal value. And also there are different concepts in Chinese philosophy, which may depend on one’s own experience, the cultivation of one’s body and mind, and the acquisition of the Tao set up as a goal in the living.
Considering the apparent heterogeneousness of two philosophies which is showed in their respective scope, the characters of philosophical languages, the forms of expression as well as their respective philosophical objectives, we have to face up to the problems whether it is still possible to compare two philosophies or not and how to change their incomparability into the comparability.[ii]
2. How to compare?
What can we do when facing the incomparability of the two philosophies, then? Many scholars, especially those from schools of western logic positivism, analytical philosophy and so on which were once in the mainstream position in the 20th century, have claimed to give up not only the comparative study but even neck and crop the philosophy per se because they have alleged that it would never be possible to achieve a complete agreement in the field of philosophy, so they have called the current times the Post-Philosophy Age, which some of our Chinese scholars also accept, more or less.
Actually, the issue of “Whether it is possible to compare philosophies or not” is basically a false proposition, the same as the problem of “The legitimacy of Chinese philosophy” because the comparative study is practically done all the time between Chinese and western philosophies no matter how to argue about the theory or whether you will agree or not. Comparing for all the time, of course, doesn’t mean there is no defect in the comparative method. We have to solve the problem of how to compare, and otherwise the comparison is no more than to rest on the judgment of “What belongs to Chinese philosophy and what belongs to western philosophy”, and finally these two philosophies can not be brought together yet. Thus, philosophy will be blocked to go ahead.
We can find many Chinese and western scholars are actively searching for the method of changing the incomparability into the comparability in order that two philosophies can be inter-interpreted and brought together to understand thoroughly. Such as the method of hermeneutics used by professor Cheng Zhongying, the method of Culture Studies used by professor Roger Ames and the method of “Case’s interpretation” used by professor Francois Jullien as well as the other comparative methods --- for example, “Commonness and Particularity”, “Explaining Chinese words in Chinese cultural context”, “Everyone can explain in his own way” --- suggested by the Chinese scholars, all these methods were proposed in an effort to build a stage, by the way of comparison and interpretation, on which the two philosophies could be exchanged mutually, and therefore their independence would not trusted persistently any more.[iii]
The comparison of seeking for the commonness and distinguishing the particularity makes us realize, when we do comparative study on the Chinese and western philosophies, we can neither regard the western philosophy as a general criterion, nor turn a blind eye to “The Other” and insist that everyone have the right to explain in his own way. However, the comparison is necessary while the criterion can not be neglected yet. Then, how to compare? The innovation of method is rightly required for the new-round comparative study on the Chinese and western philosophies.
In order to achieve the innovation of method, we should primarily realize that the real objective of comparative study of Chinese and western philosophies is not seeking for the commonness and distinguishing the particularity but tracing them to their connection. Since we find the heterogeneousness of Chinese and western philosophies when seeking for the commonness and distinguishing the particularity, consequently we think of one simple question—Is the western philosophy the only mode in the world? If the answer is positive, Chinese philosophy and other national philosophies, which are different from the mode of western philosophy, can not be called philosophy. If the answer is negative, we have to demonstrate what philosophy is and why the philosophies outside of the West can also be called “Philosophy”. Actually, the current study of comparative philosophies is mostly focusing on these issues, all attempting to find out the reasonable solution.
One issue, we submit here for thinking, is that we should jump out of the confrontation of universalism and relativism, and transcend the comparison between the texts, and turn back to the origin of philosophy and endeavor to make the accordant interpretation of Chinese and western philosophies. This is, as we called, th emerging of the Chinese philosophy with the western philosophy. In fact, we seek for it along with the comparison of Chinese and western philosophies. The merging can be understood in various designations or modes, such as Zhang Zhidong’s mode of “Taking Chinese culture as substance and western culture as the function of the substance”. Hu Shi’s mode of “Westernization”, Liang Shuming’s mode of bringing the western way into Chinese content, Mu Zongshan’s mode of metaphysical Connection,[iv] Li Zehou’s mode of “Taking Chinese culture as the function based on the substance of the western culture”. Lin Yusheng’s mode of “Innovative Transformation”, etc. These performances of Connection have creatively offered us the opportunities to understand the Chinese and western philosophies. But if making a comprehensive view on the methods of Connection, we can find most of them are still related to the interpretation of conceptional terms in pursuit of a mutual understanding. Actually, whether it is a perfect way, we still doubt. Initially quoted from The Book of Changes: Appended Remarks Part One, “Connection” means “a sage can find the connection of matters after he has observed their changes in the world.” The literal meaning of Connection is the state of being connected, while in the comparative study of Chinese and western philosophies, it may indicate a place where we can observe the connection of two philosophies and then make a proper study on them. By the way of comparison, in other words, we can establish the accordant interpretation of Chinese and western philosophies.[v]
Then, how to find the connection of the two philosophies? The heterogeneousness showed in the Chinese and western philosophies make us feel that they are not comparable. If so, the Connection seems to be also impossible because the Connection means neither one is connected to the other nor they are directly piled up. But if we recognize that the various modes which are presented in the Chinese and western philosophies are simply the performances of Chinese and western people’s engaging in philosophies, the activities themselves can be noted their homogeneousness. So, we can compare in this way, meaning focusing on the homogeneousness and looking for the point where they go apart. It tells us that we can locate the origin of difference only if we go deep enough into the philosophical method and compare them as well. We think, in this way, the incomparability can be changed into the comparability. Just as professor Yu Xuanmeng said, “when it is possible for us to do in this way, we should be able to realize the importance of learning the conceptional thinking when engaging in western philosophy, and when engaging in Chinese traditional philosophy, it will become necessary to spend great effort in cultivating our moral character and developing our temperament. Doing conceptional thinking and cultivating one’s moral character and developing one’s temperament are both our own modes of existence. We can be engaged in philosophy either in this way or in that way. The Connection of Chinese and western philosophies is our researcher’s own choice. The Chinese and western philosophies are not connected originally but human beings themselves are connected.”
返回顶部