刘纪璐《在分析哲学的语境中转化中国哲学》Liu_Analytic-Chinese

Converting Chinese Philosophy into the Analytic Context JeeLoo Liu Department of Philosophy California State University at Fullerton The Shalem Center, Jerusalem, Israel October 2009 § Background: Is Chinese Philosophy A Philosophy or Religion? Chinese philosophy has its roots in religion, and has spread to the general Chinese public as a mixture of attitudes in life, cultural spirit, as well as religious practices. However, Chinese philosophy is not just a collection of wisdom on life or a religious discourse on how to lead a good life; it is also a form of philosophy. And yet its philosophical import has often been slighted in the Western philosophical world. Two hundred years ago, Hegel remarked that there is no separation between philosophy and religion in the East: “That which we call Eastern Philosophy is more properly the religious mode of thought and the conception of the world belonging generally to the Orientals and approximates very closely to Philosophy.” (Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy, Vol. 1) Under this conception, Hegel’s attitude with Chinese philosophy was completely dismissive. He described Confucius as “only a man who has a certain amount of practical and worldly wisdom — one with whom there is no speculative philosophy,” and “it would have been better had [his works] never been translated.” With Laozi’s conception of ‘dao,’ Hegel commented: “to the Chinese what is highest and the origin of things is nothing, emptiness, the altogether undetermined, the abstract universal,” and “if 2 Philosophy has got no further than to such expression, it still stands on its most elementary stage. What is there to be found in all this learning?” (Ibid.) Hegel thought that in Chinese philosophy there was no speculative thinking, and thus he came to the conclusion that Chinese philosophy was not philosophy. But such an observation is totally inadequate. The nature of Chinese philosophical works is that these works often contain the end result of the philosophers’ speculative thinking. The completed works are either students’ truthful records of the masters’ mature thought, or later philosophers’ reinterpretation of the ancient classical texts. One needs to go through the texts with careful reading and analysis to dig out the threads and the rationale behind each view. Based on his limited resources on Chinese philosophy and his misinformed reading of Chinese texts, Hegel was biased against taking Chinese philosophy as a form of respectable philosophy. Unfortunately, such a bias persisted till this day. From the early introduction of Chinese thinking to the Western world by Western missionaries, Chinese philosophy has been seen merely as a different form of world religion. Confucianism and Daoism were not taught as a philosophy course, but in courses in world religion. Chinese philosophy, as well as other Asian philosophy, has been marginalized and de-philosophized. Currently in North America, there are very few graduate programs in philosophy that include Chinese philosophy as one of its areas. Scholars who specialize in Chinese philosophy have to seek graduate-level jobs at East Asian Studies or Religious Studies departments. It is a great concern where an English-speaking student could go for Ph.D. study on 3 Chinese philosophy in North America. The prejudice seems deep-rooted in the philosophy circle in the U.S. None of the top-ranked graduate programs includes any specialist on Chinese philosophy among its faculty. At the same time, the demand for understanding Chinese philosophy is growing among undergraduate students. There are more and more universities hiring specialists in Chinese philosophy and increasing numbers of philosophy departments offering Chinese philosophy (among other Asian philosophy courses) in their regular curriculum. The trend is growing, and now it is really the time to examine the status of Chinese philosophy in the U.S. In the 2008 newsletter of the American Philosophical Association (APA), there was a special discussion on the “crisis” for Chinese philosophy in the United States since there are very limited choices for students interested in Chinese philosophy in selecting graduate programs. The contributing authors (Angle, Ames, Van Norden, Im, Wong, etc.) all point to the omission of Chinese philosophy in the top-ranking graduate programs in the U.S., as the crisis in the sustainability of Chinese philosophy as a field in the American philosophical arena. Some (Van Norden, Tiwald) have attributed the reason partially to ignorance of and bias against Chinese philosophy on the part of American philosophers. To correct this kind of mentality, I believe, we need to first get rid of the conception that “there is no such thing as Chinese philosophy.” (Van Norden, in Newsletter) I do not deny that various schools of Chinese philosophy have taken up a separate form of religion in Chinese history as well as in contemporary Chinese society: Confucianism has its temples established for Confucius, and every year there is a national celebration of his birthday. Daoism has many Daoist temples where the famous Daoists are worshiped. 4 Buddhism, most evidently a form of religion, has permeated the populace in the Chinese world and has many devoted followers. However, to say that all these schools have a religious influence in Chinese culture is not to deny that they too have a rich philosophical dimension: the philosophical dimension that speculates on the origin of the universe, on the basic elements of all things, on human nature and man’s relation to myriad things, on the meaning of life and death, on the conception of justice or just polity, and on the ethical code for human conduct. I believe that whether Chinese thinking is philosophy or religion also depends on the perspective of the person who is engaged in the study. If one treats it as a form of religion, one advocates the view and adheres to the teaching in one’s life. If one treats it as philosophy, on the other hand, one can uncover many deeper philosophical ideas, raise many questions against the philosophical position, develop many new threads from the old texts, and further engage in the existing debates. Philosophy is what one does, not just what the text says. If everyone treats Chinese philosophy as an ancient mode of thinking, study it merely out of cultural curiosity without being philosophically engaged, then Chinese philosophy is dead. The responsibility lies on contemporary scholars. The ancient texts addressed the ancient people; we need to make it come alive to contemporary readers. How much we can enrich the ancient texts and make them relevant to today’s world depends on our effort, and our effort constitutes our contribution to the development of Chinese philosophy. § Existing Methodologies 5 There are many current approaches to Chinese philosophy. For starter, I can enumerate the following examples: 1. Traditional textual annotation and reinterpretation — This is a method commonly used by Chinese scholars throughout Chinese history. Often the annotations themselves incorporate each commentator’s own philosophical view; hence, a classic text can receive various reinterpretations. At times, the subtle differences in the interpretations resulted in grave disputes in the intellectual history of China. In recent decades, a major effort is also devoted to translating classical texts into modern Chinese, so that the younger generations and those without classical Chinese training can read with ease. 2. Intellectual history approach — This is the approach that the famous Chinese historian Fung Youlan undertook when he wrote The History of Chinese Philosophy. From my observation, I think that many Chinese scholars in China today endorse this methodology. The emphasis is on placing each philosopher in an intellectual lineage and explaining how one view develops from another. In the history of Chinese philosophy, this method is particularly pertinent, since many Chinese philosophers took themselves to be students or followers of another great master before them. They took their mission to be expounding or defending the master’s view. There were various “schools” established from this mentality. Of course, not all followers simply repeated what the master had said; hence, 6 from within each school there also developed new turns and novel ideas. The intellectual history approach can analyze the similarities and differences in the transmission of thought. 3. Sinological approach — Sinology has a long history in the Western world (dating back to the thirteenth or the fourteenth century), and the term mostly refers to studies of China by non-Chinese. The early missionaries from the sixteenth century on played a major role in the development of Sinology. As I understand it, contemporary Sinologists tend to focus more on classical Chinese language and literature, and the analysis tends to focus on the meaning and interpretation of linguistic expressions in classical texts. When applied to Chinese philosophy, Sinologists tend to be more literal — they want their assertions to be backed by actual textual evidence. As a result, they downplay the philosophical connotations of each text and refrain from engaging in systematic reconstruction of any thinker’s philosophy. 4. Hermeneutic approach1 — Hermeneutics is a generic term that covers a variety of approaches, and here I shall restrict it to the study of Chinese philosophy. Chinese hermeneutics aims to keep a balance of the original texts and the current conditions of the world. The purpose is to keep the tradition alive and make it applicable in today’s world. The scholars who take this approach embrace Heidegger’s view that there is no absolutely objective interpretation of the text that can be separated from the interpreter’s own historical reality or subjectivity. 7 They respect the original texts and the authors’ intent, but believe that the texts can be reinterpreted so as to engage in contemporary philosophical dialogues. They wish to engage with the text in a productive way, adding to the text’s complexity and depth in meaning. The reinterpretation can place a historical text in the contemporary context and renders it anew. For example, some recent scholars have been trying to give the traditional Chinese philosophy a feminist reading, by reinterpreting the original text with the modern conception of femininity. Others have attempted to apply Laozi’s Daodejing to issues in environmental ethics, even though environmental ethics was clearly not a conception in ancient times. Another branch of Chinese hermeneutics is called ‘onto-hermeneutics,’ represented by Chung-ying Cheng. As On-cho Ng explains this methodology: “In onto-hermeneutic terms, reading and interrogating a text is no simple verbal and textual lapidary. .... To understand is to grasp this intended correspondence between the text and the represented reality.” (Ng 2007, 390) To gain this understanding, according to onto-hermeneutics, the reader “lives, inhabits, and experiences the very reality that the text describes.” (Ibid.) In other words, this kind of methodology stresses the reader’s experiential engagement with the world in her comprehension of the text. 5. Comparative philosophy approach — This approach actually includes a wide variety of comparative approaches. The method contrasts and compares topics and ideas in Chinese philosophy with some issues that one finds in Western or other philosophies. Sometimes the comparative study shows the similarities of 8 theories; sometimes it points out the differences. These are more interpretative in nature, and the goal is to enhance understanding for readers who are familiar with one of the theories under comparison. But the approach is not limited to interpretation. More and more scholars aim to enhance constructive communication between two traditions that were developed apart. Sometimes the study uses the conceptual scheme of another theory to analyze the theory under investigation; sometimes it further employs another theory to provide solutions to issues present in the first theory. We can see the comparative philosophy approach as building an intellectual bridge for understanding the other view and to gain insights on one’s starting theory. For readers who are not on either side of the bridge, however, the comparative study may not be very helpful. Also, the comparative study using Continental philosophy as the entry point and the comparative study using analytic philosophy as the entry point are very different both in style and in content. Those who are more familiar with the analytic style would not find the Continental comparative approach very helpful, and the sentiment is mutual. 6. Analytic philosophy approach — Philosophical analysis becomes a characteristic of analytic philosophy, and this approach focuses on the conceptual analysis of philosophical ideas, the clear formulation of argumentation, the investigation of philosophical problems and their solutions, and the posing of hypothetical thought experiments to test one’s intuition. Typically, the analysis begins with the original text, but goes further to construct a philosophical system for the original 9 Chinese philosopher who did not do so in his writing. As it is done today, the analytic approach is often combined with the comparative philosophy approach. My view is that all these methodologies accomplish different functions for the study of Chinese philosophy, and they should not be seen as mutually competitive or exclusive of one another. Anyone with a broad background can combine the above methods in engaging in his or her study. The study of Chinese philosophy can be done by people with different training, with different intellectual interests, and for different audiences. There is no need to debate on which method is the right method for studying Chinese philosophy, since the criterion depends on one’s epistemological interest. I have been advocating and applying the analytic approach in my own works, and in this talk I wish to give a brief explanation of this methodology. § Preliminary Understanding: Are Chinese Philosophy and Analytic Philosophy Compatible? To convert Chinese thought into the analytic context is not to presume that the two traditions are naturally compatible. For one thing, the Chinese tradition has always emphasized that one should go beyond linguistic expressions, to seek “transcendental truth,” to “grasp the meaning behind words” and to “comprehend the teacher’s sayings with one’s heart (or intuitive understanding).” Contemporary Confucians take Confucianism to be “some kind of practical wisdom and transcendental truth which 10 cannot be understood by any objective and logical methods.” (Fung, 1) Daoism is particularly a teaching that downplays literal understanding as well as linguistic or logical analysis. A concept should remain ambiguous so as to be open to multiple interpretations, and as soon as a clear definition is given, the concept is restricted and the richness is gone. Therefore, Daoist concepts are said to be “unanalyzable.” Zen Buddhism also emphasizes “the transmissions of heart,” which cannot be accomplished by words alone. A metaphor they use is that our words are like the finger that points to the moon: one should pay attention to the moon (the truth) rather than the finger (words) itself. This is why some people have felt that the analytic method is not suitable for Chinese philosophy, and that by using it, we are losing “the spiritual essence”2 of Chinese philosophy. One such opinion is expressed by Eske Møllgaard against analytic philosophical treatment of Chinese philosophy: “this philosophy cannot claim any special status in the study of Chinese thought — in fact it hampers productive research in this area. In particular, the style of philosophy introduced into the study of Chinese thought is not concerned with reading but with analysis, and therefore it reduces unique thought to arguments and subsumes the specific under abstract categories.” (Møllgaard, 321) I respect the opinion; however, I think that the analytic method is just one means to the end and the end is to understand Chinese philosophy. Understanding cannot be based merely on the readers’ intuitive grasp, since there would be no independent criterion to judge whether the intuition is correct or not. Contemporary interpreters of ancient texts should aim to assist readers in understanding, and the precise choice of words along with the clear formulation of views is an effective means. The analytic presentation of Chinese philosophy certainly does not exhaust the whole content of Chinese philosophy, but it is a 11 start in the right direction. There is also resistance among Chinese scholars to analyzing Chinese philosophy with Western methodologies or Western conceptual schemes. Their main reason is that Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy are essentially different, such that the two conceptual schemes are “incommensurable to each other.” (Fung, 1) Some people have also suggested that since Chinese philosophy was developed in China and has been deeply intertwined with the Chinese culture and the Chinese way of thinking, anyone without a Chinese (both the language and the culture) background would not be able to truly appreciate the spirit of Chinese philosophy. I personally think that this kind of attitude is basically closing the doors to outsiders. If Chinese philosophy is to reach out to people who were not already immersed in this kind of thinking, it needs various ways of presentation that makes it “accessible.” I reject any “nationalistic” treatment of Chinese philosophy by Chinese scholars, and argue that for Chinese philosophy to develop a global dimension and a respectable philosophical dimension, it needs to adopt the language that is open to non-Chinese philosophers. Since nowadays in North America, most philosophers have been trained in the mainstream analytic philosophy, the analytic presentation of Chinese philosophy would make Chinese philosophy less mysterious, less intimidating, and more philosophically engaging. There are certainly issues in Chinese philosophy that the analytic philosophers can relate to, and these philosophers can engage in the discussion once they understand the issues. For example, most traditional Chinese philosophers have explored metaphysical issues and ethical issues, and some of them also have their epistemological views. These views are often 12 different from those that have emerged in the Western tradition, and they may provide interesting alternatives to the accepted views in the West. At the same time, analytic philosophy can also suggest many new topics and problems for the development of Chinese philosophy. Chinese philosophy, as well as other Asian philosophies, needs to be “reinvented” in order to become part of the global philosophical exchange. The analytic approach provides a new way to continue the philosophical development. § Analytic Comparative Philosophy Approach to Chinese Philosophy: Background I personally have been taking the analytic and comparative approach. I prefer this