Chapter 18 It is possible to reconcile Confucianism and liberalism

Interviewer: Liu Youyang, reporter of Shenzhen Commercial Daily Time: July 10, 2008 Peking University scholar Li Ling's book "The Lost Dog: I Read "The Analects of Confucius"" caused a thousand waves in the academic world, critics and admirers held their own opinions.Our reporter interviewed Wu Si, a well-known historian and vice president of the "Yanhuang Chunqiu" magazine. In his opinion, there is a major misunderstanding in the "lost family dog" dispute, and the two sides lack substantive and calm dialogue. On the basis of the analysis of Confucianism's "identity", Wu Si predicted to reporters the possible future direction of Chinese traditional culture, and said that the borrowing of traditional resources is by no means limited to Confucianism, and the differences between Confucianism and liberalism are also It is not irreconcilable, and the adjustment of proportions and mutual reference between the two may create a new humanistic value system for Chinese society.

The "Sangjiagou" controversy is first of all a dispute over the title of the book, and its essence is what kind of Confucius people want to see. Do you think Li Ling's interpretation of Confucius is fair? In fact, there is a misunderstanding in the title dispute. "Sangjiagou" is first of all Confucius' self-mockery, and when Li Ling used the metaphor of "Sangjiagou", he borrowed Confucius' self-mockery, and did not use it as a derogatory term.What are you talking about now?Discussing whether this word is respectful enough for sages, rather than talking about what Li Lingzhen wants to say behind this metaphor-Confucius’s views and propositions cannot be implemented in reality, and there is no spiritual home in the real world, so it is no The "lost dog" of the "lord".As far as I have read the articles criticizing Li Ling, including some online posts directed at me, it seems that there are more elements of self-talk. Without in-depth exchanges on the interpretation of Confucius and the understanding of Confucianism, it is not in-depth Criticism and discussion, just to vent their dissatisfaction, this is a dialogue that cannot bear fruit.

Compared with the critics, most of the scholars who supported Li Ling resonated with Confucius back then and Li Ling today because of their "critical consciousness".So besides a literal misunderstanding, is there a mentality gap between critics and admirers? I'm not sure.For example, those who criticize Li Ling do not have any worries in real life, and they may also feel that they cannot find their spiritual home.It may not be accurate to say that they did not understand Confucius' situation at that time, did not agree with him, and did not share the same feeling.In addition, those who agree with Li Ling's point of view, such as me, may not necessarily feel strongly that I am a "lost dog" in real life, and may not find my spiritual home.I may appreciate Li Ling's description and explanation of Confucius' situation and opinions more, which is very appropriate for understanding people and discussing the world, and I appreciate his text more, his interpretation of "original scriptures".This book is actually a commentary and interpretation of Confucianism. As for who Confucius is, what symbol is used, and whether he is outlined with "sangjiagou" or "sage", that is the second or even third level of meaning. , the first thing we should pay attention to is what Confucius said, under what background he said these words, and what these words mean.This is the most solid work, and Li Ling has done a good job.

Some people believe that the controversy caused by the book "The Lost Dog" has far exceeded the value of the book itself, and it reflects the current mentality of various cultural thoughts on Confucianism and tradition. What do you think? I see little value in the debate because there is a major misunderstanding in the debate.So far, I have not seen a calm dialogue between the two sides.Especially the critics, they have imagined the object of criticism, which is far from the core meaning expressed by Li Ling. Of course, the sentiment expressed by the critics is meaningful in itself, that is, we must respect the saints and respect the traditional culture and heritage.This is what the critics claim.So, is it true that Li Ling doesn't respect or reverence?From the perspective of knowing people and discussing the world, I think he respects Confucius very much.So, does it mean that we should fully respect traditional culture and the legacy of sages?Does this mean that Confucius' legacy cannot be criticized?This requires detailed analysis.

Let's discuss in depth: Do you respect tradition 100% or 10%?There is a big gap between them.If you demand 100% awe, the requester will ignore the most basic fact, that is, in the era when Confucius was most in awe, Confucius' propositions failed to solve China's core problems.China has never been able to get out of the cycle of governance and chaos.If you completely despise tradition, you may also ignore a problem, that is, Confucianism has played a huge role in the stability of Chinese society. Many concepts of Confucianism are still alive in the hearts of Chinese people, and they are still popular in our lives and languages. The indicator of God, let many Chinese people find a reason to settle down there, instead of looking for it from God.The proper way is to find a degree, to find the right measure, and carefully distinguish what to absorb in the tradition of Confucius?modify what?How to rebuild our world view and values ​​on the basis of tradition?These are things that can be discussed in depth, and getting angry and cursing cannot solve the problem.

Behind this discussion, there is a larger background hidden, that is, the rapid rise of "national studies craze" in recent years.Scholars who disagree with Li Ling are mostly based on anxiety about China's current situation, and hope to use the panacea of ​​"Chinese learning" to solve the current crisis of China's humanistic spirit. You actually talked about two issues. The first issue is: China lacks humanistic spirit and needs to be rebuilt; the second question is how to rebuild it. The first one is generally a real problem. Now everyone is living as if they have no roots. Things that are not at ease in their hearts may not be solved with money, but what are those things?Can it be solved with Confucian things?Taking it a step further, in ancient China, even in the era when Confucianism prevailed, did people have a spiritual home?Aren't people greedy?Not necessarily.It's just that when some elites are looking for the ultimate meaning of life, they can get a relatively ready-made and not too controversial solution, that is, the Confucian solution.In any era, in any culture, in any society, the people who need to solve these problems are only a small group of people, and more people do not have such strong spiritual needs, and they are more faced with survival problems.

The ideology of the past has indeed collapsed, new things have not been built, and the spiritual pillar has disappeared. At least for the elite, this is a real problem.But they also each have their own tricks, and each has its own solution. Generally speaking, although the problem of humanistic spirit exists, I think the gap between contemporary China and ancient China is not as far as the Antarctic and the North Pole.This is only a part of the problem for some people, and only part of the problem for this part of the people.More social problems are caused by the system rather than moral crisis.

The second question is how to rebuild the humanistic spirit that needs to be rebuilt now?To what extent should we seek resources from tradition, and to what extent should we seek resources from the West?I think that the new concept system established in China in the future should be more based on traditional Chinese resources.The Chinese cultural tradition, represented by Confucianism, has been looking for a home in the heart, in the world, in the nature of the world we live in, rather than in God.This most fundamental direction of finding the destination and the corresponding conceptual system are in line with the psychological characteristics of the Chinese people.This direction of pursuit may be the dominant direction of future cultural reconstruction.

However, many of the roughness and inadequacies in the tradition need to be supplemented by Western theories. It must be a hybrid synthesis. Of course, this synthesis is probably based on our tradition.As for the proportion distribution, it is a very technical issue, which depends on the thorough understanding and transformation of the future creators of traditional Chinese culture, which is mixed with strong personal color and accidental factors. Now "Confucianism is Chinese learning" seems to have become an overwhelming voice. Is Confucianism really the essence of Chinese learning?Can it really represent all of Chinese traditional culture?

When it comes to traditional Chinese culture, it seems to be Confucianism, but in fact Confucianism is just a chosen one.From the personal ups and downs of Confucius and Mencius, to Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty "removing a hundred schools of thought and only respecting Confucianism", what are the interests of those who choose?Is the chosen one the dominant force, or is the chooser the dominant force?There are many misunderstandings here.The selectors of all dynasties are official groups, bureaucrats, emperors, and yamen. Even if they want to reject Confucius and make him a "lost dog", they are also rejecting.Historically, the fate of Confucius and Confucianism was often determined by officials.The leader of Chinese culture is not Confucianism, but the official school. It is the official school that decides how much Confucianism is wanted, whether to want it or not, or Confucianism is used as a cover on the surface, but a lot of Legalist things are installed inside. China In ancient society, it is reasonable to say "outside Confucianism and internal law" or "Yang Confucianism and Yin law".

To be precise, the soul and leader of traditional Chinese culture have always been the officials, who decided the proportions of Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, Legalism, etc. according to their own needs, and comprehensively created official culture.They are actually "castrating" Confucianism and transforming Confucianism to suit their tastes.The status of Confucianism, the status of a certain proposition, whether it can be spread, depends to a large extent on the promotion, suppression or even stifling of the rulers.We must clearly see this important force, that is, where the interests of the official group lie, and their identification of their own interests.Considering from the perspective of maximizing the interests of officials, which statement to choose, which statement to restrict, to what extent to restrict, and to what extent to accept, is more in line with its long-term interests and long-term stability. This set of selection criteria reflects the The soul of traditional Chinese culture, Confucianism and other schools of thought can only be selected ingredients, not the subject of selection. In this sense, when it comes to the absorption and re-creation of Chinese traditions, one should be consciously critical of the military strategists and legalists who embody the views of violent groups. Some people believe that this time "The Lost Dog" was used as the trigger to intensify the conflict between "New Confucianism" and liberalism in recent years. Is there any need to reflect on the debate between them for solving the problems of Chinese society? The differences between liberalism and "New Confucianism" are not irreconcilable.What is Liberalism?It regards "rights" and corresponding "freedoms" as the supreme value, and believes that all social structures and political systems should regard "freedom" as the first thing worthy of respect.But what about Confucianism?The most important content of Confucianism is "propriety, righteousness, name and function", "ritual" refers to the structure of rituals and laws, and "righteousness" refers to rules. In the structure of rituals and laws, everyone has his own place, that is, "fen", which requires people to "keep their own law and order". "Subscription", in the language of liberalism, means rights and obligations. If China's current social or political philosophy is derived from this concept, it will be able to integrate Confucianism and liberalism, and learn from each other's strengths.Both sides respect and emphasize the "division" of human beings. Liberalism tends to focus on rights and freedom, while Confucianism pays more attention to obligations, but neither of them opposes the balance of rights and obligations.The advantage of Confucianism is that there is no need to ask God to prove the necessity of "keeping one's duty". People's rights and obligations are not innate, they are in social relations, so ordinary and natural, when you obey all these, you will Feel that the whole life is harmonious, and there will be no extra anxiety and dissatisfaction.Confucianism seeks the ultimate basis for "division" in people's hearts and the system of the universe, and provides people with a place to settle down.This set of arguments is brilliant. However, the Confucian ideological system has content that modern people cannot accept. The specific division of the "Three Cardinal Guidelines and Five Constant Principles" is very unequal. The ruler and ministers have to die, and the father wants the son to die, and the son dare not not die. This kind of "division" between the monarch and the father and son is very "excessive" in modern times.This should adjust its proportions. Originally, one square foot should be compressed to one square meter, and originally half a square meter should be expanded to one square meter. All aspects are roughly equal. The Confucian system of etiquette and justice can be compared with contemporary rights. , The obligation system is in line.In this sense, the differences between Confucianism and liberalism are not confrontational or irreconcilable, and we can turn this difference into a matter of proportion. After adjusting the scale, you will find that the Confucian way of argumentation and the pursuit of the basis of "benevolence and righteousness" are very reasonable and very suitable for the appetite of the Chinese. It is possible to create a new thing by making this kind of adjustment, and the advantages of both parties can be absorbed into it. Liberalism has an advantage that Confucianism lacks. It tells us that self-discipline alone is not enough to make people keep their duties and limit people's excessive expansion. decentralization.Such a restrictive mechanism is more reliable than conscience and benevolence and moral education.This set of political design and the theoretical support behind it are quite lacking in Confucianism. In short, our discussion involves the integration of academic systems, the reconciliation of concepts, and the re-creation of conceptual systems. These are very specific discussions, and it is a solid discussion of each concept. Things people need to calm down and do. The borrowing of traditional resources is not limited to Confucianism. The integration of "distribution" and "rights and obligations" is only one of the possible fundamental concepts of traditional innovation and traditional re-creation. On these foundations, many traditional Substantial work with a fusion of the West, tradition and modernity.That will be a long-term gradual accumulation process.