Chapter 53 Several important issues in the study of cultural history (about December 1922)

——Repair and revision of the old book "Chinese History Research Law" The concept and content of culture have already been discussed in previous chapters.Cultural history is about narrating culture. If you understand what culture is, you will naturally understand what cultural history is. It seems that there is no need to waste words.But I think that the predecessors have many mistakes in the concept of history, especially in the scope of cultural history, so I have to raise a few questions for discussion. What is the maximum efficiency of applying the induction research method in the first historiography

Everyone knows that the so-called modern science comes from the inductive research method.If we want to build a new historiography, we naturally cannot do without this path, so my old book "Chinese History Research Method" strongly advocated this point, and the recent lectures "Historical Statistics" and other articles are also in the spirit of this path.But we must know that the efficiency of this research method is limited.To put it simply, there is no doubt that the induction method should be used to sort out historical materials.If it is said that "historical content" can be known by induction, this is not a problem at all.The biggest job of the induction method is to seek "universal features", remove the different attributes of many things, extract the same attributes, and classify them into categories, so as to stipulate the content and history of the thing.It is absolutely impossible to apply this method to history.why?Because the historical phenomenon is only "one-time", since ancient times and the present, there has never been a historical site of the same type.Why?Because historical sites are the reflection of human free will, and the content of each person's free will will never be the same.Therefore, the work of historians is exactly the opposite of that of natural scientists, who specialize in seeking "non-uniformity".If we remove the different attributes of many historical sites and only extract the same attributes, the soul of history will be deprived.Therefore, I think the inductive research method in the field of historiography is only as efficient as sorting out historical materials, and cannot go further.But how can stacking many "uncommons" become an organized knowledge?We often say that history is the whole, so what is the explanation?Are you asking this at all?In my opinion, there are nine things that should come from intuition, not a matter of induction or deduction.This is the biggest key in the philosophy of history. I haven't researched it maturely yet, so I will express my opinion in the future.

Is there a law of causality in Second History? This and the previous article are just one problem, which should be solved consistently.It turns out that the law of cause and effect is the lifeblood of natural science. In the past, only natural science was called science. Therefore, the law of causality is inseparable from the science of governance, which is almost a matter of course.Those who talk about learning often use "whether the causal law contained in the knowledge can be found out" as the standard for "whether the knowledge can become a science".Historiography has never been regarded as a science, so those who study historiography try their best to invent cause and effect in history because they want their favorite knowledge to obtain scientific qualifications.I am one of the people here.The definition of history in the "Chinese History Research Method" I wrote last year includes the phrase "finding its causal relationship".I have recently read Licart's works carefully, and after my own in-depth and repeated research, I have found that this sentence is completely wrong.I said before: "Things in the universe can be divided into nature and culture. The nature is the territory of causality, and the culture is the territory of free will." (See "What is Culture") The two phenomena have their own differences. Yi, just like the scales hidden in the feathers, cannot be exchanged, and there is no need to envy each other.History is a replica of cultural phenomena, so why use the tools used by natural science to pretend to be a facade?It's not only unnecessary, but it's not allowed, because doing so is self-disrupting the law, and it will inevitably lead to a loss of ground.When I was writing "Historical Research Method", I was really annoyed by this problem.I doubt Shi's cause and effect very much, and I dare not abandon him, so there is a passage in the book that says:

"If you want to apply the law of causality absolutely to history, it may be impossible and harmful. Why? History is created by human mind, and the movement of human mind is extremely free and unpredictable. Mind power Since it is not fully controlled by the physical or mathematical law of causality, the history it produces has the same nature as it. Today, we must forcibly suspend this law to control history, and the way will sometimes be poor, so it is impossible. No If it is possible to use it strongly, it will lose the truth of history, so it is harmful. But is it okay for us not to talk about cause and effect? ​​Say, absolutely not.... (176 leaves of the original work.)

Looking back at this old work now, I find it a bit ridiculous.Since it is said that "it is impossible and harmful to control history with the law of cause and effect", why do you say "it is absolutely impossible not to talk about causality"?The root of my illness at that time was because I believed that the law of causality was an indispensable attribute of science, and I dared not touch it, so I had this contradictory and incomplete view.At that time, in order to reconcile this view, I also cited three points of difference between the law of historical causality and the law of natural science (pages 177 to 179 of the original work).In fact, according to those three points, whether it can still be called the law of causality has become doubtful.I am now going to revise my previous statement and post what I have seen so far:

What is cause and effect? "If there is A, there must be B, and there must be A before there can be B, so A is ordered to be the cause of B, and B is ordered to be the fruit of A."Therefore, the law of causality is also called the "law of necessity". (There is also a so-called "law of probability" in science, but "necessity" is slightly weaker, and the essence is still the same.) "Necessity" and "freedom" are two extremes. If there is necessity, there is no freedom, and if there is freedom, there is no necessity.While we admit that history is the creation of human free will, of course we cannot also admit that it is governed by the inevitable law of cause and effect.

It is easier to prove by checking the facts again.2,500 years ago, among us human beings, there was one of the greatest figures named Buddha.Why was there a Buddha at that time?Try to take this question to test all historians, and restrict him to say the "inevitable" reason, I am afraid that no matter who you are, you will have to hand in a blank paper!That's all, the Buddha was originally a prince, and he could enjoy all the material happiness, so he could not become a monk. Why did he want to become a monk?After becoming a monk and becoming a Taoist, he could have "parinirvana" immediately and enjoy his spiritual happiness. Why didn't he want to be like that, but insisted on teaching the Dharma for forty-nine years?It should be noted that if the Buddha did not become a monk, or refused to teach the Dharma after becoming enlightened, then there would be no Buddhism in the world, and this great legacy would be missing in our cultural history.Let me ask: Is there any inevitable law of cause and effect governing the Buddha, making him must become a monk and preach the Dharma?Not at all, just naked and free creation according to the will of the Buddha himself!It should be noted that this is not only the case with Buddha and Buddhism, but also with every cultural phenomenon in the world, large or small.Trying to apply the law of causality in natural science to find out the "inevitable cause" is useless.

The same is true for "fruit".Caesar's northern conquest of Arria (the area of ​​today's France) was originally a conspiracy against the internal labeling faction, but it turned out to be the beginning of Rome's great cause of unifying Europe.Ming Chengzu sent Zheng He into the sea. However, his main purpose was to visit Jianwen, and at most he was moved by the idea of ​​great joy, but the result would be the cause of the Fujian and Guangdong colonization of Nanyang.This is the case in history, no matter how big or small, there has never been one thing that can be calculated in advance as the "inevitable result".why?Because human free will is the most elusive, he is creating from this direction, maybe he will move to create in that direction after a while; and one creation often causes (or does not cause) the second, third... creation.You want to use the stubbornness of adding and subtracting elements in a glass tube to measure the inevitable results of history, isn't it just a dream!

Therefore, historical phenomena can only be described as "reciprocity" at best, not causation.How to solve mutual relationship?It is said to be related to each other.There is a metaphor often said in Buddhist scriptures, "Treat each other like reeds", this thing and that thing have a continuous relationship, you rely on me, and I rely on you to establish.In this state of relationship, waves before and after, connecting with turmoil, form a vast and deep sea of ​​cultural history.As historians, we only need to see the "moving phase" and "uncommon phase" of history from this aspect.It would be terrible if we used the law of causality of "quietness" and "community" to drill square eyes.

But in the whole history, can there be no law of causality at all?Yes or no.As I said before, the total amount of culture includes two major parts: cultural species and cultural fruit.The cultural species is the creative energy, which is purely the field of free will, and of course it is not bound by the law of causality at all; the cultural fruit is the crystallization of creativity, in other words, it is the "mental energy" of the past, which has now become "environmentalization".After becoming environmentalized, it is similar to natural things and enters the field of causality.For this part of historical data, we can use the law of causality to control him.

Are Third History Phenomena Evolutionary? I have no doubts about this issue, and I have always believed that it is evolution.Now I have never been willing to abandon this idea, but I feel that the content should be redefined. Mencius said: "The world has been born for a long time, and there is one order and one chaos." This sentence can be said to represent the common concept of old historians.I have always disliked hearing this sentence, (I remember that there were several articles in Xinmin Congbao 20 years ago that refuted him.) Because it is incompatible with the evolutionism I believe in.But lately I haven't dared to be very persistent.Let's take a look at it calmly. Is there a cycle of chaos and chaos in the thousands of years of Chinese history?Not only China, but also the whole world.As for Egypt, can it be said that it is more evolved than it was in the "Thirty Dynasties"?As for India, can it be said that it evolved when Biuboni Shatan was written and Sakyamuni was born?Mencius and Xunqing must be more evolved than Confucius, Dong Zhongshu and Zheng Kangcheng must be more evolved than Meng and Xun, Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan must be more evolved than Dong and Zheng, Gu Yanwu and Dai Zhen must be more evolved than Zhu and Lu.Tao Qian is more evolved than Qu Yuan, Du Fu is more evolved than Tao Qian; Dante is more evolved than Homer, Socespeare is more evolved than Dante, Pai Lun is more evolved than Socespeare; Hegel is more evolved than Kant, Wokeng, Bergson, Russell is more evolved than Hegel; where do all these words come from?Another example is the political comparison of the Han, Tang, Song, Ming, and Qing dynasties. Is there any evolution or no evolution at all?Compared with Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon and other generations, is there any evolution or no evolution at all?Therefore, looking for evidence of evolution from this aspect, I dare say that it must be a complete failure. In terms of material civilization, from fishing and hunting to nomadic animal husbandry, from nomadic animal husbandry to farming, from farming to industry and commerce, and even modern mansions with dozens of stories high, railways tens of thousands of miles long, what radio, aviation? Airplanes, submarines...etc.All never dreamed of before.Many people are very proud, saying that we humans have evolved greatly.Although, fine press down, right?First, what are the benefits of these material civilizations for us?In my opinion, the lives of human beings who light electric lamps and ride fire boats today are not particularly comfortable compared to those who used to light oil lamps and ride sailboats.Second, we need to ask whether these material civilizations will not be lost after they are acquired.The Weiyang Palace with thousands of households in China, and the city of Xianyang, which can’t be burned out in three months, if you think about it, although it doesn’t have to be like modern New York or Paris, I’m afraid it also has its special dignity. Where is it now?Although we cannot see the prosperity of the Roman Empire, looking at the excavated architectural ruins can only scare modern people to death, where is it all going now?Needless to say, far away, where did the pre-war factions in Vienna and St. Petersburg go after only five or six years?It can be seen that things like material civilization have a very fragile foundation, and they develop like flashes of lightning in an instant, and they were originally worth not a few pennies in history.So taking these as evidence of evolution, I criticized him with a sentence from the Buddhist scriptures: "It is said that it is a poor man." Du Lishu, who is now invited by the Lecture Society, gave a lecture in Hangzhou last month and also talked about this issue.He roughly said: "The civilization of all things is accumulated and non-evolved; the civilization of only the heart is the evolution of creation." He also said: "It is enough to say that there is only one 'knowledge line' that evolves." His words The cultural content is too narrowly stated, and I cannot fully agree.Although, I do think he contains some truth.Now I am not willing to revoke my evolutionary claim over the years, but I want to refer to Du Shi's theory and revise the scope of evolution.I thought that the historical phenomenon can be confirmed as two evolutionaries: 1. The concept of human equality and the unity of human beings is indeed becoming more and more real day by day, and in fact it is also moving upwards. 2. The "cultural karma" developed by the human mind in various parts of the world will never be lost, so our accumulated heritage is indeed expanding day by day. Only from these two observations, we say that history is evolution, and the rest has to be compiled in the cycle of "one rule and one chaos".But as long as these two points are tenable, then the theory of historical evolution is also true. The above three things are originally the same thing, and they can be solved with one key.To sum up, history is created by human activities, and there are two types of human activities: one belongs to the natural department, and the other belongs to the cultural department.Assigned to these three questions, the table is as follows: (Activities of the Department of Natural Sciences) (Activities of the Department of Culture) The first question is the result of inductive research. The inductive method cannot be studied. The second question is governed by the law of causality and not governed by the law of causality. The third question is the nature of non-evolution and the nature of evolution