The status of philosophy in Chinese culture has always been comparable to that of religion in other cultures.In China, philosophy is associated with intellectuals.In the old days, as long as a person was educated, he was enlightened by philosophy.When children enter school, they are first taught to read the "Four Books", namely, Mencius, Great Learning, and The Doctrine of the Mean. The "Four Books" are the most important textbooks of Neo-Confucian philosophy.Sometimes, when children are just beginning to learn how to read, they read a textbook called "Sanyu Jing", in which there are three words in each sentence, and even sentences rhyme, which is easy to remember when recited.This book is actually a literacy textbook, and that’s it, the first two sentences are also "In the beginning of human beings, nature is good".This is one of the basic concepts of Mencius' philosophy.

When Westerners see Confucianism permeating Chinese people's lives, they think Confucianism is a religion.But to be honest, Confucianism is no more religious than the teachings of Plato or Aristotle. It is true that the "Four Books" used to be the "Bible" of the Chinese, but there is no Genesis in the "Four Books", nor does it talk about heaven or hell. Of course, philosophy and religion are polysemous terms.For different people, philosophy and religion may have completely different meanings.When people speak of philosophy or religion, they may have very different ideas in mind in connection with them.As for me, what I mean by philosophy is the thought of systematic reflection on life.Everyone, as long as he is not dead, he is in life.But there are not many people who have reflective thoughts on life, and even fewer people have systematic reflective thoughts.A philosopher must philosophize; that is to say, he must think reflectively about life and then express his thoughts systematically.

This kind of thinking is called reflective because it takes life as its object.The theory of life, the theory of the universe, and the theory of knowledge all arise from this type of thought.Cosmology arises because the universe is the background of life and the stage on which the drama of life is performed.Epistemology arises because thought itself is knowledge.According to some Western philosophers, in order to think, we must first understand what we can think; that is to say, we must first "think our thoughts" before we start thinking about life. All these "theories" are products of reflective thinking.Even the concept of life itself, the concept of the universe itself, and the concept of knowledge itself are products of reflective thought.Whether we think about life or talk about it, we are all in it.And no matter whether we think about the universe or talk about it, we are all part of the universe.But when philosophers talk about the universe, physicists also talk about the universe, and what they mean is different.The universe that philosophers say is the totality of all existence, which is equivalent to the "big one" mentioned by the ancient Chinese philosopher Hui Shi, whose definition is "there is nothing beyond".So everyone and everything should be seen as part of the universe.When one thinks about the universe, one is thinking reflectively.

When we think about knowledge or talk about knowledge, this thinking and talking itself is knowledge.In Aristotle's words, it is "thinking thinking"; thinking thinking thinking is reflecting thinking.Here is the vicious circle in which the philosopher insists that before we think we must first think our thoughts; as if we had another faculty with which to think our thoughts!In fact, the capacity we use to think, the capacity we use to think, is the same capacity.If we doubt our ability to think about life, the universe, we have the same reason to doubt our ability to think about our minds.

Religion is also related to life.At the heart of every great religion is a philosophy.In fact, every great religion is a philosophy plus a certain superstructure, including superstitions, dogmas, rituals, and organizations.This is what I call religion. Defining the meaning of the word religion in this way is actually no different from ordinary usage. If we understand it according to this meaning, we can see that Confucianism cannot be regarded as a religion.People are used to saying that China has three religions: Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism.We have seen that Confucianism is not a religion.As for Taoism, it is a school of philosophy; while Taoism is a religion, there is a difference between the two.The teachings of Taoism and Taoism are not only different, but even opposite.Taoism teaches people to follow nature, while Taoism teaches people to go against nature.For example, according to Laozi and Zhuangzi, birth and death are natural processes, and people should calmly follow this natural process.However, the main teachings of Taoism are the principles and methods of how to avoid death, which are obviously contrary to nature.Taoism has the scientific spirit of conquering nature.Those who are interested in the history of Chinese science can find a lot of information in the works of Taoists.

There is also a difference between Buddhism as a philosophy and Buddhism as a religion.Educated Chinese are much more interested in Buddhism than Buddhism.It is very common for monks and Taoist priests to participate in funerals in China.Even if the Chinese believe in religion, it also has a philosophical meaning. Many Westerners now know that the Chinese have always been the least concerned about religion compared to other peoples.For example, Professor Derk Bodde wrote an article, "Dominant Ideas in the Formation of Chinese Culture"①, which said: "Chinese people do not regard religious concepts and religious activities as the most important and fascinating part of their lives. ... The spiritual basis of Chinese culture is ethics (especially Confucian ethics) rather than religion (at least not a formal, organized type of religion). ... All this naturally marks the majority of Chinese culture and other major cultures, There is a fundamental and important difference, the latter is dominated by monasteries and monks."

①Dominant ideas in the Formation of Chinese Culture, published in "Journal of the American Oriental Society", Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 293-294.Income HFMacNair edited "China", 18-28 pages, University of California Press, 1946 edition. In a certain sense, this statement is entirely correct.But one may ask: why is this so?If the pursuit of transcendence is not one of the innate desires of human beings, why do most peoples take religious concepts and activities as the most important and fascinating part of their lives?If this pursuit is one of the basic human desires, why are the Chinese an exception?If we say that the spiritual foundation of Chinese culture is ethics, not religion, does this mean that Chinese people have no awareness of values ​​that are higher than moral values?

Values ​​that are higher than moral values ​​may be called "super-moral" values.To love others is a moral value; to love God is a super-moral value.One would be tempted to call super-moral values ​​religious values.But in my opinion, this value is not limited to religion, unless the meaning of religion here is different from what was said above.For example, loving God is a religious value in Christianity, but it is not a religious value in Spinoza's philosophy, because what Spinoza said about God is actually the universe.Strictly speaking, the love of God in Christianity is not actually super-moral.This is because God in Christianity has a personality, so man's love for God can be compared with the son's love for the father, which is a moral value.Therefore, it is very problematic to say that the love of God in Christianity is a super-moral value.It is a quasi-metamoral value.And the love of God in Spinoza's philosophy is the real super-moral value.

To the above questions, I would like to answer that the pursuit of transcendence is one of the innate desires of human beings, and the Chinese are not an exception to this rule.They care little about religion because they care deeply about philosophy.They are not religious because they are all philosophical.In philosophy they satisfied their quest for something beyond this world.They also express and appreciate super-moral values ​​in philosophy, and live according to philosophy, and experience these super-moral values. According to the tradition of Chinese philosophy, its function is not to increase positive knowledge (positive knowledge. I mean information about reality), but to improve the state of the mind—to reach a state beyond the world, to obtain values ​​higher than moral values. value. "Lao Tzu" said: "To learn more, to do Dao to lose." (Chapter 48) Regardless of the difference in profit and loss, I don't fully agree with the statement of "Lao Tzu".Quoting it now is just to show that in the Chinese philosophical tradition there is a distinction between doing learning and doing Dao.The purpose of learning is what I call increasing positive knowledge, and the purpose of being Tao is what I call improving the realm of the mind.Philosophy belongs to the category of Dao.

The function of philosophy, especially the function of metaphysics, is not to increase positive knowledge. The Vienna School of contemporary Western philosophy has also made use of this view, but from different angles and for different purposes.I disagree with what this school says: that the function of philosophy is only to clarify ideas; the nature of metaphysics is only the poetry of concepts.Not only that, but it is also clear from their debates that philosophy, especially metaphysics, can become nonsense if it tries to give practical information. Religion gives practical information.But the information given by religion does not reconcile with the information given by science.So in the West, religion and science have always been in conflict.When science advances one step forward, religion takes a step back; in the face of scientific progress, the authority of religion decreases.Traditionists lament it, and lament those who have become irreligious, thinking they have fallen.They should indeed be pitied if there is no other means of attaining higher values ​​than religion.Those who have given up religion have lost their higher value if they have no substitute for it.They are obliged to confine themselves to earthly affairs, and to insulate themselves from spiritual affairs.But fortunately, besides religion, there is also philosophy, which provides human beings with a path to higher values-a path that is more direct than religion provides, because in philosophy, in order to become acquainted with higher values, there is no need to resort to prayer and worship. Class detours.The higher values ​​acquainted through philosophy are even purer than those acquired through religion, for the latter are mixed with imagination and superstition.In the future world, mankind will replace religion with philosophy.This is in line with Chinese tradition.Man should not necessarily be religious, but he must be philosophical.Once he is philosophical, he also has the blessing of being religious.

This concludes a general discussion of the nature and function of philosophy.The following is devoted to Chinese philosophy.There is a mainstream in the history of Chinese philosophy, which can be called the spirit of Chinese philosophy.In order to understand this spirit, it is necessary to first understand the problems that most Chinese philosophers are trying to solve. There are all kinds of people.For every kind of man there is the highest attainment possible for that kind of man.For example, the highest possible achievement of a person engaged in practical politics is to become a great statesman.The highest possible achievement for a person engaged in art is to become a great artist.There are various kinds of people, but all kinds of people are people.What is the highest possible achievement in terms of being a human being?According to Chinese philosophers, that is to become a sage, and the highest achievement of a sage is the identity of the individual with the universe.The question is, if a person wants to obtain this identity, must he leave society, or even deny "life"? According to some philosophers, this is necessary.Buddhists say that life is the source of suffering in life.Plato also said that the body is the prison of the soul.Some Taoists "use life as an appendage to hang warts, and death as a cure for ulcers." This is because they think that in order to achieve the highest achievement, one must break away from the world, society, and even "life".Only in this way can we get final relief.This kind of philosophy is what is commonly called "another-worldly philosophy." There is another philosophy that focuses on human relations and world affairs in society.This philosophy only talks about moral values, and does not talk or is unwilling to talk about super-moral values.This kind of philosophy is commonly called "philosophy of engaging in the world".From the point of view of a worldly philosophy, a worldly philosophy is too idealistic, impractical, and negative.From the point of view of other-worldly philosophy, this-worldly philosophy is too realistic, too superficial.It may be positive, but it is like the fast running of a person who has gone the wrong way: the faster he runs, the more wrong he is. Many people say that Chinese philosophy is a philosophy of joining the world.It is difficult to say whether these people are completely right or completely wrong.Looking at Chinese philosophy on the surface, it cannot be said that these people are wrong, because looking at Chinese philosophy on the surface, no matter which school of thought, it is directly or indirectly about politics and morality.On the surface, what Chinese philosophy pays attention to is society, not the universe; it is the daily use of human relationships, not hell and heaven; it is people's present life, not their afterlife.A student of Confucius asked the meaning of death, and Confucius replied: "If you don't know life, how can you know death?" "("Mencius Li Loushang") Literally speaking, this sentence means that a sage is a person with complete morality in society. On the surface, the ideal personality of Chinese philosophy is also in the world. The so-called sage in Chinese philosophy, The so-called Buddha in Buddhism and the so-called sage in Christianity are not in the same category. On the surface, the so-called sage in Confucianism seems to be especially true. In ancient times, Confucius and Confucian people were ridiculed by Taoists. That's why. But this is only superficial. Chinese philosophy cannot be understood so simply.As far as the main tradition in Chinese philosophy is concerned, if we understand it, we cannot say that it is part of the world, and certainly we cannot say that it is out of the world.It is both in-world and out-of-the-world.A philosopher spoke of the Neo-Confucianism of the Song Dynasty and described him in this way;With this spirit, it is at its most idealistic and at the same time at its most realistic; it is practical, but not superficial. Joining the world and being out of the world are opposites, just as realism and idealism are also opposites.The task of Chinese philosophy is to unify these antitheses into a composite proposition.This is not to say that these counter-propositions are all eliminated.They are still there, but have been united into a propositional whole.How to unify?This is the problem that Chinese philosophy seeks to solve.It is the spirit of Chinese philosophy to seek to solve this problem. Chinese philosophy believes that a person who completes this unity not only in theory but also in action is a sage.He is both worldly and worldly.The spiritual achievement of Chinese saints is equivalent to that of Buddha in Buddhism and saints in Western religions.But Chinese sages are not people who do not care about world affairs.His personality is the personality of the so-called "sage inside and king outside".Inner sage refers to the achievement of self-cultivation; outer king refers to its function in society.A saint does not necessarily have the opportunity to be a leader in actual politics.As far as practical politics is concerned, he probably has no chance.The so-called "inner sage and outer king" just means that a person with the highest spiritual achievement can be a king logically, and is most suitable to be a king.As for whether he actually has a chance to be king or not, that is another matter, and it is irrelevant. According to the Chinese tradition, the personality of a sage is that of a sage inside and a king outside, so the task of philosophy is to make people have this personality.So what philosophy talks about is what Chinese philosophers call the way of inner sage and outer king. This statement is very similar to Plato's "philosopher-king".According to what Latour said, in the Utopia, the philosopher should be the king, or the king should be a philosopher; in order to become a philosopher, a person must undergo long-term philosophical training, so that his mind can "turn" from the changing world of things. "Into the eternal world of reason.What Plato said, and what Chinese philosophers said, is that the task of philosophy is to make people have the personality of a sage inside and a king outside.But according to Plato, once a philosopher becomes king, it is against his will, in other words, it is forced, and he has made a great sacrifice for it.The ancient Taoists also said the same.It is said that there was a sage who was asked to be king by a certain country. He fled to a cave and hid himself.A certain countryman found this hole, smoked him out, and forced him to do this drudgery (see "Lu Shi Chunqiu Guisheng").This is a similarity between Plato and the ancient Taoists, and it also shows the transcendent character of Taoist philosophy.By the third century AD, the Neo-Taoist Guo Xiang, following the main traditions of Chinese philosophy, had corrected this. Confucianism believes that dealing with daily human relations and world affairs is not a special matter for saints.Deal with world affairs.It is the essence of the full development of his personality.He carries out this task not only as a citizen of society but also as a "citizen of the universe," what Mencius called "the citizen of heaven."He must feel that he is a citizen of the universe, otherwise his actions would have no super-moral value.If he really has the chance to be king.He will also be happy to serve the people, fulfilling his duties both as a citizen of society and as a citizen of the universe. Since philosophy talks about the way of inner sage and outer king, philosophy must be inseparable from political thought.Although Chinese philosophies are different, all philosophies have put forward their political thoughts at the same time.This is not to say that there is no metaphysics, no ethics, no logic in various philosophies.It simply means that all these philosophies are connected in one way or another to political thought, just as Plato's represents both his philosophy as a whole and his political thought at the same time. Mingjiao, for example, is known for indulging in the "white horse is not a horse" debate and seems to have little to do with politics.However, Gongsun Long, the leader of the famous school, "wanted to argue that he would transform the world by rectifying the name and reality" ("Gongsun Longzi·Jifu").We often see that every politician in the world today talks about how his country wants peace, but in fact, when he talks about peace, he is often preparing for war.Here, there is also the problem of improper relationship between name and reality.Gongsun Long believed that this improper relationship must be corrected.This is indeed the first step in "transforming the world". Since the theme of philosophy is the way of inner sage and outer king, studying philosophy is not only to acquire this kind of knowledge, but also to develop this kind of personality.Philosophy is not merely to know it, but to experience it.It's not just a mind game, it's something much more serious than that.As my colleague Professor Jin Yuelin pointed out in an unpublished manuscript: "Chinese philosophers are all Socrates to varying degrees. This is so because morality, politics, reflective thought, and knowledge are all unified in one philosopher. knowledge and virtue are inseparable in him. His philosophy requires him to live in it; It is self-cultivation, to continuously and consistently maintain the pure experience of selflessness, so that he can be one with the universe. Obviously, this cultivation process cannot be interrupted, because any interruption means self-recovery and loss of his universe. Therefore, in understanding In fact he is always groping, in practice he is always acting, or trying to act. These cannot be separated, so there is in him the philosopher's synthetic proposition, which is the original meaning of the word synthetic proposition. He is like Socrates After all, his philosophy is not for officialdom. He is not a dusty old philosopher, shut in a study, sitting in an armchair, out of life. For him, philosophy has never been just a decoration for human cognition mode of thought, but a system of precepts immanent in his actions; in extreme cases, his philosophy is almost his biography." Beginning Western students of Chinese philosophy often encounter two difficulties.One, of course, is the language barrier; the other is the particular way Chinese philosophers express their ideas.Let me talk about the latter difficulty first. When people start reading Chinese philosophical works, the first impression may be that these speeches and articles are very brief and disconnected.Open it, and you will see that there are only a few words in each chapter, and there is almost no connection between the next chapter and the next chapter.Open "Lao Tzu", you will see that the whole book is only about 5000 words, not longer than an article in a magazine; but you can see the whole of Lao Tzu's philosophy in it.Students accustomed to sophisticated reasoning and detailed argumentation are at a loss to understand what these Chinese philosophies are saying.He would tend to think that these ideas themselves have no internal connection.If this is the case, what Chinese philosophy is there.For unconnected thought does not deserve the name philosophy. It can be said that the speeches and articles of Chinese philosophers have no superficial connection, because these speeches and articles are not official philosophical works.According to the Chinese tradition, studying philosophy is not a profession.Everyone has to study philosophy, just as Westerners have to go to church.The purpose of studying philosophy is to enable human beings to become human beings, not to become a certain kind of human being.Other studies (not philosophy) enable a person to become a certain kind of person, that is, a person with a certain profession.So there were no professional philosophers in the past; non-professional philosophers did not need to have formal philosophical works.In China, there are far more philosophers without formal philosophical works than there are philosophers with formal philosophical works.If you want to study the philosophy of these people, you can only read their quotations or letters to students and friends.These letters were written in various periods of his life, and the quotations were not recorded by just one person.So they are not related, and even contradict each other, which is to be expected. The above can explain why some philosophers' speeches and articles are not connected: they cannot explain why they are short.Some philosophical works, like those of Mencius and Xunzi, still have systematic reasoning and demonstration.But compared with Western philosophical works, they are still not clear enough.This is because Chinese philosophers are accustomed to expressing their thoughts in the form of famous sayings and metaphors. The whole book of "Laozi" is full of famous sayings, and most of the chapters are full of metaphors and examples.This is obvious.However, even in the works of Mencius and Xunzi mentioned above, compared with Western philosophical works, there are still too many famous sayings and metaphors.Famous sayings must be short; metaphors and examples must be disconnected. Therefore, the famous sayings and metaphors are not clear enough.What they lack in explicitness and over suggestive, the former gets compensation from the latter.Of course, clarity and implication are incompatible.The more explicit an expression is, the less it implies; just as the more prose an expression is, the less poetic it is.Just because the speeches and articles of Chinese philosophers are not very clear, what they imply are almost infinite. To be suggestive, rather than explicit, is the ideal of all Chinese art, poetry, painting, and everything else.Taking poetry as an example, what the poet wants to convey is often not what is directly said in the poem, but what is not said in the poem.According to the Chinese tradition, a good poem is "full of words but infinite in meaning." Therefore, intelligent readers can read the meaning between the lines of the poem and the meaning "between the lines" of the book.Such ideals in Chinese art are also reflected in the way Chinese philosophers express their thoughts. The ideal of Chinese art is not without its philosophical background.The "Waiwu" article said: "The trapper is in the fish, and the fish forgets the trap. The hoof is in the rabbit, and the rabbit forgets the hoof. The speaker cares, and forgets the words when he is proud. I am a husband and forget the words. Talk to people!" Talking to people who have forgotten their words is unspoken words.It is mentioned in the book that the two sages met without speaking, because "the Tao survives after witnessing" ("Tian Zifang").According to Taoism, Dao cannot be Dao, it can only be implied.Speech reveals the Dao through the suggestion of the words, not the fixed extension and connotation of the words.Once a word has achieved its purpose, it should be forgotten.Since there is no need anymore, why bother with words?The same is true for the words and rhymes of poems, as well as the lines and colors of paintings. In the third and fourth centuries AD, the most influential philosophy in China was "New Taoism", known as Metaphysics in history.At that time, there was a book titled, which recorded the anecdotes and anecdotes of celebrities since the Han and Jin Dynasties.Most of the words spoken are very short, and some have only a few words.In the "Literature" chapter of this book, a senior official asked a philosopher (the senior official himself was also a philosopher) about the similarities and differences between Lao, Zhuang and Confucius.The philosopher replied: "There will be no difference?" Meaning: Isn't it the same?The senior official liked this answer very much, and immediately appointed the philosopher as his secretary. At that time, he was called "掾".He cannot say that Lao and Zhuang are not the same as Confucius, nor can he say that they are all the same.So he answered the question with a question, which is indeed a wonderful answer. , The short remarks in "Lao Tzu" are not simply some conclusions, and the premises for drawing these conclusions are all lost.They are all suggestive sayings.Hints are intriguing.You can collect all the ideas you found in Laozi and write a new book with 50,000 words or even 500,000 words.No matter how well written it is, it is only a new book.It can be read in comparison with the original book of "Lao Zi", and it can also be of great help to people's understanding of the original book, but it can never replace the original book. I have already mentioned Guo Xiang, who is one of the great commentators in China.His notes are themselves classics of Taoist literature.He turned metaphors and metaphors into inferences and arguments, and translated the language of poetry into his own prose language.His writings are much clearer than those of Chuang Tzu.However, the implication in Zhuangzi's original text and the clarity in Guo Xiang's notes, which one is better?People still ask that.Later, a Zen monk said: "I once saw Guo Xiang commenting on Zhuangzi, and those who knew it said: Zhuangzi commented on Guo Xiang" (Volume 22 of Quotations of Zen Master Dahui Pujue). If a person cannot read the original texts of philosophical works, he must fully understand and fully appreciate them.is very difficult, as is the case with all philosophical works.This is due to the language barrier.Add to this the suggestive character of Chinese philosophical writings, and the language barrier is made all the more daunting.The words and writings of Chinese philosophers are so suggestive that they are simply untranslatable.Whoever reads only the translation loses its allusion; that means losing a lot. A translation is, after all, but an interpretation.For example, when someone translates a sentence of "Lao Tzu", he is giving his own interpretation of the meaning of the sentence.But this translation can only convey one meaning, and in fact, besides the meaning conveyed by the translator, the original text may contain many other meanings.The original text is suggestive, but the translation is not and cannot be.Therefore, the translation loses a lot of the rich content inherent in the original text. "Laozi", now there are many translations.Every translator feels that someone else's translation is unsatisfactory.But no matter how good the translation is, the translated version must be poorer than the original.It is necessary to combine all translations, including those that have been translated and others that have not yet been translated, in order to reveal the rich content of Laozi and the original. Kumarajiva in the fifth century A.D. was one of the greatest translators who translated Buddhist scriptures into Chinese. He said that translation work is like feeding people with food.If a person cannot chew his own food, he has to eat the food that others have chewed.But after chewing like this, the taste and aroma of the rice must be much more boring than before.