requestId:68499abd2fb660.96756725.
About the era meaning of “doing Chinese philosophy”
Author:Zeng Haijun (Sichuan Philosophy Department)
Source: Author Authorized by Confucian Network Published
Original from “Guangxi Major””, 2018 No. 5
Time: Confucius was the 2569th year of the 11th month of Wuxu Dingchou
Jesus December 11, 2018
Content summary:A philosophical work may not be “the most philosophical” or “the most Chinese”, but “the most Chinese philosophy”. This meaning must be contemporary. This philosophical work takes “being philosophy” as its creative initiative, and it can not only be clearly distinguished from previous philosophical activities, but even makes it more like being done by philosophy. This era of meaning is shown in one step.
Keywords: “Be Chinese Philosophy”; “Philosophy”; “China”
Mr. Chen Shaoming said in his opinion, “It emphasizes the focus, one is to distinguish it from the historical philosophical theory that only describes and does not write, and the other is to seek to ‘do’ its Chinese characteristics.”[①] The focus of these two aspects is related to his two major discoveries. I personally think that Mr. Chen has two major discoveries during the philosophical research process. One is that the writing of Chinese philosophical history precedes the creation of Chinese philosophical science; the other is that philosophical creation has two forms, one is the metaphysical system of conceptual construction, and the other is the analysis of concepts in the classical world. The latter philosophical form is presented by the ideological initiative of “doing Chinese philosophy”. It is neither separate from “Chinese nature” and seeks to create a form. It can be said that these two aspects have been fully demonstrated by Mr. Chen’s research and development over the years, and the meaning of promoting the development of Chinese philosophy is obviously easy to see. This article takes steps to reveal this meaning in these two aspects and try to draw the height of the times.
Previous article : “Philosophy” and “China”
Mr. Chen emphasized the “Chinese characteristics” in “being Chinese philosophy”. According to my understanding, it should be the “Chinese nature” problem of “philosophy”, and its appearance is the celestial relationship between “Philosophy” and “China” over the past century. “Philosophy” has a foreign word, since it entered China at the end of the 19th century, and has quickly gained publicity and quickly formed a tight spot with “China”. From a certain meaning, when “China” and “Philosophy” suffered, they quickly became strongerTo become the project of “Chinese Philosophy”, this is just a reflection of the humiliating and arrogant China’s unsupported and unsupported process of modernity. The tightness between the two has always been concealed in the fight against the “Chinese Philosophy”. From a theoretical perspective, the arguments of “philosophy” and “China” mainly depend on the difference between “Chinese philosophy” and “Chinese basic philosophy”. Later, although there was a century-long dispute, including discussions on issues such as the lack of philosophy in modern China, whether Chinese philosophy can be sufficient, or perhaps Chinese philosophy comply with the law, it seems to be unsatisfactory to resolve the tension between “philosophy” and “China”, and it cannot be discussed between the two. In this way, the hundreds of years of experience seem to show that there is a relationship between “philosophy” and “China”. The strengthening of “China” means often leads to a decline in the “philosophy” dimension, and increasing the “philosophy” dimension is difficult to avoid reducing the “China” meaning of “China”. It is still not difficult to see a large number of works in the Chinese philosophical world at present to prove this embarrassing situation. Some works are full of the darkness of Delhi or Heidegger’s depth, and only a few classical Chinese concepts can be found. How can they ensure their “Chinese nature”? Some works are full of Chinese classical atmosphere, which cannot make people doubt the philosophical dimension behind it. It can be seen that since the “Chinese Philosophy” program was turned violently, it was destined to live through a long running-in period, and even a century still often makes people feel uncomfortable.
Behind the “Philosophy”‘s advance into China is the imperialist ship’s artillery and the strong aura of Western science. During the period of “national salvation and survival”, it was basically impossible to understand the value meaning of “Philosophy” as the essence of Eastern civilization, and this recognition is still being developed. “China” means a Chen civilization that has been extended for more than two thousand years and has been continuously employed by Confucianism as the backbone. Behind it is the corruption of the Qing court, the confusion of the people in the country, and the republic’s exotic colors – bright, beautiful and charming. The program was broadcast, which made her tragedy and delusion from the tragedy. The Western Philosophy, which corresponds to “Philosophy”, has formed a system even though it has fallen and risen and fallen for more than two thousand years before it suffered from “China”. Even in the hundreds of years after suffering from “China”, people can still not recognize any “China” elements in Philosophy without compromising its completeness. On the contrary, before “China” suffered from “philosophy”, the tradition of the saints was extended for more than two thousand years, and Chen’s civilization was inclusive and indifferent. A hundred years ago, the sufferings of “philosophy” were actually luck and misfortune, and there was no end to the words, but if “China” tomorrow lacks “philosophy”, it is difficult to imagine how to sort it out. Under the pride of anti-tradition, it is obviously a convenient law to achieve the “modernization” of traditional thinking based on the project of “Chinese Philosophy”. At the same time, there areThe best efforts to protect tradition, but also need to be carried out through the words “philosophy”, otherwise it will only be considered as being slapped in tradition. In the nearly 100 years since then, whether it was Hu’s or materialism, their writing on Chinese philosophy was just to clean up the “China” information based on the framework of “philosophy”. The two were not only highly different on the standpoint of overcoming tradition, and the tricks used were not the same. The new reality of the Youth League is to discuss tricks, or perhaps to have a certain attitude of acquaintance with the tradition, but its performance of the “China” concept does not go beyond the framework of “philosophical learning”, and the result is that “acting” cannot be “dismembered”. These practices are all about “philosophy” and sacrifice “China” to the point of “philosophy”, which can only form a strong confrontation between “philosophy” and “China”.
Compared with this, it seems that the Chinese philosophical writing of modern neo-Confucianism is much more “authentic”. On the one hand, this is because they come from a traditional standpoint that makes them have a more sympathetic investment in traditional civilization; on the other hand, they have been in Hong Kong or in the sea for a long time, making their academic environment much purer. Therefore, their Chinese philosophical writings appear more comprehensive and more original, which is why new Confucianism in the country feeds back to the mainland. However, even if you have this kind of advantage, it does not seem that modern neo-Confucianism naturally gains the “authentic” of Chinese philosophy. In fact, the influence of the achievements of several generations of neo-Confucian scholars is still not difficult to feel the separation between “philosophy” and “China”. Especially the Neo-Confucianism represented by the three masters of the three masters of Mou Zong, who are not denying that they are extremely original, will not make people wonder why they should enter the Tao that they have been praised so deeply. A direct view is how can we get into their writing texts if we have not received professional training in Oriental Philosophy. The distance between this and the traditional contemplative text is unknown. The reason is that they dismember the framework of “philosophy” and cannot integrate according to the system of “philosophy”, and still have a very different metaphysical system from the Chinese classical atmosphere. Many modern Eastern philosophy students who strive to overturn the traditional metaphysical system are becoming increasingly close to the classical Chinese atmosphere. Especially Heidegger, who has the leading “philosophy” actively