Condensed translation by Sherwin Lu (Includ. quotes from classics except otherwise noted)
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an eighth excerpt translated from the author’s book in Chinese 《中国拯救世界—应对人类危机的中国文化》 (China Saves the World – Chinese culture being the solution to current human crises, Chap 8, Section 2). We do not doubt that every major culture in the world which has survived thousands of years must have its own merits. When we try to tell people what is good about traditional Chinese thought, we do not mean to deny what is good in Western tradition and its achievements. What has prompted us to lay emphasis on the former is the urgent need to break through the verbal hegemony imposed on the world’s peoples by Western colonialist-imperialist forces in the past two hundred years in the service of the political-economic interests of the 1% international monopoly capitalists, the urgent need to resolve the current crises threatening the survival of the human species.
THE TEXT
In a 1953 letter to J. E. Switzer, Einstein accredited Western achievements in science to ancient Greek formal logic as embodied in Euclidean geology and to the experimental method adopted by European scientists during the Renaissance, which both were said to be absent in traditional Chinese learning. (《爱因斯坦文集》第1卷，商务印书馆，1976年，第574页。)
We should not expect Einstein to have a profound understanding of Chinese achievements in science and technology before the 13th century, just as we cannot expect present-day Chinese scholars to understand the classical thought of their ancestors. However, Einstein made a real discovery here, i.e., that there has been a major difference between the Eastern and Western ways of thinking. To the Chinese, formal logic is not only unnecessary for correct thinking, but, what is even more problematic, it may lead to dangerous pitfalls in the thinking process, or, in Han Fei (韩非)’s words, to “absurd and tactless” arguments (“离理失术”).
Why this difference? It is because the Chinese attach importance to an understanding of the nature of things as dynamically balanced wholes, an understanding from a “subjective-objective as a whole” perspective, which implies that the world system is self-generated; while Western thought based its system of formal logic on the binary opposition between the subjective and the objective, which means that their world system is other-generated, such as, most typically, believed to be created by God, or, with Newton, to have God as the First Cause.
There is also a dyad concept in Chinese philosophy, i.e., that of Yin-Yang, which, however, is different from that of “A vs. not A” in formal logic. Yin and Yang are not diametrically opposed to each other but mutually transformable, reinforcing and restraining each other at the same time, and ultimately integrated in the Dao, as the saying goes that “The alternate rise and fall of Yin and Yang is called the Dao” (一阴一阳之谓道, from the Book of Changes). In contrast, the laws of identity, of noncontradiction, and of excluded middle in formal logic demand that, within a same thought process, A is never anything else but “A” and is never “not A”. According to ancient Chinese thinkers, stressing an absolute divide between “A” and “Not A” would result in “a dilemma involving two extremes as the only alternatives” (“两末之议”), thus never getting close to but deviating from truth.
When discussing how average rulers governed people by “uphold[ing] the law and mak[ing] use of their august position (抱法处势)”, Han Fei repudiated the Confucianist idea of “rule by the worthy” as he said:
“…if you let anyone eat nothing for one hundred days while waiting for good rice and meat to come, the starveling will not live. Now, to depend upon the worthiness of Yao and Shun (尧,舜,Sage kings of remote antiquity in Chinese legend – Lu) for governing the people of the present world is as fallacious as to wait for good rice and meat to save the starveling’s life.
"Indeed, I do not consider it right to say that a swift horse and a solid carriage, when driven by bondmen and bondwomen, will be ridiculed by people, but, when driven by Wang Liang, will make a thousand li a day. For illustration, if you wait for a good swimmer from Yüeh to rescue a drowning man in a Central State (Places hundreds of miles apart. -- Note by original translator),however well the Yüeh swimmer may do, the drowning person will not be rescued. In the same way, waiting for the Wang Liang of old to drive the horse of to-day is as fallacious as waiting for the man from Yüeh to rescue that drowning person. The impracticability is evident enough. But, if teams of swift horses and solid carriages are placed in readiness in relays fifty li apart and then you make an average coachman drive them, he will be able to drive them fast and far and cover one thousand li a day. Why should it then be necessary to wait for the Wang Liang of old?
"Further, in matters of driving, the critic chose Wang Liang for a case of success and took bondmen and bondwomen for a case of failure; in matters of government, he selected Yao and Shun for attaining order and Chieh and Chow (桀,纣,two corrupted kings in Chinese history -- Lu) for creating chaos. To run from one extreme to another is as fallacious as to consider taste as sweet as wheat-gluten and honey or else as bitter as parti-colored lettuce and bitter parsley.
"In short, the criticism, composed of flippant contentions and wordy repetitions, is absurd and tactless. It is a dilemma involving two extremes as the only alternatives. If so, how can it be used to criticize a reasonable and consistent doctrine? The argument of the critic, however, is not as sound as the doctrine under consideration." (The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzi, Chap 40: A Critique of the Doctrine of Position, 《韩非子·难势第四十》, Trans.W. K. Liao.)
The author of The Huainanzi (《淮南子·修务训》), in refuting arguments against studying, also opposes citing extreme instances by saying:
“Though there might be people who want to kill their father in real life, no parents under heaven would choose to alienate themselves from their children. Why? Because most people cherish their father. Similarly, though there might be heretics among Confucian scholars, teachings of past sage kings’ are still guiding the society. Why? Because the majority are still practicing them. Now some critics censure scholars in general just because some of them have done wrong – this is as silly as stopping eating once one chokes or stopping walking once one stumbles. One can drive a good horse without whipping it but would not be able to push forward a vicious one with double whips, but it would be foolish not to use a whip when driving a horse just because of that. A sharp sword in a coward’s hand could not cut or stab an enemy while a brave and strong man can beat his rival with bare fists, but to give up sharp swords like Gan Jiang and Mo Ye (干将、莫邪, historically-known exceptionally sharp swords -- Lu) and just to rely on bare fists is absurd. Therefore, what we say should suit the majority and fit the custom. Now some people either laud others to the skies or condemn them to the bottom of hell – this is an argument taking the two extremes as the only alternatives, hardly a fair judgment.”
Either Wang Liang or bondmen, either Yao and Shun or Chieh and Chow, either sweet as honey or bitter as parsley, either to the skies or to the bottom of hell – applying such dualistic extremes to academic discourse can only lead away from common sense to pitfalls in the way of thinking. What is astonishing is that, during the vernacular movement early last century, a large number of dualistic concepts in humanities, such as theory vs. practice, materialism vs. idealism, democracy vs. autocracy, the concrete vs. the abstract, the positive vs. the negative, the absolute vs. the relative, the subjective vs. the objective, and the affirmative vs. the negative, were introduced into China with lasting impact on people’s way of thinking till today, serving as “gunboats” in the course of Western academic colonialization.
Though few people today are engaged in contentions involving extremes like “materialism” vs. “idealism” (for instance, debating whether Lao Zi was a materialist or an idealist as happened years ago), some other dualistic concepts, such as what it should be/what it is, democratic/autocratic, traditional/modern, and objectivist/relativist (referring to so-called “universal values”), are still exciting points in theoretical discourse for many intellectuals in China today – they are not aware of the ideological traps hidden behind these academic concepts.
Xiang Lanxin (相蓝欣), professor at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies of Geneva, Switzerland, points out: “The harmfulness of mass transplanting such pairs of words does not lie in their applications but rather in what is fundamental, that is, in the Chinese language, especially in the fundamental way of thinking. Qian Mu (钱穆) once stressed that the Chinese pay more attention to integration while Westerners to differentiation. In the author’s view, the latter do not stop at differentiation – they go even further by laying emphasis on confrontation and contention. This originated in the dualism typical of Christian culture, which views everything as composed of two entities mutually opposed in nature, such as good and evil.” (《传统与对外关系》，生活·读书·新知三联书店，2007年，第13页。)
By applying this mode of thinking to international relations, the U.S. would simplistically label its strategic rival nations, such as Iran and North Korea, as “axis of evil” countries, so as to seek legitimacy for possible future wars against them, no matter whether such wars would be just or not. Such a habit of mind, when integrated into the Western tradition of valuing material gains above moral justice in handling foreign relations, has led to the sinking of ethical foundation for U.S. global leadership – this is a major reason why its image in the eyes of the world’s peoples is getting worse and worse.
A prefecture chief in the Three Kingdoms Period of China related the way of thinking in terms of two extremes to factional partisan politics of special interest groups leading to social chaos. He said:
“[Such officials] in their social intercourse seek to form factional groups at home and usurp power over the state; they compete for material gains and trade favors for high fame. They spread a good name for those who have the same interests and discredit those who do not. They argue at the imperial court in terms of two extremes and talk inconsistently at home, so that father and son have different likes while brothers do not share friends, thus destroying harmony and triggering disputes.” (阮武: 《政论》)
It is not that Chinese philosophers denied the existence of opposites, but that they paid more attention to the mutual transformation between Yin and Yang. There is a fable story in Han Fei Zi, Chap 40, showing the inconsistency of arguments based on a dualistic way of thinking:
“Once there was a man selling halberds and shields. He praised his shields for their solidity as such that nothing could penetrate them. All at once he also praised his halberds, saying, `My halberds are so sharp that they can penetrate anything.’ In response to his words people asked, `How about using your halberds to pierce through your shields?’ To this the man could not give any reply.” (《韩非子·难势第四十》, Trans.W. K. Liao.) |
