Egocentrism in immature faiths -- A Critique of Rationalism in Modern World Ideologies (III-3)

Editor’s Note: This essay is based on the author’s original one in Chinese. It deals with the two contending ideologies of capitalism and communism from a metaphysical point of view. Western Christian advocates of capitalism usually label communism as “atheism”, which is synonymous with “evil” in their diction, while believers in the latter defend their ideology as “scientific socialism” and criticize all religions as “superstition” and “opium” serving to numb people’s mind. Confronted with the reality of today’s world plagued by wide-spread loss of faith, ideological confusion, and all sorts of crises, it is urgently necessary to examine and clarify such basic concepts as “faith”, “rationality”, and “ideology” and their relations with each other. The author hopes this essay can serve as a “brick” cast here to attract “jade”, as the Chinese saying goes, and initiate some meaningful discussion.

A Critique of Rationalism in Modern World Ideologies (III-2) ：Multi-Dimensional Balance out of Ultimate Intangibility

As said in earlier context, contract faith holders look up to God or Buddha etc. as a giver of special favors (such as successes in secular society, or a place in “paradise” or “pure land” after death), rather than a spiritual guider in this present life; and, so, this kind of faith is an immature one. Now, does this imply that a principled faith is surely a mature one? The answer is either “Yes” or “No”.

First, what is an immature principled faith? A principled faith might be immature if the belief system is anthropocentric or egocentric on lower levels, i.e., centered on either the human “mind” or the human-perceived form of “matter” as primary, or on the human species as the ruler over everything else (with the Supreme Being assuming the human form); or imposing one’s own ethnic “god” on other peoples while treating those with different beliefs as evils…. Mainstream expositions of traditional Western belief systems, either religious theologies or secular philosophies, have all been egocentric in the above senses. With the human ego, whether of a group or of the whole human species, externalized and deified, such thought systems cannot provide a sound metaphysical foundation for an ultimate faith and, therefore, can hardly be taken as truly ultimate beliefs, or at least not as mature ones.

III-3(1). Ontological discourses centered on either the human “mind” or the human-perceived form of “matter” as primary: Materialism, idealism, dialectical materialism

Philosophy is a branch of learning which explores the relationship between the phenomenal world and the metaphysical basis (noumenon) behind it. According to Eastern thought tradition, the latter, which is inaccessible to human experience, should be total “chaos”, with no differentiation between “mind” and “matter”. The mind-matter split is the result of human beings’ subjective feeling: First, the egocentric human mind mistook the seemingly tangible and human-tailored unfolding of the intangible infinite chaos via human consciousness, that is, the empirical world (or phenomenal world, or HPW) as the metaphysical noumenon, or ultimate reality; then, on this empirical level of the phenomenal physical world, it mistakenly treats the expedient self-vs.-nonself or perceiver-vs.-perceived or mind-vs.-matter distinction as absolutely valid; and lastly, it imposes the ultimately invalid mind-matter differentiation on what is mistakenly thought to be the metaphysical ultimate reality but actually only its human perceived/tailored unfolding. The egocentric human mind can never really think beyond what it perceives. Therefore, it is only natural that such an application of empirical and expedient concepts about the phenomenal physical world to what is not truly the ultimate reality of the metaphysical world cannot lead to valid conclusions about the latter.

A common misunderstanding shared by materialism, idealism and dialectical materialism is their mistaking the phenomenal physical world to be the metaphysical ultimate reality. And to the former two of the above three, this is only their first wrong step.

Its mistake lies in the failure to see the “tailoring” factor in human perception and hence failure to see the subjective human factor in the phenomenal world which humans perceive, as is evident in its allegation that the world, that is actually perceived/tailored by human “mind”, as a totally objective one, i.e., “independent of human will”. Thus, in pinpointing the human-perceived physical world of “matter” as primary, it actually confirms the human “mind” factor as primary, and in this sense materialism and idealism are tweedledum and tweedledee. Since the first step is wrong, so must be all the following ones.

Materialists label Buddhism and Daoism as “idealism”, but actually Eastern thought systems view the transcendental noumenon neither as “mind” nor as “matter” and view the phenomenal world as one non-dualistic, with mind and matter interpenetrated and undistinguishable. Hence, they are neither materialistic nor idealistic. It is because materialists cannot comprehend Eastern thoughts that they mistake the latter as idealistic.

Idealism branches off into objective idealism and subjective idealism. The former is totally wrong. It alleges that the physical world originates in some objective spirit or idea. Where does the objective spirit come from, then? And how does the invisible and intangible objective spirit become the visible and tangible phenomenal world? Obviously, the gap needs to be filled. (If one says that the objective spirit finds expression in the functioning of the phenomenal world, or that the functioning of the phenomenal world embodies a kind of objective spirit, then that means that the objective spirit and the phenomenal world are synchronous, not that the former exists before the latter and then is transformed into or gives rise to the latter. This understanding is not dualistic, i.e., without mind-matter split, in spite of the binary concepts.) As a matter of fact, the so-called “objective spirit”, or “idea”, or “God”, is a subjective (i.e., egocentric) projection of the will of an individual, or of an ethnic group, or of the human species as a whole.

Subjective idealism is half valid and half not. Half valid because it deems the phenomenal world as the product of human consciousness, not a totally independent “objective world”. (But subjective idealists have no idea about the metaphysical world of Chaos that is neither mind nor matter. If they are asked where human consciousness comes from, they might say it is the product of human brains. But human brain is a kind of matter. Hence, subjective idealism turns out to be materialistic.) It is half invalid because the phenomenal world is not only the product of human consciousness. The finite human mind is somewhat like a distorting mirror. If there does not exist objectively an infinitely broad metaphysical world of Chaos (or “infinitely potential possibilities”) that can be “mirrored”, mere human consciousness cannot “produce” out of nothing an infinitely extendable phenomenal world.

Dialectical materialism is also half valid and half not. It is valid if applied to the physical (human-perceived) world because of its recognition of the interaction and interpenetration between mind and matter on this level. But it is invalid for the same reason as for all branches of materialism, that is, mistaking the phenomenal world of “matter” which emerges through the functioning of collective human consciousness as the objective ultimate basis of all existence. This means that what is referred to as either“mind”or “matter” on the physical level is respectively already the result of interpenetration between mind and matter, i.e., already bearing marks of human species’ subjective consciousness, hence not totally objective at all. Though it is commendable to point out the interaction, interpenetration and inter-transformation between the two, it is still short of digging into the bottom of the relationship between the finite human consciousness and the infinite metaphysical world beyond human experience.

Dialectical materialists’ theory about the relation between mind and matter is the most important application of the “law of unity of opposites”, one of the core principles of their philosophy. Therefore, it is necessary to point out the fundamental difference between its law of unity of opposites and the Chinese Daoist theory of Yin-Yang balance. The former deals with relations between entities that are viewed as existing objectively, i.e., totally independent of human consciousness, while the latter, in the final analysis, reflects the balance-oriented relationship between the following two aspects in everything: each of them’s relative autonomy (Yan) on the one side and ultimate interdependence among all of them (Ying) on the other. Hence, the Chinese dual-fish Yin-Yang diagram with Yin containing Yang and Yang containing Yin can be used to graphically illustrate Yin-Yang theory but not the law of unity of opposites. That is because on the ultimate metaphysical level, materialist dialectics betrays a sense of mere “opposition” without “unity”, or “unity” in verbal expression only without real consistency in understanding.

Eastern monism holds that, while balance exists on the physical phenomenal level in a relative sense only, i.e., never perfectly, that on the ultimate metaphysical level is absolute and permanent; and that, therefore, all human activities should be aimed at ultimate balance of all existence. In contrast, Western dualistic dialectics alleges that unity is only relative while opposition/confrontation is absolute. Since binary opposition is viewed as absolute while the human-perceived phenomenal world is mistaken as the ultimate reality without awareness of the distinction between the physical and metaphysical worlds, it certainly means that opposition/confrontation is the ultimate reality of all existence. Thus it became the philosophical foundation for mainstream traditional Western confrontational way of thinking (shared by non-Marxist schools of thought and Marxism as has been practiced in the 20th century). Unfortunately, traditional Chinese thought about Yin-Yang balance has been distorted for too many years so as to be forced into the blindly worshipped Western thinking pattern of “unity of opposites” or, to stretch an old Chinese saying a bit, the shapely foot has been cut to fit the unshapely shoe.

Now back to “dialectical materialism”. On the other side, if we take the mankind (of the past, present and future altogether) as a collective entity sharing some identically-structured consciousness, the phenomenal world which has been perceived/tailored by this collective entity and will be ever expanding with the passing of time is indeed an objective world independent of each human individual’s subjective will. In spite of this, however, this world is, finally speaking, still a relative form of existence dependent on and relative to the subjective will embodied in the common structure of human consciousness, i.e., void of absolute objectivity, substantiality and ultimate knowability.

Therefore, while dialectical materialism, as a cognitive approach, i.e., a way of thinking, can provide some guidance to individuals in observing and understanding the physical phenomenal world, it still resembles general materialism in being trapped in the pitfall of anthropocentrism and failing to see the subjectivity, insubstantiality and ultimate unknowability inherent in the HPW (Human-perceived world). What humans take as the laws governing this world, whether recognized through sense perception or rational thinking, is always somewhat subjective, with insurmountable blind spots, and hence not totally reliable. Only humility, prudence, constant and general alertness against oneself, paying constant attention to two-way balance and harmony between human activities and the ecological environment, and avoiding blind and arbitrary actions can save mankind from worst catastrophes and secure general peace (though minor disasters maybe inescapable).

But in actual man-nature relations, dialectical materialists are, from their anthropocentric standpoint, only bent on reforming, conquering and taking advantage of nature, not aware of the necessity of generally adapting, submitting and returning to nature. They firmly believe that “man can surely overcome nature”. This expression is not just rhetorical exaggeration, since both what they say and what they do are geared to “overcoming nature” in a one-way direction. Furthermore, the anthropocentric mindset of believers in this philosophy is usually cloaked in the once fashionable buzzword “practice”, including that of “reforming nature”. As some other scholar pointed out, they claim that “it is practice that constitutes the real foundation for Marxist philosophical ontology”. According to this scholar, it is an “epistemologizing” and “methodologizing” tendency, that is, one of “replacing ontology with epistemology”, which “not only ignores ontological studies but blocks further deepening of epistemological studies as well”. (李维武：《20世纪中国哲学本体论问题》，湖南教育出版社，PP. 1991，315、335.) This critique cuts dialectical materialism to the quick by pointing out its failure to reach the supreme height of rationality, i.e., that of ontological understanding.

To sum up, dialectical materialism is still short of constituting an ultimate faith. It only provides a rootless epistemological foundation for a defective ideology. And the application of this ideology to social practice in the last century has experienced swinging between extremes, staggering and stumbling along, just because it has not been rooted in a mature ultimate faith，or faith in ultimate rationality (which point will be further illustrated later).

III-3(2). Anthropocentric and egocentric trio of Western religions: Judaism-Christianity-Islam

As to religious faith in the West, except for a minority of non-mainstream believers or theologians, especially a few scholars who have made long-time studies and gained profound understanding of Eastern thought, it has on the whole not reached the supreme height of awareness about the ultimate reality of all existence, as is evidenced in its anthropocentric disposition and egocentric intolerance against other belief systems.

Whether Judaism in earlier years or Christianity and Islam later, all of them insisted that the god each believed in was the only possible and reasonably existing one, that all other peoples should worship its god, not that of any other faiths, and that those other peoples who do not believe in its god were evils and should be fought against irreconcilably. Moreover, even within the same church, different interpretations of classical creeds were also considered as irreconcilably heretical. Such egocentric religious faiths, being so intolerant towards other religions, other sects, atheistic faith systems and non-believers, can certainly not be regarded as mature ultimate faiths. Followers of such belief systems have no idea about or cannot understand the co-existence of different interpretations of the supreme being or ultimate reality (such as represented by “God”, “Allah”, “Providence”, “the Dao”, “the (Heavenly) Way”, or a Buddhist symbol, etc.), a hard fact that has been there throughout human history. They just refuse to listen to others, still less to try to understand what others say, but think that only they themselves are observing from the topmost standpoint and their vision comprehends all existence. They just pretend to believe that whatever they shut their eyes to does not exist. This kind of self-deception resembles that of a child. It shows that their standpoint actually falls short of reaching the ultimate height, that their overall perception of the world is yet to become fully comprehensive and mature, and that their religious faith is somewhat like an ideology.

Because of the immaturity of such belief systems, they have from time to time in the past thousands of years been corrupted by temptations from the secular society and exploited by privileged interest groups, secular or/and “sacred”, in waging wars in the name of a supreme deity, costing countless lives. Such crimes are still going on today with no prospect of ending in the foreseeable future. If viewed in contrast with the basically non-violent long history of Eastern faith systems such as Daoism and Buddhism, either as religions or as secular metaphysical convictions, the immaturity of Western religious belief systems is even more obvious.

This author has made an analysis before of the creation myth recorded in the Bible and shared by Judaism and Christianity, pointing out its anthropocentric bias. The following short quote is enough to illustrate it: “God said, ‘…let [man] rule over the fish… the birds… the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground’…. ‘fill the earth and subdue it…’” What is its social impact, then? It is: “Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction”, which will involve the human species. This is the gravest sin ever committed by Adam and Eve’s offspring, which has grown out of their original sin, and the currently prevalent capitalistic model of the “rational economic man” has been playing the role of Satan the snake. The faith in Christianity and that in “rationality” cherished by followers of this model have been one and the same, and we humans hijacked by them have “lifted the rock only to drop it on our own toes” as the Chinese saying goes.

III-3(3). Failure to think beyond own “mind”: Confucianist faith short of reaching the ultimate

The “Dao (way) of Heaven” in Confucianist discourse, although sharing the word “Dao” with Daoists and some Chinese Buddhists as well, is essentially an extension or sanctification of the “way of humans” as advocated by Confucianists. But the Confucianist “Dao of humans” with “kindheartedness and righteousness” (or “benevolence and justice”, 仁义) as its core principle was not derived from the proponents’ recognition of the ultimate reality of all existence but from their intuitive understanding of the “mandate of Heaven” (天命). In spite of their conscious search for the metaphysical ultimate, they nevertheless mistook the human mind (心体), that is, only an extremely tiny part of the universe, as the ultimate origin of all existence. In other words, their perception of the ultimate was so limited as to have left out all other living creatures except humans, not to say all lifeless existence. Their spiritual vision being so cramped, it is not surprising that their view of the “Dao of humans” was narrow and rigid as described below:

First of all，Confucianist “kindheartedness and righteousness” covered private ethics only, i.e., embodied in micro personal relationships, but not public ethics for public power-holders as should be embodied in policies for balancing relationships between different macro-social interest groups; which latter was not their concern. Why this? Since Confucianists were known to spare no pains in trying to persuade top state rulers to practice the principle of “kindheartedness and righteousness” in social management, one would like to ask what kind of social order would fit the above principle in their mindset. Answering this question will show the second manifestation of the narrowness and rigidness of their “Dao of humans”, which is as follows :

Confucianists took the petty-peasant society’s patriarchal hierarchy, which had only limited historical legitimacy, as the permanently rational social order embodying their version of the Heavenly Dao, i.e., “kindheartedness and righteousness”. Therefore, they were either unaware of or chose to evade the issue of public power-holders’ responsibility for adjusting and balancing the interest relations between different social classes/strata/groups, and used to push for laissez-faire social policies, i.e., actually unjust or un-“righteous” ones, in the name of “benevolent” or “kindhearted” kingcraft, such as policies in defense of the privileged interests of large land-owning-commercial-industrial groups, i.e., social groups on the higher rungs of the hierarchical social order. And this in contrast to Daoist-Legalists such as Guanzi (管子), who were quite sensitive to what Laozi pointed out as “the way of people” (or, the “Dao of humans”), that is, that “they take away where there is need and add where there is surplus” (Laozi: Dao De Jing, 77, Trans. by Charles Muller), and who thus in their social practice did not only advocate private ethics as related to micro personal relations but also tried their best to urge their top rulers to apply the moral principle of “kindheartedness and righteousness” to their exercise of public power as should find expression in promoting balance and harmony in macro-social politico-economic relations. Obviously, the narrowness and rigidness of the Confucianist version of “Dao”, whether of humans or of Heaven, had a lot to do with their petty-peasant worldview, which looked at the human world as a loose adding-up of atomistic individuals/families and fell short of reaching the ultimate height of rationality characterized by a holistic understanding.

Some Chinese Buddhist denominations under the influence of Confucianism also mistook the human mind as the ultimate origin of all existence and shared with Confucianists in not caring about the issue of macro-social relations management. While Buddhism finally faded away in India, perhaps mainly because it was divorced from social reality, in China and her surrounding neighbors under her cultural influence, it has survived, prospered continuously and left a lasting positive impact on Chinese and neighboring civilization mainly because of its co-existence and mutual complementarity with Daoism, etc. in a highly integrated diverse cultural context; which also explains about Confucianism both as a beneficiary of and a contributor to the said culture as a whole. Although its purpose of placing the focus of attention on the mind was well-intended, that is, to promote people’s self-cultivation of their inner character on a universal scale, nevertheless, taking human “mind” as the object of ultimate faith betrayed its immaturity.

Indeed, each major faith, religious or secular (metaphysical), Western or Eastern, has its strengths and weaknesses and, to be sure, we should not be overcritical of any of them, nor overlook the least positive contribution, however limited it might be, that any of them may have made to human well-being in history. Nevertheless, if we should carry on our past partialities so blindly as to brush aside the limitations in any partially favored system of thought and, by falsely lifting one that belongs to the experiential level of sensory perception, up beyond that to the metaphysically ultimate height of spiritual faith, so as to interfere with the working of the Heavenly Dao by taking advantage of the inertia of past history, that would not forebode blissfulness for mankind, nor would it signify real cherishing of and due respect for the blindly favored school of thought.

To sum up, of all faiths, Eastern and Western, of the past and the present, those that hinge on the “self” (whether “I” or “We”, physical or spiritual, including such projections by the human “mind” as images of “spirit” in human form or concepts such as “idea” and the like or visions of the “world” that “we” humans conceive) -- all those faiths that believe in the “self” in all its above-listed variations and extensions as the ultimate origin of all existence but actually leave unexplained, or unconvincingly explained, the defining internal relationship (between the perceiver and perceived) of the phenomenal world, thus falling short of reaching up to the ultimately unified “one” reality behind it, are not ultimate faiths, at least not mature ones.