Key words: the distinction between name and reality, China's philosophy, Hegelian standard, Westernism, cultural philosophy.
First, look at the transformation between China and the West from the perspective of "the difference between name and reality"
With the spread of western learning to the east in modern times, a number of loanwords appeared in China's ideological culture and academic circles. If the objects reflected by these nouns are not native to China, they are all from the West, which generally won't cause controversy. If we refer to what is inherent in China, there will always be controversy and confusion. Here, the first thing we encounter is a logical dilemma. According to China's terminology, it is a question of the relationship between name and reality. In other words, can these western "names" correctly reflect China's "reality"?
Logical problems should be solved logically. In the pre-Qin period in China, there was a distinction between name and reality. Confucius put forward the idea of "correcting name", and thought that "name" should correctly reflect "reality", that is, Xunzi said "the name is heard but the reality is metaphorical" in order to achieve the distinction between name and reality. Xunzi also strongly opposed the phenomena of "confusion between name and reality", "confusion between name and reality" and "confusion between name and reality". The ancients in China attached great importance to the problem of "correcting the name" because "the name is not correct, the words are not smooth, the things are not smooth, and the confusion between the name and the name becomes an ominous social sign". It shows that the distinction between name and reality is not only a logical and philosophical issue, but also reveals a profound social, cultural and even political crisis.
There was a confrontation between "nominalism" and "realism" in medieval Europe, and the focus of the debate was also the relationship between the individual and the general, that is, which came first, name or reality. "Realism" advocates that the concept (name) is real. Nominalism insists that "general" is just a name, while individuals are "real", that is, real existence. In the history of European philosophy, Pythagoras, Plato and modern Hegel are all closely related to realism. They regard "name" (concept) as the first and decisive, and "reality" is only a derivative of "name". On the other hand, some philosophers have regarded "reality" as the first priority since Aristotle, and "name" exists according to "reality"-"individual precedes general". Therefore, Lenin regarded the argument between Aristotle and Plato as "the struggle between materialism and idealism". Here, the problem of logic is transformed into a purely speculative philosophical problem. In essence, the "distinction between name and reality" in Europe not only reflects the confrontation between the two armies on basic philosophical issues, but also puts European philosophical disputes in a dilemma many times, reflecting the objective paradox in the social and cultural fields from the depths of thought.
China's "distinction between name and reality" in modern times is often directly related to the Chinese translation of some western terms in the cultural collision between China and the West. For example, the crux of the problems such as "Is China's religion a religion" and "Is China's philosophy a philosophy" lies in using two western names, namely "religion" and "philosophy", to refer to China's "reality". Xunzi said that "established by convention" is called "name". Whether a noun can pass the test or not sometimes depends not only on whether it correctly reflects the essential attributes of things, but also on experience and practice. It is a basic relationship between concept and entity that "name" is defined by "reality" and "name" refers to "reality". Logically speaking, a concept is a false concept if it cannot correctly reflect the essential attributes of objective things. However, in different cultural systems or even the same cultural system, different "realities" may have different "names". To put it bluntly, "name" is just a symbolic representation of "reality" In the final analysis, "name" is secondary, and "reality" is the key. For example, in the minds of higher animals and primitive people, primitive concepts are usually embodied in the representation of object graphics, so Engels once pointed out that formal logic thinking already exists in animals. However, for civilized human beings, the existence of "reality" can not only be highly abstracted as a symbol for memory, communication and recognition, but also complete the symbol transformation in the process of discourse transformation between different cultural systems. Therefore, only the primary "truth" can provide the minimum objective basis and scale for re-identification and appraisal. In the process of transformation, due to the improper choice of reference system, it will also cause some cognitive difficulties. In view of this, when translating modern western words, we generally adopt the methods of "translating words" and "borrowing words".
As far as "reality" is concerned, it must be concrete. If people have what I have, they can translate their "names" in a certain sense, which is called translating words. The so-called translated words are words that can be agreed and explained in different language systems. For example, a desk is called a desk in Britain and a desk in China, which is the Chinese translation of Desk. Another example is dance. If people have what I have, we can translate it into "dance". Ballet, a stage art, can only be transliterated and called "ballet", which is a foreign word. The so-called loanwords are loanwords borrowed and transplanted as a whole. Such as discos, sofas, salons, etc. , are all foreign words. When it is difficult or inaccurate to use translated words under the premise of lack of comparability, loanwords often reflect the true nature of entities more accurately.
There are still some "realities" that people have, and so do I. Although they still have roughly the same essential attributes, they are deeply branded by different nationalities and cultures, with obvious differences. Transliteration is not conducive to digestion and absorption, and free translation can usually be used. However, due to the lack of ready-made translated words that can accurately express the true meaning, it is necessary to imitate names and create new vocabulary; Or add qualifiers to represent features. For example, China has noodles and Italy has noodles. They are all noodles in essence, but the form and eating method are obviously different. Therefore, when we translate spaghetti, we don't simply use the word "noodles", but use "hollow noodles" or "spaghetti" to reflect its essential attributes. The same is true for westerners to translate some nouns of China. For example, there is no tea in the west. When they first came into contact with China tea, they just used the Chinese dialect pronunciation of "tea" to refer to tea. For westerners, this is a foreign word. For another example, Peking Opera is a stage art form with singing as the main part, which is essentially the same as Italian opera. Therefore, westerners use Peking Opera when translating the word Peking Opera, that is, "Peking Opera". For them, this is a translation that distinguishes Italian opera. There are countless examples, reflecting that although people are yellow and white, different human cultures are always universal, interpretable, convertible and understandable.
Between China and the West, if we only pay attention to the differences between different nationalities and cultures, it is easy to set limits for ourselves. Of course, the difference exists objectively, and the dilemma of "people have me without me" occurs from time to time. These can be understood and shared through reference, communication and study. Nowadays, people tend to adhere to western standards to understand China culture, which not only occurs in the field of philosophy, but also in other disciplines. If we examine China's "name" according to the western "reality" of the subject, we will inevitably fall into the confusion between "name" and "reality". Only pay attention to the differences between Chinese and Western cultures and deliberately exaggerate this difference, or only grasp the individuality or concreteness between China and the West and ignore its universality or universality, there will be the kind of situation that Zhuangzi said: "You will have more courage if you look at it with different eyes; From the perspective of peers, everything is one. " [1] (p145) Only by stepping out of the quagmire of relativism that denies objective standards can we grasp the main axis that Chinese and western cultures are generally consistent.
The process of academic translation, identification and communication between Chinese and western philosophy is actually a process of comparative philosophy research. Generally speaking, "people have me" has to be compared. From the comparison, we can find that the similarity between the two sides is the standard of * * *, and we should avoid cutting one side to the other in value judgment. The purpose of comparative study is to learn from each other's strong points, promote exchanges and common development. Therefore, for things that "people have me without", either give up or "take it". There are too many precious things in the collision between Chinese and western cultures in modern times. China people can only help me to develop and use them, whether it is artifacts, ideas, theories or a certain subject, if they follow the "takenism". But everything "brought" has a process of reconstruction according to the specific situation of China, that is, the China process of foreign culture. The China of foreign culture has always been a question of rationality, but it has never been a question of "legitimacy", because the criteria for judging whether a discipline can be established ultimately depend on academic principles and objective needs, rather than on predetermined "laws" and artificial presuppositions. It is ok to say whether the existence of a discipline is "reasonable", but it is not-it is a misuse of the term "legitimacy".
If we look at China according to western standards, we can not only say "China has no philosophy", but also say "China has no painting" and "China has no music" ... For example, in music, China plays pentatonic, while in the west, it is seven tones, with two and a half more tones, which is quite different. Westerners who encounter this situation feel incredible at first. Can you call music without a semitone? But who can deny that there was music in China three thousand years ago? The guqin music of "high mountains and flowing water" once became the representative voice of human beings on earth, and was broadcast to space by Americans to find human alien companions! Therefore, when China translated the western word "music", he was destined to use a translation word "music" not because he didn't have a semitone but because he used foreign words. When we talk about "music", we will naturally think of all kinds of music in the East and the West. When we talk about the music of individual nationalities, we will naturally talk about "China music" or "Western music". When it comes to "China music", we can't deny that China music is music just because it doesn't conform to western standards.
When a nation with high cultural status translates a foreign language, it is bound to translate more words than foreign words. On the contrary, there are more foreign words than translated words. If the cultural position is extremely asymmetrical and unbalanced, our national language may be lost, extinct or even swallowed up by foreign languages in the face of strong cultural and language hegemony. The emergence of this situation means that although this nation still exists in form, it has actually died out. Fortunately, China culture is a high-status culture with a history of 5,000 years. In the cultural exchanges with various nationalities at home and abroad, foreign civilizations are mostly interpreted by translating words, and through this method of free translation, the essence of foreign cultures is absorbed and transformed into an organic part of their own culture. For example, the absorption of Buddhist culture in the Middle Ages and the absorption of western natural science and humanities and social sciences in modern times not only embodies the profound cultural heritage, but also embodies the broad mind of our culture.
Second, "hegelianism" and "Westernism"
However, due to the objective differences in nationality, culture and history, it is sometimes difficult to find accurate Chinese expressions in the translation of western languages since modern times, especially in the translation of some western disciplines, schools or professional terms, which has caused many puzzles and paradoxes. Since most of the terms used in natural science and social science today are translated words, a question arises: Can these translated "names" accurately reflect the respective "realities" of China and the West? In the last century, Mr. Feng Youlan expressed his views on the question "Is there science in China?". He concluded that there was no science in China. However, the science here only refers to western modern natural science or western modern experimental science. Joseph Needham and Einstein, western celebrities, also raised the question "Why didn't modern natural science appear in China?" Einstein's answer was that China culture lacked the experience method and formal logical thinking mode of modern Europe. Needham disagreed with this. He left this problem to future generations, so it was called "Needham puzzle". "Does China have a philosophy?" Like "Is there science in China?" It is also an old topic that has been silent for decades. Nothing new, but it still attracts many people's attention. It should be admitted that the internal cause of this problem is complex, even profound, because it reveals the value crisis of philosophy as a discipline in today's society. Although the underlying cause of this crisis is not the distinction between "name" and "reality", nor the difference between China and the West, it is not easy to liquidate this issue.
Some commentators have repeatedly stressed that China didn't have the name of "philosophy" originally, but at the end of 19, the Japanese Western Zhou family combined a word "philosophy" and a word "learning" from China's Confucian classics, and then used it to translate philosophy. From then on, China had the so-called "philosophy". Critics also pointed out that the Greek root of philosophy is "love of wisdom", while China's tradition only includes classics, history, philosophy and collections, and there is no such thing as "love of wisdom". It was not until 19 14 that Peking University established the philosophy department (later changed to the philosophy department) that China began to have the subject of "philosophy". But "loving wisdom" is the civilized education of human beings, the universal pursuit of wisdom, and the common aspiration of all ancient civilizations. This is the purpose of Confucius education. Confucius not only "loves wisdom", but also reflects on it. The so-called "benevolence, courtesy, wisdom and faith" is one of the five, and wisdom ranks first. If "loving wisdom" is the basic core of philosophy, then philosophy should not be exclusive to Greece. Who can say that China's ancient philosophy is not a kind of "wise thinking"?
In other words, just "loving wisdom" is not philosophy, and the core of philosophy is ontology, while "China has no ontology". Then, are Confucius' benevolence, Laozi's Tao, Yijing's Taiji and Zhu's reason ontologies? If it is not noumenon, what is it? Around this noumenon, the "differentiation between body and use" and the "poor way of reasoning", Laozi's "Tao is the mother of the world", Wei and Jin metaphysics' "governance by doing nothing" and Song Confucianism's "infinite Tai Chi" reflect a kind of "Logocentrism" without logos.
Here, it is necessary for us to find out what "logos" is. In Chinese, "logos" is a foreign word, which originated from the logos of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus. The meaning of "logos" has three layers, namely regularity, noumenon and origin. In fact, in China's philosophy, the category equivalent to logos is Tao, which is emphasized by Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, and also emphasized by Neo-Confucianism in Song and Ming Dynasties. Tao in China's philosophy has three meanings: fingering, noumenon and origin. Although China's philosophy does not have the Greek "Logocentrism", it actually has China's "Daocentrism". China scholars did use the word "Tao" in the translation of logos at first. But when the French sinologist Ramusa translated the Tao in China's philosophy with logos, Hegel thought it was "very unclear" [2](P 126). Due to the influence of Hebrew thought, the original "logos" in Greece occupied a dominant position. However, if we study the Tao of Laozi and Zhuangzi, the Tao of Song and Yin, and the Taoist "Tao" and "Tao" after Qin and Han Dynasties, the religious meaning is also obvious. Of course, China's "Tao" is often interpreted as "thing", which is exactly what Hegel strongly denounced.
The so-called "metaphysics" is another expression of "ontology" and "Logocentrism", which refers to the study of the ultimate ontology above or after the form of objects. The Book of Changes says, "Metaphysics is the Tao, while metaphysics is the device." "Tao" is a metaphysical transcendental ontology, and "Qi" is a metaphysical experience object. Thousands of years ago, China people had the concepts of "metaphysics" and "metaphysics", and distinguished the binary world of transcendental and empirical. China people not only distinguish the binary world, but also have the idea of unity of opposites and the idea of "one is more than one", such as "one yin and one yang is the way to say" in the Book of Changes and "Tao gives birth to one life, two lives, three lives and everything" expressed by Laozi.
It is meaningless to argue whether China has the name of "philosophy". The key is whether China has philosophical truth, which is the core of the problem. People only know that in 1837, the Japanese in the Western Zhou Dynasty initiated the translation of the word "philosophy" into China's traditional Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, but they didn't know that as early as hundreds of years ago, westerners decided that China's "philosophy" was the western philosophy! For example, Matteo Ricci, an outstanding Christian scholar who entered China in the16th century, translated Confucius' moral theory into philosophy and pointed out: "The most famous philosopher in China is Confucius. This learned great man was born in 550 BC at the age of 70. He used his works, disciples and his own role models to inspire his people to pursue morality. " [3](P3 1) Another Portuguese missionary, Zeng Dezhao, also mentioned the Book of Changes and Confucius, as well as their "natural philosophy" and "moral philosophy" in the book A Record of Greater China completed in 1638. [4] (P59-60) Twenty years later, the famous Italian missionary Paolo Maldini (Martino Martini) published the famous sinology book The Ancient History of China in Europe. In this book, he thinks that the principle of Yi-ology is the same as that of Pythagoras, and both regard numbers as the ontology of the universe. Therefore, Yi-ology is philosophy. [5] (.Bai Yingli wrote a book that has far-reaching influence on the European ideological circle, that is, Confucius, a philosopher in China, and Maleblanche of Descartes School wrote a dialogue between a Christian philosopher and a China philosopher. They all use philosophy to refer to China's "Yi Xue" and Zhu's "Neo-Confucianism". As for Voltaire, Leibniz and others, they were full of praise for China's philosophy. Leibniz said: "In China, in a sense, there is an extremely admirable morality, plus a philosophical theory, or a deism, which is respected because of its antiquity. This philosophical theory or deism has been established about 3000 years ago, and it is authoritative, far before Greek philosophy. " [6](P 133) It can be seen that as early as16th century, westerners "discovered" China's philosophy, which was nearly 300 years earlier than the Japanese translated philosophy into "philosophy" in the Western Zhou Dynasty. Both Matteo Ricci's translation of China's Yi-ology into philosophy in16th century and the Western Zhou Dynasty's translation of philosophy into philosophy in19th century show that philosophy does exist in China. Philosophy can't be completely equal in two cultural systems, and it will inevitably show individual differences, but there is no difference in general essential attributes. In order to avoid "confusing reality with name" or "confusing reality with name", when discussing problems in the history of philosophy, modern people must mark "China's philosophy" and "Greek philosophy" to show the difference.
It is necessary to draw everyone's attention to a phenomenon: whenever someone comes out and says that "China has no philosophy", it always brings out Hegel. It shows that the shadow of Hegel-or the ghost of Hegel has been hovering over China's philosophy-is accompanied by the lingering "western centralism". However, Hegel never said that "China has no philosophy". On the contrary, he thinks that China has his own philosophy. The first section of "Oriental Philosophy" in the first volume of Lecture Notes on the History of Philosophy is entitled "China Philosophy". China's philosophy, Indian philosophy and Greek philosophy are called the three ancient philosophical systems. Indeed, Hegel's contempt for eastern philosophy and his belief that "real philosophy begins in the West" is largely due to his lack of understanding of eastern philosophy. When he wrote the lecture notes on the history of philosophy, he originally wanted to exclude "Oriental philosophy" from the field of vision of the study of the history of philosophy. Only because of "some recent materials" did he say a few words about China's philosophy and Indian philosophy. He believes that Confucius is not a "speculative philosopher" but a "moral philosophy" (actually copying Matteo Ricci's statement), and that "in order to maintain Confucius' reputation, it would be better if his books have never been translated." [2](P 120) However, he does not deny that "moral philosophy" is also a kind of philosophy. Hegel didn't even say that Neo-Confucianism of Laozi and Zhu was not philosophy. In Philosophy of History, Hegel clearly affirmed China's philosophy, and he wrote: "... China people also have philosophy, and its preliminary principles have a very ancient origin, because the Book of Changes and the Book of Life are about life and death. In this book, we can see the purely abstract concepts of monism and dualism; Therefore, China's philosophy seems to start from the same basic concepts as Pythagoras. The basic principle recognized by China people is rationality-the so-called "Tao". " [7](P 14 1) Obviously, Hegel admitted that China had a "rational" philosophy system similar to Greek philosophy. Hegel's view is the theoretical basis for missionaries to initially translate Yi-ology into philosophy. Of course, Hegel thinks that the concept of China's philosophy lacks "stipulation", or lack of certainty, and even China's philosophy is still in the primary development stage. Aside from these western prejudices, we find that Hegel has to admit the fact that China has philosophy.
At the same time, Hegel believes that not all ideas are philosophy, such as religion, law, art and science. Although they are closely related to philosophy, each philosophical category should have its own certainty. After discussing these problems repeatedly, he pointed out that human thought should have three aspects: "On the one hand, it is a substance that people generally count as scientific knowledge;" This is the beginning of rational thinking. The second part is myth and religion; Their relationship is often hostile to philosophy, not only in Greece, but also in the Christian era. The third department is abstract rational philosophy, namely rational metaphysics. " [2](P58)
Hegel can't conceal his strong "western centralism" complex when he inspects various philosophical systems in the world. As a descendant of Greek philosophy, he said: "When the name Greece is mentioned, it will naturally arouse a feeling of home in the hearts of educated Europeans, especially in the hearts of us Germans." [2](P 157) In fact, the Germans who were once called "barbarians" in the history of Western Europe only entered the vision of European history after the tenth century. In Greek times, there was no German nation. But Hegel, out of emotional needs, will naturally judge everything by the "Greek standard". Engels, Dampier, Russell and others spoke highly of and fully affirmed the outstanding contribution of Arabs in philosophy when they mentioned the fact that Greek philosophy was rediscovered hundreds of years later from the third century to the tenth century. However, Hegel said: "As for Islamic philosophy, we can say that their philosophy does not constitute a characteristic stage in the development of philosophy; They did not further promote philosophical principles. " [8](P255) However, in fact, in Greek philosophy, especially in Aristotle's works, many ideas relayed by Arabs have been wedged, such as Aristotle's On the Soul, which is more like the annotator's own works; Dampier even thought that the philosophy of ancient Greece originated from the East and was probably influenced by Indian philosophy. People in the Middle East, especially Arabs, have always been a bridge between East and West. Russell said that without Arabs, there would be no rediscovery of Greek philosophy, and without outstanding Arab scholars like Avillo introducing Aristotle's theory to the West, there would be no Renaissance in Europe. It is hard to imagine that in the Roman Empire, where Catholicism dominated the country, even some aristocratic children were illiterate. How can Europeans know metaphysics?
Unfortunately, "hegelianism" and "Westernization" are still the most commonly used yardsticks for some people to judge everything.
Third, "the negation of negation"-the strange circle of metaphysics?
From 19 to the 20th century, Hegel's ghost did not stop the diversified expansion in the field of philosophy and the diversified trend of philosophical definition. In today's west, philosophy has not only stayed at the level or dimension of "loving wisdom", but its repeated crises have prompted it to make breakthroughs in connotation and extension. The original intention of "loving wisdom", like a faint dream in childhood, only stays on the track of philosophical development. We can't count how many philosophical definitions there are in the world now (Russell said: "There are as many philosophers as there are." We want to say that it is out of date to define philosophy only as the original meaning of "loving wisdom".
Derrida once said at a dinner party that "China has no philosophy". [9](P 139), an informal statement, was later warmly relayed by China scholars in a formal academic occasion, and was heated for a while. Everyone knows that Derrida is actually a person who strongly opposes Logocentrism and puts forward deconstruction metaphysics. However, Hegel's metaphysical definition is the premise of his investigation of what philosophy is, and "philosophy" and "metaphysics" are not the objects of praise in Derrida's field of vision. He said that "deconstruction is not a philosophy" but a kind of "thought", and the purpose of "deconstruction" is to "transcend philosophical thinking". [9](P82) There is no doubt that Derrida refused to examine his thoughts by the standard of traditional metaphysics. If so, he would rather admit that his academic system is just an idea, not a philosophy. Then, why should Derrida be called a "philosopher" and his "deconstruction" thought be regarded as an important philosophical school in the contemporary west? It can be seen that people have long ignored Hegel's standards when judging knowledge!
Even in Hegel's era, Europeans did not take Hegel's standard as the standard when defining "what is philosophy". Hegel himself complained that although the word "philosophy" is highly respected in Britain, the British definition of philosophy is too broad. "The British also call physical instruments, such as rain gauges and thermometers, philosophical instruments. Another example is many theories, especially those about morality or ethics. Some theories derived from people's feelings or experiences are also called philosophy. Finally, the theory and principle of political economy is also called philosophy. " "In Britain, there is a philosophy magazine compiled for Thomson, which discusses chemistry, agriculture (fertilizer), agricultural economics and technical knowledge, a bit like Helmholtz magazine." [2](59) I can't tell whether the Journal of Philosophy mentioned by Hegel is the Journal of Philosophy sponsored by the Royal Academy of Sciences. The electronic collections of the magazine 1623 to 1966 are in the library of Harvard University. If you browse some articles from 17 to 19 century, I am also surprised to find the introduction of 17 century British astronomy in China from this magazine labeled "Philosophy Magazine", and I enjoyed with interest the pictures of China painted by Europeans in 17 century, from which I saw the pagodas and bridges in China during the Ming and Qing Dynasties. In 19 and the 20th century, this magazine became a purely scientific magazine, but it is still called the philosophy magazine. Therefore, the definition of philosophy is not a monolithic Hegelian standard even in the west. At least in the eyes of the British, philosophy is a concept that is inclusive or equivalent to "science".
In fact, the "love of wisdom" was interrupted in the third century AD. No one in the Roman Empire could read Greek, and Greek philosophy became a precious heritage in the land of Eastern Rome. It was not until the Crusade that westerners were surprised to find these "antiques" that the "Orientalism" trend of thinking of worshipping Arabs as teachers came into being, and scholasticism and the "Renaissance" came into being. Of course, there were remnants of Plato's thought in the Middle Ages, but that was only a "Greek fossil" that was combined with the Hebrew spirit and embedded in the "godfather philosophy". This philosophy is not "loving wisdom", but "loving God" or "loving God". Descartes was the first one who really revived Greek rational philosophy, making philosophy try to get rid of the status of theological handmaid and complete "I think, therefore, the real history of European philosophy should start from Descartes school." Comte, for example, divided the history of Europe into theological era → philosophical era → scientific era. The philosophical era is the era after Descartes, and the scientific era began in 18 and 19 centuries. Before these two eras, there was only the theological era. Distant ancient Greece-Europeans have no place in their memory. In the history of Europe, "discovering Greece" and "discovering the East" are the same thing.
Even in Descartes' era, the Greek metaphysical ontology was not entirely a recognition attitude, and the trend of rejecting metaphysics came at the same time as Europe entered the philosophical era. For example, Pierre, an important representative of Descartes School, not only openly doubted the existence of God, but also fundamentally doubted the metaphysical speculative method. Marx said that he "discredited metaphysics and all metaphysics in17th century in theory" [10](P 162). In the "philosophical age", almost all important philosophers in Europe did not adhere to the original purpose of metaphysics or "logos" primitivism, which eventually led to the rebellion of Hume and Kant's skepticism against metaphysics. Kant also raised "moral metaphysics" to the position of philosophical ontology, thus launching a philosophy.