Essays on the History of Chinese Thought: Continuation

Author: Xu Fuguan
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-05-01
Features: This book is the sequel to Xu Fuguan's important work, Collected Essays on the History of Chinese Thought, by the representative figure of Taiwan's New Confucianism, Xu Fuguan. Together with Collected Essays on the History of Chinese Thought, it comprehensively reflects Xu Fuguan's lifelong intellectual journey and major academic viewpoints. In the book, Xu Fuguan, drawing on his political experience and insights, offers perceptive and profound interpretations of political thought, ideology, and the intellectual class in Chinese culture. At the same time, it inherits the rigorous textual research, deep thought, distinctive arguments, and vigorous style of Collected Essays on the History of Chinese Thought. Xu Fuguan was a legendary figure in 20th-century Chinese humanistic academia. He once served as a senior aide to Chiang Kai-shek but eventually transitioned from politics to academia, becoming a key figure in New Confucianism. His unique political and military career imbued his scholarship with a strong sense of realism. In recent years, Xu Fuguan has garnered increasing attention from academia, and the publication of this book will play an important role in deepening the understanding of his thought.
The Problem of Textual Research in the Study of the History of Chinese Thought—Preface to the Third Volume of The History of Han Thought
When the third volume of The History of Han Thought is published, I should explain the textual research work I have done in the field of thought over the years, as some friends have mentioned this issue to me. At my advanced age, I began my academic work mainly to resist the attitude of many intellectuals in this era, who, for personal fame and profit, have practically abandoned China's millennia-old culture. Out of indignation, I embarked on this path. Without actual power or academic status, I can only stand firmly on the ground of scholarship to express my views, thereby supporting my conscience and accepting the test of history. Textual research is not about confronting attitudes with attitudes but about confronting evidence with evidence. This is the first step to gaining a firm foothold and the first step to breaking free from the confusion of "everyone's views are equally valid."
When it comes to textual research, people immediately associate it with the Qian-Jia School. Indeed, the specialization of textual research did originate from the Qian-Jia School, but in setting traps with Han studies, they not only failed to understand Song studies but also failed to understand Han studies. Worse, due to their excessive opposition to Song studies, they ended up opposing the ideas within academia, losing the proper direction of textual research and the important basis for the process of textual research, making it a tool for expressing subjective intentions. This is elaborated in greater detail in the appendix, A Discussion on the Qianlong-Jia School of Han Studies. Among those who achieved notable success in textual research and textual collation, most were fragmented and far removed from the level of thought. This trend has been inherited by modern scholars and further developed into the issue of classical authenticity, which should be seen as a positive development. However, the most influential "School of Distinguishing Ancient History" was reckless and added to the troubles of traditional Chinese scholarship in terms of texts. To free oneself from this trouble and re-establish the foundation for academic work, one must adopt more cautious and precise textual research to dispel their superficial, sloppy, or even hypocritical textual methods. Otherwise, they will dismiss those with differing opinions as "baseless talk" and ridicule or scorn them. The Qian-Jia School remains a powerful trend even today. I have noticed that scholars of Chinese philosophy, who have not devoted themselves to textual research, inevitably follow the prevailing trend when encountering issues already raised in textual research, using them as excuses for their own arguments. For example, Master Xiong Shili, with the confidence to overturn the era's heroes, opened up new frontiers in Chinese scholarship. Yet he despised the Qian-Jia School but secretly admired it, so he never directly confronted its but often proposed speculative assumptions based on historical and textual evidence as the foundation for his arguments, becoming a prominent flaw in his works. Others who have the development of Chinese thought by exploiting the trend are countless. Therefore, starting from the History of Chinese Personality Theory: Pre-Qin Period, my textual research first focused on the issue of classical authenticity.
Regarding Han thought, the current general view is that Lu Jia's New Language, Jia Yi's New Book, and Dong Zhongshu's Spring and Autumn Luxuriance are unreliable texts, while The Garden of Riddles was compiled before Liu Xiang and was not written by him. Similar to this, if I had not devoted myself to textual research, I would either arbitrarily exclude these works from Han thought or explain them without considering differences of opinion. Neither is a truly responsible attitude. After putting in the effort, I accept what others can establish with evidence with peace of mind, without needing to differ; and I discard what others cannot establish with evidence with peace of mind, without regard for authority. In almost every article, I have made such efforts to varying degrees. For more critical terms, phrases, events, or objects, I must explore their origins and compare their historical context. I have neither uncritically accepted traditional accounts nor uncritically denied the views of later generations. The conclusions drawn from the arena of evidence are the only ones worth trusting. If later, stronger evidence overturns the conclusions already reached, this is progress in academia, and I sincerely hope for such progress.
When discussing textual research in the study of thought history, it inevitably extends to three other levels. The first is the level of understanding people and their times. The work of thought history is to interpret the thoughts of the past for the present and future. I deeply realize that interpretation is often closely related to the personality of the interpreter, and this is particularly evident in contemporary China. It is unnecessary to give examples. From this, we can conclude that the thoughts of the past must be closely related to the character, personality, family background, and experiences of the ancient people. I have also deeply realized, through more than two decades of work, that Croce's (1866–1952) claim that "only modern history exists" is proven true. Without the pressure of anti-Chinese culture in Taiwan in the 1950s, I might not have found the key to understanding the thoughts of the past, or even made this arduous attempt. From this, we can conclude that the form of ancient thought must be closely related to the era in which the ancient people lived. These two relationships are always intertwined. Clarifying this relationship is the first step in interpretation. In every article, I have taken this first step, though not fully.
The second is the level of exploring the traces of the development and evolution of thought in history. Not only the content of thought but also the way it is expressed sometimes shows traces of development and evolution. Only by grasping this can we fulfill the historical responsibility of thought history and fairly and correctly "position" each thought. The effort in this regard is very evident in every article. This is a form of textual research and an important method within it.
The third is the level of drawing conclusions from the entire book using inductive methods. At this level, one must first read the entire book, which includes issues of textual research, textual collation, and textual versions. I do not trust sampling work done without a thorough reading of the entire book, and I detest the era's tendency to quote out of context and speak without evidence. Even after carefully reading a book, organizing, analyzing, summarizing, and comparing it with its context and other works, one may not fully grasp it thoroughly and truthfully. Then to randomly quote a few sentences as premises for deduction and deduce extensively—this can only demonstrate individual reasoning ability but cannot be considered laying a foundation for scholarship. The most effort I spend is often on this level, which was easy for the ancients but difficult for the moderns.
Even so, can my works be fully trusted? I dare not say so. Therefore, I always hope that readers will develop an interest in reading the original classics through my articles. But to reach reliable conclusions, the textual research I have proposed is always worth referencing.
July 1979, in my residence in Kowloon.