On Hegel's View of Chinese Culture

Author: Qing Wenguang
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-02-01
Features: Preface A student of science and engineering who suddenly turned to philosophy midway is no longer unusual in today's world; but abandoning a PhD at Tsinghua University, the dream of countless young talents, and pursuing a doctoral program in foreign philosophy out of sheer passion for philosophy, specializing in the obscure and once-forgotten Hegelian philosophy, is probably unparalleled in modern China. In this era where everyone avoids hardship and seeks profit at all costs, the motto of the younger generation is to achieve the greatest success with the least effort. Actions like Qing Wenguang's are even more incomprehensible. However, after years of interaction, we feel that his choice was indeed wise for him personally. He truly has the aptitude for delving into philosophy, possessing the necessary madness, simplicity, and recklessness required of a philosophical researcher. If he had chosen another field, it would almost certainly have ended in failure, perhaps even leaving him unable to move forward. But philosophy has opened up a vast new world for him, where he can act freely without fear of offending others, hold firm to his beliefs without compromising, and showcase his brilliance with little envy. However, this requires abandoning material comparisons and embracing poverty, and living a life of detachment from worldly fame and glory. Qing Wenguang happily chose his own path and followed it resolutely, which is a cause for celebration. This book is based on Qing Wenguang's doctoral dissertation. The author's obsession with Hegelian philosophy has not been a fleeting one; his thoughts and words often reveal a Hegelian "absolutism" tendency, to the point where even as his thesis advisor, we sometimes feel he has gone too far. But this radical thinking is not merely a sign of youthful immaturity. On a deeper level, this extremism actually expresses his uncompromising resistance and critical passion against everything corrupt and suffocating around him. This passion is also what drove him to disregard all obstacles and choose the controversial topic of "Hegel's View of Chinese Culture," which was bound to face widespread opposition.
In today's academic climate, which is becoming increasingly conservative and cautious, the return to traditional culture and the rise of "Sinology fever" since the 1990s have not only seen Chinese scholars bid farewell to "revolution" in practice but also in thought. Hegel, who once praised the ideals of enlightenment and the French Revolution, was once seen as a symbol of "compromise" with authoritarianism, but today he is branded with the labels of "utopian" and "extremist" and once again treated as a "dead dog." Especially when Hegel's rational arrows target the ideological stagnation of the ancient empire in the East, it inevitably touches the traditional cultural sentiments of Chinese scholars.
Generally, it seems sufficient to dismiss Hegel's analyses and views on Chinese culture with mere claims like "Hegel had insufficient materials on Chinese culture" or "Hegel failed to grasp the subtleties of Chinese culture," as if they were easily cast aside. In reality, Leibniz's understanding of China was no deeper than Hegel's, yet why are his scattered remarks on China now the subject of fervent discussion? Similarly, even today, among the influential Western "Sinologists" who study Chinese culture, how many truly understand the secrets of Chinese culture, even those who praise it? Are they revered by Chinese "Sinologists" because they truly master the essence of Chinese culture, or are there also self-created illusions at play? For years, our nation has been unable to tolerate differing opinions. Others are only allowed to speak well of us, and any criticism is seen as "discrimination," "hegemony," or "Western-centricism." Hegel may be the last Western philosopher to systematically critique traditional Chinese culture. The critical remarks he raised from a philosophical perspective have not been taken seriously by Chinese scholars, yet they are already considered outdated. But today, many of Hegel's views hold reasonable points, even hitting the mark with profound insights.
A philosopher, when facing a different culture, often does not need complete materials to accurately grasp the essence of the two cultures through philosophical insight. In fact, the more materials discovered later, the more they confirm the fundamental accuracy of this prediction—a phenomenon difficult for a nation lacking a philosophical tradition and relying solely on naive experience and "internal transcendence" to comprehend. Of course, this philosophical-level theoretical sensitivity has its inherent limitations. Hegel was clearly aware of these limitations. His specific discussions of Chinese philosophy and culture were minimal, and he cautiously confined himself to general literature and widely known facts. Yet, the few words he wrote often convey more thought than the thousands of words of later sinologists.
However, if one has no interest in profound thought, no interest in Hegel's way of thinking, or no interest in the spiritual elements contained within his concepts and system, then their reception of Hegel's view of Chinese culture will be limited to emotional acceptance or rejection. They might even replace theoretical research with political needs based on their own stance. Even worse are those fake theorists who do not read Hegel's original works but merely use him as a temporary tool to express their opinions or viewpoints. In their eyes, Hegel is merely a convenient target when discussing issues like authoritarianism, autocracy, brutality, hypocrisy, arrogance, and emptiness.
This book has a significant feature: at the beginning, the author not only provides a clear and concise overview of the intellectual resources and historical background of Hegel's view of Chinese culture but also offers an in-depth analysis and structural presentation of the theoretical foundation of his view—the concept of "spirit." These analyses and presentations are highly dialectical and can only be achieved by truly understanding Hegel's highly abstract conceptual logic. This is also the most academically impressive part of the book. Building on this theoretical foundation, the subsequent arguments in the book are powerful and insightful, moving from the abstract to the concrete, from a general understanding of the spiritual essence of Eastern culture to a special understanding of the spiritual essence of Chinese and Indian cultures, and accurately positioning Chinese culture within the broader development of world culture.
We should not underestimate this "positioning." It represents Hegel's creative application of the Western traditional academic method in the historical field since Aristotle's "Topics" and embodies his dialectical principle of "the coincidence of logic and history." In Hegel's view, without a consistent "spiritual" coordinate, it is impossible to locate any object, whether natural or historical. Without location, there is no basis for research, and it is impossible to break through the phenomenon and delve into the essence. Postmodernism and cultural relativism, out of their rejection of logical reason and "Western-centricism," deny this kind of positioning, making the comparison and theoretical analysis of different cultures impossible. This is particularly unacceptable for the Chinese intellectual world, which has long lacked theoretical training. The book provides compelling arguments on this point.
The second part of the book focuses on a detailed analysis of Hegel's critiques and critiques of Chinese Confucian culture and tradition. This includes revelations on the atheistic nature of Confucianism, its sense of fear, its natural awareness of "Heaven" and emperor worship, the non-moral nature of Confucian ethics, the "people-centeredism" and patriarchal state principles, slave-like "equality," and the non-spiritual nature of the "Dao." All of these, according to Hegel's concept of "spirit," exhibit immaturity and backwardness. As for the philosophy of "Daoism" and the philosophy of the "I Ching," the author, following Hegel's line of reasoning, classifies them under the shared "natural awareness" with Confucianism and meticulously analyzes and reveals their flaws as "anti-intellectualism" and dry intellect, which are inherent defects of "natural entity religion."
The author expresses great admiration for these insights of Hegel and uses materials from Chinese philosophy to verify and expand upon them, connecting the arguments that were merely assertions in Hegel's work with theoretical and logical coherence. In these places, the author's arguments almost constitute a philosophical and theoretically constructive critique of the Chinese national character, demonstrating a strong sense of reality and meticulous analytical and synthetic capabilities. For example, regarding the "Needham Question"—whether ancient China had a "true science" that stumped many scholars—the author cites Hegel's arguments to directly point out: "Ancient China did not have true science." This is like shouting "The emperor has no clothes," refuting the trendy relativist views of Needham and others. The book contains many such blunt and daring statements that are bound to irritate the sensitive nerves of a large portion of the Chinese people, requiring great theoretical courage. The author is almost completely against the current, even as if deliberately opposing the trend. But if we calmly reflect, we will find that many of these statements are true.
Ba Jin once taught us to "speak the truth," but speaking the truth directly is not always easy! Of course, the author does indeed have some tendencies to elevate Hegel too highly, giving the impression that Hegel is beyond surpassing. But to deny the academic value of the book based on this alone is inappropriate. Chinese academia has today, it should allow some theoretical "extremists" to speak freely, even if a few "Hegelians" or "Kantians" emerge. What matters is whether they express genuine insights through sincere academic research or merely engage in hypocritical academic. We even believe that a truly theoretically profound "Hegelian" is more valuable than a hundred trendy "Heideggerians" or "Foucaultians." Moreover, the author of this book does not blindly endorse Hegel; in many places, he points out Hegel's mistakes and biases.
We believe that as long as the author maintains this pure academic attitude, the certain shortcomings of the book will gradually be overcome as his research deepens, opening up a broader perspective.
Yang Zutao, Deng Xiaomang
September 2003, Luojia Mountain
Preface Many who are not entirely unfamiliar with Western philosophy may raise the following question upon glancing at the title of this book: Is Hegel's view of Chinese culture still worth taking seriously? Few would deny Hegel's in the history of Western philosophy, but his understanding and judgment of Eastern culture, including Chinese culture, are largely met with negation and disdain by many, if not most. In today's humanities academia, there seem to be ample reasons to dismiss Hegel's views on Chinese and Eastern cultures, such as the claim that his research violates academic norms, that he has serious Western-centric biases, that his methodology is anti-scientific and dogmatic metaphysics, and so on.
But Hegel's philosophy can effectively counter these criticisms. Regardless of whether 19th-century Westerners had the conditions or ability to conduct research on Eastern culture, including Chinese culture, to meet the highly specialized and professionalized standards of modern humanities academia, it must be noted that Hegel has always despised the approach of treating spiritual sciences, or humanities, with an attitude and methodology of empirical science. For example, he criticized the Protestant theology of his time for abandoning philosophy while enthusiastically engaging in textual and historical of the Bible, calling it "" (spiritless). Hegel: Lectures on the Philosophy of History, Vol. 3, Commercial Press, 1959, p. 383. He bluntly pointed out that this was merely "picking up Spinoza's teeth" Hegel: Lectures on the Philosophy of History, Vol. 4, Commercial Press, 1978, p. 96.
Therefore, the issue of whether Hegel's research on Chinese and Eastern cultures could or should have been conducted in accordance with "norms" is not the point. Rather, he simply had no regard for such norms, as he fundamentally opposed and despised the practice of turning spiritual sciences into spiritless linguistic textual studies and textual research.
Perhaps someone might argue that one must first learn to read characters before reading books. Without a certain linguistic and textual foundation, how can Hegel's views on Chinese and Eastern cultures be convincing? This seemingly reasonable criticism is actually based on a misunderstanding and confusion of the very nature of what we are discussing. "Anyone in the modern world knows that culture and documents are not the same thing," Deng Xiaomang: Preface to New Criticism, Hubei Education Press, 2001, p. 2. Those with a bit of insight know that mastering a nation's language, understanding its history, or even being familiar with some of its cultural classics has nothing to do with understanding the spiritual essence of its culture. It is no different from the relationship between knowing the precise value of π and being a qualified mathematician. Mou Zongsan, a contemporary great scholar, though opposing Hegel's understanding of the spiritual essence of Chinese culture, acknowledges that Hegel's understanding of Chinese history was quite profound and that such profound understanding does not require excessive historical knowledge Mou Zongsan: Nineteen Lectures on Chinese Philosophy, Shanghai, 1997, pp. 182–184.
History belongs to what Hegel called objective spirit, and the manifestation of spirit in history is directly constrained by many accidental and external factors. Therefore, if the understanding of the spirit in history, which appears to be constrained by many accidental and external factors, does not require much external knowledge, then achieving a true understanding of a nation's religion, philosophy—what Hegel called "absolute spirit"—requires at least as much external material and knowledge as understanding its history. Hegel had no prejudice against empirical "humanities" sciences like linguistics and textual research, acknowledging their value. For example, he recognized the value of historical comparison in his time.
The brief discussions of Hegel on Chinese culture that are worth taking seriously not only stem from his penetrating insights into Chinese and Chinese history but also from the fact that his arguments for Chinese culture are based on the concept of "spirit," which can be considered the cornerstone and soul of Hegel's philosophical system. I will strive to prove that Hegel's concept of "spirit" does not merely reveal some or certain previously unknown essences of national spirits or even of the human spirit itself but also reveals some inherent and fundamental aspects of them, and thereby, on principle, reveals the fundamental differences and origins of Eastern and Western cultures and history.
The brief discussions of Hegel on Chinese culture that are worth taking seriously not only stem from his penetrating insights into Chinese and Chinese history but also from the fact that his arguments for Chinese culture are based on the concept of "spirit," which can be considered the cornerstone and soul of Hegel's philosophical system. I will strive to prove that Hegel's concept of "spirit" does not merely reveal some or certain previously unknown essences of national spirits or even of the human spirit itself but also reveals some inherent and fundamental aspects of them, and thereby, on principle, reveals the fundamental differences and origins of Eastern and Western cultures and history.