Biographical Review of the Academic Thought of Jin Yuelin

Author: Wang Zhongjiang
Publisher:
Publish Date: 1998-12-01
Features: People often regard philosophers as "idealistic," "unapproachable," or "strange," and thus tend to adopt a "respectful distance" toward them. For Jin Yulan, he was indeed "idealistic." He soared in the "clouds," wandering in the infinite "reality," beyond the limited "boundaries." But he was not "unapproachable." He was grounded in the "real world," living in the "tangible" world. He had a special sensitivity to life and led a more "concrete" life than ordinary people. Roosters from Yunnan shared meals with him, and crickets from Beijing accompanied him in dreams. He played joyfully with innocent children, and "heroes from all walks of life" were guests at his "Saturday gatherings." His humor made everyone applaud in admiration; his "self-forgetful" state was even more celebrated for its boundless openness. If we were to summarize everything about Jin Yulan in one sentence, it might be: "Romantic sentiment in earthly life, rational soul in the clouds." If it was still Jin's attempt to save metaphysics by reforming it at this point, then after that, Jin strove to secure a place for metaphysics in philosophy by discussing its differences from epistemology. In his On the Way, he particularly expressed his different attitudes toward knowledge and metaphysics. "I want to state that my attitude toward metaphysics is different from my attitude toward epistemology. When studying epistemology, I can stand outside the scope of knowledge and can temporarily forget that I am a person. For issues that directly involve people, I can study them with a calm attitude, forgetting myself as a person, which is precisely what allows me to maintain a calm attitude. However, studying metaphysics is different. Although I can forget that I am a person, I cannot forget that 'Heaven and earth are born with me, and all things are one with me.' I not only seek intellectual understanding in my research objects but also emotional satisfaction in the results of my research." That is to say, in epistemology, the subject treats the object entirely rationally, and subjective emotions such as joy, anger, sorrow, and happiness cannot be involved. There is no "me" in the object, and I stand outside the object, "observing things through things." This reflects the "state of no self." But in metaphysics, the subject observes the object with emotions, and there is "me" in the object, and the object is in me. The subject is "observing things through myself," always in the "state of self." At the same time, in terms of the inherent characteristics of metaphysics and epistemology, their differences are also clear. According to Jin Yulan, metaphysics emphasizes "unity," while epistemology emphasizes "division." Unity means that all things are one, transcending form and image, beyond self and other, born and never ending. Unity also means that truth, goodness, and beauty are one—truth is good and beautiful. But division means that the objects of study are different, with varying sizes and lengths, nature and humanity, subject and object, with clear boundaries and distinct meanings. In division, truth is just truth, goodness is just goodness, and beauty is just beauty. To say that truth is good and beautiful is all nonsense. The difference between unity and division, in terms of language, is also the difference between the "world of names" and the "world beyond names." Jin Yulan said, "The interest that knowledge generates is always in the world of names, which is the world that can be distinguished by names (noun concepts). It focuses not on the whole of the universe or the totality, but on the various and distinct things that are differentiated from one another. When we know something about these things, we always know them separately, and when we express something about them, we always express it separately." Metaphysics, on the other hand, makes statements about being and is part of the world beyond names—that is, it is not a world that can be expressed in names. It transcends the world of names, something that cannot be said or spoken. If so, does this not mean "not establishing words," keeping silent about metaphysics? But Jin Yulan did not see it that way. He said, "Engaging in philosophy will always reach a stage where it cannot be said. What cannot be said is what is commonly referred to as what names cannot express. Some philosophers say that what cannot be said is not even a thing at all. If we must talk about such things, we are merely talking nonsense. This view is also valid. What cannot be said cannot be said. If one forces oneself to say it, the words spoken will be different from ordinary words. The things spoken of are neither special in experience nor universal in thought. However, this is not the stance of a philosopher. Because the demand of a philosopher is precisely because of the feeling that these names—