Question (2)

Author: Yu Hong, Yang Hengda, Yang Huilin, Editors
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2003-09-01
Features: To ask is the fundamental mark that distinguishes humans from others, and survival can also be simplified to answering. As the existence of thought and speech, humans are questions. To answer every question is human destiny, and to ask questions without necessarily having answers is equally human destiny, even the fundamental one. Perhaps questioning is older and more enduring than answering. Derrida, when distinguishing between "messianism" and "messianicity," discussed the limits and dynamics of deconstruction. It is said that various messianisms are deconstructible, while messianicity is not only indestructible but, conversely, it is precisely the driving force behind deconstructing various messianisms. We can abandon various messianic beliefs, but we cannot erase our own finitude and the resulting questions: where is salvation? The history of answers can rise and fall, but the questions endure. Do the eternal questions necessarily rise and fall in the history of answers? Is the history of questioning and answering the intellectual and academic history so far? Perhaps this history can be described differently, as the tension and conflict between the disciplinaryization of problems and the problematization of disciplines.
Disciplinaryization of problems refers to the fact that, so far, intellectual and academic thought has primarily proposed, established, explored, and answered questions in a (broadly defined) disciplinary manner, forming categorized knowledge and insights, and also creating categorized problems (problem fragmentation? problem monopoly?). Problematization of disciplines refers to the critique of the disciplinaryization of problems, revealing the partiality, obscurity, absurdity, and finitude of disciplinary knowledge and insights, and dismantling the boundaries of problematization within disciplines. The process of modernity has, on the one hand, accelerated the construction of disciplinary knowledge regarding problems, and on the other hand, has inspired reflective skepticism and critique regarding the problematization of disciplines. However, the tension and conflict between the disciplinaryization of problems and the problematization of disciplines are largely unbalanced, with history always leaning toward one side. Broadly speaking, intellectual and academic thought before the 20th century tended toward the disciplinaryization of problems, while the problematization of disciplines was considered an "heresy." Since the 20th century, intellectual and academic thought has tended toward the problematization of disciplines, while the disciplinaryization of problems has been deemed "conservative."
It is clear that the problems we face and discuss today—globalization, post-colonialism, modernity, ecological crises, technologically rationality, gender, mass media, power, and so on—are no longer easily categorized under any single discipline, nor can any discipline provide the full concepts and logic to answer these questions. Moreover, past problems that were addressed through disciplinary means, such as "nature," "society," "history," "reality," "truth," "science," "progress," "self," and "God," have resurfaced as new problems and are being reproblematized in non-disciplinary and interdisciplinary ways. This is an era of constantly emerging new problems and the revival of old ones, yet it is also an era without predetermined promises or answers. Humans are at a crossroads or feel lost, with only the call of problems echoing in their ears. This may be the of this journal: to confront problems themselves.
Confronting problems themselves does not mean existing outside of history or nihilism; the existing history of problems and disciplinary knowledge must be our entry point into the realm of problems, but it is not a predetermined exit. Perhaps only when we learn to find new exits can life open up new horizons. Confronting problems themselves also means that this journal emphasizes not only problem awareness but also the attempt to problematize—raising and answering questions beyond existing problem patterns, especially by problematizing lived experiences. To this end, Problem proposes to explore a non-disciplinary publishing approach, focusing each issue on 3–4 thematic discussions, composed of thematic essays, thematic translations, thematic discussions, thematic interviews, and thematic book reviews. The selection of themes is not restricted by disciplines but prioritizes their problematization value. Additionally, Problem adheres to an anonymous peer-review system to ensure academic quality and fairness.
Confronting problems themselves, or returning to the true space of problems, means that Problem is open to all sincere explorations of problems, regardless of labels such as sophistication, antiquity, modernity, or cultural origin.