Chinese Academic Journal 2003 4/Issue 16

Author: Liu Dong, Editor-in-Chief
Publisher:
Publishing Time: Not Available
Features: If we borrow Isaiah Berlin's famous metaphor, perhaps our editorial work resembles the work of a fox. That is to say, for any specific academic topic, no matter how much one has learned, one must always be uncertain and think left and right, always suspecting that one knows too little and doubting that better research might still emerge. However, when it comes to adhering to a "cross-cultural" perspective, everyone prefers to stick to it like a hedgehog, because we are convinced that the true path to salvation, just like this academic field itself, must arise from the long process of cultural interaction. For this reason, the introduction in this issue begins with the review section, as it will take the form of a special feature to commemorate the late comparative philosopher David L. Hall, who was genuinely dedicated to Sino-Western interaction and died young.
Of course, the best way to commemorate a philosopher is to engage in intellectual debates with him as if he were alive, rather than resorting to conventional mourning and excessive praise. In one article, Richard Rorty hopes, through a careful discussion of this thinker's ideas, to express his respect and remembrance for the late colleague, while also clarifying the similarities and differences between their viewpoints to articulate his own "limited" stance in new pragmatism. The author also agrees that Romanticism indeed challenged the grand and solemn notion of universalism; however, he feels that this trend still follows Plato's line too closely and thus avoids acknowledging human finitude, failing to provide a rational restraint on the speculative impulse of "ontology-theology" up to the standards of wisdom.
In another article, Nan Leshan traces the seven works of David L. Hall in chronological order, outlining his lifelong inner pursuit and analyzing the fissures and irony in his journey. Based on the cultural philosophy as a speculative system derived from Whitehead, and considering the multiplicity of great fields like religion, science, morality, and art, Hall moved along a specific path toward pluralism in cultural possibilities. Later, with a fierce critique of contemporary American society, he collaborated fruitfully with (A. C. Grayling), helping to establish broad comparability between Chinese and Western traditions. However, as Nan Leshan sees it, this method of intense cultural contrast may carry too strong an Aristotelian binary categorical color; moreover, the aesthetic order of China, as represented by him, is so value-preferential that its ultimate starting point shifts from cultural philosophy to moral philosophy.
In another article, (A. C. Grayling) reflects on his creative collaboration with David L. Hall through a meditation on the source of creativity. Unlike the "creation ex nihilo" model attributed to deities in Western mainstream thought, Confucian philosophy in China and American pragmatism see the sole creative source as the close cooperation between humans and the world. This pluralistic philosophy is the true non-determinism, which gives human individuality true meaning and recognizes the process of change as real and intrinsic. At the end, the author addresses David L. Hall, with whom he had "co-created," with deep affection—"The 'addition' born from appreciation truly increases the value of the world in this creative relationship. It is humanity's ability to cooperate that makes everything joyful and effortless, and this is the deeper meaning of 'appreciating the individual.'"
In another article, Joseph K. Grey uses a dramatic tone to describe David L. Hall's lifelong pursuit in layers. Contrary to the general judgment of him as a cultural philosopher, the author argues that Hall still belongs to the philosophical lineage of metaphysicist Whitehead. However, if Whitehead is compared to Plato, then Hall is a Chinese-style Aristotle, as he is always on guard—against the Western culture's reliance on abstract science and stereotypical morality, which hinders the perception of concrete things. It is this speculative reflection on system construction that gives him the inner drive to "expect China"; at the same time, at the edge of this new axial age, his universal generalizations, adapted to Chinese sensibility, may promote a re-examination of the fundamental relationship between "one" and "many."
In the essays section, Chen Lai also offers a new interpretation of Wang Fuzhi's philosophy by inventing the development of Wang Fuzhi in the Annotations to the Zhengmeng. The author proposes that, unlike Zhang Zai, the fundamental characteristic of Wang Fuzhi's cosmology must ultimately be expressed in the significance of good and evil for life and death. Wang Fuzhi believed that a person's good and evil would not dissipate with death but would affect their afterlife, so one must cultivate "preserving the spirit and fulfilling the nature" to ensure a complete return to the harmony and richness of the universe after death. This doctrine reveals a sense of responsibility for the universe, asserting that humanity has a fundamental role in preserving and purifying the original ecological environment of the universe. This theory belongs to the "ultimate concern" of Wang Fuzhi's late systematic framework, so his thought cannot be simply reduced to naturalism, nor to dialectical materialism unrelated to humanistic values.
By reviewing the various difficult choices Wang Guangda made amid chaos and transformation, the author hopes to calmly assess the achievements and limitations of this academic pioneer, especially to appreciate his choices between Western studies and national studies and the depth of his respective achievements. While praising his extraordinary talent, the author also points out that the greatest shortcoming in Wang Guangda's study of Western philosophy lies in his neglect of its historical background since the Reformation. Additionally, although he highly praises Kant, he also feels that Wang Guangda failed to grasp the enlightenment spirit he advocated to break free from the "immaturity brought upon oneself" and thus did not question China's heritage of the Confucian tradition and political tradition by referring to Western "theoretical philosophy." The author also expands his perspective to the field of Sinology, highlighting Wang Guangda's achievements and shortcomings in national studies through a preliminary comparison with Naito Konan and Paul Pelliot.
Su Yuanxi again focuses on the cultural enclosures that constrain human groups. In response to scholars like Needham, who place the "theory of vital energy" at the center of Chinese science, and to scholars like Erwin May, who sharply distinguish China's "lyric tradition" in poetry from the "dramatic tradition" in Western poetry, the author points out that the poetic theory such as "emotions stirring from within and taking form in words" actually originated from earlier musical theory like "emotions stirring from within and taking form in sound," and that ancient music was intertwined with foreign Hu music. Therefore, one should pay close attention to the various fissures in ancient texts to discover how the essentialist Chinese-ness was constructed according to the strong cultural logic of early imperial times.
Yi Ruofen traces how the concept of the "Eight Views of Xiaoxiang" in Northern Song literati painting gradually and repeatedly entered the Korean era of Goryeo through the links of Song Di, Emperor Huizong, King Myeongjong of Goryeo, Li Ning, Li Guangbi, Wang Kexun, Huihong, Li Renlao, and Chen She, using this artistic representation's transmission, reception, and expansion process as a to attempt to outline the density and complexity of the long-standing cultural exchange between China and Korea.
Around the axis of "social contract and personal relationships," Shi Yuankang reiterates the basic assumptions of liberalism in modern social relations, as well as the closely related specific philosophical anthropology. The author emphasizes that not only is individualism true if the social contract is true, but conversely, if the social contract is true, then individualism is also true. This means that, from the perspective of liberalism, a society based on the social contract can only be an individualistic society.
Following the publication of Huang Yong's related paper in the fifteenth issue, Xu Dongzhong again raises objections to the principle of political neutrality in Political Liberalism. The author points out that the limitation on the universal validity of liberalism's justice concept, which Rawls introduced to accommodate pluralism, is not fully rationally justified. Not only can political philosophy not escape its commitment to certain metaphysical assumptions about human nature, but even Rawls's own "political" liberalism cannot fundamentally escape such commitments. Therefore, while abandoning and coordinating the views of Justice, the author also attempts to develop a perfectionist liberalism along certain ideas of Aristotle.