Collection of Knowledge

Author: Gong Yingyan
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2006-12-01
Features: This book is a collection of historical essays, including topics such as: several questions about human origins, the proposition of "labor creates man," new discoveries about human ancestors, and theoretical issues of modern human origins, etc. In 1982, I was admitted to the master's program in Ancient World History and began selecting a topic for my thesis. At that time, there were not many foreign materials in Hangzhou, so I had to go to Beijing to do research. In the archives of the Institute of Archaeology at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, I read for the first time a small book titled The Decipherment of Linear B, and I was deeply captivated by its content. It was under the influence of this book that I finally chose the Mycenaean period of ancient Greece as the topic of my graduation thesis. In the past two decades, significant changes have occurred in our country, academia, and my personal life, but the image of the protagonist in that small book has always lingered in my mind: a British man named Michael Ventris. At the age of 14, he developed a strong interest in archaeology after attending a lecture in London about the Minoan civilization and Linear B script; later, he chose architecture as his profession; during World War II, he enlisted in the British Royal Air Force as a bomber pilot; after the war, he returned to architecture and achieved notable success; however, he never forgot his youthful passion and continuously studied Linear B in his spare time, finally successfully deciphering this ancient dead language in 1952, which was at that time unreadable by anyone in the world. Why did Michael Ventris dedicate his limited life to such an amateur study that brought no practical benefits? Why didn’t he devote all his precious energy to activities that could earn material rewards? In a materialistic society, according to highly materialized academic standards, his behavior seemed foolish. However, it is astonishing that throughout human history, people like Michael Ventris have been numerous: Schliemann, Champollion, Rawlinson, Luo Zhenyu, Wang Guowei, and so on. These individuals’ stories demonstrate only one fact: humans, in addition to pursuing material interests, also have spiritual aspirations. The fundamental reason for this spiritual pursuit lies in humanity’s innate curiosity. Human curiosity is reflected not only in the exploration of natural phenomena but also in the exploration of social phenomena and the desire to know what happened in the past. It is because of curiosity that humans differ from other creatures; it is because of curiosity that humans accumulate knowledge continuously; it is because of curiosity that human life becomes and meaningful; it is because of curiosity that science and education exist. In the face of human curiosity, all disciplines are equal. Over 2,000 years ago, the great philosopher Aristotle wrote at the beginning of his Metaphysics: "The desire for knowledge is the nature of all men. Among the sciences, that which is chosen for itself, for knowledge, is wiser than that which is chosen for its consequences. At all times, people have begun philosophical inquiry out of curiosity. A person who feels puzzled and curious feels ignorant (so, in a sense, a lover of wisdom is also a lover of mysteries, for mysteries are composed of curiosity). If people engage in philosophical inquiry to escape ignorance, it is clear that they pursue knowledge for knowledge itself, not for any practical purpose. Clearly, we pursue it not for any other utility, just as we call a person who is free for himself, not for others, a free man. Among all sciences, only this one is free; only it is concerned solely with itself." (Aristotle: Metaphysics, Vol. , edited by Miao Litian: Selected Works of Aristotle: Metaphysics, China Renmin University Press, 2000, pp. 3–10.) To pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge, to let science live as a "free man" for itself, rather than as a slave for others, and to make science the master of oneself—this was the ideal Aristotle pursued, and it is also the highest realm human knowledge aspires to. However, in ancient China, such ideas were rarely seen. Xunzi, an ancient Chinese thinker who lived slightly later than Aristotle, wrote: "In all actions, those that benefit reason are established, and those that do not are abandoned. This is called the middle way. In all knowledge and discourse, those that benefit reason are pursued, and those that do not are discarded. This is called the middle way. Actions that deviate from the middle are called treacherous deeds, and knowledge and discourse that deviate from the middle are called treacherous paths. Treacherous deeds and paths are abandoned in a well-governed state but followed in a chaotic one. As for the mutual transformation of emptiness and fullness, the distinction between hardness and whiteness, and the separation of similarity and difference, these are beyond the hearing of the wise, the sight of the clear-eyed, and the speech of the eloquent—even the wisdom of the sages cannot grasp them. Ignorance is no harm to a gentleman; knowledge is no detriment to a petty man. A craftsman’s ignorance is no harm to skill; a gentleman’s ignorance is no harm to order. If the nobility favor them, the laws are disrupted; if the common people favor them, the affairs of the state are in chaos. But the foolish and ignorant begin to lead their followers, to argue their treacherous doctrines, and to clarify their false claims, living out their lives in ignorance of their folly. This is called extreme foolishness, worse even than loving to raise chickens and dogs for fame." (Xunzi: Ruxiao) In Xunzi’s view, human knowledge is divided into two categories: useful and useless. The useless should be abandoned without hesitation, while only the useful is worth studying. Why do Aristotle and Xunzi have such different views on knowledge? Is it because the Chinese nation faces too many practical problems and has suffered too much, leaving no room for scholars to indulge in the "metaphysical" studies that satisfy only intellectual curiosity and have no practical significance? This is an interesting question. Mencius proposed a standard for the "great man": "Wealth and honor cannot corrupt him, poverty and disgrace cannot move him, and power cannot bend him" (Mencius: Teng Wengong Xia). For thousands of years, this moral standard has been revered by the Chinese people. However, in ancient China, no one applied this standard to knowledge, nor did anyone advocate the independent status of human knowledge. As a result, over the long years, knowledge either submitted to power, wealth, or violence, without gaining the autonomous identity of a "free man" as Aristotle advocated. Just as the Chinese nation has endured countless hardships, the humanities have also suffered greatly in Chinese history. In feudal society, the humanities, due to special favor from feudal emperors and the feudal system, could not develop freely, resulting in incomplete development and becoming a deformed monstrosity. History also tells us that the humanities suffered severe damage under the guise of the "Cultural Revolution." Similarly, if the spirit of science is suppressed in the name of science, or if the principle of "reason" is violated by the standard of "tools," then the ultimate victim will not be a particular discipline but the entire nation. Xunzi proposed that useless knowledge should be abandoned and only useful knowledge should be studied, because "ignorance is no harm to a gentleman; knowledge is no detriment to a petty man. A craftsman’s ignorance is no harm to skill; a gentleman’s ignorance is no harm to order. If the nobility favor them, the laws are disrupted; if the common people favor them, the affairs of the state are in chaos." Xunzi’s arguments sound convincing, but in fact, ancient China did reject useless "knowledge and discourse." But what was the result? The opposite of what Xunzi envisioned. In Chinese history, we see far more "petty men" or "hypocritical gentlemen" than upright gentlemen; although craftsmen, with their hands, created brilliant technological achievements, modern science did not emerge in China; although ancient Chinese society suppressed science and technology, the rulers did not achieve long-term stability. In fact, no nation has suffered as many hardships as the Chinese nation. On the other hand, in the West, which advocated the study of useless "knowledge and discourse," modern science emerged, the Industrial Revolution took place, a higher education system was established, and with advanced technology, it eventually opened the doors of the Chinese empire. Even today, we are still striving to achieve modernization. Of course, we cannot expect the entire society to study history. One characteristic of modernization is secularization, and another is high specialization. As a result, the pursuit of knowledge has gradually concentrated in universities, or one of the main functions of universities is to explore knowledge to satisfy human curiosity. Among these activities of exploring knowledge, history is included. If universities cannot tolerate the existence of history, then in modern society, will history still have a place? In recent years, many people have discussed what a university is. Some say a university should have a grand campus; others say it should have first-class scholars; still others say it should have great love, and so on. In fact, modern universities, from the day they were born, have been characterized by respect for human curiosity and knowledge. Universities, with their broad, embrace all kinds of human curiosity, where the human spirit can freely explore any interesting questions, whether they are useful, useless, bring specific benefits, or bring no benefits at all. The Chinese nation has suffered too many hardships, and the dreams of the Chinese nation have been suppressed for too long, so we urgently hope for early takeoff. As we strive to catch up, we increasingly feel the gap with major countries abroad, particularly in science and technology. Therefore, after more than two decades of pragmatic reform and opening up, we have proposed technological innovation. While we work hard to innovate in the field of science and technology, we must not forget that knowledge is a complete system. If, while developing certain disciplines, we exclude or deprive some disciplines of their right to exist without benefits, then such a knowledge system is flawed and deformed, and innovation activities carried out on such a system lack effective support and cannot yield the desired fruits. We must also not forget that the ultimate driving force behind any innovation is human curiosity. If we ignore curiosity and focus only on the results that science and technology can produce, then such innovation activities lack lasting vitality. Here, I cannot help but recall a quote I once cited: "Once curiosity and the desire for knowledge disappear, science also declines." (Paul Pedersen: Geography of the Ancient Greeks, Commercial Press, 1983, p. 186.) Entering the 21st century, we are confidently moving toward the world with a new attitude, and openly propose the goal of establishing world-class universities. This is a grand ambition and also a dream of the Chinese nation. As we work toward this goal, we must not forget that in famous universities abroad, there are not only Nobel laureates but also disciplines like Egyptology and Assyriology, which can bring no practical benefits at all. Without establishing corresponding disciplines, how can we engage in exchanges and dialogue with top universities abroad? A country without world-class universities cannot become a first-class country; a university without world-class disciplines cannot become a first-class university. History must have its place in universities. Similarly, for history to gain such a place, it must look to the world, grasp the development trends of international academia, and continuously enrich our knowledge with new research findings. But unfortunately, in our halls of history, we often see outdated knowledge. For example, as the opening articles in this book point out, decades ago, paleoanthropological research both domestically and internationally had already clearly demonstrated that the so-called Ramapithecus 14 million years ago was not the ancestor of humans, and even the name Ramapithecus was dropped. Yet even today, in numerous university textbooks, we still see discussions about the "ancestor of humans, Ramapithecus." Such a history, completely unaware of scientific progress both at home and abroad, cannot stand its ground in universities. Chinese history must re-examine itself. Articles in this book, such as The Mycenaean Era and Its Social System, were written over a decade ago, and in all these years, no critical articles have emerged. This is not a good sign but a regrettable one, indicating that there has been no progress in this area. If one day someone can correct the articles in this book with new materials, point out the errors, I will be very happy, as this would show academic progress. Sincerely, I look forward to this day. I have said that to revitalize and develop the humanities, we must start with the researchers of the humanities: to make humanities scholars noble and the humanities pure. Finally, I would like to thank Professor Yu Qingsen and others at Zhejiang University Ningbo Institute of Technology. Although they are experts in science and technology, they are extremely concerned about the humanities. As a researcher in the humanities, I have gained warmth and encouragement from them and seen hope for the humanities. Let human curiosity soar freely in modern universities.