One of the themes in Science and View of Life
Today’s plan was to kick off the activities of the “Science and View of Life” discussion group. Yesterday I sent a mass email to the students who had signed up with me for the group, saying that they were welcome to drop by my salon today for an informal chat. Although I had not set my expectations very high, I had still hoped that at least two or three of the twelve would come, so that there would be something to discuss. The result was regrettable: only Xiao Zhou showed up. Although Xiao Zhou was a newcomer, visiting the salon for the first time, he was already an acquaintance of mine, and we had also taken Teacher Xiao’s History of Science and Technology in Modern and Contemporary China together, so there was enough to talk about in that class; as things stood, with only the two of us here today, there was really nothing to discuss.
Apart from my own lack of pulling power, there may have been several other reasons why no one responded to the call (let me comfort myself a bit), such as the fact that it was the end of the long holiday, or that I sent the email too late, and so on. Of course, on the other hand, as a discussion assignment for a public course substituting for politics class, most people probably would not be all that enthusiastic. Since I had already made it clear that this was only an informal pre-discussion, it naturally would not attract much feedback; that too is only to be expected.
My hope was to first find one or two people who had some ideas and opinions about our topic, exchange views with them first, and then have the rest of it organized by the two or three of us. For one cannot expect all the members to read the relevant materials carefully and do the corresponding thinking and preparation; perhaps most people will hardly read the original materials of the science-versus-humanities debate at all. So if we want the discussion to run effectively, it will inevitably require a few core participants to lead the way. It is not enough for me to do all the coaxing by myself.
Since hardly anyone came to discuss things today, I’ll first talk in broad terms about my own conception. As for the topic of the science-versus-humanities debate, there are essentially two approaches: one internal, one external. The internal angle means immersing oneself directly in the stage of the science-versus-humanities debate, taking oneself to be a participant, evaluating their arguments, and putting forward one’s own views. The external angle means placing the entire science-versus-humanities debate within the history of modern and contemporary Chinese thought (or social history), tracing its causes and consequences, examining why they raised such and such questions at that particular moment, what role this controversy played in the New Culture Movement, or, in other words, in China’s Enlightenment, and so on.
From the standpoint of organizing discussion, the internal angle is more appropriate. As for the relationship between science and life, value, philosophy, and so on, many of the issues debated back then have not become obsolete today; one can delve into them from the perspectives of philosophy of science, ethics, metaphysics, logic, religious studies, and more. Just so happens that our group includes students from philosophy of science, ethics, Western philosophy, logic, religious studies, and other specialties, so the discussion is bound to develop. As for the task of summary and overview, the external angle is more convenient. In short, if the group discussion is ultimately supposed to produce two reports, one internal and one external, that seems just right.
Since the first freely organized gathering failed, then the next step will be to organize a formal all-hands meeting first. Given that I’ll be going back to my hometown next week, the first activity will probably have to be postponed until the week after next. Before then, if any other students have any thoughts, feel free to leave a message on my blog, or speak with me privately. Students who are interested may first read some of the relevant reference works, especially the articles by Zhang Junmai and Ding Wenyang that were the focal point of the debate; these must be found and read.
As for the format of the discussion, aside from the first all-hands assembly, I still lean toward a free and loose model like a salon, supplemented by online exchanges. Besides my blog, if necessary, we can also borrow space on KKBBS. Even if no one responds, I will still insist on the relaxed spirit of the café; although it arose from course arrangements, by no means should the discussion be treated as a task, but rather as a leisurely way of life.
[Finally, one more reminder: next week, that is, October 17, the Suixuan salon will be suspended once; the week after next, it will resume as usual]
Seen here today: zcc
Next issue suspended once
Latest comments
- benjaminbai
2009-10-11 23:19:24 Anonymous 125.34.10.3 [Reply]
I’ve made up my mind: on the 31st I’ll go and make a fool of myself by presenting Weber. Although I’ve done very, very little preparation so far, and I still haven’t chosen the right angle… but let this be a spur to myself anyway. Since I’ve already let my wild words out, I’ll have to pay them back sooner or later~
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply