Peddling the Philosophy of Science

I am scheming how to sell philosophy of technology to that junior female student. In previous years my sales tactic was just to lend them a few books and let them browse freely. I hoped that if they were interested in those books, they would borrow more books to read, or ask me about information on related books; the best possible outcome would be that they would come find me to discuss them. So far, though, the best case has been only that a junior said to me that that book was very interesting—nothing more. More often, after half a year or a year, they would come and say to me: sorry, I just haven’t returned the book all this time. Then I would let them choose whether to meet somewhere to return it, or to hand it back on some class period, or else to bring it back to me and see whether they might borrow a few other books too? But in fact no one has ever renewed a loan. It is indeed rather disappointing.

But then again, the juniors and junior female students I have had contact with in the past two years have really been quite limited. In particular, because of the active presence of UC, XCJ, and other juniors whom I find tiresome, I dropped out of all the QQ groups for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 cohorts (when I left, no one tried to keep me); and because for two years I have refused to take part in most public activities, I have basically been in a state of isolation from the world. I do not even know what is going on with the juniors and junior female students. Perhaps I should take advantage of this last year of undergraduate life to exert a bit more influence on them? Who knows whether there will be any more chances? In fact I have always been hoping that some specialization-guidance session would specially invite me to come and talk about philosophy of technology—just like inviting the teachers of the Religious Studies division to go out in force and sell religious studies together? If someone is to be invited to sell philosophy of technology, inviting me alone would be enough.

I once planned to write an independent “Freshman Handbook,” one that would not only introduce philosophy of technology, but would also go through the eight secondary disciplines one by one, discussing my impressions and suggestions. But only in the introduction to philosophy of technology would I use the word “sell,” because a general introduction is for the public good, whereas introducing philosophy of technology is partly for private reasons: bring in a few more people to study philosophy of technology, arouse a few more people’s interest in philosophy of technology, and then perhaps there will be more people with whom I can communicate. To be honest, although I am not too willing to be the kind of teacher looked up to from a podium, I do yearn to be a kind of mentor who is at once teacher and friend. My own level does not necessarily have to become anything special, but if I could bring others into the gate and help them onto the road, how joyful that would be! Even if I myself do not manage to become a philosopher (who said I couldn’t?), I at least hope that the epoch-making philosophers of China’s future (they will surely emerge from our generation) will still greet me as “old senior brother” when they meet me, hehe.

This time I was lucky enough to meet a rather promising junior female student. Last time we met, because I was scared, I did not make the pitch; next time, if there is a chance, I definitely must sell it to her a bit—who’s afraid of whom? Although, if one is going abroad, logic and analytic philosophy probably are more useful, but that is nothing more than a springboard. Before going abroad or after going abroad, doing a bit of philosophy of technology from time to time can never be a bad thing. And anyway, my pitch is aimed even more at all the unknown junior boys and junior girls.

Like this time, when our cohort was recommended for graduate study, philosophy of technology had the most places but the fewest applicants. Some classmates, seeing that philosophy of technology was relatively open, had also thought of coming over to join us; I don’t know how that turned out in the end, but I suspect it was only talk. (Because if one really had decided to apply for philosophy of technology, should one not have come to ask me about it?) Consulting Lao Yang about philosophy of technology does not work; he actually said that if you had not chosen the direction of logic, philosophy of science, and philosophy of technology, then it would not do. In fact, people from other departments and other universities can all be admitted for philosophy of technology; even graduates of the Forestry University can be admitted, so at least those of us in our own department should always have the qualification.

Philosophy of technology does indeed require a certain scientific background, but there is really no need to exaggerate this requirement. In fact, on the one hand, I have heard that among those truly possessing a “hard” scientific background in the philosophy of technology program—such as mathematics or physics—not many are from such backgrounds; most come from engineering, and there are also quite a lot from the humanities and social sciences. On the other hand, the field of philosophy of technology is extremely broad, and the demands it makes on one’s scientific foundation vary as well. Judging from the theses they write, there are some on traditional philosophical topics such as the problem of free will, and there are also some on things like the history of afforestation and other matters that have nothing to do with philosophy; these may not necessarily require a very profound scientific foundation, either.

Philosophy of technology formally belongs to a secondary branch of philosophy, but like the Department of Religious Studies, it is in some sense something attached to and supported by another unit. The independence of philosophy of technology, and the breadth of its scope, are by no means inferior to those of the Institute of Foreign Philosophy or the Department of Religious Studies. “Philosophy of technology” is a concise label; this place has other names as well, such as “History and Philosophy of Science and Technology” and “Center for Studies of Science and Society.”

History and Philosophy of Science and Technology is the full name of the discipline; included here are the secondary discipline of philosophy of science and technology under philosophy, and—surprisingly—the first-level national discipline of history of science and technology (and it belongs to the sciences). As for the areas covered, philosophy of science in the narrow sense is of course one aspect; one can also include analytic-philosophy traditions, things like philosophy of language, the problem of free will, and the like, all of which are related, although these are not the special strengths of Peking University’s philosophy of technology. Still, if one really wanted to do such things, it probably would not be any worse.

Let me add in passing: in fact, whatever secondary discipline of philosophy it may be, it can also be linked with philosophy of technology. That is to say, whatever background you have will not be wasted; or rather, under the name of philosophy of technology, you can do anything you like.

Let us begin with Marxist philosophy. (Please forgive my arrogance, because I am currently selling philosophy of technology. I do not object if comrades in Marxist philosophy take a jab at philosophy of technology when they are selling Marxist philosophy.) I think that although the atmosphere in the Marxist philosophy teaching and research office is after all not on the same level as that of the Marxism Institute, it is still too constrained, and it is hard to develop doctrines freely. Moreover, the very positioning of Marxist philosophy as a discipline always seems suspicious. Although we often see new and old professors discussing “discipline, doctrine, school” and so on for Marxist philosophy, trying to sort out and defend the rationality of Marxist philosophy as a discipline, the problem still remains: why can Plato’s philosophy and Kant’s philosophy only exist as some field under some branch under a larger discipline, whereas Marxist philosophy is grandly the first major secondary discipline under philosophy? And now some scholars are trying to eliminate interference further, reducing Marxist philosophy to “Marx’s philosophy”; for example, there are those who advocate placing Marx back into intellectual history for study, which means treating him in the same way one studies Kant or Hegel; others say we should return to textual research on Marx, and so on. Although these approaches differ sharply from one another, without exception they all further weaken the rationality of Marxist philosophy as a self-standing “discipline.” If Marxist philosophy is to deserve to be called an independent discipline, then its efforts cannot be confined to textual criticism or intellectual history research—what unique grandness is there between an object studying the relation between Marx’s and Hegel’s thought, and a topic studying the relation between Hegel’s and Kant’s thought? Although Marx’s position in intellectual history is indeed of great importance, compared with figures like Plato, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, and the rest, he is still only that much. Could it be that the territory of a whole lofty discipline amounts to just that little patch on the history of Western philosophy? That would be far too lacking in spirit, wouldn’t it?

In the end, one has to attribute the reason for treating Marxist philosophy as an independent discipline to China’s national conditions, which further causes Marxist philosophy workers to lose confidence. But the independence of philosophy of technology also has factors of national conditions, and from natural dialectics to philosophy of science and technology, philosophy of technology has gradually stepped onto a proper track, developed its own style, and established its role both in academia and among the public. By contrast, Marxist philosophy, as LY once mentioned, has “lost its voice”; it cannot get a word in edgewise and cannot find its own position.

Where has gone the style of looking down upon all philosophies, sharp and biting, that Marx had? Where has gone the spirit of doubting everything, of merciless criticism and exposure of reality? Where has gone that grand spirit? Where has gone that powerful force of impact and incitement? Where has gone the practical spirit of transforming the world? Why don’t you dare to curse anymore? In this regard, Marxist philosophy and the Marxism Institute are probably the kind of thing where fifty steps laugh at one hundred. If you have forgotten to doubt everything, forgotten to criticize reality, forgotten to transform the world, how can you deserve to be called the inheritor of Marx’s mantle?

To whom was Marx’s mantle passed? Take a look: who is still doubting everything? Who is criticizing and exposing? Who is attacking the existing order? Who is resisting modernity? Who is active not only in the study but also among the public? Who is paying attention to practice? Who is trying to change the power relations of this world? — Philosophy of technology! Here in philosophy of technology, among the pluralists of science, among the critics of technological rationalism, among the people of scientific culture!

So, if you want to place Marx within intellectual history and delve into him, you might as well study Western philosophy; if you want to inherit Marx’s spirit, then you would actually be better off coming to philosophy of technology!

Then let us talk about Western philosophy. There is no need to say much about it: the entire history of Western philosophy is basically a history of philosophy of technology. The origin of early Greek philosophy was “natural philosophy”; the significance of mathematics in Plato’s philosophy, and the significance of physics in Aristotle’s thought, need no further elaboration. Medieval philosophy took as its thread the tension between reason and faith, or rather between science and religion. Modern philosophy was launched by the mathematician Descartes and the advocate of scientific methodology Bacon; as for Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and up to Kant, philosophy has always been centered on philosophy of technology, and there is even less need to mention the Enlightenment, materialism, and so on. German classical philosophy, meanwhile, was a countercurrent against modern science and deserves notice. Modern philosophy began with disputes over the foundations of mathematics; from the logicist school emerged the whole of Anglo-American analytic philosophy, while the formalist and intuitionist schools influenced the development of the entire continental philosophy. And when it comes to postmodernism, there is even less need to say it: philosophy of technology is still the focal point of the problem. In short, in the history of philosophy, almost every major turning point has had philosophy of technology as its focus. So how could someone working in Western philosophy fail to get involved in philosophy of technology?

But, to be precise, this specialization is not called Western philosophy; it is called “foreign philosophy,” which means that Arab philosophy, Indian philosophy, and so on are also included. Speaking of which, Arab and Indian topics are among the blind spots in the history of science and technology. Last semester, the center for science and society seems to have just hired a teacher from the School of Foreign Languages as an adjunct professor for the history of Arab science and technology; topics such as astronomy in Indian Buddhist scriptures seem to be handled by a student of Teacher Jiang Xiaoyuan. Nationwide, there are very few people with deep attainments in these fields. If you are interested in India, Arabia, and so on, then you can still come here to do philosophy of technology. As for wanting to do African philosophy, Indian American philosophy, and the like, those probably do not fit together very well with foreign philosophy either; you might as well come and do scientific pluralism.

Then let us speak of Chinese philosophy—I admit that this area seems to be the farthest from philosophy of technology. But that is precisely the point: why is Chinese philosophy so far from science? The history of science and technology in China is a major traditional topic. Did China have science? Why did it not have science? Why did science fail to emerge? These questions require not only verification from the history of science and technology, but also verification from intellectual history. Although many people have done this work, it has never quite been adequate, and I feel that some people with attainments in Chinese philosophy are needed to explore these questions.

Next, ethics. The relationship is even closer. In applied ethics there is no need to say much: environmental ethics, bioethics, computer ethics, and so on all fall within the scope of philosophy of technology. As for modern ethics such as meta-ethics and normative ethics, these are basically also philosophy of language; wherever you do them, it is about the same. If one is interested in classical ethics, then one will not do well in an ethics teaching and research office occupied by analytic philosophy; it is better to follow my line of thought and try reviving virtue ethics! I remember Teacher Cheng said it well: the thought of ethics, in any philosopher, is only established after his or her thought has basically taken final shape; when one is young and full of vigor, it is hard to put forward very mature views on ethics. So if you want to do ethics, wherever you start out is more or less the same, and starting from philosophy of technology is by no means impossible.

Then aesthetics. Aesthetics is indeed extremely important, although its becoming an independent secondary discipline also has historical reasons, such as the two aesthetic booms in modern Chinese history. But why was it aesthetics, of all things, that became hot? There must be reasons for that too. Last time I heard Ye Lang say that aesthetics can be a bridge connecting science and the humanities; if that is so, then is that not precisely the work of philosophy of technology? In my own thinking, although I have had relatively little contact with aesthetics up to now, it has long occupied a pivotal position—my philosophy of the starry sky, in a sense, is about aesthetics. There have already been many discussions of nature and beauty, science and art, most of them by scientists. As for the discussions by artists and aesthetic theorists, they seem to be rather lacking.

Logic is even more closely related to philosophy of technology, although in practice the distance between these two groups of people is probably the greatest in terms of interests and styles. All the logic teachers would advise me not to choose philosophy of technology, on the grounds that philosophy of technology is now very chaotic; if one were doing philosophy of technology from the era of early analytic philosophy, that would be fine, but the present one will not do. But why did the philosophy of technology position in early analytic philosophy decline? Why have those working in logic been powerless to do anything about it? When logic teachers recommend their own discipline, they say: logic is a rather mature discipline; whereas I, on the contrary, want to emphasize that philosophy of technology is now a rather immature discipline. Confusion, lack of lineage, unclear paradigms. But precisely its immaturity means that young people have much to do in it. Since logic is already so mature, it has many constraints and bottlenecks. Unless you can become an epoch-making philosopher, it is very hard to make major breakthroughs in this overripe field. But if you are such a philosopher, then what difference does it make whether you stay in logic or in philosophy of technology? The topics that logic can do, philosophy of technology can basically do under its own name as well.

Finally, let us talk about Religious Studies. This is truly the field most closely related to philosophy of technology. “Science and religion” is indeed one of the main threads running through the entire history of Western thought. Whether one studies the history of religion, philosophy of religion, or the current state of religion, one cannot avoid science; religion can never escape science, and can only face it. The relationship between science and religion is not only a theme of Religious Studies, but also a vitally important theme of philosophy of technology, and it is also a focus of my own attention.

By the way, let me add that the people in philosophy of technology are, on the one hand, the freest and most unrestrained group, having written many essays and prose pieces; organizing teachers and students each year to go play at places like Baihuashan and Haituoshan is also enviable, and there are natural historians who care about flowers and grass. In general, they are unconventional and distinctive. But on the other hand, the people in philosophy of technology are in fact extremely rigorous in their academic work. One need not look at anything else; just look at the series of translations they edit, and one can tell. Whether in the standards they demand for translation, or in the preservation of marginal page numbers, notes, and indexes, they are the most rigorous and standardized. Also, if by the undergraduate stage you had already published five, six, or seven papers in core journals, perhaps in an institute like Marxist philosophy you would be regarded as a talent, but in the philosophy of technology teaching and research office you would probably be looked down upon. I remember Teacher Liu joking half-seriously that one should write more essays, but at most one or two papers a year; “in present-day China, publishing too many academic papers and attending too many academic conferences is immoral.” If the teacher is already like this, how could a university student publish so many papers? It is thus clear that although those people look carefree and unrestrained, in scholarship they are the most serious.

I’ll stop boasting here for this time; if I keep going, it will probably become a bit outrageous. In short, come to philosophy of technology and be my junior boys and junior girls~!

September 18, 2007

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.