[Repost] About Philosophy in Secondary School and Philosophy Departments

Recommended “Popular Philosophy”
Author: Ai Siqi
“Popular Philosophy,” originally titled “Philosophy Lectures,” was first serialized in “Reading Life” from 1934 to October 1935. It was published as a collected volume in January 1936.
Before liberation, the book went through 32 editions.
This book can serve as an introductory text for studying philosophy. Its features are: close to life, accessible and easy to understand, and easy for beginners to accept.
This book was written 60 years ago, and it also has shortcomings. In order to meet the needs of current readers, Xinhua Publishing House revised this book in 2001.
Professor Huang Nansen of the Philosophy Department at Peking University was responsible for the overall revision.

[ Last edited by su on 2006-5-3 at 19:00 ]

Heh-heh, hm-hm~~~ This book is somewhat interesting, but I personally absolutely do not recommend it to philosophy majors. The “philosophy” studied in a philosophy department is completely different from that kind of philosophy! Don’t ever assume that the philosophy studied in a philosophy department will be that sort of philosophy.

What I recommend to everyone is:
《The Tree of Philosophy》http://www.welan.com/union/rec.a … w.welan.com/711785/

If you want something extremely, extremely short and simple, 《Your First Philosophy Book》 is worth a look, http://www.welan.com/union/rec.a … w.welan.com/591253/ 
My review of this book can be found on my blog:
http://epr.yculblog.com/post.1128792.html

If you want to read a bit of soul-nourishing, life-guidance kind of books, then by all means don’t go looking on the “inspirational” shelf. I recommend a short one: Mr. Qian Mu’s *Lake-Side Random Reflections*. The works of Mr. Tang Junyi, Liang Shuming, and others are also very good.
http://www.welan.com/union/rec.a … w.welan.com/590692/

That is for middle school students to read, not an introduction book for college.

In a letter to Ai Siqi in December 1937, Mao Zedong said:
“Your Philosophy and Life is a deeper book than the others in your oeuvre; I have benefited greatly from reading it,……

Hmm~ I often keep emphasizing the non-continuity between middle-school “philosophy” and the philosophy department: it is by no means like the relation between middle school and university mathematics, where one is the popular version and the other the specialized one; nor is it like physics, where one is the introduction and the other the advanced level. Rather… it is a relationship of going south by driving the chariot north. No matter how well one studies middle-school “philosophy,” it is of no help whatever to university-level philosophy studies, and may even have a counterproductive effect. Of course, doing well in middle school means one has strong learning ability, which is certainly a good thing, but being too emotionally attached to any kind of “philosophy” is harmful to university study. Personally, I quite welcome classmates like myself, who came close to philosophy because of a strong aversion to middle-school “philosophy”! (The above is only my personal opinion.)

Studying philosophy in middle school is not for the sake of going on to the philosophy department, just as studying mathematics is not for the sake of going on to the mathematics department.
Li Tieying wrote in the preface to Popular Philosophy:
The more society moves forward, the more complex people’s social practice becomes, and the richer and more varied social life becomes, the more philosophy is needed, and the more we need to value philosophy, study philosophy well, apply philosophy, and develop and innovate philosophy.
This shows that studying philosophy is not the exclusive preserve of the philosophy department.

The problem is that, in the eyes of a mathematics department, the mathematics learned in middle school is still mathematics, just a matter of being a bit shallower or a bit deeper; but the “philosophy” learned in middle school is not philosophy — at least not in my eyes. It may also be something positive, something beneficial, but it is some other kind of thing, a thing whose overlap with philosophy is not necessarily any greater than the overlap among mathematics, physics, and philosophy.

Let me explain my understanding: what exactly is “philosophy”? Why do I say that what is studied in middle school is not philosophy?
The word “philosophy” comes from ancient Greece. The word “philosopher” came first, and literally means “lover of wisdom.” It was directed at the “sages”; in contrast to those people at the time who claimed to possess knowledge, Socrates “knew that he knew nothing.” And he identified himself as a “philosopher,” that is, a “lover of wisdom,” distinguishing himself from the “sages.” We say that Socrates was a true sage not because he possessed more knowledge than the “sages” of his time, but crucially because of his humility in “knowing that he knew nothing,” as well as his steadfast passion for the pursuit of wisdom.
Notice that philosophy is not wisdom, but the love of wisdom, the pursuit of wisdom, the longing for wisdom. This prefix can in no way be removed! Once it is removed, it is no longer philosophy. Philosophy itself is never the spokesman for wisdom and knowledge. Yet some disciplines called “philosophy” try, in the name of “philosophy,” to provide objective knowledge and universal laws, while forgetting “knowing that one knows nothing,” overlooking reflection and inquiry, and losing astonishment and humility. Therefore, even if these things can be called “wisdom,” in no case are they still philosophy.

“Popular Philosophy” is about not philosophy, but not the philosophy learned in secondary school. When I have time, I’ll copy out the table of contents and see whether it is philosophy.

Alas, alas, I’m not trying to argue with Brother Su. I do have Popular Philosophy, and have flipped through it a bit. Of course I know what it is talking about before I can say that I personally don’t recommend it.
The table of contents is here: http://www.dangdang.com/products/107/107182.asp
Of course it is much, much better than middle-school “philosophy.” But it is still not enough to give readers an exact impression of what “philosophy” is.
This is the philosophy section of the Future Peking University People community, and as moderator what I am dealing with are students who may choose the philosophy department at Peking University. If the issue is middle-school “philosophy,” you can go to the special liberal-arts section; my task here is to introduce the real situation of the philosophy department at Peking University to everyone, and to reduce everyone’s misunderstandings as much as possible. What I am saying is: what you will read in the philosophy department is very, very unlike middle-school textbooks or Popular Philosophy! That is the reality. If the students in the philosophy department were originally accustomed to those kinds of “philosophy,” then when they first enter the department they will surely feel out of place; and if they can put down the burden and draw close to the philosophy we study, they will surely feel very happy. This is also a matter of first-hand experience as students in the philosophy department.
At the philosophy department of Peking University, the teachers—including the teachers of Marxist philosophy—mostly hope that students will set aside the middle-school impression of philosophy, and the more thoroughly the better; just keep your ability to learn, and you may as well set aside all the burden of the “knowledge” you have learned. This too is an objective reality.
In fact, the problem with Popular Philosophy is clear just from looking at the table of contents: laws, laws, laws—all laws. At a glance you can tell that this is not how most philosophy books are written! It is like a book whose table of contents mentions “God” not just once, but has “God” in the title of five or six chapters; in general, that cannot possibly be a mathematics book, at least not a typical mathematics book, because mathematics does not study God! But philosophy does not have a fixed object of study, and it is not responsible for summarizing laws, so when you see so many “laws,” you can almost conclude that this is at least not a typical philosophical work.
Popular Philosophy is a very interesting book. Actually, students in our philosophy department may as well read it—after they have understood roughly what is studied in the philosophy department.

You are the second person to point out that what is learned in middle school and what is learned in college are two different things.
The first was an alumnus of the history department; he said that when they attended the first class, the teacher told them to forget everything they had learned in middle school.
What I am raising here is a new question: why not carry out proper education in middle school?

That is indeed the case. It is not only in philosophy and history; when I took the Ancient Chinese course in the Chinese Department, the teacher often told us to forget what we had learned in middle school!
Whether it is philosophy, history, or classical prose, the idea of education in middle school is different. In middle school it is indoctrination, and what is indoctrinated is mechanical knowledge, yet that knowledge is problematic.
This kind of problem is a historical legacy. Before the reform and opening up, our country for a long time continued to follow the Soviet textbook system in teaching, and the whole educational mentality was extremely simplified and mechanical. For example, first state some law, and then fit reality to that law; history does the same thing—first sum up some five-stage law, and then force the actual historical process into it, and at most what needs studying is when the boundary between slavery and feudalism occurs, while not realizing that the whole act of nesting itself is utterly off-key!
This mechanical, simplified way of doing scholarship and education has been in practice for far too long; it cannot be reversed in one or two years. Peking University is the highest institution of learning in China, and the educational philosophy at Peking University ought to be the best. In other places, however, because habits have been influenced too deeply, I’m afraid even the educational model in universities has not been completely turned around, let alone in middle school. Even within Peking University, if you pay attention, you will notice that the teaching in our Department of Philosophy gives a completely different feeling from the public courses offered by the School of Marxism. Even when what is taught is the same “Marxist philosophy,” what the School of Marxism teaches is not Marx’s philosophy. Everyone may want to note that in those textbooks bearing Marx’s name, Marx’s own words are quoted very rarely. Apart from the occasional quotations from Engels, Lenin, and Mao Zedong, the rest is all the teachers themselves speaking. Is this still Marx’s philosophy? Let me cite something Marx said: “Thorough naturalism, or humanism, is different from both idealism and materialism, and is at the same time the truth that combines the two. We also see at the same time that only naturalism can understand the action of world history.” 《Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844》—when Marx himself says “combine materialism and idealism,” what does that mean? Have our textbooks ever discussed how materialism and idealism are to be combined? In the textbooks, “idealism” is merely another name for “wrong.” Also, is Marxism “dialectical materialism” + “historical materialism”? Marx himself never said that; that was summed up by Stalin. Must we identify with it in that way? In the Department of Philosophy, roughly half of the Marxist philosophy teachers do not identify with it in that way. They maintain that Marxist philosophy cannot be dialectical materialism + historical materialism; such a label is a serious misunderstanding, a serious misreading! Of course, among the older generation, people like Mr. Huang Nansen still largely insist on dialectical materialism + historical materialism, not to mention the School of Marxism, not to mention outside Peking University.
If even those doing Marxist philosophy hold such divergent views, let alone the other “schools” of philosophy. Those of us here who do Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy are, by traditional standards, almost all—believing in idealism and speaking of metaphysics! Our philosophy courses seldom mention terms like materialism and idealism; occasionally they only mention historical concepts such as “German classical idealism,” and even when materialism is mentioned, it is usually with a pejorative sense, implying “superficiality”!
If I merely say these things in passing, do you feel that they are strange? Aren’t they vastly different from traditional concepts? These are not things that can be digested in a short while. If middle school education is to be changed, it must be changed completely. In my view, history classes should discard “slavery” and “feudalism,” and philosophy classes should discard materialism and idealism! Such major surgery seems hard to carry out in the foreseeable future… For now, one can only adapt to local customs and adjust well to the current educational system. After all, whatever one studies, it can test the level of one’s learning ability; the role of middle school education is to select out those students with high learning ability and then proceed to university study.

So profound, oh—it’s enough to make one shy away at first sight.

If you want to do well at university (rather than just muddle through; if you want to muddle through, then philosophy departments are actually pretty easy to muddle through in), then no matter what your major is, it is all “profoundly abstruse.” If you don’t have that realization, and still think that you can study well simply by memorizing and doing problems, that will not do at all (of course, the way of studying in middle school is still quite important). If university studies are not “abstruse,” then when are you ever going to encounter anything abstruse? Do you think that what you study in university—sociology, law, history, economics, and so on—is not “abstruse”? You absolutely cannot afford to be so easily “put off.” Even if you do not choose a philosophy department, you ought to be mentally prepared for the “abstruseness” of university study!

I quite agree with what you said: Chinese history no longer divides itself into slave society and feudal society.
Taiwanese and Japanese scholars do not make that division.
Does a slave society actually exist in China at all?
Philosophy should also not be divided into materialism and idealism. When I studied philosophy at university (at the time, philosophy was one of the four political courses), philosophy was
split into two major camps. In the past few years I’ve been thinking about this question: is this division right or not?
As for the definition of philosophy, we still follow Mao Zedong’s definition; there are also people who describe it in three sentences:
1. Philosophy is the cultivation of wisdom;
2. Philosophy is the discovery of truth;
3. Philosophy is the verification of value.
Hegel uses only one sentence: philosophy is the pursuit of truth.

How is Fifteen Lectures on Western Philosophy??

My personal opinion: so-so…
And the Beijing University Press book What Is Philosophy is also so-so… (Teachers, please don’t hit me~~)
As for histories of Western philosophy, I feel that the clothbound edition from Zhonghua Book Company, History of Western Philosophy , is pretty good.
Beginners absolutely shouldn’t start out by looking for Russell’s version to read. First find some books that are both excellent and accessible to cultivate your interest.

You’re scaring the kids…

The child read it and  was greatly inspired

So what do you all think of Senior Li Ruihuan’s   “study philosophy, use philosophy”   ? Ha.

I put philosophy down as my last choice of major  and judging from the current situation I’m very likely to end up in the philosophy department

What preparatory work is it used for?

Comrade Li Ruihuan is a very good, very interesting, even, one might say, somewhat legendary leader, hmm. But we’re not going to read that book, so we know absolutely nothing about it, ha……
My suggestion for all of you who have just finished the college entrance exam is: have fun~ If you don’t relax during this whole summer vacation, when are you going to relax? University study, especially studying philosophy, should not be a painful thing. Studying philosophy, like university life itself, should be relaxed and joyful. A way of studying that keeps your nerves taut and your energy intensely focused all the time may perhaps help you learn English well, but it will absolutely not help you learn philosophy well. The summer vacation should be even more relaxing; don’t think too far ahead. Once you get to the philosophy department, you will naturally gradually come to understand what philosophy really is all about. Don’t bring too many preconceptions, and don’t be too driven by utility; throw yourself into study with a “blank mind.”

Of course, reading books is probably the best way to relax—read some miscellaneous books. Personally, I strongly suggest that you absolutely do not read youth inspirational books or other such overly vulgar books. If you can try reading some academic works, that would be best. They don’t have to be philosophy books; you can read sociology, history, psychology, religious studies, and so on—choose a field you are interested in and read there. Getting used to reading academic books, even if they are only rather superficial academic books, is a very good thing. Once you can take reading as leisure, that is even better.

Personally, I think some good inspirational books are also worth reading for some people—for example, Carnegie’s The Weaknesses of Human Nature and The Advantages of Human Nature
Brother Gu’s level of thought and level of reading really are not something that some freshmen just entering the campus can attain (there’s no sarcasm intended here oh)     You already can grasp yourself and control your own thinking, emotions, will, and so on very well, but it cannot be denied that some freshmen really do find it hard to do this. They may feel confused, unable to find a goal, unable to find the fighting spirit and passion they once had. At a time like this, reading some inspirational books and some biographies of celebrities and whatnot is very useful. It still cannot be denied that the experiences of some successful people really can give others great inspiration, and many people have in fact moved toward success under the encouragement of these so-called inspirational stories.
Thank you

If it’s to cope with the confusion right before one’s eyes, to look for fighting spirit and passion, then reading a couple of inspirational books is fine. But what I cannot understand is this: some people actually “like to read” inspirational books, reading one after another—what is that supposed to mean? If inspirational books are beneficial for overcoming confusion, then once you have broken through the confusion and gained courage, why keep reading inspirational books? If the effect of inspirational books is poor, and after reading one after another you are still confused as before, then why continue to immerse yourself in them?

Some people actually “like reading” self-help books, one after another—what is that supposed to be?

Heh heh, did Brother Gu ever run into such a person? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone with that kind of hobby~ Maybe this is a search for self-improvement: improving one’s character, willpower, and so on, learning from other people’s experiences, and picking up some of their suggestions and admonitions. But really, once you’ve read enough, that should be enough; constantly immersing oneself in other people’s ideas and successes can also numb a person. So Brother Gu is still right: you can’t read too many of them, and you can’t keep living in other people’s shadows. You still have to figure out your own road as you go~~~

If self-help books are beneficial for overcoming confusion, then once you’ve broken through the confusion and gained courage, why keep reading self-help books?

Here I’ll make a metaphysical guess at what they’re thinking: hmm~ maybe they still want to gain even greater courage, to guard against losing heart halfway through, after all the road ahead is pretty long. It’s like a car going on a long-distance trip needing to refuel.

If self-help books don’t work—after reading one after another you’re still confused—then why keep immersing yourself in them?
Hehe, maybe this is just believing that quantitative change will always lead to qualitative change       Just kidding. Actually, I think if after reading three such books (good ones) there is still absolutely no improvement, and you’re still confused and dispirited, then all that’s left is to let time slowly make a person mature and grow up, to eat a few lessons, and take a few knocks~~~

By borrowing Gandhi’s formulation, does your meaning amount to this: “There is no method by which one can acquire philosophy, because philosophy itself is a kind of method”~?

The intensification and amplification of philosophy and of factional division within classes should probably be counted as a product of the Left’s emphasis on “political correctness”; in itself, it is not necessarily dialectical

Please allow me to stray from the topic and say a few words. In the content where you touch on Marxist philosophical concepts and understanding, would simply indicating the lecturer’s attitude seem insufficient to fully explain the problem?

What issue am I trying to make clear? I’m not trying to say which understanding is right and which is wrong. The key is that, if what you want to learn is the kind of “Marxist philosophy” found in high school textbooks, then coming to the philosophy department at Peking University to look for it is the same as walking in the wrong door.

In connection with what you said earlier about the issue of learning ability, may I ask: if a student, from the very beginning, because of his own understanding of philosophy—or, to put it more precisely, because he is more inclined toward the philosophy taught in the Peking University philosophy department—comes to feel repelled by high school philosophy, thereby leading to poor grades, how should that be judged?

“Philosophy” in high school is more a test of memorization skills and the standard formulae for answering questions, and so on; it does not require much in the way of independent thought. What it mainly tests is the student’s most basic abilities to learn and remember, to read the question carefully and answer it, etc. Even when you get to university, it is still very unlikely that every course you need to take will be one you like; there will always be some courses you have to “get through.” Moreover, even if you study philosophy, the history of philosophy is full of schools and currents, and of course there may be many philosophical ideas that you do not like or even reject, but you still need a basic understanding and grasp of their thought. If, because you reject them, you cannot study them well, that only shows that your learning ability is still lacking; you can hardly blame anyone else.