A Disappointing Marxist Philosophy Forum

3,662 characters2006.04.05

Today I attended the philosophy-forum event. I was deeply disappointed. The topic was “Transcending and Reflecting on ‘Modernity,’” with Nie Jinfang, Zhang Libo, Yang Xuegong, and Yang Haifeng. Originally they had said Feng Zhiyi would chair it, but Teacher Feng didn’t come. Teacher Nie seemed to say that his absence would not have much effect on the level of the forum, but I think the level was truly terrible.

I do not doubt the academic standing of the teachers involved, but as a forum open to all teachers and students across the university, this event was a failure—one might even say a shameful forum! At the very least, the image of the philosophy-of-Marxism teaching-and-research office has become poor in my eyes.

Only Teacher Yang Haifeng performed well. Real ability is not something you can just brag into existence, but one person alone does not make a forum.

The general situation was this: Teacher Nie first introduced the participants; then Teacher Zhang, by himself, read from his paper for half an hour on Horkheimer. It felt to me as if even he was about to fall asleep while reading. Then Teacher Yang spoke by himself for quite a long time; his old habit—he placed heavy emphasis on introducing the academic background, with not much substantive content that would interest the audience. Then Teacher Yang stood up and, in a rather lively way, talked about what seemed to me the only interesting topic that came close to real life. Finally, Nie Jinfang again took it upon himself to talk at length about some views questioning discussions of modernity. The four people’s remarks were completely independent of one another—not merely with not the slightest connection, but not even about the same issue at all (rather, four people, four topics)! At the end came the Q&A. The first question was a stupid one, but no one answered it well. Old Yang and the others were muttering something, and at that point I left early.

A report really should be delivered standing up. I am beginning to understand why those big-shot scholars like Lou Yulie, even at such advanced ages, still insist on giving lectures standing. Yang Haifeng was the only one with any spirit; apart from Teacher Yang, everyone else was dead flat. Is this the impression Marxism philosophy is giving people? To be honest, philosophy of Marxism is already in considerable trouble, and yet the young scholars still do not know how to communicate—each only knows how to mind his own business, not caring what his peers are saying, not caring what the audience is interested in. Where is the hope in that? They talk about philosophy of Marxism as paying attention to real society, but if you do not even pay attention to the peers and audience right in front of you and only recite your script, what is that supposed to count as?

To be honest, the field I most yearn for is still philosophy of science and technology. The teachers in philosophy of science and technology may perhaps not have academic foundations as deep as those teachers who meticulously study the classics in Chinese, Western, or Marxist thought, but they have a group, a community with a certain degree of mutual recognition and mutual support, and among them there is a shared undertaking: Wu Guosheng, Liu Huajie, Liu Bing, Tian Song, Su Xiangui, Jiang Xiaoyuan, and so on. Each has his own distinctive qualities, their views are not entirely the same, and their fields and specialties also differ, but they understand one another, have a certain consensus, mutually recognize and appreciate one another, and share common topics. When talking, they yield the floor to one another at the right moment; there is resonance, and each also has his own style. That is what counts as discussion. If philosophy of Marxism goes on chatting in that self-absorbed way, then unless a genius philosopher emerges who can build up an entire good system of things, no matter how deeply each individual scholar drills into his own specialty, as a whole the discipline will inevitably develop slowly. Philosophy of Marxism wants to search for the “problems” of real society, but it cannot even find—nor bother to find—the common problems in its own conversations. Then what is there left to talk about?