I do not reject a theory because its conclusion is absurd. What must be despised is its attitude and manner of expression.
Some time ago I read a younger schoolmate’s article on Confucius; now I am reading a younger schoolmate’s so-called “paper” on “desire studies.”
Some articles are unbearable, but I want everyone to know that at present I explicitly hold a pluralist position. The reason I reject some things is not because their views are “extreme.”
It does not matter if the views are extreme; others can refute them, and different views can be set side by side in contest. However, some people are also extreme in attitude, imagining themselves wiser than Plato, Kant, and Einstein put together; anyone who opposes their views is simply not understanding, and they think only those who become believers in their views count as truly understanding and embracing them—otherwise it is just stubborn self-righteousness. Such an attitude, though verbally still willing to “discuss,” makes clear that what they idealize as “discussion” is really just getting others to listen to them. Others have a completely chaotic manner of expression. On the one hand, there is the issue of logical rigor; of course, some philosophical views do not exalt logic, so it would also be fine to express them in literary language. Whether one writes in classical Chinese, vernacular Chinese, or a foreign language is all fine; if one lacks the skill, then write in a plain style—just do not make it neither fish nor fowl, neither sour nor sweet, with neither logic nor poetry…
What is regrettable is that in reality those with extreme views are often simultaneously very poor both in attitude and in expression! Of course, this may also have something to do with the standards of judgment and the educational mechanism of China’s academic world.
I truly hope that in today’s Chinese academic world, there could be more extreme ideas. Chinese people are accustomed to compromise and moderation; among Western philosophical schools there are often many oppositions, yet when introducing them in Chinese books, one must always say “each has its reasonable aspects, and also its limitations.” This is indeed how it should be said; Hegel long ago summed up the law of “thesis—antithesis—synthesis.” However, this “synthesis” is reached only after passing through the extremity of “thesis” and “antithesis.” Chinese people themselves do not engage in “thesis and antithesis,” but only in “synthesis,” so while we can describe the historical development of Western philosophy in an impressively clear and methodical way, our own thought seldom has truly brilliant moments.
The West has currents of relativism, postmodernism, and so on; mainstream scholars often dismiss them, and the reason is that they go too far, with many claims being too extreme, which is indeed true. But if China could produce two Feyerabends or David Griffins, that would also be fine.
Conservatism, relativism, foundationalism, mysticism, and so on—I do not accept any of them, but all can be embraced. My own temperament makes it hard for me to move toward extremity, but I do sincerely look forward to exchanging views with extreme positions; however, the prerequisite is that the extremist have a healthy mentality and a rigorous mode of expression.
March 24, 2006
Latest Comments
- Li
2006-03-24 20:00:00
Anyone who can meet that prerequisite is already no ordinary person.
- Gu
2006-03-25 00:17:29
What I mean by a healthy mentality and rigorous expression are the most basic requirements; if you refer to our teachers’ ways of speaking, that should probably be enough. If it is a matter of exchanging views with me, then being able to express yourself at roughly my level would be good enough, I suppose; perhaps I am overestimating my own expressive ability? But in any case, my paper grades do not seem to be generally poor…
The problem is that within the academy, the more senior and the more accomplished people are, the more “rounded” and “balanced” their speech tends to be. When Chinese people translate many Western classics and write prefaces or commentaries, they often always say that this view is one-sided, that claim is limited, but there is no doubt that those classics are profound. I agree with Teacher Liu Huajie’s formulation in “Be Slow to Head Toward Synthesis” and in class: rather than producing many “comprehensive superficialities,” it is better to produce more “one-sided profundities”——“Truth will be discovered and tempered in the extremity of the intellect. Without the baptism of intellect, truth comes too cheaply; how could the lazy and worldly truly experience it firsthand. Put another way, truth is manifested through fallacies. In light of this, our discussions of scientific culture should be genuinely set in motion: first identify the opponent, then go back and forth, eliminate distractions, battle it out for several rounds, and the fragments of truth will naturally emerge in debate.” (Liu Huajie, *What Is Enshrined in the Hall Are Not All Buddhas*, p. 95)
- unic
2007-01-01 00:32:09
But I do sincerely look forward to exchanging views with extreme positions; however, the prerequisite is that the extremist have a healthy mentality and a rigorous mode of expression.
Haha… does that count as me?
Mm~~ Is my expression rigorous?~ Not really.
My personality means that I may sometimes be extreme. Because sometimes I get excited. - Gu
2007-01-04 12:39:14
“Extreme” does not refer to a personality that is given to extremity, but to being extreme on the level of position and viewpoint. If you have not yet formed a relatively mature and stable position, then it is not yet possible to speak of whether you are extreme or not.
A few days ago I attended a lecture by Teacher Liu, and he mentioned that anti-science-cultural people, as the “third pole” balancing the two extremes of scientism and folk scientists, are likewise standing on an extreme position—and are aware that their own position has problems—but still must stand on this edge of the third pole in order to balance the other two poles. Knowing full well that one is extreme yet still insisting on it—this is quite interesting.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply