Arrogant Humility?

3,006 characters2005.12.19

My philosophy is called starry-sky philosophy; some people say it is a philosophy of the starry sky and rainwater. In fact, the meaning of rainwater is already included in the starry sky. The starry sky contains three layers of meaning: first, it means what I said in my “about me” note, namely gratitude and tolerance; second, it stands for praise and yearning for the infinitely profound cosmos; third, it stands for reverence and humility before the majesty and mystery of nature. The latter two are basically also what Kant meant.

On all kinds of occasions, I am always fond of emphasizing the importance of humility. Whether facing nature, facing the sages, facing knowledge, facing teachers, facing elders, and so on, I emphasize humility. But I don’t know whether I have emphasized it too much, to the point that the impression I give people has instead become arrogant? I have already sensed this myself, but it seems I am powerless to do anything about it. I feel that deep down I still have a very strong streak of swaggering arrogance; I am always full of confidence in my own views. Although I do indeed tolerate different viewpoints, and believe that some views differ from mine and may in fact go deeper than mine, because I hold a pluralist view of truth, I am still utterly confident in my own thought. I think that in most cases I simply have not expressed my ideas clearly enough; as long as I am given the chance to keep adding to them, my initial views will be explained and reinforced layer by layer, and in the end, even if I do not want to persuade anyone else, I believe that no one can refute me!

This streak of swaggering arrogance seems to have been suppressed during my first year at university, because no one debated with me and no one argued with me. I really miss, and long for, opposing opinions—tell me what you think is wrong with my views, tell me which views you did not understand, where you feel satisfied and where you feel irritated! Just like my high school Chinese teacher, and some of my high school classmates…

Some time ago I wrote a short piece about truth. ZW said it was well written, though there was one point he did not understand, so I wrote a second supplementary piece; then I showed both to LY, who read them and said they were very interesting, but he did not agree with the conclusion, so there came a supplement to the supplement—indeed, as long as someone raises even a tiny question or objection, I can find a way to make a deeper interpretation and expansion, so that my expression becomes clearer and clearer day by day. At times, this process can be achieved through self-debate, but left hand fighting right hand is still not as beneficial as two people sparring against each other. And if one is going to spar, one cannot do without a bit of swaggering arrogance.

I remember that at last year’s Philosophy Tutorial Forum I advocated “discussion” at great length, but was rejected by Ye Lao. I felt that the biggest gain from my year of philosophical study was that I had come to understand more fully the weight of the two words “humility.” But at that time my advocacy of discussion had not changed in the slightest. In fact, even then I had already stated: disputes must be carried out only in an attitude that does not take persuading the other party as its aim, but when disputing, one must firmly maintain one’s own position. Here humility and swaggering arrogance coexist; lacking either one, one cannot debate.