The other day, in passing, I mentioned that I felt Kant was more worthy of looking up to than Nietzsche, and that Husserl seemed deeper than Heidegger. — This is a rough impression I have recently formed from reading the history of Western philosophy; I have not read much in the way of further specialized studies or original texts, and what I am talking about is only my first impression.
Even with only a few superficial introductions, one can still gain at least a basic understanding of those philosophers’ thought. For example, even before I had read the Analects or the Mencius, I already had a strong liking for Confucius and Mencius; before I had read the Critique of Pure Reason, I held Kant in great reverence. These are impressions gained from secondhand materials. Of course, such rough impressions may not be reliable, but they are clearly meaningful, because they can give me interest and motivation for further reading, and in my further reading I often end up strengthening my initial fondness.
Having read just as many secondary works, my liking for Nietzsche or Heidegger is not nearly as strong as my liking for Kant and Husserl. This does not mean I do not appreciate them. In fact, reading introductions to Nietzsche—whether Deleuze’s, Zhou Guoping’s, or those in histories of philosophy—also makes me feel excited; Nietzsche and Heidegger are both profound and rich. The fondness I am talking about, in these early impressions, is relative. Take Confucius and Laozi-Zhuangzi, for example: I too appreciate Laozi-Zhuangzi, and even feel that deep down I probably still have more of a Laozi-Zhuangzi temperament, but comparatively I still revere Confucius and Mencius more. Perhaps my fondness for Confucius and Mencius comes from Yang Zi’s instruction, and my fondness for Kant from The Tree of Philosophy. But with Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, and so on, I have also read roughly the same amount of secondary material, and clearly Chinese histories of philosophy tend to give Heidegger much more emphasis than Husserl; yet my scattered sense still makes me feel closer to Husserl. I cannot give any reason for this feeling; perhaps that counts as my intuition ~
Yesterday I went browsing at Wansheng and bought a book on Kant called Beyond Naturalism — A Phenomenological Interpretation of Kant’s Aesthetics. When I first mentioned my fondness for Husserl, I did not connect Husserl with Kant. Thinking of it now, this fondness may indeed be connected: perhaps I feel closer to Husserl precisely because Husserl is closer to Kant? In the preface Yang Zutao and Deng Xiaomang wrote for this book, there is a very interesting passage: “Kant’s philosophy and Husserl’s phenomenology are two epoch-making major turning points in modern and early modern Western philosophy. Humanity’s possession of these two masters over a span of 150 years is a stroke of historical good fortune. And the thought of these two philosophical masters is so close that, if not for the creative constructions they each produced and the disruptive consequences they brought about, it could almost be regarded as the continued development of the same thought, or at least as a case of inheritance across generations. However, for Chinese scholars, among all the Western thinkers introduced into China, these two names are also the hardest to approach. Back when Wang Guowei went to the West to study, he was drawn by Kant’s name and rushed toward him, but ultimately turned to Schopenhauer because Kant was ‘unlovable,’ just as today scholars are enthusiastically hyping Heidegger while neglecting Husserl, revealing that Chinese people, even in the most rational philosophical undertaking, still remain at heart sentimentalists, or ‘hedonists’ in thought. Chinese scholars in general are often believers in whoever they study, and are unwilling to put in the effort to study an object they do not like; this is called ‘unity of knowledge and action,’ or ‘consistency between words and deeds,’ ‘the unity of learning and being,’ but in fact it leads to self-enclosure and a lack of exploratory spirit in thought. Chinese thinkers esteem experience, dislike logic and methodology, and are impatient to do meticulous work in advance on the tools; they always want to seize truth directly and all at once. ‘Point directly to the human heart,’ ‘become a Buddha through sudden enlightenment’—this is one of the most fundamental reasons that block us from approaching the core thought of the Western spirit. Kant and Husserl are both masters of methodology; in this respect, they are the most typical and the finest representatives of the Western spirit. Of course, in the end both of them must return to immediacy: in Kant, to faith; in Husserl, to the immediate ‘lifeworld’ and experience. But for them this is by no means an easy and pleasant process, much less something accomplished ‘in a flash.’ When we read their large volumes—dry in wording and profound in thought—we cannot help feeling deep reverence, sensing that their endurance in suffering the purgatory of thought and the tenacity of their inner lives are beyond our reach. But someone who sincerely wishes to dedicate himself to philosophy, this arduous undertaking, will not stop at such admiration. Rather, there will arise an impulse to imitate, to respond to their call of freedom by creatively opening new ground. Comrade Dai Maotang’s Beyond Naturalism is a welcome example of this in that regard.”
This passage by Yang Zutao and Deng Xiaomang spells out my intuition, namely that I feel Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger are all “lovable” philosophers, whereas Kierkegaard, Kant, and Husserl are philosophers who are admirable, formidable, and trustworthy. I have found a basis for my feeling, but it is still only a feeling. “Feeling” is an effective force that motivates and guides me to keep reading and thinking. Unfortunately, my specialty is not Western philosophy, so I probably do not have the time to work my feelings out in detail. As for Kant, I may still be able to put up a vigorous effort and read him carefully; but with Husserl, I can only “stop at such admiration”……
December 21, 2005
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply