Three Stages of Reading Philosophy: “Seeing Mountains as Mountains”

The first stage is reading all sorts of viewpoints and feeling that they all make sense. This is because one has not yet formed an independent view, or one’s stance is still not very firm; as a result, one can simultaneously feel that various different, even opposite, viewpoints are reasonable, while oneself is unable to make up one’s mind.

The second stage is that, once one’s own viewpoint and stance have become clear, one feels that the great majority, even all, of the viewpoints one sees are wrong. Because one’s own view is already definite, obviously no one will think that one’s own viewpoint is “wrong,” and all the many other different and opposite opinions are of course wrong.

The third stage is then a return to simplicity and truth, once again reaching the stage of feeling that all sorts of viewpoints make sense.

These three stages are like the shift from “seeing mountains as mountains and water as water,” and also like the process of human growth — in childhood, one is very obedient to the preaching of “adults,” because one has not yet formed sufficiently independent thought and can only rely on adults; this is the period of innocence and ignorance. Then, in adolescence, one begins to form one’s own independent views and finally realizes that what “adults” say is not necessarily all right, and that there are contradictions even among adults’ opinions; thus one moves from the innocent phase into the rebellious phase. Finally, one transcends rebellion and enters maturity, at which point one not only once again recognizes the preaching of one’s elders, but also oneself will become an “adult,” even an elder, continuing the “preaching” in turn.

But in reality not everyone passes through these three stages in this way. Some people never move beyond the first stage: even in adulthood they still have not formed independent thought, remain muddled and dazed, and only know how to “echo what others say” (such people are extremely common in modern society); or else they simply copy their predecessors’ preachments wholesale (such people, by contrast, are extremely common in societies with a lower level of civilization). Others stop at the second stage: adolescence stretches on too long, and they only know that they are right and others are wrong, believing that “everyone is drunk, and I alone am sober.” Such people are either full of a strong sense of historical mission, zealously promoting their own ideas and trying hard to get others to accept their views; or else they are cynical about the world and disdainful of keeping company with the “ignorant.” These two kinds of people have a common name in China today — “fenqing.” (Of course, not all fenqing belong to these two types; there are also fenqing whose indignation is justified.)

Returning to the question of reading philosophy books, the first stage is a period from ignorance to confusion, and it is not easy to get out of this period. In fact, perhaps the great majority of people stop right here when reading philosophy. The more books one reads, naturally the more one gradually escapes “ignorance,” but an abundance of knowledge does not necessarily mean one can escape “confusion.” If one never manages to form one’s own independent thinking, then one can only stop here. Still, this is not necessarily a bad thing: the advantage is that one can maintain humility, and such a person can still become a very good scholar.

The second stage is a period of rebellion. Once one has one’s own views, then identifying the flaws or loopholes in other viewpoints is a way of displaying the distinctiveness and superiority of one’s own view; this is necessary. But if one becomes too fixated on this and never overcomes the habit of rebellion and revolt, then it is very dangerous! This tendency of thought will form what is called “dogmatism,” that is, the belief that truth is only one line: every viewpoint is either right or wrong. Such people may perhaps become quite influential figures, but it is hard for them to become philosophers, at least not “good” philosophers or philosophers worthy of respect. If one has gone beyond dogmatism, that does not necessarily mean one has entered the third stage. Having escaped dogmatism, one may still slide into another form of the second stage, namely “relativism”: these people are the exact opposite of dogmatists, believing that since everyone always thinks his or her own viewpoint is correct, then nothing is correct at all. You have your ideas, I have mine, and nobody can interfere! — In fact, this, like dogmatism, is still a manifestation of adolescence overextended! What these two kinds of people have in common is that they cannot listen to different opinions and find it difficult to engage in two-way communication with others; they are often called “minzhe” here. This is not to say that one cannot do philosophy well without formal academic training; rather, it is because in reality those who have no opportunity to enter a university for systematic training, if they still love philosophy, often form dissatisfaction with society out of frustration, and thus are more likely to develop the cynical and self-important mentality of “everyone is drunk, and I alone am sober.” Blind confidence in oneself and refusing to listen to different opinions are common traits of “minzhe.”

The third stage is the period of maturity. At this time, “self-confidence” and “humility,” “staying true to oneself” and “embracing others” are not contradictory. One should have sufficient confidence in one’s own thought and be able to express and explain one’s views with full assurance, but at the same time, one should show sufficient respect to other viewpoints; toward peers, toward teachers, and especially toward the ancient sages and great works, one must be able to listen to their explanations humbly! To recognize that different people, from different standpoints and along different lines of thought, may have drastically different views that can also all be “reasonable” — this attitude is vastly different from relativism. Relativism holds that there is simply no truth at all; here, what is meant is that truth can be plural, or what may be called “perspectivism” (see 《哲学之树》). Only after one has learned to “listen humbly” is it possible to learn to “speak with confidence.”

October 24, 2005 

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.