Liu Huajie: “What Is Offered in the Hall Is Not All Buddha,” Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, January 2004
This is one of Liu teacher’s more recent personal essay collections, and it is just as interesting as ever. These books are all to be read as “novels.”
I noticed that in the essay “The Influence of Cultural Traditions on Science,” Liu teacher responds to Mr. Qi Zesong’s argument that “the rise of modern science has little to do with, or nothing to do with, Greek civilization.” Liu teacher points out: “The emergence of modern science was not merely a simple process of accumulating specific bodies of knowledge; it is more likely a cultural question. Modern science has a complex theoretical system………… This is a question of cultural tradition, and it is related to ancient Greek philosophy, medieval logic, and religious theology. I am ashamed to say that science and technology in ancient China were scattered and fragmentary; although they were extremely numerous, they were never organized into a logically relatively self-consistent theoretical system. In this sense, one may say that modern science could not have arisen in China.” (p. 159)
I very much agree with Liu teacher’s view. This topic is directly related to the thought question from last week’s “Philosophy of Science” class—Is science a unique contribution of Western culture? Is Chinese medicine scientific? Of course, even before I knew Liu teacher’s position, I had already stated my own view; now it seems that my view is basically close to his—ancient China may have had accumulated knowledge and advanced technologies, but it had no theoretical system, and it also lacked the Western emphasis on objectivity and reduction, as well as the intense desire to seek truth. Ancient China’s “science and technology” developed entirely according to another model; without external force, it would have been difficult for modern science to develop there.
It is like the relationship between frogs and toads: even if one says they have many similarities, a toad will not grow into a frog, because in essence they are two different kinds of creatures. Correspondingly, some scholars who stress that ancient China “had science” or had the “potential” to develop modern science hope to argue that China’s “science and technology” and Western science and technology are related like little frogs and big frogs, or, backing off a step, like tadpoles and frogs. Even if we point out countless differences between ancient Chinese “science and technology” and the Western tradition, they can still retort: although tadpoles and frogs are so dissimilar, a tadpole will always grow and grow and eventually become a frog! In other words, the key issue in the dispute is not how great the similarity between China and the West is, but whether those differences are essential.
I would also like to add another point—precisely what Joseph Needham pointed out: “The Renaissance, the Reformation, the formation of capitalism, and the development of modern science are a kind of ‘package’ affair: if one appears, all appear; these four events occur one after another and are mutually connected.” (cited in Huang Renyu: *The Broadened Perspective of History*, p. 129) Modern science did not emerge out of thin air; it was one link in a series of events. In this way, Needham, to a certain extent, answered his own question. According to this “package” formulation, asking why China did not develop modern science is similar to asking why China did not form capitalism. As for why China did not form capitalism, I already clarified my view in a paper I wrote in my second year of high school. Simply put, I think that when we ask “Why did Europe develop capitalism?”, we are laying a trap, as if capitalism were independently produced by Europe alone; in fact, one can only say that capitalism first occurred in Europe, and yet capitalism was a joint creation of the entire East and the West! It is just like saying that a baby is born in its mother’s womb; but if one thinks that the mother alone can create the baby, then one is mistaken!
Including history textbooks, many people believe that ancient China had the “sprouts of capitalism,” as if to say that if the West had not come to interfere and the Eight-Nation Alliance had not invaded, China could also have developed capitalism on its own. In fact, this is quite naive. The reason the West was able to produce capitalism was first of all that it had innate conditions, such as the character of a maritime civilization, large regional differences (different regions could produce different specialties, so trade could develop; whereas goods that could be produced in one place in China—for example porcelain, tea, and silk—could also be produced in other places, so one only needed to focus on production and not on trade), a mercantilist tradition, a tendency to emphasize law over morality, and so on. I wrote about some of these in my high school paper. In short, innate conditions determined that the West had the foundation for nurturing capitalism, just as only women have the foundation for bearing children, while men, no matter how hard they try, find it relatively difficult… With innate conditions, there must also be the triggering influence of acquired circumstances. In fact, I think that without a prosperous East, without the Silk Road, capitalism in the West would not have risen either. It was precisely because of the strength of the East that the merchant class in the West grew larger—Easterners did not need Western goods, whereas Eastern goods could sell at high prices in the West; the scarcity of Eastern goods made it hard for Eastern merchants to profit—because regional differences in the East were small, it was difficult to form monopolies, while Westerners could buy goods at the lowest prices and transport them back to the West to make huge profits.
Turning back again to the rise of modern science—similarly, first the innate conditions are needed, namely some key traditional factors from Greek and Hebrew civilization; second, acquired stimulation is needed, namely the series of links such as the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the rise of capitalism. Exchanges with the East, especially with Arab civilization, are also something that cannot be ignored.
These are my afterthoughts upon reading Liu teacher’s collection. It seems I’ve wandered a bit far; in any case, I’ll just write whatever comes to mind. Liu teacher’s essays can be read here: http://www.phil.pku.edu.cn/personal/huajie/essay/essay.htm
February 27, 2006
In addition, Liu teacher says in the essay “Slow Down Before Moving Toward Synthesis”: “Truth is after all not the middle road; truth will be discovered and tempered in the obstinacy of the intellect. Without the baptism of intellect, truth comes too cheaply; how can lazy and worldly people possibly experience it firsthand and understand it deeply? Put differently, truth is manifested through bad arguments. In view of this, our discussion of scientific culture should be genuinely set in motion: first find the right opponent, respond in kind, eliminate interference, and fight it out for several rounds; the fragments of truth will naturally appear in debate.” (p. 95) — I very much agree with Liu teacher’s emphasis on debate; ever since last year’s Introduction to Philosophy course, I have been “advocating” debate. But what must be stressed even more is “finding the right opponent,” which in fact means “finding the right question.” Moreover, I do not think that following the middle road means one cannot debate or temper one’s views. The middle road is not a simple compromise position, much less a matter of everyone being right. In fact, the middle road is a transcendence of the two extremes, not a simple “synthesis.” The middle road is not laziness; people who truly follow the middle road are often not those who please both sides, but precisely those who please neither side, and they must wage argument against both extreme poles. In practice, that means attacking from both ends. Of course, these attacks and debates should take place in an academic atmosphere rather than a political one. A truly great thinker welcomes opponents, and the greater the critic, the more dazzling the criticized often appears; this was already said in the winter vacation when Hegel and Marx were mentioned. In fact, Liu teacher’s own position is not really extreme either, and is often described as “moderate” or “eclectic” (for example, in the book of Huang Aike’s interview with Liu teacher).
February 28, 2006
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply