When I mentioned to ZW that I could take ready-made articles from my blog and put them in Qinggongyuan, ZW said, “Spare us~”
Sigh, sigh… are my articles really so unbearable to everyone? I’m rather hurt here~~~ Most of the complete articles on my blog are just casual reflections anyway; to say that these few articles of mine are “too academic” is simply absurd. They’re all written very casually, and they’re still far from any “academic” level. Of course, whether the quality of the articles is too poor to make it into Qinggongyuan I’m not quite sure; it’s very hard to judge one’s own writing objectively. As editor-in-chief, I originally didn’t want to use my own articles, but now we don’t have enough submissions, and I also always want to include one or two of my own pieces somehow, so this issue of Qinggongyuan is bound to have my article in it one way or another—the only question is which one to use.
I’ve preliminarily picked out five that may be usable, and I’ve made slight revisions to two of them. Everyone, please give me your opinions. If you think none of these five will do, hmph, then send in your submissions—once there are enough better articles, of course I won’t need to make an appearance myself~
Sigh, sigh… are my articles really so unbearable to everyone? I’m rather hurt here~~~ Most of the complete articles on my blog are just casual reflections anyway; to say that these few articles of mine are “too academic” is simply absurd. They’re all written very casually, and they’re still far from any “academic” level. Of course, whether the quality of the articles is too poor to make it into Qinggongyuan I’m not quite sure; it’s very hard to judge one’s own writing objectively. As editor-in-chief, I originally didn’t want to use my own articles, but now we don’t have enough submissions, and I also always want to include one or two of my own pieces somehow, so this issue of Qinggongyuan is bound to have my article in it one way or another—the only question is which one to use.
I’ve preliminarily picked out five that may be usable, and I’ve made slight revisions to two of them. Everyone, please give me your opinions. If you think none of these five will do, hmph, then send in your submissions—once there are enough better articles, of course I won’t need to make an appearance myself~
Reflections on “The Crowd”
On the allegorical meaning of the fruit of wisdom for the essence of human beings in Genesis
On how to treat “Chinese traditional values” and “Western modern values”
On how to treat “Chinese traditional values” and “Western modern values”
Feudalism, Superstition, Demolition, and Construction
Nowadays, whenever Chinese people with a bit of culture mention “feudal superstition,” they mostly grind their teeth and bristle with murderous intent, putting on an air as if they will not rest until they have wiped it out entirely. Yet on closer reflection, this hides certain shortcomings.
In modern civilization, science and technology have attained supreme ruling status, but they have also brought about the predicament that “values” have nowhere to be placed. Why should people talk about morality? Why does society need ethical norms? —Questions that once seemed so self-evident have become glaring puzzles in modern civilization. Science can only tell us the question of “what is,” but it is hard for it to offer suggestions about “what ought to be.” In the West, morality has traditionally been sustained by religion; even today, religion still plays a crucial role in Western society. Of course, the power of religion to sustain morality is now under tremendous attack from scientism, but even after religion’s constraints are removed, the West still has the force of economics and law to sustain ethics: people use a whole set of economic and legal methods—contracts, exchange, rights, obligations, rewards, punishments, and so on—to regulate human behavior. Even the relationship between parents and children is treated as if it were a business deal, explained through concepts like “equivalent exchange” and “contractual agreement”… This is undoubtedly a corruption of virtue! Still, Western ethics at least has something to sustain it; China’s situation is even worse!
China has no religion in the Western sense, but looking at the development of ancient Chinese history, whether compared with the West in the Roman period, the Middle Ages, or the Age of Geographic Discovery, Chinese society’s performance in sustaining morality was at least no worse. So what is it that sustains the ethical morality of the Chinese people? —Precisely the so-called “feudal superstition” we are talking about now!
The Confucian worldview, values, and ritual-and-law institutions are the core of Chinese culture. For thousands of years, Chinese society was built precisely on what we now call “feudal thought” and “feudal rites and laws.” Within this set of “feudal” things, we found the support for “morality.” And now that set of “feudal” things has been overthrown by us, but have we established anything new to let morality take up residence? —Science cannot provide morality; China has no Western religious tradition; China has not yet built up an economic environment or legal system like the West’s, one that is sufficient to sustain ethics…
If an old house has problems, then tearing it down is understandable enough. But the reality is that, on the one hand, we uproot the old house by the roots; on the other hand, we fail to find a proper place to live. People stand on the huge ruins left after the overthrow and cheer victory, yet forget that from then on they have become homeless! The Chinese have lost the place where the soul dwells, the homeland of life’s final resting place!
“Feudalism” has already been overthrown, and uprooting “superstition” is even less of a problem. Superstition is indeed a bad thing, but after we have eradicated superstition, what exactly have we established? Flip open any “so-and-so science and technology newspaper” or “so-and-so popular science magazine,” turn on any “so-and-so science education channel,” and what fills them are things like “UFO incidents,” “Jesus was an alien,” “the mystery of Easter Island,” “mysterious phenomena of the human body,” and so on—pseudo-science that disguises itself as science in order to court attention. It is far more foolish, far more shameless, far more inflammatory, far more deceptive, and far more harmful than those folk superstitions that consciously keep their distance from science… By comparison, traditional superstition still has a certain ability to sustain morality—something that neither modern science nor mysticism can provide!
When adults frighten little children, they say, “If you don’t behave, the big bad wolf will come and eat you!” —For children, this is a pretty effective restraint, and “superstition” can, to a certain extent, exert a similar force. Although superstition takes many different forms under different customs, there is surely one point on which broad consensus exists: “If you have nothing on your conscience, you needn’t fear ghosts knocking at your door.” If, in dealing with others, you are always clear of conscience and deserving of your own conscience’s approval, then you need not fear the big bad wolf or demons and goblins coming to find you. This kind of restraint works not only on children, but on ordinary people as well, and even on the almighty emperors of antiquity! In China, whenever the emperor’s authority became beyond anyone’s control, it was precisely through so-called “superstition” that restraint was applied—natural disasters or ominous signs were regarded as warnings to the emperor, and when disasters occurred, the emperor absolutely had to examine his own conduct and offer sacrifices and penitence to Heaven. Thus it can be seen that for ancient Chinese society as a whole, superstition was in fact an indispensable link sustaining the morality and ethics of everyone except the Ru scholars, from emperors to the common people. And now, we are exterminating superstition to the very last; we tell children that even if they are disobedient, the big bad wolf will not come to eat them; we tell ordinary people not to dwell on their crimes, as long as they are not discovered it is fine, and even the greatest scoundrels will not be struck by lightning… What a dull world this is when it is described as having no big bad wolves, no yakshas, no Thunder Gods, and no retribution whether one does good or does evil!
Of course, I am not defending feudal superstition. I merely want to say: after we have resolutely and unsparingly uprooted these things with a great sweep of the blade, have we considered what is to replace the social functions they once performed? It is not that “feudal superstition” should not be “eliminated”; the decline of “feudal superstition” does seem to be the general trend. I only hope that while eliminating and uprooting, people can be a little less smug about what they take to be their “heroic feat,” and a little more reflective and worried.
It is true that only by knocking down the old house is it possible to build a brand-new home, but at the same time, only when the new home has been completed does demolition become meaningful; “destruction” itself is not in the least something to be praised. The completion of a new home may be pleasing, but whether forced or voluntary—even if we can look forward to a new and beautiful home—when people personally demolish the original home, they ought to feel sad. If there is no such sentiment, then that is abnormal, or at the very least, coldhearted. Thinking of this makes it easy to understand those people in this era of upheaval who harbor strong nostalgia for the past. Returning to the past is of course impossible, but feeling nostalgic for an earlier age, even feeling loss or sorrow, is the most normal emotion people ought to have. Those who do not have this feeling should also reflect on themselves: is it that in this mechanized age we have become too indifferent and lost the feeling of homesickness? Or is it that in this age of rampant material desire we have become too frantic and ignored reflection on our own condition? And this feeling of nostalgia for the past is all the more necessary—looking back is precisely a reflection on the present age; mourning the past is precisely a worry about the road ahead.
2005年12月4日
2006年3月7日略改
Constellations, Easter Island, Popular Science
Latest comments
-
It’s me again
2006-03-11 20:17:00 [reply]
I’m really sorry; I accidentally dealt you another blow.
I read all five articles, and overall I think the fifth one is the best and should be published. The constellations piece is pleasant and fun to read.
Gu
2006-03-14 18:34:20 [reply]
…I’m not that easily dealt a blow; I was only saying things, and “another blow” at that—I don’t even remember what the last blow was…
I had originally wanted to use that piece too, which is why I made some revisions to it. However, personally I’d prefer that if the fifth piece is used, the fourth piece be published alongside it, because I am being a “fighter against pseudoscience,” and putting these two articles together shows that I am both against pseudoscience and also tolerant of and supportive toward non-scientific superstition and the like.
Last time, at the end of Professor Liu’s introductory course on philosophy of science and technology, he also said that philosophy always has to reflect on those mainstream things, and instead protect those marginal things, such as superstition. What Professor Liu said was very interesting. As for the task of philosophy being to reflect on and criticize the mainstream of the times rather than to rant against the old things, I have often mentioned this in my earlier articles; my position has been consistent throughout. Pseudoscience such as constellations, Easter Island, and mysterious unexplained phenomena has in fact become mainstream in modern social culture, so I want to question it; whereas feudalism and superstition are no longer mainstream, and precisely they are what we need to speak up for.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply