One Interpretation of the University 2007-04-28 09:19:49 http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/48c5bb42010009ql
Tags: university Confucianism education general education personality formation one interpretation of the university Mei Yiqi [Tsinghua Journal]
(The main text omitted)
Comments (16)┆Quotation┆Reads (45)┆Circle┆Print┆Rewarded Report
Article Comments
The following comments from netizens represent only their personal views and do not represent the views or position of Sina.com
[anonymous] Xinzhai Old Jiang 2007-04-28 16:39:14 Tired from working, I’ve come up to chat a few words: my office is Xinzhai, so I took it as a condition for my screen name, because among the teachers working in Xinzhai, I’m the only one surnamed Jiang. Next door are Mingzhai and Shanzhai, and in front are Chengzhai and Lizhai. I hadn’t paid attention to these names at first. Once, a famous professor in our department who studies Confucian rituals said that they implicitly contain the three guiding principles of the university: the way of the university lies in making manifest bright virtue, in renewing the people, and in resting in the highest good.
[anonymous] Xinzhai Old Jiang 2007-04-28 16:49:30 I personally feel that Mr. Mei was a cut above Mr. Cai of Peking University in educational ideas, though of course such comparisons are nothing more than the idle pastime of people like us, and Mr. Mei and Mr. Cai were both wholly unconcerned about them.
[anonymous] Gucha 2007-04-28 18:15:46 Mr. Cai’s strength lay in inclusiveness and plurality: not only could progressive reformers find room to display their talents at Peking University, but stubbornly conservative scholars could also secure a place there. So-called humanistic learning is, on the one hand, ever renewing, yet on the other hand also the inheritance and preservation of old learning; it accommodates both conservatism and reform, and lets revival of the old coexist with opening up the new. In this respect, Mr. Cai was a cut above. Of course, a university takes the cultivation of persons as its priority, but if, beyond learning itself, one were to place special emphasis on moral character education, there would really be no need. And if there were to be special character education, whose values would it then honor? A university is after all not a Confucian academy, but a place that embraces all rivers; as to how one should conduct oneself, the Confucian, Daoist, Buddhist, and Western schools, as well as the reformist schools, each have their own system, and indeed many points directly contradict one another. If one were to specially promote character education and particularly stress the moral integrity of teachers, as though the values one oneself holds were the highest standard, that would truly be inappropriate. Hence Mr. Cai could accommodate among the faculty those “who kept concubines, consorted with courtesans as if it were a refined amusement, and took gambling as recreation,” so long as he “did not neglect their lessons, and did not lure students into degeneracy along with them.” Here too Mr. Cai was a cut above.
[anonymous] Xinzhai Old Jiang 2007-04-28 20:05:16 Not so, not so! Mr. Cai’s educational ideas were nothing more than a direct transplant of Western educational ideas; of course, this achievement is worthy of praise! However, Chinese and Western national conditions are vastly different. Western universities can certainly afford not to place special emphasis on character education, because beyond the universities there are still churches! But the moral cultivation of human relations in our country has never relied heavily on religious forces; the ideal of the scholar-gentry has always been to combine virtue and talent. One must not use the standards of Western universities alone to judge the success or failure of Chinese universities. During Mr. Cai’s tenure, the abolition of the reading of the classics, in my humble opinion, was a misstep. Back then, when Cai invited Mr. Ma Yifu to teach at Peking University, Mr. Ma very much did not give Mr. Cai face. In addition, emphasizing the moral integrity of faculty members does not necessarily mean taking one’s own values as the highest standard. Back then, Mr. Cai invited Mr. Chen Duxiu to head the humanities faculty at Peking University; the latter did not hesitate to cheat and inflate his résumé. Modern Chinese higher education sowed the root of deception from the very beginning, and this corrosive influence has continued to the present day. Mr. Cai cannot evade responsibility for that!
[anonymous] Someone 2007-04-28 22:50:01 Cai Yuanpei’s educational thought was indeed more inclined toward the West, but fortunately President Cai still knew about “replacing religion with aesthetic education,” and knew that even if one wanted to import everything wholesale, one had to bring over the full set, rather than only the “useful” half. As for President Mei taking the cultivation of personality as the goal of education, I deeply agree with and admire that. Xinzhai Old Jiang 2007-04-28 23:19:16 Aesthetic education replacing religion, recognizing the “usefulness” of what seems useless—of course that is better than those utilitarians. However, compared with the resources of traditional Chinese moral cultivation, aesthetic education within the Western system is much shallower in depth, and in practice it cannot shoulder the function of religion either. Of course, considering China’s national conditions and the modern tide, trying to promote religion as a means of moral cultivation—whether imported Christianity or a manufactured Confucian religion—simply will not work. Still, by now it seems that the professors in the academy have long since forgotten their responsibility for moral cultivation, handing it over in one stroke to those without learning; if this continues for long, the danger will be extreme!
[anonymous] Gucha 2007-04-29 01:18:11 Is general character cultivation really a matter for the university stage? Western churches and ancient Chinese ritual teaching were by no means aimed at university students. The formation of personality ought to be emphasized during adolescence; by the time one reaches university, one is already an adult and one’s temperament is basically fixed, so it is too late to establish moral personality. Still, a university must nurture people, but not ordinary people; it must cultivate “intellectuals” and absolutely cannot use the approach of ordinary moral education. China today indeed has major problems in character education, but the crux of the problem lies in primary and secondary education, especially in substituting politics for moral education. If one only learns how to be a person at university, it is already too late. Of course, if we are discussing the question of who has the upper hand between Mr. Cai and Mr. Mei, the result is obviously that our Peking University and Tsinghua each sticks to its own view, with neither yielding to the other and no compromise whatsoever… In fact, each university should have its own style; it would not be good if the educational philosophies of all universities in the world were exactly the same. Whether Mr. Cai or Mr. Mei, neither of them is around now anymore… alas… Xinzhai Old Jiang 2007-04-29 13:54:59 We of course are not here representing the two schools in a contest of superiority; how laughable would that be? The formation of personality: primary and secondary school are the foundation, yes. But a university, as the source of knowledge and an authoritative institution in society, has a crucial guiding and leading role in the moral cultivation of human relations throughout society. There is a great difference between the moral cultivation of human relations in ancient China and the moral education of modern Western society. It includes knowledge, metaphysical belief, and the like within it.
[anonymous] Gucha 2007-04-29 17:48:57 I also agree that the university’s “guiding and leading role in the moral cultivation of human relations throughout society” is important, which is why I think a university cultivates “intellectuals,” or “the conscience of society,” or the leaders of the age—that is the meaning. Does Western moral education not include knowledge and belief within it? In fact, as Teacher Jiang said, the moral-education function in the West relies to a great extent on churches; that is to say, it relies on a system of knowledge and belief rooted in religion. By contrast, I think Chinese traditional moral cultivation is actually different. What it relies on more importantly is rather the ritual system, with principle residing in ritual. So from Confucius onward, so-called moral cultivation is also “ritual teaching”; “to know books and understand principle” and “to know books and understand ritual” are interchangeable. This is a feature of what we call ritual-and-music civilization. China’s entire traditional system of moral learning and values is contained within ritual. That is why Confucianism does not speak of moral collapse, but of ritual decay and music ruin. This shows that Chinese morality lies less in a system of knowledge or belief than in a system of ritual.
Xinzhai Old Jiang 2007-04-29 18:31:45 Brother Gu’s emphasis on the central role of ritual and music in Chinese moral cultivation, and on the fact that Western moral education to a great extent relies on churches—that is, on a system of knowledge and belief rooted in religion—is entirely correct. My statement, “Chinese ancient moral cultivation and modern Western moral education differ greatly. It includes knowledge, metaphysical belief, and the like within it,” was indeed not rigorous enough. What I actually wanted to say is that after the rise of modern science, science to a great extent monopolized the discourse of knowledge. What churches said gradually lost its qualification as knowledge, which is why Kant had to carry out critique, draw boundaries, and limit knowledge in order to leave room for ethics and faith. Therefore, the division between Western universities and churches is extremely strict; those who mix them together are regarded as lacking the basic spirit of scholarship, whereas China opposes such a division, or Westernizers may think it is not developed enough or not clear enough, lacking the ability to make such a division. My position is that I am not very in favor of the West’s strict observance of boundaries; I like to stew everything together. Hehe, perhaps it’s because my brain is rather chaotic.
[anonymous] Someone 2007-04-29 19:59:44 “Principle resides in ritual” is both right and wrong; if the object of “ritual” is “nothing,” then “ritual” is the foundation of “principle.” If the object of “ritual” is this one or that one specific person or institution in the world—such as the temple, the state altar, and so on—then it becomes a ritual teaching that “eats people.”
[anonymous] Someone 2007-04-29 20:05:09 Regardless of whether it makes sense in terms of theory, “the West’s strict observance of boundaries” is probably impossible in China today; this is a practical issue. If one really were to hack out a boundary with one stroke of the knife, who knows how many unjust souls would have to be buried with it.
[anonymous] Gucha 2007-04-29 20:57:03 In ancient China, scholarship really was a stew: knowledge, belief, and morality were not separated, while the West has, from ancient times, valued division into disciplines. Is not so-called “science” precisely “the learning of divided disciplines”? Even within a single science there are all sorts of subdivisions, let alone the establishment of moral studies as a separate field. In this respect there is indeed a difference between China and the West. But the problem is that Chinese universities today are not based on traditional Chinese learning; what is taught in universities is mostly Western knowledge. And Western knowledge really ought to be limited; mixing it together with morality is dangerous. If one wants to break down boundaries, then one must not only speak of moral education, but also revive traditional Chinese learning at the same time. The problem is that today’s universities are centered on Western learning, so if one additionally demands that universities shoulder the function of moral education, that is difficult. Precisely because in Chinese tradition knowledge and morality are not separate, if on the one hand one studies Western learning rather than Chinese learning, and on the other hand one still wants to talk about morality, there is no way to connect them. Moral education ought to be a matter integrated into the study of the humanities, history, ritual, and so on; if it is singled out for special emphasis, the effect may well be counterproductive. Promoting traditional moral cultivation is a good thing, but the reality is that in China today, whether in terms of knowledge or in terms of ritual, the foundation on which traditional moral learning stood has already been lost. In a situation where traditional learning has declined and ritual has collapsed, to entrust the heavy responsibility of moral cultivation to universities dominated by Western learning is probably futile. If one is to say that traditional virtues must be rebuilt, then the university’s mission is more crucially to revive Chinese learning. In fact, China today may be one of the countries in the world that emphasizes “moral education” the most. There are many courses such as “ideological and political education” and “ideological and moral cultivation,” and there are even important dedicated departments such as the “moral education department.” The “prosperity” of the moral education project is probably rare in the world, isn’t it? Can one say we do not value moral education? It is plainly that we value it “too much,” and the result is counterproductive. In particular, university students are already adults, and their personalities are basically fixed; stressing moral education again may well arouse a rebellious psychology. Whether one relies on the Marxism department to carry out moral education or on traditional Chinese learning to do so, I’m afraid both are wishful thinking. By the way, I greatly admire Kant for setting limits to knowledge. His limiting was not, however, a matter of dividing up disciplines or specialties. Rather than saying that Kant assigned science and religion each their own territory so they could be governed separately (this boundary-drawing was not Kant’s contribution; modern materialism had long since put religion aside), it is better to say that Kant set limits for “knowledge” within science and religion. For Kant, science and religion still had points of mutual communication. Within science one must make clear that human knowledge can never reach things-in-themselves, but thought about things-in-themselves is still necessary within science; and within religion, Kant said that one cannot use theoretical reason or natural science to prove God, nor can theology be used to direct natural research, but he did not say that natural study is meaningless for faith. In the Critique of Judgment, Kant says: “Likewise, a theological natural science would also be nonsense, because it would not state any laws of nature, but rather the arrangement of a supreme will; by contrast, a natural theology (strictly speaking, a teleological theology of nature) can at least serve as a true propaedeutic to theology, because by considering the many natural ends that provide it with abundant material, it furnishes an inducement for the idea of a final end that nature itself cannot propose; …”
Xinzhai Old Jiang 2007-04-29 22:01:53 Of course, it won’t do to remain confined within the framework of present-day Western learning; the relation you mention between moral cultivation and the revival of traditional Chinese learning is self-evident. Of course, Western learning is not entirely without resources that can be used; there are also strands with a stronger tendency toward “stewing everything together.” Kant’s communication is only a kind of communication in a negative sense, a communication in a hypothetical sense, and I’m not very satisfied with it. In fact, among modern Western thinkers, I am rather devoted to Hegel. But Hegel has now become the target shared by all manner of philosophical experts, and I somewhat have the feeling of Mr. Wang Guowei… So you see, I actually have a rather wild ambition, alas, but my aspirations are lofty and my talents shallow.
[anonymous] Gucha 2007-04-29 23:41:07 Hehe, I just feel that Hegel was too wildly arrogant; it is understandable that others would find him annoying and gang up to attack him~ It is precisely the negative, critical sense that Kant emphasized: human humility before nature or God, and the philosopher’s humility before the masses, is what Kant insisted on. Of course, this is also a matter of different judgments and tastes; philosophers ought to have a bit of ambition and wildness. Hegel merely raised himself too high, which is why he became the target of everyone. Judging solely from the fact that modern philosophy all began by figuring out how to get free of Hegel and attack him, Hegel’s importance is beyond doubt. By contrast, the various philosophical masters all treat Kant with considerable respect, though that too has problems. I feel that many citations of Kant are rather one-sided, and there is a lack of inheritance of Kant’s overall line of thought or concern. This is somewhat like Kuhn’s experience in SSK and postmodernism: there are basically only ceremonial citations, while many have been inspired by him, but few are his successors. Actually, the problem now is that regardless of whether it is Chinese learning or Western learning, both are marginal; what dominates the university is only “science”…
[anonymous] Sina netizen 2007-04-30 14:53:56 Yes, Hegel is so formidable that everyone is bound to hurl bricks at him, hehe. 【The negative, critical sense is precisely what Kant emphasized: human humility before nature or God, and the philosopher’s humility before the masses, is what Kant insisted on.】 There is an unbridgeable gulf between Westerners and God, but in Chinese culture everyone can become a sage, and all beings can become Buddhas. 【By contrast, the various philosophical masters all treat Kant with considerable respect, though that too has problems. I feel that many citations of Kant are rather one-sided, and there is a lack of inheritance of Kant’s overall line of thought or concern. This is somewhat like Kuhn’s experience in SSK and postmodernism: there are basically only ceremonial citations, while many have been inspired by him, but few are his successors.】I had never thought about this before, and it is very inspiring!!!
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply