The team-based project topic mentioned last semester (see 团体研究可以考虑考虑) has finally begun to take shape. It seems that because there are hardly any people doing philosophy of science and technology, the teachers have roughly planned to support one project in political philosophy and one in religious studies. Since an excellent term-paper author is needed to take the lead, the religious-studies part is basically a matter for Yali. The elder brother recommended that I also join the religious-studies team, and I am very grateful for that. Of course, whether I can actually join still depends on their decision.
Yali originally wanted to set up a project on investigating Haidian Church. Setting aside the fact that this does not meet the requirements, and is also not suitable for training academic teamwork skills, it seems merely a dodge adopted to cope with this difficult-to-carry-out “collaboration”; if that were the case, then the activity would have no point.
For philosophers, the best works are always monologic and cannot really be collaborated on very well. But for us, getting some practice in academic collaboration is not a bad thing, and an effect greater than the sum of its parts is by no means impossible. For collaboration can not only ensure that a paper has undergone sufficient discussion and review before the draft is finalized, but can also integrate the different strengths, perspectives, and resources of different members.
One requirement for this collaborative project is that the topic must be connected to at least one excellent term paper, that is, it must expand and deepen the basis of such a paper rather than start entirely from scratch. So plans like “investigating Haidian Church” are impossible no matter what. Thus, if we are going to do this, we can probably only start from Yali’s paper.
Yali’s paper is “A Survey of the Concept of Pride in Augustine’s Confessions.” I read it, and indeed it is a completely different style from mine~~solid and rigorous. Of course… by my standards, it still seems a little too honest and restrained… Aside from the Chinese and English editions of the Confessions, there are only four English references, which seems rather thin (at the very least, one should be familiar with the relevant work already existing in the Chinese-speaking world, so as not to repeat what others have done); moreover, the argument seems not very clear, and at least I could not see the paper’s core claim. The extension of the problem at the end is only touched on briefly; the paper does not attempt to answer the questions it raises. Of course, the most crucial point is that in this article I did not find any “astonishing words,” or any “spark” or “highlight,” that is, any unique, distinctive claim or line of thought.
All of the above was nothing more than my search for a little self-comfort; what I wanted to say was that, after all, my paper also has its strengths. Although it is far less solid than Yali’s, my ability to put forward independent insights and to connect and weave together various seemingly unrelated problems is still rather outstanding~
Starting from Yali’s paper, then, we either focus on Augustine, or expand outward from the “concept of pride.” This “pride” is no small matter: it is the first of the “seven deadly sins,” called the sin among sins, the root of sin. Why is that? Yali hinted that this would draw out the central issues of Christianity, especially those concerning original sin and views of human nature, but he did not continue to dig further.
At the time, I offered one of my own clues. After feedback and preliminary discussion, I can now state a topic quite clearly: “‘Anthropocentrism’ and ‘Pride’ as the Root of Sin.” Here “anthropocentrism” is meant in the sense used by environmental ethics, but not only that; it can also be discussed against the background of the whole problem of modernity. For the so-called rise of humanism is also the rise of human-only-ism, that is, anthropocentrism.
I have always thought that one important thread here is the so-called “pride/arrogance” and its opposite, “humility/awe.” Yali quoted a sentence in the paper: “In essence, pride is the desire to replace God with oneself. …… A being of pride is not satisfied with the universe as it was created, but seeks more, wants to rearrange the order, and thereby unjustly sets itself up as creator.” —This is practically a portrait of the development of modern science. If one were to say that there is something wrong with the development of modern science and the ideals it pursues, the crux lies in this “pride.” Kant’s aspiration to legislate for human reason ultimately was also an attempt to overcome this “pride”—how, under “human-only-ism,” does one overcome human “pride”? Many claims in environmental ethics ultimately aim to smash this “pride.” Yet in the past, people kept talking about “awe before nature” and opposing scientism, but rarely discussed “awe” and the critique of scientific arrogance within a Christian context. In fact, we know well the profound connections between Christianity and the rise of science, the environmental crisis, and the crisis of modernity—I need not say more about that.
From the many Chinese-language works on environmental ethics and related issues that I have read, I still have not found anything that can start from Christian theology and discuss the overcoming of anthropocentrism in a really satisfactory way. Some only trace the roots of anthropocentrism back to the Christian tradition, without finding a way out from within that tradition. At most, they invoke the idea of the “steward,” or else, as in Moltmann and process theology, radically transform Christianity. But as the saying goes, only the one who ties the bell can untie it; and there is also the legend that near poisonous weeds there must be antidote herbs. Even if one is going to transform something, one must first go back and search for resources. Since Yali has already found Augustine, this has already laid the foundation for this line of thought.
As I have recently been thinking about it, using “pride/arrogance” as the key term seems to me to have a special advantage compared with using “awe/humility.” One is a warning from the negative side; the other is a call from the positive side. The two approaches each have their own features. If one merely emphasizes awe, there is always a feeling of scratching an itch through one’s shoe. But if one grasps “pride” as a “sin,” then a Christian critique of modernity becomes much sharper and more vivid.
Although environmental ethics can be brought in at the end, that is not the main body of this plan. Environmental ethics and even the problem of modernity are things that arise only incidentally. What this topic most crucially needs to do is to sort out “pride” and Christian anthropology. For the expansion of anthropocentrism has its necessity, and so does the expansion of the “pride” stirred up by anthropocentrism; and all of this is related to original sin, freedom, and questions of human nature.
The first step is to examine further the history of the development of the concept of “pride” in Christian theology outside Augustine; the second step is to use theological resources to explore the relation between “pride” and “original sin” as well as “freedom”; at the same time, to introduce the concepts of “anthropocentrism” or “human-only-ism”/“humanism,” and discuss whether “human-only-ism” necessarily leads to “pride,” or whether the two are simply the same thing, or whether it is possible to avoid the expansion of pride under the condition of siding with human-only-ism? The final step is to connect the results of this sorting-out with the problem of modernity or environmental ethics, and to indicate directions for further research.
Those are my proposal in brief. In an email I once mentioned possible concerns about my suggestion; I have omitted some of them and attached the rest below:
First, Yali is not interested in environmental ethics. —That does not matter; the concrete research is after all starting from Christianity and its theology, and environmental ethics is merely something that arises incidentally.
Second, the topic is too big. —In the concrete research, the question will gradually be narrowed; for now, I am only offering a basic framework and line of inquiry. Moreover, this topic is certainly innovative.
Third, the literature is hard to find. —Although there is not yet a clear direction, one need never worry about having too much literature; the proper problem is having too little. Finding relevant literature is an important part of academic ability, and this is precisely the kind of skill that needs to be trained; on this point, the significance of three-person collaboration can also be brought into play.
Fourth, it is difficult to unify our positions. —I think that no matter what topic we do, this is an unavoidable part of collaborative research. But I think that at least in the overall direction we still share some common ground. Although Chen believes that the line of thought I emphasize—“awe”—cannot solve environmental problems, I think you can at least agree that in modern times the swelling of “pride” and the lack of awe are indeed real problems. Just as you also admit that “non-anthropocentrism” is not practically feasible, yet you can still express a certain degree of agreement with its work, so even if no path truly overcomes the crisis, any path is a worthwhile attempt. Moreover, the shift from teleology to mechanism that Chen speaks of is an issue that is very hard to address in practice. Facing the brilliant achievements of science and technology and their irresistible force, what can possibly resist them? If there is anything, it is religion. The power of religion is also immensely strong. The Reformation came almost simultaneously with, though slightly before, the Scientific Revolution; I believe this is not merely a coincidence. If one wants to shake the trend of science and technology—whether, as Chen sees it, by trying to shake the mechanical view of nature, or by overcoming the arrogance of scientism—one needs to rely on religious or religious-like forces. Therefore, going back to the tradition of religious theology is an excellent point of entry.
If this plan is not adopted as the topic for the collaborative research, I may try to use it for my graduation thesis? The topic of that thesis has to be fixed by the end of this month, and I still have absolutely no clue; that is what is most headache-inducing… So now, in fact, I rather hope that they will reject my proposal…
November 10, 2007
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply