Comment replies
huyong
2008-06-25 00:47:56 [reply]
Very envious; I very much hope to join you all, and long to receive help!
Gu Du
2008-03-29 21:30:47 [reply]
I don’t know the situation in Peking University’s Marxist philosophy, so I can’t make a judgment. Personally, I still don’t see much of a future for the Marxist philosophy circles in China; Marxist philosophy anywhere isn’t going to be all that great. The key is simply which advisor you end up with.
Personally, I have a strong “textbook criticism complex”; if you were to have me introduce someone to Marxist philosophy, the first thing I’d do would be to criticize the textbooks, and it would not be an exaggeration to reject them outright. There’s no helping it—who told the textbooks to still be in such a state? Of course, I’m not doing Marxist philosophy, so I don’t have the responsibility of “construction”; as the author of this article says, if you are doing Marxist philosophy, then you cannot stop at “destruction”; the Marxist philosophy field has the mission of compiling new textbooks.
“It seems that all the past and current Marxist philosophy textbooks are worthless, and the people who compile these textbooks are nothing but idiots” — the latter half is indeed going too far. The people who compile textbooks are of course not idiots, but they are absolutely not philosophers. The first half still does not go far enough. They are not merely “worthless,” but positively harmful beyond measure!
The author of this article mentions that critics of textbooks often ignore their “historical status and historical function”; then what exactly are the “historical status and historical function” of textbooks? Utterly terrible! A sight too dreadful to behold! What kind of disaster did academic life in China suffer from the founding of the nation to the WG era! How catastrophically science and culture were destroyed! In this, traditional Marxist philosophy textbooks, even if they cannot be said to bear the main responsibility, are at least accomplices!
“Any textbook inevitably bears the historical limitations it carries” is of course an entirely correct statement. But so what? Should it therefore be preserved? Slavery had its historical limitations, so does that mean we need not overthrow slavery, but instead further develop a more refined slavery? The key is that sometimes certain lines of thought and directions are crooked at the root, and must be corrected at the level of fundamental ideas before there can be any way out. Although the new social system is still built upon the foundation laid by slave society, its ideas must nevertheless be overturned.
Marxist philosophy textbooks were crooked from the very beginning; one can only return to the starting point and find a new path again.
As for the relation between “scholarship” and “politics,” “reality,” I think it is very simple: they are not contradictory. Scholarly character means the independence of scholarship, that is, eliminating as far as possible the interference of non-scholarly factors, dealing with things on their merits, reasoning theory by theory, and not submitting to non-scholarly forces. As for politics and reality, they are originally objects that scholars ought to pay attention to and reflect upon. If, out of fear of causing trouble, one deliberately avoids talking about political questions, then that too is non-scholarly factors interfering with scholarly activity, and still does not amount to upholding “scholarly character.” In scholarly research, returning to the text is an unavoidable path; the purpose of returning to the text is to correct what has gone astray and restore clarity. If one does not start from Marx’s own texts, how can one claim to be doing “Marxist philosophy” at all? And how much Marx is actually left in those Marxist philosophy textbooks? Most of it is Stalin’s, next comes Lenin’s, with a small amount of Engels’, plus Mao, Deng, and Jiang with Chinese characteristics; one can hardly find Marx’s shadow anywhere. On what basis do you still call it Marxist philosophy? Just because the philosophies of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the others, though differing somewhat from Marx, were ultimately inspired by Marx, can you shamelessly say that this is the development of Marx’s philosophy? Then Marx’s philosophy itself benefited from Hegel—so why don’t we simply rename it Hegelian philosophy, or even Platonic philosophy? In any case, Marx is also a “historical” figure. Since it is called Marxist philosophy, it should of course be grounded in Marx. Of course, one cannot stop at the literal wording; one must proceed from Marx’s spirit and concerns. But to understand Marx’s spirit, the only path is still through the texts.
I didn’t really understand the final bit about “Western dogma.” Traditional textbooks can interpret Marx through Lenin and Stalin as intermediaries; why should I not be able to interpret Marx through Sartre and Heidegger as intermediaries?
Soul Pilgrimage
2008-03-29 20:02:07 Anonymous 124.133.152.27 [reply]
Second Misconception: the formalist “demand for scholarship”
Some people say: “‘Politics recedes, scholarship comes to the fore’ has become an unwritten but widely shared catchphrase in academic circles in recent years.” I think this is especially true with regard to Marxist philosophy. But if it is a “catchphrase,” why do people have to keep it “unwritten”? The reason lies in this: some people believe that Marxist philosophy serves only political functions; it is not scholarship at all, and therefore it should not only fail to occupy a guiding position in the construction of contemporary Chinese philosophy, but should not even be entitled to a place in contemporary Chinese philosophy. Yet Marxist philosophy is after all the dominant ideology in our country, so these people find it inconvenient to say this openly. The so-called “demand for scholarship” in Marxist philosophy research in our country in recent years has emerged against precisely this background. Therefore, contrary to some people’s judgment, it is not the product of a “awakening of disciplinary consciousness,” nor some “self-critique and self-liberation of Marxist philosophy,” but rather a negative coping strategy adopted by some people engaged in Marxist philosophy in the face of the impact and squeeze of the so-called “catchphrase” mentioned above, or of the tendency to abolish Marxist philosophy: you say Marxist philosophy does not look like scholarship or learning, so I will work hard to make it scholarship or learning by your standards.
The problem is: what, exactly, does the “scholarship” claimed by the so-called “demand for scholarship” in Marxist philosophy research refer to? “Scholarship” is a concept full of ambiguity; it can be understood as opposed to “politics,” and it can also be contrasted with “reality.” Moreover, in contemporary Chinese Marxist philosophy research, the relation between scholarship and politics is often mediated by the relation between scholarship and reality. The reason some people criticize Marxist philosophy for serving only political functions is that earlier Marxist philosophy research repeatedly overstepped its bounds and degenerated into a tool of argument or a means of defense for individual events in real life. And in order to cater to the popular catchphrase of “politics recedes, scholarship comes to the fore,” and to avoid any entanglement with politics, some people engaged in Marxist philosophy simply adopt an evasive attitude toward real life and even the entire external real world. The “scholarship” they demand is, in the final analysis, a self-definition of scholarship as empty contentlessness—scholarship that is not only unrelated to politics but also unrelated to reality; their so-called “demand for scholarship” is to make Marxist philosophy research into the kind of purely logical deduction from concept to concept, from category to category, that some abolitionists of Marxist philosophy relish, turning it into an intellectual game that cares nothing for the real life world and follows the path of pure self-constitution of thought. Such a “demand for scholarship” is in fact a purely formalist pursuit utterly contrary to the very nature of Marxist philosophy.
Because it sinks from the outset into the quagmire of formalism, lacking its own principles and stance, the so-called “demand for scholarship” in Marxist philosophy research is in fact nothing more than “academic packaging.” And the way people carry out this “academic packaging” is astonishingly similar: since the gate leading to the real life world has been shut, the only apparent path for Marxist philosophy research seems to be a return to the text. At the same time, because there is no shared concern for real life and no common theoretical interest, people draw “pluralistic” conclusions in the process of returning to the text: some discover one or another “Marx,” some interpret one or another form of “opposition” between Marx and Engels, some emphasize this or that “context” of Marx’s philosophical revolution, some want to reconstruct this or that “doctrine” of Marx, some declare that Marxist philosophy is this or that kind of “philosophy,” and others advocate this or that mode of “reading” Marx. For a time, a chaotic situation arose in Marxist philosophy research, with all kinds of new terms and new claims vying for supremacy. We might call this a “conceptual arena”; others call it a “feast of rhetoric.” These may perhaps be said to be philosophical innovations of Zhang San and philosophical innovations of Li Si, but they can hardly be connected to Marxist philosophical innovation, because here we no longer know what Marxist philosophy actually is.
Marx said that the real content of all epoch-making systems is formed by the needs of the period in which those systems arise, and that all such systems are based on the entire development of the nation’s past. Therefore, if one indulges in the above-mentioned formalist “demand for scholarship,” then the research of Marxist philosophy in our country is doomed to have no future and no hope. To achieve innovation in Marxist philosophy in our country, we must break through that purely formalist understanding of scholarship, especially by discarding that narrow view of the relation between scholarship and politics, and between scholarship and reality, and by paying attention to drawing the “real content” from the realities of the contemporary world and contemporary China, especially from the practice of globalization and China’s modernization drive. In fact, philosophical research not only cannot be detached from reality, but also should not evade politics. For example, for contemporary Chinese society, modernization is both the greatest politics and the greatest reality. If we were to let this kind of “politics” also “recede” from our country’s research on Marxist philosophy, then the necessity or legitimacy of our country’s Marxist philosophy research would itself come under challenge and suspicion.
Third Misconception: faith in foreign dogmas
On April 20, 2004, Comrade Chen Kuiyuan, president of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, published an article in the People’s Daily titled “To Prosper and Develop Philosophy and Social Sciences with Chinese Characteristics,” raising the issue that in the current ideological sphere we must oppose two kinds of superstition and two kinds of dogmatism, and especially emphasizing the urgency of opposing faith in foreign dogmas—that is, the form of dogmatism that treats the theories of certain Western thinkers as dogma. This faith in foreign dogmas has also been quite prevalent in recent years in philosophical research in our country, including Marxist philosophy research. As Comrade Chen Kuiyuan said, it not only causes people to abandon their belief in Marxism, but is also a major obstacle to innovation in Marxist philosophy in our country. The reason is simple: all forms of dogmatism are the enemy of theoretical innovation.
Faith in foreign dogmas in Marxist philosophy research takes many forms. The three most important are the following.
First, interpreting and explicating Marxist philosophy by means of concepts or theories from Western philosophy. In recent years, in Marxist studies in our country, the concepts and theories of some important Western philosophers have, to a greater or lesser extent, been used to interpret Marxist philosophy. The most prevalent of these is “interpreting Marx through Heidegger,” that is, interpreting Marx by means of Heidegger. This form of faith in foreign dogmas is what Mr. Mu Nanke criticized as the “mediated method” of Marxist philosophy research—that is, the method of understanding and developing Marxist philosophy through the medium of Western philosophy. He pointed out that if Marxist philosophy must pass through such a medium in order to regain new life, then Marxist philosophy itself, as a philosophy, is not without question. This method is not a new method; it is merely a reprise of the old trick exposed by Korsch—namely, the method of “supplementing” Marxism with ideas from the philosophy of culture or with philosophical concepts from Kant, Dietzgen, Mach, or some other philosophy.
Second, judging Marxist philosophy according to the views of Western philosophers. In recent years, in evaluating Marxist philosophy, especially Marx’s philosophical thought, some people engaged in Marxist philosophy often take the right and wrong of certain Western philosophers as the standard of right and wrong, while seldom making a concrete analysis of those Western philosophers’ own notions of right and wrong. In fact, one important reason why the so-called “Marx fever” has appeared in Marxist philosophy research in our country in recent years is that some of Marx’s ideas have been affirmed by certain modern Western thinkers to a greater extent. This form of faith in foreign dogmas at least reflects a lack of due confidence in Marxist philosophy. Some people afflicted with this sort of faith in foreign dogmas often rejoice beyond measure because Marx’s ideas are affirmed by certain Western philosophers, as if a poor man had suddenly latched onto a wealthy relative and found his face at once glowing with radiance. More importantly, people with this form of faith in foreign dogmas do not understand, or have forgotten, a simple truth: if the truth and value of Marxist philosophy had to be guaranteed by modern Western philosophers, then Marxist philosophy would long ago have been strangled in its cradle, because from the day of its birth Marxist philosophy has been continuously challenged and questioned by every school of modern Western philosophy. It is precisely in polemics with modern Western philosophers, rather than in their praise and applause, that Marxist philosophy has gradually gained broad circulation worldwide and revealed extraordinary theoretical vitality and vigor.
Third, arguing for the modernity of Marxist philosophy by claiming its homogeneity with modern Western philosophy. In the face of the noisy clamor of all sorts of “outdated Marxist philosophy” theories, the question of the modernity of Marxist philosophy has become an important issue attracting the attention of Marxist philosophers in our country in recent years. Yet some people actually defend the modernity of Marxist philosophy, and argue that Marx is still our contemporary, by claiming that Marxist philosophy is homogeneous with modern Western philosophy. Their line of reasoning goes roughly as follows: modern Western philosophy naturally possesses modernity; Marxist philosophy is homogeneous with modern Western philosophy in its mode of thinking or in some other respect; therefore Marxist philosophy also possesses modernity. In their view, Marx is not only the precursor of modern Western philosophy, but even opened the way for postmodern philosophy’s “critique of modernity.” In short, whatever is fashionable in modern Western philosophy, people will “trace back” to Marx’s philosophical revolution. This form of faith in foreign dogmas is actually faith in an illusion, because modern Western philosophy is only the philosophy of the present age, and the philosophy of the present age does not necessarily possess modernity; modernity is not a concept defined solely by time. The modernity of a philosophy can be determined only in relation to the issues and needs of its age.
The various kinds of faith in foreign dogmas described above are in fact the inevitable endpoint of that formalist “demand for scholarship” in Marxist philosophy research. For it is precisely this so-called “demand for scholarship” that has caused some people increasingly to lose concern for the age and interest in the real life world, while also causing them increasingly to lose confidence in Marxist philosophy. It is worth noting that these forms of faith in foreign dogmas are also internally linked to the so-called “dialogue” that has been popular in recent years in academic circles, including the Marxist philosophy circle, and are often both the precondition for and the result of such “dialogue.” We also advocate strengthening dialogue among different philosophies, different philosophical disciplines, and even different philosophical schools, because the innovation and development of Marxist philosophy after all cannot do without exchange and collision among different philosophical ideas. But for dialogue truly to play the role of intellectual exchange and collision, it must be based on equality, and the parties to the dialogue must each guard their own principles and stance. If one side in the dialogue monopolizes discursive hegemony while the other side loses its proper position, then dialogue ceases to be dialogue; it will degenerate into monologue or into the despotism of one side over the other, or into one side chewing over the stale grist of the other. The various forms of faith in foreign dogmas described above are manifestations of some people’s loss of their principles and stance in the “dialogue” between Marxist philosophy and Western philosophy. Such so-called “dialogue” not only does no good to the innovation of Marxist philosophy, but also reduces Marxist philosophy to a mishmash that nobody knows what it is.
(The author is professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Philosophy, Wuhan University)
Pilgrimage of the Soul
2008-03-29 20:00:43 Anonymous 124.133.152.27 [Reply]
Today, our understanding of Marxist philosophy has reached a higher level, and so looking back we find that earlier textbooks had one problem or another, such as a rigid system, dogmatized content, a lack of emphasis on reasoning, and many inaccuracies or even errors in the understanding of Marxist philosophy, and so on. This is, in itself, a normal phenomenon consistent with the laws of human cognition. However, some people with a complex against textbooks do not make concrete, historical analyses of earlier textbooks; they neither acknowledge their historical position and historical role, nor do they understand their existing problems as historical limitations inevitably present in any textbook. Instead, they use these problems to negate and vilify the earlier textbooks in their entirety. This at least brutally severs the history of the development of Chinese Marxist philosophy.
Second, the complex against textbooks has had a very bad impact on the teaching of Marxist philosophy in our country. Some people who have such a complex have themselves long been engaged in research and teaching in Marxist philosophy. Such people may criticize textbooks with good intentions, but in fact they are people who are enthusiastic about “destroying” but unable to “build,” or simply uninterested in “building.” In principle, since they completely reject earlier textbooks of Marxist philosophy, they themselves ought to have written new textbooks reflecting the level of the times. Yet not only have they failed to write such textbooks, but even the textbooks published in the past 20-plus years have not satisfied them. Therefore, the Marxist philosophy textbooks they criticize often refer to all textbooks. This is quite clear from some of the concepts they use, such as “Marxist philosophy represented by textbooks,” “textbook-style Marxist philosophy,” and “Marxist philosophy of the textbook system,” and so on. Thus, for a full 20 years, Marxist philosophy teaching in our country has been trapped in a very awkward situation: on the one hand, some people have been using all kinds of harsh and cutting words to negate various textbooks; on the other hand, we have had no choice but to use such textbooks to carry out Marxist philosophy teaching. Under such circumstances, the overall effect of Marxist philosophy teaching in our country can be imagined.
Third, and more importantly, the complex against textbooks is extremely unfavorable to achieving innovation in Marxist philosophy in our country. People in academic circles pointed out long ago that our country’s Marxist philosophy research, the so-called “forum philosophy,” has already far surpassed the “lecture-hall philosophy” represented by textbooks, and the problem with our country’s Marxist philosophy textbooks is precisely that they have not adequately reflected the achievements of “forum philosophy.” Yet even today, some people still display their innovation in Marxist philosophy by sneering at textbooks. This actually means, whether consciously or unconsciously, taking whether one has surpassed the “Marxist philosophy of the textbook system” as the standard for measuring whether Marxist philosophy research in our country is innovative. If one is satisfied with this level, then our country’s Marxist philosophy research will inevitably become mediocre, and thus our country’s innovation in Marxist philosophy will inevitably come to nothing.
Pilgrimage of the Soul
2008-03-29 19:51:28 Anonymous 124.133.152.27 [Reply]
Misconception One: the complex against textbooks
Looking back over the past 20-plus years of Marxist philosophy research in our country, it should be said that the recent surge of innovative consciousness in our country’s Marxist philosophy research initially arose from reflection on the textbook system of Marxist philosophy in our country. It was precisely this reflection that gradually made us aware of the serious problems in the textbook system we had formerly followed, a system originating from the Stalin era in the former Soviet Union, and led us to begin new explorations of the Marxist philosophical system and of various problems within Marxist philosophy. However, even today, more than 20 years later, some people are still enthusiastic about textbook criticism, constantly dragging textbooks into the discussion, as if all the Marxist philosophy textbooks of the past and the present were utterly worthless, and as if those who wrote these textbooks were all nothing but idiots; as if, unless one ridicules textbooks, one cannot sufficiently distinguish oneself from the “Marxist philosophy of the textbook system,” and cannot sufficiently display one’s innovation in Marxist philosophy research. I call this phenomenon in Marxist philosophy research in our country the “textbook-criticism complex.”
First, the textbook-criticism complex takes a non-historical attitude toward Marxist philosophy textbooks in our country. The Marxist philosophy textbooks compiled in various periods in our country in the past represented the levels of understanding of Marxist philosophy in those different periods, and they nurtured generation after generation of Chinese Marxists. Even those who are keen to criticize Marxist philosophy textbooks generally learned, came to know, or mastered Marxist philosophy through these textbooks.
Pilgrimage of the Soul
2008-03-29 19:47:45 Anonymous 124.133.152.27 [Reply]
I just found an article on a forum about Marxist philosophy. It’s from 2005, written by a professor at Wuhan University. Although your area of research isn’t Marxist philosophy, I’d still really like to hear Suixuan master’s thoughts on this article, as a way of sorting it out, hehe. (I’ve heard that the philosophy department at Wuhan University can rival Peking University’s philosophy department; I wonder what differences there are between their research on Marxist philosophy and Peking’s.)
Just uploaded it, but since anything over 5,000 Chinese characters can’t be posted all at once, well, I can only send it in pieces…
The original text is as follows:
Three Misconceptions in the Study of Marxist Philosophy
(2005-06-02 07:52:50)
Wang Xinyan, Jingchu Net (Hubei Daily)
In recent years, calls within China’s philosophical circles for innovation in Marxist philosophy have become increasingly strong, and in the study of Marxist philosophy there has also been an increasingly clear awareness of innovation. But innovation in Marxist philosophy cannot, after all, be achieved overnight, nor is it something that can be accomplished by staying at the level of words. To bring about innovation in Marxist philosophy, it is far from enough to have an innovative consciousness alone; one must also, in a scientific spirit, follow the correct direction and principles and carry out arduous theoretical exploration. Otherwise, people will not only fail to innovate Marxist philosophy, but will instead fall into one or another theoretical misconception that hinders the innovation of Marxist philosophy. In fact, in recent years’ research on Marxist philosophy, all kinds of theoretical misconceptions have already appeared.
Gu Zhe
2008-03-28 14:16:29 [reply]
I think one may and indeed should expect to “gain something” from studying philosophy, but one should not look at it from a utilitarian angle, and especially should not use “what one gains” as the standard for evaluating “philosophy.”
In the process of studying philosophy, one may and should occasionally reflect: what have I gained? Yet this mode of reflection itself is also part of philosophical activity. What exactly counts as “gain”? That is a philosophical question.
The problem is that some people already have, long before entering philosophy, a standard for what counts as “gain,” and in philosophical life they have not reflected philosophically on those standards; on the contrary, they want to use ready-made standards to measure and sift philosophy. If so, they probably won’t even get through the door of philosophy.
Gu Zhe
2008-03-28 13:45:41 [reply]
For the moment I can’t think of a better word than “posture”; perhaps “attitude” or “position” would do, but what I want to express is that this is an “action,” so “posture” feels more fitting.
This talk of “posture” is directed at a common kind of criticism: you, as one person or as a tiny clique, how much can you really accomplish? Whether you go to the West or not, the earth still turns; how much can you possibly change? In the ocean you’re just one little wave, and whatever role you play will be swiftly swallowed up. Only by following the tide and becoming part of the great current can your force possibly accumulate; otherwise, as someone so unorthodox and independent, you won’t have much influence. If you say you want to be a great figure, or want to single-handedly reverse heaven and earth, then people will mock you as indulging in unrealistic fantasies.
In short, doing things that run counter to the tide will always be denounced as “unrealistic.” If you still want to defend yourself by appealing to practical aims, I’m afraid that will always remain weak and empty. For the consideration of what is “practical” can only lead to the conclusion that your action is “irrelevant to the bigger picture” and “negligible.”
So I do not defend my behavior by the actual effects I hope to achieve. The reason I choose a certain way of life is not because it can help me realize certain aims, but first and foremost because this is my “posture”; I am simply sincerely displaying my attitude, and thus I choose such a path.
Soul Pilgrimage
2008-03-27 22:52:59 Anonymous 123.232.177.229 [reply]
Could one also say this: philosophy should not become a deliberate contrivance, a strategy, but should instead be something spontaneous, something self-so.
Soul Pilgrimage
2008-03-27 22:48:45 Anonymous 123.232.177.229 [reply]
Lately I’ve been thinking about this a lot, with quite a bit of reflection mixed in. I feel that in the way I’ve approached philosophy—and perhaps not only philosophy, but also the whole matter of approaching and grasping the road of ideals—I may have been somewhat off; at the moment it still isn’t very clear, so I’m sorting it out little by little.
My wish to go to the West is the result of careful thought, not a posture, and I do not allow it to become a posture either (of course, not all postures are pejorative). I’m not trying to defend myself; on the contrary, I think this kind of exchange and argument is necessary.
What Suixuan master said is already very clear. As you said, “concern for the real world and concern for the transcendent world are equally emotions that philosophers cannot shake off.” “Philosophy is often thought to stand opposed to practice precisely because it requires you to slow down and even stop, requires you to use your eyes to gaze ahead, behind, left, and right, and to look up at the starry sky, rather than using your eyes to stare at the ground and charge forward headlong. Such a posture is easily seen as inaction, as doing nothing. But think about it—what could be a more powerful action than this? Especially in this modern age of racing and dashing, when people are all charging ahead with their heads lowered, the meaning of stopping becomes all the more pronounced.”
Looking back at my own former attitude, it was not self-so and natural, but impatient for quick results and profit. I had tried to get from philosophy some “specific and instructive” thing, without ever noticing that this starting point had already moved farther and farther away from philosophy.
Sow with no expectation of gain; in the toil of cultivation, experience the joy that comes naturally.
Gu Zhe
2008-03-26 23:23:10 [reply]
“Whether the unity of knowing and acting is truly unified has to be tested in practice” — what does this mean? Isn’t “practice” just “acting”?
“Practicing filmmaking may perhaps also be good for studying philosophy” — what I object to is precisely this “good for.” Whether one says making films is good for studying philosophy or studying philosophy is good for making films, if one is always preoccupied with these words “good for,” then it is not good for either side. The later part of Unic’s comment is right: it is better when things arise naturally.
Many people look at philosophy and take it as the “knowing” part of knowing and acting, as if studying philosophy is “knowing,” while making films and the like are “acting.” Such a division is inappropriate, and it is even farther from “the unity of knowing and acting.” Philosophy itself is both knowing and acting; making films itself is also both knowing and acting. There is no need to say that only when philosophy is “applied” to activities like making films, or when philosophical truths are gained in the process of making films, does it count as “the unity of knowing and acting.” On the contrary, that is precisely bifurcation: you deliberately split your life into two parts, with one part handling knowing and another handling acting. This then further gives rise to stupid questions like whether “theory guides practice or practice guides theory.”
I have always stressed that philosophy itself is a way of life. I can now further stress that philosophy itself is a powerful form of practice. Not to mention that philosophy is not something produced by sitting there stupidly and doing absolutely nothing while merely turning over one’s brain; even if one really did not move a hand or foot at all, even if one were just sitting there, would that not still be a kind of “practice”? Demonstrations are practice; sitting in meditation is also practice, is it not?
Going west and making a big effort there is, of course, one way of practicing. But if you are not especially outstanding, then you can only quietly become a little wave, nothing more; the change one person can bring to the world is often very small. So does “go to the West and make a big effort” not more often symbolize a certain posture? Whether one can make a substantial contribution is one thing, and whether I go and do it is another, right?
What I want to emphasize now is that doing philosophy as a way of life, or as a mode of practice, is similar. When the main force is marching north, or when everyone is firing aimlessly, if you firmly stride toward the West, that very step is a posture; even if not everyone else follows you, your action will certainly change something. Of course, when everyone is striding forward, if you suddenly stop and look back and around, would not such a posture likewise be able to change something?
Philosophy is often thought to stand opposed to practice precisely because it requires you to slow down and even stop, requires you to use your eyes to gaze ahead, behind, left, and right, and to look up at the starry sky, rather than using your eyes to stare at the ground and charge forward headlong. Such a posture is easily seen as inaction, as doing nothing. But think about it—what could be a more powerful action than this? Especially in this modern age of racing and dashing, when people are all charging ahead with their heads lowered, the meaning of stopping becomes all the more pronounced.
Anyone with philosophical potential must be someone full of curiosity, someone filled with concern for self and world, and not someone indifferent to everything. Thus concern for the real world and concern for the transcendent world are equally emotions that philosophers cannot shake off. Therefore I believe, and dare to guarantee, that there has never been a great philosophical thought that was “detached from practice”; every step of the philosophical classics has been deeply stamped with the imprint of its era, even if their content seems to be nothing but pure speculative play.
unic
2008-03-26 21:06:49 Anonymous 124.117.19.224 [reply]
Right.
Artistic creation has a relatively strong spontaneity. Whether a university does creative work or not depends on whether, by then, you have that intense desire. If not, you probably won’t make films well. If you do, then you can give it a go.
That’s only natural.
unic
2008-03-26 21:00:14 Anonymous 124.117.19.224 [reply]
I think whether the unity of knowing and acting is actually unified has to be tested in practice. While studying philosophy, if you also do some practice films, I still think that would be beneficial, after all that is also a very good way of observing life, or to put it directly, a way of life. Practicing filmmaking may perhaps also be good for studying philosophy. In any case, it depends on yourself. That is my view.
Soul Pilgrimage
2008-03-24 13:06:59 Anonymous 124.133.157.169 [reply]
Yesterday I looked at Suixuan master’s comment and immediately felt ashamed beyond measure. It was strange how I had misread philosophy of science and technology so literally based on the wording alone; I felt extremely ashamed, hehe.
Later I read several articles in Suixuan about Marxist philosophy, and only then did I understand that your merciless criticism was really painstakingly well-intentioned… It looks like Marxist philosophy still has a very long and very hard road to travel in China…
Thanks to unic for the encouragement! It helped me pull myself together again… Just kidding. But Suixuan master’s words really struck me like a thunderclap, making some of my formerly rather impulsive enthusiasm a bit more rational—this is very important. It seems I still need to keep improving myself through study.
As for “the unity of knowing and acting,” it seems I had had a similar view before—knowing and acting permeate one another, blend like milk and water, and are inseparable. But in concrete practice, I still need to keep pondering and cultivating myself. Keep it up!
Gu Zhe
2008-03-24 02:39:21 [reply]
Hehe, when did UNIC start sounding like an elder, encouraging others? You’re even more excessive than I am! You haven’t even stepped onto this quite good road yet.
Personally, I do not recommend starting film practice while also studying philosophy. Although you can say that philosophy ultimately still serves practice or something like that, philosophy itself is after all an enterprise of concepts and speculation; studying philosophy requires laying aside utilitarian motives—whether for personal gain, national gain, or for making films and the like, after all all of that is utilitarianism. Although it is impossible to completely rid oneself of utilitarian motives, the most fervent aim in studying philosophy ought to be inquiry and questioning, and it should not be “learning for the sake of application.” As for “application,” once your philosophy has achieved some success, even if you wanted not to use it, that would be impossible. Philosophy will inevitably change your life, and philosophy remembered by an era will inevitably change the direction of that era; you can’t hide from it even if you want to.
UNIC, last time I mentioned to you the issue of “the unity of knowing and acting”; I don’t know to what extent you understood my view: knowing in order to act or acting in order to know are not true unity of knowing and acting. They are still bifurcated; they are still two different things, only tied together, shackled together, without having been made “one.” Knowing is acting, acting is knowing; seeking knowledge itself is carrying it out. I wonder whether you can grasp what I mean. If you have realized this level, then perhaps you may begin film practice while studying philosophy. But if you still cannot see through the effort to apply philosophy to practice, then I suggest you first settle down and study philosophy.
UNIC
2008-03-23 23:02:14 Anonymous 124.117.19.213 [reply]
Soul Pilgrimage comrade! I strongly support your strategy of taking the long road to encircle the cities from the countryside! Keep it up, study philosophy well. Once you start studying, you’ll understand more. This is a pretty good road, and it will definitely have a profound impact on your future practice. What I support even more is that after studying philosophy, you come to our West and practice there. Make a big push. But I think if I were you, I’d start film practice while studying philosophy.
Documentary is a very powerful form of film.
I sincerely wish you a bright future!
Personally, I think whichever subfield of philosophy you study doesn’t matter.
Keep it up!
Gu Zhe
2008-03-23 14:34:16 [reply]
Why does hearing “philosophy of science” make you think of “the combination of science and philosophy”? It seems your understanding of philosophy’s mission is not sufficient~ and your grasp of Marx’s critical spirit is also inadequate~ (just saying, no offense if this doesn’t apply).
Think about it: is “political philosophy” the combination of politics and philosophy? Is it putting the modes of thinking of politicians and philosophers together? Of course not.
Philosophy of science or philosophy of technology is a reflection on and critique of science and technology. It asks what science actually is and what technology actually is.
“Capital” is a core, fundamental concept in capitalist society, but what exactly is “capital”? Have people really made clear its origins and development, its source and meaning? Precisely those things that people take for granted may be the most problematic things. So when Marx wrote Capital in the nineteenth century to reestablish the source and critically reflect on capital, perhaps the Marx of the twentieth century would have written a book called On Technology to reestablish the source and critically reflect on technology.
I don’t know what kind of understanding you have of Marx. I think that although one should not be bound by textual entanglements and should grasp Marx’s spirit, one also cannot simplify Marx’s spirit too much—simplifying it down to “concern for human beings” is simply far too simplistic. There are plenty of thinkers and revolutionaries who place human beings at the center of their concern; so what, exactly, is distinctive about Marx?
Never understand Marx the way Soviet and Chinese textbooks do—they reduce Marx to a few empty slogans. For example, “materialism”: they hoist the banner and shout loudly, and in the end turn Marx into a figure even shallower than the most vulgar doctrine of materialism. Noticing Marx’s concern for “human beings” is of course a big step beyond the traditional textbooks, but if you still, like the traditional textbooks, merely slap the Marx label onto your own stock clichés without alteration, then the result is very likely still unbearable to look at.
Soul Pilgrimage
2008-03-23 00:33:17 Anonymous 221.0.49.122 [reply]
I’m here too!
What a pity—I’m in a humanities major, namely radio, television, and film directing. But I’ve always felt that the combination of science and philosophy is perfectly wonderful, and it seems its usefulness is fairly obvious too (just a guess, hehe). Science focuses on the study of the material, real world, while philosophy looks to the construction and deconstruction of the world of spirit and consciousness—I don’t know whether I’m putting this correctly… People always say that literature, history, and philosophy are inseparable, but if philosophy studies all things under heaven and yet excludes science, that seems a little hard to make sense of. Once science and philosophy are brought together, it will absolutely open one’s mind and allow one to take a view from a much more macroscopic level. Moreover, science emphasizes empirical evidence and observation, while philosophy emphasizes people’s inner thoughts and feelings; putting these two very different modes of thinking together would certainly be very interesting. However, “science-philosophy” is truly something I’m hearing for the first time; I know almost nothing about it. So the analysis above is only my intuitive feeling. I’m afraid I’ll be making a fool of myself before the experts!
Actually, I think the ultimate aim of whatever direction one pursues is the same. As Kant said: “Human beings are ends, not merely means.” Later, when I read Capital (though I’ve only read a dozen-odd pages so far), I came across Marx’s discussion of the externalization and alienation of labor in capitalist society, and it further deepened my understanding of the inheritance and development of Kant’s statement in Marx. Marx’s analysis is indeed profound and incisive, with the mind of a thinker and the heart of a love that embraces all humanity. In fact, I think that for a person, no matter what profession or field of study he engages in, the most important thing is not how high his theoretical level or practical ability reaches, but rather that open-heartedness, that kind of pan-human concern. Such a sentiment will determine whether, along the road of life, one’s path becomes broader and broader and increasingly tends toward nobility and infinity. So I demand of myself that I be a person who can “cultivate himself and benefit the world.” And I hope that through philosophy I can let the temperature of my passion and dreams continue without interruption, always maintaining this kind of sentiment at a high level, and gaining a more far-sighted outlook and way of thinking. At the same time, there is also a faint suspicion of world-withdrawal, but I think a certain degree of withdrawal from the world is very necessary; for the sake of what one truly wants, one must have the courage to give up some things that may destroy one’s ideals. I think I am a very idealistic person, but I also think that people ought to be idealistic; as for realistic things, we can simply keep a respectful distance from them. Compromising with reality is sad. Some helpless realities we may understand perfectly clearly in our hearts, but we deliberately choose not to think that way, and deliberately choose not to do that. I firmly believe that truth, goodness, and beauty will forever be humanity’s eternal pursuit. I do not want to be someone who can only stand on the shore and sigh at the sea; I want to be a practitioner.
For me, philosophy is an important means of reaching people, discovering people, understanding people, expressing people, and helping people—but only a means. I originally had no intention of taking the graduate entrance exam; at the time, my strongest wish was to go to the central and western regions and really throw myself into a major effort. Later, after repeated consideration and many changes, I finally discovered that philosophy was the best entry point for me to reach my ideal. In the end, in the final final analysis, I want to realize my ideals through practice and through contact with people. Let me tell you a little about my ideal, hehe—don’t laugh at me, okay: in the future I want to be a documentary director. As I said earlier, whether a director is great is not a matter of how high his theoretical and technical level is; the most important thing is a director’s humanistic concern, that is, a kind of sensibility grounded in reason. In fact, film is a very inclusive art, and a director can absolutely try topics in different fields, touching on history, civilization, politics, religion, ethics, psychology, philosophy, science, and so on. In film history, many French “New Wave” and “Left Bank” films involve quite profound, subjective, personal, and inward-looking philosophical reflections on human beings. For example, Bergman’s Wild Strawberries, Alain Resnais’s Hiroshima mon amour, and Last Year at Marienbad. Especially the “Left Bank” aesthetic current, which in fact is a movement that brings together the achievements of modernist trends. It not only accepted the influence of Freud’s theory of the unconscious, but also the influence of Sartre’s “existentialism” and Bergson’s “intuitionism,” as well as Brecht and others; it is extremely rich in a spirit of exploration and a realistic flavor.
I’ve rambled on quite a lot again, hehe. The logic of the writing feels very chaotic; maybe it’s because I’m too sleepy, or perhaps because I simply want to say too much—just like when the mouth can’t keep up with the speed of thought when speaking, and a stuttering condition appears… I wonder if you can make sense of it? Do you think my motive for philosophy is somehow impure? Not loyal enough to philosophy? Actually, philosophy exists to serve people, right? I call it, with a nice-sounding phrase, “taking the long way around to save the nation,” haha…
By the way, some time ago in a forgotten corner of the library I found a book by Yang Shi of Peking University, Human Liberation—A Re-reading of Marx, but it was already a book from more than ten years ago. For someone like me, who entered the field by a roundabout route, it was still a very worthwhile read. Professor Yang is probably already at the ripe age of seventy-six now; I wonder whether he is still fighting on the front line of education?
I hope the host of Suixuan will offer me more guidance, hehe……
Gu Chu
2008-03-22 14:10:23 [Reply]
Peking University is a good place, a place of freedom, that is beyond question. However, I don’t know how high your expectations are; after all, the environment at Peking University is still very much real, and there are all kinds of people there—those who are detached, those who are utilitarian, all of them.
I don’t know much about the teachers in Marxist philosophy. Lao Yang is our homeroom teacher; he is very serious and very lovely. In addition, I personally think Teacher Yang is the best teacher in the Marxist philosophy teaching and research office, although I only listened to him give a report for a few dozen minutes; but the temperament of a scholar can sometimes be seen at a glance.
Also, if you’re doing Marxist philosophy, why not come do philosophy of technology~? Ellul (the philosopher of technology, a follower of Marx and a theologian) once said that if Marx had lived in the 20th century, what he would have written would probably not be Capital but Technics and Time. I think that makes sense. Marx’s humanistic concern, Marx’s critique of modernity and alienation, Marx’s emphasis on history and society, Marx’s concern with practice and politics, and so on—I think these spirits have in fact been inherited more by philosophers of technology. I don’t know where your “cross-disciplinary” move is coming from; if it is from a science or engineering major, then perhaps taking philosophy of technology as a bridge would be a good choice~ Anyway, philosophy should never have been divided up in the first place; splitting it into majors is only a matter of institutional arrangement.
Of course, I always like to tempt people a little along the way; no need to take it seriously~ hehe~
Pilgrimage of the Soul
2008-03-22 13:35:51 Anonymous 221.0.49.183 [Reply]
Then in your view, are the master’s and doctoral advisers in Peking University’s Marxist philosophy program, and the study of Marxist philosophy itself, an embodiment of free academic spirit? I’m not saying this out of disrespect for Peking University; precisely because my expectations are so high and my reverence so deep, I hope Peking University’s philosophy will live up to its name and forge ahead bravely! Which one do you especially admire?
Gu Chu
2008-03-22 13:14:01 [Reply]
What the person above said makes me feel rather flustered~ Although I call myself “in seclusion,” it’s not the same kind of thing as those masters who retreat into seclusion for light cultivation; there’s no such thing as disturbing or not disturbing me~
I look forward to your successfully entering Peking University for Marxist philosophy. But I think the ultimate concern for “human beings” is not a feature unique to Marxist philosophy. Philosophy has regarded the understanding of oneself as its theme since Socrates, and modern philosophy has even taken the development of humanism as its main thread. It can be said that human existence and its fate have always been philosophy’s top problem. Of course, Marx’s concern has its own distinctiveness.
I am opposed to Marxist philosophy turning into a kind of documentary philology that treats Marxism as its object; the mission of “Marxist philosophy” should be to inherit Marx’s problem awareness and spiritual concern. However, although the current Marxist philosophy circle does have people specifically studying so-called “philosophy of human beings,” the work seems shallow and chaotic; how exactly to do it still awaits your exploration.
Also: one major reason I posted the Canon in music-box form is that this link is fast and stable; actually, what I seem to like most is the violin version~ I listened to the flamenco version, not bad.
Pilgrimage of the Soul
2008-03-22 12:29:25 Anonymous 221.0.49.183 [Reply]
Hello, host of Suixuan!
Last night I accidentally wandered into the Future Peking University People community, and as a result I unexpectedly and fortunately came to this treasured place, hehe. Today happens to be exactly one month since you went into seclusion! I wonder whether I’m disturbing your quiet cultivation?
I was moved by the “rich water and grass, abundant produce” here—that’s enough for me to “eat and drink” for several months! Salute to the hardworking “working people”!
You’re one year above me, but I’m not a Peking University student; however, next year I very likely will be! Hehe, a bit overconfident. I’m planning to take the 2009 graduate entrance exam for Marxist philosophy at Peking University; it’s a cross-major move. But I’m not afraid, because I’ve found that the spirit of Marxism fits very well with what I’ve been pursuing all along—namely, the ultimate concern for “human beings.” I’m a bit presumptuous, forgive me if this sounds arrogant.
244873172. This is my QQ number—only for use when you are free, because I don’t want my superficiality to waste your precious time; in fact, leaving you a message has already made me feel deeply uneasy. Truly. First, I’m afraid of disturbing your life in seclusion; second, I’m afraid you’ll think I’m merely one of the many people facing the graduate exam who go everywhere looking for help. I’m not that utilitarian; I feel that my motivation for taking the exam and for choosing this field is very pure and noble (a bit shameless of me to say so). Compared with you, I’m obviously far behind, yet I’ve always been smugly pleased with what I take to be my own not-so-shallow knowledge. The power of example! So I very much have the feeling of regretting not having met you sooner. Of course, all of this is on the premise of your willing consent, but I still feel that I am quite sincere.
Hmm… I originally just wanted to leave a few words, but it turned out I wrote you a letter. All right, it’s time to study. This morning I went to the library to look up those philosophy books you recommended, and to my surprise they were all there! Heaven is helping me. But I only found one copy of Your First Philosophy Book; still, that counts as something gained. Others, like The Tree of Philosophy, are actually especially popular—checked out plus reserved! If it really won’t do, I’ll just buy a copy, and then nobody will be fighting me for it anymore…
I won’t say any more. Finally, I wish you a smooth emergence from seclusion, and may your great work see the light of day!
Looking forward to good news!
(One more nagging remark: I strongly recommend the flamenco version of Canon; it is completely opposite in style and mood from the music-box version. Perhaps you’ve already heard it, hehe)
Starry Sky
2008-02-27 00:45:36 Anonymous 124.207.169.27 [Reply]
I was thinking of starting a blog to learn from you, and who would have thought you’d gone into seclusion
Wang Xiaoer
2008-02-24 17:54:08 Anonymous 124.17.16.10 [Reply]
Watching the Olympics and still remembering to write a blog post
That should be our attitude
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply