First of all, I myself have never cared about what so-called original content my philosophy may have. What matters is that my philosophy belongs to me; even to say that my philosophy is myself is enough. What I pursue is self-knowledge and self-improvement, and all the works that take textual form and flow outward are merely “traces” of that pursuit, not the pursuit itself. No matter how important those things may be to me, whether treated with indifference like excrement or treasured and worn like a diamond ring, they are not in themselves all that important. It is like pursuing a love affair: in the process, there will be memories, love letters, gifts, keepsakes, records, photographs, contracts, and so on and so forth. In the course of love, many tangible things are produced; some are used up and discarded, some can be kept as mementos and looked at whenever one likes, some can be carried on one’s person and even become an indelible mark… But all these external things are not what I truly love or pursue. They may be “witnesses” to love, “souvenirs” of the pursuit, treasures that can be passed down to later generations and bring endless reflections to my future self and to others, but in the final analysis they are still only attachments. What I truly pursue and care about, what I want to construct, protect, and develop, is only her, myself, and the relationship between her and me. In philosophical terms, what I concern myself with is, in the final analysis, “this” (the world), myself, and my relationship with this world. Of course, for others, only through those external, tangible souvenirs can they stand aside and “witness” my philosophical activity, and possibly gain inspiration and insight from it. It is like one person can gain certain experience and understanding by observing another person’s love affair from the sidelines, but in the end, each person must still love for himself; that is what truly matters. Everyone has his own philosophy, just as everyone has his own love. Some great philosophers are handed down as classics and admired by later generations, just as some great loves may be taken by others as models and widely envied. But these “achievements” are not matters of great concern to the person within them: when you are thinking more about making others envy you and then pursuing a love affair, that love is probably already corrupted. Although we have reason to believe that if love is sincere and happy, then it will inevitably be something others envy, what we care about is always the former, not the latter. It is the same with philosophy: I believe that through sincere, serious, and passionate pursuit, my philosophy will in the end also be able to attract attention, but I never worry about that.
Of course, my philosophical pursuit is accompanied by a strong desire for expression. It is like when someone pursues the person he loves: besides private communication, he can hardly resist wanting to declare his feelings to the whole world, wanting everyone to witness it for him, hoping others will share in the joy and fulfillment he has gained in love… Such a feeling, so long as it is expressed without going to excess, should count as healthy and natural, shouldn’t it? I am not crazily proclaiming my philosophy everywhere; I merely make it public within a limited sphere such as my blog, “showing off” my philosophical love to passersby, sharing the joy I have gained. Isn’t such expression also very natural and sincere?
So, if you ask me what exactly the original content of my philosophy is, then the first answer is: that is not important; what matters is that my philosophy is exclusively my own. It is like asking a person what original content there is in his romance: he may not be able to say much. His little tricks, his various experiences, his personality and special talents—if these are taken apart and viewed in isolation, it would probably be hard to say that any one of them is unique to him. But as long as his love is indeed the sincerest outpouring from the heart, then he can say with one hundred percent confidence that his love is one of a kind; no hesitation is needed, no comparison is needed. You are you; the meanings of those things belong to you alone, and therefore they are irreplaceable. When I speak of my philosophy, what I am doing is not merely like selecting the brilliant parts from various classic love stories and then combining them into a self-contained, complete story. Although, in fact, every detail of my philosophy can find something similar in my predecessors, and although my philosophy will also be self-contained, and although I also emphasize that the significance of a philosopher lies in his complete and vibrant system of thought… still, if one looks only at these things, one has not yet grasped the key point. The key point is that what is called systematization is not something I myself pursue either, but rather a byproduct from the inside out—because my personality is whole, my life is harmonious and unified, and therefore the sincere activity of desire that arises from my heart, my love, can of course show its inner unity. I do not care about the systematization of external texts; what I care about is only the identity and soundness of my personality, the harmony and sincerity of my emotions. In that way, whatever overflows outward will naturally also possess inner unity.
In short, rather than “originality,” what I care more about is sincere pursuit and expression. Of course, sincerity and originality are often related. For example, some people can recite all sorts of sentimental love songs and endearing words, and know all kinds of dating techniques and pursuit strategies, but if they cannot digest these into something that belongs to themselves, then these things will not promote true love for them; on the contrary, they will only further plunge love into illusion. Better are those plain people, whose words are clumsy and whose reactions are slow, but every sentence they speak comes from the bottom of the heart, and everything they do is always out of their own will. Expressing love in this way, compared with the ornate story assembled by drawing on allusions from every direction, undoubtedly seems far more sincere. It is like a forwarded text message, no matter how brilliant, can never compare with the most plain-hearted blessing “originally created” for each person, which is far more touching.
So we can see that some authors simply lack this kind of sincere feeling. What they consider is the external form of the text—how to make it look beautiful and splendid, how profound and systematic, how rigorous and eloquent… But if, from the very beginning, these efforts have lost their connection with the emotional demands within their own hearts, if writing is no longer for the sake of expressing oneself but only for the sake of writing a good article, then such a work lacks vitality. It is dead matter from the start; no amount of meticulous polishing will help. It may shine for a time, but as time passes, no matter how refined, dead matter will only decay more and more. Only those philosophical works truly infused with life can circulate for a long time and continually renew themselves.
Therefore, if the purpose of asking what original content my philosophy has is to know whether my philosophy has any appeal, then what I would say is this: my “merits” are first of all not embodied in any outward, detachable component; second, they are also not to be found in its systematization or completeness. Rather, first and foremost: I am sincere, and my philosophy has always been the most sincere expression; I am alive, and my philosophy is alive with life. That is what matters most. Next, one may look at my overall coherence, and only then speak of whether there are any fresh highlights in the concrete parts. Although in actual contact others always first encounter my fragmented parts, and only then possibly come gradually to understand its systematicity, and only at the end can penetrate the text and feel my sincere emotion (though sometimes there may also be shortcuts—which is why I often like to skim over details and sweep through an entire book without seeking deep understanding; see the article How I Read Books). But if you ask me directly, of course I must explain according to the real order.
To be a little more specific about what my possible “originality” amounts to, we have to speak of the historical and cultural context on which I stand. Any thinker is a product of his own age, whether he intensely expresses his age, or clearly resists it, or guides it like a prophet; he is never suspended outside of history. Philosophers of different eras may seem to discuss the same questions and hold similar views, yet their meanings cannot be compared as if they were the same thing. And now, the age I inhabit is undoubtedly an unprecedented and distinctive one; the soil on which I stand is unlike any other. This means that if I genuinely begin from myself and carry out sincere reflection, then my philosophy will also be distinctive. For example, speaking philosophy in modern Chinese, being influenced by anime and game culture, writing in the new communication platform of the internet with a blog as my manuscript… all of these can be said to have no precedent in earlier times. What special significance each of these backgrounds may have, there is no need to go into here for the moment. The key point is that every kind of lifeworld will give birth to a corresponding thought-world, and the philosopher, through reflection and questioning, will recognize the world in which he lives and express it. Since the world is distinctive, this philosophy will also be distinctive.
As for the question of originality in specific components, that has to be analyzed case by case. You can point to any one of my papers, and I can tell you where the original points in it lie; you can also point to any philosopher, and I can tell you in what respects I differ from him. But if you want me to speak off the cuff, there really is not much to say; after all, this matter was never worth mentioning in the first place.
April 7, 2009
Latest Comments
- fog?Mist?雾？
2009-04-07 20:35:56 Anonymous 219.234.81.66
Change the template.
Your article’s line spacing is too small now; there is practically no gap between the lines, so it’s tiring on the eyes…Too much trouble…
Anyway, I think it’s fine as it is~
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply