【Abstract】To define the “Science-CXuan debate” in China’s modernization process as either a dispute between the ancient and the modern, or between East and West, misses the point. The Science-CXuan debate reflects a certain tension internal to the process of modernization itself. What the Xuanxue faction, represented by Zhang Junmai, was proposing was precisely the demand of modernization, or “enlightenment.” At the core of enlightenment lies the education of national character, the cultivation of a free will. What Zhang Junmai was concerned with was not whether science could explain a worldview, but how to cultivate and establish a new worldview. And the establishment of a new worldview, or a new culture, cannot rely solely on the importation of Western science and technology; one must also pay attention to tracing the roots of Western modern scientific and technological civilization, namely the awakening of self-consciousness and the rise of the nation-state.
【Keywords】Zhang Junmai the Science-CXuan debate enlightenment educational modernization
（一）
In the 1920s, a lecture on “worldview” by Zhang Junmai sparked a major controversy in cultural circles, historically known as the “Science-CXuan debate,” a landmark event with far-reaching influence in China’s modernization process.
As for the origins, course, and issues at stake in the “Science-CXuan debate,” many scholars have already summarized and discussed them; I will not elaborate on them here. What I intend to discuss is how to understand this event’s place in China’s modernization process, what problem gave rise to the debate, and what exactly Zhang Junmai and the others were fighting against.
This article is titled “The Science-CXuan Debate in China’s Educational Modernization” because it seeks to provide a certain special “positioning” for the “Science-CXuan debate,” rather than to examine the specific relationship between the Science-CXuan debate and Chinese education.
Is the so-called conflict between science and Xuanxue a conflict between tradition and modernity, or a conflict between East and West? Chronologically, the “Science-CXuan debate” of 1923 happened to fall between two other important debates: before it was the debate between vernacular Chinese and literary Chinese, and after it came the debate between Eastern culture and Western culture. This seems to have further fostered a certain confusion, leading people either to define the Science-CXuan debate as a dispute between the old and the new, or as one between East and West; neither way grasps the point. As for defining it as a struggle between “science and anti-science,” that is even more wide of the mark. In my view, although the conflict between tradition and modernity and the conflict between East and West are indeed embodied in the process of the Science-CXuan debate, these conflicts are not its essence. What the Science-CXuan debate actually reflects is a certain tension inherent in the process of “modernization.”
The main figures of all the factions in the Science-CXuan debate were advocates of the “new culture”; all believed that China’s traditional ethical and ritual teachings no longer suited the present age, and that one must learn from Western culture and Western science. This was certainly true of the science faction, and it was equally true of the Xuanxue faction. For example, Zhang Junmai explicitly believed that China’s traditional family-centered ethics were no longer suited to today’s society, let alone the autocratic political tradition and the academic tradition lacking in logic[①]. To build “the culture of China tomorrow,” one had to take Western culture as a model and introduce the spirit of science. Zhang Junmai said: “The value of Western morality lies in the self-respect and self-reliance of the individual, who does not depend on the family; in the strength of the people’s patriotism, leaving them unafraid; in the mutual cooperation among individuals, with none indulging in self-righteousness…” These are all “what we ought to emulate”[②]. And “science” was even more “an excellent medicine for saving the nation”: “Because of scientific progress, the peoples of the world have already benefited greatly. Especially in China, whose people for thousands of years have not known how to seek truth or how to know natural knowledge, it may be taken as a serum to stimulate our minds and enable us to catch up with the world’s cultural ranks. Only under such a course can China revive its scholarship, and only then can it remedy the disease of intellectual laziness.”[③]
Many scholars take Spengler’s The Decline of the West and Liang Qichao’s Impressions from a Journey to Europe as markers, and regard the pessimism toward European civilization after the First World War as the historical backdrop of the “Science-CXuan debate”[④]. This may well be true; however, at most this is a certain social-psychological background of the Science-CXuan debate, not its theoretical origin. Zhang Junmai would never belittle European culture; indeed, he was averse to such a practice. He said: “Today our country is in such a position that it can hardly save itself from death; naturally there is no need to concern ourselves with criticizing the strengths and weaknesses of others, and naturally there is no need to shout slogans about Europe’s decline. What matters is how we can take others’ strengths to make up for our own weaknesses; this is what I hope from my compatriots.”[⑤]
The “Xuanxue” that Zhang Junmai advocated was not meant to be a revival of some ancient or Eastern thought, nor was it meant to create some “Eastern Xuanxue + Western science” combination in the style of “Chinese learning as essence, Western learning for practical use.” He plainly said: “If one assumes that there are people in the country who believe that our culture can still preserve its continuity of four thousand years, that view is entirely mistaken. For Chinese culture after contact between Europe and Asia, and Chinese culture before that contact, there is inevitably a very deep rift between them. The Taiji diagram, as well as li and qi, yin-yang and the Five Elements, are already insufficient as the basis for future philosophy. Only from atoms and electrons, from vitality and mutation, can one seek the basis of natural philosophy; only in collective life and national life can one obtain the basis of the social sciences.”[⑥]
In short, when Zhang Junmai initiated the Science-CXuan debate, its focus was not on whether to modernize, whether to draw closer to the West, or whether to learn science; rather, it was on how to carry out modernization, how to learn from the West, and how to understand the place of science. What Zhang Junmai emphasized was that in learning Western culture and developing science, one cannot be satisfied merely with superficial scientific knowledge and scientific methods; one must probe into the spiritual roots that made Western modern science possible. In later lectures, Zhang Junmai repeatedly mentioned the “Report on the Reorganization of Chinese Education” issued by the “Educational Experts Committee” of the “Institute of Intellectual Cooperation” of the League of Nations. The report pointed out that Chinese educators did not have a sufficiently profound understanding of Western science and technology. Zhang Junmai quoted the report’s reminder: “Today’s Europe and America were not produced by modern science and technology; to put it conversely, it was only the minds of Europeans and Americans that produced modern science and technology, and elevated these two things to their present level. Before the development of modern science and technology, there were still several eras, such as the Renaissance, such as the era of rationalism and idealism; in each of these eras, Europeans awakened to the possibility of their own development, and willingly submitted to a certain intellectual training…”[⑦]
These eras “in which there was an awakening to the possibility of one’s own development” are, in other words, the eras of “enlightenment” in the broad sense. Here we find that what Zhang Junmai was demanding in the Science-CXuan debate was precisely some notion of “enlightenment.”
（二）
We usually compare the May Fourth New Culture Movement to China’s Enlightenment[⑧]. What is called the “Enlightenment” refers roughly to the century or so before the French Revolution in the West—“The leaders of this movement believed that they lived in an age of enlightenment. They basically regarded the past as an age of superstition and ignorance, and believed that only in their own age had humanity finally stepped out of darkness into light. Thus, one of the basic characteristics of the Enlightenment was the idea of ‘progress,’ an idea that continued all the way into the twentieth century.”[⑨]
From ignorance to enlightenment, from backwardness to progress—ideas like these were precisely what the scholars in the Science-CXuan debate shared. It can be said that “enlightenment” was the common mission of those scholars at the time.
However, just as the Western Enlightenment was by no means a monolithic movement moving in perfect step, and as there were all kinds of contradictions among the leading figures of the Enlightenment such as Diderot, d’Alembert, and Voltaire, not to mention Rousseau, who criticized progress, it is hardly surprising that China’s so-called Enlightenment displayed a situation of differing views and multiple schools. Liang Qichao, Hu Shi, Chen Duxiu, and including Zhang Junmai, can all be counted as Chinese enlighteners. Certain conflicts in their thought are precisely reflections of the tensions inherent in “enlightenment” itself.
At this point, we can finally explain the place of the word “education” in the title of this article. “Educational modernization,” in a certain sense, is another way of saying “enlightenment,” rather than merely referring to one specific field within the process of modernization, as do terms such as “agricultural modernization” or “national defense modernization.” The “modern” is grounded in “enlightenment,” and “enlightenment” in turn is grounded in “education.” Is it not an affair of “education” to lead the masses from ignorance to reason? In our everyday language today, the word “enlightenment” is mainly used as a synonym for “early childhood education” or “introductory education,” and this is hardly surprising.
Thus, we can easily understand why the debate launched by Zhang Junmai, though rarely directed at the issue of education, was nevertheless often initiated by educational issues. The “Science-CXuan debate” began with advice to students in a university lecture, and later discussions concerning the relationship between science and philosophy also often centered on that “Report on the Reorganization of Chinese Education,” or unfolded from certain explorations of Chinese education.[⑩]
But “enlightenment” is not the same as “education”; rather, it is connected with a particular kind of education, namely a process of education that “opens up” a person—leading one from utter incomprehension and helplessness to the point where one can begin independent, advanced learning. Once you already understand what you are studying and know the methods and entryways to study, then teaching you to go further and more deeply is no longer called “enlightenment.” By contrast, someone who is utterly ignorant, who cannot find a direction and has no idea how to move forward, is in need of “enlightenment.” A mature person can study independently and autonomously; the teacher merely provides the student with materials for study, and the student knows how to deal with those materials. Once the student acquires such autonomy, “enlightenment” is complete. In other words, the education of “enlightenment” is the transmission of “independent personality” or “free thought,”
As Kant answered in his famous essay contest, “Enlightenment is humanity’s emergence from self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another.”[11] Reinhold, another participant in the same essay contest as Kant, believed that enlightenment “means making rational people out of those who are capable of rationality,”[12] so to speak. In that case, the education of enlightenment is to guide people toward eventually freeing themselves from guidance, forming mature and independent personalities. Put another way, it is probably “personality education,” or “education of the person.”
In China in the early twentieth century, educators’ ideas also shifted from the merely technical instruction of the self-strengthening movement era toward the idea of enlightenment, that is, they began to place importance on the cultivation of free and independent personality. The meaning of education was no longer only “using barbarian strengths to govern the barbarians,” but was more and more turning toward the demand for “the cultivation of national character.” In 1918, Jiang Menglin said: “China is in this transitional age; the people have no positive standard, lack independent thought, and those above and below are suspicious and fearful, not knowing what to follow. Scholars at home and abroad all embrace the righteousness of saving the nation through education. Everyone knows the importance of education; there is no need for the author to say more.”[13] By 1935, at the very beginning of his article “The Cultivation of National Character,” Zhang Xiru said: “Anyone with even a little modern political knowledge has probably heard the following seemingly simple yet in fact profound statement: to have a sound nation, one must first have a sound people.”[14] It is clear, then, that the idea of saving the nation through education had probably taken deep root in people’s minds.
And what is so-called “cultivation of personality,” if said another way, other than “the establishment of a worldview”? This is the background against which the issue of “worldview” was raised.
（三）
Zhang Junmai was not the first scholar to put the issue of worldview on the table. As early as a year before the May Fourth Movement, New Youth had already published a special issue on the “problem of existence,” which, according to Chen Duxiu, aimed to weigh various popular worldviews and thereby point out a path most in keeping with China’s needs today.”[15] Luo Jialun, one of the main figures of the May Fourth Movement, wrote in December 1919: “True freedom of thought means not only that each person can think fully for himself, but also that every person can express fully his thoughts… First reform the worldview, and with the spirit of science, seek the development of democracy.”[16]
Saving the nation requires modernization, modernization requires enlightenment, enlightenment requires education, and education requires a worldview—this line of logic suggests why the focus of Zhang Junmai and the others would concentrate on the issue of worldview.
Education is the means by which a person is guided into becoming a person, and the notion of what sort of person one ought to become is consistent with the method of education. Zhang Junmai said: “As for human beings in relation to learning, they often like to take learning as a means to assist the aims of life. And there is no better way to assist than education. Hence there arises the question of the practical value of science and Xuanxue. In other words, how do they stand in education… The method of education, whether implicitly or explicitly, always takes some ideal of life as its standard; once the standard is fixed, then there is the allocation of subjects.”[17]
The educator Qu Junnong, who participated in the Science-CXuan debate, also believed: “We think that the ideal of life is the ideal of education. The realization of ideal education is the realization of ideal life. The various aspects of life are the various aspects of education.”[18]
The very first sentence of Zhang Junmai’s lecture “Worldview” at Tsinghua was: “What you gentlemen usually study is all science.”[19] Yet in Zhang Junmai’s view, life in the world is not composed solely of the scientific aspect; rather, “it has five aspects: the metaphysical, the aesthetic, the volitional, the intellectual, and the bodily.”[20] Therefore, “the guiding principle of education can be stated,” namely that one cannot focus only on the intellectual and bodily aspects, but must add supernatural categories, artistic training, and the great principle of fostering free will…[21]
Since the idea of education determines worldview, conversely, differences in worldview also reflect different understandings of education. For Zhang Junmai and the others, the purpose of education was to cultivate an independent personality that extols “free will,” and only a modern person with an independent personality could possibly break through existing standards and establish a new culture. But some scholars in the science faction bypassed this link of “freedom” and directly treated education as a means to break through existing standards and establish a new culture. Hu Shi “firmly believed that the effects of propaganda and education could bring human worldviews to a minimum level of consistency.”[22] Hu Shi, Ding Wenjiang, and others emphasized that scientific education could cultivate honesty, rationality, calmness, and the courage to criticize, and so on, yet they scarcely mentioned the concept of “freedom.” As Zhang Junmai said, this issue of “free will” is precisely the “essence” of the Science-CXuan debate[23].
When the science faction discussed the relationship between science and worldview, what they said was all about how science can “determine” worldview, how it can “explain” worldview, and how it can “cultivate” some sort of worldview. But they never discussed whether one could, simply through science, freely choose “my” worldview. Zhang Junmai, however, emphasized from the outset: “The central point of worldview is ‘I’”[24]. What Zhang Junmai was always concerned with was how a free and independent personality is cultivated and matured, not why certain personality traits came to be what they are. He stressed that talking about the “motives” and “reasons” for some worldview—for example, saying that India’s climate led to the Buddha’s worldview—and talking about worldview itself are two entirely different things.[25] Talking about “why his worldview is thus” and talking about “what my worldview ought to be” are completely different questions, and the worldview Zhang Junmai cared about was of course the latter. That is why he repeatedly emphasized that “the worldview arises from the singularity of personality.”[26] No matter how detailed an analysis one makes of others, when it comes to one’s own life, one still must make a decision anew. If one relies only on science for analysis, one can never derive a free choice—if, according to the analysis of my upbringing and environment, my worldview ought to be such and such, and yet I still may insist on choosing another life path, that is free will. In Zhang Junmai’s view, without this capacity of will to choose freely and break with convention, there can be no creativity or innovation.
In short, Zhang Junmai and others argued that the question of a view of life could not rely on science alone and had to bring in metaphysics, or xuanxue, and so on—not, as Chen Duxiu and the like understood it, as a dispute over whether science could “explain” a view of life or whether xuanxue alone could “explain” it[27]. Rather, it was a question of how one could “cultivate” a view of life.
Of course, the scientistic camp held that scientific education could cultivate a good view of life. For example, Ding Wenjiang believed that science “is the best tool for education and self-cultivation, because in daily pursuit of truth and constant efforts to dispel prejudices, it not only gives those who study science the capacity to seek truth, but also the sincerity to love truth. Whatever one encounters, one can calmly analyze and study it…”[28] As for the claim that training in science can cultivate good self-cultivation, Zhang Junmai would by no means deny it; yet the key lies in the source-and-flow relation involved. Science, as an activity, can of course nurture certain human dispositions, but so can many other activities. By the same logic, we could also say that studying law cultivates a sense of justice, studying medicine cultivates benevolence, studying laboring cultivates diligence, studying the military cultivates patriotism, and so on. To say that science can cultivate an attitude of seeking truth and putting it into practice may well be true; but living in the world is not perfected merely by seeking truth and putting it into practice. In this sense, the view of life that science can cultivate is only one side of the matter, whereas the establishment of a view of life as a whole is something else entirely.
In Zhang Junmai’s view, rather than saying that modern science cultivated a new view of life, it would be better to say that the new view of life cultivated modern science. Earlier I mentioned Zhang Junmai’s many praises of the West in moral, political, and scientific terms; yet Zhang Junmai believed that the roots of both scientific spirit and democratic thought had to be traced back to “the new attitude or new view of life after the Western Renaissance”[29]—“The development of reason since the European Reformation is in fact the sole guiding principle for our academic and political reform; this is what I call the foundation of the new life and the new view of life.”[30] According to Zhang Junmai’s consistent line of thought, what he calls “the development of reason” here is nothing more than the elevation of independent thinking and free will.
(4)
It is worth noting that, from the above citations, Zhang Junmai seems to be a thoroughgoing Westernizer. His difference from opponents such as the scientistic camp lies precisely in the fact that the Westernization he advocated was deeper and more fundamental: not only must one introduce the “flow” of Western civilization, but one must also trace it back to its “source.” Yet if he is regarded as one of the representative figures of New Confucianism, then Zhang Junmai undoubtedly also affirmed Chinese traditional culture in some way. Why is that?
In fact, Zhang Junmai’s continued affirmation of Chinese tradition was also based on his tracing of the roots of Western modernization. What is called “free will,” at the individual level, is the awakening of rational self-awareness; at the national level, it is the awakening of the national will to independence and self-strengthening. In tracing the origins of Western modernization, Zhang Junmai believed that “the value of the establishment of the nation-state far surpasses the Renaissance and the development of science.”[31] He warned: “Therefore I can tell my compatriots that if they only know to devote themselves to developing science and the arts, while forgetting the importance of the nation-state, then the situation of Italy after the fifteenth century may serve as a lesson for them.”[32] Italy was the birthplace of the Western Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution, yet because it long failed to form a unified nation-state, its process of modernization lagged far behind. Zhang Junmai also pointed out that Germany’s scientific and technological development only became possible after it had formed a unified nation-state[33].
It is rather like this: the awakening of individual freedom depends on one’s self-awareness and confidence in one’s own rational capacity, while the awakening of national consciousness depends on one’s self-awareness and confidence in one’s own cultural character. And the wholesale denigration of Chinese tradition by advocates of total Westernization really cannot build any national self-confidence. Zhang Junmai pointed out that “what is called creating a new culture does not mean that one must destroy the old culture in order to have the new; even if one adopts the new culture, there is no harm in allowing the old culture to remain. For the old does not prevent the emergence of the new. In the coexistence of the two, people will naturally know how to choose. The slogans after the May Fourth Movement such as ‘Down with the Confucian shop’ and ‘Down with old rites and propriety’ are ways of destroying one’s own morale to enhance the prestige of others. One must understand that the coexistence of old and new cultures is like the introduction of Buddhism, which did not prevent the Confucian discourse on human relations, and in Europe, with Christianity in place, how could it ever stop science and technology, and democratic politics, from changing day by day?”[34]
The issue is not whether old culture should be eradicated. The key point is that old culture cannot be eradicated; the question is only what attitude one takes toward it. Slandering traditional culture in every possible way cannot free oneself from its influence; it will only cultivate a kind of pathological psychology that is at once arrogant and self-abasing. Zhang Junmai pointed out that the same ideas of democracy and science, when placed in different national cultures, would also present different forms and patterns. He said: “What the Yunwu New School does is to regard everything inherent in our country as outdated and rotten, and only to follow behind others and strive for improvement. They fail to realize that what can be transplanted are only institutions, provisions, and terms; what cannot be transplanted is national psychology. Take socialism, for example: in England it becomes the Labour Party, in Germany the Social Democratic Party, in Russia the Bolshevik Party; this is the same restriction as that expressed in the saying that an orange grown south of the Huai River becomes a bitter orange when moved north of it.”[35] Zhang Junmai believed that “the establishment of culture is like planting a tree; if one does not first examine the suitability of the native soil, the tree has no way to grow,”[36] and therefore, although he strongly advocated learning from Western culture, one must first confront one’s own national culture and investigate its national traits; only then can one “adapt measures to local conditions.”
In short, Zhang Junmai stressed that in establishing a new culture, first, one must “not abandon oneself in following others,” and second, one must “know how to adapt measures to the times”[37]. One must ensure self-confidence and autonomy, and one must face up to national characteristics.
References
Zhang Junmai et al.: Science and the View of Life, Huangshan Book Company, 2008,
Zhang Junmai: The Chinese Culture of Tomorrow, China Renmin University Press, 2009
Zhang Junmai: The Academic Basis of National Revival, China Renmin University Press, 2006
Chen Xianchu: Spiritual Freedom and National Revival—A Comprehensive Study of Zhang Junmai’s Thought, Hunan Education Press, 1999
Shu Hengzhe: The Chinese Enlightenment, translated by Liu Jingjian, revised by Qiu Weijun, New Star Press, 2007
James Schmidt, ed.: Enlightenment and Modernity, translated by Xu Xiangdong and Lu Huaping, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2005,
edited by Liu Tiefang: The Spirit of New Education, East China Normal University Press, 2007,
Huang Yushun: Beyond the Tension between Knowledge and Value—The Philosophical Problem of the “Controversy Between Science and Xuanxue,” Sichuan People’s Publishing House, 2002
[①]Zhang Junmai: The Chinese Culture of Tomorrow, China Renmin University Press, 2009, pp. 76ff.; see also Chen Xianchu: Spiritual Freedom and National Revival—A Comprehensive Study of Zhang Junmai’s Thought, Hunan Education Press, 1999, pp. 213ff.
[②]Zhang Junmai: The Chinese Culture of Tomorrow, China Renmin University Press, 2009, p. 57.
[③]Zhang Junmai: The Academic Basis of National Revival, China Renmin University Press, 2006, p. 83.
[④]For example, Huang Yushun: Beyond the Tension between Knowledge and Value—The Philosophical Problem of the “Controversy Between Science and Xuanxue,” Sichuan People’s Publishing House, 2002.
[⑤]Zhang Junmai: The Chinese Culture of Tomorrow, China Renmin University Press, 2009, p. 57.
[⑥]Zhang Junmai: The Academic Basis of National Revival, China Renmin University Press, 2006, p. 47.
[⑦]Ibid., p. 16.
[⑧]Still, this analogy is worth pursuing. The analogy initially adopted by the early New Culture scholars was the “Renaissance” (as in Hu Shi’s “The Renaissance of China”), whereas after the 1930s, with Communists taking the lead, the analogy increasingly shifted toward the “Enlightenment.” This shift in analogy may be related to the praise of the May Fourth Movement for its destruction of tradition; of course, in any case, linking the New Culture Movement with the Enlightenment remains appropriate. See Shu Hengzhe: The Chinese Enlightenment, translated by Liu Jingjian, revised by Qiu Weijun, New Star Press, 2007.
[⑨]Stavrianos: A Global History of the World (7th revised edition), vol. 2, translated by Wu Xiangying et al., reviewed by Liang Chimin, Peking University Press, 2005, p. 516. P. 432.
[⑩]For example, after Zhang Junmai read articles in the newspaper such as “China’s Education Needs a Philosophy” and “How the Philosophy Needed by Chinese Education Should Come into Being,” he initiated a discussion on “the creation of a new philosophy in China.” See Zhang Junmai: The Academic Basis of National Revival, China Renmin University Press, 2006, p. 42.
[11]James Schmidt, ed.: Enlightenment and Modernity, translated by Xu Xiangdong and Lu Huaping, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2005, p. 61.
[12]Ibid., p. 68.
[13]Jiang Menglin: “Educational Ideas for Building a New Nation,” in Liu Tiefang, ed.: The Spirit of New Education, East China Normal University Press, 2007, p. 30.
[14]Liu Tiefang, ed.: The Spirit of New Education, East China Normal University Press, 2007, p. 83.
[15]Shu Hengzhe: The Chinese Enlightenment, translated by Liu Jingjian, revised by Qiu Weijun, New Star Press, 2007, p. 115.
[16]Ibid., p. 125.
[17]Zhang Junmai: “Further Discussion of the View of Life and Science, with a Reply to Ding Zaijun,” in Science and the View of Life, Huangshan Book Company, 2008, p. 99.
[18]Jiunong: “Personality and Education,” in Science and the View of Life, Huangshan Book Company, 2008, p. 239.
[19]Zhang Junmai: “View of Life,” in Science and the View of Life, Huangshan Book Company, 2008, p. 31.
[20]Zhang Junmai: “Evaluation of Science,” in Science and the View of Life, Huangshan Book Company, 2008, p. 222.
[21]Zhang Junmai: “Further Discussion of the View of Life and Science, with a Reply to Ding Zaijun,” in Science and the View of Life, Huangshan Book Company, 2008, p. 103.
[22]Hu Shi: Preface, Science and the View of Life, Huangshan Book Company, 2008, p. 21.
[23]See Chen Xianchu: Spiritual Freedom and National Revival—A Comprehensive Study of Zhang Junmai’s Thought, Hunan Education Press, 1999, p. 234.
[24]Zhang Junmai: “View of Life,” Science and the View of Life, Huangshan Book Company, 2008, p. 31.
[25]Science and the View of Life, Huangshan Book Company, 2008, p. 34.
[26]Ibid., p. 35.
[27]For example, Chen Duxiu: Preface, Science and the View of Life, Huangshan Book Company, 2008, p. 3. “…their very different views of life are all produced by the objective environment they encounter; they are by no means produced by subjective will that falls from the sky. This is something that social science can explain; it is certainly not something metaphysical xuanxue can explain.”
[28]Ding Wenjiang: “Xuanxue and Science,” Science and the View of Life, Huangshan Book Company, 2008, p. 51.
[29]Zhang Junmai: The Way to Founding a Nation. In Huang Kedian et al., eds.: Collected Works of Zhang Junmai, Qunyan Press, 1993, p. 289. Cited in Chen Xianchu: Spiritual Freedom and National Revival—A Comprehensive Study of Zhang Junmai’s Thought, Hunan Education Press, 1999, p. 207.
[30]Zhang Junmai: The Way to Founding a Nation. In Huang Kedian et al., eds.: Collected Works of Zhang Junmai, Qunyan Press, 1993, p. 291. Cited in Chen Xianchu: Spiritual Freedom and National Revival—A Comprehensive Study of Zhang Junmai’s Thought, Hunan Education Press, 1999, p. 207.
[31]Zhang Junmai: The Chinese Culture of Tomorrow, China Renmin University Press, 2009, p. 50.
[32]Ibid.
[33]Ibid., p. 56.
[34]Ibid., p. 151.
[35]Zhang Junmai: The Academic Basis of National Revival, China Renmin University Press, 2006, p. 13.
[36]Zhang Junmai: The Chinese Culture of Tomorrow, China Renmin University Press, 2009, p. 110.
[37]Ibid., p. 109.
Latest Comments
- benjaminbai
2009-12-30 22:39:29 Anonymous 124.205.76.129
Finally finished writing it! The line of thought is very clear, though it seems that the scientistic camp is discussed a bit too little……
- unic
2009-12-31 00:09:45 Anonymous 61.178.103.141
These past few days I’ve been swamped with reviewing, moving dorms, and buying train tickets. I’m just copying and pasting this straight back into the computer. I’ll take my time looking it over slowly once I get home and have no internet.~
Happy New Year. What kind of year will 2010 be, I wonder.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply