CHAPTER XII

The philosophical ideology of various countries and peoples constitutes an organic whole; the historical development of human thought is the historical development of this organic whole. It resembles a giant tree which will live forever; the philosophical schools of various countries and peoples are the branches, leaves, flowers and fruits of this tree. We can make either a horizontal or vertical comparison of the philosophical ideologies of various countries and peoples. A horizontal comparison refers mainly to a study made of the characteristics, similarities and differences between philosophical schools in various countries taken statically. By vertical comparison we mean the study of the development of different schools with regard to their philosophical ideologies as found among various countries and peoples, their historical role, stages of development, contributions and inadequacies on this giant tree.

Our comparative research should not be limited to a simple horizontal comparison, but should include a deeper vertical comparison which has great significance for comparative research. Only a vertical comparison can find the basic rules for the development of philosophical ideology. Also, only if we place the philosophical ideology of each nationality and country in the context of the historical development of ideology can we see whether it is advanced or backward, good or bad. On the contrary, an abstract or static comparison can hardly claim which school of philosophical ideology is good and which is bad, which has value and which does not have value.

Thirdly, a comparative study is not made for the sake of making comparisons, but in order to discover what kind of effort the countries of the world should make in the future in the fields of culture and ideology. Only by making a vertical comparison will it be possible for us to do this.

What then is the basic principle and orientation of the ideological development of the whole of mankind? This is a question which can be answered only when we have looked at a considerable amount of historical material and, on that basis, make a careful study of the history of ideological development. No subjective assumptions can be made. Judging by the level of our present research, the history of the development of human ideology is largely the history of an integrated subject and object as they first become separated and opposed to each other, and then demand unity once again. This basic trend conforms to the process of the development of individual ideology.

The German word subjektivität and the English word subjectivity are translated into zhutixing, or sometimes, zhuguanxing. Zhugunaxing often appears to be a term which means arbitrary, willful and one-sided in Chinese. In fact, in Western or German philosophy, and in particular in classical German philosophy, subjektivitat refers mainly to independence, self-decision, freedom, initiative, self, self-awareness, the particularity of the individual, the display of the wisdom and ability of the individual, with the free will and ability of the individual as a basis, etc. To be controlled or ruled by the others, to take orders from God, to believe in superstition and fate, to be at the mercy of nature and other forces, to be lacking in self-awareness, to speak generally to the neglect of the individual, to judge or evaluate a person by his family background and for one's marriage to be arranged by parents or match-makers--all these are expressions of a lack of subjectivity.

The history of the development of human ideology is first and foremost a history of the separation of man from the ranks of the animals--a history of development from lack of subjectivity to the attainment of subjectivity. The difference between man and animal is, in a sense, that animals cannot tell the difference between the subject and the object but man can. To animals, the subject and object are one and the same; for this reason animals do not have an awareness of "self." The subject will exist only when the subject and object are separated and set against each other; only man is able to do this. The existence of self-awareness and a concept of the subject is a watershed between man and animals.

Of course, once man has acquired self-awareness and become conscious of the subject after having differentiated subject and object, the subject of the self-awareness still has to go through a process of development from a low to a high level, as well as a process of constantly overcoming the antithesis between the subject and object and seeking unity. Once the concept of subject and self-awareness has been established it is not unalterable. Therefore the process of separation of man from animals or the process of the development of subjectivity is long and tortuous. The development of an individual from birth to old age in fact takes place within a short and limited space of time. From the history of the development of human ideology and the history of the ideological development of a people or a state one is able more clearly to perceive the tortuous and eternal nature of the course. The time needed for the development of an individual until he acquires self-awareness can be calculated in terms of years or months, but the development of human ideology or the development of the ideology of a people or a state--from lack of self-awareness to attainment of self-awareness--should be calculated in terms of hundreds or thousands of years.

There follow some examples from Western philosophy which can be used to explain the above process.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBJECTIVITY IN THE HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY

In ancient Greek philosophy (the infant stage of the development of human ideology) people were merely surprised by the external environment and nature; they had no time for self-examination. Therefore, the naivety of ancient Greek philosophy found its expression first and foremost in its failure to perceive the antithesis between subject and object. The doctrine of hylozoism which was in vogue at the time regarded the subject and object, man and nature, as a united whole. The theory of Parmenides on thinking and existence cannot be explained according to modern theories. One view held that this is merely an expression of the above-mentioned doctrine (hylozoism) which regarded the subject and object as a united whole.

However, Plato's "theory of ideas" set the world of ideas and the world of senses against each other. In a sense, this theory separated thinking from existence, but both worlds were external environments outside man. Plato took the world of ideas to be the universal and unified aspects of the outside world and the world of senses to be its specific and diversified aspects. He failed to take them as relationships between the subject, man, and the object, the external environment and nature. Like most ancient Greek philosophers, Plato studied philosophical questions mainly with regard to nature itself. In other words, they were questions concerning ontology. Man was not regarded as a subject with an independent nature and subjective initiative to be opposed to, or associated with, the object. Ancient Greeks in the infant stage of philosophy would not have raised such a question. No ancient Greek philosopher had as yet regarded man as a subject who was at liberty to make independent actions. They merely contemplated the world.

The sophists, however, were somewhat unusual. From research into nature itself, they moved on to the study of man. The proposition that "man is the measure of all things" was the earliest source of the ideology of contemporary humanism. They held that man was able to understand early phenomena, but in their eyes phenomena meant everything. Unlike some modern philosophers, they did not believe in the existence of an unknowable world behind phenomena. Although these people were wiser than others, they were still naive and had not managed to understand, as do their modern counterparts, that the subject and object are opposed to each other. If we call them agnostics, this is different from modern agnosticism. They were content with understanding phenomena and did not appreciate the world behind the phenomena. Such an idea is an expression of the separation of the subject from the object, it cannot be understood by people with a naive mind. Primitive religion differs from later developed religions in that the former belongs to a naive way of thinking which fails to differentiate the subject from the object. Besides the sophists, ancient Greek philosophy also contained the philosophy of Socrates and the philosophy of skepticism. Although to a small extent they all had a vague perception of self-awareness, we cannot say they contained the principle of subjectivity as does modern philosophy.

The lack of the principle of subjectivity in ancient Greece is shown not only by the fact that state affairs were decided by natural phenomena, but especially by its political ideas. In his utopia Plato advocated that if one was made of gold his posterity would also be made of gold; if one was made of silver his posterity would also be made of silver, and likewise for steel. His theory of a rigidly stratified hierarchy based upon blood relationships was in conflict with the principle of subjectivity which would be developed in modern Western philosophy.

The question of the relation between subject and object is found in the philosophy of the Middle Ages in theories regarding whether the world was created by God or existed originally and by itself. At that time the subject referred to the soul, God and Heaven, and the object to the body and this world. People lived in the next world in order to rescue their souls. Hence, the conflict between the subject and the object in the philosophy of the Middle Ages appeared as an opposition between Heaven (God) and man, the soul and the body, spirit and nature and religious and secular life. The spirit and soul of man which existed in Heaven and in religious life and were in accord with God, constituted the subject; on the other hand, human nature, the human body and the external environment constituted the object and were in opposition to God. The dominance of God not only made the world, nature and the human body obstacles to be overcome, but also stifled the spirit and subjectivity of man. In other words, the theocracy of the Middle Ages ruled human rights and nature, suppressed the subjectivity of man and thereby natural science.

Nonetheless, the separation of subject and object and the supreme authority of God in the philosophy of the Middle Ages gave rise to the idea that all men are equal before God. This is an important stage in the history of the development of the idea of subjectivity; it is much more advanced than the hierarchy of Plato in ancient Greece.

The question of the relation between subject and object truly emerged and achieved its full significance only after the Europeans "awoke" from their religious Middle Ages. One of the basic principles or characteristics of modern philosophy is its principle of subjectivity; gradually the thinking subject, man, was understood to be a subject possessing subject and independent initiative. The relationship between thinking and being in modern philosophy is precisely the relationship between subject and object. Only this kind of relationship can penetratingly and completely represent the relationship between thinking and being. Therefore, unlike the philosophy of ancient Greece, the outstanding question in modern philosophy is not that of ontology but of epistemology.

If we agree that man's approach to the natural environment in the philosophy of ancient Greece was one of contemplation (quiet observation) and that man's approach to the natural environment in the philosophy in the Middle Ages was one of reclusiveness, we must also agree that the basic approach of man to the natural environment in modern philosophy is one of initiative, or to be more exact, of subjectivity. Here, the word "subjectivity" is used with the meaning of the German word subjektivität which means independence and initiative. In the first paragraph of Thesen uber Feuerbach, Marx said that the so-called old materialism "does not look at anything subjectively." The original word used by Marx was subjektiv which means also initiative.

However, the development of the subjectivity of man in modern philosophy also has gone through several stages. Man was discovered during the Renaissance: human rights were emancipated from the yoke of theocracy and the subjectivity of man was developed to some extent. The other achievement of the Renaissance was the discovery of nature. The Renaissance encouraged people to attach importance to the study of nature, not only to the applied science directly useful to man, but also to pure science and pure knowledge. During the 17th and 18th centuries modern science was in its early stages, and so was metaphysical. Therefore, the philosophy of the 17th and 18th centuries observed man as a being completely in the power of the inevitability of causality. Descartes, for example, regarded animals as machines; La Mettrie even regarded man as a machine. Thus the subjectivity of man was again oppressed: before the Renaissance the subjectivity of man had been stifled by theocracy, now it was stifled by the inevitability of the causality of nature.

Great achievements were made in all fields of historical dialectics during the 18th century French Revolution and in natural science during the period from the late 18th to the early 19th centuries, especially in the theory of evolution. These achievements enabled modern Western philosophy to reach its highest stage. The theory of development and evolution now replaced the mathematical method of Galileo Galilei and the metaphysical method of Newton which had prevailed until then. To different extents and in different ways the German idealist philosophers summed up the ideas of their predecessors in their dialectics and established classical German idealist philosophy as represented by Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. They were not satisfied with the state of affairs in which the mechanical causality of the 17th and 18th centuries decisively trammeled the subjectivity and free will of man. Standing on the side of idealism they struggled to protect once more the subjectivity of man in the field of abstract philosophy. The former struggle had been aimed at theocracy; this time it was aimed mainly at mechanical causality, while at the same time struggling against theocracy in different forms.

The classical German idealist philosophers agreed that the nature of the world was spiritual: spirit, self, self-awareness and the subject constituted the central focus of their philosophy. They wanted to destroy the opposition between subject and object and integrate the two, with the subject in the dominant position. Kant was the first philosopher to prove the subjectivity of man systematically from the heights of philosophical theory. He confined the scope of knowledge and actuality in order to leave room for the free nature of man, namely man's subjectivity. As the creator of this philosophy, Kant could not help but over-emphasize man's freedom and self-determination and the separation of freedom and necessity. Hegel, who epitomized the thinking of classical German idealist philosophy, also talked systematically about the free nature and subjectivity of man, but he stressed the unity between individual freedom and the whole society.

Since Hegel over-emphasized the subordination of the individual to the whole society, many contemporary philosophers after Hegel stressed the value of the individual in order to oppose Hegel or to correct his deviation. The philosophies of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and the existentialists all placed emphasis on the value of the individual. Connected to this is the fact that, whereas the basic philosophical principle of classical German idealist philosophy from Kant to Hegel was unity and integrity, the leading principle of contemporary philosophy is multiplicity or plurality--the principle of unity having been criticized by many philosophers.

In recent years, however, there has been a tendency in Western Europe to return to classical German idealist philosophy, especially in West Germany. This return is not simple repetition, but a study of the principle of unity in classical German idealist philosophy from a new angle and under new historical conditions. Its goal is to find a new form of unity to explain the various social phenomena of our time. The main reason for the emergence of this new trend is that the principle of multiplicity is unable to satisfy the need for subjectivity. People have realized that the subject cannot be separated from unity and that the subjectivity of man cannot develop without unity.

Whether to use the principles of multiplicity and individuality or unity and integrity to develop the subjectivity of man may be one of the central issues for present and future philosophy, especially in the comparison between Western and Chinese philosophies.

Generally speaking, the process of the development of subjectivity in Western philosophy is a process from the unity of subject and object, through the separation of the two, to the demand for the unity of the opposed subject and object. Not until contemporary Western philosophy was subjectivity used as a principle, but the unity of opposites has not yet been achieved and the principle of subjectivity has not yet been properly established.

The process of development of subjectivity in the history of Western philosophy illustrates the following:

1. To separate and distinguish between subject and object is the most important step for the realization of self-awareness; when subject and object are a united whole, the subject disappears.

2. The discovery of man is the discovery of subject, and the discovery of nature (including the natural aspect of man) is the discovery of object; each helps and strengthens the other. Only if nature is regarded as important can the subjectivity of man develop. If importance is attached only to man, but not to nature and natural science, the development of the subjectivity of man will be hindered. The man who separates himself from nature and from body is without substance, just as the subject which separates itself from the object is not a true subject. On the other hand, only the real discovery of man and the true consideration of his subjectivity as important can promote the development of natural science.

3. To value pure knowledge and theoretical knowledge is the result of discovering the object and regarding it as important. Only by doing so will the substance of man be enriched and the subjectivity of man developed. On the contrary, to underrate pure and theoretical knowledge and to value technology and the application of technology alone is the result of a one-sided stress upon man alone. By doing so, the substance of man becomes monotonous and the subjectivity of man cannot develop.

SUBJECTIVITY IN CHINESE PHILOSOPHY: PHILOSOPHY IN THE SLAVE SOCIETY AND RELATED FEUDAL TIMES

According to the oracle descriptions of the Shang Dynasty (c. 1500-1000 B.C.), the rulers at that time would consult oracle bones on military matters, hunting, harvesting and diseases. This undoubtedly indicates that there was no recognition of the subjectivity of man.

"The Tao (also translated as `way') of Heaven is remote while the Tao of man is near" is a statement by Zi Chan (Tzu Ch'an, ?-522 B.C.), a statesman and thinker of the Spring and Autumn Period (770-476 B.C.). It expresses the inclination to go against Heaven and superstitions. His idea, though simple and crude, can be regarded as the ideological seed of man's attachment of importance to himself.

Confucius (551-479 B.C.), however, seldom spoke of the Tao of Heaven, but was more concerned with the Tao of man. He said: "Who can go out but by the door? How is it that men will not walk according to these ways"?¹ It is argued by some that this is precisely an expression of Confucius' idea of man's subjectivity and that Confucius had discovered man. This is an over-estimation, for Confucius talked solely of man and overlooked nature. His ideas show a lack of differentiation between man and Heaven and a lack of opposition between subject and object. His philosophy did not attain self-awareness or the subjective principle of man's freedom, self-decision and self-awakening. When speaking concretely of what man is, Confucius said: "When a man is not virtuous (ren) of what account are his ceremonial manners (li)"? He also said: "To subdue one's self and return to propriety is perfect virtue. . . . Look not at what is contrary to propriety; listen not to what is contrary to propriety; speak not what is contrary to propriety; make no movement which is contrary to propriety."² When asked about the meaning of ren, Confucius replied: "To be able wherever one goes to put five things into practice constitutes ren." When asked what they were, he replied:

"They are respect, magnanimity, sincerity, earnestness and kindness. With respect you will avoid insult; with nagnanimity you will win over people; with sincerity men will trust you; with earnestness you will make achievements; and with kindness you will be well fitted to command others.³

Thereby Confucius asked people to restrain their speech and behavior so as to become true men. His philosophy of life was to observe the Li of the Zhou Dynasty (c. 1000-771 B.C.).

Confucius was "the first great thinker in the history of Chinese philosophy to establish the system of life discipline which later became the core of Chinese philosophy."⁴ Indeed, Confucius' philosophy of life, "To subdue one's self and return to propriety," became the mainstream of philosophy in feudal China and seriously hampered the establishment of the principle of subjectivity in the history of Chinese philosophy. Although Confucius said that one should "leave all men" and "not do to others what one would not like to have done to oneself," his words cannot be viewed abstractly, for he also said: "Superior men, and yet not always virtuous, there have been, alas! But there has never been a humble man who is at the same time virtuous."⁵ That is, there is no way of talking about the virtue of benevolence among the ruled, for they are just small men.

There were two major philosophers during this period whose views differed radically from those of Confucius. One was Lao Zi (Lao Tzu) who placed emphasis on nature, and the other was Yang Zhu (Yang Chu, or Yang Sheng) who was well-known for his principle of "Each for himself."

Lao Zi raised the issue of the origin of Heaven and Earth by saying that the Tao was the "beginning of Heaven and Earth" and "the mother of all things." Unlike Confucius who was interested only in the study of man's life, Lao Zi emphasized the study of the origin of the universe. His major contribution lay in his cosmology, centered on the Tao. Yet Lao Zi was also the first among the Chinese philosophers to give a prominent place to man. He said: "Therefore Tao is great, Heaven is great, earth is great and man is great. These are the Great Four in the universe, and man is one of them." (Lao Zi) This means that man is as great as Heaven and Earth and is even above all other ordinary things.

Lao Zi's philosophy shows that the study of nature will not reduce the importance of man, but on the contrary will make us place more emphasis on man's importance. It also shows that he put man and nature on an equal plane. Compared with that of Confucius, Lao Zi's philosophy shows a slight recognition of the concept of subjectivity. In connection with this, Lao Zi did not consider benevolence (ren) to be the loftiest virtue. In contrast to the philosophy of life: "To subdue oneself and return to propriety," it contains an element of subjectivity, although we cannot say that Lao Zi's philosophy had reached the stage of taking subjectivity as a principle. There are, in fact, many negative points in his philosophy which should be done away with, and his idea of subjectivity was not at all systematically expounded.

Yang Zhu did not leave any works behind and his ideas were recorded in the writings of others. Mencius said: "Though he (Yang Zhu) might have benefited the whole world by plucking out a single hair, he would not have done it."⁶ Mencius remarked on another occasion: "Yang's principle of `each one for himself' is to be without (the allegiance due to) a sovereign."⁷ Mencius' account of Yang Zhu is obviously analogous to the Lushi Chunqiu's (third century B.C. XVII) statement that Yang Shen "valued self," and also to the Huai Nan Zi (second century B.C.) when it says that "the completeness of living, the preservation of what is genuine, and not allowing external things to entangle one's person, is what Yang Zhu established."⁸

However, a close observation of the overall statements about Yang Zhu shows that Yang's "each for himself" is by no means simple selfishness. Rather he means that people should not get engaged in outside things and thus become tools of the rulers.⁹ Zhang is correct in saying that Yang Zhu was the first Chinese philosopher to stress "self."¹⁰ In fact, Yang was also the foremost figure in the early history of Chinese philosophy to have the concept of subjectivity. Unfortunately, under the heavy pressure of the Confucian tradition as represented by the dictun: "To subdue one's self and return to propriety," Yang Zhu who stressed the subjectivity of the individual was unable to elaborate and develop his idea.

Xun Zi (Hsun Tzu, c. 298-c. 230 B.C.) stressed the distinction between Heaven and Earth and man, as well as man's ability to tame nature. He said:

To understand the distinction between Heaven and man, that is to be a great man. . . . Instead of exalting Heaven and contemplating it, why not pile up wealth and use it advantageously? Instead of obeying Heaven and praising it, why not adapt the decree of Heaven (Tianming) and make use of it"? (Xun Zi: Tianming)

However, although Xun Zi's meaning was to make use of man's subjectivity, he did not ask people to understand Heaven, nor did he stress the study of nature. Therefore, his philosophy did not attain the principle of subjectivity--to overcome and to use nature, as is the idea in modern Western philosophy. This idea of taming nature, as advocated by modern Western philosophers such as Francis Bacon, is inseparable from the idea of understanding and knowing nature and from their stress on knowledge of Heaven. To control Heaven one has to know Heaven, and to give full rein to man's subjectivity one has first to distinguish subject from object and pay due attention to epistemology and methodology.

PHILOSOPHY IN FEUDAL CHINA

In his theological idealism concerning the "interaction of Heaven and man" Dong Zhongshu (Tung Chung-shu, c. 179-c. 104 B.C.) in the Han Dynasty (206 B.C.-A.D. 24) held that Heaven and man were identical. The physical form of man, in Dong Zhongshu's words, was this: "His head is large and round, like Heaven's countenance. His ears and eyes, with their brilliance, are like the sun and moon. His nostrils and mouth, with their breath, are like the wind." The theory of the "interaction of Heaven and man" is, in effect, one version of the theory of "the oneness of Heaven and man," which makes no distinction between subject and object. Moreover, on this basis, Dong Zhongshu explicitly put forward a theory that suppressed the rights of man. He thought that the Three Cardinal Principles of the Kingly Way could be sought in Heaven, so he advocated that people should obey the emperor, who in turn should obey the will of Heaven. In other words, to use the divine and sovereign powers to suppress the rights and subjectivity of man. This idea was identical in some respects with medieval philosophy in Europe, except that Dong's idea lacked the idea of the immortality of the soul because he did not make a distinction between subject and object. At the same time, his philosophy did not contain the idea of all men being equal before God. So Dong's idea was, in fact, typically Chinese.

An important issue discussed by the metaphysical school (xuanxue, also known as the mysterious or black studies) in the Wei and Jen dynasties (220-420) concerned the differentiation between the Confucian ethical code and nature. Wang Bi (Wang Pi, 226-249) held that nature is the root while the morals and institutions (mingjiao, Confucian ethical code) are the branches, and that they do not contradict each other. This is, in effect, a positive view of the morals and institutions which formed the classical tradition of Confucianism. Contrary to Wang Bi, Ji Kang (Chi Kang, 223-262) and Ruan Ji (Ruan Chi, 210-263) believed that Confucian morals and institutions contradict each other, that they do not conform to nature but constitute a human bondage. They advocated that one should conform to nature in disregard of the classical Confucian tradition. Ruan Ji held that "if a man does not have a house, Heaven and Earth will contain him; if a man does not have a master, Heaven and Earth will own him; if a man does not have things to do, he is free to walk under Heaven and on the Earth."¹¹ Ji Kang and Ruan Ji believed that the most ridiculous thing in this world is to be tied up by fame and wealth. Apparently then, Ji Kang and Ruan Ji were not only contemptuous of the ethical code, but actually opposed to it. This was a charge against the Confucian doctrine "To subdue one's self and to restore propriety"; to a certain extent it was an expression of subjectivity.

Guo Xiang (Kuo Hsiang, d. A.D. 312) disagreed with Ji Kang and Ruan Ji. In his view, the Confucian ethical code was in accord with nature: to follow the code was to conform to nature. In addition, he considered the social hierarchy and the sovereign authority to be in conformity with both nature and Heaven. Guo's philosophy was behind that of Ji Kang and Ruan Ji in the evolution of the principle of subjectivity.

During the Sui and Tang dynasties (581-907) Buddhism and Taoism were both encouraged, although Confucianism remained the orthodox philosophy. Confucianism's opposition to Buddhism lay in the latter's view of the distinction between spirit and body. Taoism advocated the training of the body to nurture the spirit so that immortality could be attained. There was here no distinction between spirit and physical body. Confucianism was opposed to Taoism not for that, but for the latter's stress on nature at the expense of the Confucian morals and institutions. This gives us a glimpse of Confucianism's opposition to man's subjectivity during the Sui and Tang dynasties. Han Yu (768-928), the famous Tang Dynasty writer, was against Buddhism because "Being sons, they (Buddhist followers) do not treat their father like a father; and being subjects, they do not treat their ruler like a ruler." The "King" and "prince" principle as advocated by Confucianism really does fetter man's subjectivity.

In the view of Liu Yuxi (772-842) of the Tang Dynasty, heaven and man restrain each other. Liu made a distinction between the li (principle) of Heaven and that of man, and held that the li of man was superior to that of Heaven. However, Liu's view was too unsophisticated to have any significant influence on the development of Chinese philosophy.

The contention between li (principle or reason) and qi (material force) in the Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties (960-1911) is somewhat like the contention between thinking and being in the history of Western philosophy. It differs, however, from the latter in that the critical point of contention in Western philosophy is the relationship between subject and object, and man, as an independent, free, self-deciding and self-initiating subject, is both opposed and related to the object. The ancient Greek philosophers did not realize the principle of subjectivity, nor did Plato's idealism. The distinction between li and qi resembles the distinction between Plato's world of ideas and the perceptual world, which cannot be regarded as having realized the principle of subjectivity.

The philosophers of the Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties also talked about the relationship between man and Heaven, yet they held a negative view of man's subjectivity. The theory of unity of man with Heaven created by Mencius was epitomized by the Neo-Confucianists of the Song Dynasty. Zhang Zai (Chang Tsai, 1020-1077) said: "A state of functioning in which differentiation is made between Heaven and man cannot be said to be `sincerity.' A state of Knowledge in which differentiation is made between Heaven and man cannot be considered as the ultimate `enlightenment.'"¹² Nevertheless, Zhang also attached great importance to man's action. He also differentiated between visual and auditory knowledge and the knowledge of the nature of virtue. This reminds one of Kant's distinction between "theoretical" and "experimental reason."

Both Cheng Mingdao (Cheng Hao, 1032-1085) and Cheng Yichuan (Cheng Yi, 1033-1108) were proponents of the unity between man and Heaven. Cheng Mingdao held that it was entirely unnecessary to discuss the integration of man with Heaven for the two were one from the beginning. He also thought that man should not seek knowledge from Heaven or nature. Therefore his philosophy contained nothing like an opposition between subject and object or between spirit and nature, or the subject overcoming the object. Cheng Yichuan said: "Heaven, Earth and man are of one Tao. . . . Is there anyone who knows the way of man yet does not know the Way of Heaven?"¹³ His idea of seeking knowledge from man himself and not from Heaven or nature, of the knowledge of man himself being equal to one's knowledge of Heaven, and of closing one's eyes and ears to the outside and being isolated from nature is, of course, a denial of man's subjectivity.

According to the li (principle) expounded by the Cheng-Zhu (the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi), philosophy in fact constituted the moral principle of feudal society. The theory of unity between man and Heaven meant the obedience of the people to the

Tianli (the principle of Heaven) which fettered man's subjectivity.

Lu Xiangshan (Lu Chiu-yuan, 1139-1193) believed that man should be independent and should be his own master. However, although he stressed self-awareness in the acquisition of knowledge, his main emphasis was on moral training.

Contrary to the philosophy of the Neo-Confucianists and the School of Mind during the Song and Ming dynasties, the philosophy of Yang Chuanshan, Yan Yuan and Dai in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties attached importance to man's deeds, physical form and achievements.

Wang Chuanshan (Wang Fu-chih, 1619-1693) not only generally advocated that the Way of man should lead the Way of Heaven through life (Siwenlu, Nanpian), and thus that one should not wait for opportunities to come; he believed that man can control Heaven and Earth and be creator of all things. He was also opposed to sole vacuity and quiescence in spiritual cultivation as advocated by the Song philosophers. He stressed physical form without which he thought that man could not exist. Unlike Xun Zi, Wang thought it important to have knowledge of things, as without knowledge one cannot use things. We can say that Wang did have the idea of subjectivity and humanism as in Western philosophy, though his idea was not sufficiently systematic, nor his deductions so meticulous.

Yan Yuan (Yen Yuan, 1635-1704) placed emphasis on utility and material things, an idea similar to that in modern Western philosophy. He advocated "the importance of the unrefined" which meant utility and material things, and considered that the lives of many people were wasted merely because of their love of subtlety and their dislike of the unrefined.

Dai (Tai Chen, 1723-1777) held that people should give vent to their emotions or feelings and do things according to their wishes, as opposed to the idea of freeing oneself from emotions and desires. In his understanding, when desire is not selfish the individual's desire is the common desire and the individual's feelings are the common feelings.

Wang Chuanshan, Yan Yuan and Dai all hoped to shake off the yoke of old feudal ideas and to be released from the empty, vacuous and quiescent Neo-Confucianism which belittled utility and man's desires. Although in some ways their ideas were identical to the humanism of the Renaissance in Europe, they still could not help being governed by the idea of the unity of man with Heaven and the idea of being in accord with nature. It is therefore hard to say that they discovered nature and man as was the case during the Renaissance in Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

From the above analysis of philosophy during the Slave Society and in the period from the Slave to the Feudal societies, we can make the following observations:

1. The history of Chinese philosophy as compared with Western philosophy lacked the stage at which the subject was separated from the object and the opposition between subject and object made systematic; it lacked also a concept of the next life.

By saying this, we do not mean that no Chinese philosopher stressed the difference between subject and object. In fact, the idea of a distinction between man and Heaven embodies the idea of the difference between subject and object, for even among those who upheld the idea of unity between man and Heaven there were those who observed the difference between the two. However, the idea of unity between man and Heaven was predominant in the history of Chinese philosophy, while the idea of separation and opposition between subject and object never dominated. Nor did any philosopher establish a complete system of basic principles based on the separation and opposition between subject and object. Xun Zi placed emphasis on a distinction between man and Heaven, but he was not very influential or important in the history of Chinese philosophy. Liu Yuxi's idea of "mutual restraint" between Heaven and man was too unsophisticated to have any significant influence on later philosophers.

In addition, Chinese philosophy lacked the concept of other worldliness. Confucianism regarded the attainment of virtue to be of primary importance, the achievement of fame to be of second importance, and the writing of books as of third importance. All these three were considered to be immortal achievements in this world. Taoism taught people to become immortal in this world, rather than in the next. These concepts of immortality all reflected that subject and object were not regarded as separate and opposed to each other.

In the West however, the philosophy of the Middle Ages which continued for about one-thousand years was primarily a philosophy which differentiated subject and object and which attached importance to the next world. Modern Western philosophy advocated the separation of, and opposition between, subject and object; it then went further to demand the unity of opposites, although so far this has not been achieved. The completeness of the theory of separation and opposition between subject and object and the long period of time during which it dominated the history of Western philosophy are missing in the history of Chinese philosophy.

2. The history of Chinese philosophy lacked a relatively systematic philosophy based on the principle of subjectivity.

This does not mean that the philosophers as individuals failed to attain self-awareness or self-awakening, which develops gradually in any individual after birth. However, the fact that an individual or philosopher has self-awareness does not mean that he or she can establish a philosophy with self-awareness or subjectivity as the basic principle. The philosophers in ancient Greece had self-awareness as did other peoples, yet generally speaking they did not attain the level of taking self-awareness or subjectivity as a basic philosophical principle and attended mostly to ontology.

By saying that Chinese philosophy lacked a philosophy based primarily on subjectivity, we do not mean that there was no philosopher in China who attached importance to individual self-awareness and subjectivity. On the contrary, even among those who upheld the idea of the unity of man with Heaven, there were those who stressed man's free will. Phrases like "The will of man cannot be taken away" are familiar to the Chinese. Individual phrases show that the philosophers did see man's subjectivity, but again, this does not mean that subjectivity was the primary principle on which they based their philosophy, nor does it mean that they had made a systematic theoretical deduction. If one disregards a philosopher's whole philosophical system one will find it difficult to make an analysis and comparison since the same word often appears with completely different meanings in the writings of different philosophers.

Without going through the opposition of subject and object one cannot attain self-awareness or subjectivity. Only through the separation of subject and object can one advance the object as well as the subject. This is true not only of the growth of the individual, but also of the development of the ideas of a nation and state. The chief reason for the absence of the system of philosophy based on the principle of subjectivity in the history of Chinese philosophy is the lack of an historic stage of separation and opposition between subject and object, as well as the lack of differentiation between this world and the next. Here I have only stated the fact. I do not intend to advocate the separation and opposition between subject and object or to ask people to believe in religion: even less would I wish China to follow in the wake of Western philosophy. When we say that the Napoleonic invasions of Prussia brought about capitalism in Prussia, we do not mean that the underdeveloped nations should welcome invasions by the developed countries so as to develop capitalism.

3. Stress on man alone is not the same as stress on the principle of subjectivity or the attainment of a level of a philosophy based on the principles of self-awareness and subjectivity.

We must be aware, not only of man, but of nature's opposition to the self apart from man so that we can pay due attention to nature. Only this is the true consciousness of self and of man as is proven by the history of Western philosophy. (In the Middle Ages, the underestimation of nature and the natural side of man resulted in the suppression of human subjectivity; during the Renaissance period focusing attention upon nature and the natural side of man led to upholding human subjectivity). This had also been proven by the history of Chinese philosophy. Confucius' stress on man alone to the neglect of nature resulted in the suppression of human subjectivity. In the Song Dynasty the Neo-Confucian stress on morality, vacuity and quiescence to the neglect of nature also suppressed human subjectivity. On the other hand, the emphasis upon utility and human desires as advocated by Wang Chuanshan, Yan Yuan and Dai are close to a philosophy based on subjectivity.

In addition, as the history of Chinese philosophy was dominated by the stress on man alone, the emphasis on technology and applied science also prevailed over the theoretical knowledge of the natural sciences. Closely connected with this, epistemology, methodology and its understanding of thinking were all neglected. This also manifests the lack of a philosophy based upon the principle of subjectivity.

4. In the history of Chinese philosophy, the impediment to the development of the principle of subjectivity came not from the theocracy of the next world as in the West, but rather from the monarchical power in this world, from the feudal ethical code, the feudal patriarchal clan system and the hierarchial system. In the West, the religious authority was supreme, and provided a spiritual buttress to the secular feudal system: men were all equal before God. Thus, the overthrow and weakening of religious power brought about a relatively high development of the rights and subjectivity of man. In China, however, the idea that men are equal before God never existed. In the Slave and Feudal societies the prevailing idea was that the monarch was the supreme power and that the ethical code, feudal patriarchal clan system and hierarchical system all served the purpose of the monarch. Therefore, man's subjectivity could not be established unless the monarchical power was overthrown. Yan Zhu's idea of "no sovereign" and Ji Kang and Ruan Ji's idea of following nature in disregard of the Confucian morals and institutions and the like are all bold attempts at an advancement of man's subjectivity in the history of Chinese philosophy.

EPILOGUE

In China there was no movement resembling the Renaissance in Europe until the May Fourth movement. The slogans for "Mr. Science" and "Mr. Democracy" were rather similar to the discovery of man and nature in Europe. Only after the discovery of nature could people begin to pay attention to science, and only after the discovery of man could people start to respect democracy. The May Fourth movement was the beginning of self-awareness and self-awakening and of a philosophy based on subjectivity (as historic stages) in the history of Chinese philosophy.

The "Renaissance" (if it can be called that) in China differed from that in Europe in three ways:

A. Although the Chinese Renaissance had the shoots of capitalism from the Ming Dynasty as its internal cause, it was propelled mainly by external forces and was the result of the Chinese people's search for truth from the West since the Opium War.

B. The aim of the Chinese Renaissance, in addition to rejecting imperialism, was to liberate China from the yoke of the feudal ethical code, hierarchical system and patriarchal clan system, instead of from religious authority as was the case in the West.

C. The road China took after the May Fourth movement was different from that of the West. In the West the anti-feudal force had been strong, its development was much smoother and lasted for a longer period; therefore, the development of subjectivity was fairly complete. In China, the May Fourth movement was followed by the wars between the warlords and then the reactionary rule of Ching Kai-shek. The combined force of imperialism, feudalism and capitalism caused the development of subjectivity to be even more arduous. In addition, there were less than thirty years between the May Fourth movement and the founding of New China, all of which account for the slower development of subjectivity in China compared with the West.

The objective of Communism to liberate mankind is, in the words of Western philosophy, truly and fully to develop man's subjectivity. Our present task is to carry on the tradition of the May Fourth movement and to develop man's subjectivity under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism. It is thought unnecessary to follow the path of the West step-by-step because in history China lacked the stage of a distinction between, and the opposition of, subject and object, and lacked a philosophical system based on the principle of subjectivity. However, on the basis of the development of our own history, we should learn from the West.

There are some advantages to the emphasis on the unity of man with Heaven and on integration in the history of Chinese philosophy. Contemporary Western philosophy is dominated by the principle of plurality (separation and isolation of everything). In recent years, however, people in the West have come to realize that the principle of plurality cannot fully develop man's subjectivity, and thus have begun to think of returning to the principle of unity and oneness. China should not, and cannot follow the path of the West without making alterations now that the shortcomings of the West have been exposed. Yet the history of Chinese philosophy attached too much importance to the unity of man and Heaven and integration, while neglecting the distinction between, and opposition of, subject and object, plurality and individuality, nature and natural science, pure theoretical knowledge, epistemology and methodology. It is very important for the advancement of thinking and culture to overcome the elements which bar the growth and development of the subjectivity of the Chinese people. We should still safeguard the principle of unity, but now make a greater effort to learn from the idea of placing emphasis on plurality and individuality as expressed in Western philosophy. This is a key to the development of Chinese culture and philosophy.

Peking University

Beijing, People's Republic of China

1. Analects: IV.

2. Ibid., XII.

3. Ibid., XVII.

4. Zhang Dainian, An Outline of Chinese Philosophy (China Social Science Publishing House, 1982), p. 165.

5. Analects: XIV.

6. Mencius, VII.

7. Ibid., III.

8. Ch. 13.

9. Zhang Dainian, p. 282.

10. Ibid.

11. Daren Xiansheng Zhuang

12. Correct Discipline for Beginners, Chengming

13. Yulu, XVIII.