Hardly anyone in Chinese academic circles now would simply deny that the study of contemporary Western philosophy could positively promote the development of Marxist and contemporary Chinese philosophy. Nevertheless, many questions should be probed further. For example, the research level of the studies of contem-porary Western philosophy in China has been risen gently and some research results in special spheres, such as phenomenology, even could be compared with those in the West. However, these studies seem not yet to have been used to promote the studies of Marxist and Chinese traditional philosophy; indeed they tend to be separated therefrom. This means that people have not yet a clear understanding of the relation between them and that there is need to probe more concretely into such questions as the following:

- Whether the formation and development of contemporary Western philosophy is an important progressive and revolutionary change in the history of philosophy?

- Whether in the basic pattern of their philosophic thinking they have points in common with Marxist philosophy?

- Whether, in the development of Marxist and Chinese philosophies as we come to the 21st century, it is important to relate to the achievements of contemporary Western philosophy?

This paper will discuss these questions in terms of the transformation of philosophy.

In order to evaluate more appropriately contemporary Western philosophy on the whole, we first must weigh the meaning of the transformation of thought patterns in the development of Western philosophy since the second half of the 19th century.

Many scholars of Western philosophical schools since that time declared one after another that they were opening a new direction for the development of philosophy. Toward the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, there have been, for example, the negation and critique of Nietzsche and others of the rationalistic tradition; the call of Dilthey and others for a methodology of the sciences of the spirit as distinguished from that of the natural sciences; the call of the pragmatists to replace the inquiries about material or spiritual essences by the study of real life and practice; the effort of the phenomenological and existentialist movements to turn to the non-reflective world or to human existence; the appeal of such analytic philosophers as Frege and Wittgenstein to turn philosophy into an analysis of the use of language and its meaning; the suggestion of hermeneutic philosophers to take philosophy as the explanation of texts; the proposal of postmodernism to deconstruct traditional philosophy, and so on. All announce that they had changed the direction of the development of Western philosophy. The concrete implications of these proposals were varied, but they have in common an effort to critique some basic ideas of traditional and especially modern philosophy and to replace them with contrary ideas. They hope thereby to change the direction of the development of Western philosophy and to differentiate contemporary from modern Western philosophy. Opinions vary on whether or not the change is positive, even revolutionary, but a comparison of modern with contemporary philosophy suggests a positive answer.

In the past Chinese philosophical circles usually categorized modern philosophies from Descartes (and even from the Renaissance) to Hegel as capitalist ideology in its formative period. In different ways and degrees, most opposed religious theology and medieval scholastic philosophy as deprecating rationality and built upon faith. Instead philosophers of this period generally advocated a rational humanistic spirit and centered philosophy around the human being. The philosophic system of Cartesian rationalism which was the typical expression of this spirit corresponded to the scientific spirit emphasized in the emergence of modern natural sciences. All kinds of natural sciences arose at that time to study nature as an object and to do so the rational human consciousness. As the victory of natural science would be precisely the victory of rationality, this epoch in the history of Western philosophy came to be called the age of reason.

This promotion of rationality entailed an important epistemological change in the development of Western philosophy. Philosophers at that time established a rational epistemology and methodology to guide people’s actions and all of real life. While taking the question of the essence of the world and the relation between people and the world as central, the theoretical form of their philosophy was quite different, both from ancient philosophy based in perceptual intuition and from medieval philosophy based on the subordinate relation of people to God. Especially, the modern spirit consciously differentiated between people as cognitive subjects and the world as object, i.e., it contrasted mind and body, spirit and matter, thinking and being. It sought out both how subjects know and effect the object and how the object effects and is expressed by the subject.The basic question of philosophy was manifestly the question of relation of subject-object, mind-body, spirit-matter, thinking-being. For the development of Western philosophy this was a new and higher stage.

While achieving great progress, modern Western philosophy remained shrouded in a series of serious defects and contradictions. First, the advocacy of reason became so extreme as to constitute a superstition or blind faith; the omnipotence of God was replaced by the omnipotence of reason which directs in order to control, even in an arbitrary manner. Philosophical systems built on the rationalistic principal often were transformed into a system of speculative metaphysics. Secondly, while overcoming the intuitive character of ancient philosophy through advocating rational (reflective) thinking, modern Western philosophy fell into a dualism as the result of separating the subject and object, mind and spirit, and so on. This dualism led to a dogmatism and skepticism opposed to rationality.

Modern philosophy began by placing the human being at its center: it rejected the limits of the old tradition and authority with the intent of developing in an integrated manner the human personality and creativity, freedom and dignity. However, the separations of subject-object, mind-body and spirit-matter, along the tendency toward speculative metaphysics, led its conception of the human being either into a machine without flesh, blood or soul, or into a link in a metaphysical system merely as the external expression of the concept "human being". As a result its intended human subjectivity and creativity, freedom and dignity, etc., were dispelled or melded into a rational speculative system, whereby modern philosophy changed into its opposite.

This one-sidedness and contradiction in modern Western philosophy has been called by contemporary philosophers fundamen-talism, essentialism, logos-centrism, etc. All express the common philosophical pattern of establishing a comprehensive system of metaphysics as the foundation of all knowledge. This pattern of philosophical thinking was inevitable in that historical epoch and played a positive role in promoting the development of modern Western society and its mental culture, including philosophy. Nevertheless, its defects and contradiction were revealed even from the beginning by philosophers such as Pascal who lived in the time of Descartes, the enlightenment thinker Rousseau, the Italian philosopher Vico, and the German romanticists, especially Kant.

Only the social and cultural environment of those times enabled this condition to exist and even develop. Since the middle of the 19th century, however — following such radical and pervasive changes as the replacement of the classical by the natural sciences as the epistemological basis of thought — the one-sidedness and contradiction of this thought pattern has become ever more conspicuous.

It now must be replaced by a new thought pattern, which means that a new transformation must appear in the development of Western philosophy. The revolutionary change in philosophy realized by Marxism during the middle of the 19th century is an outstanding example of this transformation. The series of new philosophical schools which appeared since that time have been contrary to the direction of modern philosophy; they can be called contemporary philosophy and in various degrees express this transformation.

Without any doubt, there is one-sidedness and even error in the theories of contemporary philosophical schools and philosophers. At times they abandon some positive elements of modern philosophy and indeed go backward to some degree. However, a comparison of the general theoretical direction of contemporary philosophy with modern philosophy shows that the former transcend the latter to some degree and in some important respects.

First, most schools of contemporary Western philosophy carry on the critique of Kant and others of traditional metaphysics and reject attempts to establish comprehensive philosophical systems or to take philosophy as the science of science. Although this restricts the sphere and function of traditional philosophy and even dissolves the latter to some degree, it is still very important progress in philosophy. Along with the formation and development of various special sciences, it is necessary more and more to escape philosophy’s control of, or even substitution for, the function of the sciences.

People must study again the meaning and function of philosophy. In response to this demand contemporary Western philosophers advance their own views of philosophy: as method of life and action, or scientific methodology; as clarification and expression of the meaning of language and text; as transcending the world and the human being itself to probe the ultimate concern; or as cultureology or post-philosophical culture that transcends the studies of metaphysics and humanities, etc. Although there is some one-sidedness in these opinions, most are new and worthy inquiries into the meaning and function of philosophy, and of the transcendence of modern metaphysics as systematic philosophy.

Second, contemporary philosophers in the West hope mostly to abandon the tendency toward dualism as the foundation of modern epistemology. They do not simply negate the differences and relations between subject and object, mind and body, spirit and matter, thinking and being, but emphasize only that people must take them not as separated but as united processes dominated by the active and creative action of the human being as subject. The so-called "Copernican revolution" of Kant transcended the separation of subject and object, as well as the opposition between empiricism and rationalism and other dichotomies. His theories that practical reason is higher than theoretical reason and about moral freedom also transcended the limitation of the epistemological pattern of philosophy centralized upon the methodology of the natural sciences. Nevertheless, he left an unbridgeable gap between phenomena and the thing-in-itself, between theoretical reason and practical reason. This did not overcome, but in a sense even strengthened, the tendency toward dualism.

Many contemporary Western philosophers attempt to overcome these problems of Kant through emphasizing the activity and creativity of the subject. While sometimes going to an extreme, they attempt to overcome dualism and dogmatism. Some propose taking human practical activity as the starting point of philosophy instead of a dualism of subject and object, or going to the united real life-world rather than to a world in which subject and object are separated, and thereby to transcend dualistic patterns of philosophy.

Third, many contemporary philosophers study and bring to light the non-rational spiritual activity of the human being in various directions and at various levels. They attempt to differentiate such studies of the spiritual activity of human beings as social history and psychology, etc., and then to establish a methodology of these spiritual sciences different from that of the natural sciences. While sometimes going to an extreme, nevertheless their studies criticize the one-sidedness of absolutized and solidified reason, reveal more levels and characteristics of the spiritual activities of human beings, and enlarge and deepen their understanding. Like rational activities, these original spiritual activities, which have not been changed and solidified by reason, are an important door to the world of real life and to perfecting the understanding of the human being. Their study is very important and transcends traditional rationalism.

Fourth, modern Western philosophy began from proposing a humanistic spirit. However, its thought pattern of speculative metaphysics and dualism inevitably objectivized people at the cost of their authentic personality, that is, they were alienated. Contemporary philosophers in Western countries call mostly for understanding the existence of human beings and the value and meaning of their activities. They propose to take the human being as goal rather than means, as the center of philosophy rather than as some special link or part. The fundamental road of philosophical reconstruction is back to human beings. Although also having its one-sidedness, this theory advocates a new humanistic spirit. At least, it reveals and criticizes more deeply the alienation of the human being in Western society and the shortcomings of traditional humanism.

This transcendence of contemporary over modern Western philosophy is not a change in a special theoretical view, a special school or a special philosophy, but a transformation of the theoretical pattern of thinking which has general meaning for the development of Western philosophy. In other words, it is a very important and basic change in the object and method, as well as in the goal of philosophical research. Many contemporary philosophers have been studying and re-establishing philosophy in a manner different from the modern philosophical pattern of thinking with the aim of breaking away from its straits and opening new roads for the further develop-ment of philosophy. Generally speaking, their philosophy could coordinate the political, economic and cultural development of Western society, especially with regard to various problems arising from the speed of the development of the sciences and technologies during this epoch; they have important progressive meaning. Compared with modern philosophy, the appearance of contemporary philosophy means that the development of Western philosophy reaches a new and higher stage.

There are very important differences, of course, between the contemporary transformation of Western philosophy and the revolutionary change of Marxism in philosophy. However, both are modes of negation and transcendence with respect to modern philosophy. They have some common points in their social and historical conditions as well as in ideological and cultural background. The cause that leads modern philosophy in pursuit of its goals is also the main source that brought into being both contemporary Western philosophy and Marxist philosophy. There is hardly any serious contention over this in Chinese philosophical circles. The questions that need to be studied and discussed further are only whether these two philosophies in their negation and transcendence with regard to modern philosophy are in fundamental mutual opposition or share some more important common nature.

There is an important view, generally approved in the past in Chinese academic circles that Marxism founded the scientific system of dialectical materialism and historical materialism by abandoning the idealism and metaphysics of traditional and especially modern philosophy, while critically inheriting their materialism and dialectics. At the same time, contemporary Western philosophy, rejecting both materialism and dialectics, inevitably went backwards to idealism and metaphysics. Therefore, although the two philosophies both negate and transcend modern philosophy, they are quite different in their negation and transcendence, and indeed quite contrary vis-a-vis each other. While in Marxism there was a revolution in philosophy, in contemporary Western philosophy there has been no progress, but only retrogression. In recent years, although more and more people recognized that there are rational elements in contemporary Western philosophy, the basic point of view described above still persisted with some scholars, especially those who majored in Marxist philosophy. The main reason for this is that those scholars interpreted the philosophical transformation of these two philosophies from the point of view of the modern pattern of philosophical thinking.

From this modern point of view one looks into the essence and origin of the world to found a system for the whole; this system is based upon a dualism of subject and object, mind and body, spirit and matter. Taking the opposition between materialism and idealism as the base line of philosophical development, it is difficult to say that the emergence of contemporary Western philosophy is progress in philosophy, because it not only opposes various materialisms, but through opposing dualism, also calls for canceling fully the issue of the subject-object, spirit-matter, thinking-being and other relations as criteria for dividing materialism and idealism. In other words, it negates the foundation where materialism could exist. Its negation of foundationalism, essentialism and a substance-ontology extends as well to materialism.

If one takes the turn towards to materialism as the cardinal standard for evaluating contemporary Western philosophy, its value would be only negative. If one takes the revolutionary change in philosophy realized by Marxism as having founded only a thorough-going materialistic system, there would be only basic opposition between these two philosophies. If people attempt to find the common points between these two philosophies through seeking elements of materialism in contemporary Western philosophy, not only would they probably not succeed, but they would misunderstand or twist the true meaning of contemporary philosophy.

But transcending and rejecting the materialism and idealism which is characteristic of the dualisms of subject-object, spirit-matter and thinking-being is just one of the basic features of contemporary Western philosophy as a new philosophical pattern distinct from modern philosophy. We can say that in a sense more elements of materialism are confirmed in contemporary philosophy, and that people departing from modern materialism would find more of the real concerns of materialism in contemporary thought.

In brief, following the modern pattern of philosophical thinking, people would necessarily take these two philosophies as basically contrary. In recent years, in their evaluation of contemporary Western philosophy, many Marxist philosophers often felt puzzled; though they did not intend to entirely negate these philosophies it was difficult critically even to draw some rational elements therefrom. The main reason for that is probably that they themselves have not transcended the limits of the modern pattern of philosophical thinking.

In order to insist upon the true Marxist point of view in philosophy and correctly to explain its relation with contemporary Western philosophy, we must transcend the modern pattern of philosophical thinking, and turn to one that is contemporary.

The central approach to explaining Marxist philosophy according to the modern pattern of philosophical thinking has been to sum it up as a theoretical system consisting of some general laws which can reflect all phenomena in nature and society. Based upon these laws one could work out all the special laws in every realm. This reduces Marxist philosophy to a system that makes a thorough inquiry into the foundation and essences of all beings and of understanding and which then constitutes the ground of every science and of all knowledge. These are precisely the basic ideas of modern philosophy in establishing its theories. Although people emphasized the principle differences between Marxist philosophy and modern philosophy, and sometimes their explanation of Marxist theories transcended the doctrines of such modern philosophers as Hegel, Feuerbach and others, they could not transcend the basic theoretical pattern of philosophical thinking on which the doctrines of modern philosophy were formed. That is to say, they still understood and constructed Marxist philosophy in terms of the thought pattern of traditional metaphysics, according to which people look into the origin and essences of everything and take these as the foundation of their every activity and of all knowledge. As the result, inevitably they deviate from Marx’s progress in philosophy and fall back to the level of traditional metaphysics.

What then is the contemporary pattern of philosophical thinking expressed by Marxism; in other words how did Marxism sublate and transcend modern philosophy and found a new philosophy which constitutes a revolutionary change in philosophy? This is a very complicated question that should be studied and discussed at various dimensions and levels. Nevertheless, we can confirm that Marxism is part of the effort found also in contemporary Western philosophy to transcend modern thought. For throughout his lifetime Marx radically criticized and insisted upon overcoming the following tendencies of modern Western philosophy: speculative metaphysics, especially the attempt to found a comprehensive system and to take philosophy as a science of sciences; the tendency to absolutize rationality and the oppositions of subject-object, spirit-matter, thinking-being; and the tendency to treat human beings as means.

The new philosophy founded by Marx after sublating all old philosophy is not only different from past philosophy in its concrete theoretical points, but more importantly it is a thorough break with the premises from which all the old philosophies began. It was concerned not to disclose the material or mental origins of the world, nor to found a strict and full theoretical system for the entire world, but to face directly people’s practice and real life. The point of view of practice is the most important and basic. It is not to take practice as origin and substance, nor to attempt to found a comprehensive philosophical system based upon practice, but adequately to develop the activity and creativity of human beings, to promote human freedom and full development. How practice is to be understood as the central conception of Marxist philosophy entails many questions, but we must at least confirm that practice is neither simply material nor spiritual action, but a united action which includes both. Practice is not only perceptual or rational, but the unity of both: it is subjective as well as objective; it is the unity of subject-object. What is coordinated with practice is not only cognition, but also feeling and suggestion — practice is the unity of the three. We can say in a sense that the main reasons why modern philosophy fell into one-sidedness, contradiction and confusion was its neglect of, or inability correctly to understand, the meaning of human practice. Marxism, through deeply disclosing and integrally explaining the meaning of human practice, thoroughly transcended traditional metaphysics and realized a revolutionary change in philosophy.

In brief, do not take substance as origin, but take practice as the base and starting point; do not found a comprehensive philosophical system, but transcend all ossified and closed systems and return to the real lifeworld; do not depend on arbitrary reason and its dualisms of subject-object, spirit-matter, and then lead human being into one-sidedness and alienation, but return to living persons united in cognition and feeling, as well as in belief, that is, to concrete and complete persons; moreover, open wide the road for human freedom and creativity. All these are the main points where the modern pattern is transcended by the new pattern of philosophical thinking.

When re-examining the transcendence of contemporary Western philosophy over the modern, one finds that this transcendence does not overstep the boundary of the transcendence realized by Marxism. In other words, the transcendence by various schools of contemporary philosophy from various angles over the impasses and contradictions of modern philosophy was pointed out earlier by Marxism.

In terms then of the transcendence of modern Western philosophy, there is a great similarity between contemporary Western and Marxist philosophies. The two could be said to seek the same end in different ways; both belong to the contemporary pattern of philosophical thinking.

This does not mean that there is not an important, even principal, difference between them. Compared with Marxist philosophy, many schools of contemporary Western philosophy often are more one-sided and contradictory in their transcendence over modern philosophy. Sometimes, they repeat and even develop its impasses and contradictions. For example, mostly they radically reject the tendencies of traditional philosophy, but often they confuse reasonable inquiry by metaphysics into truth and ideals with their own absolutizations and then simply negate those inquiries. Meanwhile, they themselves have no choice but to reconstruct some metaphysics in new forms. While incisively and vividly revealing and criticizing the dogmatism and absolutism of traditional philosophy, they sometimes neglect or even reject the role of reason and then fall into the other extreme of some form of relativism and irrationalism. They point out various defeats of the dualism of subject-object, spirit-matter and especially the objectification and alienation of human beings, and stress development, activity and creativity, but they fall into a subjectivism for lack of considering objective reality. Generally, there are serious limitations in contemporary Western philosophy’s transcendence of modern philosophy. There is transcendence only in some individual factor or direction and to some degree, while in other factors or directions they often fall into the old frame of traditional philosophy.

In contrast the transcendence by Marxism of modern philosophy is not simple negation, but a confirmation of what is true and a rejection of what is wrong, i.e., a critical assimilation. While overcoming various modes of the one-sidedness of traditional philosophy, Marxism could avoid falling into another one-sidedness. Based on assimilating the reasonable and positive heritage of past philosophy, it should and could realize a new leap in philosophical development. In this sense Marxism transcends both traditional and contemporary Western philosophy.

If the above discussion of the contemporary transformation of Western philosophy and the revolutionary change in philosophy by Marxism be accepted in general, at least two important conclusions follow.

Firstly, we can keep our confidence in Marxism, but not in an ossified Marxism: While Marxist philosophy on the whole transcends both traditional and contemporary Western philosophy, more comprehensively and deeply it expresses the features of the modern pattern of philosophical thinking and integrates more the demands of contemporary society in its various respects. We should have a clear idea also of its complications and should not for that reason lose our belief in it. The most important concern is to have a compre-hensive understanding of what Marxism truly is. We should not explain Marxism in the modern pattern of philosophical thinking that was sublated by Marxism, but recover its original meaning as the typical form of the contemporary pattern of philosophical thinking. In recent years the reputation of Marxist philosophy has been injured, and some have lost their confidence in it. One of the main reasons is that it was understood in terms of the modern pattern of philosophical thinking which misrepresented its original meaning. Thus represented, the theory fell inevitably into various predicaments and even into crisis like the older modern philosophy which Marxism transcended. Only by revealing and overcoming such misrepresen-tation could people recover their belief in Marxism.

Secondly, we must conscientiously study and audaciously learn from contemporary Western philosophy. If we recognize that contemporary Western philosophy generally transcends modern philosophy, is a higher stage in the development of Western philosophy, and shares much with Marxist philosophy in its expression of philosophical thought, we should re-examine and re-evaluate some contemporary theories which often were simply negated in the past. These theories may be expressions of some kind of transcendence over modern philosophy and may play an important progressive role in the development of philosophy. Generally speaking, the advances of contemporary over modern Western philosophy have not overstepped the boundaries of Marx’s own transcendence, but in some aspects it may have more abundant and penetrating content. Considering that Marxist philosophy was distorted and ossified for a long time, and that some of the transcen-dence which it should have realized could not in fact take place — sometimes it even was dragged back into the modern pattern of philosophical thinking — it is very important to assimilate the valuable contents of the advances realized by contemporary Western philosophy and add then to what is insufficient in Marxism in order to promote its overall development. In this sense, we could say that to study and to learn from contemporary Western philosophy are indispensable for the enrichment and development Marxist of philosophy.

How to establish and develop Chinese philosophy for coordi-nating Chinese society at this entrance into the 21st century is a question that could and should be studied from various levels and angles. For example, as China is a socialist country which chose Marxism as the guiding principle for almost everything, to develop Chinese philosophy means first to develop Marxist philosophy in a manner adapted to the special environment of China. As China is a country with an excellent thousand year old cultural tradition, Chinese philosophy must inherit and develop the original cultural legacies of China. Further, as contemporary Chinese society is experiencing deep changes in almost every important realm, in order for Chinese philosophy to develop it must coordinate with these changes. Various directions and levels must be studied concretely, but I will be concerned only that these studies be connected with understanding the modern-contemporary transformation of Western philosophy.

We have seen above that to be enriched and to develop Marxist philosophy in China must re-examine and evaluate contemporary Western philosophy. Here I would add only that, as the tendency to understand Marxist philosophy according the modern pattern of philosophical thinking was specially strong in China, in order to recover its original features as a contemporary pattern of philosophical thinking, we must the more study and learn from contemporary Western philosophy which has transcended modern philosophy in various directions and levels.

In China, Marxist philosophy has undergone very important and creative development, but the tendency to deviate from its original meaning, especially the danger of dogmatism and ossification, was also very serious for a long time. The reasons for that are manifold. From the theoretical viewpoint, this was connected with the fact that we could not factually understand the meaning of the contemporary transformation of Western philosophy, and wrongly took it as antagonistic to the revolutionary change of Marxist philosophy. Such modern philosophical characteristics as dualism and dogmatism were copied as they included elements of materialism and dialectics, while simply negating some contemporary philosophical elements which transcended the modern pattern of philosophical, thinking that they belonged to idealism. Time and again the critical movements against Western trends launched by authorities radically criticized content that expressed to some degree the spirit of contemporary philosophy. This is especially evident in the critique of pragmatism.

Among contemporary trends in Western philosophy, pragmatism was reproached for preaching compromise and eclecticism, emphasizing practical benefit, and ignoring principle. Some Marxist critique of this is appropriate. However, pragmatism is also a philosophical school with characteristics of contemporary philosophy, and it is necessary that this be treated factually. For example, one of the evident features of the theories of Dewey and others is to reject the metaphysical dualisms of subject-object and substance-ontology, and to insist that philosophy and the sciences be shifted to the lifeworld, i.e., the world of experience. Moreover, experience is taken neither in a material nor in a spiritual sense, but as a mutual relation of the human being and his or her objective world, which is both subject and object, both spirit and matter. Experience is not substantial being, but activity and a process of interaction, i.e., of human life and practice. Pragmatists do not generally negate the being-in-itself of the world beyond experience, but insist that it be taken as an object of philosophy and sciences. Starting from here, they consider that philosophers should not establish systems of material and spiritual substance beyond experience, and hence should not expound materialism and idealism in this sense, but should make of philosophy a methodology for the real life and practice of human beings, and indeed of being human. Although there are various one-sidednesses in their theories, they move beyond the limits of the understandings of experience and reality of traditional metaphysics, and thus have some of the characteristics of the contemporary pattern of philosophical thinking. Compared with modern philosophy, pragmatic theories have more points in common with Marxist philosophy. Hence, though generally rejected as subjective idealism, we should be more positive and learn from them.

The situation of the critiques of other aspects of pragmatism and of other schools of contemporary philosophy is similar. The main result was that people’s attention was reoriented from concrete life and practice to general and abstract conceptions of matter and spirit, from a transcendence of modern philosophy back into it. This meant that in the name of defending Marxism people confounded what was right and wrong in modern and contemporary Western philosophy, and especially its transformation. As a result, in some aspects Marxist philosophy was distorted as being similar to modern metaphysics.

There are three main reasons why in order to perdure and develop traditional Chinese philosophy must re-examine and evaluate Western philosophy:

Firstly, this inheritance and development was stipulated under the guidance of Marxism. The latter is among the products of Western philosophy, and its wealth and development in contemporary time remain connected with Western philosophy. Therefore, in order more correctly to understand Marxism, people must conscientiously study Western philosophy.

Secondly, this inheritance and development corresponds with the demands to realize Chinese modernization and to establish socialism with Chinese characteristics. Traditional Chinese philosophy and culture were based on individual, narrow and small-scale agricultural economics; it was restricted by the patriarchal clan system and the social constructs characteristic of the integration of family and country. Although a very rich and excellent inheritance, this cannot respond to contemporary demands and hence must be reconstructed. It is essential critically to absorb Western philosophy and contemporary culture for this reconstruction.

Thirdly, this inheritance and development must face the world and the future. Therefore, Chinese philosophy and culture must be open and able to dialogue and interchange with Western countries. This means also that it is necessary for Chinese philosophy and culture to link up with Western philosophy and culture.

Both for China and the whole world, coming to the 21st century means that there will be deep changes in the development of science and technology, economics and culture, and the orientation of all sectors of social life. The condition of philosophy will require the same. The direction of the development of philosophy for the 21st century is being discussed very earnestly in philosophical circles both Chinese and Western, but their answers differ. As for the concrete forms of the development of philosophy in the 21st century, it is very difficult to judge exactly. However, it may be necessary to draw together and unite different types of philosophy, including various trends and schools of Western philosophy, Marxist and non-Marxist, with oriental, especially Chinese, philosophy.

If one takes the 19th and 20th centuries as radical, antagonistic and conflictual, then, along with the non-reversible end of the Cold War humanity now faces common problems and the 21st century may be characterized by peaceful competition and dialogue. Antagonism and conflict will not disappear very quickly; they could at times be very radical in special spheres, but they can be peacefully resolved only through dialogue and consultation. Under such circumstances, radical antagonisms in the philosophical realm could relax to some degree, while consultative discussion would be received by more and more people. In fact, this tendency is beginning to appear in Western philosophical circles. More and more philosophers not only are transcending the opposition between various trends and schools, but also are finding common language between Marxist and non-Marxist philosophy. This does not mean that various philosophical schools should forsake their own position, but only that each school or philosopher not take one’s own viewpoint as absolute, but show a more open and tolerant attitude toward others. As an open type of philosophy, Marxism also should pay attention to friendly dialogue with non-Marxist philosophies and absorb all worthwhile ideas from them, while keeping its own point of view.

For a long time in academic circles issues of the relation between oriental and Western cultures as well as between Chinese and Western philosophy have been objects of intense, even heated, argument. There are many reasons why it is very difficult to arrive at common understandings. The differences in historical and cultural tradition and in thought patterns as well as related biases and misunderstandings of each other are among the main reasons. Generally, while Western countries were rising and at the summit of their modernization, their thinkers had no doubt about Western philosophy and culture as characterized by the spirit of rationality and science, whereas they often ignored and evaluated poorly the excellent oriental philosophy and culture. When China and other oriental countries were in a so-called pre-modern period, their thinkers could not have a profound understanding of Western philosophy and culture. Under such circumstances, it was very difficult to interrelate oriental/Chinese and Western culture and philosophy.

Now, however, as world history is coming to the 21st century, Western countries have experienced the various serious contradictions and crises in "modern" philosophy and culture; they have lost their past superstition regarding rationality and science. Therefore, they look for ways to transcend them, and even to search oriental culture in order to find a way out. Meanwhile, oriental countries have come to a period of "modernization"; people there have a more profound and broad understanding of the spirit of rationality and science which appeared early in the West, even in ancient Greece and demand their original inheritance. In such circumstances, the two parties feel that they should and could find a bridge to link them. Therefore, though the past several centuries have been times of conflict between oriental/Chinese and Western culture and philosophy, the coming 21st century should be a time of linking and of convergence.

If the above analysis be admitted, then Chinese philosophy in facing the 21st century will be open in type, that is, under the guidance of Marxist philosophy it will absorb and include every worthy theory. Such a philosophy, based on inheriting its excellent traditional legacy, will link up with the characteristics of Western philosophy in the spirit of modern-contemporary times. Western philosophy will become an important resource enriching and developing Chinese philosophy. Traditional Chinese philosophy, overcoming various limitations and developing, will be a treasure of world philosophy. Exporting what is excellent in the Chinese philosophical legacy to the world and importing the contemporary spirit of Western philosophy probably will be the way of philosophical development in China. The new philosophy, re-founded on this base, will transcend both traditional Chinese and Western philosophy.