CHAPTER VII

THE RELATION BETWEEN THE NATURAL SCIENCES AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

ZHU DAZHENG

            "Man and Nature" and "Man and Society" seem to concern different problems, yet this is not really so. To a certain extent the problem of the relation between the human being and nature is the problem of that between human beings and society because the social relation among persons is built upon their remaking of nature. Conversely, the relationship which binds human beings to a society gives them ever greater power for the work of remaking Nature.

            Many conflicts in modern society have arisen from a failure to understand the dialectical relation between ‘Man and Nature’, on the one hand, and ‘Man and Society’, on the other. The higher the level of the development of human civilization the more significant the dialectical relation. Hence, the two issues are both same and different.

            "Dialectical relation" is a very broad term; it is used here with regard to the union of the natural sciences and the social sciences.

THE RELATION OF OBJECT AND SUBJECT:

            NATURE AND HUMAN BEINGS

            In dealing with the problem of the union of these two types of sciences, we must first acknowledge the scientific status of social studies, otherwise there could be no question of their return to natural sciences. However, though the problem of this relation has been solved partially, in its essence it remains unsolved. The key to the solution of the problem lies in the relation between subject and object. In sense intuition, the subject stands in absolute opposition to the object; this rules out speaking of the social sciences at the same level as the natural sciences.

            However, the object does not simply exclude the subject, but sublates the external independence of the subject, and makes the subject an internal element. For the same reason, the subject does not simply exclude the object, but sublates the external independence of the object which is made an internal element of the subject. The reason the relation between subject and object is so understood is a fundamental feature of human existence. Whereas animals and beings other than humans exist and reproduce by adapting to the external world, human beings exist and develop themselves by remaking the external world. If human activity were not objective, human beings would not differ from animals, or would be reduced to the animal level. Hence Marx noted: "Whatever relation exists, it always exists for me. Animals do not enter into a `relation’ to anything," they have no `relations’ at all: animals are not relational beings. This is essential for understanding the real meaning of subject and object, and hence what science is.

            As a matter of fact, the human being was not fully aware of the conflict between nature and himself in the early stages of human civilization; he considered himself a part of nature, though an intelligent part. As there was no sharp distinction between the natural and the social, truth was often identical with good and beauty.

            Only in modern times when the human capacity of remaking the external world has expanded rapidly have human beings become conscious of their independence from nature. Human beings were under the illusion that their remaking of nature influenced only the external world, whereas it was only by one’s own free will that one influenced oneself. Thus, the natural sciences were opposed to the social sciences.

            However, as a result of the accelerating development of the human capacity to remake the world, people now notice that in re-making the external world one, at the same time, changes oneself. This synchronous phenomenon appears in the social relations between persons, as well as in the powers of human knowledge, the values chosen, the aesthetic needs, etc.

            Therefore, the natural sciences are internally related to the social sciences. Natural scientists are not merely outside observers of the phenomena of nature, and human activity in remaking nature is the same as that in creating human history. On the other hand, social scientists cannot merely observe social phenomena; the various kinds of activity in creating human history proceed only in conditions which enable persons to remake nature and undertake social production.

            We conclude that if the natural and social sciences did not permeate and cooperate with each other in the long run human beings and society would fail to develop smoothly.

CREATIVITY, IDEALS AND TRUTH, GOOD AND BEAUTY

            Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to think that the mutual per-meation and cooperation of these two sorts of science concern only different disciplines and sets of scholars. Rather, new disciplines are produced in this process, which will result further in new syntheses of human knowledge.

            In view of the above, philosophers must reflect anew upon the present situation and the future of philosophy. It is my sense that the trends of humanism and of scienticism have both passed, and that the major subject matter of philosophy now promises to be the relation between truth, good and beauty.

            The core of this relation consists in the relation between thought and existence, and thus concerns not only the relation between human and thing, but also among persons. Precisely because this is a relation in a double sense, it signifies not only human knowledge, but, more importantly, the unity of truth, good and beauty. Philosophers must focus their efforts on the historical development and intrinsic rules of the interconnection of these three and study the present and future developments of this relationship. Such studies promise to enable humans to find the way to a brighter and happier future.

            Generally speaking, the human is an animal struggling for ideals but these are not given once and for all: the past ideal, once realized, is no longer an ideal. Indeed, ideals are called such precisely inasmuch as they are not actual, while the actual is called such because it is not ideal. In human history the ideal and the actual change from one to the other in an endless process of development.

            One’s practical activity in one’s struggle to realize one’s ideals is always united with truth, good and beauty as a unity. The form and content of this unity vary with historic periods, nations and states inasmuch as any practical activity is both subject to and transcends existing conditions. If it is not subject to existing conditions, the ideal will not be realizable and will become a fantasy. On the other hand, if it does transcend existing conditions the ideal will lose its proper character and leave humans satisfied with existing circumstances. Generally, practical aims can be reached only according to ideal principles. These can be realized because they are first of all in accord with the objective law of the external world, and moreover include the creative act of the subject. Without this latter, respect for the existing situation will degenerate into the yielding to it, causing thereby a failure to transcend it. The creativity of the subject, on the other hand, is determined to a large extent by one’s knowledge of objective laws, the values aimed at, and aesthetic needs.

            Thus, studies of nature are not naive picturing or mechanical re-presentation, but imply, consciously or unconsciously, the values aimed at and the beauty needed by humankind. However, if the desire for value and beauty were to have no foundation in a knowledge of objective laws, it would lead to irrationalism or anti-rationalism, there-by resulting in mysticism. On the other hand, if the knowledge of objective laws does not include in itself the desire for values and beauty, it will lose its cognitive function, and become mere natural experience similar to that of animals.

            Finally, that the laws of the external world are not influenced by human acts does not mean that human acts are subjectively spontaneous. On the contrary, they too are objective and subordinate to the objective laws of the external world. One is not "God"; one cannot separate oneself from the world or toy with it from outside.