CHAPTER XXIV

THE 'NEW CULTURE MOVEMENT

The New Culture Movement, as its name implies, was an attempt to destroy what remained 0£ traditional Confucian culture in the Republican era and to replace it with something new. The collapse 0£ the old dynastic system in 1911 and the failure 0£ Yuan Shih-k'ai's Confucian-garbed monarchical restoration in 1916 meant that, politically, Confucianism was almost dead. It had, however, been much more than a political philosophy. It had been a complete way 0£ life, which nationalism and republicanism only supplanted in part. There were some even among republicans who felt that certain aspects 0£ the old culture, Confucian ethics especially, should be preserved and strengthened, lest the whole fabric 0£ Chinese life come apart and the new regime itself be seriously weakened. Others, with far more influence on the younger generation, drew precisely the opposite conclusion. For them nothing in Confucianism was worth salvaging from the debris 0£ the Manchu dynasty. On the contrary, what- ever vestiges 0£ the past remained in the daily life and thinking 0£ the people should be rooted out; otherwise the young republic would rest on shaky foundations and its progress would be retarded by a backward citizenry. The new order required a whole new culture. The political revolution had to be followed by a cultural revolution.

During and just after the First World War the intellectual spearhead 0£ this second revolution went on the offensive, launching a movement that reached out in many directions and touched many aspects of Chinese society. Roughly it may be divided into six major phases, presented be- low in more or less chronological order. They are I) the attack on Confucianism; 2) the Literary Revolution; 3) the proclaiming 0£ a new philosophy 0£ life; 4) the debate on science"and the philosophy of life;

[ 151 ]

5) The "doubting of antiquity" movement; and 6) the debate on Chinese and Western cultural values. Needless to say, these phases overlapped each other considerably, and certain leading writers figured prominently in more than one phase of the movement.

From its anti-traditionalist character one may infer that the leaders 0£ the movement looked very much to the West. Positivism was their great inspiration, science and materialism were their great slogans, and-in the early years especially-John Dewey and Bertrand Russell were their great idols. The leaders themselves were in many cases Western educated, though not necessarily schooled in the West, since Western-style education was by now established in the East, in Japan, and in the new national and missionary colleges 0£ China. Often college professors themselves, they now had the lecture platform to make use 0£, as well as the new organs 0£ public journalism and the intellectual and literary reviews which were a novel feature 0£ the modern age. Above all, .they had a new audience, young, intense, frustrated by China's failures in the past, and full 0£ eager hopes £or the future.

THE A TT ACK ON CONFUCIANISM

The open assault on Confucianism, which began in 1916, was led by Ch'en Tu-hsiu (1879-1942), editor 0£ a magazine entitled The- New Youth. Earlier reformers had attacked at most certain of the concepts 0£ Confucianism, often indeed in the name 0£ a purified and revitalized Confucian belie£, or, with less obvious partisanship, combining criticism of certain aspects with praise of others. Ch'en, by contrast, challenged Confucianism from beginning to end, realizing as he did so that he struck at the very heart 0£ the traditional culture. For him, a partisan of "science" and "democracy," Confucianism stood simply £or reaction and obscurantism. He identified it with the old regime, with Yuan Shih- k'ai's attempt to restore the. monarchy, with everything from the past that, to his mind, had smothered progress and creativity.

Such an uncompromising attack was bound to shock many-those who had taken Confucianism as much £or granted as the good earth of China, or those who still held to it consciously, and with some pride, as an expression of cultural nationalism. But there were others upon whom

[ 152 ]

Ch'en's bold denunciations had an electrifying effect-those, particularly young teachers and students, £or whom Confucianism had come to hold little positive meaning as their own education became more Westernized; £or whom, in £act, it was now more likely to be felt in their own lives simply as a form 0£ unwanted parental or societal restraint. Young people 0£ this group, with Peking as their center, The New Youth as their mouthpiece, and Ch'en as their literary champion, were glad to throw themselves into a crusade against this bugbear from the past, and to proclaim their own coming 0£ age in the modern world by shouting : "Destroy the old curiosity shop 0£ Confucius!"

The Way of Confucius and Modern Life

Through articles such as this, which appeared in December, 1916, Ch'en Tu-

hsiu established himself as perhaps the most influential writer 0£ his time. His popular review, Hsin ch'ing-nien (The New Youth), had £or its Western title "La Jeunesse Nouvelle," reflecting the avant-garde character 0£ its editor, whose higher education had been obtained in a Japanese normal college and later in France. Here the Westernized and "liberated" Ch'en directs his fire at social customs and abuses which seemed to have Confucian sanction but had no place in the modern age. Already the man who was to found the Chinese Communist Party five years later speaks as an economic determinist and moral relativist, but still very much 0£ an individualist.

[From "K'ung Tzu chih tao yii hsien-tai sheng-huo," Hsin ch'ing-nit'n, Vol. II, No.4 (December 1916), pp. 3-5]

The pulse 0£ modern life is economic and the fundamental principle of economic production is individual independence. Its effect has penetrated ethics. Consequently the independence 0£ the individual in the ethical field and the independence 0£ property in the economic field bear witness to each other, thus reaffirming the theory [0£ such interaction]. Because 0£ this [interaction ], social mores and material culture have taken a great step forward.

In China, the Con£ucianists have based their teachings on their ethical norms. Sons and wives possess neither personal individuality nor per- sonal property. Fathers and elder brothers bring up their sons and younger brothers and are in turn supported by them. It is said in chapter thirty of the Book of Rites that "While parents are living, the son dares not re-

[ 153]

gard his .person or property as his own." [27:14] This is absolutely not the way to personal independence. ... In all modern constitutional states, whether monarchies or republics, there are political parties. Those who engage in party activities all express their spirit 0£ independent conviction. They go their own way and need not agree with their £athers or husbands. When people are bound by the Con£u(!ian teachings 0£ filial piety and obedience to the point 0£ the son not deviating from the £ather's way even three years a£ter his death 1 and the woman obeying not only her £ather and husband but also her son,2 how can they form their own political party and make their own choice? The movement 0£ women's participation in politics is also an aspect 0£ women's li£e in modern civilization. When they are bound by the Confucian teaching that "To be a women means to submit," 3 that "The wi£e's words should not travel beyond her own apartment," and that " A woman does not discuss affairs outside the home," 4 would it not be unusual i£ they participated in politics? In the West some widows choose to remain single because they are strongly attached to their late husbands and sometimes because they pre£er a single li£e; they have nothing to do with what is called the chastity 0£ widowhood. Widows who remarry are not despised by society at all. On the other hand, in the Chinese teaching 0£ decorum, there is the doctrine 0£ "no remarriage after the husband's death." 5 It is considered to be ex- tremely shame£ul and unchaste £or a woman to serve two husbands or a man to serve two rulers. The Book of Rites also prohibits widows from wailing at night [XXVII :21] and people £~om being £riends with sons 0£ widows. [IX :21] For the sake 0£ their £amily reputation, people have £orced their daughters-in-Iaw to remain widows. These women have had no £reedom and have endured a most miserable li£e. Year after year these many promising young women have lived a physically and spiritually abnormalli£e. All this is the result 0£ Confucian teacrungs 0£ decorum

[or rites ]. In today's civilized society, social intercourse between men and women is a common practice. Some even say that because women have a tender nature and can temper the crudeness 0£ man, they are necessary in public

1 Referring to Analects, 1:11. .Book 01 Rites, IX:24. .Book 01 Rites, IX:24- .Book 01 Rites, 1:24-

.Book 01 Rites, IX:24.

[ 154 ]

or private gatherings. It is not considered improper even £or strangers to sit or dance together once they have been introduced by the host. In the way 0£ Confucian teaching, however, "Men and Women do not sit on the same mat," "Brothers- and sisters-in-law do not exchange inquiries about each other," "Married sisters do not sit on the same mat with brothers or eat from the same dish," "Men and women do not know each other's name except through a matchmaker and should have no social relations or ShoW affection until after marriage presents have been exchanged," 6 "Women must cover their £aces when they go oUt," 7 "Boys and girls seven years or older do not sit or eat together," "Men and women have no social relations except through a matchmaker and do not meet until a£ter marriage presents have been exchanged," 8 and "Ex- cept in religious sacrifices, men and women do not exchange wine cups." 9 Such rules 0£ decorum are not only inconsistent with the mode 0£ li£e in Western society; they cannot even be observed in today's China.

Western women make their oWn living in various pro£essions such as that 0£ lawyer, physician, and store employee. But in the Confucian way, "In giv1ng or receiving anything, a man or Woman should not touch the other's hand,"l° " A man does not talk about affairs inside [ the household J and a Woman does not talk about affairs outside [ the householdJ," and "They do not exchange cups except in sacrificial rites and £unerals." 11 " A married Woman is to obey" and the husband is the standard 0£ the wi£e!2 Thus the wife is naturally supported by the hus- band and needs no independent livelihood.

A married woman is at first a stranger to her parents-in-law. She has only affection but no obligatian toward them. In the West parents and children usually do not live together, and daughters-in-law, particularly, have no obligation to serve parents-in-law. But in the way 0£ Confucius, a Woman is to "revere and respect them and never to disobey day or night," 13 " A woman obeys, that is, obeys her parents-in-law,"14 " A woman serves her parent-in-law as she serves her oWn parents," 15 she "never should disobey or be lazy in carrying oUt the orders 0£ parents and parents-in-law ." "1£ a man is very fond 0£ his wi£e, but his parents

.Book of Rit~s, 1:24. .Book of Rit~s, X:I2.

.Book of Rit~s, X:5I. .Book of Rit~s, XXVII:I7. 10 Book of Rit~s, XXVII:2o. u Book of Rit~s, X:I2.

..Book of Rit~s, IX:24. l81.1i. ch. 2; Steele, Vol. I, p. 39. " Book of RJt~s, XU:6. ..Book of Rit~~, X:3.

[ 155 ]

do not like her, she should be divorced." 18 (In ancient times there were many such cases, like that of Lu Yii [1125-1210].) "Unless told to retire to her own apartment, a woman does not do so, and if she has an errand to do, she must get permission from he.r parents-in-Iaw."17 This is the reason why the tragedy of cruelty to daughters-in-Iaw has never ceased in Chinese society.

According to Western customs, fathers do not discipline grown-up sons but leave them to the law of the country and the control of society. But in the way of Confucius, "When one's parents are angry and not pleased and beat him until he bleeds, he does not complain but instead arouses in himself the feelings of reverence and filial piety ." 18 This is the reason why in China there is the saying, "One has to die if his father wants him to, and the minister has to perish if his ruler wants him

"

to. ...

Confucius lived in a feudal age. The ethics he promoted is the ethics

of the feudal age. The social mores he taught and even his own mode .

of living were teachings and modes of a feudal age. The political institu-

tions he advocated were those of a feudal age. The objectives, ethics, social norms, mode of living. and political institutions did not go beyond the privilege and prestige of a few rulers and aristocrats and had noth- ing to do with the happiness of the great masses. How can this be shown? In the teachings of Confucius, the most important element in social ethics and social life is the rules of decorum and the most serious thing in gov- ernment is punishment. In chapter one of the Book of Rites, it is said that "The rules of decorum do not go down to the common people and the penal statutes do not go up to great officers." [1 :35] Is this not solid proof of the [ true] spirit of the way of Confucius and the spirit of the feudal age ?

THE LITERARY REVOLUTION

Paralleling the attack on Confucianism was the attack on the classical literary language-t~ language of Confucian tradition and of the old- style scholar:-0fficial. With the abandonment of the "eight-Iegged essay'. 1. Book of Rites, X:12. 17 Book of Rites, X:13.

18Book of Rites, X:I2.

[ 156]

niques 0£ creation. .Let us first devote our efforts to the first two steps 0£ preparatory work.

A NEW PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE

The energetic assault on traditional thought and literature £ocused attention on what should replace Confucianism as a way 0£ looking at the world and at li£e. Here again, during the years 1918-1919, Ch'en Tu-hsiu and Hu Shih mani£ested their role as leaders 0£ the whole New Culture Movement. At a time which saw the introduction and lively discussion 0£ the philosophies 0£ Kant, Haeckel, Marx, Nietzsche, Berg- son, James, Dewey, Russell, and others, Ch'en and Hu bespoke the domi- nant belie£ in science and social progress. In these days Ch'en, reacting strongly against what he conceived to be the social con£ormism and authoritarianism 0£ Confucian thought, emphasized individualism as the basis 0£ his philosophy. Yet his belie£ in science and materialism also inclined him strongly to the study 0£ Marxism-an inclination checked to some degree by his interest in the ideas 0£ John Dewey, who lectured widely in China in 1919 and 1920. Hu Shih, £or his part, identified him- sel£ unequivocally with pragmatism. Nevertheless, in the movement as a whole philosophical allegiances were less clear-cut. It was a period 0£ £ermentation and transition, producing also strong counter-currents to trends from the West (as shown in succeeding sections) We can say, however, that the prevailing trend was toward popular acceptance 0£ such slogans as individualism, freedom, progress, democracy, and science.

T he True M eaning of Life

[From "Jen-sheng chen i," in Hsin ch'ing-nien, Vol. IV, No.2 (Feb- ruary 1918), pp. 9D-93]

What is the ultimate purpose in life? What should it be, a£ter all? ... From ancient times not a £ew people ha"..e offered explanations. ... In my opinion, what the Buddha said is vague. Although the individ- ual's birth and death are illusory, can we say that humanity as a whole

[ 167 ]

is not really existent? ...The teachings 0£ Christianity, especially, are £abrications out 0£ nothing and cannot be proved. 1£ God can create the human race, who created Him ? Since God's existence or nonexistence cannot be proved, the Christian philosophy 0£ li£e cannot be completely believed in. The rectification 0£ the heart, cultivation 0£ the person, £amily harmony, national order, and world peace that Confucius and Mencius talked about are but some activities and enterprises in li£e and cannot cover the total meaning 0£ li£e. 1£ we are totally to sacrifice ourselves to benefit others, then we exist £or others and not £or ourselves. This is definitely not the £undamental reason £or man's existence. The idea [ 0£ altruism] 0£ Mo Tzu is also not £ree from one-sidedness. The doctrines 0£ Yang Chu [£ourth century B.C.?] and Nietzsche £ully reveal the true nature 0£ li£e, and yet i£ we £ollow them to their extremes, how can this complex, organized, and civilized society continue? ...

Because we Chinese have accepted the teachings [ 0£ contentment and laissez £aire] 0£ Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, we have to that extent been backward. Scientists say that there is no soul a£ter a man's death. ... It is difficult to re£ute these words. But although we as individuals will inevitably die, it is not easy £or the whole race or humanity to die off. The civilization created by the race or humanity will remain. It is re- corded in history and will be transmitted to later generations. Is this not the consciousness or memory 0£ our continuation a£ter death ?

From the above, the meaning 0£ li£e as seen by the modern man can be readily understood. Let me state it briefly as £ollows :

I. With re£erence to human existence, the individual's birth and death are transitory but society really exists.

2. The civilization and happiness 0£ society are created by individuals and should be enjoyed by individuals.

3. Society is an organization 0£ individuals-there can be no society without individuals. ...The will and the happiness 0£ the individual should be respected.

4. Society is the collective life 0£ individuals. 1£ society is dissolved, there will be no memory or consciousness 0£ the continuation 0£ the individual after he dies. There£ore social organization and order should be respected.

5. To carry out one's will and to satis£y his desires (everything from. £ood and sex to moral reputation is "desire") are the basic reasons £or

[ 168 ]

the individual's existence. These goals never change. (Here we can say that Heaven does not change and the Way does not change either. )

6. All religions, laws, moral and political systems are but necessary means to preserve social order. They are not the individual's original purpose of enjoyment in life and can be changed in accordance with the circumstances of the time.

7. Man's happiness in life is the result of man's own effort and is neither the gift of God nor a spontaneous natural product. If it were the gift of God, how is it that He was so generous with people today and so stingy with people in the past? If it is a spontaneous, natural product, why is it that the happiness of the various peoples in the world is not uniform ?

8. The individual in society is comparable to the cell in the body. Its birth and death are transitory. New ones replace the old. This is as it should b~ and need not be feared at all.

9. To enjoy happiness, do not fear suffering. Personal suffering at the moment sometimes contributes to personal happiness in the future. For example, the 'blood shed in righteous wars often wipes out the bad spots of a nation or mankind. Severe epidemics often hasten the development of science.

In a word, what is the ultimate purpose in life ? What should it be, after all? I dare say:

Pragmatism

[From Shih-yen chu-i, in Hu Shih wen-ts'un. Collection I, ch. 2, pp. 291-320; originally published in Hsin ch'ing-nien, Vol. VI, No.4 (April 1919), pp. 342-58 ]

There are two fundamental changes in basic scientific concepts which have had the most important bearings on pragmatism. The first is the change of the scientific attitude toward scientific laws. Hitherto wor- shipers of science generally had a superstition that scientific laws were

[ 169 ]

unalterable universal principles. They thought that there was an eternal, unchanging "natural law" immanent in all things in the universe and that when this law was discovered, it became scientific law. However, this attitude toward the universal principle has gradually changed in the last several decades. Scientists have come to £eel that such a super- stitious attitude toward a universal principle could hinder scientific prog- ress. Furthermore, in studying the history 0£ science they have learned that many discoveries in science are the results 0£ hypotheses. Consequently, they have gradually realized that the scientific laws 0£ today are no more than the hypotheses which are the most applicable, most convenient, and most generally accepted as explanations 0£ natural phenomena. ...Such changes 0£ attitude involve three ideas: I) Scientific laws are £ormulated by men; 2) They are hypotheses-whether they can be determined to be applicable or not entirely depends on whether they can satis£actorily explain £acts; 3) They are not the eternal, unchanging natural law. There may be such a natural law in the universe, but we ,cannot say that our hypothecated principles are this law. They are no more than a short- hand to record the natural changes known to us. [pp. 291-94]

Besides this, there was in the nineteenth century another important change which also had an extremely important bearing on pragmatism. This is Darwin's theory 0£ evolution. ...When it came to Darwin, he boldly declared that the species were not immutable but all had their origins and developed into the present species only a£ter many changes. From the present onward, there can still be changes in species, such as the grafting 0£ trees and crossing 0£ £owls, whereby special species can be obtained. Not only do the species change, but truth also changes. The change 0£ species is the result 0£ adaptation to environment and truth is but an instrument with which to deal with environment. As the en- vironment changes, so does truth accordingly. The concept 0£ loyalty to the emperor during the Hsiian-t'ung era [ 1909-1911] was no longer the concept 0£ loyalty to the emperor during the Yung-cheng and Ch'ien-lung eras [ 1723-1795]. Since the £ounding 0£ the republic, such concepts have been completely cast aside and are useless. Only when we realize that there is no eternal, unchanging truth or absolute truth can we arouse in ourselves a sense 0£ intellectual responsibility. The knowledge that mankind needs is not the way or principle which has an absolute exist- ence but the particular truths £or here and now and £or particular indi-

[ 170]

viduals. Absolute truth is imaginary, abstract, vague, without evidence, and cannot be demonstrated. [pp. 294-95]

rHE PRAGMATISM OF JAMES Wh~t we call truth is actually no more than an instrument, comparable to this piece of paper in my hand, this chalk, this blackboard, or this teapot. They are all our instruments. Because this concept produced re- sults, people in the past therefore called it truth and because it~ utility still remains, we therefore still call it truth. If by any chance solrie event takes place for which the old concept is not applicable, it will no longer be truth. We will search for a new truth to take its place. ...

Truth is recognized to be truth because it has helped us ferry the river or make a match. If the ferry is broken down, build another one. If the sailboat is too slow, replace it with a steam launch. If this marriage broker won't do, give him a good punch, chase him out, and ask a dependable friend to make a match.

This is the theory of truth in pragmatism. [pP. 309-10]

THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF DEWEY'S PHILOSOPHY

Dewey is a great revolutionist in the history of philosophy. ...He said that the basic error of modern philosophy is that modern philosophers do not understand what experience really is. All quarrels between rational- ists and empiricists and between idealists and realists are due to their ignorance of what experience is. [p. 316]

Dewey was greatly influenced by the modern theory of biological evolution. Consequently, his philosophy is completely colored by bio-evolu- tionism. He said that "experiencing means living; and that living goes on in and because of an environing medium, not in a vacuum. ...The human being has upon his hands the problem of responding to what is going on around him so that these changes will take one turn ~ather than another, namely, that required by his own further functioning. ... He is obliged to struggle-that is to say, to employ the direct support given by the environment in order indirectly to effect changes that would not otherwise occur. In this sense, life goes on by means of controlling the. environment. Its activities must change the changes going on around it; they must neutralize hostile occurrences; they must transform neutral

[ 171 ]

events into cooperative factors or into an efllorescence 0£ new features." 22 This is what Dewey explained as experience. [p. 318]

The £oregoing are the basic concepts 0£ Dewey's philosophy. Sum- marized, they are: I) Experience is li£e and li£e is dealing with environ- ment; 2) In the act 0£ dealing with environment, the £unction 0£ thought is the most important. All conscious actions involve the £unction .0£ thought. Thought is an instrument to deal with environment; 3) True philosophy must throw overboard the previoUs toying with "philosophers' problems" and turn itsel£ into a method £or solving human problems.

What is the philosophical method £or solving human problems ? It. goes with9ut saying that it must enable people to have creative intelli- gence, must enable them to envisage a bright £uture on the basis 0£ present needs, and must be able to create new methods and tools to real- ize that £uture. [p. 320 ]

THE DEBA TE ON SCIENCE AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE

The prevailing glorification 0£ science prompted a reaction in some quarters, which pointed to the inadequacy 0£ science when conceived as a philosophy £or dealing with some 0£ the £undamental questions 0£ human li£e. The debate was touched off by a lecture at Tsing-hua Col- lege, near Peking, by Dr. Chang Chiin-mai (Carsun Chang, 1886-) who insisted upon the need £or a metaphysics as the basis £or a genuine philosophy 0£ li£e. In the controversy which £oilowed ( also known as the controversy between metaphysics and science), Chang drew some support from his teacher Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, now much disillusioned with Western materialism and scientism, and from the pro£essional philosopher and translator 0£ Bergson, Chang Tung-sun (1886-). A £ar larger num- ber 0£ writers, however, immediately rose to attack metaphysics and defend science. Chang's chie£ opponent was Ting Wen-chiang (1888- 1936), a geologist by prO£ession, who stigmatized metaphysics as mere superstition and insisted that there were no genuine problems 0£ phi- losophy or pSychology which lay outside the domain 0£ science or to which science, with the progress 0£ civilization, would not eventually find

.John Dewey, Cr~atitl~ In/~lli~~nc~ (New York, Henry Holt, 1917). pp. 8-9.

[ 172 ]

an answer. Many others with a basically materialistic view, from Ch'en Tu-hsiu (now a Marxian and Communist) to Hu Shih and Wu Chih- hui (1865-1953), a writer closely identified with the Kuomintang, joined in the battle. Altogether the writings which dealt with this issue, later compiled in book form, amounted to over 25°,000 words. In the end, as far as majority opinion was concerned, the "anti-metaphysics, pro-scieIice" group carried the day. The controversy thus served only to underscore the overwhelming acceptance of pragmatism and materialism among the younger generation of writers and students.

CHANG CHiiN-MAI The Philosophy of Lift'

Chang Chiin-mai (known in the West as Carsun Chang) was a young pro.

£essor 0£ philosophy when he delivered this controversial lecture on February 14, 1923. Like so many others 0£ his generation, he had received his higher edu- cation in Japan (Waseda University) and Europe. A £ollower 0£ Liang Ch'i- ch'ao and a believer in the "spiritual" civilization 0£ China, he combined Berg- sonian intuitionism with the Neo-Confucian School 0£ the Mind ( especially the teachings 0£ Wang Yang-ming). In later years Chang was also politically active as the leader 0£ a "third-£orce" advocating nationalism and socialism, which had some influence among intellectuals but little mass £ollowing.

[From Jen-sheng kuan in Chang Chiin-mai et al., K'o-hsiieh yii jen- sheng kuan, 1,4-9]

The central focus of a philosophy of life is the self. What is relative to it is the nonself. ...But all problems of the nonself are related to human life. Now human life is a living thing and cannot so easily be governed by formulae as can dead matter. The unique character of a philosophy of life becomes especially clear when we compare it with science.

First of all, science is objective whereas a philosophy of life is subjective. The highest standard of science consists in its objective efficacy. Mr. A says so, Mr. B says so, and C, D, E, F all say so. In other words, a general law is applicable to the entire world. ...A philosophy of life is different. Confucius' doctrine of firm action and Lao Tzu's doctrine of nonaction represent different views. Darwin's theory of struggle and survival and Kropotkin's theory of mutual. aid represent different

[ 173]

views. All these have their pros and cons and no experiment can be con- ducted to determine who is right and who is wrong. Why ? Because they are philosophies 0£ li£e; because they are subjective.

Secondly, science is controlled by the logical method whereas a phi- losophy 0£ li£e arises from intuition. ...Science is restricted by method and by system. On the other hand, philosophies 0£ li£e-whether the pessimism 0£ Schopenhauer and Hartmann or the optimism 0£ Lambert, Nietzsche, and Hegel; whether Confucius' doctrine 0£ personal per£ection and £amily harmony or Buddha's doctrine 0£ renunciation; and whether the Confucian doctrine 0£ love with distinctions or the teaching 0£ uni- versallove 0f Mo Tzu and Jesus-are not restricted by any logical £ormula. They are not governed by definitions or methods. They are views held according to one's conscience for the sake 0£ setting a norm £or the world and £or posterity. This is the reason why they are intuitive.

Thirdly, science proceeds from an analytical method whereas a phi- losophy 0£ life proceeds from synthesis. The key to science is analysis. ...A philosophy 0£ li£e, on the other hand, is synthetic. It includes everything. 1£ subjected to analysis, it will lose its true meaning. For example, the Buddha's philosophy 0£ li£e is to save all living beings. 1£ one seeks his motive and says that it is due to the Indian love 0£ medita- tion or to India's climate, to some extent such analysis is reasonable. But it would be a mistake to conclude that Buddhism and all it contains can be explained in terms only 0£ the motives just analyzed. Why ? Mo- tives and a philosophy 0£ li£e are different things. A philosophy 0£ li£e is a whole and cannot be discovered in what has been divided or muti- lated. ...

Fourthly, science £ollows the law 0£ cause and effect whereas a phi- losophy 0£ li£e is based on £ree will. The first general law governing mate- rial phenomena is that where there is cause, there is effect. ...Even the relation between body and mind. ., is also the result 0£ cause and effect. But purely psychological phenomena are different, and a philosophy 0£ life is much more so. Why is it that Confucius did not even sit long enough to warm his mat [before hurrying off to serve society] or that Mo Tzu's stove did not have a chance to burn black [be£ore he did like- wise] ? Why was Jesus crucified, and why did Shakyamuni devote his li£e to asceticism ? All these issued from the £ree action 0£ conscience and were not determined by something else. Even in an ordinary per-

[ 174 ]

son, such things as repentance, sel£-re£orm, and a sense 0£ responsibility cannot be explained by the law 0£ cause and effect. The master agent is none other than the person himsel£. This is all there is to it, whether in the case of great men like Confucius, Mo Tzu, the Buddha, and Jesus, or in the case 0£ an ordinary man.

Fi£thly, science arises from the phenomenon 0£ uni£ormity among ob- jects whereas a philosophy 0£ li£e arises from the unity 0£ personality . The greatest principle in science is the uni£ormity 0£ the course 0£ nature. Plants, animals, and even inorganic matter can all be classified. Because 0£ the possibility 0£ classification, there is a principle running through all changes and phenomena 0£ a particular class 0£ objects, and there£ore a scientific £ormula £or it can be discovered. But in human society some people are intelligent while others are stupid, some are good and some are bad, and some are healthy while others are not. ...The distinction 0£ natural phenomena is their similarity, while that 0£ mankind is its variety. Because 0£ this variety there have been the "first to be enlight- ened" and the "hero" as they are called in traditional Chinese terminology and the "creator" and "genius" as they are called in Western terminology. All these are merely intended to show the unique character 0£ human personality.

From the above we can see that the distinguishing points 0£ a philosophy 0£ li£e are subjectivity, intuitiveness, synthesizing power, £ree will, and personal unity. Because 0£ these five qualities, the solution 0£ problems pertaining to a philosophy 0£ li£e cannot be achieved by science, however ad.vanced it may be, but can only be achieved by man himsel£. ...

TING WEN-CHIANG Metaphysics and Science

Ting Wen-chiang (V. K. Ting) was a professor of geology at the University

of Peking when he responded to Chang Chun-mai with this article published in April, 1923- Trained at Cambridge and Glasgow universities, he was widely respected for his writings in the fields of geology, mining, geography, etc., but became known also as a leading political pamphleteer. In 1919, a few years before this controversy arose, he had accompanied Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, Carsun Chang, and others on an inspection trip to Europe, from which the latter re- turned much disillusioned with the materialism of the West. Though Ting's basic outlook was not altered by this experience, from it developed his interest

[ 175]

in a wider range of questions-political and philosophical-than his scientific studies had embraced earlier.

[From Hsuan-hsiit'h yu k'o-hsut'h, in Chang Chiin-mai et al., K'o-hsut'h yu it'n-sht'ng kuan, I, 1-19]

Metaphysics is a bewildered specter which has been haunting Europe £or twenty centuries. 0£ late it has gradually lost its treacherous occupation and all 0£ a sudden come to China, its body swinging, with all its banners and slogans, to lure and £001 the Chinese people. If you don't believe me, look at Chang Chiin-mai's "Philosophy 0£ Li£e." Chang is my £riend, but metaphysics is an enemy 0£ science. ...

Can a philosophy 0£ li£e and science be separated? ...Chang's ex- planation is that philosophies 0£ li£e are "most diversified" and there£ore science is not applicable to them. But it is one thing to say that at present philosophies 0£ li£e are not unified and quite another thing to say that they can never be unified. U nless you can advance a reason to prove why they can never be unified, we are obliged to find the unity. Furthermore, granted that at present "there are no standards 0£ right and wrong, truth or £alsity," [as Chang said], how can we tell that right and wrong and truth and £alsity cannot be discovered? Unless we discover them, how are we going to have standards? To find right and wrong and truth and £alsity, what other method is there aside from the scientific? ...

Among those who study biology, who does not know that the problem 0£ the good or evil nature 0£ man and Darwin's theories 0£ struggle and survival are all scientific problems and are problems already solved ? But Chang claims that these are subjective and are philosophies 0£ li£e and cannot be subjected to experiment to show which is right and which is wrong. By merely looking at his inability to separate a philosophy 0£ li£e from science, we know that they are basically inseparable. [p. 6]

Chang says that a philosophy 0£ li£e is not controlled by the logical method. Science replies: Whatever cannot be studied and criticized by logic is not true knowledge. He claims that "purely psychological phe- nomena" lie outside the law 0£ cause and effect. Science replies: Psycho- logical phenomena are at bottom materials 0£ science. If the phenomena you are talking about are real, they cannot go beyond the sphere 0£ science. He has repeatedly emphasized individuality and intuition, but he has placed these outside the logical method and definition. It is not that science attaches no importance to individuality and intuition. But

[ 176 ]

the individuality and intuition recognized by science are those that '.emerge from living experience and are based on evidences of experience," [as Hu Shih has said]. Chang has said that a philosophy 0£ li£e is a syn- thesis-'.lt is a whole and cannot be discovered in what has been divided and mutilated." Science replies: We do not admit that there is such a con£used, undifferentiated thing. Furthermore, he himsel£ has distin- guished the sel£ and the nonsel£ and listed nine items under the latter. Thus he has already analyzed it. He says that "the solution 0£ problems pertaining to a philosophy of li£e cannot be ac~ieved by science." Science replies: Anything with a psychological content and all true concepts and inferences are materials £or science. [pp. 14-15]

Whether we like it or not, truth is truth and falsity is £alsity. As truth is revealed, metaphysics becomes helpless. Consequently, the universe that used to belong to metaphysics has been taken over by science. ... Biology has become a science. ...Psychology has also declared [its ] independence. Thereupon metaphysics has retreated from First Philosophy to ontology but it is still without regret and brags be£ore science, saying : "You cannot.study intuition; you cannot study reality outside 0£ sensation. You are corporeal, I am metaphysical. You are dead; I am living." Science does not care to quarrel with it, realizing that the scientific method is all-mighty in the realm 0£ knowledge. There is no £ear that metaphysics will not finally surrender. [p. 16]

Metaphysicians only talk about their ontology. We do not want to waste our valuable time attacking them. But young people at large are fooled by them and consider all problems relating to religion, society, government, and ethics to be really beyond the control of the logical method. They think there is really no right or wrong, no truth or falsity. They believe that these problems must be solved by what they call a phi- losophy of li£e which they say is subjective, synthesizing, and consisting 0£ free will.

1£ so, what kind of society will ours be ? 1£ so, there will be no need to read or learn, and experience will be useless. We will need only to '.hold views according to our conscience," £or philosophies 0£ li£e "all issue from the free action 0£ conscience and are not dictated by some- thing else." In that case, aren't study, learning, knowledge, and experience all a waste of time ? Furthermore, there will be no room for discuss- ing any problem, £or discussion requires logical formulae, definitions-

[ 177 ]

and methods, and all these are unacceptable to Chang Chiin-mai. ... Moreover, everyone has his own conscience. What need is there £or any- one to "enlighten" or "set an example" £or us? 1£ everyone can "hold his view" according to his irrational philosophy of li£e, why should he regard the phil('sophies 0£ life 0£ Confucius, the Buddha, Mo Tzu, or Jesus as superior to his own ? And there is no standard of right and wrong or truth and falsity. Thus a person's philosophy of life may be self-contradictory, and he may be preaching the doctrine of equality of the sexes and practicing polygamy at the same time. All he needs to say is that it is "the £ree action 0£ his conscience," and he does not have to- bother whether it is logical or not. Whenever it is the £ree action of con- science, naturally other people must not interfere. Could we live in such a society £or a single day ? [pp. 18-19 ]

A New Concept of the Universe and Life Based on a N ew Belief

These excerpts are from a long essay by Wu Chih-hui ( 1865-1953), which

Hu Shih hailed as "the most significant event" in the controversy over science and metaphysics. "With one stroke 0£ the pen he ruled out God, banished the soul, and punctured the metaphysical idea that man is the most spiritual 0£ all things." Wu, an iconoclast who had a reputation as something 0£ a wit and satirist, is remembered £or his declaration, which became a virtual battle- cry among the anti-Con£ucianists: " All thread-bound [ old-style ] books should be dumped in the lavatory."

A£ter taking the first steps up the old civil service ladder under the Manchus, Wu had become involved in the re£orm movement, and then had studied £or many years in Japan, England and France, where he espoused anarchism. Acquaintance with Sun Yat-sen led him eventually into the revolutionary movement. He became a confidant of Sun and Chiang Kai-shek, and in his later years a sort 0£ elder statesman among the Nationalists.

[From I-ko hsin hsin-yang ti yu-chou kuan chi ien-sheng kuan, in Chang Chun-mai et al., K'o-hsueh yu ien-sheng kuan, II, 24-137]

Chang Chiin-mai has mobilized his soldiers of science to protect his specter of metaphysics and engage in warfare with Ting Wen-chiang. Liang Ch'i-ch'ao has formulated £or them "laws of the war of words" in preparation £or stepped up mobilization on both sides and £or a pro-

[ I78 ]

longed struggle. ...To some extent I feel that even if the struggle lasted for a hundred years, there would be no conclusion. [pp. 24-25]

What philosophy of life have you, oldster? Well, £riends, let me tell you. ...

We need only say that "the universe is a greater life." Its substance involves energy at the same time. To use another term, it may also be called power. From this power the will is produced. ...When the will comes into contact with the external world, sensations ensue, and when these sensations are welcomed or resisted, feelings arise. To make sure that the feelings are correct, thought arises to constitute the intellect. When the intellect examines again and again a certain feeling to see to it that it is natural and proper or to correct the intellect's own ignorance, this is intuition. [pp. 28-30 ]

What is the need of any spiritual element or the so-called soul, v.:hich never meets any real need anyway ? [p. 32 ]

I strongly believe I) that the spirit cannot be separated from matter. ...2) that the universe is a temporary thing. ...3) that people today are superior to people in the past and that people in the future will be superior to people today. ...4) that they are so in both good and evil. ...5) that the more advanced material civilization becomes, the more plentiful will material goods be, the human race will tend more and more to unity, and complicated problems will be more and more easily solved. ...6) that morality is the crystallization 0£ civilization and that there has never been a low morality when civilization reached a higher state. ...and 7) that all things in the universe can be explained by science. [pp. 112-37]

Science and Philosophy of Life

[From Hu Shih wt'n-ts'un, Collection II, Ch. I, pp. 121-39]

The Chinese people's philosophy 0£ li£e has not yet been brought face to £ace with science. At this moment we pain£ully £eel that science has not been sufficiently promoted, that scientific education has not been de- veloped, and that the power of science has not been able to wipe out the black smoke that covers the whole country. To our amazement there

[179]

are still prominent scholars [like Liang Ch'i-ch'ao] who shout, ..Euro- pean science is bankrupt," blame the cultural bankruptcy 0£ Europe on science, deprecate it, score the sins 0£ the scientists' philosophy 0£ li£e" and do not want science to exert any influence on a philosophy 0£ li£e. Seeing this, how can those who believe in science not worry ? How can they help crying out loud to de£end science? This is the motive which has given rise to. this big battle 0£ "science versus philosophy 0£ li£e." We must understand this motive be£ore we can see the position the controversy occupies in the history 0£ Chinese thought. ...

Chang Chiin-mai's chie£ point is that "the solution 0£ problems per- taining to a philosophy 0£ li£e cannot be achieved by science." In reply to him, we should make clear what kind 0£ philosophy 0£ li£e has been produced when science was applied to problems pertaining to a phi- losophy 0£ li£e. In other words, we should first describe what a scientific philosophy 0£ li£e is and then discuss whether such a philosophy 0£ li£e can be established, whether it can solve the problems pertaining to a phi- losophy 0£ li£e, and whether it is a plague on Europe and poison to the human race, as Liang Ch'i-ch'ao has said it is. I cannot help £eeling that in this discussion consisting 0£ a quarter 0£ a million words, those who fight £or science, excepting Mr. Wu Chih-hui, share a common error, namely, that 0£ not stating in concrete terms what a scientific philosophy 0£ li£e is, but merely de£ending in an abstract way the assertion that scienc~ can solve the problems 0£ a philosophy 0£ li£e. ...They have not been willing publicly to admit that the concrete, purely materialistic, and purely mechanistic philosophy 0£ li£e is the scientific philosophy 0£ life. We say they have not been willing; we do not say they have not dared. We merely say that with regard to the scientific philosophy 0£ life, the de£enders 0£ science do not believe in it as clearly and firmly as does Mr . Wu Chih-hui and there£ore they cannot publicly de£end their view. ...

In a word, our £uture war plan should be to publicize our new belie£, to publicize what we believe to be the new philosophy 0£ li£e. The basic ideas 0£ this new philosophy 0£ li£e have been declared by Mr. Wu. We shall now summarize these general ideas, elaborate and supplement them to some extent, and present here an outline 0£ this new philosophy 0£ li£e:

I. On the basis 0£ our knowledge 0£ astronomy and physics, we should recognize that the world 0£ space is infinitely large.

[ 180 1

2. On the basis 0£ OUr geological and paleontological knowledge, we should recognize that the universe extends oVer infinite time.

3. On the basis 0£ all oUr verifiable scientific knowledge, we should recognize that the universe and everything in it £0110W natural laws 0£ movement and change-"natural" in the Chinese sense 0£ "being So 0£ themselves"-and that there is no need £or the concept 0£ a supernatural Ruler or Creator.

4. On the basis 0£ the biological sciences, we should recognize the ter- rific waste£ulness and brutality in the struggle £or existence in the bio- logical world, and consequently the untenability 0£ the hypothesis 0£ a benevolent Ruler Who "possesses the character 0£ loving li£e."

5. On the basis 0£ the biological, physiological, and psychological sci- ences, we should recognize that man is only one species in the animal kingdom and differs from the other species only in degree but not in kind.

6. On the basis 0£ the knowledge derived from anthropology, SOCiology, and the biological sciences, we should understand the history and causes 0£ the evolution 0£ living organisms and 0£ human society.

7. On the basis 0£ the biological and psychological sciences, we should recognize that all psychological phenomena are explainable through the law 0£ causality.

8. On the basis 0£ biological and historical knowledge, we should rec- ognize that morality and religion are subject to change, and that the causes 0£ such change- can bc scientifically discovered.

9. On the basis 0£ OUr newer knowledge 0£ physics and chemistry, we should recognize that matter is not dead or static but living and dynamic.

10. On the basis 0£ biological and sociological knowledge, we should recognize that the individual-the "small sel£"-is subject to death and . extinction, but mankind-the "Large Sel£" -does not die and is im- mortal, and should recognize that to live £or the sake 0£ the species and posterity is religion 0£ the highest kind; and that those religions which seek a £uture li£e either in Heaven or the Pure Land, are selfish reli- gions.

This new philosophy 0£ li£e is a hypothesis £ounded on the Commonly accepted scientific knowledge 0£ the last tWo or three hundred years. We may con£er on it the honorable title 0£ "scientific philosophy 0£ li£e." But to avoid unnecessary controversy, I propose to call it merely "the nat~ uralistic philosophy 0£ li£e."

[ 181 ]