Recently, I have been engaging with discussions regarding the political and social aspect of society. I followed the history of the modern world to construct a foundation upon which my arguments for political life develop. I had thought that my perusal of history strengthened my arguments and that I could be confident in the validity of my arguments. Also recently, I began learning Chinese history and Chinese philosophy, which I had minimal knowledge of despite my Chinese background. I knew Chinese history after the 1900s quite well, but I had minimal interactions with ancient Chinese culture. In elementary school in China, I was taught some writes of ancient Chinese philosophers, such as Sun Tzu and Laozi. But unlike ancient European writings, where the difficulty of interpretation is more of a matter of translation, ancient Chinese writing uses the same characters of modern Chinese language, yet is written in such a condensed, poetic method that mere knowing the words are insufficient in deciphering it. In the teachings of these writings, a certain vagueness arises. It is up to the reader to interpret the exact meaning of certain phrases. I must disclaim that I have had minimal exposure to Chinese literature, so my experience is incomplete. But it is this vagueness that had previously discouraged me from venturing into Chinese culture.
In my recent renewed attempt, I quickly realized that I, and my essays, exist in the framework of Western philosophy. What I had thought to be the only meaningful way of reasoning is now proven to be but a branch of thought. Of course, I’m not about to have an existential crisis. Much of my discussions of human association pertains to the modern era. While Chinese philosophy may have its significance, modern China thrives in the modernity that grew out of Western philosophy and Chinese philosophy doesn’t quite have its “modern” (in the way that we understand modernity) component. Regardless, I’m very intrigued to understand Chinese philosophy. Philosophy, to my understanding, is a particular way of intellectually engaging with the world. It is the aggregate observations, theories, and laws that we establish based on our understanding of the world around us. It is the inquiry of human civilization. Now, the inquiry of Western philosophy, the questions it asks and the methods of inquiry it employs, seem naturally developed. How, then, did the Chinese civilization, which developed within similar physical conditions as its Western counterpart, establish such a different school of thought? Both evolved from hunter-gather societies and both thrived in agrarian societies. The split in inquiry suggests a split in something very fundamental.
I do not claim to be an expert in Western philosophy or history, but I have had sufficient exposure that I am confident in my interpretation. One of my observations is that history reflects philosophy. Changes in philosophy influences our decision-making processes, which in turn changes history. The history of Western civilization since the 15th century features the development of modern sciences, the establishment of nation states, and, most importantly, the changing relationship between the ruler and the ruled. These evolutions reflect the changes philosophical inquiries, which includes questions like how do we know what we know, where does the source of power come from, who is qualified to rule, and what makes us humans. It is the changing discussions on these questions that changes the structure of European society. I was hoping, then, to begin my journey of Chinese philosophy in its history.
My first lecture was a two-hours long YouTube video that uses infographics to demonstrate the rise and fall of empires in China since the beginning of recorded history. Obviously, the video was not very detailed, but it effectively demonstrated how empires fall and rise, the goals of institutional reforms, and the largest threat to the Han civilization. To my surprise, the entire history of empires in China can be largely described as a cycle: someone units the country; good governance, such as low taxes and public owned land that is then distributed to farmers, allow the country to prosper; emperors a few generations down the line becomes lazy and corrupt; the wealth of the nation is wasted by corruption; citizens becomes oppressed by heavy taxes and violent rule; either farmers uprising or nomadic tribes from the north dismembers the empire; new ruler establish new empire; the cycle repeats.
There are a few very important observations to be made here. The cyclical nature of this history reflects that there existed no discussions on the sources of power, who deserved to rule, how should one rule, power, rights, and the fundamental differences and features of the nomadic tribes. It is the existence of these inquiry that propelled the evolution of Western history and it is the non-existence of these inquiry that shaped Chinese history. But it is important that we, as judges of history, do not subscribe to any superiority sentiments. Many consider modernity to be the proud product of western civilization and other civilizations who failed to produce modern science is inherently inferior. Firstly, no civilization or school of philosophical thought, including the Europeans, had any pre-conceptions of modernity; therefore, you cannot say that they were designers of modernity. We should abandon the hindsight of modernity when we compare the two civilizations. Both civilizations and their philosophies were concerned only about the questions of how to live in their respective conditions, so we should not compare their capacities at producing modernity. Secondly, since they are just different attitudes and perspectives towards the human experience, no arguments can refute Chinese philosophy’s effectiveness or validity at directing a way of life.
So, then, why didn’t Chinese philosophers ask the same questions? I think the most reasonable explanation is that they believed in something else. A technology innovator may be uninquisitive towards the designs of political institutions not because he is lazy or unintelligent, but because he believes that advancements in technology is more effective at promoting progress. Western civilization believed in an afterlife, so they inquired about the political relations between entities of higher being, such as the church, and the people. Chinese civilization, however, disregarded the questions of an afterlife. Laozi famously argued that, without knowing how to live, why should you question death? Chinese philosophers believed that the present life, specifically doing good in the present life, is the only thing that people should focus on. This partly explains Chinese philosophers’ indifference towards the truth of the world. To them, living a good life is the truth and the meaning of the world and the only meaningful questions to asks concern how we should act and treat others and our nature in our present life.
Of course, my minimal reading of Chinese philosophical writing can only propel my discussion so far. But these insights reveal a more fundamental and important question: why did the Chinese and the Europeans, who both inhabited in similar physical conditions, produce such different believes and inquiry?
Comments