More than a hundred years ago, when western philosophies entered china, chinese literary scholars saw it as a recipe for solving the difficult ideological and cultural situation in china at the time. At one point, the encounter between traditional chinese sanctuaries and western wisdom prompted “philosophy” to replace “learning” as a subject of study at universities. However, since the birth of the “philosophical door” at beijing university in 1912, the name “china philosophy” has been the subject of all kinds of debate and is still under discussion today. The reasons for this are closely related to the initial establishment of chinese philosophical disciplines. The chinese philosophy discipline, which is based on the western academic subsystem, and which in any case defines the object and scope of the chinese philosophy, is difficult to escape from the “apprenticeship state” of chinese philosophy. Only research based on the non-comparable characteristics of chinese philosophy can lead to an in-depth exploration of china's philosophical autonomy, highlight its originality and build an autonomous knowledge system of chinese philosophy。
Chinese philosophy and comparative philosophy
Historically, the “china philosophy” discipline was first established as a repositioning of china's traditional thinking culture in the context of the introduction of western philosophies and disciplines. Traditional national philosophies have had to change identity in the face of western philosophies and science, and chinese scholars have re-interpreted the classics and ideas of traditional chinese culture in accordance with the conceptual and theoretical framework of western philosophies. This has led to the modern transformation of traditional chinese culture, namely, the transformation of the philosophies of philosophies into philosophies of the world and the transformation of the moral upbringing of kung fu into philosophical ideas for the transformation of society. The title of the “china philosophy”, which is based on western philosophy, is placed in a comparative philosophies view because of its distinctive comparative features, often under the direct title of “comparative philosophies” and in the national philosophies. While there is a broad and narrow understanding of “comparison philosophy”, researchers usually interpret chinese philosophy as conducting their own research in a comparative manner, far from such things as hu chi's outline of china's philosophy, his two volumes of chinese philosophy, his two volumes of chinese philosophy and liang yi lan's east-west culture and its philosophy, and, more recently, zhang shiyong's time of heaven — confusion and choice of the chinese-west philosophy, and zhang zhang zhang zhang zianlong's hedegel thoughts and china's path. While this comparative philosophical model of research, which seeks to achieve the subjective goal of convergence of differences by comparing differences and differences between different philosophical traditions, clearly shows signs of western philosophies, i. E. A philosophical reinterpretation of china's traditional intellectual culture within the framework of western philosophies。
From a historical and practical point of view, such comparative research is reflected not only in the unique interest of western philosophers in china’s traditional philosophy, but also in the reinterpretation of chinese traditional culture by western han scientists today. Whether western philosophers such as lebnitz, wolff, voltaire, uncle benhua and heidegger interpret the chinese philosophy differently, or western missionaries such as bachuri and witegen, translate the ancient chinese scriptures, their starting point is not just to understand china, but also to understand their own philosophy and culture, and therefore these studies should not be included in comparative philosophy. In the light of western philosophy, contemporary han scientists have made a remarkable contribution to the dissemination of chinese philosophy worldwide by studying traditional chinese philosophy. These historical and practical considerations are often interpreted as dialogue between different cultural traditions, but it is difficult to enter the realm of comparative philosophical research。
While we may not be willing to view chinese philosophy as a comparative philosophy in terms of its universality and specificity, it is difficult not to use western philosophy as a frame of reference for such narratives, either as a reading of traditional philosophies or as a contemporary one. This is precisely the academic roots of chinese philosophy that is seen as a comparative philosophy. Of course, we can also justify this view in some seemingly reasonable way on the basis of objective historical facts. But the perception of chinese philosophy as a comparative philosophy itself has limited the scope of chinese philosophy, or has accepted the premise of western philosophy as a comparative reference. This is the main reason why chinese philosophy is still in dispute. It is clear that, in order to truly eliminate this discipline, it is first necessary to avoid treating chinese philosophy as a comparative philosophy。
From comparison to non-comparison
From a disciplinary standpoint, comparative philosophy is a specialized branch of philosophical research aimed at bridging the gap between different traditions and linguistic cultures through a comparative analysis of different philosophical traditions, which is also known as the “cultural philosophy”. However, intercultural philosophies are different from comparative studies of different philosophical traditions, the latter of which are based on a certain philosophical tradition in comparison with other philosophical traditions, such as “in the west” or “in the middle”. However, chinese philosophy should not be seen as belonging to either, either in terms of comparative philosophy as a branch of philosophical research or in terms of comparative studies of different philosophical traditions。
First, chinese philosophy refers primarily to chinese philosophy, so research into chinese philosophy does not have to be premised on the existence of other philosophical traditions. On the contrary, considering chinese philosophy as a comparative philosophy would inevitably turn chinese philosophical research into a comparative study of different philosophical traditions, thus losing its specialty. Similarly, if chinese philosophy is seen as research that must be carried out through other philosophical traditions, chinese philosophy loses its own independent value. The debate about the status of philosophy in china stems from this comparative approach. On the one hand, chinese scholars have deliberately contrasted china's traditional thinking culture with that of western philosophies in their acceptance and application of western philosophies, and have built a chinese philosophies system that is consistent with the conceptual framework of western philosophies. As a result, the concept of “china philosophy” has been branded as a western philosophy since its inception, such as hu chi and the kingdom's defence of the legal status of the concept of “philosophy” in china's thinking, as well as the way the chinese philosophy has been interpreted by feng yu lan. On the other hand, the special interest of western philosophers in chinese philosophy, which makes them “others” of their own thinking, has led to a different philosophical image of chinese philosophy in western philosophy, such as the confucianism in lebnitz-wolf philosophy and the quadrant of the gods of heaven and the heaven. In both respects, the results of such comparative studies make it necessary for chinese philosophy to be based on western philosophy, so that each side acquires the legitimacy of its own existence. This is also at the root of the debate over “the legitimacy of chinese philosophy” that emerged in the 1990s。
Second, there is a broad and narrow distinction between comparative philosophy. The broader philosophy of comparison seeks to find ways of communicating between different philosophies, so that its research must be based on an understanding of different philosophies, rather than on finding the basis for a certain philosophies, such as plato and aristotle, chu and wang yang. In this sense, chinese philosophy clearly does not belong to this comparative philosophy. The narrow comparative philosophy is a specific comparative study of different philosophical traditions or theories, such as the comparison of confucius and socrates, the comparison of chu and hegel, etc. It is in this sense that chinese philosophy is usually understood as a comparative philosophy. However, this narrow comparative study continues to be based on an established philosophical tradition rather than on such a comparison to establish the status of a particular philosophical tradition. For example, a comparative study of confucius and socrates philosophy must be based on a thorough understanding of confucius philosophy and socrates philosophy, otherwise such a comparative study would lose its roots and roots. This means that a comparative study of any different philosophy presupposes the existence of those philosophies, and once chinese philosophies are seen as such a comparative study, their independent status is recognized. This is clearly a logical error of circular reasoning。
Finally, chinese philosophy is based on the model of the western discipline system, which is an indisputable historical fact, but which does not lead to conclusions: chinese philosophy was built in comparison with western philosophy. According to the comparative philosophy definition, this reasoning presupposes recognition of the existence of chinese philosophy. Whether it is “in china” or “in the west”, it is premised on the existence of chinese philosophy. Thus, chinese philosophy cannot be a comparative philosophy or established as a comparative philosophy, nor can it be a comparative study with western philosophy. Although we can study chinese philosophy from the perspective of comparative philosophy, this does not mean that chinese philosophy can be studied as a comparative philosophy. For example, we can conduct a comparative study of the philosophy of confucius and socrates or aristotle, as well as a comparative study of the ideas of zhu and the kingdom, both of which can only be used as a part of a central-west comparative study or a chinese philosophical study, but do not conclude that chinese philosophy can be used as a comparative philosophy。
Based on the above analysis, we must abandon the idea of chinese philosophy as a comparative philosophy, move from comparative to non-comparison research, and clarify the chinese philosophy as an autonomous philosophical pattern with an independent scope and theoretical framework. The emphasis on the non-comparison perspective means that the independent autonomy of chinese philosophy precedes that of any comparative study, regardless of the philosophical tradition。
Focus on the non-comparable characteristics of chinese philosophy
The term “non-comparison” in this context does not mean that there is no need for comparison, but rather that there is no need for comparison as a prerequisite for the development of philosophy as such, which means that comparative research should not be a prerequisite for the existence of philosophy. China’s traditional philosophy is centred on confucianism and the ideas of hundreds of sons, which have been in existence for thousands of years before western philosophy entered china, and therefore do not need to use western philosophy as a legitimate basis for legitimacy. China's contemporary philosophy, which has been based on western philosophy for more than a hundred years, is based on issues discussed and ideas developed in china, and the language used to express philosophy is also chinese. This is a clear difference between western philosophy and other non-western philosophies (such as indian, japanese, african philosophies, etc.). The active chinese-language philosophy that has been discussed in recent years is the result of non-comparison studies in contemporary chinese philosophy, thus highlighting the autonomous form of chinese philosophy. The concept of chinese philosophy is derived mainly from the autonomous character of the chinese philosophy concept, namely the homogeneity between the chinese structure and the structure of ideas, and therefore does not need to be based on its own existence in a comparative manner。
In the usual philosophical interpretation, this non-comparable feature is seen as a case of philosophical specificity, which gives rise to a controversy about its universality and specificity. It must be seen that the specificities embodied in different philosophical traditions are premised on the universal nature of philosophy that is common to all, otherwise they no longer exist. Under the common concept of “philosophical” encompasses a special philosophy with different cultural traditions, which is a mutually reinforcing dialectic between universality and specificity. While we cannot regard a certain philosophy as universal, we can see the universal characteristics common to a particular philosophy as one of the elements that constitute a philosophical discipline. One such element is non-comparison characteristics, which provide the basic basis for the existence of a particular philosophy. It is noteworthy, however, that the non-comparisonal nature of chinese philosophy is not merely an indication of the specificity of this philosophy, but rather highlights the autonomy of this philosophy, which seeks to be included in a universal philosophical concept in its unique approach and discourse. This means that, in chinese philosophy, the universality of philosophy is manifested in a way that is characterized by specialness, while the speciality of philosophy only highlights its value when it is universal。
For example, the peculiarities of chinese philosophy are often seen as a holistic thinking that emphasizes the unity of the individual and the whole, human beings and nature, subjectivity and objectivity, a practical orientation towards practice and the accumulation of experience, a focus on the centrality of the word and the word and the word and the character of relativism. However, the opposing dialectics, the u. S.-community idea of harmony, the rational reasoning based on experience, and the universal values of the moral ideal of the pursuit of goodness — the philosophical discourse — have been embodied in different ways in various special philosophical traditions. China's philosophy expresses these universal values only in its own unique way and thereby joins the world's philosophy。
The daily light (30th edition, 2025)
