Translator's Introduction

Translator’s Introduction

The breakdown of the Zhou political system during the late Spring and Autumn (c. 771–476 BCE) and Warring States (c. 475–221 BCE) periods saw a flourish- ing of philosophical discussion widely referred to as the “Contention of a Hundred Schools of Thought” (baijia zhengming 百家爭鳴). The reference to a “hundred schools” (zhuzi baijia 諸子百家) gives a sense of the variety of views that mixed, mingled, and debated during the period—a breadth of diversity that fascinates modern scholars and eludes definitive categorization. Most important is the innovation that took place therein: the foundations of Confucian, Daoist, and Legalist teachings that would shape the ensuing development of Chinese culture arose within the intellectual exchange and thoughtful “contention” of this era. The conclusion of Chinese dynastic rule some two and a half millennia later partly tried to cast off or redevelop the traditions rooted in that earlier period, especially those associated with “Confucianism,” in favor of modern Western scientific and political ideals. Yet it also echoed that earlier period in its innovation and variety of thought. Devoted intellectuals poured themselves into philosophical analysis and critical development of traditional Chinese teachings, variously opposing them to and combining them with Western philosophy—and many continue to do so today. Distinct camps have emerged, among the most academically predominant of which has been New Confucianism (xin rujia 新儒家), a broad and loose category of thinkers devel- oping largely on the Neo-Confucian thought of the Song (960–1279) and Ming (1368–1644) eras (and generally seeing themselves as carrying forward the proper lineage of Confucian tradition). Li Zehou (b. 1930) also stands among the most widely impactful voices in Confucian philosophy of the last several decades, and for several reasons is one of the more controversial. Among these reasons is that, unlike the highly influential New Confucian Mou Zongsan 牟宗三 (1909–1995), Li looks more or less exclusively back to the earliest periods in which Confucian thought originally—and in his view most properly—took shape. His criticism of the later development of Confucian tradition, especially of the Lu-Wang1

1 That is, the strain of Neo-Confucian thought identified principally with Lu Xiangshan 陸象山 (1139–1193) and Wang Yangming 王陽明 (1472–1529), also referred to as “School of Heart-Mind” thought (xinxue 心學). Li Zehou is critical as well of Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucian thought (associated primarily with Cheng Yi 程頤 [1033–1107] and Zhu Xi 朱熹 [1130–1200], also referred to as “School of Principle” thought [lixue 理學]), but his criticism of Lu-Wang

Neo-Confucianism promoted by Mou and of the highly privileged standing it grants the teachings of the Mengzi 孟子, places him squarely in contention with core elements of New Confucian thought.2 Another reason is his fallout with the Mainland political establishment in the 1990s. It is testa- ment to the compelling quality of Li’s ideas that they have appealed to young readers for generations now—indeed, in just the last year I have met, by hap- penstance, young enthusiasts of Li’s work living the world over, from England to Shanghai to Hong Kong, including students of philosophy, educational development and even theoretical mathematics—without establishment support from major Mainland political or academic institutions.3 By critically reworking the basic Confucian, Kantian, and historical materialist elements of much modern Chinese philosophy, Li has produced a vision of Chinese tradition and robust aesthetic and moral theories that have garnered respect for their insight and incited outrage for straying from orthodoxy.4

thought in particular is notable for its pointed challenge to New Confucian views following Mou Zongsan. 2 This arises especially the third appendix of this volume, “On the Integration of Confucianism and Legalism,” where Li is highly critical of the later metaphysical development of Confucian thought. See also, for example, Li Zehou, “Some Thoughts on Ming-Ch’ing Neo-Confucianism,” in Chu Hsi and Neo-Confucianism, ed. Wing-Tsit Chan (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986) 551–69; “The Failure of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism’s Pursuit of Transcendence” (Song-Ming lixue zhuiqiu chaoyan de shibai 宋明理學追求超驗的失敗), in Pragmatic Reason and a Culture of Optimism (Shiyong lixing yu legan wen- hua 實用理性與樂感文化) (Beijing: SDX Joing Publishing, 2008) 60–65; and “Thoughts on Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism” (Song-Ming lixue pianlun 宋明理學片論) in On Traditional Chinese Intellectual History (Zhongguo gudai sixiangshi lun 中國古代思想史論) (Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing, 2008) 231–80. Sylvia Chan argues in “Li Zehou and New Confucianism” that Li ought to be drawn into a more inclusive conception of New Confucianism, despite the fact that “To most adherents of new Confucianism outside mainland China, Li Zehou would be the last person to be accorded a place in the New Confucianism” (in John Makeham, ed., New Confucianism (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003) 105). Michael Nylan gives a valuable treatment of Li’s relationship with Confucian tradition in “Li Zehou’s Lunyu jindu (Reading the Analects today),” Philosophy East and West 66.3 (2016): 739–56. 3 This is a generation or more after Li’s having already “emancipated a whole generation of young Chinese intellectuals,” as Yu Ying-Shih (Yu Yingshi 余英時, b. 1930) put it (Philosophy East & West 66.3 (2016): 699–700). 4 On Li Zehou’s influence as a public intellectual and responses to it, with special emphasis on his philosophical system, see: Woei-Lien Chong “The Tragic Duality of Man: Liu Xiaobo on Western Philosophy from Kant to Sartre,” in China’s Modernisation: Westernisation and Acculturation, eds. A. J. Saich and K. W. Radtke (Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 1993) Münchener Ost-Asiatische Studien 67.111–63; and Lin Min, “The Search for Modernity: Chinese Intellectual Discourse and Society, 1978–88—the Case of Li Zehou,” The China Quarterly (1992) 969–98. On the integration of these disparate elements in Li’s philosophy, see: Woei Lien Chong,