The Tragic Duality of Man: Liu Xiaobo on Western Philosophyfrom Kant to Sartre"

CHONG, Woei-Lien #€Ë, "The Tragic Duality of Man: Liu Xiaobo on Western Philosophyfrom Kant to Sartre"

Thisarticle was first published in:

A.J. Saichand K.W. Radtke(eds), China's Modemisation: Westemísatíon andAcculturation, Stuttgart: Steiner Ver\ag, Miinchener Ost-As iat ís c he Studien,YoL67,1993, pp. 111-163.

This digital versionis madeavailable on the Modem ChineseLiterature and CultureResource Center of Ohio StateUniversity with pemission ol SteineÍ Verlag.Reproduction in any form is prohibitedwithout prior permission from the author and the publisher.

About the author:

Dr. Woei-LienChong graduated in Sinologyand Philosophy from Leiden Universiry,The Netherlands,and is affrliatedto the LeidenInstitute ofArea Studies(LIAS). Shehas published widely on contemporaryChinese philosophyand film, andwas the managingeditor of CÀrzaInformaÍíon; A QuarterlyJoumal on ContemporqryChinese Studies ïrom 1986to 2003.

Contactaddress:

Dr. W.L. Chong LeidenInstitute ofArea Studies(LIAS) Faculryof the Humanities LeidenUniversity ArsenaalstraatI P.O.Box 9515 2300RA Leiden The Netherlands.

E: [email protected]: [email protected] 6

THE TRAGIC DUALITY OF MAN: LIU XIAOBO ON WESTERNPHILOSOPHY FROM KANT TO SARTRE

woBr LrENCHoNct

Although 'Marxism-Lenirism, Mao Zedong Thought' is still the official doctdne ir Clnna, its intellectualand political contenthas long been discreditedby lhe terror of the 'CultuÍal Revolu- tion' (1966-1976).Concemed Chinese authon, coÍmenÍng on the presentstate of Chineseso- cietyand cultuÍe, oftÊn spêak of 'a deseÍt'and 'a vacuum'. It is againstthis backgrourdthat, since the ending of China'scultuÍal isolation in 19?8,a large' scale (re-) iÍtÍoduction, faÍlslation, and disseminaÍon of Westemphilosophical works has been undert?ken.In artistic circles, the interestin Nietzsche,FÍeud, and Sartrewas particulaily intense. The two forÍner had already been exiênsively sfudied and discussedby [Íominent Chinese scholaÍsand wÍters of the 1920sand 1930s,thus making theiÍ woÍksmoÍe Íeadily accessible in post-Mao China.2 The phitosophical heritage of the West, as well as the íoÍmeÍly discíêdited

1 Theauthor wishes to expessheÍ sjÍceregÍatitude toMr. JohnT. Ma, ComelisJ. Kuiken,Ceor Hinr zen,Prof. Jonalhan UngeÍ, À,1r. Wan weiying oÍThe Universityof MichigaD,À{J. Kul Kahlerand Mr. Keith Ra8ethof The Universiryof lowà LibraÍies for fteir kind assislàncein pÍoviding imPortatt naterjals, and to Dr- GenrdVisser, Prot Will L.Idema,Prof. Kurt Radtke, Dr. BonnieMcDougall, Dr. SytseStrijbos, D. Jaap den HollandeÍ,Gu Xin, Paulin. Millinglon-lvard and Gillian van Be€sÈBymefor their helpful omnents on earlierdrafts of this paper.The iníerpÍetÀtionof Liu Xiaobo's writings presentedhere is, ofcoune, the auihor's soleresponsibility. 2 On Freud,see Wang Ning's iwo-paÍ aÍticle, TheReception of ReudiánismiÍ ModemChinese Lit' elat!'Íe",ChiM Iníomation,Vol. V. No.4, spring1991, pp. 58-?1,and Vol. VI, No. 1,Summer 1991, pp. 46- 54.A recentarticie on the receplion of Nietzschein Chináis RaoulDavid Findeisen , 'Die Last der Ku llur. V icÍ Falsiudienzur chinesischenNietzsche Rezeption (I , [)' . M inin' Sini.a (Bonn), 198S,No. 2, pp. 1 42 and 190, No. I, pp-140. Se alsoDavid Kely, "TheHighest Chinadomi Nietssche and Ihe Chinese Mind, 1907- 1989",in craham Pà.Íkes(€d .), Nietzsc tu in AsianTho shr (Chicaso:Universiry oí ChicagoPress, 199 1). 112 WOEILTEN CHONG

ChinesetÍadition, aÍe now beingsearched for ideaswhich maybe usedto fcrtiliscthc post-Mao cultuÍal 'descÍt', iurd basicphilosophical tenets of Maqjsm-Leninism are being underminedin óe pÍocess.For theauthorities, the explosion of inteÍestin foreignthought and culture is anunwanted side-effectof its 'OpenDoor' policy,as theywould havepÍeferÍed to limit the importof things foíeign to technologyand material pÍoducB only. Whilc post Mao liteÍatuÍe ànd art have been inspiÍed by the ContinentalEuropcan ÍaditioD of psycho-aniLlysisand Existentialism,Íeform-minded political theodstsin China havc. at the sanc time, beenadvocating thc ideasof the British lradihon fÍom Hobbesto Lockc, in suppon of thciÍ call ÍoÍ private enterprise,maÍket economy,and paíliamenlaÍy democÍacy.' Marxism-Leruflsm in China, as a result, is now being attackedfÍom at lealt two najor directions,one of which follows the BÍitish Íational and institutional approachestablished by Locke, and the other thc Continental antr-rationaland aesthcticapproach established by Nietzsche,which hirsphilosophicál iÍnplica- liorlsgoing far beyondthe immediate spheÍe of economyaDd politics. Although thesetwo approachesare philosophically difficult to Íeconcilc, thcrc is at least one poslMao ChineseauthoÍ in whose thought they can be found in combination: the conlÍoveÍsial liteÍarycritic Liu Xiaobo(b. 1955).In his wrilings,he makesextensive use ot recentChinêse sourceswhich reflect dre impressivescope and depth which the study of Wcstem phiiosophy irl Chinahas achieved in lessthan ten years. MoÍeover, his essaysconvcy the acule sense ofcrisis of Chineseintêllectual debates in lhe 1980s,debates in whichhe has been an active pa.rticipant. A former lectureÍin Literaturc at Beijing Normal University, he now enjoys woÍldwide lame lor his Íole in fie 1989protest movement in Beijing.He lelï re U.S.A.,where he wason a lectuÍe toul, especiallyto join fic movetuent.On 2 June,he oÍSaniseda four personhunger-slrike in Tia- naDmenSquare, which, according to the manifestohe andlis friendsissued, had the dualohjec- tive of protesting against the iÍrposition of maíial law, and encouragingdemocratic'behaviour amongthe students.Later, he helpedevacuaÍe the Squarebefore the foops enteÍed,thereby saving many lives.4He was arrestealon 6 JuDe,ard spentover seventeenmonÍrs in coÍfinement before heingreleased lollowing hi\ Eialon 26January leq 1.5 As a well-known, non-confoÍmistliteÍary critic, he is one of thosewho Srewup dudng the 'Cul- turalRevolution'.I! the 1980s,it wasespecially this Senemtion which, out of disillusionmentwith

3 For three concreleeramples, see He Baogang, Democracyas Viewed by Thre ChineseLiberals: Wei Jinssheng,Hu Ping,andYzn Jiaqi",China InJorÍaridn, Vol. VI, No.2, Autumn1991. osp. p.40. 4 FroÍnlhe eyewitness accouni of Liu's actionsin theSquare by a ïelow-hunger stsiker, thc Taiwancsc popsiÍgeÍ Hou Dejian, in KaiÍars 2dzhi,Jnly 1990, pp. 30 48. exccrpteddd translatedin W.L. Chong,"The Crackdown'sAitermath: Notes on Exiles, Elderly Officials 'On l€ave' and a Radi't Ship', Chind Iníornation. Vol. V, No. 2, Àutumn1990, pp. 12-15.See also Geremie Bàrmé, "confession, Redemption. and Deaihr Liu Xaobo andthe ProtestMovemènt of 1989",in Geor8eHicks (ed.), ?tu 8/aten Miïor: ChinaAfte,Tianan rutr (Essex/chicaso:lnnsman Group, 1990), pp. 52-99. 5 Forí reporion hi! b1a'l.seèB?iji sRe'ietr,4-10February 1991.pp.26 27. ll3

orthodoxComrnunism, sct out to seekoew paths in literahueirnd the-arts. It shouldbe emphasised óat Liu Xiaobo'sideas :uld slyle of writingaÍe much too aggressiveand idios',ncraÍc to fte laste of manyof his contempoÍaries,and his opinionscannot be saidto be representativeol any group ir the Chines€intellectual scene. He is nevcrthelessinteresting to thosewho study $e history of the Chinese.eactioDtro the West,as he has explicitlyplaccd himseu in dle lÍadition of those Chinesemodemisers who advocrted'totalWestemisalion'. Todity ás much as yesterday,this anlountsto a volutary selï-exconmunicalionfronr most of Chincscoducaled sociery, especially whenexpressed in óe blunt malnlerfor whichLiu is notoÍious.He hasantagonised mimy pcople by his cynicairemàÍk that Chinese society has Íeached such a degreeof bankrultcythal it is be- yond all capacitylor self-rcgeeration, ard canonly be cuÍedby 'dlreeltundÍed yeÀfi of lbreign colo sation'(rdródi rlianzhimindi).6 ApaÍ frotu his ljteÍarycÍilicisÍtl, Liu haswritlen books and aÍticlcs in which he lalnentsdle de- cline ol-Chineseaí andculture, contsasting them with what he tegardsas re superiorachicve- mentsof thc West.His doctoralthesis, Ácrtraticr and MÍtn's Freedom,sets forth a Schillerian vicw of aÍ asthe fÍeê plÀy of theimagination, by whichmodcm man is spiriluallyliberated tioin the tensionscngendered by thc rationalismand iunctiomlism imposed upon him by his economlc rntqestsand the scientillc world-view,7 a themewhich also playcd an imPortantrole in fusearlier attnckon the prominentMaÍxist philosopheÍ Li Zehou,whoÍt he accusedof hfing to revivetie 'rationalistic'and'despotic'Chinese tradilion: Á Critiq e ofChoíce:A DialagueW ith Intelle ctual LeaderLi 71)hoa.8He atsopublishcd a lengfiy volumeentrded fft? Fog of Meídphysics,twhieh containshis peÍsonalobservations on the hisloryof Wcstcmphilosophy. lt emphasisecldre great diversityof Westemdrought, and the proÍrinent place which it accordstro the individualand emo- tionallife, asopposed to whathe callslbe 'collectivisÍt'and 'rationalism' of both Chineselradr- tion andthe contemporaay Communist system. Finally, he stiÍed up anespecially 8Íeat amount of dustwidr a long aÍticleentitled "ConlempornÍy Chinese InÍellectuals and Politics", in \Jvhichhe criticisedthe Chineseintelligentsia Íbr havingallowed themselves to be eilhermisled or co-opted bv theCommunist regime,l{)

ó From thc contrc,vènialinleniew with Hons Kong repoÍer Jin Z-hons,"Wenran 'heima' Liu Xaobo fangwenji (An lntÈrviewwirh the 'Black HoBe' of the Literary Wo.ld, Uu Xia.oho),JieÍans yuebao, 1988, No. 12. 'I Shekneilu rcn de ?tloe, (B€iji8g 1988),hereafter abbreviated as Á"srErt.r. The thesiswas reprinted tDselherwith a numbeÍ of dticles by othersin Liu Xilabo, B.iju, shcnrei,,io, (Trasedy,Àesthctics, and Freedom),(Taibei. Fen$un ShidaiPublishcrs, 1989). 8 Xuanze d< pipan: yu sixians linptu Li tuhou dtihttu, otiginllly p}b\shed in the magazinc Zl@ns- s,l', 1986,No. 10.Ihave usedthe Taileicdition by Fen$/unShidài Publishers of 1989,hererfter Cridq@. 9 Xins'ershane,w d" ntpa, publishedby ShanghaiRenmin chubanshc, 1989, witi 3 Prefaceoi 1987. Hereafteri"o8. It wasonly aficr complèlingthis srudyfor publicationthat I ldned of the àppeàrancèofhis la test hrok S;ia,s zfi u, )u rctlei zhi nerg Qhe Mystery of Thought ánd lhe DÍeam of Mankind), (Taibei: FengyunShidai Publisbers, 1992). Thus,I havenot beenable to takethis work into ac4ouni \14 WOEILIEN CHONG

The leilmoti of Liu's writings is his irLlistencethat WestemliteÍature andphilosophy, because they reflect a pelsistentconcem widr fÍeedom and individualism, are Iar supeÍioÍ to Chineselit- erature and philosophy,which, in his view, mainly deal with the problem of maintaining social ordeÍ. In this respect,he seesar uninterruptredcontinuity betweentÍaditional Chineseculture and post-1949Conrmunist society. The aim of his writingsis polemical:hc usesWestem histrory and philosophy to attackboth Chinesetradition and ChineseCommunism, which he íegardsas meÍe varietiesof 'Chinesedespotism'. Hc has a sAongtendency to make sweepinggeoeralisations aboutClhinese and Western cultuíe, and io ignoreall the availablecounter-evidence. He hasnot hada lormal educationin eilheÍhistory or philosophy,beiDg entirely setf-taught in both,and lris statementson Westernand Chinese culture are olten unreliablein termsoi hisioricalfact. His writiDgs have limited scbolarly value, and aÍe bestrcgarded as the agitatedproducts of bis acute feeling of cultural cÍisis. Although this sen-seoi culiural cÍisis is sharedby many peoplein today's China,Liu Xiaobois exceptionallyicon@lastic and aggÍessive. However, his writings expressa genuineadmiration lbr Westcm philosophy (especiallyKant) alld liteÍature (especiallyShakespeaÍe). This papeÍ describeswhat Liu believes to be the root causesof tlÈ cÍisis in Chincseliteraturc and thought,and what Westemplilosophy can contributc to their regeneration.lt alsoaims to explain what the reasonis fcÍ the particularbias in Liu's ideas on China andthe Wcst, by showingthat he has organisedthem along the lines of an :lrtificial con- ceptualframewoÍk which he pÍojectsonÍl) Chineseand Westem history. Thebasic stÍucture of hisidetus is thedualistic opposition bêtween 'rcason' (ltirg) and'feeling' Ganxin , and it is dris dualistic mafix which has largely dcterminedhis appÍoachto Westcm philosophicalidear. Although much of Liu's cÍiticismof Chineseculture and sociêty has bcen in- spiÍed,or Íeinforced,by hisklowledge of Westemphilosophy, there are ceÍtain problenN of inter nal consistencyin his useof Westenlideas which aÍe theresult of his attemptto foÍce theminto this naÍow and aftificial framewoík. In Liu's view, theÍeis an etemalbattle in society,which is reflectedin philosophicalthought, betweenthc lorces oi'rcason' (ÍepÍesentingorder, asceticism,and the poweÍ of the colleotiveoveÍ the individual) andthe foÍces of'Iegling' (rcprescntingcreativity, life enjoyment,and the mncÍ Íc- sistanceof the individual to the poweÍ of the collective).This paperargues that Liu hasformulated this dualism as a Íeactionagainst the inierpÍetationoi KanÍ by the MaÍxist philosopherLi Zehou

10 Scrializedin the Hong Kong màgàzine7-nei9nins dtjing 1989-1990.It wàs publishedas a hook nfieÍ rhe Í|Íle ZhonBB,o ddasdai zhe E2hi yu Zhongg@ zhish;íznzi. (Taibei: Tangshan chubanshe, 1990), with a PostscÍipl\ÀriÍcn by tle authoÍ in May 1989. An annoratedEnglish translàtionot {he Posreripr by GeremieBa.nné can be four'd in PtubbM of Conntoirn, January/April1991. pp. 113 18. For a suunnaryoí Lio's aÍicle, se€Helnut MaÍin, "WaÍum China in eine Phasedêr Stagnationgêraten isr Die Liellektuellen scheltedes Dr. Liu Xiaobo" (Why China has làndedin a phaseof stagnation:Dr. Liu Xiaobo's íulni.arions againstthe intêlle.tuàls"),in BerndEben!Èin ànd Brunh;ld Stajger(ed9. CÀ;ra lVeB. indi.Weh: Festschrirt Íar WolÍga^B F runke zum 80. GebuÍstag, (Hxmb]!lg: 1992), W. 1O3U . 115

on dÈ basisof his 'sedimenlalion{heory'. In thistleory, Li Zehouascribes the human capacity lbr creativityand progress to societyas a whole,whilc he associateslhe individual willl lhemere biol- ogjcaland animal side of humannaturc. Liu Xiaobojs fiercelyopposed to this view,as it de-em- phasisesthc individualismand lhe dualismin K:mt'sphjlosophy in favouroí a Marxist-Leninist celebrationof dlehiiloric progress of thehumm coller:tive. Thjs studyshows how Liu hasprojected his dichotomy betwe€n reason alrd leeling onto lhc his- tory of Westemphilosophy, by opposingKant to Hegel.Kanl, arrd the currents of philosophyin spiÍedby hiÍl (Liu sinSlesoul Existeníialismand the plilosophy of scicncc)are group(d loSetheÍ with Britishfiberalism as the championsof individuallibeÍty tuid spontaneouscreativiry, whilc Hegelaod orthodox Communism arc portrayed as the high-priests of rcason,collectjvc ordeÍ, and historicaideteÍminism. Apfft from explainingthe stnrcture ard contentsof Liu's dichotomousoutlook oo Chinaand the West,this studyalso aims to contributeto a betterunderslimding ol Liu Xiaobo'sathtude towaÍd Nietzsche.While thc importanceof Kant iD Liu's thoughthes not pÍeviouslybecn discussed, the influence of Nietzscheis assumedto be ereat-This study points out that this pictuÍe needsto be modificdconsidêrably. It Àrgues that Nietzsche's main contribution to Liu's culluralcriticism har beenthe duality belween óe Apollonianand the Dionysian principles, as setloíllJi\The Bírth of TruBetly.It is shownthat Liu usesthis Nietzscheàndualism to enrich the contentof bis roa_ sonfeelingdichotomy. While Nietzsche's image ol ApoÍo neadyfits into lheChinese set of asso- ciations conncctedwith /irirg, the figure of Dionysus addsto the conccpt of Bawing a m?Jked emphasison thedark, hidden sides of man'! instinctuallife eneÍ8ies,such its tbe innateurge ÍbÍ self-assertion,violcnce, dcstruction, and sexual abandon. The FÍeud and Nietzsche revival in posf Mao Chinais parllybased on (ïc discoveryofman's gruesome and iÍalional sidesduring the pol- itical violenceof the 'CulturalRevolution', which staÍkly contmdicted the ophmismabout man's rationalily andperfectibility asexpÍessed in Confucianismai well asin Marxism. The fact thatLiu quotesextensively fÍom Nielzsche,Freud, SaÍre, and Camushas led to the view thathe is a 'nihilist'.HoweveÍ, it shouldbe emphasisedthal he alsoputs much emphasis on conceptswhich Nielzscheand tÀe early Sart e both rejected,namely human riShÍs, Kant's cate- gorical imperative,ihe pÍogressof mankind in history, the impoÍance of the idea oI original sin foÍ morality, anda contÍacIaÍian,Lockean view of liberly. This study,while pointi[g out the inter- nal tensionsin Liu's tboughtwhich rcsult from hisintermingling of libeÍalismand ExistenÍalism, alsosets out to explainthcse tensions, by pointingout thepeculiantres of hisdualisn. I16 WOEILIEN CHONG

Liu's Áttack oh Li ZehoutAn Existentialistvs. a Màrxist lnterpretationof Kant Thetitle of Liu's bookCritíque of Choice,iÍtwhich he?ttacks Li Zehou,refers to thelatter's work on KanL whichis entitledÁ Criííqueof he Criical Philosophy:A Commentar!on Rant-rlLru obviouslyattacks Li foÍ viewssr'hiriih he expÍessesin thatbook, but withoutspecilying which of Li's viewshe objêclsto. TheÍeasoÍ is, ashe statesin the heface,that he docsnot wantto locus his attackon Li personally,but airrrsat criticisingthe wholementalily which he believesLi ÍepÍe senls.As Liu doesnot explicitlydcscribe this mentality either, fte readeÍhas a hardtime finding out whathe is acluallyattacking so vehcmently.lt can only be reconstructedby readingLi Zc- hou'sbook, md piecinglogethcr dre various passages in whichhe expresscs his peÍsonal views on Kant'sphilosophy. The piciurcwhicil thenemeÍges is quiteclear Liu Xiaobosharply disagrees with Li's MarxistÍeformulation of the Karrtianphilosophy, and prefers to iÍerpret it in Existren- tialilt(Sarucan, lerms. Lr Zehuu, tor hi( paí. hásnot dei8 cd to a.ns\eí Liu s arLack.l2 Li haspÍesented an eltensiveand detailed exposition of tbc KantiaDphilosophy, as well as his own suggestionsas to how thisphilosophy can be íevisedusing the teÍminologyof historicalma- terialism.His book is a majorconÍibution to thc studyof Kant in post-MaoChina, buí for our presentpurposes, a short sunmary of hisos.'n relormulation must sutfi(e.lr Li helievesrhat lis re- loÍmulationmai.cs it possibleto absoÍbthe Kantianviews on epistcmology,ethics and aesthetics into MaÍxism,thcrcby enÍiching the laÍer's conteutand bÍoadeningits scope.In Li's opinion. Kant's gÍcatestconlÍibution lies in his discoverythat humanbeings aÍe capableof scienÍfic knowledgebecause thcy arc equippedwith d lrri.r,.istructures of the undcrstanding.The undêÍ standiÍf!,aocording to Kanl, is oot a passivcrecipient oI senseimpressions, buI possessesan d p,'rorislÍucture which make empirical exp€ricDcc possible in thelirst placc,by activelyoÍgaflising thc senseimpressionr! into mciuringfulpattems. This, accordingto Li Zehou,is a vicw on human hrowledge which is faÍ more satisfactorythan the conventionalMarxist theory of the mind as a 'mirÍoÍ'uhich p:lssivelyreflecs ubjc,:rive realiry. a HoweveÍ,in ordcrto be acc€ptableto Marxism,Kant's ., prioli structurescaDnoÍ be acceptedas belnglruly d prrori,i.e. completely indepeudcnt oi all expeÍience.Li emphasisesthat according to historicalmatelialism, all aspectsof the life of the mind mustbe Íegardedas prod cts ofthehis- toÍical practic€of humans@icty in making and using tools and transfoming its mateÍial environ- ment.FoÍ thisrearon, Li hasfomulated his 'sedimenlationthcory' 0liarl!r?), accoÍdingto which all Kanljana prio arrd'transcendental'structures are actually'deposits' oÍ 'seilimenta[onsin

11 Li 7Èho\,Pipan,hzxre d. pipo: Kansà. rilapr,g, Geijjngr Renminchubanshe, 1979, rev. ed. 1984,repr. 1986). 12 Seehis rcmaÍks on Liu Xaoboin Lin Yushenget al. (eds),W6,i d,rr@n .l€ldnr; (TheMÀy FouÍh MovemenrPluralistic Reflectiont, (Hons Kong: Sanlian, 1989), pp.2ó0 62. 13 Iam cunentlypÍepdir8 À more detail€d study of Li Zehou'sviews on Kant. 14 Lt7Íh .Pipan/hau. Jr prln.p 425. dle cerebrêlcorlex of eachindividual. They containthe accumulaledpiacrical cxpeÍiencc of hunlaÍ societyin iIs pÍogÍesstlDough hislory. Li cmphasisesthat what the itdivic,ual idrerits fíom his ÍbÍbears arc not contents, but fonnal sfucurcs: the co lents vary accordirg to time and place.l5These formal structurcs aÍe d prrorl from the view?ointol theindividual, but i? po'dior.i (denvedfÍom expericnce)froÍr theviewpoint of socictyin its histoÍicitldcvclopment. According to Li, drestudies by theSwiss psychologist Piaget have demonsfated thar earh indjvidual chitd al readypossesses licrn birlh theïomlal mcntalstÍuclures which enable it to organiscits sensoryex- periencesand accumulate knowlcdge. They lbrm a latentpotential which has to be.levelopedby iÍteractingwith theconcrete enviÍoomerll in a sociaiconIexl -dsLi explains,his own 'sedimcnta- tiorlllrer,ry'ijanc\rrat'olxLi,'nulPiagel .ruidrrr,'st.rmar*rrrdasauhole.l' Sincc dreformal structuÍcsof the undeÍsttuldingwe inlreÍil nre the productsof the labou. of man in thecontcxt of society(Ínaking tnd usingtools in orderk) dominal,enatuÍe), it is smietyor man kind asa wholewhich píomotes development and progress, not theindividual. AprÍt fÍom socicty, fie individuafwould merely be hatuÍalmiut'(ziratL:dnq d?) or'aÍ]|-j]r.alman' (íIongwLrlrgde); he wouldbe a meÍesensual bcing (gaarrng dír) and incapabte of partakingof thc life oíÍeasor(/ir,rg ? ./,,). ai e\prc.scdIn lmowledge.ethic(. irnd xesriêric\. Li Zehou's'sedimcDtation theory' is a phylogeneticinterpÍetatjon of the Kantianphitosophy whichKiurt would have found toially irelevant,since hc, asLi Zehouadmits. explicitly stated ttrat he wasnot concemedwith the empiricaloÍigins of hrowledge,but with theformal conditions 01 how il is possibleand what il,t lilr1i6are. However, by hking recourseto psychologyand evol, utionarybiology, Li Zchouaimed at gettingrid of Ka 's apriorism.ïris, beingidealistic, was iur obstacleto theabsoÍption of re Kantianepistcmology into &e materialistphilosophy of MaD.ism. Li's solutionto ftis pÍoblemconsists in his thesisthat thc srÍucturcsoI t]te understandingare not only |l]'econditíons for empiricalexperience, as Kaní pointed out, bui also$e príJd ctr of collec- tive humanexperience as sooiety cvolves duough history. By addirgthis secondpoint, Li hesat- temptedto adaptthe Kanliam philosophy to therequirements ol historicalmaterialism. Thisexplains the thrust of Liu Xiaobo'sattack: ir is aimedat Li Zehou'sidea that the individual as suchis a nrercsensuàl (g..tLtíng de) or ar']uJJalbcing, and that civilisÀtion is primarilythê pro- ductof reason(/Lyrn8), defined by Li a6the collectivehisioric activity oI 'the labouÍingmassesi. Wrat Liu scemsto objectto is thatLi's sedimenlationtbeory gloriiies 'tle masses'and completely deprivesthe individualof the elevatcdstahts which he occupiesin Kant's phiiosophy,vrewrrg him meÍelyas an insfÍumentof collectiveprogress: an interpretalionwhich Liu finds typically 'Chinesc'as well as'Hegelian'.

1-5 I bi.l.,pp. 160. 411.12.. tó lbi.1.,p.q). l1 Ibid.,I'p. 310-41, 412. 118 WOÊI LIEN CHONG

Allhough Li Zehouadmils that itienation andthe corÍlict bctweenllrc collective andthc individ- ual is 'a seriousproblem' in themodcm world. hc bel&vesdrÀt it canonly bc Íesolvedin the Íu- ture Communistsociety, wlrcn thc individual will be libeÍated from all forms of alienation sup- pressinghim in the realm ofnecessity,and will finally enter the Íealm of frcedom as Marx prophe- sied.l8 ln this Íealm of freedom,accoÍding to Li, all conlradictionsbetween malr and natuÍe, the individual and society,sensual lifc and lhe life ol reason,duty and happinesswill be reconciled ll will b€ ihe roalisationof the arcient Chineseideal of 'the union of Heaven urd ínàn' (tia ren ,àeyi),19and it can be attaincdby working in accoÍdancêwiitr dre objeclive laws of historical de_ velopment.FoÍ society as a whole, this meansto promole economicpÍoduction and scienceand technology(making and using tools). FoÍ thc individual,it meansobcdience to the moralimpera- tive of 'howing the objeclivelaws of histoÍicaldevelopment and prcmoting hisÍodcal progress foÍ the benefit oí society. This is a delibeÍateÍêdefinition of Kant's cÀiegoÍicalimpeÍatlve, according to which maDshould alwaysbe tÍeatedas an end, neveras a means- the woÍd 'man' mearfng the individual person Li' howevêÍ,changed itl meaninSto refeÍ to 'mankind': man as ihe social' tool-making spêciesin its pÍogÍessivedevelopment thÍough hhtory. Titus, Li Zehoutransfo.med Kant's categorical impcra_ tive lÍom a formal, abstÍactpÍinciple inlo a substantialonê aimed at a concÍetegoal' namely the establishme[tof the cornmunist society. Li explainsthat, by emphasisingmaterial Foduction and the 'objeclivelaws of history',he waniedto opposethe 'lêtlist' voluntarismof Mao Zedongand the 'Gangof FouÍ" whichhad led to the disasteÍsof the 'Greatl-eap FoÍward' and the 'CulturalRevolution'.'" ProgÍess does not ariseftom the subjectivewill of anyindividual, nor from erÍaticpolitical campaigns' but fÍom ra_ tionalplanniDg and goal-diÍected social organisation His bookÍepresenls. on theone hand there- tum to L\e classicalMaÍxia! emphasison economicswhich chaÍacterisesíhe post_MaoÍefom progÍamme,while on the otheÍ hand, it is also an attêmptÍ) go beyond nanow ecoft)mism and determinismby following Kant in his concemfor ethics andaesthetics. HoweveÍ' much moÍe Íhan Kant, Li Zehou Íegardsethics and aestheticsas direct mêansfoÍ the reconciliation of Í}le in'livid- ual with the demaDdsof society,in the light of collective progress This is why Liu Xiaobocalls Li's views 'despotic':they celebrate Íational planning aDd social progressto the detÍimentof the emotionaland suttconsciouslife of the individual' and his natural humanÍighti. As we shall see,his attackon Li is basêdon the fundamentaldisagreement between the two men's interpretationsof Kant. FiÍst, Li Zehou believesthat hii sedimentationtheory puts the finishing touch to Kantianismby absorbingiÍ into the Marxist materialistview of historic pÍo-

t8 Ibid.,pp. 413. 41'7 . t9 Ibid.,p.419. 2t) 1b1.,p.362. 119

gressÍrward theperfect socieg/, while Liu Xiaoboemphasises the dualistic aspects in theKantiaD philosophy,which he, inspired by Sarbe,tends to regardat a tragicphilosophy of man'sinlerent limitationsand his incapacityto attainperfection. Secondly,Li Zehouhrs rcdefinedKant,s cal,egorical imperalivc in oÍdeÍto pÍovidethe individ, ual with a rcnewedmoral sensc ofdiÍeclion: on the basjsofhis knowledgeof theobjective laws ol history,hc shouldunderstaod that his duty is to seÍvcthe progressof societyi).s a whole.Thus, while Kant had put greatemphasis on separatingknowlcdge and moralsinlo two auronomous reallrs,Li ZehouÍeconnects thcm, implying that moralscan somehowbe deducedfrom lorowl edgê. In contrast,Liu Xiaoboholds fast to Kant'soriginal meaning ílat it is theindividual, no|man- kind' or 'society'which slbuld alwaysbe regardedas an endin itself,never .Ls means. Moreover.i, he docsnot ÍegaÍdmoriÍs asbeing deducible fmm knowledge,hut asbased on choice.With Sar lre, he bclieveslhat drischoice is irreduciblcto anythingoutside re individualperson. Hc holds thata person'strue humánitj/ does not lic in servingsociety, bul in makiDghis own choicesin life, i.e.absolute autonomy. Liu's SartreaDconceptjon ofchoice is basedon theSartrean conception of historyas possessing no predetermineddirection or structure,wlich meansthat it can provide no guidelinesfor the choicesone has to make.For thisreason, one's freedon to chooseis absolute.For Li Zehou,his- tory doer havea predeterminedgoat, namely the comingoi Communistsociety, and man's free- dom of choic€is limitedto choosingbetween supporting thc buildingof Communismand resis! .mên ing it. Obviously,lhetwo meninterpret crucial concepts lite asthe end in itself', 'history', 'frcedom',and 'choice'in completely dií{erent and irreconcilable ways.

The BasicFràme\york: The OppositionBetrveen Reason atrd Feeling Knowingthat Liu êttacksLi Zeboufor his paÍicular interpretationof Kanrmakes Liu's writings, which seemsomewhal eÍratic at first sight, much easierto understand.His aÍgumentsc;[], with some effort, be ÍeconstructediÍom the section entitled "Beauty Lies in ConÍlicÍ" io his book Critiq@ of Choice, and various passagestn tns Tfu. Fog of MeíaprJri.s. In the fiÍst souÍce,Liu statesthat the story of civilisation revolvesaround Íhe battle between re foÍces of oroer alro rca_ (liirg, son Nietzsche'sApollonian principle), and dre forces of spontaneityafli feelingGdrxrrg, Niefzsche'sDionysian principle) which stimulate man to exploÍethe world thÍough intuition (rl?i- juegan)."' Lilj re9uds feetng as fte innatecapaci6/ of the inlividual to standin a direct, intuitve Íelationshipto the unfathomablecomllexity of reality, and inl,eractwitt it in an active andcreative

,intuirion' 2l Critiqk, pp. 138-51.In view of LiD's inleres!in Kanr, ir shouldbe Íored hcre lhar is not used in this srudy as tle trànslarionof Kanr's rechnlc?,1rermAns.haakng (znlskn in Chinese).Unlike Li Zehou, Liu is not concemedwith Kant's technicaldetails on rhe rcldionship betweensense imDÍessions and thed p/ir.i struclureofrheundcrsrandiís. I2I) WOETLIEN CH(,NC

malmer,while Íeason is meÍelycapable of producingabsíact and aÍlillcial rulcs, pattems, anrl ca_ legoÍies wlich it attemptsto imposeby force upon realty in ordeÍ to makc it serveits own naÍow ênds. Wheredoes Liu Xieobo'steÍminology come from? I would a.guethêt the main sourceis Li Zehou himseli, who usedlhe termsgdrdirg tuid /ixirg in his Kant book_In analysingKant's epi- siemology,Li Tfhou usedthe terms gordinl andlÀir8 to ÍanslateKanl,s pÍecise techdcal tcrmi- nologyof'sense' (,tinnlic,hl?ir, nan's faculb7to ÍeceivesclNe impÍessions fron objectsoutside him) and 'reason' (yer"runt, man's laculty to provrde the tt priorí pÍi|ciplcs of knowledge).Ac cordingto Kant,empirical lorowledge is obtainedÀs a resulïof the activi6,of Ihe understandjng. which appliesils own folmal, non empiÍicalpdnciplcs to the mateÍialgiveD 1() i! by thc scnses. Takcnin isolation,ncitheÍ sense impressions nor the formal pÍinciplcsin rcmselvesconsttuG empirical lanowledge. Now, in his own sedimentationlhêoÍy, Li usedthese teÍms not in an epistemotogical,but ill an anthropologicalway, associatinggarBirg with the animal natureoi the individual, and /iràg with the accumulatedpractical cxperience of s(rcictyin iÍs historicalprogÍess, as physically ,sedimen- !ed' or 'condeDsed'in the cerebralconcx ol each individual. Thus, Li Zehou had already em ployed lhe two termJin a way which contrastredthe individual to society.He ascribedthe human capacityÍbÍ creativityand progress to societyas a collectiveentify. while associatÍrg thc irulivid- ualwith themeÍe biological side of bumannaure. WhatLiu Xiaoboactually did wasto takeover Li Zehou'sdistinction betwcen gdnai g andl.r lrg, andredefinc their meaning in a way whichwas exactly opposite to Li,s: he definedg.rfiilrg asthe cÍeativeemotional and subconscioos lilè of the individual(the Chincsc woÍd gdarirxgdoes not orJy mean'sense, pcrceptual', but alsosimply 'íeeling'),while deiining/rrirg irsthe humnn faculÍy which is responsiblefor the stultifying conseÍvatismof society. In its deliberateinveÍsion of Li Zehou'sviewpoint, Liu's dichotomyechoes the [aditional Ctinese opposition between Confuci:uism, which was associatedwilh rcason iuld oÍder, and Taoism, which was associatedwith anti-dogmatism,spontaneity and cÍeativity. Thc terminology with whichLiu deiendsKant's individualismmay havebeen inspired by tlrcpost-Mao revival oI intcÍestin Taoism,wlich hastaken piace especially among the artislicavant-garde.22 Liu,s hos- tility toward CorÍucius and the paragonof Conlucian virtue, the poetstaiesmaneu yuan (ca. 340-278BC) on the one hand, and his admiÍàtionfoÍ Zhuangzi'sTaoist philosophyon the other, largelyfollow a familiarChinese paradigm of oppositionÍo o hodoxy.Thus, the origiis of Liu's dicholomy arc al least thteefold: Li Zêhou's sedimentationtheory, Nietzsche,sidêas on the oppo-

22 Seêfor exàmpleHans van Dijk, "Painringin PosrMao China: Slyle Developmentsand Theoretical Dcbarss"Parts I and tr. Chino Inforndtia\ yol. VI. Nos. I (p. l5l dnda, WinreÍ tget too2 d,l SpÍing tB2, t2t

si&onbetween fte Apollonianand the Dionysiimprinciples, aud traditional Chl'rese cultural dis,

Liu's attackon Li concentraiedlargely on the iat{er'sviews on aesthetics.Li Zehouis a special- ist in the historymd philosophyoi Chineseaeslhetics, and Liu Xiaobowils, until Jure 1989,a frolèssionalliterary oritic whosename is paÍly bascdoD his doctoralthesis on aesthetics.The divergcncein their views on lhe nature of aÍ and be^uty is parallel to lhe greal difïereDcein their atlitudcstoward the Íelationship between the individuàland sociely. Dle to lack oï space,I must limit myselfhere to outliningl}|e main points ofdiffcrencc. without going into aDydetail. Follov/ingKant's exarl e, Li Zchou regardsaesthetics as rhebddge which conoectsseorlual maDwith the reallnof $e social;md the nnral. He agíecswith KarÍ óat it is becausewe arera- tionalaod social beings that we aÍecapable of mákingaesdretic judgeÍrents, aJrd thal beauty gives a se[sualíorm !o elhicalideals.z] As KanIput it: 'beau(yis tbesymbol of themoÍally good'.2a Liu Xiaobo,howcveÍ, denies that thcrc is a conncctionbctween bcauty and morals. Hc is opposcdk) Li's concepl.ionof beauty,which, he states,is basedon anideal of hamronyand equilibrium. The reasonlbÍ this is Liu's belicf thnÍone's aesDetic pÍeferences reflect one's political value"s: those who hold that beaurylies in haÍmony tlcreby affiIm the existingsocial hierarchyand are tlerefore politically consewativc.TheÍe is a coonection,he writes, betweenthe tÍadilionrl Chineseaestheti- cal prelerenceJor hamony iurd the oppressionof the individual lor the sakeofharmony in the so- cial, economic,iud politicalfields. Liu doesnot put forwardany argumenls to supDortthis vielv; he merelystates that it is'dcmoDsÍatedby experience'. Liu's own viewsolr aí and beaulyare decidedlyanti-harmolÍslic. He doesnot bclievethat beautyis necessaÍilyconneotcd with harmonyard thc morallygood. Going against thê orthodox ConimunistliteÍary critics, he holdsdut aÍt whjchpoÍlrays cor 'licl Àndthe daÍk side oíhumxn na- fure, for examplein the folm of a morally depravedprotagonist, can alsobe beautiftrl.Characteris- tically, Macbclh is one of his favouÍite figures. Also characteristicis fie fact dlat he ignores Kant's emphasison the connectionbetween aesthctics and morals, aÍd focusesexclusively on other statementsby Kant, namely that lhe perceptionof beautyis independcntof any imlÍumental inteÍest,and dratart oÍiginatesIrcm lhe'free play ol the imaginatioD'.Li Zehou,on the otheÍ hand,de-emphasised thesc last two aspects,whilc sbessingthe connection bctwcen aesthetics and morals.According to him, tbe pÍe-occupatioDwith aÍt asthc 'Íiec play of the imagination'led to the notion of l'4,'l pa r l'art, wl\ich destÍoyed'the specificchaÍacteÍistics and significanceof arf.25By tiÍs he meansthat art doesnot existlbr aí's sake,but in oÍderto IulÍil {re specilictask of Íeconciling lhe conÍadictions betweeDman and nature,aíd betweenserse and reason.AÍi is

23 LiZehan.Pipdk,h"ruè de pipan, p. 191. //rtd,pp. 388. 25 1bi.t.,p.393. 122 WOEILIEN CHONG

partof the collectivehuman activiry in buildingcivilisàtion, i.e. the slowhisloric progress of con- queÍingnatuÍe and reconciling the individual with soriety. In all thrcefields discussêd by Kant -- knowledge,moráls, and aesthetics -- Li Zehoupuls the greatestemphasis on Kanfs questior thesupra-individual and fte 'univeÍsallyvalid', interpÍeting it as that which pcrtains to lIrc pÍogressof mankind as a whole: srientiÍic knowledge,the moral imperativeto pÍomole socialprogress, and the taskof aestheticsLo stÍengthen thc sooialfabric. Liu Xiaobo,in conlrast,takes only the subjectiveand individualistic aspects into considerationitruth and Íealitj, ils subjectiveconsructions insteadof objective entities,the individual as an end in it- sell.aDd aÍl asÉc hce playnl theimagioaliL,n. Liu regaÍdsKant asthe foÍerunneÍ of theExistentialist view on manas a dualbcing, the inhabi tantof two etemallyseparatcd woÍlds: llle world of senseand ihe worldofideas. As a Íesult.eaoh individual is divided in hinNeIJ and en8agedin an excruciating private sÍuggle to find thc meaning of life - a stÍugglê which is doomed Ír end in deÍeat.Li Zehou, in contrarjt,discaÍds evorythinSin the Kantian philosophy tlnt point-sto a woÍld ol idea.sÍranscending tbe world of sense,by transferringeverything that Kant placedin the world of ideasto history as it unlblds in the woÍld of sense.Far from beingdoomed !o be defeated(Sartre), mankind is destinedto conquer the world in a historic pÍocess(Marx): it eleval,esitself Íiom its animalorigins by tÍansfoÍmingna- ture tlrough labouÍ. Obviously, what we seeheÍe is the corÍiontation of Marx's Prometheanhomo íaber eiïh honn lragicus a\d hamodesíheticus of Existentialism. FoÍ Li, the Kantianphilosophy is importantto the developmentof Marxismbecausc it has bÍoughtto light the supra-individualfoundations of science,ethics, and Àesthetics, going beyond everythingthat is merelypersonal, subjective and emotional, iurd uncovering thaÍ which is univer- salto the wholeofmankjnd. Thus, Kantianism can be usedto butfcssthc objectiveand supÍa-in- dividualcharàcter oi Marxism,as againstboth 'Irftist' volunlaÍism(Íeadt Mao, the 'Gangof Four') and the post-Mao'humanists'wbo, according to Li, wish to regardMarxism merely as a lheory of humanistethics.26 He poin6 out that MaÍxism, allhoughcontaining an ethical lheory, is also much moÍe: it is also a theory lor the building of civilisation by economicproduction and scionceand technology (the spirit of the post-Mrc Íeform progrmrme).That is why Kant's ana- ly(is of tle possibilityol objectivelolowledge rs impoÍlant to Marxism.2' The only flaw in Kant's system,in Li's view, is thathe foundedobjective lorowledge in the d priori principlesof humanÍeason. According to Li, it is not sd' Íeally d pridri, but a productof lhe concleie productive, natuÍe-Íansforming pÉctice (thijian\ oÍ human society in its march throughhistory Àslhe tool-making species.It is histoÍic pÍacticewhich cÍeatesthe sfucture ot rca- sonwhich is physically'sedimented' in thc bÍainof eachindividual. Reason is simplythc product

26 lb.,pp.429,433. n 1bi.l.,p.443. 123

of historicpfactice which hasbecome paÍ ol our geneticmale-up. It is oÍrly d prlori ftotrl tl]e .l.o viewpointof dreindividual; from thc viewpointof socic6,,it is derivedfrom experiencc. Li, Ka't is oneof fte mostformidable aDalysls oi mankind'scapacities to rearisep.ogress thÍough the .could scientificdomiÍration of nature,allhough, being a bouÍgeoisphikrsophcr. he notyet under_ stand'lheÍole playedby labourin thecivilisation process_ Ultimately, lie stíuggiebetweeD sense andreasoD and bctween man andnature does not tal(eplacc wi rin thc individui psyche(às Liu Xiaoboand Existentialism suggest), but in fie continuousmarch of mankindtlÍough historyto wardthe establisbment of thecommurist s0crery. .the Àllhoughbotll l.-iZehou iuld Liu Xiaoboare predominantly concerncd with hberationof man' (rendt jiefong\,ïhey each mean something complelely diÍïeÍent. For Li Zehou,it prin}arily meansthc libeÍationof the whole ot mafikinc!tÍorrt the consbaintsof natuÍethÍough cconomic pÍoductionand science and technology. lt is not untrlthe arrivalof uÉ Cornmxnistsocrcry, wnen manis Íiccd fÍom the burdenof labour,that the individualwilt bc ahleto developher,&is unique talents.2sTo talk aboutthe liberation ol the individual apartfrom fte level of the productiveforccs of socielyis 'abslrêct'and irÍeleva . Liu Xiaobo,howevcr, believes that the oÍigin of the Íe prcssionof ïheindividual hy socictyis primarilyideological, i.e. rooted in óe normativcview that the valueoI the individualis lessthan that oí socjefyas a wbole.Thus, the liberation of man.to him, meansthe lib€ratior.t o[ t\e irulívidual ï.om solial and political reprcssion,and hc apparently holdstiat tluoughourhistory, this battleha.s always bccn foughÍ primarily in tte field of ideology (religioD,philosophy, politics), nol in thefield of theproductive forces. The corflict betwecnLi andLiu is, at bottom,the conllict between two iÍeconcilableviews on mannnd the world. Liu findsLi Zehou,in his oelebrationof Íeasonand social harmony, an arch,conseÍvative.This js becauseLiu associatcs'reason' witlr lhesocial and politiciÍ powerof thecollective, which ains at unifonnity, coueÍvation, and order, and 'feeling' with the ifitate urge of the iDdivjdualI1) restst uniformity by creêtivity,exploration, and rebellioD.Acoording to Liu, the establisheopowers usuallyappeal k) 'Íeason'in orderto legitimisetheir own powerand pÍivileges (a Nietzschean theme),wlile they rigorouslysuppress 'feeling', fearing its subvenivepotential (a Freudian theme).The fateof any civilisationdepends on whetherreason and feeling can be keptin equili_ brium. The declineof China,in Liu's opinion,is the Íesultof the rrotaloppression ol .feeling,, .reason, which is the sourceof life foÍ the unique,cÍcative individuat, by the of thecolleotive, .Reason' which cannotcreate anything new andmerely conserves whêt alÍeady exists. is saidto dominaÍeChinese culture iD the Íbrm of Confuciiurismand Hegelianism,under tbe guisc ot Mar_ xism. ,rationalism' This arsociationof Confuciusand Hêgel with is not so muchbased on an ani[ysis ol their philosophicalpÍemises, as on a peculiarityof the Chineselanguage. Tte Chinesecharacter l8 124 WOEILIEN CHONG

foÍ 'Íeason','ordeÍ prinpiple', li, is alsoused in the word ldoli, whichhas connotations of .moral ordeÍ' and 'truth'. The samecharacteÍ is alsoused in the Chincseierm for Hegcl'sconcept of Geijt (Reasonor Spirit).Liu holdsthat the individualis beingrcprcssed in Chinabecause rhe C-otrfucianideas ol moral ordeÍ (daoli) were combinedwith the Hegelianview of hisiory undeÍ- lying Communism,that the unfolding of AbsoluteReasoí Quedaílinian) in history constitutcsthe rêalisationof a pÍedeterminedcollective goal, niuncly the ideal society. ln otheÍwords, the ConÍu- cianidea that fie individualshould sacrif:ce his own interests{or thesake of socialharmony was reinlbrcedby the intÍoductioninto Chinaof Marxism,which is basedon the Hegelianidea that histoÍyinexorably works loward thc reconciliationof theindividual wilh thc collectiveoÍdeÍ and the ensuingattainment oi social harmony.In this process,according to Liu, Hegel wns .Confucia nised'29,and, one may add,Confucius 'Hegeliaiised'. The Íealisationof the traditionalChincse ideal of social hamony was now believed1,0 te lhe ultimatc end of Histrory,to be attainedby un conditional submissionto the CornmunistParty. If it is a"ssumedthat the crisis of Chincseculture and societyis duc to the repÍessionof the crca- tivity of the individual('feeling') Ior drcsake of an abstÍactcollective goal (as coNtrued by ,rea- son'), then it can plausibly be arguedthat they can be regeneÍatedby decreÍLsingthe presentover- weeningpoweÍ oï'reason' andallowing more scopc Íor'feeling'. Apparcntty,Liu believesthat this can be done by replacing existing institutions by liberal and dermcratic oncs. This is wheÍe the Nietzscheanand Freudian tfueads in his thoughtcome togethêÍ with his Lockeanlitleralism. As the CommunistParty, accoÍdingto Liu, has made 'ÍflLson' (the lbrces ol ordeÍ and coÍtlol) dominantnot only in politics,but alsoin economics,society, and ideology, its powermust bc Íe- ducedin all thesefields simultaneously,by replaciDgir wit}l 'lèeling' (the forcesof indjvidual fÍeedom,spontaneity aÍld enterprise), namely the establishment of a democÍaticpolitical system, a marketeconomy, and individualistic ways of thought.In thelbllowing section,we will seehow, accordingto Liu, the mechanismworked wherebythe Chinesequest ioÍ social haÍmony led to lhe Íepíessionof the individual.

Confucianismand Communism It was lhe disasterof the 'CultuÍalRevolution' which led Liu, as so many otheÍs,io regard ChineseCoÍÍununism not as a brcak with, bui as a continuarionof faditional Chinesedespotism. He was elevenyeals old when the 'Cultural Rcvolution' began,and his pareutsbelonged to diffeÍ- ent faclions. They continuedtheiÍ political argumentsat home! so that Liu and his elder bíothers, who joined the Red Guards,were fully cxposedto the politisation oí lifc in thosedays. One day, Liu haÍassedan old man, a fomter Guomindangmember, so leÍociously that tlrc victim fell to his knees and begged the boy to spare his lÍfe, shouting: 'Leam ftom the Little Red

29 Seethe s@tion'Chinàànd theHegelian Heritagc'below Guards!'Later, Liu was to wonder how DrillioD,sof peoplecould so ealily haveaccepted Mao,s call to wage'class-struggre'among themselvcs,and evcuvenerate chairmar:ras a sainr.30 He hastied to Íevcaltbe '. socialiuld psychologicaltechniques by whichthe CoÍmunistregime exploitcdlraditional Confucianist valuesand attitudcs,especially amoDg intellectuals, lbÍ their own ends_Chinese political .Ícitson,, culture,he holds,is donjnntedby as jt empnaslsessocial orderand uniformity nlore than indivi.firal freedomaDd duriformity. It is monisticCr'ljtdnJ, as it ÍegaÍdsthe politicaiorder as sacrosán.:t,making llo distinctionbetwceD c tics, Íehgion,and politics.The struggle for power .ftood, .bad, is intcrprcteda.\ a moÍalbattle bctween and men.and thisslruggle is believcdtJ havc repcrcussios on thc entirecosmos. DespotjsÍl is seenas lfte result ol thebehêviour ol'bad mcn,,never as the co scquenceofthe politicalsystcn itsclf. The origfuof this confounding of ethicsard politics,according to Liu, lies in the iraditional Confucianbelicf 0tatthe .supcrior man,,by cutívatinghimself morally, is abjeto controtevery, thin8 underbeaven, both the _cosmrc workl ol socirl relationshipsand physical nature. This ho- lism' (the union of Heaven dritdÍBadit, íían ren.rsli) has led to a preoccupationwil}l the slrcngth cningof centralpower, witl the resullthat no systcnlatioconstraints on power(denocracy) were ever established,and Irr4tscience ncveÍ deveropedbeyond the direct utirita.iannse.ls oí thc state.3rIn his view, dle fact UratLi Zehouuses llre archaicpiÍase tian ren he\i todesfirbcthe communistparadisc iilusrÍates 0ie continuitybetwcen coDfucianism and Marxism.32Even in post-MaoChina, Liu wÍote, .Cultural tbenainstreim cÍitics blamed the Revolution,,ancl iater the stagnationof DengXiaoping's ,bad, ,erroneous, refoml progÍamme,on personsand poljcylines, ignoringtle fact thatit was the commu'ist polilicalsystem itselr which had caused thcse disas_ ters,and ftat drissystem feeds on the totalitarianConfucian vàlue_systcm which still pe$tslsin a MarxistLeninist guise.3:r consequeníry,he hadno[ring bul scornÍbr the ,Roots,movcment (ïrrl g?r), whichwriters and arlists hadlaunched in Íre hopeoffinding a basisin ChiÍeseÍadjtion foí the regencrationof thcir self-identity.3a Alreadyin a speechol Septefi]bei19g6, he warnedthat the 'celebration of traditionalculture' in post-Maoliterature was a signofcrisis.:rs Not surprisingly'Liu was appallcdby dre 'neo-confucian'movement (rn R&ure),wrth which Li Zehouevcnhrally became associated,as well as by the neo_authoritarianmovemeni krn or.rr,

3A Zh.nïnins, Lulus! 1989, p. 90. 31 Zhensniks,M^tch 1939,p;. ó8 71. 32 Lizehau, Pipanztz ue te pipdn,p.4\9. Ac.ordin€ to Liu, thc boc,kwrilic; ya 13 by n Jiaqi and GÀa Gaa,tï enhua ddse mins shitiah shi (Thc Cultural Revolution-. A Hjstorv of Ten yersiis an examplÈof lhis. Sce7_á"n8rMs, March 1989,p. ó9. t.hc book is bannedon $e Chinse ma;nlan.l 34 Critiqle, p. 232,an t Fos, p. 463. 35 'Weijil Xin shiqi weniue mianlin wèiij,.(Crisjs! The LiteràluÍeof rheNew Age is FêcnrgCrisist), Shenzhenqirynianbuo,3 &tober ,,Zai t9Só. Seeak; rhe sequct lun xií shiqi wenxuemjaniin werji.,(Fuíher conrmen(son thc crisis Facins theLiterarurc or thcNewÀse), Bdii4, resri, i.;. i,;;. i;:;ft; , B**é, ''confession, p. 55. 126 WOEILIEN CHONG

wei zhuj, la\rnchedby the suppoÍtersof the Íeform-mindedParty-leadeÍs Hu Yaobangand z?rao Ziyang. Thesepeople argued thaÍ, in view of the sÍaglaion oÍ the refoÍm progÍíunme,the íime was Íipe lor an eolighteneddictator io stepforward in oÍder to fmce the anti-ÍefoÍm gÍoupsto give up their Íesistance.36Faced with such ideas,Liu Xiaobo angrily wïote: '... the power neededto oveÍhow despotismcannot come from desptism itself. A so- ciety dominatedby despotism,personal dictatorship and a monolithic ideology is lsubject iol barbaÍic,inhuman feudalism, d the only effeclive weaponagainst it is its opposite:a democraticsystem- A democraticsystem opposes impcÍial power, sdjial hierarchy, dic- tatorship ard despotism,by meansof humanrights, equality, freedom and democÍacy;it uses"rule of lew" lo replace"rule of man", and a privnte economyánd a iree marketto Íe, place Stateownership ard central plaming. ln other woÍds, it usesmodeÍn capilalism to replacedre desp)tism which is disguisedas socizrlism.'17 He concludedthat Chineseintcllectuals, far from being óle to criticise the system,were still com- pletêly absoÍbedin it, and that this was tbe result of the persistenceof three fundaÍnentalideas from Chinesetradition: frÍst, the idea that the social order is sacÍosanct,as it miroÍs Urecosmic otder (li r ren heyi); second,that the peoplê,regarded as an anonymouscollective, instêadof as an ass@iatronof individuals,are the loundation ol the staie(n rxáenrài,al'l); ihird, thal the intel- lectual's duty is to servê tfte rulcÍ as a scholar-official with unconditional loy^lty (Kong yan .enge\.38 The Chineseeóos of blind obedienceto cenhal poweÍ, Liu said, not oí y facilitateslotalitarian- ism, it invites it- EspeciallytheiÍ exclusive pre-occupation\.ith 'the people's livelihood' made it easyfor Chineseintell€ctuals to acceptthe legitimacy of the Conmunist Party. It was this attitude whichMao Zedong,although he hadabolished Confucianism in narne,exploited when he 're-edu- cated' the intelleclualsinio absolutesubmission io the 'labouring masses'.3'In fact, Liu stated,the cult of the peasanfy is a hoax. The poweí of the totalitaÍian systemis basedon Íheir povcÍy and ignoÍance,so this power can only be bÍoken by frrst transfoming the peasantryinto an 'industÍial

36 SeoJoèl Tholaval. "D'oir vienl Ia lumièÍedu despote?ou des aporiesdu néo-auloritárismochinois", Izs TenpsModzÍMs'PsJis, Vol. XLIV, No. 516,July 1988,pp. 1-21;Ma ShuYun, "TheRis€ and FaU of Neo Authoritarianismin Cbta^", Chi"a l4omatiot, Vol. V, No. 3, Whter l9q) 1991,pp. 1,18;Barry Saut- man, Sirensof rheStrongman: Neo-Authoritarianism in Recent Chinese Political'lheory" , C hi n Q@tt rly, No. 129, Marc$ 1992,pp. '72-102.FoÍ rÍznslationsof a numberof basictexrs, s€€Michel Ok-senbcrs,láw renceR. Sulivan, MaÍc Lamt€rt (eds).A"i;r8 Sp,.ins, 1989:ConÍont tion and Cortqit - The 86í. Docu- tur6, (Armonk/-.ondon:M.E. sharpe1990),pp. 123 50. 37 Zhengnins, MLÍch 1989,p.71. However,Ma Shu Yun arguesthat N€D-Authoritariadsmin the 1980swas, in fact. a radical anti-Cotununislprograrrune as il aimed at the eslablishmentof a fully,fledgei narketecinomy. SèeMaShu Yun. "The Rise and Fall" 38 Liu Xiaobo,Zá€nsmíns, Mrch 1989,p. 68, July 1989,pp. ?4-7?,and AuSust1989, pp. 9G91. Writs jounalisr Liu Binyan is, for Liu Xiaobo, the classic $nte8pora./ exaírlpleof rhe loyal Communist scholar-oincial.S€e his aila€ko\VruBiryan iÍ Zhensmi^s,April 1989,p. 80. 39 Zhe s,1.,.iáE,Sept3.riÊÍ1989, pp. 88-90;end Nov€'nb€I 1989,pp. 72 74- proietariat' .post-modem, andthen into a ciiizerry.a Liu Xiaobo blamedlhe intellectuals.not only for .Cujtural havingwoÍkcd lor Mao's pÍopagarda-appá.ratusduring the Revolutron,,but also for the lact ïhat afterwards,Íhey had lavishly indutgcdin self pify, complainitg thaÍ Mao had victimiscdthem, whiie convenjently forgctting that Íhey had assisted him in ca.ryingL,uL nts per- secutioos.Even today, he biÍerly remarked,they sti do not seetle needto examinethef oDlr coÍtscicnce.al

A DualisticAccount of Westernphilosophy In ordcr to hold up a mirror to the Chinese,Liu wrote a book on tie hisl,oryof Westemphilos_ ophy,entr edIác ,F'ogd/ MetaphJsi!:s.HewanÍed to showthe confast between the rich diveÍsity of subjectmatteÍ, schools, and personaliticsin Wcstemphilosophy ard what he regaÍdsas the te, dious uniíoÍmib' of Chinesethought.a2 Thus, the book servesboÍh a descripÍve and a polemtcal objective,of whiLh,for our pLrposes, the first is of lesserimpoÍtance. As Liu explainsin thehetac€, he doesnot readary othcrlanguage than ChiDese, and although he hasconsulted Chinese tnnslations of a numbeÍof originalphilosophical works, his book ob_ viouslydÍaws heavily on secondarymaterials. In its descÍiptiveparts, it givesthe impressionof being laÍgely a compilationoï quotesfÍom otheÍ, often unidentified, souíces.For example,iÍ the scctionson Westemphilosophy of Antiquity and the Middle Ages, the book quotesenuÍe para graphs alnost verbafim from the Chinesetranslation of Bertrard R$sell's Hisíory of Wesíerh PhilosophJ, in most caseswit}lout acknowledgements.Al Liu's book thus follows traditioÍal Chinesecustom rather than the sÍringentrules of modemscholarship, it is very difficult ro tace the sourcesof the aÍgumenlsand ideasput forward in the text. However,thc auftor emphasisesin &e PÍefacedlat he is oot trainedin philosophy,and &at thebook is not intendcdas an exercise In technicalphilosophical exegesis. FoÍ our purposes,it is sufficientto concentrateon lhe polemical E)int Liu intendsto make. He arguesthat in Westemthought,.rea.son'and tbe questfoÍ socialhírmony wêÍegÍadually abandoned,and'feeling'ard thc inteÍestsof the individualincrea"singly emphasised. Liu holds that Westemphilosophy was oíginally similar to Chinesethought insofar as it failed to diffeÍen, tratefte individual (8?rcn)fÍom the collective (q unti). LateÍ, howeveí, the idea of drelieedom and autonomyofthe individualvis-à-vis naturc and society gÍadually developed. He callsthis amove_ .metaphysics', mentaway ftom 'metaphysics'to 'anti-metaphysics'.By hemeans the tendency to reduceeverything to a single,absolute principle to theexclusion ofall otier principles.The titte oÍ

4l FoB,p.42\. 4.) A:cusl ?ld-qnins, 1989,pp. 90-91i seprember 1989, p. 90;odobeÍ 1989,pp. ó&70. 42 Liu Xaobo,"Kuànswang bi zaolianze, (Hubris Will b€punished by H.urin), Ungb,n V*k",, lru, gusl 1989,p!. 34 37.The Chinese word t?.lngrdrS meansaÍogance, bur Liu usesit xs th;ranslarionofrhc Greekterm r,órà, whichspecificalty means hunran anogancê (,pride') roward rhe gods. 128 WOEILIEN CHONG

his book rcfers to his idea that Weslcm philosophy, by becoming pluralistic (drolrldr). has al- Íeadydriven awaylhe'íog of mctaphysics',while it still loomslaÍge in Chinesephilosophy, which still rcmainsmonistic ()ir!rr). His freatrnentoï individualWesrem philosophêrs largcly consistsof thc attemptto detemineto whatexlent each thinkeÍ emphasised 'reason' and the intcr estsof societyon the onehand, and 'feeling' andthe lïe€don of the individual on thc other. In doingthis, he proceedsfÍom theassumption that there is a coDnectionbetwe€n totalíaÍianism and'metaphysics','monism',and'reason'.'Metaphysic'philosophics, he mgues,are invariably aimedat enforcingír uncondidonalbeliel in onesingle tt,llth, and àre usually instruments in fte haDdsol the powerholdersto exactabsolutc obcJicnec from rhefurdrviduat.at Tlrey are based o.ll ar exag8eratedbelief in thecognitive capacities of humanreason. Reason (l.Iifig), he explains,is lhe laculty by which we createthe intellectualand linguisticslÍucturcs aiÍted at oÍganisingoui serNeexpeÍiences into somemcimingful pattrem.Reason does this by making concretethings ab- sÍact anddynamic pÍocesses static, and it Íegardsits own absfactand staÍc produclsas absolute. It is the faculty of thê mind to which society can appealin its effoÍ to peÍsLradethe individual to conform to the pÍevalentsocial norms, at thc cxpcnscof his own cÍeativesell-realisation.aa Opposedto íeasonis fceling kanxi"g), which is the lorce of lile itseÍ. It is the sourceof auton omousthought and action,45 and thereby the sourceoi resistanceagainst reason s ritid networkoI absoluteformulas. A-ssoot àsÍeason ceases io setve the emotioÍrs,and starlsto dominateand sup- pÍêss them, it becomesthe force ol death.'o Totalitarian ideologies aÍe pÍecisely basedon the claimthat reason can reveal absolute and infallible truth. and that the individual must surrendeÍ his lèelingsand intuitions and submit to the dictatesoI rcason,so asnot to disruptsocial harmony.4T PoliticalrêpÍession is supportedby ÍepÍessionof the individual'sdÍives and insíncts,and by channellingsubconscious emotional eneÍgies (FÍeud) into im ethosofloyal serviceand submission to theexisting order.aà Following Nielzsche, Liu believesthat behind all high-soundingappeals to Rcasunand Harmony. drere is alwa)\ a hiddcnpowcÍ iolcÍe\t.14 In Liu's dualisticfÍarnewoÍk, certain concepts, because they aÍe associatedwiÍh totalitarianism, havespecific negative meimings. 'Reason' is seenin oppositionto individua.lfreedom and creativ- ity, andsaid to seÍvethe aims of 'metaphysics'.'Metaphysics'is used in thesense of ideology',a systemof valuesand beliefs aimed at legitimisingthe privilegesof thosein power.'Monism' meansfhe failure to separateethics and politics, i.e. the obscuranístbeliel lhat the statusquo is sa'

43 Fos,pp. 30 31. Critiqre,pp.118139, and pp. 145-146. Ibid..p.2o9. Ibià.,pp.2122. 41 Ibi.l..pp.11213. 48 1bi.1.,pp.11416. On Freudand the subconscious, see Á.srr"ri.r, Chtrplèr5. 49 SeeJiircen Hahernus, Der phiL,sophischeDiskurs .lzt Modan , (FÍ?'nklnÍttm Main: Suhrkmp, 1989).pp .145-53. t2r)

crosancl.'Harmony' is a euphcmismfor thc systematicoppressioD oI tlc individual m lle na$e ol lllc mtercstsof society. ,Asceticism, is opposedto theJxll DionysiaDenjoynrent of lile, itnd re gardedls one oÍ the ,Optinism. oppressivevalucs in Oc ideology of the powcrholdcÍs. ts secnas selJ-deception,and iD opposition ro dre rraBii awarcnersthar idearscrn n*er bc atlaincdin this tíè. l,iu holdsÍhÀt the battleagaiDst totali{arianisn should bc diÍectcdagainst Èe belietin all these concepls'but espccially agaiNt the belief in 'reaso,' iur.l'hannoÍy'. Firs!, the inherent lonitarions ol reason(Kant). and le vital importanceof fceling anÍl intuitioÍr,musi be acknowlcdgeal.Sec, ondly.flre illusoryDaturc oí hanDonyuld tJrcreÀlity oi conflictmust be rccognired_ boththe conflid peÍson ol each wifr arrothers, ar we as$e conÍrictof cachwitrr bimselr.s. l.l,,s is a cru- cialpoiot in Liu's thought_ His intercslin Hobbes,Schopedlaucr, Nietzsche. FÍeud. SaÍtre, iurd Camus is to ar mporunr extentbased on thefact that they are pre_eninently philosophcÍs ofinterpe(oDal and intrapcrsonaj conllicI ándthe powerof drepriDÀl drives_IIl theiÍ writings,hc findssuppoÍt for his own vjcw thatman's predatoÍy behaviourtoward oÍieÍs is iremediable,implying that tl)e ideal society caD neverbe attainedin thisworld. Theynaintain tiat Íàercis a perpetual,violent, and F)tentially de stluctive conflictwithin eachirdividual, and betwcen dle jndiviriualand society. ID ourerwoÍíts, thcy deny,in oppositionto Hegeland co'Íucius, artpossibility of sociarÍeconciriation, as we as lhereconciliation of m:ulwitb himself. ll nay .Chinese seenstriking that Liu, in maintÀiningÍhal philosophy,denics Íhe realjry oï con_ flict, seensto ignoÍcthe cenÍal role ol conftdiction andclass sluggle i, Mao Zcdong,sphilos, ophy' which miny chineseintenectuars today regard as the Íoot causeof the 'culturar Revol, ution'. Alftough Liu doeslrot specificallyaddress this problem,it is possibleto speculaleon his Íeasons tbr not mcntiooingtlÉ classstruggle fieory in this conGxt,on the basisof his ,Contem_ poÍary politics,. ChineseIntellectuals and In this polemicalpiece, Liu considcrsMao,s theory to be an msfirmentofpolilical propaganda,not asa conlribution10 philosophy. In teÍmsoÍ conrenl, fte fundamental oppositiondominating humin societyaccoÍrjing to Mao,stheory is tte opposilron Detwecnclasses, not thnt betwecDindividuals. Moreover, M|o heldfhat theÍeis oneprivileged ctàss(the 'prolctariat') which, becauseit foltowsthc inevitabiecourse ol.HistoÍy, will triurnph ovcÍ lhe otherclasses, who go agai t the histoÍicaltide. What Liu probablyobjects to is tlc fact tàatMao's dreory,although emphasising confadiclion and slruggle, is noi only anti-iDdividualis_ hc, but ,History, alsobascd on thc ideaóat is inexoÍablymoviDg forward towad the idealso_ ciety. ,optimisÍc,,.collectivistic,, ,detcrmnlstic,. Mao's theoryis, in Liu,s tenninology. and He would place it in his categoryof,reason' alongsideHegel, ConJucius, Li Zehou,and the Íest of

50 Ctit;q@,p.119 ll0 WOEILIEN CHONG

what Liu considcrsto be the mainstreamof Chinesetradition. This could be Íhe reasonwhv he doesnot rcgardMao's philosophyas an exceptionto his thesis. Liu staiesthat in contemporaryChina (Íead: the woÍksof Li Zehou),there is still ar exaggerarco belief in the poweÍs of reasonto serveas an inslÍument in the peífectingoI man. Fecling is con- sideredas inferior io reason,and as obstnrcting its pÍoperlunctioning. Metaphysics and science arebolh heldio be objective,rational systcms of thoughtdesigned to find lJuth,in contrastto the blind arbitrarinossol ernotioniÍ life. Liu, in contÍÀst,rejects the exaltationof Íeasonand advocates the liberationoï man'snon-rational facullies. Inspired by FÍeud,he holdsthat all ftuits of the humanspirit (philosophy, science, and art) are primarily products, not of Íeason,but of man,sirÍa_ tional dÍives: chilóood experiences,the unconscious,zmd Ihe emotioir-s.Reason and con- sciousncss,he statres,are only hansformationsof the lifc íorce (rrcfigrirng /i) which animatesouÍ biologicalorganism.sl As we havcseen, this argumentis directlyaimed at Li Zehou'sview on humiutnatuÍe. Aocord- ing to Li Zehou, thc biological ard animal needs of the individual tie him to natuÍc, while he shouldrise above it in orderto conquerit andmake it sewehuman ends. Mám is only oapableof overcominghis animalnature by collectivelabour within the lrameworkot socialurganisation, whichsimultaneously enables him io overcomehis naturalenviÍonÍnênt. Taken in isolattonirom society,the individual is passiveand Íon-creative. Coing againstLi Zehou,Liu holdsthat neither aÍ nor knowledgeare productsof socialisationand molality, but of what Freud calls the sublima- tion oi the emotions,and primitjve drives and needs.Society can neverooulrol theseprimal forces wtnchlie hiddenin theinnemlost recesses of thcmind. ConveÍsely, the individual can dissolve lhe oontÍolof socieryover his mind by recognisingand accepÍ.ing his own feelingsaÍId suboonscious needs.This will arouschis desireto realisehis aspiíations,and bÍing him into conÍlictwith thc exÍenralwoíld. lt is in thrsbaflle Uat his existcnce can find ils only true fulfilnrent.íl Thus, for Liu Xiaobo, art is a privaÍe realm in which the individual can atrainspirituat libeÍation. This automaÍcally bíings him into conÍlict with official CoÍnrnunistfrolicy for àlt, which view! art asan instrumentfoÍ politicalgoals. Citing Kant, Schiller, Schoperhauer, Nietzsche, Bergson, and FÍeud ashis examples,Liu aÍguesthat, although man is not physically lrêe to do as he plea_ses,hc can find fre€dom in the creation alrd enjoyment of art. Art, he sta0es,cán liberate lhe emotions from tho domination of rcason,and thus emancipaiethe individual from his psychotogicalsub- jectionLo srrial norms. and óe llnjrenessofhis u*n exisrence.t' ln this way, art can, althoughor y momentarily,compensate lor the spiritual alienationbctween man and natue :md the withering of the imagination causedby the modem scientiÍic woridview.

51 F.,8,W.56. 52 Ctitíqw , pp. ll3 , 119. 144. 53 1bid., pp. 172'76; Aesth.íi.s, pp. 5-1. l3l

AÍ bílgs backthc primalenchantrnent of Í]rewo.ld, and liberatcsonc's subjectiveemotions, memories,and fantasies from thir usualstate of supprcssionunder the demands of logic,rcrson, utility, andsocial morality. Thus, to createand enjoy works of art is á healingactivity, pÍecisely becauseit is, asKant argued, indepcndent oi any inslrumentalinterest. h providesan altematjve oulletfoÍ whatLju, echoingKanl. callsthe 'metaphysicaluÍge', which would otherwiselead the individualinto embÍacing ralionalistic,'metaphysic' philosophies. Themetaphysical urge, he explains, originatcs in a bÀsicpsychological desiÍe, namely the will to transcendonesell (?ino chltolu? !a:).54 Citj^gqeidegger and Sanre,he maintainsthat man is tom by tlle antinonybetwcen re líniÍalionsof onc's o$.nIioile exisle ce aod his desirefoÍ the in- Íinite:this antinomyis whaimales hunlan exisrcn(e inhcrcntly trrgir.5J In buiklingcu',u.", ..p"- cially philosophyand art, man trieso cÍeateand cnjoy objectsin which the etemaland fagic tonging lbr the inJinirc is expressed,ard in philosophy,his desirelor lhe infinil,Ècharacteristically lead.shim to seekobjective, absolutely certain lmowledge of etemalessences, Àbsolute truth, and uniform goalswhich are ftc samefor the whole of firankind.Monism, the tcndencyto reduceeve- rythingto oneexplanatory principle, is the mosttypical form of the metaphysicalurge.tó Hn*- ever, Liu believesthat the iufinite alrd dle elêmal can never bc found, and ccrtainly not tfuough Íeasonand knowledge. Even if thereis an ultimatc,absolute principle explaining lhe \rholeof re ality,we wouldnot be àbleto knowit. Man muslalways remain within thercalm of hisown sense experience,since he can haveno ceÍain hrcwlcdgcof thingswhich transcendit. Thus,Liu has b€eDinspired by Kantnot only i.&ïis view on aesthetics,but alsoiÍ his lÍanscendentalcÍitiquê of pureÍcason,

From Kant's Attack on DogmaticMetàphysics to Sartre'sExist€ntialism AlthoughLiu's own knowledgeof Kant is probablyfounded on Li's expos;tionof the Kantian philosophy,he shil4)lydisagrees with Li Zehou'sinterpretation. Although they both agrceiiat Kant's'Copemican revolution' in epistemologywas a tumingpoint, ftey disagreeabout its wider implicaiions.What Kant aimedto do was,fiIst, to explainhow ob.jective,scientific knowledge is possible,and secondly, what its limits áIe-We shallse€ that Li Zehouis mostlyinterested in lhc ÍiNt question(the objectivenature ol science),while Liu Xiaobo is màir y intd€si,cdin the second (thequestion wheÍe Íeeson ends and the inational begins). Kant arguedthat we can only acquiÍeknowledge through sensualexpcricncc which is pÍocessed by the human underslandingacmÍding to ils own a p/tor"i principles ánd categorics.It is the 4 pr'Àrri slructure ol- our undcrstandingwhich makes knowledge possible in tic Iint place, and

FoB,pp.'15anl342. 55 lhid.,p. 44ZiAe tttu íirt, p. 4. 5ó Fos,p.5'7. 132 WOEILIEN CHONG

whichguarimtees that scicntific knowledgc is, in Kant'swords, 'universally valid and necessary' (allgemeingíiltíEund rcrrendig), andnot merelysubjertivc. On theolheÍ hand, since it is we who providefte d prior.lsÍuctures of lhe undcÍstanding,our knowleclgeis onlyknowledgc of thingsas thcy appearto us, not as they really arc'in thenr-selves'.It is, in Kant's phrasc.,maD who es tablishcsihe lawsofnature', ral is to say,wc only krrownaturc as it appeanto usin scrscexpen- cnceias prel)rocessed by re structurcof ourunde.standing. We canhave no ohjcctivehlowle.dge of entitiesrranscending nature.5l Li Zchoubelieves that the rnost valuable paíi of Kant'sphilosophy is hisexplaration ofhow ob- jectivescientific krowledge is possiblc.For thisÍeaso!, hc hasmade an elÏoÍt to transÍbrmKant's d prtr,'i slÍuctuíesof the undcrstandinginlo cerebral'sedimentations'. Li regardsscience and technologyas productivepowcrs hy which man holclsthe key to llle lransformationof natureand the buildingof civilisation.Liu Xiaoho,howeveí, is opposedto Li's glorificationof scienceand productivelabouÍ, ard puts faÍ morc emphasison the fact that Kant wantedto determine,not only the poweÍs,but alsothe limlrs of humanreason. Whilc Li Zehouis focusedoD the obiective. supra-individuàlaspects of thc KturtiaDepistemolofiy, Liu tendsb view it in slronglysubjectivis- tjc terms-Take, ÍbÍ example,his view on tlteplace of theKantian philosophy in theEumpexn his- tory of thought. AccoÍdingto Liu, fJaditionalEuÍopean philosophy emphasised ontology, which wa-! conccmcd with formulatingthe essenceof things.But irs Kant poilted out that knowlcdgeis alwaysthe knowledgeof a thinking suhject,attention sbifted from objectsto be known to the fÍocess wherebyknowledge was oblained, i.e. pÍoblems of method.The basicslardpoint ol coDfemporary philosophyoï scienceis, thatit is manhimself who lormulatcs the problems to be solvcdruld who choosesthe mcthods to be used,so that the knowledge which is obtaiDedby this processis lotowl edgeol thinSsas lhêy arc in.elation to man,nl,t asthcy are 'in $elnselves'.5RThe modem philos- ophersof science,Liu emphasises,especially Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos,and Feyerabend,have shown that science,far from offering absolutreceítainty aDdfinal answers,is an uneDding,dy- namicprocess which is mostsuccessful when conducted in thcgÍeatest freedom possible.5! Against the monopolisirg of lruth by re CommunistParty, Liu maintainsthat absolutetruth can neveÍbe attained it or y servêsas a guidingprinciple. Objective enlities and trulh only existin relalionto thc subjectby whomthey aÍe perceived.ro Trutlr dues nut transuendthe actual world, as it is 'themeaning of thingsa.s perceivêd by man'.It is not objective,but valueladen.Every theory or philosophy,including Marxism, is only truewithin limils.o'Wrat Hume,Kant, and the philos-

5',7 Lizehoi, Pipanztuxw depí,dtr, esp. pp.205-209;Liu Xiaobo in Ëof, pp.75,185-ó. 58 /og, p.48. 59 .rb!,r.,PP. 380-85. 60 Ibili., p. 329. ó1 /bà..pp 8.330. 133

ophy of sciencchave demons[raÍed, Liu wriles,is thatnothing that trran produces, Dor even meta_ physicsturd science, can pÍovidc a way ÍbÍ miurto transcS:n

62 lbid.,pp.6,35. ó3 JeanLacroix, (dnter tn Kdnrima, (PEns PUF, 1966),pp.74,96,117. 64 Fas, p. L probablyfollowing rhê exanrple of certÀin(unidentifid) WeÍern commcntators, tbe rhin, kerswhom Liu regardsas Existentialists àre Jaspers, Sarrre, Heidogsc. ard Cainus,with Schop€nhauer. KieÍ- kêgardandNioizscheas lhen immedin!è Íbrcrunne.s. See e.g.,4esrtud.r, p. 193. t34 WOETLIEN CHONG

Kant, and untike paÍy, the Communist Liu deniesthat the metaphysicalurge disappea.rswith in_ creasingscientiÍic development.It peÍsistsas long as thc life force pcrsists.65Liu is womerl about the fact dlat scienceibelf has becomean object of the metaphysicalurge, and becomea new Íelr_ gion with absolutistcognitive claims. Many peoplebelieve, like Li Zehou,Oat it is capableof solving all the presentand future pÍoblemsof mankind,and usherin the i

65 uu enphàsisesihar he do€snor fouow rhe vienna circlc in rheirview Írar metaphvsicarsraremenls re iilerally'meaningless', as they arc supposedly mairly basedon linguisticconfusic,ns. See Fag, p. 371. 66 Fog,p.26. 6l IbiíL., 261 .rhe . W. . 248.On p. 356,Kanr shares rhe honour of beingcalled searestanri-metaphysi ciaÍ'with BerkeleyÀDd Humc. ó8 On Schopenhruer,see ro8, pp.295 98, and 301 . 69 Fos,p. M2. 10 lbid.,p.64. '71 |bit1.,pp.6, 7,442. '72 lbi.l.,p.15. ?3 e.g.Fas, p. 305;Crniqw,pp.2t9-2i). 135

Lile SaÍrc, Liu XiaoboÍcgards each individual as ÍepÍesentinga uniqueset of possibilities. Eachmust crcate hinrself by cboosingwhat kind oI personhe wantsto bc, eventhough this 'pÍo- ject' is boundto endin lailurebecause we caÍmnreccape dealh.71 Thc only authenti(way of life is to useoul freedomas individuals to chooseoDÍ nw larll duouglrlifc.7í Wc re.lur:eoursetves [o dreunauthentic existence ofslaves if wc try to 'cscapelÍom fÍeedom'(Liu citesErich FÍomm), by scckingrefuge in humancoltectivily am] its conrenrrorls.Th'Nu rwo livc.jran be tic same,says Liu, quoíingSaflÍe, 'My roadis a deadalley Íoí xnynncelse, and uic" v"rsa'.r7lt is nd rlc result of ones choicesdral t]ratícrs, but the autonomousact of chft)si g il\etl. A choicewhioh is not flecl\maJe hv dteindrvidual loÍ hitnsellltr. noe,,rslenlral nteanrrrg.TR Lju holdsthat to live in submissionÍo despodcsocial systenls is by delinitionunirum€nuc. as thesesysierns do not allowthe individualto choosehis own path(luough life: withiDcach social stratunr,everyone's way of lÍè is alreaalydelermin€J lr,'m birtfr.7"Unlikc pcoplcin tirc West, who haveaccess to dle transcerdentalworld ol God arrdTruft, tlrc Chincsccan only find íre meaningof lifc in actualsociety. They haveno idealsto which they crmcompaÍc the existing onlerard criticiseit, sincelhe existing order itself is thei

14 Ios, pp.33.1 34,338,344. '75 Ibi./.,pp.311 l2i andLiu Xiaobo, Metaphysicsand Chinese Culture , X;r q;.r"r8, Nc,.1, 1988,p. 73. '76 Fog.p.421 't7 Ihid..p.319. '78 Ibià.,p.30. '19 Ibid.,p.34. 80 Ibid.,p.38. 81 On Jaspers'sGf"nzsi."drtonrn and the.hallense ofdanser. s€ /.d9,pp. 337,351, 305 08, 31ó.(h Sartreand dangeÍ, see pp- 338 39. 82 Fos,p.351. 136 WOEILIEN CHONG

his very beliefs and liie goals, so lhat each single choice, no mattcÍ how small. becomcsoí exisrendalimport to him. There can be no questionof eithcr uíility or compromise,as eachfailure io take a staDceagainst thê corruption of his envitunmentamounts to a belray?Llof the penon he wanls to be. This results in a stateof constantagitation and íhe inability to mke anything light- beaÍtedly,whether in regardto his own cboices,oÍ thoseof otheÍs. His uncompromisingoutlook on life may paÍly explainhis scathingjyaccusatory attitude io_ ward people who, in his view, have allowed themselvestro be co-optredby the totalitiuian Íegimc. As far as he is concemed,anyone who doesnot resist totalitarianismbecomes an accomDlice.He holó each mdilidual absolurel)Íesponsrble toí his o$n actions.and is unwilling to make allowancesfor humanírailty. Liu's Existentialistbeliefs have, in my opinion,been an impoíanr Iactor in botr his meÍcilesscÍusadê against what he regardedas the moral and intellectualcoÍÍup_ tron among Chineseintellectuals, ánd in his decision 1,0go back to China and ioin the l9g9 dêmocracymovement.S3 Suicidal ao,l incomFehensibleas this decision may have seemeon otheÍs,it becomesmoÍe easilyunderstandable when viewed in Íelationto Liu's alesiÍeto.choose himself in every action. Consideringhis hatred towaÍds the totaljtariannaturc of the Communist rcgime, his urge [o live passionatelyand dangerously,and put himself to the test by seekingou! danger,his action must be regmded,not as an unfortunateimpctuosity, but as a genuineSarlrean êxisÍentiiilchoice.

China and the HegelianHeritage While Liu grcatlyrespects Marx asonc oi the greatestcritics of eaÍlyindustrial society, he treats Hegelwith hostility.He poins out thathy impoÍtingMarrism, China atso imporled óe historical deteÍminismwhich Marx hadtalen overironr Hegel.84Chrna, Liu srares,tO,nJuclanired'Hceel.85 ln attackingHcgel, Liu simultaneouslyattaLks Confucius iutd Li Zehou_ .mctáphysical' In embracingMarxism, the Chirese,in his view,endcd up in theHegelian, cuí, Íent of Westem philosophy, while Europe itselJ had long abandonedHegeliiaism and embarked on tbe pluralist courseprepared by Kant.86China and the Soviet Union completelybypassed re skepticaland critical Humeanand Kantian tradition which developedin the Wcst, ard adopl,edthe obscuanlisl metaphysicalhocus-pocus of Hcgeliandialectics which was used by thcií despotic

83 DespiteSartre's remdks in his answcrto his cÍjÍjcs,L.jdkntiatism" ?! un hunanistu (paris: Nagel,1946), ihc philosophicalsysrem set foÍh in L êha et te nóantptoyjdes no crireÍiafor matingmoral ludsementson thebchaviour oí rÍhcrs.See Mary WaÍn@k,Existentiatism. ({)xford: Oxford Universiry press, 19'70).p. l2S. Howover.unlike Setre. Liu. ás lhis papershows, suppoÍs human rights, democracy and lih,

U Fos, pp.2'7 6,282. 85 Se€Crrrí!". p. 3. Eó Ia8. pp. 280,282-83. Liu devoress?ecial atlenlion io theunde.mining of hisbricaldeterminism by th€ no Newtonnnconccpl of rinrea5 formutaled by Bcrsson,Heidcsger and Sarrre. See frs, pp. 10i, tob, 32G28. 13-/

CommuDistregimes to legitimisetheir power.37 Unforlunaleiy,it wasnot Kánt,buI Hegetwho be_ camethe 'fatler of oontcnporaDr$ought in Chinaand t1$) SovicI Union,.ss Liu pointsout ÍhatHegel did not acceptK;url,s conclusion ihat scieniificknowledge of things transcendingscnse cxperience was impossibre, craimingtiat his diarclticarDlethod unverred tie so-callcd'objective Iaws of History',and tha(tiey eDablerlmiul to gainabsoiute knowledge of ab soluteInrtll. ln confêstto Marx, whoregarded struggle and conÍlict as ltle dÍiving force of bjstory, Hegelpostulated that hisbry wascapable of.rvercomÍlgcontradictions ánd attaining an uttlmate stareofjustice and harmonyt a ciaim ea"silyexplojtable for poliiicil cnds.s,Liu comidersHegelian dialecticsas $c archetypeof tire'mehphysical' systemba!êd on Rcasonanar Hármony which can beexploired by iuryrcgime .confuL to regitirniseits pn\Àcr.q')For Liu. Heler wasa ianpersonarrty, '- an Àpologistof tie existingoftler, a couÍt ofÍicial lrying to ingratiatehimself with the mon arcn. The countrieswhich adop(ed Conntunism,he states,did not inieÍit Kant,scritique oí fie limits o[ human undeÍstarding,and his imperativethat óe individual ']tegorical shouldalways De realed as iur endin iFelf andneveÍ at *"an..92 Irlsteo,l,they embraced " lle arÍog?urtHcgelian notionsóat mtul canhavc absolute, infallibteknowlcdge of the hws of Historyand rts uttinlate goat,&at the existingregime is a producl of Historyand ,lust (llerelbrcbe good, and that the in- dividualis unimporttuttapart lronr thcuse madc of him by History.According to Liu, Hegelis tle Íca1íàtheÍ of Conxnunistparty idcology.In this,Lju hasprobably been lDspired by Sir Karl pop pcr, whoseaelevant works havc becn translated iÍÍo Chinese,!i lntcrestingly,although Liu states phíloÍophJ thathe hasreaal Flegel,s af HíÍtory,he noesnot seemto realisethat much of his ír\À,n criticismof Chineseculturc aDd society gocs back io the viewson Chinawbjch Hegel expresscd in thal book.gaHegel wrote that Chinese society was static

?] |b,pp.2+9,253. 88 lbid . pp 248'252, 26 r . Fora morcbalaned viewon Heger, se! shlomo A\iner),Ir ege t. s t.heor'af yi!,I s!*,(cambrjdse:cambridge univêrsiq rlress, tor:). tiiedIIèsetsThaoried.snod.ru"Stud;s,f{tnktuà".U";",srr,*"I1lp,i!ir).'--"""'".:!.: r rr"v"us.a rrre c"nn," i."^o,.". *- A9 Citiqk,p. jO. 90 Fo!t,p.253. 9l Fo8,p.259. 92 Fo7,pp.251,259. 93 Liu .iÍes Popper'sC onkétules pov . . atutRefututia ns andThe try of lr;nori.Àn. Thesewere onsin- any.pubrishediÍ New yoÍr: Ha.perànd Row,ie6j,.:ld.!*9"", R.,,i;ó;;;i";;p;;,irrr, *"p*- rrvery.see Liu s.kmaíks on popperIn F,8, pr poppo\ 380-rel,45ó. ?.11o,,il"ii,r')), i," u*.a", z ,ors.,was puhljshed in chmesein T.iberbv rhr cuiguan wcnru, yinsming Tmhucá. in l9t+, ri_,r"iJïa iair"o r,yzl*"g andLj (Kairea. shehui w oi,be;).rr," s"*l"i ;i,í" ,*ï,iïi,uiï'r"n.iiu** donr 1q66.Fur Popper'sinftrercc o* 'n on the tvSOstu

andunchanging because it wasbased on theabsolute power of themonarch, exeÍcised drÍough the power of the farnily. He held tbat in China, therewLs no dilïerentiation b€tweenindividual mor- ality andpolitical loyalty. Religion was based on family ethicsand, as a result,merely an instru- mentol politics.95Obviously, many ingredients of ChinesecultuÍal criticism in the 1980saÍe al- rcadypresent in Hegel,including the ideaÍhat Chrisrianity is theorigin of Westemindividuatism. We will retum ío this theme later in thjs study.

Liberalismand Democracy ln theChinese-speaking wo d, becauseLiu Xiaobo'sideas draw heavily on Nietzscheand SarÍe, they aÍe oftencalled nihilistic and rnti-social.This vjew is misleading,as it ignoÍesthe second major thread in his thought, which is basedon the liberat tradition since Locke. Liu approvingly describeshow Locke and Montesquieuformulated tbe ne€i for a fipatite division of power on the basis of Hobbes' pessimistic view ol human nature, acroÍding to which hnmim beings are naturally disposed to aggÍessiveand predatory behaviour towards oÍe another (htna hamini luous\.96 Liu arguesthat Liberalism, unlike Communism,is a successfulpolitical doctrhe beoause it is explicitly gearedio cope with Urcshortcomings of man as he is, and not, like the latter, aimedal moulding him into something he can never be. A LibeÍat democlacy,because it is rightly pes- simisticabout human nature, can work. Cornmunism,because il is uDjustifiablyoptimistic aboul man.must fail.97 In reactionto tbe Orinesehabit of viewingsociety as a moraloÍdeÍ, Liu emphasisesihat Lib, cÍalismÍegards society as a legalorder, bascd on the socialcovenant or contract(4r}./.).q8 k has no inhibitions aboutformulating lormal laws to foacchim in this diÍection, becauseit openly ad- mitsthat man is not naturallydisposed to altruismaDd cooperation. The samecynism led Machia- velli to separateethics ïrom politics, therebylaying the Íbundationfor thc study of politics as an amoral battle for power and inÍluence. Liu argucs that maiNtÍeam Confucianismcould never makethis sepaÍation, because it wasÍeluctant to admitthat human nature is ba<1.9' Hobbes'pessimism,Liu continues,was reinforced in the l9th centuryby Darwinand Freud. Westemculturc came to realise that as a result of the biological contifluify betweenman and the animals,theÍe aÍe powcrful a-sociidand evenanti-social &ives in our psychologicalmake-up which can neitheÍ be eradicated nor moulded into shapesacceptable to society. Against the ChineseCo(ununist beliefin theinfinite malleabilitj' ofman, Liu is of theopinion that no extemal

95 A\]nl,en,HeSeI s Theory, ChapÍÊÍ12. 96 Fos,p. 173.For Hobbes, see also?p. 135 36, 138. 97 Ibid.,pp. 169, 1'72.For [r:,cke,se€ esp. pp. 146.150. 98 /rtd., p. 170.Liu doesnot dêscÍibe the natue ofthe coverantin iutherderail. Ibid.,p.16'1,1'7O. 139

lbÍce is capableof entirelysuppressing nran's pÍimal llrge to sell-preservalionand selfexpàn sion.l@He approvinglyquotes Nie{zsche's cliclun lial glan'swill !o live is tre Will to Power:"it is iÍralional,expansive, wild andDionysian, and impossible to hamesscomplercly."lol He wlo Sivesup his primitivewill tcJselÍ-exlaÍtion and submits to sociely,gives up his veÍy will to live, reducinghimself to a non-entity.102 AlthouShLiu êgreeswith Hobbes,Nietzsohe. Freud, and Sarfc fiat humm relationshipsare ir- reconcilablyhostile, he folbws Lockein believingthat human sociciy ciul bc cstablishedoD ftc basisof consensus.As Lockc'scoDtractarian vicw of socictywàs direcled against the beliefthal socielywas a moralordcr uDdeÍ Divine Kingship, it waseasy for Ilcorists;r postMao Chinato usehis theorylbr lhepu.posc of undcrminingdrc Confuoian and Communist vicw of societyas a moÍal ordeÍ.ln this way,dley crealed a theoreticalbackground for óeir proposalto repla(iethe Chincscccntraliscd and person-orieDted political system by a 'chccks-imd-balanccs'approach, Liu echoeslncke whenhe writcs that the individual needi society Íbr his sell--pÍeservalion,and asthc ftameworkwithin which he can work on his own self-developmenlHc sacrificespart ofhis fÍeedomin orderdrlt societymay be established.HoweveÍ, society inevitably tends to exercise pressurcon thcindivilual to coDformand restÍict his frecdomeven I'urther. But assoon as society ceasesto promoíetbe self rcalisation of theindividuai, the confact (meanin8, Liu states,the social sysiem)must be dissolvedand rcplaoed by ano[]er.Society is re meansÍor the individuals'self realisation,not theother way round, as suggestcd by Hegeland Cihinese Communism-103 Obviously,Liu hcretakcs 'iÍeedom' in a libcral,not in ÍheSa Íern senseof theword. He stirtcs that 'freedom'dcnotes the right of the individualto engagein lÍee conpetition,within a liarne- work of equalitybased on bumanÍights. i.e. 'theÍight to sell-pÍeservation,self-devclopment, and self-Íealisation'.104Cudously, altiough hunlan rights play an importmtrole in Liu's atlackon bo- talilarianism,this is the or y delurition of humanrights which I was able lo fmd in his writings. Moreover.he seemsunaware ol the difÍèrencebctween the liberal and lie SaÍ{Íeanview on Íree- dom,because he alsoagrees with Sa re thatfreedom consists in eachindividual heing responsible foÍ his ownchoices, and being, lbr ihrt reason,'condemletl to fteedom'.I05 Sartre,however, did not conceivefÍeedonr in termsof institutionalarrangements based on riglrt- r, bul in termsof ontological /d.ls: ITeedomis the res\rltof thefact thatexistence, in itself,has neiftcr a meiningnor a pulpose.It is contingent,or, in Sartre'sterminology, 'absurd'. This means thattheÍe is nolhingwhich pre delerminesone s choices.As a cotuequence,frecdom denotes the

100 For theconcepl of màlleabililyin Chinesljlhought, see Llonald J. Munrc,ft. Con..pt oÍ Mdn i^ Contemparary China. (Ànn Àrbor, Michigan: University of MiclriganPÍess, 1q77). 101 FaB,pp.4,39. lAz lbià.,p.f55. 103 Critiqw,p.34. 104 lbid..p.93 Á?sthe ti. s. p.25. 105 fog, p.30ó. I4O WOEILIENCHONG

inescapablel!?ce.rri,) of makingchoices, and it meansthat, since one,s choices *^"nu"o"", arc alwaysone,s areentLely one's own respoÍNibilily. one caÍxrot fffi.ff hideftom this resÍronsi- The point that is impoÍtantto notebere is fhat,according !o Sa.Ítre,conscious what .frecdom, beingspossess he calls by virtueoÍ th evenirrivhs ina rotar,,*,- 0",,,,.,",i,ïIïi;ïHilï:'"ïïfj,ï::J_lïï:J being free to determinewhat attifude to e to\tards this facl Morcover' he held tlrc doctri'e ol humanrighls to be incompaÍiblewith oJn uiew on freed'Jm'whjch is biLsedon theidea tbat chorccsare in no way pre-o"r",rrtn"o.rolil absorure,ancthisphilos.on"o,"",o*," iï,1,ïï.".1jïiïïrïïïiïiï'Jïli:i:",ffiï It is striking that Liu approvinglyquobs both the Lockean andthe Sartreu view on trcedomwith_ out rcaljsing that liere is a fundamenhl diffeÍencebetween them. A second problem in Íegard [o the intemal consistency of Liu,s lhought is presentedby his Íhe_ oÍy or poriticar obrigation. He argues tbat id a paÍlia$entary democruay,au"t dience o*". oo"- to the laws, foÍ two reasons:tbe first is "itir"n that he has himscll voluntarily electcdthe people who havemade .each lheselaws, so that citizenis a legislator anda sov"."igrl Th" ."*oo ,r, drot laws formulatedby a democraticallyeiected iegislature aÍe supposcd .by to embodycacd person.s humanrights: thus, obeyingÈese lar rhedecrine orcenrrar power ;d .n"#"ïï".r"J::#ïiïil::Jiï,l,i:l;',J'"ï groupsin Ctrinesesocie.y, Liu is rightly concemedwió óe problemsof civic political responsibilifyand obedience,and his concemfor tln rharhe has not. under th" *""""" **ï.""un'"tïïlÏï:ïil:::1.",:,-i,ji.ï:"o"ïï.,ï:: ashis defacbrs suggest. ", However,Locke's conlractariar view of societypresupposes that it is possibleto eslablish odginal an conscnsuson theneed to makea social .lhe confact to end staÍeoI naíuÍe,.lt is uDclear how this can be reconciledwiÍi the coDviction which Liu shareswith Metzschcand SarÍe, lasting Ilat no consensusbetween individuais ol reached.AsLiu himserr poinred *. r.*: ""'iï,:ïJ'.ï:.ïï:ïHJ:ïX tolerance, ::,.r::: siDceit was basedon the mistak lief ^:: that one can enjoy freedomand' at the same time, respectfte Íreedomof oÍhers.I arÍead isrence,a".i vice versa. rhere is no basis ro:r:::i.ï:,#iï::ïJ""".ï:fi:ïïiJ.ï:::

)!f,^r,*I;Íi,.i);?"eíbÉatu'(Puis:Gauimard,re43).pp.61,66,ó52.see^tsahtsLer;steiatinè t.p.sarne. ll: t et,,.4r?n.an.pp e. /8.,/) .nerynths, \ptit 1989,np. 80 8I. rug LP *tÍÍe. L èrr. et Ie ;;a t"*_, c . a. 4Bo:, bans,ationof.,á,/e ^ ^*i 7""*' i;;;;;; fi;il:í1,ï.iiÍ;xïJ,ïïj::ï.11;chiiese 141

aDdthis raises a Iirirdproblem, Sartre re.jected Kant's categorictl imperative. much admired by Liu Xiaobo, rat oneshould always tÍeat mtionàl beinSs as qpdsilr themselves,and never as means. Sar(Íelleld thal such an ovcr-absÍract pÍinciple was too sinple to serveas a Íulefor rnoralconduct, arJconcÍete cases arc alwaysexlJemely conplex, and ultimately,each choice has 1() be mndedl Íoc.ll0 Nothingcan ever be considered a$ an 'end-in-ilself'. The fourth pÍoblcmarises íÍont Liu s peculiaÍuse oí lhe telm 'metÀphysics'.lt hasled to his cuious statcmcntthat SiutÍe's drought is the culminationof dredecline of metaphysicsin thchis- 1oryof Westernphilosophy. According to Liu. the Wcsthas abandoDcd metaphysics and ontology f\rrpsychology, methodology, and language philosophy. Às alÍeadystated, hc íegaÍdsmctaphysics aDdontology as toois ir the handsof dle vesied inteÍcsls, imd psychology,m€thodolofly and lan- guagephilosophy as post-Kantran movemenls which aÍe much moÍe inclincdto valuefie individ- ual-However, Sartre's mrin philosoptticl woÍk BeingahÍl Nan-Beir8 clcarly carrics t}e subtille 'An Eós:ryin PhenomenologicalOnlology'. Indeed,in this work he dissociatcdhimsclÍ from drc gcne.altcndcncy to rcducephilosophicrl inquiry to psychologyand languageanalysis, ffld àG temptcdto clarily lic rclatioDslipof consciousnessto the world on a prc-Íellexiveand pre-ltn- Buisiiclevel. lt wasspeciÍically intended to be anontological tÍeatirc. Liu Xiaobo,however, associates 'netaphysics' and 'ontology'wi$ 'monistic'and 'flrti-individ- ualistic'ideologies legitimisiDg a despotrcstatus quo, so )at he failed to ÍecogniscSarfe's en- deavouràs bcing an exercisein ontology.Sincc Safire takeslhe isolatedindividual as the cenfic of his philosophy,he belongsir Liu's categoryof'feeling'. Thus,because Liu associates'meta- physics'and 'ontology' wilh totalitárianismand pre-modem Westcm philosophy, he has neglected modem,subjectivistic forms olmetaphysics a-nd ontology.In his dualisticcla-ssificatioD system. a spociÍlcphilosophy is cithcrindividualisÍc and non-melnphysical, or totalitarianaDd metaphysi- cal.There are no otherpossibititjes. Obviously, this leadsto anoveísimpliÍied view of thehistory of philosophy, Ànd impedesa propeÍ analysisoí the complexitiesof philosophicalthought. This maypartly explain why Liu doesnot seemto be awareof thefact thatdre two dilleÍentphilosop- hical lraditionsfrom which he has dÍawn his argumentsagainst Communism contIadlct each otheÍ in variouspoins whichaÍe crucialfoÍ his own argument.A final, perhapsmore ambiguous. ex- arnpleol dis is his tieoryof historyas a three-stageprocess of individualisatron.

History asa Processof Ind ividualisàtioo On the onehand, Liu holdsthe SarÍeanview thathistory is contingent,i.e. pdssesses no in}leÍent meaning,sfucture, oÍ paft,em.On theother hand, he conlradic$ dÍs view by his accountof human history as a lineaÍ processof proSressiveemancipation. He arguesthat Westea Íran has gone

110 Lêneetlenëa,p.480: nock, E istentídlisn, p. 125. ^ntL'erkíentiallwesíunhun&nisn,Pp.85-86.SeealsoMàÍyWrr 142 WOEJLIEN CHONG

througbtlree phasesof emancipatiot,while Chinà'has not evencomplctcdthe first'. China's.de- velopment',he suggests,has 'stagn^ted' in a 'primitive'stagê, but may still continucif traditional ll value-systemsand pattrems of behaviouÍare demolished.l -lhisis obviouslythe language of one whobelieves in PÍogress.l12Clearly, Liu's universeis not ascontingent ns Sarlre's.i13 Ín thefirst phase,Liu cxplains,man emáncipated hilnself fÍom hissubjection to natuÍe.He dis coveredthat he could feat nature as an objective enlit), existing apafi fÍom himself, and óat hc could leam to control it and makeit seNehis own purposesby penetratingits secÍch.This process staÍedwith carlyGreek cosmologic speculation, and culminated in the_eslablishneDtof modem scienceaDd Í)e pbilosophyof scjence.lr4ln conÍrast,Liu states,China stiu holdslasí to the 'primitivcconcept' of the uníy of Heavenand Man.lls He callsóe Chinesetendency ro remarn focusedon theruler as fte 'saviouÍ'of thecosmos, a 'retumto primitivism'.116 During dre Renaissanceand the Rcformation,Liu writes, the Westcompletêd the sccondph,Je of emancipation,when the individual emancipatedhimself from sociefy.He beganto c:IstoÍf the unifoml modesof llought and behaviouÍof the medievalcoÍnmunity, and no longer acceptedthe absoluleauthority of the establishedChuÍch. The hamonious world view of the Middle Ages was abandoned,and the reality of conflictas aD ineradicable element of humansociety fully andopen- ly acknovr'ledged,Iaying the ground for the political philosophiesof Hobbes and Locke. These tlinkers no longer viewed thc socialorder as a divine crealion,but assomething miut-made. More- ovcr, socielywas regardedas a meansfor the self-realisatioÍ)of individuals,not as an end in itself. Liu's view of the EuropeanMiddle Ages as a period of darlness and obscurantismis shaÍed by miury Chineseintellectuals today, and this image clearly servesa polemicalobjective. The Medie- val Church is an analogyïor thê CommunistPaÍy, and it is implicd that China needsa Renaiss- anceand Relbrmation of its own to endthe present Dark Ages, that is to say,by emancipatingthe hdividual, and establishinga scparationbetween the Íêalm of politiqs andthe Íealm of culture and sDiritualbeliefs.llT

111 Criiqw, pp,35,55-56.77,92-96. ll2 Professc,rTuveson ha.s dgued that the belief in Prosessdeveloped in Weslemrhou8ht on the basisof ancienlmillenarian beliêfs, combined wilh the increasingoptimism, encouraged by the.isoofscience. aboui óc possibiliryoímoulding nature and society. FÍom Emest Lee Tuveson, Mrll",,iM atul Utopit: A Studyin th. Edtksrcunt oÍ tha ldca of Progress,OIew York: HarpeÍ and Row, 1964).see dso Carl Beckê., Ztu Hea,enlj C;^JoÍ the Eíshtzèath.CenturyPhilosoph"rs, (l.{cw Haven:YaleUnjveÍsity Press, 1932). 113 L êtreet Ie nédnt,p. 5'78.As Liu doesnot dealwith the inquiryof thelàlor Saíre, conrained in his CriÍiquz da la RaisonDialzctiqw (PàÈ: Gauimard1960; new two,lart edí;on 1985)inlr the quesrion whetlreror not hisl,o{ycan be said !o havea neaning, this work is norlaken inlo considerationhere 114 Criti.tk,p.92. 115 lbid..,p.17. 116 lbi.l.,p.a6. l1'1 Forexample Yan Jiaqi, lvrd2 s*ia s,izhuat (lnrell{tual Aulobiogaphy),(Hongkong: Santian shu- dian,1988), Chapler6, pp.21 :]0. 1.13

Liu's thirdpbase is thatof {heemancipation oI the irdividualfrom otllerindividuals. It wa! in drisphase, he holds,thal philosophyalso formulaied tllc cBnílictu,irrtu each individual. lD Exisl entialism,tle individualis cut off fíom all traditionalcerlairrtres, a5 dle possibililyol derivingob- jective,nre-eslablished goals and valuesfÍom cithcrNature or Historyis deded:trlilrl js thrown nakedinlo a meaningiessworld. Existcnce becomes a baitlefor meaDingand cotrcrcncc which rc- êlity docsnot, oul of itself,ofieÍ. The only certaintyin lifc is (heirevilability of death.A peÍson hasno innate'essence', and ncidler can he derivcany identity from beinga memberofthis or tiai gÍoup.He is absolulelynotlring until hc startslo becomewhat he wantsto bc.Thc aulhcnhcIiíè consistsof nlking one'sown choicesand taking the full Íesponsibililyfor ÍIem; hidingbehind 'thc people','History', 'Reason', etc. is self-deception(r,prr[, SarlÍe'sm aAr.tíse Jói).1) Heíe,we a|reconfíonted widr the curiousfact dlat Liu, while usingSaÍtÍe's statremcDl that hit- toryhas no meaningas a weaponagainst Hegel and Commuirism, i sopresents tbc samestalement asptuof thaÍhistory does have a meaning,nanely prugÍessivei.ndividuirLlisation. But perhnps it is not all thatsuÍpÍising- ïre beliefin a lineaÍpattem of progressundeÍlying hisbry his doinrnaÍed re ChiDeseworld view since1949, as it wasa fundamentalpaÍ of M:irx's Hegclianinheritance. Evenwhen criticisinS this belief,Liu Xiaobostill makcsexplicit use oÍ it, withoutevcÍ realising Ulecontradiction. This serves to showhow difticult it is to appreciatelully thecompÍetely anolll- ian characteÍof the earlySartre's philosophy, which, as it excludesthe bel;cf in progress.is in basicconílict willl establishedforms ol discoulsein China. It couldbe argued that here as elscwhere, the trensionsin Liu's thoughlresult from lis attemptto dividewestem philosophers along the lincsof his reasoltfeeliDgdichotomy, in oÍderto mobilisc specificclcmcnl\ of óeir tfioughtiD his polemicsagainst thc Commudst oÍ lodoxy,rather dlan to analysethe exact contenl oÍ íheirarguments. As hc classi{iedthe thoughtof Hobbes,lncke, KaDl, Nietzsche,aDd SarÍe asbasically pÍo-'feeling', in oppositionto drepro-'reason' thought of Con fucius and Hegel, he was not fullher interestedin a detailed investigationof the differencesbe- tweenthe membeÍsof the first group. On theolher hand. theÍe is an altemative.Thc above-meDtionedcontradiction could be resolved by regaÍdingLiu's treatmentof Sarlre's philosophy as an attemptto undeÍstandit as a momentin 19 thehistory of Europêanthought, something which SarrÍe tiimself neglect€d k) do.l In faci,Liu's Íhird stageis inspfcd by Sartreand FÍeud, tud brcaksentirely with the HegcliiurPersleclive on history.Only Liu's first two stagesaÍe derived fÍom Hegel,the fiird is not. The third and final stagewas formulated by Liu on the basisof Sarire (1Ïe iÍeradicablc conflict betwecnindividuals) and FÍeud (the etemal conÍlict within each individual). Liu ha.sobserved Ure moderowideninfi of the gap betweenoneself and otheÍ humanbeings, a.s well as the intemaldisin-

118 CÍitíqw,t.91. 119 I àmindebted to Dr. GerardVisser forpointing this oul to me. 144 WOEILIEN CHONG

tegrationoï the personalityand tlrc ensuingsÍuggle with onesclf,but far from consideringthis as a páthologicalphenomenon, he rcgardsit al ao historic steptoward a higher levcl of individual ex_ isicnce. Unlike Hegêl and Marx, Liu doesnot view history irs a prccessaway irom alienationto_ ward reconciliation,but the otheÍ way round: the individual emanciparcshimself by ílricírldlrg the hope of reconciliÀtionand acceptingthe challengeof increasiogalienaíion which modemity puts to hinl. What Hegeland MaIx call alienation,Liu callsprogress. What Hegeland Mari call the rmtidote against alienation (thc integratedlifc in the intcgrated corDmunity),Liu calls lhe in_ dividual'salienation ftom hinrself.Man's tr.uehumanity cannot be foundin tle CommunistUto_ pia, asit lies in etemalbattle and corÍlict. It is cleaÍthat a grcaterconÍra-st with the vlcwsoÍ Li Zehouis hardlypossible.

Againstthe Cult of Science As Liu follows Kant's view on the limils ol puíe Ícason,he opposesthe widespreadbelief lhat lhe capacitiesof scienceand technologyto solvcChina's prcsent crisis are inlinitc. This beliel has beeneDcouragêd by lhe introductionintrc ChiDa in the | 980sof systemstheory irudfirturorogy (es_ pcciatlyAlvin Tofíieí's'fhírcl tlate5.t20 The postMao intercstin systemstheory alld systcmsengineering was kindled by Nobêl hize lalreateQian Xuesen, 'the iatheroI thc Chbeseatom bomb,.l21 Systems thcory wLs especially popularamong natuÍal scientists and engineers, who considercdí a suitable,complemcnt' to dia- lecticalmateÍialism, insolar as it likewiseoffercd a comprehensivetheoqr of socio-economicplan, ning nndcontrol but sccmedmore up-to date in its scientificassumptions. Moreover, it wasused in thecircles of refoÍm,mindedpolicy m:keff to pÍovidea theoreticallegíimation for ZhaoZiy ang's reform policicsprior to his 1à11in 1989.h his attackupon the currcnt,deiiication, of screnceand l,echDologyin China,Liu has draMr both lrom thc Existeitialistand neo,Mrlrxist cÍitiqucof technologicalcivilisation. Bolh ChineseCommunisF and lib€ral democÍats shaÍc the generalbclief that scicnce and {ech- nolo8yaÍc capableof pushingsociety ever foÍward in a dcsieddiÍection. The only tfiing in which tireydíIeÍ is thatlibeÍals warÍ sciênceto be aubnomous,while CommunislsDrefeí scicnc€ to be controiled by the Paíy. Liu Xiaobo ceÍl.ainlysuptrorts the dcmandfor thc autonomyof scicnce, andits libeÍationfrom stiflingPaÍty interfcÍenc".l2z Ho*"u"r. heargucs rhat rhe gencral optimis-

12O tur a discussbn.seemy The'New TechnologjcalRevohÍion,, China,sModernizarion and World Econolr1y:Some ChineseDiscussion'lhenles',China tníotrut;or. Vol. I, No. 1, 1986. For the hisrory ol scientrsmin Chiná, s@ D.W.K. Kwok, S.r;",rsn in Chincs. Thoultu l9A0 r950. New Havenryale Univcr siryPrèss, 19ó5). 121 Marsaret Sleeboom,tyrturi. ?a reÍolut;e ;, C?dd (Evolutionand Revotulior in China). (unpub- ,Tïc lishcd M A thcsis,UiiveÍsily ofAmsrerdam,February 1989), pp. S4 95iÀnd eian Xuesen, Ncw Techno, logical Revotulionand SystomsEngineering: Social Revolution in Chinain theConrins Sixty ycars as Viewerr Írom SysremsScien@', Sftt,".nn&/i. 1985,No.4,pp. I 9. 145

tic conJidencein scienceis greÀllyexaggeraEd, and nerely a new,ard veÍy dtutgerous,fonn of lnodst melaphysics'.Mm's attcmptto bring aboutthc-:greatest hap nessof l_hegreatest num- bcr',cancreateanewkindofbondage,tbistimeav,,lunrd.yrnc.r2rLiuÀcLusedChrnesescholaÍs ol try lg to usesystems-theory as a newbasis fbÍ launohinghamrony-models ol society,as they emphariscddre concept of'cquilibrium' in systems-$eoÍywittroui taking the role of colÍlict and len-sioninlo account.124 Existenlidism,Lju poinl! out, wasa rcvolt againstthe modem dciÍication oi reasottuid science andtechnologyl25. llc hasa dillefcut vjcw on the si€:nif-icanccoí Lhis rcvolt óim Li Zehou.Ac cordingto Li, Exisientialismhas madeI valuablecontÍibution h) dre analysisof how the sup- pressionof theunique hum?ut iDdividual in olodemWcstem socieiy takes place. However, its pft)- lest wasmisdirectcd: it bltunedscience. tccbnology al]d Ítats-consumptiorpí,r rz whilethe rerl problemwas fte exploitatjvcproduction relations of capitalistsociely.l2ó Thus, Li deniesthat it is thc rapid developÍlent of large-scaleinduslry and icsluology i! itself whicb thÍeatensthe quality oI humanlife, oDdre contraÍy: ifgovcmed by tberight productionrclations, thcy will incÍeasingly be ableto lulÍil all our materialneeds and usher in dreCo nnunistsociely in whichfull timc la- tJourwill no longerbe necessary,and each individual will havethc opportunityto developher/his uniquepersonal abilities.t2? Liu Xaobo, however,does not belicvcin ttrc CoraDunistpffadise, aDdleels that China should not ignorethc wamingsvoiced by ExistentialisÍn. He citesHcidegger and Jaspcrs, who soundedthe alnÍm against the tlueat to iDdividualiÍeedom by theintcÍests of tecbnology;urd illdustryl2s, as well asAdomo turd Horkheimcr of theneo-Mar- xist Fran*fuÍt School,vr'ho analysed tlre proccssby which ihe preoccp^tion wiul economiu growthand technological developmení led to 0reenslavcmeÍlt of the individualby re lohlitarian poweÍoÍ thc StiÍe and indusfrialinterests, rnd fie rise of Fascism.l29Liu Àlsocites MaÍcuse's hook One-DimensianalM4r, an analysisof the dullingof fte mind in modemcapitalist society with its incessantmass-media indocfilation aimedat spÍeadi0gthe idcologyof consumerismand mateÍialalfluencc. The originaiintention of thc Enlightenmentto enancipateman has, iÍonically, Ied to his renewedsubjuSation -- the phenomenonwhich Adomo and Horkheimer,in the title of tlpir btol.. calleLltht Di,tlr k s o[thr Enlrghrunnmt.t]a

122 Ztu gming,M?.rch 19A9, p 89ff. 123 Fot, pp.119-21,422. lU Critiqk, p.2:t0. 125 Fog.pp. 342-43,43A. 126 LiTehou,Pip.tn zlzÍw dLpipan,pp.41A-]9. l2'l lbid..p.416. 128 Fo9,p.316. 129 FoB,pp. 40a,411,413-14.Onc would, at thispoint, expect r reatínentof the connectionbèr9een Heideggerand Fa$ism, but Liu doesnot go inio thispÍrblcm. Neirher does he, as faras I aÍr aware,deal with theaccusation by som Weslernand Chinèsc schohs, pasL and present, thar Nietzsche's philosophy was pàrrly responsibleíor lherise of Fasciw. Forthis problem, see KeUy, TheHighest Chinàdom. t46 W(,EI LIENCHONG

Nevertheless,Lju emphasisesthat Chiru hasnot yet reachedthe stagc aI whichfte problclruoj. ,feudal,, .small_peasant, aclvancediÍdustrial society aÍise, as it is still a pre modern. and society, in whichpoverty and ignoftnce, not oveí,consumptionand ovcÍ_iÍJbrmation, are still thegrcatesl problemN.He suppoftsChina's economio and scientificdevelopmcnt, but unlikemany inIellec tualsin post-MaoChina, he is alsodeeply aware of thedarker sides of modernwclfare sociefy.ll

ReligionaÍd WesternCulture We haveseen that Liu XiaoboÍegards Schopenlauer, Nieta\cbe, and Exislentialism as heiísto what he believesis Kart's Íagic view on the dualityof man.The ultimateorigin oí this tÍagic view, he statcs,is the Westemidea Íhat man is inadequatein the Íaceof God, expresscdmost foÍcefullyin the conceplof originalsin. UnlikeNietzsche, Liu is convincedthat Westem cuttoe owcsmuch ofits stÍengthand resilience to Christianity:he regaÍds both dre KaDtian philosophy on thelimib of homanreason :urd tbe idêaof politicaldemocracy as bcing historically relatcd to the conceptof original sin. DemocÍacy,he writes,is a politicêlsystem in which institutionalprecautions aÍe tárcrríg;unsr the consequeDcesof human coíruptibilily. The most fundamelrtalÍeason why the Chinesehave .hecisely neverestablishe{, democracy is that they lackedthe conceptof originalsint because Westemcultule pub no tÍustin man,imd questioDs man, doubting and cÍiticising hiÍn, oould il ad vanceinto thefront ranks of worll civilisation'-l12 Liu pointsout óat, while thc Chinesetend to deify theirpolitical leaders even during theiÍ lifc_ tilne,Westem maD started k) separatcthe religious and polilioal spheres fÍom theRelbmtaitoD on_ wards.ln fte West,he states,mai can neveraftain divine status, as only God is omniscientand ornnipotent,and soars lligh abovenatuÍe and human society: 'WeslemculluÍe re{ognises fiÍee worlds:one of ftc spirit(.rlrr), oneol man,anct one ol nature.Eaclt oi thescworlds is independent,possessing its own bouDdaricsdeÍrtrca ng rr from thc oóers. The Íealmof the spirit is regaÍdcdas higher than that of humanmoÍals. aud of greatervalue than mankindtin the eyesof God, maDis etemallyburdcned wilh originál\in. md Èerel,,ÍeclcnraÍly imllcriect. lrl As a result,sociely irDd the Stateare not sacrosanctin óe Wcst,in conb:astto China_Llu ob viouslyignores the longhistory of the doctrineof thc DivineRight oí Kingsin Europeiurnlsrory. aodthe phcnoÍlenon of nationalchurches. He holdstllat, while Íor thc Chinese.the deeds of man árcolcosmic in)llortance, Westen man lotows that he is but a speckof dustcomDared ltl God:

130 Max Horkhcnnerand Theodor W. Adomo,,tdlztlik ttet Aulktátury.lFt^tlkfuí am Màn: r,rscher TnschenbuohVerlas, 1984, oris. AnrsteÍdam 1q44). Discussea in,.aÁ,, pp. a05 ,ioi; and,4erre"d.r,p. l9l. 13t SecalsoÁ.srturi.s. p. 191. 132 Zlknqmins,Mu.hl9a9,p.89. 13:l /átl.. March1989, p. ? l. 141

'hecisely becauseof the light fÍom henven,the darloressoi thc hum:rrlworld be0omes visiblc;pÍecisely besause there is tireperlèction qLGod, the impcÍfectioD of mar becomes visible.If thereis no God.dre Íall ol run hasno meaning.If tllercis no God,mar does noï evenlalow drathe has fallcnron the conlraÍy,he dlenbeoomes bliDdly intoxicated wili his own ornniscienceand oÍlnipolence. A world with God is fèarsome,hut a woÍld withoutCod is evenmorc fearsomc,'134 Here,the referencc ïo thc borrorsdurinf: tlË 'Cullu.alRevolution' is obvious.In contrÀsIto Nietz- sche,Liu regaídsthc scnscof sin aJa posiliveand constftcdvc clemenl in WeslerDculture: 'The WcstcmeÍs'feelhg of originalsin makesfiem coríionl lhc evilsol dreirinncr world, llEir weak nessestuid crirninaldÍives, while thc optÍIlisn ol the Chinescábout hunran natuÍe rnakes lhem unablcto seetheir irDeÍ sell in ils tÍue light'. To \,vhichhe addedthe biting rcmark:'Because Wcstemershave an absoluleGod, dreyarc abie10 conl'ess their sins,aDd atone lbr them.'fte Chincsehave no Cod, and theÍeforethcy have neveÍ been capablcof confessio and ato- nemenf.135It shouklbc remarkcdhcre that in his writings.Liu Xiaobodoes not trke aDyform of Clrmesercligi,,n sefioust). including BudJltiqm. He aÍgueslhat re Chinesegrcssly oveÍeshmate man's ability to mouldrealily becausethey hÀvenever separated religion from politics,while in re WesLLudler's ReÍormaiion $/as aimed at eDfoÍcingthis scparation.marking the decisivestep in preparingtlre pÍocess of dcmocratisation. While tÍe Cfuistiiurpossesses conceptons of God andTruth whicherrable him to takea moral, spirinraland irtcllectual staÍce independent of drcseculaÍ powers, dre Chincse coltinue 1o believe lhatmiu*ind is bestscNed if theindividual supports the mighty.Chinese spiritualiry fostercd sub nissionto despotism,and did not,like CluistiaDity,produce lIe seedsof individualismiuld politi- cal revolt.rsbCuriously, Liu secmsunaware of thefact thathe heÍe echoes Hegel's own crilicism of Chineseculture.lrT While hostileto Hegel,his own viewson progressÍr hislory,tlle causes of China'sdeoline, and lhe contnbulionof Cfuistiani(y!o the emaDcipationof the individualowe muchmore to Hegelthan he seemsÍo realise-MoÍeover, he appearsto beunaware of theÍelevanf studiesby Max WebeÍ,as he does not mentionWebeÍ even once. Anotherpoint is thaltheÍe seems to be a confadictionbetween Liu's aversionto 'metaphysics', and his admirationfoJ Christianiry. However, ii we look at the matler lroÍt the viewpoinï of his reasorvfeelingdichotomy, the contradictiondisappears- Liu useslhe woÍd 'metaphysics'polemi- cally,as a depreciativeterm for any syslemof dlou8htin whichiÍ ir nol a barlscendentBeing, bui theexisting social hieÍarchy it-self which is lhe objectof rcligiousveneration and Óe solecriterion for lruth-He oallsChioese thought 'monistic' and 'metaphysical' because he believesthal it seeks

134 .làr1.,November 1989, p.74iJuly 1989,t.76. 135 LiuXiáobo, "Hubris , p.35. 136 Fda,p. 129,and Liu Xiaobo. MelalhysicsandChinescCulture,X,,]{rnrry,No. 1,1988,p.65. t3'7 see Avineri, +&g{lsJJ'n rt, pp. 2ó5-66;268-69, cjtinlHcgcl's PhilosophJo.f Histoty. |1't''r t"' '' ' a-

t4lJ W{)EI LIEN CHONG

man'ssalvation in, nol be\ond lhe actualworld. Chistianityis, in this view, by dcfinitionnot 'mêtaphysical',since it is not oÍ y dualistic,but hasalso in fact conlributcdÍ) theemancipation of the individualin history.Thus, while in $e historyof Westemphitosophy, Chistian theologyis Íeated asa branchof metaphysics,Liu ÍegaÍdsChristianity and 'metaphysics' ar bcingcxact op- posiles,as a Íesultof thepeculiarities ofhjs dualisticclassification systerl.

The Senseof TÍagedJas the SourceofGr€atn€ss In Liu's opinion,ÍIe senseof sin,and the accompanyingawaícness tbat mao is a tragicheing, nol oDly makesWestem culture as a whole superioÍ troChinese culture, but also has bre.dgrealeÍ peÍ- sonalitiesin religion, philosophy, and aÍ. CompaÍedto Weslem society, he finds life in China shallowand tnvial, as it meÍelyrevolves around the '\'ulgaÍ utitilariiaism'Oongsu de gangtí zr ]t oÍ Íamily interestsand pÍactical communjty life. He givesa ielling example:some lattreÍ, day delèndeÍsol Conïucinnismentertain the notion that Conlïcius surpassedChrist, becauscthe Cbfistian desiÍe to love evcrybody is impractical. If a loaf hirs to be dislributed, thcy say, Chris- tianswould want tt) giveit to everybody,which cannot bc done,while Confucius would give it to his parents,which is a betleÍchoice since it is far morepractical. Liu findsthis banal attitude com- plel,elyabhoncnt. For him, thespiritual quality of an cthicalsystem does not dependon thepracti- calieasibility of its goals.lrs Hc claimsthat it is pícciselybecause Chinese ethics are pÍeoccupied widr the pÍacticalaffals ol the family and society that they havc led the Chineseto ao unconditionalcompliance with the existingsocial order.ll9 The Chineseare said to posscssno ideaof whatit meansto leada liïe in- spiÍedby lraDscendentideals: 'It is not impoÍtantwhcther or not man'sreligious aspirations, and desirefoÍ pcÍbctionand love, can ultimately be attaincd,but whatmattcÍs is thattlre life ol a DeÍ- son who possessessuch ideals is authcntic'.I1oIt is the loftinessof one'sideals that counts, not whethcror not llrey me beneficialto society lal The shallownessof Chinesecullure, Liu complaiN,has led to ihe formationof shallowpe$on- idities.Even the grcat figures in Chinesehislory arc only grcatin conrparisonwith othcrChincsc - - theylack calibÍe in comparisonl-o the innumeÍablecouragcous, restless, and tormcntcd souls in Westemphitosophy and litcraturc.Pcrhaps tbe only exceptionis Zhuallgzi.ll2Liu is extremely sensitiveto lie litcrarysryle of a philosopher,and whctlcr or not it bearslraces of his having wagedàn existentialbatílc. Gícatncss in a philosopheÍ,as Liu sccsit, dependsnoÍ only on lhe intellectualcontÍibution he hasmade to tlle historyol thought- it dependseven more on whcthcr

138 LiuXiaobo, Hubris ,p 36. 139 Ios,p.435 1,1t) Liu Xiaobo, Hubris , p. 36 141 Critiqk,p. ]1. 142 On Zhuangzi,sco,'\"stl"r;r, pp. lli'1,1. 149

or not he experienceddre lÍagic duality of manin his own lifc. Did he live passionatelyand dat- gcrously,tossed bctween contradictory desires and aspir4lions l Did he put at stakchis oarecr,so- cial Íespectability,oÍ evenhis lilè, lbr lhe sakeoí Truftl Hc lclls us how disappoinbdhe was whenhe readAristoue'! famous Po?ti.) foÍ fte Íirst time.ÍindiDg it ar unbearablydry lexl. Al- lhoughadmiring AÍistodc as a scbolaratrld philosopheÍ, he prelèrsPlato in Íermsof boti spiritual stalureand liteÍary style. (OI course,lhe comparisonis not rcallyfaiÍ, sinceLiu iSnoresthe lact thatwhal has survivedof Aristotle'sworks arÍctrjs lectuÍenotes, aDd thal his literarywritings, wilichwere irpparently muoh pÍaised in thc íulcicntworld, aÍe now losi). Liu claimsthal, whilc thcrcarc uncounlablemen ot fÍin.illc in 4rchrstory ut Westernthoughl who,likc GjorditroBruno iurd Socratcs, died in thedefence ofkrlowlcdge and Truti,lhere is not a si[gle Chi eseÍlinker who has died foÍ Truth.'Íypically,Liu igooÍesall counteíex:unplcs. Hc holdsDat the poet-statesmanQ! Yuan,lhe highcstparagon of viflue for Chiilescintellectuals, diedexactly for fie wrongreasons: he t(X)khis owTllilè out of disappoinÍncÍttbat he couldno longcÍplay a role in theexisting political order.llt Liu cvcn gocss.! fal aqto saythat those who tcfl publiclilè in p.otestagainst the pÍevailingpolicies only did so in ordeíto gaina rcputationot righteousnessin the hope of beingcalled back to oilice later. mile he scornsthe Chineseintellectual mainstlaam, hc is a greatadmiÍer of WesrcmconJcs sionalliterature, a genrewhich, he remarks, does not cxistin China,'as re Chinescarc not in the habitof layingbarc thc inÍcrmostdepths oí $eir rculs, inoludingits daikeÍsides'. Reading the self-confessionsoi St. Augustine,Rousseau, and Nietzsche was a rcvelationto him - iI wasas il hehad been struck by a suddenunderstrurding ofwhàL makes fte Westemspint so utterly different from thc Chinese.l{St. AugustiDeis,lbÍ Lio, tlle bestcxámplc: he wasnol pleasedwith himself like thetypical Chinese pedan!, but inlenselyaware ofhis ownpowerful incliDatioDs to sin.He did not Íegardevil assomething extemal, but asdweuing within hinrself. Neither was he deluded into thinking lhat the existing order wiLsthe best of all possible woÍlds, as he contrastedthe City of la5 Miurwith theCity of God. Here,a characteristictrait in Liu's pcrsonalityemerges, which may partly explain why he feels so stronglyatlracted to viewing the world in dualistictemN: he feelsiltense emotional affinity with authorswho exp.erience the world andlleir own existenceas a battlebetween Lwo irÍeconci- lábleforces. ln asfar ashe has Íead traditional Chinese literature and pfulosophy, he finds it unsat- islactoryin Íeflectinghis own stateofmind tuidfiat ofhis troublcdgeneration, as it seemsonly to

143 GiordanoBruno (1548-1600), a Domin;cm ftaÍ àndphilosophel. was bumd at thestake in Rome for defendinga paÍtheistview of the universe.Liu praiscsB.uno and cridcises Qu Y\an nzhtnsn;n9, April 1989,p. 79and Fcbrary 1990,p. 70.71. Seeàko frg,p. 1221CritiEa,p.9'1. Afacking Qu Yuanis 1 tadi tionalweaponin thearsenal ofthose who otpose orthodox Coníucian officialdom. 144 fos, p. 101. 145 1àà..Dp. 93.99. 150 WOBI LIEN CHONG

revolvearound the ideals ol ha.rmonyand loyalty to hierarchy.Itdoes not unveilIhe facts of lifc as his generationhas come to lÍlow it in all its brutalily, and lacks the vocabulary.to expressthe anxietiesof a soul tom to shredsby insupcrableirlneÍ conflicts_Even in itJ saddeÍmoods, he fin& that its tone is mainly one of resigtation, noi of agony and combat.Liu ieels UlaÍ the realitiesof human life aÍe much morc adequatelyreflectred in the greatdichotomies of Westemthought be- tweenGod and thc Devil, freedomand necessiry(Krnt), Apollo andDionysus (Nietzsche), the Egoand the ld (Frcud),the Ego andthe Supercgo (Freud), and reason and reajity (SaÍtÍe, Camus). Liu hasclearly recognised the religiousorigins of fte dualismof Kant and Existcntialisn.Ac, coÍdingio the lrtÍer, man is a tÍagic beingbecause he possessesconsciousness. Conscioulness urgeshim r€stlesslylbrwaÍd in seaÍchof meaning,while Ícalify is fundamcntallyiÍational, in the senseof not being sFucturedaccoÍding to principles comprehensibleby Íhe humanmind. From óis confrontationbetween consciousness and Íealily aÍiseswhat Liu calls the tÍagicduality ol man,and what Sarfe andCamus call 'tle absurd'. What does one do when confronied with the tragedy of existence?Liu cites the ttree options Fesented by Camusin his The M!íh oJ Sisyphas.l46Face io face with a reatity which tefusesto discloseitself to man'squest for meaning,one may ei(herchoose to extinguishconsciousness, by cornmitting suicide (total refusal), or to escapeby embÍacinga faidl and seekingsolace in optim ism (total acceptance).Camus rcjects lhese solutions in lavour of the third option, which is to maintain boÍh consciousnessanrl the absuÍd:it is only in óe tensiontletwcen them that freedom arises.FÍeedom, according Ío Camus,is intemal fteedom flom the establisbedvÀlues and liíe-pat- temsof one'senvironment. Onjy by aclmowledgingthe absurdity of socialmores (their complete arbifarincss),can onebe mentallyindependent of thèÍn.Lifè mustbe a ÍebcllioDagai$t the ab- sud, but thisis oDlypossible if no attemptis madeto explainaway the absurd. Tlis mcansftat we also have to acceptthe existenceof deathas absuÍd,something incomprehensible. Ou E.\islellce, evenas rebellion, is withouthope, because we mustdie.l47 Of Camus'sthree options, according to Liu, only thefint two canbe foundin Chinesehistory: therc is the iacile optimism of Confucianismand Conrmuiism on the one hand, which deniesthe lÍagic, and thereis the Buddhist and Taoist tradition of tie disappointedrecluse on tbe other,who admils the Íagic but Íeactsby with&awing fiom the wo d, whetheÍby a real or a symbolicdeath. Liu calls the first option 'Íraiveoptimism' and the second'negativepessimism,. SchopenhaueÍ also falls in the secondcatregory, às he enteÍtained'an Orientatwish for Nirvana,.l48Ín contrast. Liu cailshis olÀ,natt-itude, which is inspiredby Kant,Nietzsche, SaÍtre, and Camus, ,positive pes-

146 lbi.l., pp. 294-95,353, andelsewheÍe. The tjlte oí the Chineselranslaiion is ,{titu .& JprftM. l4'l This sunmaryis basedon RoberrfCcLuppe. Átóafr Caudr. {paris Ed.de T;flps present,1951). I haveused the Dulchtransli(ion by W.H. BàÍnhoom,Cand, CIheHague: Knsman 1964),pp. 18-23.Liu crlesp. 6 I of the Chinese! Lnsletiaf.of Ttu Myh of S;srph6 in Fog, p. 353_ 148 Ëos.p.301. 151

simism',as he regardsman's lragic fate not as an excuseÍor surrenderiDgto nililism, but as r challengeío chooseone's own individualexislence unu, as ioevitablymust happen, nnc is cut downby death.Wlile Li Zehoudenies the duatity of [ran andreduces Kiurt's world of ideasto drc woÍld o[ sense,Liu Xiaobois, with Cirmus.convinced thal it is in the refus?rl10 cscapc from {his dualitythai we finally becamespiritually matuÍe as indjvidual persons. Jetuilncroix oncewrote lbat accoÍcling1(] Kant, mar is 'a dualiryin searchlbr unity'.149We might say that Liu Xiaoboexclusively adnliÍes Klnt for havinguncovered the deplhoí man's dualily,while Li Zehouputs l}e greal,estenlphasis on Kant'stenacious. althouÊh unsuccessÍï1, at- temptto find uniryin orderlo orcr..drl dualily,by meansof lis ethicsand aeslÏelics. Li believes ftat his own sedimcDtationtlcory cnabicsus to Íind in Cornmunismthe unjty whiohKant sought in vain,while Liu is convincedthat dre dui ity of maDcanrot, ajld should lrot, be overcome.

Liu Xiaoboand Nietzsche It has alreÀdybeen aÍgued that thc subjectivistand aÍromianstlai[s in Liu's thoughl,derived Íiofil Existcntialism,aÍe noí dominant,as hc maintainsKant's categorici imperatrve in elhics,and is in Íe8ard to institutional mattersdefinitely in favouÍ of humanriShls, liberalism,democíacy, and the Íolc of law, all of whichwerc rejectcd by Nietzscheand Sartre. ln this section,I shallexplore in moÍe detail Liu's understandingof Nietzsche.l5oTo what cxteDtcan Liu be cêlleda'Nietz schean'?This qucstioD has notyet been dealt wilh in theexisting literaturc on Liu Xiaobo- The scopeof tÏis seotionis peÍforcelimited. For example,thc problemdrough whichsouÍces Liu hasarrived at lis view on Nietzscheis Dotdiscussed. As Liu makesno refercnceat all to the earljcrrcccption of Nietzschcin China,this question can only be dealtwith indirecuy,by studying therelationship between his view on Nietzscheand those oflris predecessoÍs.Herc Iies an import- antfuhne task.Àt pÍeselt,the studyof Nietzsche'sreception in Chinais still in tle initialphase, especiallywith respectto its philosophicalaspecls.l5l I *ill presenta b.oadcomparison of Liu'n^

149 le n L^cÍoix, Kdnt et le Kanlistu , p. 111. 150 Ii hasbeen said that, in view of Nietsche's aphoristicstyle, one shouldnever quote his stzl,emenls without having read his cnlirc oeuwe. This sction i-! basedon a readingof lhe following of his works: ?l|l BitÍh oÍTrcsè4 ant rhz Ca:. oJWasruí, tr.\\^1t Í KLUímann,(New York: Vintase Books, 1967);M",ljci'- Ibhas, AlI2LmensthLi.hzs. (Stuttgart: K$ner. lq7A); MotsenróQ, (Leipzig, kóne\ l93A). Die fróhliche Wis- renr.iidlt, O4ilnchcn:Goldmmn, 1959);áko rpld.á Za..,tr6rr"a, (Slurt8art:Klónef,1988); Jenseitsvon G t ud ,.tse, (Stutlsrí: Reclám, 1988)j Zel G","alasie .tct llotdl, (9tuíE í: Rccla'Ín, tga3)\ Twiliqht of thz ld.ols.Thz Antichtist,tÍ.R J. HoliinSdale,(London: HamrondswoÍh, 1968)iE .z ftorr, CÍankfurt :nr Màin: Insel, 1977);ànd the posthumousfragnenls p.eviouslypublished ás Del Wille zar,r/dclr, (Stuitgart:Króner, 19ó4),and which have,in cxlensivelyre €dilcd forÍll, beenre publshed in Giorgio Colli and MazzinoMonti' nan,N;.tzrhz: W.Íkê. Ktndche Gesanta8gab", V ol. V[V3, (Berlin.Waller de Gruyler.1972). 151 The foundefof the field in the West is hofcssor Márian Gálik. whosecon lribulions re tisledin Fin- deisen,Die last.let Kuhur, Paí I, pp. 18 19. 152 WOEI LIEN CHONG

philosophicaloudook on liíe wilh Nietzsche's,in order to indjcatethe limirs of the former,s inter- esí iD NieEsche. As we have alreadyseên, both men sha.íethe sameaversion to the 'herd-mentêIity'.According Ío NiêtzJche,European culture at that time was at óe end of its creaiivepowers, exlausted as it was by centuriesof lile-denying Christian morality. Chiistiaíify, NieÍzschewrote, elevatedthe mediocíity of the herd to the highest standard,a]td systematicallysuppressed excepÍonal in- dividuals.But asEuropean cultue neeCedexcepÍional indivjduals io restoreits powers,fie Chris- tian virtues of unworldliness,peacefulness, compassion, and seiÍ€ffacing meeloesshad to be removedfrom their dominantposition in the hieÉrchy of Europeanvalues, so that pÍoud, warlike, andtife-affirming individuals could at last cometo fhe foÍe. Nietzscheanalysed how Christiar morality had penelratedall spheresof Europeanculture and the individual mind. As we have seen,Liu Xaobo has attempted!o uldeÍake a similar task for post-MaoChina. At the macro-level,he wantedto showbow the 'small-peasanimeDtalify' shaped Chin€semorality, and how the moml systemdirected óe subsequentdevelopment of Ctinese so, cietyÍoward despotism. AÍ themicrolevel, he has described how theindividual's óought and be- haviouris shapedby the 'small-peasantmentality' of Mao's 'mass-line',so that evenme ex- ceptionalindividual is himself persuadedto believethat beingexceptional is wrong. The Chitresepreoccupation with social ordeÍ is foÍ Liu Xlaobo what Cbristianity once was for Nietzsche:a millennia-old, exfemely sophisticatedsystem of Íepressionbased on the suspicion andresentnent of theheÍd againstthe exceptional individual. Like Niefzsche,Liu holdsthat it is not the quantiryof iis peopleihat ccnsfitutesthe strengthof a culture,but óeir quality. The Chi- nesepopulation canDot claim to be superiormerely becauseit is large,Liu wÍites, ,sincea billion timeszeÍo is still zero'. Like Nietzsche,he felt that he had to cometo the Íescueof the aristooacy of culture and the mind againstthe tJtrannyof ttre mediocre.He eagerlyrcsponded to NieÍzsche's call to tive dangerouslyÀnd defianÍy, and recognisedthe same tragic heroism in Sartre and Camus. Apart ftom method and attihrde,Nietzsche's most important concephralcontribution to Liu,s thought, as aireadystatêd, is &e oppositionbetween Apollo, symbolisingfte life of reason,and Dionysus,stmbolising the life of the passions,as descíbed in Il,? Einix ofTragedy.rs2Liu:notds that Dionysusis recognisedand respeciedin modem Westemculture, vr'hilethe life of the pas- sionsand the pdmal instincts is deniedand supprcssed in Chinesesociety and art (presumably,Liu hererefers to thepost-I949 period only).153

152 Liu refen !o the ChinesetrÀnslation of the book in .4erázrÉr, p. 4. It wás pubtishedby Santianjn 1986under thê title B.U, de da shen|. He dÊs noÍÍefq ro the connêdionbefween ?tu Bifth ofTragedt and tneliterary works ofYu Dàfo(see Findeisen, Dt. aaJtder K btt,Put ï1,W. 1-13.) 153 FortheriseoíDionysusinpost-Maocinemaandnusic,selV.L.Chong,'YoungChina'sVoicêof dre1980si Rock St[ CuiJian , ChínalhforMtio\Vol. Vl, No. I, Sunmer1991, pp. 6&69. 153

However,this is wherethc similarityends as ÍiÍ a-scontent is concemcd,:tiNietzsche's basic probiclnwas fundame[tally diffeÍent fÍom Liu's own. Nie9scheclalmed Ihal Europeans were los- ine their will to livc bccauscChristianity, and llre mainstreamphilosopheÍs undcr its iríluence, hèd taughíthem thatljfe in this world is not woíh living belrase it is illusoryand tull of suf- 1èring.l54In orderto restoreEuÍope's confidence in the actualworld, Nielzsche diÍected the full blast of his attackk)ward dre other-worldliness(Jenseitigkeí, ol Eurcpeanreligion and meta- physlcs. As wehavc scen, Liu Xiaobois in compleiedisagreenent wiih Niclzsche'snegative view of Eu- Íope n Jenseiliekeit.For h n, thc mainsource of strengthin RrÍopeanculture lies exactly in its olher-worldliness:it is the belief in transcendententities such as Cod andTrudr which has pÍo- videdEurcpeans witll dleextemal criteria 10 evaluate the status quo in rcciely,and the courègc lo Íesistit wheni[ is loundto 1àllsbort of theiÍ high ideals.The Chinese,Liu writes,unconsciously echoin8Hegel, never had tuly means of compaÍingthe here-and-now with anidctrl, other-worldly state of affairs, and wcrc íhus condeÍxred to a blind affirmation of the statusquo. He Íinds their tliouÊht.to u!e Niet/.che s tcrm.exressivcly pu rr",ug.'5' AnolheÍ important dilference bctwccn Liu and Nielzscheis that dre first regardsthe Cbrisljan senseof sin asthe essentiàl spiÉlual antidote against what he considcrsto bethe moral corruption o[ contempomryCliinese intellecluals. He calls on them to abandonpolitica] opportunismand de- veloptheiÍ peÍsonal conscience, by examiningllle sinÍulnessin theiro\\,lr hcarts. Niel-.sche would sconlthis idca,sincc he Íegardsthe preoccupationwilh Sin andGrace in ftc Christianworld as patiological.Tbe ChÍistiaD,he wÍites,Íirst dcvclopsan exaggeraledsensitiviry to óe presenceof Evil, imaginingEvil to be in everynook andcranny of himselfaDd the world. He tàenlinds him- sclí soupset by all theEvii hepeÍceives, that he musthurriedly seek conÍèssion and Íedemption in oÍdeÍ to Íestorehis peaceof mind. ln other words, the needfor Íedemptionis an aÍtificial needcre- atedby a di$easedmind.15ó Nictzschcwanted to frec EurcpcincultuÍe liom re burdenof Sin,and argued thal'lie ptoblem of evil' did not exisl both good and evil are natuml in$edienÍs of lile ilselJ.Moreover, they are not qualitiesof the world assuch, but our own projectionsupon il. By denyingóe realiryof sin, Nietzschewanted to removeall metaphysicalobstacles which could prevent the slÍongindividual Írom shapingthe world according to hisown will. Liu Xiaobo'spÍoblcm, howevd, is exacllythe oppositeof Nietzsche's.Liu wantsto find out how secminglynormal people could be manipulatedinto conrmittingevil duringlhe 'CultulalRe- volution', and how their moÍal defencescan be strengthenedin oider to preventtltrs from happen-

154 Foreximple Colii andMonlinari, tv..tu, VIIV3,p. 11 6. 155 f,a, pp.45455. 156 ZvGewabraie.rzíMoral, quoted from Co i àndMonrina'à,wèrkz,YW,p.40'l 1s4 WOEILIEN CHONG

ing again.NieÍzsche addressed À peoplewhom he held were paralysedby tie belief in their own siÍfulness:he arguedthat they would fa.rebetter if Íhey had less.eligious morali6,. Liu Xiaobo ad- alressesa peoplewhom he holds to be without any conceptionof origina.lsin: he arguesthat they would farc betÍeÍ if iiey had more Íeligious moraliry. Nietzschelonged for the rise oí the Super- man; Liu Xiaobo haswimessed bow Mao playedthê rcle of the Supermanin reality, and wantsto eliminatethe conditionswhich madethat disasterpossible. Sincêthe problemsfacing both men are different,fte solutionsthey proposediffer accordingly. Although Nietzsche'scondernnation oí the herd was inrmediaíelyrelevant to Liu, the herd whicb íacedthe latter was essentiallydiffeÍent io naturefrom the herd whjch facedthe formeÍ. Nietzsche ascnbedthe IeftraÍgyof Europeanculture to the herd's peacefulmeekness. ln contÍast,the masses of which Liu speákswere the violent, aggressivemobs of the 'Cultural Revolution'; they werenor meek,but whippedup by a rutl essdemagogue into a violent frenzy. While Nietzsche'spÍoblem wascultuÍal exhaustion, Liu Xiaobo'sproblem is politjcalviolence. This explains why Llu ls morc concemedwith problemsofpolitjcal organisation and the rule ofiaw thanNietzsche. Liu claimsto promote libeÍalism alld democíacy,while NieÍzscherejected íhem as secularisedforms of the Christianmillenarian beliêf in collective redemption.He regardedthem as sharingthe mistaken píemisethai everybodyis equa.lin principle, and shouldbe madeincreasingly rrlore equal in fact. ln a masssociery, he warned,Íhe averageis the standaÍd,and the averageis the mediocre.people in societiesoÍganised oD liberal,social democÍatic or socialistpritciples are still no more$an herdarimals. He nevertielêsswelcomed the rise of modemmass-socjety, as it wouldbreed the Dew caesarswho would use the democraticsystem for fieir own ends, ard lead Europe into a moreajnoÍal. more energerrc. and more warlilc era.li7 All this is faÍ removedfrom Liu Xiaobo'sviews. He is of the opintonthat Chinaneeds lib- eÍa-Iismand human rights, and Íegardsdemocracy, not asjust atrothertlpe of herd-society,but as tre fonn of social organisaÍionin which the individual is bestprotected against political andbure- aucraticarbiÍariness, so that his creativiry can be ur eashed.The 6,.rannyof the medioqe rs no( a pÍoduct of demooacy, but of totalitariaíism. While Nietzschewas hopefully looking lorward to tbe rise of sfong individuals wió a lust for power, Liu Xiaobo is concemedwith the systematic separaíian6 powets.In a societywhich still has to recoverírom the havocrÀ,Íought by a totalita, .ian nrler suchas Mao Zedong,Nietzsche's call for ihe demiseof moftlity ard the rise of wartike, dominatingindividuals must seemtro have been gravely mistaken. Neverlheless,Liu agÍeeswith Nietzschethat tbe mediocriry of &e herd should nêver be the nolm i! the fields ol knowledgeand culture. He calls foí the establisbmentof higher artistic, intel- lectual, and professioml standaÍds,and the defenceby fearlessindividuals of the autonomyof thesesta.ndards against political encrcacbment.Liu doêsnot think in tenns of Supermen,but iÀ t51 Wille ,w L'lactu, Aph 898 termsofrcsponsible profcssional groups. To be surc,Liu 1èelsstrongly atlracted to theSupermar as dresÍon8 individualwho bÍeakswith the rrnsd rnd establishc,J.,pinrrn,lís hut tredoes no1 lollow óe phitosopherin hiscelebration of theSupeÍnan as amorai, cruel. and Íuthless. ln spjteof his SartÍeanrhetorics. Liu relainsmuch of thc FadidonalChinese concept ol cultureas a coopeflr- {rveundertaking. aDd still believesthat intellcctuals have, 4rd iÍrtellectuals,a special responsibility to protectnoral andir{ellectual st&daÍds. Surffnarising,we mayconclude thal NieIzschc's contribution to Liu's outlookon life consistsin his Apollo,Dionysusdichotorny, his exubeÍantcall to live dangerouslyand make the world the playSÍoundoï one'spassionate energics, and his anstocraticlversioo to tbe mediocriryof the herd.Howevcr, in Íegardto otlcr themes,such as otheÍ-worldlincss, sin andredemption, tbe Su- pcmran,libeÍalism ard democracy,Liu takesa view which is the exêctopPosite to Nietzsche's

Conclusion Thc lÍrowledgein China of westernphilosophy is immenselygÍexteÍ than it was during the precedingderadcs, and afleÍ hall-a century, it is onceagÀin being used !o pointout thc ills ofcon_ temporaryChinese culture and society. Wcstem philosophers like Kant,Locke, Freud, Nielzsche, Sarrc, andCamus have played an importantrole in providinga philosoPhicalbasis for post-Mao Doliticalactivism, social cnticism. and aesftetic Íeflection. Ïris studyhas atIemptcd to showthe influenceof WesleÍnideas on Liu Xiaobo,pointin8 out váuiousprobleÍIr-s of intemalconsistency in his wrilings,and relaling fbem to thelàct thatLiu usesWesteÍn philosophical concepts mainly in a poiemicalmanner in ordeÍto altÀckthe Chi&se traditionimd ChineseConrmunism, within theframewoÍk of theduality of 'reirlon'aDd 'fecling'. In the ÍiÍst place,fiis study has uncoveredthc cenlJalÍole of Kant's philosophyíor Liu's thought,and his enmityagainst Hegel. Kant has inspired Liu by hisideal conceming the limitl oí human Íeason,his conceptioDoi ar1as an autonomousreÀt! of fie ftce play of llle imagtnatior (which goesagainst [re paÍty's view tbat aí shouldbe aÍ inslÍumentfor poliircalpropaganda), and the categoÍicalimpeÍalive that one should always reat the individual as an end in itself, and neveÍas a means.Liu adÍires Kant'sphilosophy because, as a philosophyof limits,it is stÍongly dualisticand anti-utopian- As we haveseen, it is for thisÍeason ftat hehas fieÍcely opposed Li Ze- hou's Marxist inteÍprctnhonof Kanl. His reàsorvfeelingdichotomy is a deliberateillveNion of tlle oppositionbetween gatLxing arÀ lrtrng in Li Zehou's'scdimentation' theory. MoÍeoveÍ, it hÀs stronglybeclr inlluenced by Nietzsche'sdichotomy between the ApolloniaDand Dionysian pÍin- ciples, as well a-sby Íhe opposition in f-raditionalChinese discouÍse between the Confucianistlove for orderánd Taoist sDontaneitv.

158 Àns.I 30,1. WOEI LIEN CHONG

The disagreementbetween Liu and Li hou is pdmarily basedon Íheir different interprctations of Kant: Li Zehou puts the greatestemphasis on the objective arld social aspectJof the Kantian philosophy, while Liu Xiaobo is exclusivelyconcemed with fte subjectiveand individualNbc as_ pects.It is interestingto note that Li z€hou's Íe-introductionof Kant in china irnmediatelygave rise to this disagreementabout the meaningof the Kantianphlosophy, and óat this disagreemenr appeaÍs,tro a certain extent,to echo the earlier EuropeêndivergeDce of opinion on Kant between, brcadly speaking,Hegelians and anti-Hegelians(Schopenhauer, NieÍzsche, Kie*egaard). Al_ tboughas a materialist,Li ZehouÍejects Hegel's idealism, it cannotbe deniedthat his interpreta_ tion of the categoricalimperative makes his position similar to Hegel,sin ís subordinaÍonoí the individual to the progressof societyin hisl,ory. Liu Xiaobo is tully awareof the fact that his disagreementwith Li Zehou echoesthe eartierEu- ropeandebaies. He aegardshilnself and Li as representalivesof two oppositecunents of ftought originating ftom Kant. Il his view, Li Zehou representsthe utopian,collectivistic cuíÍent wtlich leads from Hegel to Stalin and Mao (it shouldbe noted,however, that Li Zehou is very cnlcal ol Maol59).This current,according to Liu, sprangfÍom Hegel.smisraken attempt ,o orr"r"o-" Kant's critical dualism andio formulatea monisticphilosophy of redemptionánd reconciliation. Hegel could not acceptKant's conclusionthat mankind'spotential for perfectioDis lifiuted, and held that History itself would automaticallylead mankindto the ideal society.Marx suosequenty ilherited Hegel'sutopiadsm, although he claimed that his reformulation of Hegel,shistoricism in materialist .scientific,. termshad madeit sfiicrly Liu rcjectsthe attemptsof both Hegetand Li Zehouto overcomeKant's dualism.Holding fast to Kant,sdistinction between óe phenomenal and the noumenal,Liu deniesthe validity of lhe Conrmunistparry,s claim that it is lhe executorof a scientific ,The bluepriDtfor establishitgthe idealsociety. idealsociety, of perfectlustice and harmony is a Íigment of the mêtaphysicalurge and cannotbe bÍought aboutby science,wbrch is [ecessarilylimited to the realm of phenomena. The secondcurrent o ginating from Kant, accordingio Liu, is pessimistic,anti-utopian, and in dividualistic. It leadsfrom Schopenhauerand Nietzscheto Sarfe and Carnus,and Liu i_trlplicidy mcludeshimself. Insteadof trying to overcomeKant's dualism,this curent of thoughtemphasises the fagic duality aild lonelinessof ma.ueven rÍrore than Kant himself, thus giving adequateex_ pressioÍ io the realities of ihe humancondition in the modem era, and particularly in post_Mao China. Put h graphic terms, Liu's thought tavelled back from orthodox Marxism_LetuInsmto Kant, ard at the U-tum he switchedfrom the first cuÍrent to the second,leaving Kaot,s moclerate dualism to embarkon thê extremesubjectivism of Sarte's Existentialism.Liu can,to a cenan ex_

15942. SeEU Zehor,Makèsizhtyi zdi Z]tonssuoMàÍ'.ism in china),(Beijinsrsantian shudian, 1988),pp 151

lent, be calledan Existenlialistbecause he agÍeeswith Sártre'stragic and anomian view on thc humaDcondition, al]d likewise refuscs to scckconsolaLiorLin any uÍ)pian Í?illr. Hovr'evcr,Ihis pictuÍeis nol coÍrplele.The secondconcem of this srudyhas becn Io poilÍ out that Liu miDglesdre vocabulaÍyof anonlianExistentialism with a strougbelief in demmÍacy, humanrights. and Lockean libeÍxlisnl, and thal lhis hasproduced lensions in his thoughtwbich he himselflras nol noliced.The main reitsLin for lhis is drathe regardsliberalism and Existentialisn as allies(pro-'feelin8') againsr thc colleclivist(pro-lczL\on') outlook oI Codluciusimd Hcgcl (read: Li Zehouand tie CommunistPÀrly). The only thjng ftat countsíor him is tbatboth libcralism and Existentialismdcfcnd fic fÍeedomand the autonomyo1 t]te individual- he has not noticedthe fact flat theydo soin vcrydifleÍent ways. (Jn dreone hand, he agrees with Hobbes,Nielzscbc, Freud, and SÍlrlre (as agairNt Hegel) dràt so cial solidarityánd reconcilialion on drebasis ofÍearlo areinpossible, as all interpeÍsonalÍelation shipsiuc iriheÍentlycbaÍacÍeÍised by iÍalional andineÍadicable conÍlicts. while, on theother hard, he delèndsa rationalist,oonfactarian vicw of soJietyand political obligation dcrived from Locke. The contíactaÍianmusl explain where dre original consensus 10 establilh a socialcontÍact comes from, iurdit is difficultb sechow thiscan he doneon re basisof Liu's dccplypcssimistio view oí humanrelationships. Admi(tedly,tàis dilerllmagocs back to Lockehimselí and presents a problemto all contracta riims,but onewould expectit to be specificallyaddressed by someonelike Liu, who apparcntly belicvesdrat contractarianism car contributeLo solving practical problems ofpolitical orgiurisation in presenldayChinr. Aldlough the idea of dle bodypolitic being based on a oovenanthas proved to be uscfulin drc theoíeticaldebatc against fte totalitaíianclêjms of thc CormlunjstParty, it sccmsdrat Liu takesit too nlucirior gÍantcddrat a liberalpolitical oíder can in fact beestdblished l'á ovíJon the basisoI consensus.He rejectssingle-paÍty rule, but hasdevoted no attentionto lhe questionhow tïe actualcorfliots of intcrestin Chinashould be deallwith when the partycol lapses.This is especiallysurprising in view of his acutreawareness of tlrc realiryof conflictand sLnlèin humanlile. AnodrcÍ difficulty we havc scen is thàt Liu mixes a Sartreanview on lieedom as contingency with a strongbelief in humanrighls. Liu agreeswiÍr Sartrethat man is ftee to be what he chooses to be, ashe is in no way intemallypÍedetermined by anya prioli 'essence',and the past does not in amyway extemallyiimit his mn8eof choices,since there is no predetermincdpattem of meaningundeÍlying history (as against Hegel, MaD(, aDd Li Zehou).Liu feelssirongly attracted to this view,hecause it expresses$e Íealitiesof life in postMao China:robhed of his social()ots, all Íaditionalbeliefit, ard thesense of historicalmission of thepast dccadcs, ÍIc indivjdualis Iefí on his ownto stÍugglefor meaningin themidst ofa mcaninglessunivcrse. However, ontologically speaking,Liu's universeis far lessmeáningless than tbat of SaÍtreimd Camus, as he seemsto ti (e the objectiveexisÍence of humanrights lor SranIed,while he nowhcre discusses the pÍoblems sur- roundingdre doclÍine of humanrights. WOEILIEN CHONG

Wilhin óe framework of Liu's Íeasory'feelingdichotomy, however, the different views on tbe individual representedby l,ocke, Nietzsche,and Sartle, seemto complementratheÍ than !o con, tradicÍ eachotheÍ. lncke regardsthe individual as tj'e ftíional homoeconomi.rj, who voluntarily entersfte social contract in oÍder to safeguardand fuÍther his own economicinterests. In post- Mao Chha, Locke's image of man as private entÍepreneuprovides [he argumentsnecessary rc undermineCornmunist collectivism in the economjcand political fields. h oppositionto Í.heCom- munist Parly, Liu usesaÍguments from the Lockeanliberat tradilion in order to suppo aheauton omy oÍ economicactiviry, while cÍing Kant in ordeÍ to suppoÍ the autonomy of krowledge, ethcs, andaÍ. HoweveÍ,aithough Liu is convincedthat Chinaneeds science and tecluology. maÍ- ket economy,and democracy in orderto put an endto its millenria-old history of povertyand des, potism, he doesnot believethat theseare su.fficient to rcsolvethe currentcultural cdsis. Accordinq to him, the root of óe problemlies muchdeeper_ llis majorcomplaint is thaÍ Chineseculture is shallow,and its valuesb:ivia]. He believesthat tbe Chineselack the Westemfeeling for the fagic, and lhat asa result, they have alwaysbeen unable Ío creategreat afl, greatphilosophy, and great science.The main rclevanceof Njelzsche.Sarfe. and Camusfor Liu's thought is not only that they regaÍd the individual as p.imary and rhe com- muDfy assecondary (as doesLacke), but that, unlike Locke andechoing Kant, Í.heydepict man as tragicaliy condeÍEed to a perpetualsfiving for lhe unattainable.lt is this tragic view on the dual natureol mar which, for Liu, makesóeir view of man fuly greaÍ. The third maia poinr Íaised by this study is that Liu has emphasisedthe Cbristianorigins of the tragicqualiry in Westemphilosophy and of individuatism.UDwittingly echoing Hegel atd Weber, he ascribesio Christianity tle positive contributionio Westemculture which Nietzschedenied. In post-MaoChina, the inlercst in Eaditional Clhirlesereligion and ChÍistianitJ,is a nanlral rcaction againstthe dogmaticmaterialism and economismof official Marnism-Leninism,and Liu s gener- ation asa whole considercitself muchmoÍe sensitiveio the impofianceof religion in Westemcul- furc thanearlier generations of Chinesemodemisers.160 It may be true ftat Liu's aainirationfor the conflicting world views of Christiani[r, contractadan Iiberalism(Incke), and atheisticsubjectivism (Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus) has resultedin a lack of conceptualconsistency in his thought.However, wheDseen in relation to the multifarious prob- lems he wantsto solve, his eclecticismis at this stageperhaps more of an assetto him than a lia- bility. In the fiNt place,his coDcemfor humanÍights and iistitutioDat changehas savedhjm from endingup in the samepredicament as most followeN of Nietzscheand the early Sartre,who find the.Dselvesunable to fomulate any social or politicat philosophyon tie ba_sisof their atomistic subjectivism.l6lNieosche and Safirc provialedthe meansfor unmaskingthe ways iD which so-

1,!0 During his stayin L\e USA, Liu discovercd!o ruschègdn ihêt the imporianceof retigionin every-day Wêsremlifè hêsdq,indled. See B arné,',Confèssion ', D. 118. 159

cicty cocrccsthc individual, but withoulollering crileria on thc basisofwhich a 'betler'orderuan becstablished, as 'better'. in theirdlought, has only a purelysubjective meaning. Liu Xiaobo,pos sibly sensingthis difliculry (although not makingit explicit),Íingles theiÍrtegativc crilicisnr wi{r tfiepos;tive contcnt of hisbelief iD liberalisn,democracy, Àrtd human rights- In the secondplace, it is prccisclyhis coDccmwith mattersoI philosophy,arl, andÍcligion which prevents him frc l beingover-optimistic about óe eflicacyof institutjonalchange or of scienceand technology in elevalingthe quality ol ChineseLullurc ind spiritualiry- This beingsaid, however, onc doubtswbedrer the narrowduxlism ol tlle reason/íeelingdicho- tornyis theproper means for dealingwift llle complexiliesof institulionalchange ín óe lield of politicsarld economics, al]d dle intíioacicsof philosophicaland religious doctÍine. Whal Liu has doneis to turnestrhlished beliefs and values of conlempoÍaryChiDcsc society upsidc d)wD. What establishedopirion considersgood he hasclassilied as bad and vice vefsa,following Zbuiurgzi's ancicntexample, as well iLsNietzsche's call to undeÍtakea 'Íevaluationof all values'.Admittedly, thereinte4)Íetalion {)1-coocepls can be usefulifl stimulatingim altemativeview on reality,so that pÍoblemscan be redelined and altcmativc solutions found. But apa from its intriNic andpolcmi- cal inteíest,Liu's Íeason/feclingdichotony does Dot rnake any concÍele contribulion Lo a claÍilica- donofinstitutional pÍobleÍrs in China,nor of thecomplexities of Chineseiurd Wcstcm philosophy andreligion. As we baveseen, his dichotonlyis marnlya polemicaldevice which does not o11èÍ, andevcn hampeís, an objective analysis of coDcreteproblems. Thereason is thatLiu's dualisticclassification systcm is not aimcdat tracing óe historicgenesis andevolution of concepts,Dor the way in wlich theyare teclmically ernployed to solveconcrete philosophicalproblems, but at categorisingthem a-seilher desirable('good') or undesirable ('bad'),As wc haveseen, Liu considcrs'rea-\on','mctaphysics',iurd'monism'as conscívxtivc andrepressive, while he regards'Íeeling', 'methodology', and'pluralism' as progressivc and cm anoipatory.Although hc has att?aked Confuciimism and Communism for bein,sexcessively moral- istic,his own dualisticliamework is likewisemerely a meansÍbr a moritislicclassiilcation of be- ljefs andphenomena. All thesecriticisms aside, I believcthat Liu's polemicalwdlings arc interestingin a historical context, i.e. when regardedas pgriod documens which reflect a certain kind oI reaction [o l}e West.His rejectionof Chineseculture and lavishpÍaise foÍ Wesrcmvalues reflect, albeit in a highly idios],nffatic and conlroveÍsial manner,the poscMao atmosphereof generaldisillusion- mcnt with the Communistexperiment. lt is not only Liu Xiaobo who has Íavelled from Marx to Nietzscheand Existentialism: many wÍiters and aÍdsts ofhis a8ehave donc lhe same.What makes

16 1 Thispoint is arguedfor Nietzsche'scase in lijrgenH aberm s, D. I philosophis.ha D tskurs.1. r Mo,l ChapreÍIv. ForSÀ.lrè's case, scc MaÍy Wamock, E istektialistn,pp . 116-29. "na, 160 WOEILIEN CHONG

Liu's caseespecially interesting is the fact that, on his way from Marx to Nietzscheand Sartle.he passedtlrough Kant. Most peopleof his generationare disillusioned because, having once eagerly rallied to Mao's call to sac.ifice theiÍ individuality for the sake of collective happiress,they discoveredthat the Chairman'spromise was a lie. Liu, underthe inÍluenceof Kant, hasrealised that it was evenwo e than a liet the very idea of realisingthe ideal societyis basedon a fallacy, alr intellectualmistake. Reason,whether in the form ol scienceor political planning,is inleren{y limited and incapableof bringing humansociety to pedection.ID Liu's opinjon, the Chinesewere easily led to embarkon a utopian couse becausethey believed that Marxism-Leninismoffered a scientiÍic method for achieving óe traditional Confucian ideal of perfect social haÍmony. Had they been reared on Humeand Kant, thingscould supposedlyhêve been different. No wondeÍ he so vehementlyattacked Li Zehou, who reformulatedthe Kantian philosophy in ordeÍ to sfengthentbe MaÍxist belief in the coming of the ideal Communistsociety. In Liu,s view, Li ZehouÍepÍesents the worst oí Chinesetradition (the belief that social harrnonyis more import_ ant than fte individual), who has tied to desfioy in Kant the best oi Westernïradirion (the idea that the individual is an end in itself). For Liu Xiaobo, Li Zehoupersonifies tle crushinganti-indi_ vidualistic power of Chinesetradition. His attackon Li wÀsthe attackof the Existentialist,who cloesnot believe that man cao substantiallyimprove the huma! condition, on the Marxist, foÍ whom this belief is the very essenceof everythinghe standsfor. lt is this belief which, accoraiing to Liu Xaobo, dre oÍhodox Marxist shaÍeswith the Confucianist:tiey a-reboth optimistic about the malleability of man and the perfectibility of the world though reason,and this is the core of their tendencytoward totalitarianism (Karl Popper'sargument). It is this which Liu hasin mind whenhe saysthat the ideologicalconJticr between China alralrlle .individualisric, Westis basedon the incomparibiliryof the 'Íragic' and life-vjew of the lauer with the 'optimistic'ánd 'monistic'life-view of óe former.As we haveseen, he considersChinese Marxism as nothing but the quasi-sciendficmanilestation of what he regards as ,faditional Chinesecosmic optimism'. In his opinion, ihe modem separationof social spheresis not just an iisl-rtutionalploblem, but also an ideologicalone. If in Ctina, politicat leadershipcontinues to be perceivedas a semi-sacredinstitution aimedat the removal of aI outer signs of conÍlict and Íhe ,hanno!y,, supprcssionof a.ltemativevalue-systems in oÍder to prese.vecosmic then the teDdency toward iotalitarianismwill not be eliminated,regardless of whateveÍinstifirtional changeswill be undeÍtakeDin order to establishdemocracy, human dghts, and .the rule of law'. The anti-utopianposition of the lrckeans, Kantians, NieÍzscheansand ExistentialistsiD tle prcsenÍintellechral specÍum in China is enthely different from drosewho, in reactionto the crisis ,metaphysical of Marxism-Leninism,have sought alld found a.ltemaíve oudets for the uÍge'. Utopianismis by no meansendicated, as demoDstratedby the revivat of the positivistic faith in scienceaDd technology êncouraged by lhe tecbnologicalchiliasm of v,Titerslike Alvin Toffler, and Íhe oaive optimism itr somecircles aboutthe potentialitiesof ldr'Js?r-loiretiberalism to solve lót

all of ChiDa'sesonomic problems. If the 'metaphysicrdurge' is a constaÍ featurcof humanpsy- chology,as Liu believeswith Kant,theo the questionaljscs to whatextent his own writingscao contributcto fulfilling theeternal human need for a coherentand meaningful view of thc uDi\,erse. U[lil recenlly,it wasChinese Communisnr which lulfilted the functronsol a world-viewor a communifylaith. lt wasexpected to providca coherentiuld life-reSulating sel of bcliefssharcd by dreentiÍe coÍ]lnunity, providing rndividuals with guidanceand support in dajlylife :urda mutual senieoffellowship. This emphasises the seriousness of the 'culturecisis' followingthe 'CultuÍal Revolution':there bas beeD a simultiueousdisintcgration of bothinstilutional social cohesion rrrd of lhe vi ues and belieiswhic.h pÍeviously undeÍpinned it. The bÍeakdownof Chincsesooiety seemscompletre. The preseutal.mospheíc ol'aDomy' and 'nihilism'which coÍrservahveoidcs blameon the irÍlucnceof Nietzschcand Existentalismseems rather óe resultof lhe'Cuhural Revolution'aDd the collapse of Communistoptimism. Nielzsche ard Saftrehave merely provided thevocabulary md dleideas to exprcsstiÉ ensuingaixieties. In vicw of the bÍeakdownoí Chinesesociety. and dre need for newconslructive life views,the questionarises whether pessimisnl, sucb as advocated by Liu Xiaobo,can bc morethan a ransi- tionalphase ot óought.Whcn it comesto pÍovidingthe indjvidualwith newstandards of individ_ unl virtuc, socialjurtice, ánd a new senseol fellowshipwith others,Freud, Nietzsche, and tlle enÍlySdrtre càn makc no contribuLionwlratsoeveÍ, nor wasit theiraim to do so. As wc haveseen, Liu Xaobo explicittyícjects thc'metaphysical urSe'for spiritualcomforf and man's necd for tel_ lowshipbccausc hc bclievesthey leadto lossoï autonomy.He holdsdrat man's rue emotional fulfilmentcan only be found,not iD restoredcommunity life iurdtbc buildingoi Communism,as Li Zehoubelieves. but iD art. For those,however, who are lessincli|ed thanLiu to Êo it aloneand seek sol4ce in aí, the va- cuumleft by thedemise of orthodoxMadism-l,eninism camot be filled by pessimism.TlÉ revi- val of scientismand neo-tradiionatism (to saynothing of tlrcrise of consumerism)attest to this fact. How canone lmd new valueswhen the old godshave died? Europe has slruggled with the samequestíon ever since Nietzsche, and the slruggleis still continuing.After decadesol millen- nial euphoria,many Chinese thinkers, both Marxists and non-MaÍxists alike, have novr' joined the siuneunended quest., As we haveseen, the disagreement bctween Li Zehouand Liu Xiaoboon thesiSnificance oi tlle Kantianphilosopby Íeflecb the corÍIict i! post-MaoChina between MaÍxism on theoDe hand, and Existentialismand Liberalism on the ofier. For Li, the strength of the Europeanphilosophical kadition lies in the principles it containsfor attaining collective wealdr and power, aad the esta- blistunentof tlreideal society. All dlat is ncededis to rcvisebourgcois philosophy iD termsof his- toricalmaterirlism. Liu Xiaobodenies this. For him, lhe stÍenglholmodem Europeai philosophy sinceKant lies in its discoverythat, duc to man'sinheÍen[ limitations, ftc idealsociety can neveÍ beÍealized, and lhaí the lonely individual is anend in itsclf. 7

WOEI LIEN CHONG

Li Zehouputs his trust in fie supra-individual'objective laws of History' andfollows, in this íe- spect,Hegêl's interFetation of Kanl while Liu Xaobo shaÍesKant's original standpointÍhat everythingthat appearsío us asbeing 'objective' is, in fact, ÀconsÍruct of orr owr Íeason.In this, he follows the subjectivisticinterpretaíon of the KanÍianphilosophy which was passeddorÀn from Nielzscbeto Sarae. It sêemsdrat the debaieon modemit], in post-MaoChina has reachedthe sameimpassê as óe Elropean one,in whjch philosophy,according to Habermas,continues to oscillatebetween Hegel and Nietzsche,i.e. beiweenthe quasi-religiousfaith in the 'objective laws of History' on the one hand,and extrêmê subjectivism and relativism on the otheÍ. The fomeÍ has a tendencytoward io- talitarianism,while the latter leadsio impotencein solving problemsrelating to the suFa-individ- ua.l.In China, the post-Mao populadty of Freud, Nietzsche,and Existentialismarose fiom lhe desireto re-assertóe importanceof the individuÀl vi.r-d-rir the anon),rnouspoweÍ of the Party- State.But if blind faith b collectivePrcgress is not tbe answerto the problemsof our time, neither is extremesubjectivism. lf oÍiy for this reason,the renewedefforts madeby Chinesephilosophers and tbeorist! today to come to grips with modemity deserveour attention.We would do well to follow themon lheir philosophicaljoumey, as their questions-- and this shouldnot be forgotten- arealso orrI own.