Harmony without uniformity is the wisdom of Chinese civilization. Its connotation remains not only an ethical virtue, a state of being, or a capacity for inclusiveness, but also a methodology of profound philosophical significance. Harmony without uniformity provides us with a Confucian perspective to observe everything, the necessary tools to deal with various complex situations, and a practical path to making moral choices in various situations. Harmony without uniformity contains the cultural genetic code concerning why and how the shared values of humanity are possible, which is one of the significant reasons for the shared values to be actually realized. Harmony without uniformity recognizes inherent differences in the world, diverse demands of cultural forms, and different styles of individuals and communities in beliefs and practices. However, the recognition of differences serves only as one part of the process. Under no circumstances is harmony without uniformity limited to the recognition of “differences” or “diversity.” It also seeks common ground while reserving differences, pursues coexistence and common growth, and contributes to the flourishing of all cultures through coordination, negotiation, and cooperation, thus providing a practical and feasible path for the reconstruction of the shared values of humanity in the new era.

China’s choice of Marxism can be attributed to both historical inevitability and cultural factors. It is crucial to examine the cultural reasons, as Marxism exhibits certain ideological correspondence with Confucianism, a cornerstone of traditional Chinese culture. One notable aspect is the alignment of historical perspectives between Marxism and Confucianism, along with their deep convergence on the concept of freedom. These similarities offer potential cultural possibilities for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context

Since modern times, the comparison of Chinese and Western philosophy has been a fundamental context for all philosophical research in China. Currently, the construction of a contemporary form of Chinese philosophy is currently an urgent task facing the field of Chinese philosophy. Rather than solely focusing on a narrow or direct comparative study of Chinese and Western philosophy, it is important to consider the systematic introduction of Western philosophy and the adaptation of Marxist philosophy to the Chinese context, alongside the extensive study of the history of Chinese philosophy over a century. This historical experience merits further attention and examination. The comparative study of Chinese and Western philosophies has been expanding in-depth, but it is facing a growing predicament. The goal of constructing a contemporary form of Chinese philosophy, incorporating three traditions of Chinese, Western, and Marxist philosophies, has at times appeared to move further away rather than closer. Furthermore, at the turn of the 21st century, it faced the challenge of establishing the “legitimacy” of Chinese philosophy. The crux of the problem lies in questioning the “Chinese characteristics” of the historiography of Chinese philosophy, as well as questioning the “philosophical nature” of Chinese philosophical traditions. To promote meaningful progress in comparison of Chinese and Western philosophies, it is imperative to overcome the dual obsessions of “China-non-philosophy” and “philosophy-non-China,” based on truly grasping the essence of the Western philosophical tradition. Additionally, it is equally important to realize the contemporary development of Marxist philosophical interpretation while engaging in critical dialogue with the latest developments in contemporary Western philosophy and reenact the true spirit of ancient Chinese philosophical traditions in a modern discourse style on the basis of maintaining an appropriate awareness of “distance” between “we” and cultural traditions. This requires looking at and organizing the historical changes in Chinese social life and philosophical trends since modern times, with a future China that has achieved a state of modernization as the reference framework. The development of contemporary Chinese philosophy cannot be accomplished by relying upon a single academic school alone. Rather, it requires a holistic renewal of the academic ecosystem, an inevitable unfolding of the spirit of the new era in all cultural and intellectual domains.

Since the 20th century, Chinese philosophy has not only exhibited worldwide significance but also, in a certain sense, participated in the worldwide contention of various schools of thought. The polemics over science and metaphysics of the 1920s, in particular, reflected the ongoing debate between modern Western scientism and humanism. The emergence of systematic philosophical frameworks during this period further exemplified these tendencies from an internal perspective. These philosophical systems not only presented themselves in a modern form but also offered critical perspectives on Western civilization and Western philosophy from various angles, embodying a wide-ranging worldwide significance and providing unique responses to philosophical debates worldwide. From the polemics over science and metaphysics to the personalized philosophical construction of philosophers, from the dominance of Marxism to the dialogue between Chinese philosophy, Western philosophy, and Marxist philosophy, from diverse and relative approaches to the integration of unity and multiplicity, modern Chinese philosophy has surpassed its regional confines and gained worldwide significance. Furthermore, for a more profound engagement in the worldwide contention of various schools of thought, it is crucial to concretely embrace the rejection of abstraction and dogmatism, as well as the fusion of diversity and relativism with unity and multiplicity. By undertaking practical and constructive work that enables systematic contemplation of relevant issues, Chinese philosophy offers a tangible means of participating in this discourse.

The philosophy of science and technology and the dialectics of nature enjoy a profound historical origin. The spread and development of dialectics of nature in China have created conditions for discipline institutionalization of the philosophy of science and technology in China. Gradually reaching maturity in the course of reform and opening up, this discipline serves as an important provider of new thinking about China’s social development and a participant in China’s social changes. So far, it has become one of the disciplines with a farreaching impact on contemporary Chinese society and thought. This paper aims at providing a brief and vivid presentation of the history and present situation of Chinese philosophy of science and technology, its development in China, its norms and pluralism as a second-level discipline of philosophy, and some existing problems.

The new development of contemporary Chinese philosophy research falls into six categories. The first is the restoration of Chinese philosophical research in an academic sense. The second is that identification with Chinese culture promotes a sympathetic understanding of Chinese philosophy. The third is the wealth of knowledge that has been gained on early Chinese philosophy from the abundance of excavated literature. The fourth is the reflection on the pursuit of methodology intrinsic to Chinese philosophy. The fifth concerns the convergence of the studies of classics and masters and the “turn to classics studies.” The sixth involves probing into historical research to explore and develop new principles and reasons for Chinese philosophy. Chinese philosophy is forming a more virtuous cycle of interpretation through the interaction between academic and political, tradition and modernity, commensurability and difference, studies of classics passed down through the ages and excavated literature, studies of classics and masters, as well as philosophy and its history.

Chinese philosophical studies, in the last hundred years, have gone through three main periods: the Republican period, the period from 1949 to the late 1980s, and the period from 1990 to date. During the Republican period, Chinese philosophical studies remained within the self-conscious scope of “philosophy,” characterized by the works of the history of Chinese philosophy. The period from 1949 to the late 1980s signified the ideologization phase of Chinese philosophical studies, consisting of two parts in succession, the former belonging to Zhdanov’s model and the latter to Lenin’s model. The ideological openness of Leninism and the political environment of reform and opening up jointly contribute to the pluralism of Chinese philosophical studies in the 1980s. From a more macroscopic view, Chinese philosophical studies before the late 1980s were of the “prototype-imitation” type in general, an imitation of the so-called general “philosophical” ideas using Western philosophy as the reference frame. The “prototype-imitation” type of Chinese philosophical writing and research features blind application and mechanical construction, lacking independence of thought and autonomy of action. However, Chinese philosophical studies have changed dramatically since 1990. To be more specific, by seeking and recognizing its particularity, Chinese philosophy has established its subjectivity. Because of the “craze” for Chinese culture and ancient civilization and the “enthusiasm” for the study of Confucian classics and excavated literature, the subjectivity of Chinese philosophy has been constantly enhanced. Its subjectivity construct, on is mainly manifested in the following aspects: proposing a methodology from particularity to subjectivity; conducting self-affirmation in the mind-nature theory, value theory, and way of thinking, establishing a selfconsistent, self-supporting, and selfgenerating discourse system; basing Chinese philosophical studies on its problems, concepts, propositions, and classics; the rise of philosophical study of Confucian classics; the re-construction on the pre-Qin philosophy; the further research on SongMing philosophy; and the establishment of fundamental threshold for the studies of Chinese philosophy. The establishment of Chinese philosophical subjectivity makes The Search for Subjectivity: Chinese Philosophical Studies in the Last Hundred Years and Its Contemporary Orientation* DING Sixina https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-012-023-0009-2 * Translated from 天津社会科学 (Tianjin Social Sciences), 2023 (1): 71-83. a School of Humanities, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, ChinaJune 2023 Volume 18 Number 2 149 both Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy truly adding word philosophies. Contemporary Chinese philosophical research should go beyond the overreliance and emphasis on particularity, thus breaking through its exclusiveness, developing an active dialogue on the universality of philosophy, and further improving its subjectivity.

Abstracts

Book Description

Book Excerpt

Bibliography

Academci News

The politics of eco-civilization construction generally involves the understanding and interpretation of ecological civilization, an emerging public policy issue field, from the perspective of political science. Therefore, it can be considered a subfield in comparative politics or issue-based politics. On the other hand, it also encompasses implications in the realm of political philosophy, particularly concerning the relationships between man and nature, economy and environment, individuals and society, as well as domestic and international. The politics of eco-civilization construction drives vital support both in research contents and methods from the established field of environmental politics and its theoretical achievements. Moreover, it goes beyond that foundation by significantly expanding and transforming such aspects as research domains, academic discourses, and subject perspectives. As a result, it can perceptibly depict the distinctive qualitative characteristics of China’s environmental politics in the new era in terms of theory and practice. Under the discourse system of environmental politics, there emerge discussions on political theories of ecoMarxism or eco-socialism, and the ecoMarxism social movements and party politics. These discussions present varying political understandings and public policy responses to the same ecological and environmental issues. However, from the perspective of the politics of ecocivilization construction, the debate and inquiry regarding the socialist qualitative characteristics or political philosophy become a particularly prominent issue, which not only bears relevance to the overall landscape but also shapes future directions.

The philosophical study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds immense importance as it delves into the latest advancements and applications of AI from a philosophical standpoint. This study serves multiple purposes: First, it contributes to the expansion and deepening of philosophical study. Second, it plays a crucial role in establishing ethical guidelines and cultural boundaries for regulating AI in conjunction with relevant scientific and technological ethics. Third, it holds historical significance in shaping future AI development strategies. The philosophical study of AI should underline ontology, epistemology, axiology and ethics, etc. In the future, it is essential to carefully consider the relationship between AI and human development, the significance of sci-tech and social reforms resulting from AI, the achievement and evaluation of singularity, the applied integration of AI in social epistemology, as well as technological applications and social issues arising from AI.

Confucianists advocate the holistic cosmology of “harmony between humanity and nature and unity of all things,” the ethical pursuit of “loving all people and things and treating them as brothers, sisters and companions,” and the practical guideline of “taking from nature at the proper time and to the proper extent.” These are not only the core values of Confucian ecological culture, but also the concentrated embodiment of Confucian thinking in the ecological field. In the context of the new era, the ecological theory resources in Confucianism can provide ideological resources for reflecting on anthropocentric values. Furthermore, it can provide inspiration and reference for breaking through the bottleneck of environmental ethics, ultimately offering cultural support for the construction of ecological civilization in the new era. Under the guidance of Marxism, we should interpret the ecological cultural view of Confucianism in a modern way, realize the modern transformation of Confucian ecological culture, and advance the construction of ecological civilization in the new era with heightened cultural awareness.

Book Excerpt

The essence of national governance modernization is to continuously uphold its intrinsic goodness. The goodness of national governance depends on its ethical rationality, which in turn relies on the value positioning of ecological ethics. Throughout the process of eco-civilization construction, the central objective of China’s national governance modernization is to steer China towards a path that aligns with ecological ethics. The modernization of China’s national governance is exemplified by the Communist Party of China’s (CPC) endeavor to lead the people to follow ecological rationality and govern the country in accordance with the fundamental principles and spirit of ecological ethics. As a result, the objective of achieving harmony between humanity and nature can be realized through effective governance, particularly by means of ecological good governance. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the CPC has continuously explored and practiced the ethical relationship between humanity and nature, adapting it to the Chinese context and the needs of our times. It has been steadfast in its commitment to advancing a course of ecological good governance as part of China’s endeavor to modernize its national governance. Mao Zedong emphasized initiatives such as afforestation, soil and water conservation, and resource management to enhance the human living environment. Deng Xiaoping underscored the importance of laws and systems in the effective implementation of ecological ethics. Jiang Zemin stressed the importance of coordination and harmony between humanity and nature. Hu Jintao introduced the Scientific Outlook on Development, aligning it with the needs of contemporary and future development. General Secretary Xi Jinping embraces the concepts of ecological ethics in the new era: respect for nature, ecological protection, and shared responsibilities and rights. Based on this, Xi Jinping views the natural world as a community of life that promotes harmony between humanity and nature. This perspective nurtures a world of life that upholds ecological ethics and aligns with the demands of the new era. The theoretical objective of ecological ethics with Chinese characteristics is to formulate a moral philosophy that applies to China’s contemporary endeavors in ecocivilization construction, and the practical objective is to establish normative ethics that correspond to the principles of China’s eco-civilization construction.

In the modern era, both philosophy for children and philosophy of Artificial Intelligence (AI) are emerging as novel realms of philosophical inquiry. If AI seeks to emulate human intelligence, merely considering general human intelligence falls short; instead, focused attention must be directed towards child intelligence. Comprehensive inquiries into philosophy for children and child intelligence are likely to offer a novel perspective on AI research. This perspective examines the intersections of philosophy for children and AI across three distinct dimensions: cognitive features, learning styles, and autonomy criteria for intelligent entities. This paper posits that both children and machines represent authentic intelligent agents, and their advancement is contingent upon continuous learning. The primary objective of this paper is to facilitate a critical examination of and diversification in AI research methodologies, primarily by elucidating the pedagogical frameworks of philosophy for children across three dimensions. Furthermore, this paper endeavors to offer a fresh perspective on the study and practical implementation of philosophy for children.

Reflection on the nature and role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology in the field of literary and artistic production can contribute to understanding the “subject” issue of AI and clarify the ideological origin of the AI threat theory. First of all, from the perspective of the producers of AI literature and art, AI conforms to the characteristics of modern “agents” and can constitute the “actor-network” in art together with human beings. The emergence of AI has become a technological opportunity to challenge traditional anthropocentrism and subjectcentered thought. Secondly, viewing from the production mode of AI literature and art, art has entered the era of AI simulation, where AI has accelerated the intelligent development of the cultural industry, and the judgment of “true or false” is the basic judgment in AI art. Artificial intelligence has put an end to certain art categories rather than the whole human art, and we should cherish the non-capitalized form of art production. Lastly, AI literary and artistic production reflects the integration of technology into art. AI should be strictly limited to the field of production, which guards against the capital’s control over technology and machinery, prevents the abuse and excessive autonomy of AI technology, and guides the harmonization of technology and art with aesthetic reason.

The concept of moralizing technology within the Dutch School has gained increasing attention in technology philosophy and applied ethics, thus making it of crucial significance to further explore its implications in the context of science and technology ethics. Moralizing technology refers to the embedment of values into technology and the application of moral principles in the design and use of technology. This concept has led to some misunderstandings within the academic circle. Therefore, it remains of vital importance to clarify its core principles and implications. More specifically, it is important to note that moralizing technology should not be mistaken for the alienation of morality, nor does it deprive the subjectivity of human beings. In addition, moralizing technology does not involve the study of moral philosophy in the strict sense. On the contrary, it comprises two main aspects: the descriptive and practical aspects. The descriptive aspect of moralizing technology theory draws directly from the relational ontology perspective within post-phenomenology, while the practical aspect of the theory can be regarded as the applied ethics outcomes derived from the aforementioned ontological perspective. As a concept within science and technology ethics, moralizing technology embraces the theory of the coconstruction of humans and technology. Furthermore, it maintains a sensitivity to the embedded value attributes of the technology. The theory considers ethics as a constituting element of scientific and technological practice and thus contributes to the active development of technology products that align with ethical expectations. Moreover, moralizing technology emphasizes the significance of cultivating citizens’ scientific and technological literacy, aiming to encourage diverse stakeholders to actively participate in activities concerning technology.

This study selects the science and technology-themed papers between 2000 and 2020 from five high-quality philosophical journals within the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. Through the quantitative and visual processing of CiteSpace and the analysis of literature content, it is found that since the 21st century, the philosophical study of science and technology has made comprehensive advancements in science, technology and humanities, science, technology and nature, science, technology and society, and the theoretical interpretation and discipline construction of the philosophy of science and technology. Moreover, these advancements have given rise to a distinctive Chinese research paradigm, forging unique trajectories of the discipline and fostering collaborative research groups. The philosophical study of science and technology is firmly rooted in the fabric of real-life experience intricately linked to the national context. It has gone through the transformation from theoretical research to practical exploration, and holds both theoretical and practical value. Meanwhile, the conceptual boundaries of science and technology have branched into various fields, including information philosophy, industry philosophy, and biological philosophy, signifying a more profound, concrete, extensive, and farreaching exploration of the subject.

Since Confucian philosophy is essentially an ecological philosophy, the concept of “ecological Confucianism” can indeed be established. Confucianism divides nature into four types of objects, namely, animals, plants, land, and mountains and rivers, and presents ecological understanding and treatment measures for these elements across the three dimensions of religion, morality, and politics and law. Ecological Confucianism features a category system composed of concepts such asqi气(a vital force), tong 通 (communication), he 和 (harmony), sheng 生 (life), shi 时 (time), dao 道 (Way) and ren 仁(benevolence). It also encompasses an ecological view composed of ecological ontology, ecological theory of kung fu, and ecological theory of visionary world. Furthermore, it carries a history of development with intrinsic logical connections. Confucian philosophy advocates for spiritual harmony, interpersonal harmony, social harmony, and international harmony, which are all based on the harmony between humanity and nature. Ecological Confucianism can not only facilitate the understanding of Confucian philosophy and even Chinese philosophy, but also contribute to advancing the breakthroughs of philosophy itself. It prompts us to reconsider the concepts of “subject” and “object,” and rebuild the theory of subject-object relationship, thus leading to the second enlightenment within the realm of world philosophy.

Ecological civilization, as a new model required for the sustainable development of contemporary society, has been developed on the basis of a certain ecological ethical order. The critical reflection on traditional modes of social development and ways of thinking serves as the foundation for constructing the contemporary concepts of ecological ethics. The traditional philosophical resources are the theoretical sources for the construction of the contemporary concepts of ecological ethics. Since Laozi’s philosophy is highly compatible with the contemporary concepts of ecological ethics, the content and ways Laozi used to interpret human beings and society may provide valuable ideological resources for the contemporary concepts of ecological ethics.

It has been over one hundred years since the establishment of the modern scientific and technological system during the Republic of China period. It is necessary to reflect on the historical traces of scientific and technological transition in China as a whole. During this period, the scientific and technological culture showed a high degree of consistency, characterized by continuous catching-up and consistency-based technological imitation and independent innovation. The scientific and technological transition in China over the past century was characterized by locality instead of Western centrism in the philosophical sense of scientific practice. It is the scientific and technological development path with Chinese characteristics. Due to the long-term and continuous influences of external environment such as national will, traditional culture, pragmatism, and social and historical conditions, the social history for scientific and technological development showcased certain inseparability.

Book Excerpt

The 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) proposed to advance the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts through a Chinese path to modernization. The Party underscores the modernization of harmony between humanity and nature as one of the five characteristics of Chinese modernization, assigning a new historical mission to construct ecological civilization in the new era. While industrial civilization has propelled monumental advancements in the overall productive forces of human society and generated unprecedented material wealth, it has concurrently escalated the tension in the relationship between humanity and nature. Addressing the ecological crisis and fostering the modernization of harmony between humanity and nature is not discretionary but essential for all human beings to tackle the challenges we face and build a community with a shared future. Philosophically, the philosophy of human dominance over nature is reaching its limits, and the current era necessitates the development of a philosophical framework that revolves around the harmony between humanity and nature. It is incumbent upon us, under the expansive vision of history, to persevere in “two integrations” and draw from traditional Chinese ecological wisdom, Marxist views on the relationship between humanity and nature, as well as Xi Jinping’s Thought on Ecological Civilization. These efforts aim to establish the Chinese school of environmental ethics, develop a discourse system of Chinese Marxist ecological philosophy, and ultimately guide the unfolding of a novel chapter in human civilization.

Bibliography

Academic News

Abstracts

Book Description