Yang Huilin: Intellectual Threads and the Dual-Directional Interpretation of the "Debate Between the Ancient and the Modern, the Chinese and the West" [1]
Since the "modern era" [1] of "engagement and competition with Westerners"—as described in Liang Qichao's Introduction to Chinese History—the problem-consciousness of the "distinction between China and the West" and the humanistic tradition of "referencing the ancient to examine the present" have become interwoven. Reconstructing scholarly approaches at the intersection of ancient, modern, Chinese, and Western thought is also a means of rediscovering historical logic amidst the "great changes unseen in a century" [2]. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "We are better positioned than at any time in history to resolve the 'contention between the ancient and the modern, and between China and the West,' and we feel a more urgent need than ever before for cultural achievements that fuse the ancient and modern while integrating Chinese and Western elements." In this regard, the texts of today’s world should be "intertexts," and the resulting discourse should be a dialogue. Dialogical research can both restate the unique texture of Chinese civilization through comparison and challenge the narrative modes of a singular discourse; it can inspire opportunities to revisit tradition and provide a means of "entering" Western systems of knowledge. This should be the fundamental path to resolving the "contention between the ancient and the modern, and between China and the West."
Chinese Resources in the Reflection on Western Metaphysics
Since the mid-20th century, the reflection on traditional metaphysics has remained the mainstream discourse in Western academia. At the moment when metaphysics became a problem to be overcome, China's intellectual traditions, cultural experiences, and linguistic modes happened to demonstrate an entirely new logic and a possible space.
Simply put, in the "subject-predicate syntax" of Indo-European languages, Being as a subject is mutually explained by its predicate (the verb "to be"). This is summarized by the German philosopher Ernst Tugendhat: "Being becomes 'is' because these two concepts are intertwined and constitute a relationship between them, making the predicate and the subject refer to each other." In other words, "Being" is explained through the "duplication of Being" by the predicate "is"; only in this sense can the philosophical problems that language bequeaths to the West be expressed.
However, in archaic Chinese, the word shi (是) [3] originally had no usage as a "copula," let alone "mutual reference between predicate and subject." Consequently, the British sinologist A.C. Graham used the examples of the educator Lan Gongwu’s translation of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and the philosopher He Lin’s translation of Hegel’s Lesser Logic to observe that while "the small word 'is'" is vital to Western philosophy, it is meaningless for the Chinese language. Graham did not see this as a deficiency of Chinese; on the contrary, the difference in linguistic tools allowed Chinese thought to naturally avoid the metaphysical problems the West sought to solve: "The Chinese translator strives to reproduce Western fallacies in a language that, whatever its flaws, simply does not allow them to make these particular errors."
Accordingly, Chinese "relations" are not established between "Being" and "is" or between subject and predicate, but rely on the "two poles" described as "the alternation of Yin and Yang is called the Dao" [4]. As the saying goes: "Being and non-being produce each other; difficult and easy complete each other; long and short shape each other; high and low lean on each other; tone and sound harmonize each other; front and back follow each other." The negative expression of this "relation" is found in the Buddhist "Middle Way of the Eight Negations": "Neither birth nor extinction, neither permanence nor annihilation, neither identity nor difference, neither coming nor going" [5]. If the landing point of subject-predicate mutual reference remains Being, then the "mutual generation of Yin and Yang" intends for "the opposite and the complementary to be unable to exist without one another." In short, the "subject-predicate relationship" of Western metaphysics is replaced by a "polar relationship." In the words of the French philosopher Julia Kristeva, this is "Yin-Yang dialogue... replacing God."
Because of this, looking back at the West from a Chinese perspective, a chain of thought becomes faintly visible. For example, there is the "relation" (Beziehung) called "becoming an 'I' through the 'Thou'" by the Austrian philosopher Martin Buber; the "very relation as a relation" that the German philosopher Martin Heidegger labored to unearth; the "correlation" (la corrélation) placed before "ontology" by the French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas; the "merely relational mediation" used to summarize the views of the French philosopher Alain Badiou; and Kristeva’s "coexistence" or "ambivalence."
Within the Western intellectual tradition itself, the basic concept of "correlation" has also left important clues. Examples include "correlation" as a "method" for the American theologian Paul Tillich; the "correlation between tradition and the present" for the Dutch theologian Edward Schillebeeckx; the "correlation between faith and situation" for the Swiss theologian Hans Küng; and the "correlation between pluralistic groups and revelation" for the American theologian David Russel. Furthermore, David Tracy’s "mutually critical correlation" became a "communicative activity open to conversation and dialogue," which cannot be predicated on any singular rationality or prioritized culture.
According to the investigations of the historian of religion Mircea Eliade, "the ebb and flow of Yin and Yang and its mutual generation and completion" contains the "originality of Chinese thought." Western scholars such as Marcel Granet, Joseph Needham, Frederick Mote, Benjamin Schwartz, and A.C. Graham have also deeply expounded upon ancient Chinese "Yin-Yang" theory and its "correlative cosmology" and "correlative thinking." These should be seen as important clues linking the ancient and modern, China and the West.
The Dialogical Tradition of Modern Chinese Scholarship
Modern Chinese scholarship has always possessed a distinct dialogical character, conversing with ancient sages as well as with the "Eastward Transmission of Western Learning" [6]. Dialogue, of course, need not promise a common conclusion. As Lü Simian said: "So-called similarities are merely the result of imprecise observation, mistaking different matters for the same." Yet, he immediately emphasized the "common principles" existing within "different matters," concluding: "To understand Chinese history... one must also be conversant in foreign history."
By the same token, Qian Mu’s reorganization of the national heritage [7] was by no means a stubborn defense of tradition. He noted specifically that "recent scholars have turned to Western philosophy to verify and explain ancient texts, and thus the Study of the Masters [8] has become brilliantly clear." For instance, "Zhang Binglin of Yuhang used Buddhist logic and Western theories to elucidate the various Masters... followed by Hu Shi of Jixi and Liang Qichao of Xinhui, and thus the Study of the Masters swept the world." Similarly, K.C. Chang’s discussion of "the origins of civilization and the state from Shang and Zhou bronzes" proposed that Chinese civilization represents a law of change for a "cultural continuum" specifically in contrast to the "breakthrough" process of Western civilization.
Early works concerning the distinction between China and the West can be traced back to Liang Shuming’s Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies. After completing his "Six Books of Zhen-Yuan," Feng Youlan published A Short History of Chinese Philosophy in English, which was regarded as the "first comprehensive and systematic English work introducing Chinese thought." Perhaps it can be said that the fundamental consciousness of placing China within a global context represented the spiritual self-awareness of that generation of intellectuals. Thus, in Feng Youlan's view, the "renaissance of Chinese philosophy" was in fact "a symbol of national rejuvenation."
Also noteworthy are several essays written by Zhang Dongsun from the 1930s to the 1940s. Their most unique feature is the analysis of the foundations of Chinese and Western thought through differences in linguistic structure. For example, "Thought, Language, and Culture" was originally published in Sociological World (社会学界) in 1938. In June of the same year, the English edition, The Yenching Journal of Social Studies, was launched; the chief editor, Li Anzhai, translated Zhang’s article into English for the first issue in 1939. English journals published domestically had limited reach, but in 1956, the American journal Philosophy East and West published an introductory article by the scholar Haridas Muzumdar titled "A Chinese Philosopher’s Theory of Knowledge."
In Zhang Dongsun’s own writings, examples of "correlative logic" and "analogical definition" are found everywhere: "Chinese people always pair large and small, high and low, good and evil, being and non-being symmetrically, and regard them as mutually dependent." Muzumdar’s article recounted these core theses almost verbatim: Western "identity logic" corresponds to "subject-predicate propositions" and the resulting concept of "substance," while Chinese "correlation logic" corresponds to a mode of thinking where "opposites contain one another." By contrast, "identity" gives rise to "inference," while "correlation" appeals to "analogy."
Perhaps because Zhang Dongsun’s theoretical tools for distinguishing China and the West were primarily Western, some of Muzumdar’s "translations/expositions" of Zhang appeared even clearer. For instance, the characteristics of Chinese wisdom as distinct from Western philosophy were summarized into three: correlative logic, non-exclusive classification, and analogical definition—meanings that are more readily grasped with precision in English expression. Conversely, modern Chinese scholarship has not lacked attempts to "interpret the West through the Chinese," such as Zhou Zuoren’s A History of European Literature.
Though A History of European Literature was a set of lecture notes written in haste, the effort to "reconcile the ancient and modern" and "interpret the West through the Chinese" is undeniable. For example, in his explanation of Greek tragedy: "In ancient Greece, it was customary to hold a three-day spring festival every April... For primitive peoples, none of the means of self-preservation was more urgent than food; thus, they viewed the movement of the four seasons with a mix of dread, hope, and joy. Fearing that winter might stay forever and that spring might not return, they performed rituals to send off winter and welcome spring. What the heart expects is manifested in action; this is what is meant by 'when one is moved in one's heart, it is expressed in words; if words are insufficient, one sighs; if sighing is insufficient, one sings; if singing is insufficient, unconsciously one’s hands dance and one’s feet stomp.'" [9] The ability to link the ritual activities of "the unity of song, dance, and music" in ancient Greece directly back to the "Preface to the Mao Poetry" likely far predated many later comparative studies.
The West becoming the problematic background for Chinese academic discourse was the natural result of "engagement and competition with Westerners." According to Feng Youlan, any tradition "contains 'permanent' ideas, as well as 'changeable' and 'common' factors," making it possible not only to compare differences but also to translate them "in terms of the other." Although the true integration of "the concepts of the other" can only be seen across the "longue durée" of academic history, the dialogue and "mutual learning" between Chinese and Western thought have long reached a consensus: "He who knows one, knows none."
"Mutual Reference" and "Mutual Interpretation" between China and the West
To counter the dominance of a single discourse or the misalignment of talking past one another, "mutual reference" and "mutual interpretation" between China and the West must fulfill each other through their differences. Accordingly, the most explanatory conceptual tools between China and the West are not "descriptive" but "generative" (productive). That is to say, they do not merely refer to the nouns of certain ideas but must point to the deep logic of "why it is so" regarding those ideas. By connecting the most relevant intellectual clues and analyzing the most pertinent core issues, it becomes possible—through the "mutual reference" of dialogical tools and "mutual interpretation" of dialogical samples—to pry open solidified concepts and inertial understandings, and thereby reset, restate, and reconstruct an effective dialogue.
Taking the "translation/exposition" of Zhang Dongsun’s work by Muzumdar again as an example: the eighteen-year interval between the two texts seemed to allow the Chinese and English concepts bridging them to gradually become transparent. However, it was only when Kristeva discovered the "dialogical nature of ancient Chinese thought as opposed to the Aristotelian tradition" and derived an approach where "analogy" replaces "identity" and "relation" replaces "substance" that this "Chinese philosopher’s theory of knowledge" truly entered the core domain of Western thought. Therefore, it can be said that through "mutual reference" and subsequently "mutual interpretation," we not only reactivate the intellectual resources of both sides of the dialogue but also achieve a new self-understanding while understanding the other.
If we trace the aforementioned ideological correlations over a longer duration, we find that the Western concepts of "two natures in one person" or the "hypostatic union" resonate with the archetypal meaning of the mutually generating Yin and Yang [10]. Within the Western interpretative tradition, this can naturally be understood as the "mutual indwelling" between the divine and the human. However, along the continuously extending chain of thought between China and the West, the West’s own "apophatic accounts" and "apophatic understanding" almost inevitably point toward the Chinese-style expression of "East and West being opposites that cannot exist without each other" [11]. As the American theologian Katherine Tanner argues: "All creatures are formed in relation to what they are not." This stands in stark contrast to the "subject-predicate coreference" found in Indo-European linguistic grammar used to confirm the subject; here, those subjects "insufficiently described by concepts" become merely "pure signs" that are "not what they refer to." In the face of rhetoric such as "civilizational superiority," the "clash of civilizations," or "civilizational barriers," this deep-level dialogue, which returns to historical origins and cultural foundations, serves as a powerful tool for breaking down prejudice and obsession.
Xu Guangqi [12] once proposed: "To seek to surpass [the West], one must achieve comprehensive convergence; before achieving convergence, one must first translate." However, to seek "convergence" and "surpassing" through translation, one must also "melt the materials of the other side and cast them into the mold of the Great Tradition" [13]. In contemporary terms, translation—and the understanding and interpretation it contains—is likewise a two-way process. The evolution of modern Chinese vocabulary can largely be traced back to the translation of Buddhist sutras during the Han and Tang dynasties and the "Europeanization" of the Chinese language during the period of "Western learning spreading to the East" [14]. These processes both preserved mutual inspiration and left imprints of ideological collision.
For example, Martin Heidegger claimed that "there is a sentence that guides his meditation": Es gibt Sein, Es gibt Zeit. The English version translates this "according to its literal meaning" as "It gives Being, it gives time." For Western readers, present is both a "moment in time" and a "gift," and the relationship between "gift" and "giving" is always "passive"; therefore, "time" is also "that which is given." In Chinese, the active and passive voices can sometimes be combined in a single word—for instance, ju (拘) can be the active "to detain" as in "to seize and bind him" (ju xi zhi nai cong wei zhi), but it can also be the passive "to be detained" as in "King Wen was detained and thus elaborated on the I Ching" [15]. However, concepts related to "gifts" such as zeng (赠), kui (馈), or yi (贻) do not contain the sense of "being gifted." The everyday Chinese meaning of "gift" (liwù) does not require one to reason backward from the external "object" (wù) to an internal "ritual/propriety" (lǐ) and its passive structure. Yet, with the continuous introduction of Continental thought, these originally roughly equivalent semantics have increasingly shown divergence; "literal" translation can no longer easily convey the "essential meaning."
This is perhaps like A.C. Graham’s [16] focus on the "lowercase 'is'" (shi 是). The distinction between China and the West left to us by language is particularly worth savoring; it also reminds us once again: the essence of "mutual reference" and "mutual interpretation" lies in "sharing with one another" and "moving toward each other." It does not mean defaulting to established conceptual tools and discourse systems, nor does it mean "seeking commonalities" based on any single logic.
The French philosopher Jacques Derrida’s book The Gift of Death may provide further illustration. The French title Donner la mort utilizes a pun on the word donner, which means both the everyday "to give" and the idiomatic "to put to death" or "to commit suicide." That is to say, the word donner itself not only means "giving" but also encompasses "death." This is not only entirely foreign to Chinese readers but also requires explanation in English. Although the transformation between them cannot be covered by a single language, the ideological genealogies of both China and the West are clarified through such analysis. Thus, they move from being "different" to being "related," and from "contradiction to contrariety" [17].
The potential links between Western thought and the Chinese tradition contain particularly rich resources for dialogue. The ideological threads and two-way interpretations of the "debate over the ancient and modern, China and the West" must point toward "transcending civilizational barriers through exchanges, transcending civilizational clashes through mutual learning, and transcending civilizational superiority through inclusiveness." In dialogical research, tracing and restoring the theoretical tools and the sources of the problems for both sides may be a foundational task for resolving the "debate over the ancient and modern, China and the West."
(Author: Yang Huilin, Chief Expert of the National Social Science Fund Major Project "Conceptual Tools, Ideological Threads, and Two-Way Interpretation of the Dialogue between Chinese and Western Civilizations," and Professor at Renmin University of China)
Source: Guangming Daily (January 8, 2025, Page 06) Web Editor: Hui Hui