Wang Shiliang: The Two-Way Interaction Between Chinese Philosophy and Marxist Atheism and Its Significance
In the fields of the history of Chinese philosophy and the history of religion, Mr. Ren Jiyu (1916–2009) stands out for his distinct Marxist theoretical stance and methodological self-awareness. His research on the "three histories" of Chinese philosophy and the "three teachings" of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism has exerted a profound influence. Ren Jiyu’s writing on the history of philosophy was guided by Marxism and later significantly influenced by his discourse on "Confucianism as a religion" (儒教论说), forming an interpretative path that integrated the history of philosophy with the history of the Confucian religion. Ren persisted in combining Marxist principles with the lived reality of Chinese philosophy, demonstrating the historical process through which Chinese philosophy progressed via its struggle with religion, thereby deepening our understanding of the history of Chinese philosophical cognition and its developmental laws. In his study of Chinese philosophy, he implemented an academic mission that unified philosophical research with the critique of theology. This expanded the "ideological front" of Marxist atheism and achieved a two-way interaction between Chinese philosophical research and Marxist atheism, which holds important ideological and methodological significance for advancing research, publicity, and education on Marxist atheism in the New Era.
1. The "Three Histories" and "Three Teachings": Ren Jiyu’s Research on the History of Chinese Philosophy and Religion
Regarding the developmental trajectory of research into the history of Chinese philosophy and religion (especially since the founding of New China), Mr. Ren Jiyu occupies a unique position. Under the banner of "Chinese philosophy," Ren served as the chief editor of the "three histories": The History of Chinese Philosophy (four volumes, the first published in July 1963), A Compendium of the History of Chinese Philosophy (July 1973), and, following the Reform and Opening-up, The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy (the volume on the pre-Qin period published in October 1983). Among these, The History of Chinese Philosophy (the four-volume edition) served as a specialized textbook for liberal arts colleges and universities nationwide; as such, it underwent numerous reprints and new editions, playing a vital role in the teaching and research of the history of Chinese philosophy since the founding of the People's Republic. Chen Lai suggests that Mr. Ren Jiyu’s "three histories" can be compared to Feng Youlan’s [1] "three histories discussing the past and present." [2]
Beyond the "three histories" of Chinese philosophy, Mr. Ren Jiyu conducted in-depth studies on the "three teachings" of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism, authored a vast number of works, and served as chief editor for The History of Chinese Buddhism and The History of Chinese Daoism. [3] It must be pointed out in particular that at the beginning of the Reform and Opening-up, Ren proposed the view that Confucianism constitutes a religion. He wrote numerous articles to argue this point, such as "On the Formation of the Confucian Religion" (1980) and "A Re-evaluation of the Confucian Religion" (1982). Under this perspective, he provided a new interpretation of the historical development of traditional Chinese Confucianism, sketching the developmental threads of the history of the Confucian religion. Ren’s "Confucianism-as-religion" theory (儒教是教说) [4] profoundly influenced the editorial characteristics of The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy. [5] Under the influence of Ren’s theory, Li Shen wrote The History of the Chinese Confucian Religion, published at the turn of the century (in two volumes in 1999 and 2000), which further argued for and developed Ren’s assertions. Regarding the research achievements and academic innovations of the aforementioned "three histories" and "three teachings," the diligence of Mr. Ren’s labor, the breadth of his scope, the abundance of his output, and the depth of his influence are extremely rare even among the great masters of the history of Chinese philosophy and religion. He made an indelible and monumental contribution to the disciplinary development and research advancement of Chinese philosophy and religion.
2. Ren Jiyu’s Marxist View of Philosophical History and Its Further Development Based on the "Confucianism-as-Religion" Theory
Mr. Ren Jiyu’s research on the history of Chinese philosophy possesses a sharp Marxist theoretical stance and methodological self-awareness; its important status and profound influence have been recognized by the academic community. Chen Lai evaluated him as a "well-deserved master of the 20th century who studied Chinese philosophy using Marxist methods." [6] Chai Wenhua, examining the entire development of the discipline of the history of Chinese philosophy, regarded Ren as an "important representative of the stage of the 'Marxist-ization' of the history of Chinese philosophy." [7] Qiao Qingju, in reviewing Ren’s The History of Chinese Philosophy (four volumes), also believed it played a "tremendous role in promoting the use of Marxism as a meta-theory to understand the history of Chinese philosophy." [8]
(1) The History of Struggle and the History of Cognition: The Basic Threads of Ren Jiyu’s Writing on Philosophical History
The History of Chinese Philosophy (four-volume edition) was first published in 1963 and revised through several editions in 1964, 1979, 1984, and 1996. [9] Although there were revisions during this period, its view of philosophical history and basic content did not undergo major changes; the claim that his "viewpoints changed and understanding advanced" [10] is primarily reflected in The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy. [11]
In the introduction to The History of Chinese Philosophy (four volumes), Ren Jiyu clarified the object and task of the history of philosophy. Ren proposed that "the history of philosophy is a history of the struggle between materialism and idealism, between dialectics and metaphysics; it is the history of the development of the cognition of all humanity." [12] This proposition can be divided into two sub-propositions: "a history of struggle" and "a history of the development of cognition." The former is a typical "struggle-based" view of history, significantly influenced by Zhdanov’s [13] definition of the history of philosophy. [14] However, simultaneously regarding the history of philosophy as the "history of the development of the cognition of all humanity" reflects, to a certain extent, Ren Jiyu’s rational reflection on the essence of philosophical history. Revealing the "dialectical process of the daily deepening of human cognition" through the "study of the unity of opposites" [15] is an important task for the history of philosophy.
Ren Jiyu placed particular emphasis on the "quest for the roots of philosophical thought," believing this is achieved primarily through the analysis of the social productive forces and class struggle. He believed that class analysis was the basic method of Marxism and devoted considerable space in his introduction to explaining this. [16] It can be said that the basic Marxist principles or meta-theories contained in The History of Chinese Philosophy (four volumes) are concentrated in two layers: the insistence on a struggle-based view of philosophical history and the method of class analysis. Regarding the relationship between the two, Ren stated: "The struggle between the two lines of materialism and idealism in the history of philosophy is merely a reflection of the class struggle in society." [17] This judgment suggests that, compared to analyzing the conceptual attributes of the research object as either materialism or idealism, revealing its "intellectual roots" through class analysis occupies a more fundamental position.
The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy both implemented the struggle-based view of history and the method of class analysis, while also containing a degree of reflection upon The History of Chinese Philosophy (four volumes)—specifically, reflection on Zhdanov’s definition of the history of philosophy, as well as on the research methods and tasks of the field.
In the introduction to The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy (Pre-Qin volume), Ren Jiyu pointed out a certain "deviation" caused by using Zhdanov’s definition to study the history of Chinese philosophy: namely, "only seeing the battle between two armies in philosophical history and using all one's attention to divide philosophers into camps." What this neglected was "the internal structure of each philosophical system and its position in the history of cognition," as well as the universal laws, experiences, and lessons learned during the development of human cognition. [18] This represents an important shift in Ren's view of philosophical history. That is to say, the order of the two sub-propositions—the "history of struggle" and the "history of the development of human cognition"—changed. While continuing to adhere to the struggle-based view, he now emphasized its significance first and foremost as a "history of the development of human cognition." Ren explicitly proposed that "the history of Chinese philosophy is the history of cognition of the Chinese nation," noting: "It records the experience of the Chinese nation in understanding the world in a logical form, and its historical experience provides extremely precious and rich content for the history of human cognition." [19]
(2) "Revealing the Laws of the Process by Which Human Cognition Breaks Free of Religion": The Fusion of Horizons Between the History of Philosophy and the History of the Confucian Religion
Ren Jiyu’s uniqueness also lies in his degree of fusion between the "history of cognition" and the "history of struggle" within philosophical research by combing through the relationship between philosophy and religion. From an epistemological perspective, he differentiated the essences of religion and philosophy, pointing out that "religion is a distorted reflection of the real world by humanity." Regarding philosophy, he said: "Philosophy is different from religion; it is rational thinking generated by people through practice, and it is a synthesis of knowledge from the struggle for production and class struggle." According to Ren, philosophy "must provide regular [law-based] explanations of natural and social phenomena." However, because of different lines of cognition and explanation regarding the relationship between matter and spirit, it is divided into materialism and idealism. He meticulously charted the relationship between philosophy, science, and religion, arguing that religion "opposes scientific practice" while idealism "distorts scientific practice"; historically, the two often "formed an allied army." He emphasized that "the philosophy representing correct human thinking is materialism." From the perspective of historical development, since philosophy is the "history of the development of human cognition," its developmental process is one of "step-by-step breaking free from the shackles of religion." He concluded: "The task of the history of philosophical development is to reveal the laws of the process by which human cognition breaks free of religion." [20]
Regarding "the history of Chinese philosophy" as "the history of cognition of the Chinese nation," Ren said: "It displays the course of development and advancement of Chinese philosophy through its struggle with religion... It also shows that philosophy has compressed the jurisdiction of religion, while religion constantly changes its own form to defend its position." [21] On this basis, Ren summarized the characteristics of the history of Chinese philosophy. Aside from the fact that its "philosophical history in feudal society is the longest," he emphasized two aspects: that "theologized Confucianism occupies an overwhelming advantage" and that there is a "brilliant tradition of materialism and atheism." [22] Of these, "theologized Confucianism occupies an overwhelming advantage" reflects the long-standing state of "philosophy being subordinate to religion" [23] in Chinese feudal society. In this section, Ren reiterated his main arguments for "Confucianism as a religion"—for example, that Confucianism "is a religion with a special form suited to the historical characteristics of Chinese feudal society"; that while Confucianism lacks the external characteristics of general religions, it possesses all the essential attributes of a religion; and that the development of Confucianism into the Confucian religion was completed through two transformations during the Han and Song dynasties. [24] The "brilliant materialism and atheism" aspect reflects the process and laws of critiquing theology and breaking free from religious shackles in the history of Chinese philosophy. Ren analyzed the social conditions that allowed this development, such as the experiences and lessons of extensive social struggles, the development of natural science, and a wealth of cultural classics.
From the above, it can be seen that Ren Jiyu combined the Marxist view of philosophical history with the ideological theory of "Confucianism as a religion," achieving a fusion of horizons between the history of philosophy and the history of the Confucian religion. In addition to the history of the struggle between philosophy and religion in Chinese philosophical history, Ren also emphasized the close connection between Chinese historical philosophical thought—especially feudal ideology—and the feudal system, viewing the "critique of feudalism" as a task that researchers of the history of Chinese philosophy should consciously undertake. [25] These new characteristics profoundly influenced the narrative threads of The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy.
Han dynasty philosophy is a major stronghold in the study of Chinese philosophical history and a key focus of Ren Jiyu’s Confucian religion discourse and philosophical research. Ren’s interpretative path—fusing the history of philosophy with the history of the Confucian religion—was practically implemented and vividly manifested in his interpretation of Han philosophy. Through a comprehensive comparative study of works such as The History of Chinese Philosophy (four volumes), The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy, and Ren’s theory of "Confucianism as a religion," one can comb through the explanations of Han philosophical figures such as Dong Zhongshu, the Baihu Tong [White Tiger Hall Corpus], and Wang Chong. This carries certain theoretical significance for demonstrating the "course of development and advancement through the struggle with religion" of Han philosophy, and for further understanding Ren Jiyu’s view of philosophical history and his discourse on the Confucian religion.
3. The Interpretation of Han Dynasty Philosophy Under Ren Jiyu’s Perspective of Philosophical History
According to Ren Jiyu’s historical analysis of the formation and development of the Confucian religion, the evolution of Confucianism into a religion was completed through two major transformations of Confucius's teachings in the Han and Song dynasties. Among these, the teleological theology of Han Confucianism—from Dong Zhongshu to the White Tiger Hall Conference—was precisely the key link in the "theologization" of Confucianism and the formation of the Confucian religion. [26] The interpretation of Han philosophy under Ren Jiyu’s perspective of philosophical history involves the theoretical expansion and historical demonstration of this view. Furthermore, through the intellectual interpretation of "militant atheists" represented by Wang Chong and the natural sciences of the Han dynasty, he reveals the process and regularity of critiquing theology and escaping religious shackles during this period.
(1) The Theologization of Han Confucianism and the Completion of the "State Religion of Feudal Society"
Dong Zhongshu was the most creative and influential philosopher of the Han Dynasty. The interpretation of Dong’s thought in the History of Chinese Philosophy (four-volume edition) was clearly influenced by the concepts of the "history of struggle" and "history of cognition." Within the horizon of the history of struggle, Dong Zhongshu belongs to a "teleological system of idealist philosophy." His "purpose" (teleology) was determined by his class attributes—namely, serving autocratic centralism and satisfying the need of the rising landlord class to consolidate its centralized autocratic rule. Regarding Dong’s method of argumentation, it was a "combination of theology and philosophy" [50] that constructed a theological idealist worldview and a systematized theory based on "telepathic self-induction between Heaven and humanity" (tianren ganying). "Beginning with Dong Zhongshu, Confucius was divinized, Confucian doctrine was religionized, and the theory of the feudal autocratic system was systematized." [51] Consequently, his system of idealist philosophy contained a thick veneer of religious theology; throughout this book, philosophy and theology are intertwined, using terms such as "abstract theological idealist ethics" [52] and "theological idealist worldview" [53]. Specifically, the section on Dong Zhongshu in the History of Chinese Philosophy (four-volume edition) is divided into six sections. The first section covers political theory, reflecting the basic Marxist methods of the history of struggle and class analysis, emphasizing the socio-political background of the formation of Dong’s philosophy, its class attributes, and its theoretical task of "demonstrating the divinity and supremacy of 'monarchical power'." [54] The second section covers the "worldview of the theory of telepathic self-induction between Heaven and humanity," taking "Heaven" (Tian) as the center to discuss the foundational and core components of Dong’s philosophical system, presenting the religionized characteristics of his worldview. Sections three through six are the specific manifestations of his theological idealist worldview in the realms of epistemology, ethics, and the conception of history. The basic structure of Dong Zhongshu’s theoretical system established in the History of Chinese Philosophy (four-volume edition) was inherited by the History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy, though with certain adjustments.
The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy was clearly influenced by Ren Jiyu’s thesis that Confucianism is a religion [27], defining Dong Zhongshu’s thought as a "theological system of telepathic self-induction between Heaven and humanity." The study of Dong Zhongshu in this book is divided into ten parts, the first six of which introduce Dong’s theory of tianren ganying, thereby highlighting Dong’s "mission" to "consolidate and strengthen the feudal centralized rule of the Han Dynasty" and its "essence" as "feudal theology." [55] The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy more explicitly clarified the religious significance of Dong’s "Heaven" as "the sovereign of the gods, governing both heaven and the human world." [56] It comprehensively explained the theory of Yin-Yang and the Five Phases [28] under Dong’s theological system, emphasizing its significance for Dong’s theological theory as a "rigidified format for the induction between Heaven and humanity." [57] "Dong Zhongshu mystified Yin-Yang and the Five Phases into the will of Heaven... the Yin-Yang ideas, which originally belonged to the realm of simple dialectical concepts, were completely transformed into theological theory after his transformation." [58]
The book also focuses on the moral attributes of Heaven: on the one hand, Dong Zhongshu emphasized that Heaven "sustains people with food and clothing, and teaches people through ritual and righteousness," demonstrating the "perfect goodness" and the benevolent virtue (ren) of Heaven toward all things, and especially toward the people. "Heaven produces and sustains all things in a ceaseless flow of life (shengsheng buxi); thus, the benevolence of Heaven is infinite. ... Heaven’s purpose is to benefit and sustain the people, ensuring they are well-provisioned, which determines that all its activities are manifestations of goodness." On the other hand, it emphasizes the significance of man "modeling himself after Heaven." Dong Zhongshu’s so-called "system of benevolence and righteousness" and the "Three Bonds of the Kingly Way" [29] thus obtained a basis for legitimacy by being "entirely derived from Heaven" and "attainable from Heaven." "In turn, the ethical attributes of the human world were described as originating from Heaven, which also shows that the 'goodness of Heaven' spoken of by Dong Zhongshu was not a purely abstract concept, but rather embodied feudal human ethics." [59] According to The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy, Dong Zhongshu’s theory of tianren ganying was not a general relationship between Heaven and man; one of its "theoretical cores" was that "the King acts by receiving the will of Heaven; therefore, he employs moral education rather than punishments." The object of moral education is the people; thus, what is reflected here is the relationship between the triad of Heaven, the Monarch, and the People. The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy attaches great importance to Dong Zhongshu’s idea of "constraining the people to give prominence to the monarch, and constraining the monarch to give prominence to Heaven." It argues that the former "uses the authority of Heaven to strengthen monarchical power," reflecting the "class substance" and "historical mission" of his doctrine, while the latter "uses the Mandate of Heaven to restrain the human sovereign," reflecting the "practical significance" of his doctrine. [60] The book suggests that Dong Zhongshu, through the logic that "the Son of Heaven receives his mandate from Heaven, and the world receives its mandate from the Son of Heaven," constructed a "theological subordinate relationship of Heaven—Son of Heaven (Monarch)—People," which became the "theocratic format for China’s long-term feudal society thereafter." [61] The theories of human nature, epistemology, and political propositions introduced in sections seven, eight, and nine are also developed within this interpretive framework—for instance, explaining Dong Zhongshu’s theory of human nature and his "degree-regulation" (duzhi) [30] proposals through the phrases "the King receives the will of Heaven to complete the nature of the people" and "Heaven’s production of the people is not for the sake of the King, yet Heaven established the King to serve the people."
From the above, it can be seen that The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy continued the Marxist principles and methods of the History of Chinese Philosophy (four-volume edition), sorting out the basic content of Dong Zhongshu’s theoretical system through detailed philosophical argumentation. Within the horizon of Ren Jiyu’s thesis that Confucianism is a religion, it revealed the "major change" to the image of Confucianism brought about by the "theologized Confucianism" shaped by Dong Zhongshu. [62]
According to The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy, the theological system constructed by Dong Zhongshu formed a "major change" to the image of Confucianism. However, regarding the complete theological theory required by the feudal ruling class—that is, the formation of a state religion where "sacrificial rituals and theological theory are closely combined"—it was merely a "beginning." After being enriched and developed by the theology of Chenwei [31] (prophetic diagrams and apocrypha), and once the Confucian study of the classics (Jingxue) had overcome its internal contradictions and divisions, it was finally "completed" by the White Tiger Hall Conference [32]—presided over by Emperor Zhang of Han—and the resulting work, the Baihu Tong (Discussions in the White Tiger Hall). [63] "The religious theological system of the Baihu Tong is the summary of this historical process, marking the completion of the establishment of state religion in feudal society." [64] Regarding the distinct characteristics of this state religion, the book points out: "Its sacrificial rituals were a privilege enjoyed by the ruling class, reflecting the power structure of feudal society, while completely excluding the powerless masses and forbidding them from overstepping their bounds. Its theological theory focused on solving the problems of the divine right of kings and the transition of national destiny, caring only for the interests of the feudal state while completely disregarding the suffering of the masses in their real lives. Its primary function was merely to strive to deify the state system and the monarch, providing a theological basis for the polity of monarchical autocracy, without concerning itself with pointing out a way for the masses to escape their suffering." One can see that these characteristics reflect the "statist" and "feudal" nature of the "state religion." Its "religious nature" did not transcend Dong Zhongshu’s theory; it remained a "relatively crude" theoretical form created through the deification of the Son of Heaven, the deification of Yin-Yang and the Five Phases, and the deification of the Three Bonds and Five Constant Virtues. "It inherited Dong Zhongshu’s technique, deriving a set of celestial orders directly from the real order of the feudal state of the time, with almost no speculative mediation." In short, according to the book, although the Baihu Tong lacked theoretical originality—"variously discussing the classics and commentaries while appending prophetic apocrypha"—it represented an "important historical stage in the development from Confucian scholarship (Ruxue) to the Confucian religion (Rujiao)" by virtue of its status as the "state religion of feudal society." [65]
(2) The "Process of Development and Advance in the Struggle Against Religion" in Han Dynasty Philosophy
As mentioned previously, Ren Jiyu regarded "revealing the regularity of the process by which human cognition breaks free from religion" as the task of research into the history of philosophy. Therefore, in addition to revealing the theologization of Han Confucianism and its development into a state religion, the History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy also introduces the ideological developments of this period that criticized theology and broke free from religious constraints. "At the very same time that the Baihu Tong was completing its religious theological system, Wang Chong, far from the capital in Kuaiji, was wielding his pen to 'attack falsehoods' (ji xuwang). This was the struggle between reason and faith in China’s Middle Ages, possessing extremely important significance in the history of thought." [66] The book provides a detailed introduction to Wang Chong’s critique of "Han Dynasty Confucianism as a religion," which specifically includes: reducing Heaven once again to a natural object; using qi [33] and the "transformation of qi" (qihua) to explain the relationship between nature, society, and the human body, as well as various phenomena; explaining Heaven and nature through materialism; and criticizing theological teleology and the theory of induction. This constituted a "powerful negation of the celestial gods," shaking the basic tenets of the "worship of celestial gods" in the Confucian religion, which could be described as "striking at the vitals of the Confucian religion." By using the argument that "the dead do not become ghosts," he launched an in-depth critique of the theory of ghosts and spirits, thereby "pulling out the theoretical foundation of ancestor worship in the Confucian religion," thus acquiring the "significance of opposing the ritual code" (lijiao); he proposed that "sages are not divine," opposing the worship of sages, the classics, and the commentaries. [67]
Importantly, the book analyzes Wang Chong’s method of thought, its successes, and its failures, and on this basis reveals the laws of the struggle between reason and faith during this period. According to the book, as a "militant atheist," Wang Chong "never separated argument from facts, nor facts from argument," employing an empiricism that contained rational factors: "Relying solely on repeating the general theory of the natural non-action (wuwei) of the Way of Heaven was no longer effective in dealing with the overflow of theology. To counter the various theological viewpoints and superstitious taboos that filled society, a militant materialist must use a large volume of facts to carry out systematic and concrete refutations of their main arguments; only in this way can a powerful blow be dealt to the trend of theistic thought. From the perspective of the laws of ideological struggle, this step had to be taken; it was Wang Chong who brilliantly undertook this historical task." [68] From the perspective of the history of the development of cognition, in the "ideological struggle" to explain natural and social phenomena and criticize theology and secular superstition, Wang Chong promoted the concretization of the materialist worldview and "deepened the theory of materialism." [69] From the perspective of the history of Chinese atheism, Wang Chong established a "monumental landmark connecting the past and the future," both absorbing the essence of atheism since the Pre-Qin period and exerting a major influence on subsequent eras such as the Wei-Jin period and the late Ming and early Qing dynasties.
The book analyzes the limitations and weaknesses of Wang Chong’s empiricism from an epistemological perspective due to a lack of theoretical thinking. Internal contradictions existed in his thought—such as discussing the natural Way of Heaven while simultaneously advocating for fatalistic concepts of "human fate/individual destiny" (renming), "national destiny" (guoming), and "royal destiny" (wangming), or opposing induction while advocating for the "resonance of auspicious omens" (ruiwu zhi ying). Therefore, he failed to become a thorough atheist. "To uphold thorough atheism, one must adhere to an epistemology that combines sensibility and rationality, and one must adhere to the dialectical method of thought." [70]
In addition to summarizing the regularity of the critique of theology from the perspectives of the history of philosophical cognition and "methods of thought," the History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy dedicates a chapter to the relationship between Han Dynasty philosophy and science. "Only in places where science has truly occupied the ground is there no room for theology to stand." [71] This part is not a history of Han Dynasty science and technology, but a comprehensive analysis of the ideological relationship between Han philosophy, religion, and science, which also contains a critique of Confucian theology. The book provides an overall discourse on the characteristics of scientific development in the Han: "The formation of a system of natural science in the Han Dynasty was in step with the trend toward political, economic, and ideological unification. People in the Han sought to link various natural phenomena together, as well as natural and social phenomena, to construct an all-encompassing cosmic system; the ideological basis for their doing so was the idea of the unity of Heaven and humanity." [72] This passage contains two aspects: first, Han natural science was significantly influenced by national politics, or was "a direct or indirect projection of the real life of the feudal patriarchal system"—for example, astronomical observations were used to verify political successes or failures. Second, Han natural science took the unity of Heaven and humanity as its guiding ideology, "viewing heaven, earth, and man as a unified whole in every possible field." [73] In this regard, there was clear tension between the Han Confucian theory of tianren ganying and Han natural science: the theory of induction generalized specific relationships between heaven, man, and things and the relatively simple natural scientific knowledge of the time into more universal connections. For instance, Dong Zhongshu expanded the idea that "things move according to their kind" (wu yi lei dong) to the mutual movement between Heaven and man, thereby "swallowing and capturing the scientific knowledge people gained in practice, and making such knowledge a component of theological teleology." [74] More importantly, the understanding of the relationship between Heaven and man formed by various fields of natural science also demonstrated a struggle against the theological teleology of the Confucian religion. In the opening of the section "Agriculture, Agricultural Science, and Philosophy," The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy points out: "The influence of agriculture and agricultural science on philosophy was mainly manifested in the understanding of the relationship between Heaven and humanity." [75] It also emphasizes: "Agriculture can be said to be the site of direct mutual interaction between Heaven and humanity. ... In agricultural production, people saw that through their own efforts, they could obtain a better harvest, which helped to break down the superstition regarding the will of Heaven." [76]
However, the section on medicine contains the most extensive and detailed treatment in the book. It introduces in detail the Han Dynasty medical community's absorption and development of the theory of Yin-Yang and the Five Elements [34], as well as its basic concepts regarding health preservation and treatment. This demonstrates a characteristic of always prioritizing medical practice, which differs fundamentally from Dong Zhongshu’s teleological theology. "If we say Dong Zhongshu primarily seized upon the aspect of Heaven as the supreme object of religious worship, making the unity of Heaven and humanity and the induction between Heaven and humanity a form of theology, then the Neijing (Inner Canon of the Yellow Emperor) [35] primarily seized upon the aspect of Heaven as a natural object... One could say that at the time, no science could make people feel the close connection between humanity and nature as profoundly as medicine... It held that conforming to the changes of nature was the best way to maintain physical health." [84] According to the book, the contribution of Han Dynasty medicine is also reflected in the study of qi [36]. It argues that the qi formed in Han medical practice was an observable objective reality and served as the medium for the interconnection and interaction of things. Such viewpoints "provided a basis for the philosophy of monistic qi ontology," which was the "most significant" influence of Han science on philosophy. [85]
IV. The Two-Way Interaction Between Chinese Philosophy and Marxist Atheism and Its Significance
Research on Han Dynasty philosophy within the horizon of Ren Jiyu’s history of philosophy centers on Dong Zhongshu and the Baihu Tong (Virtuous Discussions in the White Tiger Hall) [37]. It elaborates in detail on the theological development of Han Confucianism and the historical process of its completion as the "state religion of feudal society." This includes the theoretical expansion and historical demonstration of his "Confucianism-as-religion" thesis. Furthermore, through the intellectual interpretation of "militant atheists" represented by Wang Chong and Han Dynasty natural sciences, he summarized the process and laws of criticizing theology and breaking free from religious shackles, revealing the relationship between philosophy, religion, and science during this period, as well as the "struggle between reason and faith." Overall, Ren Jiyu’s interpretative path of integrating the history of philosophy with the history of Confucianism as a religion was effectively implemented and vividly displayed in his research on Han philosophy. This embodies the two-way interaction between Chinese philosophy and Marxist atheism, possessing important ideological and methodological significance.
First, Ren Jiyu insisted on combining Marxist principles with the actual conditions of Chinese philosophy. He demonstrated the historical course of Chinese philosophy's advancement through its struggle against religion, deepening the understanding of the history of Chinese philosophical cognition and its developmental laws. In Ren’s view, whether the history of Chinese philosophy could truly become a science depended on "how well historical materialism is applied" [86]—that is, "how to correctly understand the basic principles of Marxism, and how to combine these principles with the specific reality of the development of Chinese philosophy." [87] Ren Jiyu also proposed specific methods such as "placing problems within a certain historical scope" and "conducting concrete class analysis." [88] Looking at the interpretation of Dong Zhongshu’s thought, both the History of Chinese Philosophy (four-volume edition) and the Developmental History of Chinese Philosophy reflect a dual horizon of the history of philosophy and the history of Confucianism as a religion, achieving a fusion of the two. On one hand, by analyzing the attributes and methods of materialism and idealism, dialectics and metaphysics within Dong Zhongshu’s philosophy, his position in the cognitive history of the Chinese nation was clarified. On the other hand, through the explanation of Dong Zhongshu’s theological system of "induction between Heaven and humanity" and the analysis of his class attributes, the internal connection between Dong Zhongshu and the socio-political life of China since the Han Dynasty was further clarified. This presented the basic appearance and historical influence of a typically manifested Confucian theological system. Therefore, adopting an interpretative path that integrates the history of philosophy and the history of Confucianism as a religion holds important revelatory significance for understanding the intellectual characteristics and historical status of Dong Zhongshu and traditional Confucian philosophy as a whole.
Second, Ren Jiyu insisted on "revealing the regularity of the process by which human cognition breaks free from religion." He implemented the academic mission of unifying philosophical research with the critique of theology within Chinese philosophical studies, expanding the "ideological front" of Marxist atheism. This also holds significant ideological and methodological meaning for advancing Marxist atheist research and its publicity and education in the New Era. In an article written in 1977 to commemorate the first anniversary of Mao Zedong’s passing, Ren Jiyu revisited Mao’s instructions on criticizing theology. He highly appraised Mao’s assertion that "one cannot write a good history of philosophy without criticizing theology," calling it "extremely profound" and suggesting that workers in philosophy, literature, and history should shoulder a "greater responsibility" for the critique of theology. [89] In Ren’s view, religious theology is characterized by idealistic and metaphysical worldviews, the promotion of obscurantism, and the advocacy of "escape" through "introspection" and "confession." It provides justifications for the notion that "exploitation is justified and oppression is justified." Regarding Chinese history, it has always been a "spiritual shackle for the feudal autocratic rule over the people." [90] Consequently, one must expose the class roots and epistemological roots of religious theology to fully implement materialistic principles and "expand the ideological front of Marxism." [91] As mentioned earlier, among the characteristics of the history of Chinese philosophy summarized by Ren Jiyu—besides the "long duration of feudal philosophy" and the "dominant position of theological Confucianism"—he particularly emphasized the important aspect of having a "glorious tradition of materialism and atheism." Therefore, criticizing theology and feudal autocracy while promoting materialism and atheism became distinct features of Ren’s philosophical historiography. From his interpretation of Han philosophy, one finds that Ren Jiyu persisted in unifying philosophical research with the critique of theology, unifying the critique of theology with the critique of feudal autocracy, and unifying the disclosure of theology’s class roots with its epistemological roots, thereby fulfilling his "political responsibility." [92] Xi Wuyi argued that "studying religion and criticizing theology" was the "academic philosophy Ren Jiyu adhered to throughout his life" [93]—an objective and accurate assessment. In fact, the concept of criticizing theology consistently permeated Ren Jiyu’s philosophical work.
As a university textbook for the humanities, the History of Chinese Philosophy (four-volume edition) has been reprinted many times since its first edition in 1963; even as late as 2003, Mr. Ren Jiyu personally presided over its revision. Although the Developmental History of Chinese Philosophy remained an unfinished task (the volumes on the Song, Yuan, Ming, Qing, and modern periods were not completed), it still played an irreplaceable role in the research and teaching of Chinese philosophical history during the early period of Reform and Opening-up. It can be said that the time span over which Ren Jiyu led the study of Chinese philosophical history, the number of editions and copies printed, and the number of authoritative experts involved in the drafting are all second to none. His distinct Marxist perspective on the history of philosophy and his academic mission of criticizing theology and promoting atheism have influenced generations of scholars and young students.
Therefore, from the perspective of criticizing theology and promoting Marxist atheism, Ren Jiyu’s research into the history of Chinese philosophy not only fulfilled his "political responsibility" but truly expanded the "ideological front" of Marxist atheism. It reflects an interdisciplinary vision and a comprehensive research approach. In the context of the debates over Confucianism-as-religion, Ren Jiyu advocated for examinations from a "broader perspective" (such as sociology and anthropology) rather than being confined to "arguing over right and wrong based on Confucianism’s own interpretations." [94]
At present, the integrative characteristics of the New Humanities are becoming increasingly prominent. The Party and the state have also continuously introduced new measures regarding the construction of ideological and political theory courses, "curriculum-based ideological and political education" (kecheng sizheng), and "Great Ideological and Political Courses" [38] in the New Era. Therefore, how to integrate with the current disciplinary system and development trends, and how to merge with the curriculum and textbook systems to further implement the guidelines and policies of the Party and the state, should be the important directions that the advancement of Marxist atheist research, publicity, and education focus on in the New Era.
Network Editor: Tong Xin Source: Science and Atheism, Issue 3, 2023