Qian Yongxiang: Political Philosophy and Sense of Reality - Preface by Chen Chunshu

Press: With the consent of Mr. Qian, it is specially posted here.

In contemporary China, political philosophy is a "conspicuous study", its volume and visibility surpass those of other branches of philosophy, and it is also very lively among the various humanities. Some of the current scholars, ideological trends, and some frontal conflicts of ideas that attract attention can all be classified into the field of political philosophy in a broad sense. Why is political philosophy so dynamic? An important reason is that since the reform and opening up, after the revolutionary ideology of Marxist-Leninist-Mao and the reality of China—and even the whole world—has broken, which road should China take and what kind of country should it become? has been an open question. These issues involve the choice of political values and the reconstruction of the legitimacy of the system, which were originally the core issues of political philosophy. Since the 1990s, Chinese ideological circles have maintained a strong interest in political philosophy for nearly three decades. Many young people devote themselves to this field, not without their real and urgent background. I believe that from the evolution of political philosophy in mainland China, we can grasp the core issues of contemporary Chinese intellectual circles, and we can also glimpse the mental state of Chinese intellectuals when they face these issues.

This collection of essays by Mr. Chen Chun focuses on the political philosophy of contemporary China. But his interest in writing the words in the book is not to explore the internal professional issues of political philosophy (he has written other works in this regard), but to document and reflect on the ecology and trends of this field. You could say it's a metaphysical work. The so-called "metamorphic" usually refers to reflection and reconstruction at the conceptual level, but the "metaphysical" of this book is more like ethnography, focusing on the political-cultural-psychological level, engaging in - and using - from characters and schools of thought. ─The way of political philosophy, to interpret and review the ecology of contemporary Chinese political philosophy. Reading this book, you can understand the characteristics and activities of several current schools, and you can also see their strengths and weaknesses from the author's comments. The interest of this book is here, and the value is also here.

First of all, this book is really interesting to read. In general academic philosophical writing, the author's "I" tries to avoid appearances as much as possible, but this is not Chen Chun's style. He clearly stated that his position was left-wing liberalism, and then commented on the gains and losses of other liberal scholars, presenting his own views by comparison. From the perspective of left-wing liberalism, he sharply criticized several more influential contemporary political philosophies, mainly the Strauss School of China, conservative liberalism, and political Confucianism. He is not shy about using my handwriting and my own words in his writing, and he doesn't mind referring to individuals by name or name when making comments. He will use some stories, rumors, some profiles and sketches to depict characters, and his personal likes and dislikes are naturally revealed in his pen. I'm not used to speaking "openly" like this myself, but I believe that it should be healthy for scholars to express their ideas candidly and brightly, as long as they are sincere and polite.

But in addition to fun, we should pay more attention to the intellectual value of this book. This book is worth reading for several reasons: he provides a fairly comprehensive introduction and commentary on the internal divisions of liberal discourse; he is outspoken about the lack of liberalism in theory and practice; He made an in-depth analysis of the Trauss School and cultural conservatism's thinking and mistakes; he personally visited various leftists of the younger generation and introduced their ideological conditions. These, I believe will arouse the interest of many readers. I also hope that someone will come forward to refute and respond, so as to promote relevant discussions.

However, in my opinion, Chen Chun's sense of reality and his intense focus on reality should impress readers of this book the most.

As mentioned above, philosophy is a meta-reflection, that is, to review and reconstruct the concepts, values, etc., with which we talk about reality. Out of professional habit, scholars of academic philosophy prefer to use the definitions of these values and concepts in classic works, assuming that they have a certain universal content that is detached from the times and environments; therefore, philosophical reflection often ignores history and life The context is highly abstract. But it cannot be denied that the vocabulary of concepts and values is formed in history and used in life, and to a large extent needs to be provided by specific contexts. The context of political thinking is the current era, society, and the ideology that pervades the surrounding. Therefore, although political philosophy can be highly detached, if it wants to intervene in reality, to arouse responses, resonance, and dialogue, it needs to connect with its own era, return to the society it is in, and state and think about its own problems. This is why political philosophy cannot be completely divorced from reality.

The meaning of "realistic" can be divided into several layers. On the first level, “reality” of course refers to the current political reality in China; a sense of reality first refers to being aware of the reality of China’s political order. In the current Chinese context, most researchers of political philosophy are conscious of this. Many people's concerns are: What are the most pressing and pressing political issues in China today? Confucianism, the "School of Shi", and the New Left have all pondered this question and put forward their own answers. Liberalism is no exception in this regard. The point is that the real problems in China imagined by each school are very different, and the differences between them almost block the possibility of mutual attention, dialogue (and learning). Of course, there is not only one real problem in China; the question cannot be fixed on one. In fact, not only scholars disagree with each other; civil servants, migrant workers, urban white-collar workers, and retirees also have very different ideas about what the "China problem" is. So how to judge whose problem consciousness is more reasonable and accurate? This is a very important issue, but it has not seen an open, in-depth discussion.

In any case, Chen Chun has been sorting out his awareness of China's problems. Comparing the statements in his previous and previous articles, we can see that his views are still evolving; his peers, such as Lin Yao, have also publicly expressed different opinions. In this book, Chen Chun dissects several contemporary political philosophies in order to grasp the pressing problems of contemporary China and discover the particularity of the answers of "left-wing" liberalism. His thinking process constitutes the theme of this book and is worthy of reference for readers.

The sense of reality also has a second meaning, which is to face the conditions imposed by the times and society truthfully. In today's China, the "modern" element of society as a whole clearly exceeds the pre-modern or post-modern element. Regardless of how society is organized, changes in interpersonal relationships, personal self-awareness, values, and even the huge flow of population, the innovation of work and leisure methods, etc., China is a society in the "modern" sense. The meaning and value of "modern" has been debated in the West for hundreds of years. However, regardless of the pros and cons, any theory must first admit that "modern" is an irreplaceable reality in order to have at least some persuasive force. Sensitive thinking, whether willing or not, must find a way out under the conditions given by modern times.

In this regard, the Confucianism, the Shi faction, and the Left faction are less sober than liberalism. Their motivation for thinking about China largely comes from their dissatisfaction with, and disdain for, Western modernity, and even their desire to “overcome” it. This is not to say that their grievances are meaningless; the lack of "modernity" is clearly visible: Western domination, capitalism, nihilism, technological hegemony, you can go on and on and on and on with the labels you like; "modern" It's almost destined to spark some people nostalgic about the pre-modern, yearning for an alternative way of life, or wanting to unleash a complete overhaul of modern society. Using these points of view to target modern times has its own warning significance. However, to talk about the current political issues and political identity of China, especially at the moment when China is rising and has already played a powerful international role in the world, it is impossible and should not ignore the given conditions of the modern world. Another non-modern political order. "Times" and "society" cannot be changed at will; honest intellectuals who have a sense of responsibility towards their fellow citizens should not be frivolous on this issue.

By contrast, one of the strengths of liberalism is its willingness to confront modern realities. The modern age is not without its cold side, so it is often heard that this is a dark age. However, liberalism values progress and believes that the world today is slightly less dark than it was in the past. You can laugh at liberalism for being too naive, but in a third world country like China, is the meaning of "modern" positive or negative? Measured by the number of people affected, philosophers who are anti-modern and anti-Western modernity should not ignore the situation of women, laborers, the poor, and the disadvantaged, which have been greatly improved by various "modern" systems and concepts. Liberalism believes that these improvements prove that some of the characteristics of modern times have their value, and to refine and develop these characteristics is the most important task of liberal political philosophy. In the book, Chen Chun quoted Liu Qing as the three characteristics of egalitarianism, individualism, and pluralism, which are all "modern" values in the eyes of liberalism. Whether these values have been generally recognized by Chinese society may still be doubtful; however, these values are related to the modernization of Chinese society, and whether the realization of these values will affect the quality of life and morality of the Chinese people should be Doubtless.

But "reality" has a third level of meaning, involving how to imagine human beings. It is not difficult for readers to see that the ideals set by Confucianism, the New Left or the Shi faction often revolve around certain lofty values that transcend everyday life, and the premise of its realization is the improvement or transformation of human nature. Indeed, the pursuit of transcendence and sublime can be said to be the driving force that belongs to the essence of "thought"; since the Axial Age opened up several major traditions of human thought, it has gotten rid of the harassment of various needs and desires on the physical and daily levels, and entered a kind of concept composed of ideas. The realm of truth, goodness and beauty is the dream of many thinkers, and it is not surprising that some political philosophies today set such goals. In fact, this pursuit of transcendence has brought about many wonderful achievements of human civilization, and its value cannot be denied.

The problem is that human beings have to live in their daily lives in the flesh, which is impossible to avoid and difficult to surpass. No matter what lofty goals your life is looking at, it is still only a bumpy ride on the ground of everyday life. Liberalism understands that human beings are fragile creatures and need some internal and external conditions to pursue a more decent life: you and I need a safe and stable environment, need to have health, common sense and life skills, need to have learning and reasoning It requires space for thinking and choice, mutual respect with others, equal public identity, and sympathy, support, and help from people around you. Just think: without any of these conditions, would your life still be human? Liberalism seeks sound political principles and political values solely for the purpose of creating an environment of everyday life that can provide these conditions. I want to stress again and again that fragile human beings like you and me can only live like a "human" in such an environment. As for lofty moral cultivation and civilization achievements, they are treasures that can be encountered but not sought after. We should yearn for them, but the purpose of the political system conceived for the needs of fragile life is not here. Liberalism lacks arrogance and self-confidence by nature. Instead, it can recognize what politics can and cannot do. In this sense, it has a sense of reality.

In these three senses, the sense of reality provides a direction for Chinese left-wing liberals, including Chen Chun, to think. Yes, just being aware of the problems and conditions given by reality does not mean that the study of political philosophy can find a way out for reality; neither politics nor philosophy are so simple and easy. On the other hand, there is a world of difference between "face reality" and "pleasantness with the status quo" and should not be confused; under realistic conditions, political philosophy must still strive to maintain an idealism, or what Rawls calls a "steady utopia" ” in order to combat the status quo. The heavy challenges in these two aspects are not unfamiliar to practitioners of political philosophy, so it should be the professional style of political philosophy not to be rashly optimistic and not to be arrogant. Chen Chun is full of youthful spirit when he writes, but he is already aware of this, which I think is rare.

Chen Chun once published an article in the journal "Thought" edited by several of our friends, and formed a literary relationship with me. Some of his views in thought and practice often resonate with me. Now that he publishes a new book and invites me to write the preface, I feel obliged to write down some associations while reading, and discuss with him and the readers of this book.

Qian Yongxiang Spring 2020 When the epidemic is rampant