Mr. Feng Youlan once said that a complete metaphysical system should start with positive methods and end with negative methods.
Mr. Feng Youlan attempted to establish the most authentic and philosophical philosophy, to build a metaphysical system. In his view, although he initially constructed it using the logical analysis method represented by Neo Confucianism, he ultimately completed it through the systematic expression of the method in 1946's "New Knowledge Words". He believed that any complete philosophical system must be constructed using both positive and negative methods. If it does not end in negative methods, it cannot reach the final peak of philosophy. However, if it does not begin in positive methods, it lacks clear thinking as the essence of philosophy.
These two sentences are very important. He believes that positive methods can help philosophical concepts to be expressed clearly, while negative methods can help philosophy achieve a certain transcendence, and ultimately enable this philosophy to reach its peak of development. In Mr. Feng's view at this time, positive methods are never the main subject, and negative methods are no longer just a supplement to positive methods. He believes that positive and negative methods have equal status at this time, and both should be indispensable.
So he pointed out that on the one hand, in the history of Chinese philosophy, he said that the positive method in Chinese philosophy has never been fully developed, so Chinese philosophy has always lacked clear thinking. On the other hand, in Western philosophy, there has never been a fully developed negative approach, so only by combining the two can future philosophy be produced.
About 70 years ago, Mr. Feng put forward his thoughts on the development of world philosophy. He believed that China and the West complemented and learned from each other, developing their respective philosophies with national representativeness, forming a pattern of understanding the future philosophy he understood.
Adjust the time to 2019. If we look at the future 70, 100, and 200 years based on everyone's understanding of philosophy, what do you think is the direction of the development of philosophy in the future?
It should be said that to some extent, the development of Chinese philosophy is actually following the path planned by Mr. Feng. From the current perspective, what kind of philosophy will the future be?
Will philosophy be an extinct discipline in the future, as it is systematically divided among other disciplines and all its functions are dissolved. For example, religion has fulfilled some of the functions of philosophy, science has fulfilled some of the functions of Neo Confucianism, sociology has fulfilled some of the functions, so philosophy appears empty and useless, and philosophy is dissolved.
The construction of the future philosophy of philosophy itself reflects a reflection on philosophy itself. You also believe that at least at this stage, your understanding of philosophy is to such an extent that everyone's ideas are very interesting and fascinating. It should be said that you are able to express your views clearly and argue with reason and evidence. However, there are some areas that need to be pointed out to everyone.
The first question about the direction of future philosophical development is that you are more influenced by a question thrown out by exploration, so you return more to the discussion of whether philosophy itself should perish. However, others are perspectives, such as whether they are developing in these directions or conflicting with other disciplines. The question we should return to is, what kind of problem is philosophy itself?
Is it answering a metaphysical question, or is it implementing some kind of thinking about human beings, whether it is about politics or ultimate concern, or is philosophy itself rooted in a certain way? We must return to philosophy, not treat it as a discipline, not as an academic research. What is philosophy itself? What is the starting point of the initial understanding of philosophical issues, as it is not the opinion of a certain faction or individual?
A starting point is common to everyone, and this question still needs to be discussed. What kind of philosophical questions do we have left? Some of these questions that can come to mind now are original questions about human beings, such as who I am, where I come from, where I am going, and so on, which have been discussed since ancient Greece.
There are still some issues, such as what kind of political order should be established, discussions about democracy and freedom, social order and social organization, and so on. There are also some questions like religious philosophy, what kind of state a person should be in after death, whether a person has a certain divinity or transcendence, and so on. These issues have been discussed in the past and are still being discussed, and there may be differences. The discussion of these issues is not necessarily unnecessary, but rather the development of human thinking, understanding of oneself, understanding of the external world, and ways of thinking, as well as the overall development of the discipline of philosophy.
However, what we need to ask is whether there will be any new philosophical questions in the future besides the ones that continue this traditional philosophy. Where did this philosophical question come from?
Perhaps it originated from the invention of the atomic bomb, which brought catastrophic impact to the world. For people at that time, many philosophical questions were raised, whether it was like a sudden technological innovation, a sudden social emergency that led to the triggering of a certain philosophical problem, or what kind of factor philosophy originated from and what truly made the discipline of philosophy full of vitality at all times?
I am just providing my personal perspective, and perhaps my own thoughts are more about whether we can raise some truly universal and vibrant philosophical questions. If you go to read many philosophical papers and journals, you will find that many problems have become completely unrelated to real life, and have become purely academic discussions without any practical application. Can such a question truly be called a philosophical question?
So, in fact, we can see that the future development of philosophy will involve both the formulation of philosophical problems themselves and the innovation of philosophical methods. At that time, Kant and the group of philosophers represented by Kant in metaphysics achieved a major reflection on the entire philosophy that had developed before, a reflection on the metaphysical tradition that had existed for thousands of years.
After another wave of reflection has passed, where should we start to develop our philosophy now?
Many traditional literary methods in Chinese philosophy, such as the study of classics, the study of classics, the study of classics, or the study of chapters and sentences, and the study of exegesis, have undergone serious discontinuity, and we cannot help but acknowledge this fact. There is no longer a strict traditional systematic approach to scholarship. Now, following Western methods, such as those explored by Mr. Feng Youlan and others, we are using Western logical methods on one hand, and continuously consolidating our own negative methods on the other.
So along this path of development, it seems that no particularly representative and influential achievements have been made yet, nor has Chinese philosophy been developed to the extent that Mr. Feng Youlan has planned to contribute to world philosophy.
Where should Chinese philosophy develop in the future?
There are two types of this, one is the retro school, and we should return to the vibrant tradition of traditional Chinese philosophy. Another group is the Renewal Faction, represented by Mr. Feng and others. They believe that we need to continue tradition and innovate, but it is difficult to achieve both.
In terms of the positive and negative methods proposed by Mr. Feng here, there is actually a more important debate. He clearly distinguishes between positive and negative methods, but it can be found that they are mutually exclusive. If I want to make this viewpoint very clear through logical analysis, I cannot rely solely on intuition. If I were to use intuition, I wouldn't be able to explain clearly where my intuitionist approach comes from and what kind of logical system it has.
So the positive and negative methods, although he said that I need to have clear thinking and develop philosophy, in fact, what I cannot achieve in the end, even with Mr. Feng, seems that I have not seen a particularly clear combination of positive and negative methods. He actually proposed two methods in an attempt to combine them, but in the end, he actually walked down two paths, and based on his own practical achievements, it mostly adhered to the positive methods.
For negative methods, in fact, they are becoming increasingly marginalized and gradually seem to have been eliminated from this philosophical approach once again. We need to ask where the vitality of negative methods lies?
If, as Mr. Feng Youlan asserts, future philosophy must use negative methods in order to be produced, is it necessary to explore a possibility of organically combining positive and negative methods.
Mr. Feng Youlan said that the New Confucianism has been more consistent in adhering to the basic concepts of Taoism and Buddhism than Taoism and Buddhism. They are even more Taoism and Buddhism than Taoism and Buddhism.
In fact, this concept is also very interesting. It has already broken the confusion between Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, and seen the consistency between them, which is the use of negative methods.
