But if you have a direct life experience, if conscience presents itself, it gives you a function that combines philosophy and religion. We can see from these quotes by Lu Wangxin that he attaches great importance to this. Zhu Xi is a very rational person, but he also has a strong philosophical thinking. However, if you don't look carefully, when Zhu Xi was 9 years old, he seemed to ask his father what could exist outside of this universe, saying that his father couldn't answer. This made Zhu Xi anxious and sick. He spent his whole life thinking about this question and eventually became a philosopher.
Lu Jiuyuan also seemed to be only eight or nine years old, thinking about this issue. When he asked his father, he didn't ask clearly and was also sick. So one day, he figured it out and suddenly realized that the universe is my heart, and my heart is the universe. Then he cured his illness himself.
I said Xiong Shili is also like this, which means that he has such a life experience, so he will have his own understanding with the presentation of ultimate existence. He firmly believes in the difference between positive quantity and comparative quantity, the difference between sexual intelligence and quantitative intelligence, one is towards the ontology, and the other is towards this phenomenon. This is a firm belief of modern Neo Confucianism starting from Xiong Shili, which leads to their views on modern society, including science, democracy, and these aspects, being completely placed in the same perspective.
For example, scientific knowledge cannot exist at this metaphysical level, it belongs to the category of quantitative intelligence. This is my introduction to life experiences, because it cannot be done in analytical language, only through these storytelling methods. As for whether you believe it or not, I don't know. It doesn't matter if you don't believe it.
When I talk about Chinese philosophy now, the most worrying thing is how to use your method to tell you some experiential things. On the other hand, if you participate in those book clubs, what worries you is that they all have experiences and are very independent. You have to discuss some rational and rational things with them, and sometimes you are afraid that they will not accept them. I am someone who is anxious on both sides, so I am very conflicted. I cannot firmly stand on the position of rationalism. These are all logical and the result of reasoning; I cannot firmly stand up to the idea presented by conscience. To be honest, there is a problem and a clear understanding, but you have not seen it, I really have not seen it.
I have been writing a blog recently, and I said that there may be something that is a bit like presenting conscience! Do you sound like it or not?
I said I rarely chat with my parents. Our generation didn't know how to talk and said we would go home to see them for two hours. After finishing, we left. I go home once a year and stay for two or three days. It's so easy to come and sit there, and I feel like I have nothing to say. For example, when he hasn't left, as you walk away, you realize that your conscience has formed, thinking that work, study, and worries are useless at that time. The kind of things that touch you, such as family and friendship, actually come out.
I think that's a bit similar, but I'm not too self-centered, so sometimes I think there are things that can be deduced rationally, and some things that we can be more tolerant of, so I say he didn't write a theory of quantity. I think you already know from the paragraph I talked about earlier that he advocates for sexual intelligence, life experience, and enlightenment, which is completely different from the objectified understanding we understand today. He talks about reflection, process, and truth based on the division of subject and object. These are completely two different things.
So, it's normal that he can't write a modern epistemology. Although he did not make a change in his later years, wanting to write clear and discerning official language and poor spiritual knowledge, it was not his specialty in that area. Even if he applied all the knowledge of traditional ancient China, he could not write anything worth promoting in this era.
Nowadays, the field of Western philosophy epistemology is very rich, and his student Mou Zongsan has made some contributions in this area because he originally studied logic and epistemology. He is an expert in Western philosophy epistemology and logic, and when it comes to Chinese philosophy, it is not a problem for him to write about it. Xiong Shili cannot write about it.
This is what I mean by the formal theory of Xiong Shili's quantity. He can't have it. He can only go back to the traditional philosophy that is clear and intuitive. But does it have such epistemological discussions about substantive intelligence? He definitely does. I will summarize it into two parts and see if everyone is suitable.
It discusses a problem that we are currently concerned about in epistemology, which is the relationship between sexual intelligence and quantitative intelligence.
The relationship between sexual intelligence and quantitative intelligence. So, what kind of sexual intelligence is the ability to recognize the essence of the life experience we just talked about? I call it the essence, and we create a word for it, called ontological cognition. He discusses a relational issue in modern epistemology, rather than some problems within epistemology itself. Objectified epistemology itself has little truth, so he discusses ontological knowledge beyond objectified or phenomenological knowledge.
What is this set of life experiences?
Actually, it is an ontological understanding. So, it falls into two categories compared to objectified cognition, the epistemology we are discussing today. I'll give it a definition, for example, I can't express it in negative terms, what is ontological epistemology?
Non directional, non experiential, and even irrational.
What I call irrational rationality is rationality in the sense of reason, and it is not derived from logic or rational thinking. It doesn't mean Kant's absolute reason, this reason means rationality. The non directional, non experiential, and non rational understanding of ontology cannot be written in the language of modern life. To put it positively, this ontological understanding is a self repeating phrase called self-awareness of ontology.
How do you explain your self-awareness? I can't explain it, I can only use narrative language. Therefore, sometimes some people in traditional Chinese philosophy say that there were very developed scholars in ancient China who spoke about these philosophies. Why didn't they have a systematic understanding?
Because it talks about ontological understanding. You can see the words of Zen Buddhism everywhere, such as when a fish drinks water, it knows whether it's warm or cold. It's like when a fish drinks water, it knows whether it's hot or cold, and it knows for itself. Similarly, when it comes to understanding this essence and the nature of your own mind, it's not objectified. It can only be self-awareness, and it can only be mutually confirmed. It can't tell you.
For example, if I have this experience, I can express it in narrative language. We can confirm each other and feel that we are both like-minded people. This is possible, but I cannot say what my state is, what it looks like, or how it is possible. That is impossible. So, this is an ontological epistemology.
What does Xiong Shili think philosophy is?
Philosophy is something based on the principles of seeing, proving, and quantifying intelligence.
Philosophy is the experience of life, the recognition of ontology, and the presentation of sexual intelligence. The so-called philosophy is not like natural sciences, nor is it like social sciences to study how the world is like phenomena. If that were the case, we would not be philosophy. This is his understanding of philosophy. If you want to look at Xiong Shili's understanding of philosophy in combination with the theory of quantity, his influence should be on Chinese tradition, such as Buddhism and modern times. Western philosophical traditions like Kant emphasize the division between the phenomenal world and the thing in itself. Ancient Chinese philosophy emphasizes the division between positive and comparative quantities, which is a tradition. So, what is the philosophical system?
Philosophy is about seeing the body. If we look at it this way, we are in the philosophy department today, and 90% of our classes are not about this. Everyone is studying the logical knowledge of ideological and political social sciences, and they are all learning these things. But all of these things must be based on this perception of ultimate existence.
Even if we are in the philosophy department today, such as studying theories of education and logic, it may seem unrelated, but it must be based on this foundation. So, this is Xiong Shili's understanding of philosophy. Philosophy is an ontological understanding, and it often has discussions with people. Philosophy is based on human life experiences.
This paragraph is about philosophy tracing back to the body, and the relationship between philosophy and life experience is more related to the problem consciousness of each individual. Philosophy is a foundational question, and sometimes we forget this today. It is very different to say what philosophy is based on. For example, Xiong Shili's philosophy is a new Yogacara, and he himself believes that philosophy is based on its life experience, which is a true feeling of seeking solutions to major problems in the universe and life.
So, he will tell this story, some people may not necessarily do so, because we are both the great masters of Neo Confucianism, Mr. Feng Youlan. Feng Youlan's favorite thing is not life experience, he likes logic the most. You can see Feng Youlan's autobiography and a preface from San Songtang. In it, he said that when he was thirteen or fourteen years old and went to middle school, he loved taking logic classes the most. He said he answered the questions very well. One day, he went to ask the logic teacher a question and asked two questions. The logic teacher couldn't answer them and said, "I'll tell you next week. The teacher will resign next week." He said he couldn't take it anymore.
He said he still likes it in university, so Feng Youlan's philosophy, which draws on the emphasis on logical analysis, is completely another tradition. However, Xiong Shili is based on life experience and seeing the body through clarity, so it is not a logicality. He is an act of presenting conscience. Therefore, all philosophy belongs to the ontology. When he talks about this, it cannot be said that all philosophy is wrong, only that some are fully constructed and some are biased. So, we come to learn this, which is to build the entirety of the mind, nature, and ontology. This is the destination of all philosophy.
So, based on ontological knowledge, Xiong Shili discussed an important issue in cognition. What is the relationship between the two?
