Revue Internationale de Philosophie

The Problem with "Chinese Philosophy"

Author(s): Anne Cheng
Source: Revue Internationale de Philosophie, Vol. 59, No. 232 (2), La philosophie chinoise moderne
/ Modern Chinese Philosophy (avril 2005), pp. 175-180
Published by: Revue Internationale de Philosophie
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23955661
Accessed: 28-01-2016 11:23 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23955661?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Revue Internationale de Philosophie is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Revue
Internationale de Philosophie.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 160.36.178.25 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:23:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Problem with "Chinese Philosophy"

Anne Cheng

What could be the meaning and significance of a special issue entirely

dedicated to such an object as "Chinese philosophy" in a periodical called
"Revue internationale de philosophie" ?
Let us start with a few empirical remarks. A cursory survey of available

periodicals will suffice to observe that, while there exists a small number
of periodicals specialized in Chinese or Eastern philosophies published in

English mainly in North America 1, there is not a single equivalent in French.

Furthermore, if one looks at the very few philosophical periodicals in French
which are daring enough to propound a special issue outside the field of
Western philosophy, one will note that more often than not, Chinese phi

losophy is featured in a non-descript mixture of "Oriental philosophies",

which may range from Indian Veda to Japanese Zen 2.
This specifically French - or more broadly speaking continental Euro
- reluctance to
pean accept Chinese thought into the circle of professional
philosophy, may appear as a paradox : considering the long tradition of
specialist oriental studies in France, there has been a virtual absence of
interest in comparative studies within French philosophical circles in re
cent decades 3. Further, such resistance
seems to be paralleled, at the insti
tutional level, by the distribution and organization of the University de

partments of philosophy where there is a tendency to concentrate on purely

Western traditions of thought and to leave the "East" to colleagues in spe
cialist departments of oriental studies. A philosopher who would want to
study Chinese thought would have to go to a department of Chinese or, at
best, of religious or anthropological studies. In contrast, a number of Ameri
can sinologists teach in departments of history or even (this is the case at

1. Among others : Journal of Chinese Philosophy, Philosophy East and West, Contemporary
Chinese Thought, Asian Philosophy.
2. See for instance the special issue of Cahiers de philosophie n° 14 (dated 1992), entitled "L'Orient
de la pensée", and that of Les études philosophiques (dated Oct.-Dec. 1983) which

symptomatically concludes with an article about the "Heideggerian ambiguity".

3. See e.g. Roger-Pol Droit, L'oubli de l'Inde : une amnésie philosophique, Paris, Presses
Universitaires de France, 1989.

This content downloaded from 160.36.178.25 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:23:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176 Anne Cheng

least in Hawai'i) of philosophy. This may be due to the fact that American
academic institutions are of a more recent date and, therefore, more open
to innovation than the century-old institutions of Europe. Also, as was ob
served by J.J. Clarke, "it is in America that the influence of Eastern thought
on Western philosophy is greatest, and a tradition of east-directed scholar

ship and interest has flourished there in the schools of philosophy since the
late 19th century when Harvard University first included Indian thought in
its philosophy curriculum. The strong influence of the home-grown tran
scendentalist movement on the American cultural climate in that period
may help to explain this, in addition to which it was natural that, in its
endeavour to emancipate itself from its European past, American philoso

phy should turn its attention to non-European traditions." 4

There is, however, more to it than that. Even when professional publica
tions in philosophy demonstrate enough curiosity to look askance at "other"

ways of thinking, or even more specifically at "Chinese philosophy" 5, they

usually limit their scope to ancient thought (Confucius, Laozi, Zhuangzi,
et al.) - note that a vast majority of books on and translations from Chinese
-
philosophical literature have followed suit somehow implying that China
stopped thinking after antiquity, or at best after the Middle Ages, and that
there is no Chinese philosophy to speak of ever since, not to say among our
contemporaries, which is tantamount to confining Chinese thought to the
museum.

The reasons for such prejudiced ideas are to be sought first of all in the
historical conditions in which the modern philosophical label was defined
in the context of Enlightenment Europe, above all in the 19th century, and

subsequently claimed by the Chinese intelligentsia at the turn of the 20th

century 6. During that period, the term "philosophy", along with other as
sets of Western supremacy such as "science" or "democracy", was appro
priated first by the Japanese by the late Meiji era (second half of the 19th
century), and then by the Chinese whose justificatory and defensive stance,
ironically enough, came to be the exact symetrical reflection of the West
ern dismissive attitude. The 1920s to 1940s witnessed the proliferation of

4. J.J. clarke, Oriental Enlightenment. The Encounter Between Asian and Western Thought,
London & New York, 1997, p. 116. See also the useful presentation of the problem by Lin
Tongqi, Henry rosemont Jr., & Roger T. Ames, "Chinese Philosophy : A Philosophical Es
say on the «State-of-the-Art»",The Journal of Asian Studies 54, 3 (August 1995), p. 727-758.
5. As does n° 44 of Philosophie (Paris, Editions de Minuit, dated Dec. 1994).
6. These I have tried to expound in an article "Modernité et invention de la tradition chez les
intellectuels chinois du XXe siècle", in Yves Michaud, ed., La Chine aujourd1 hui, Paris,
Odile Jacob, "Université de tous les savoirs", 2003, p. 179-196.

This content downloaded from 160.36.178.25 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:23:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Problem with "Chinese Philosophy" 177

books, articles and public lectures (a susbtantial number of them in Eng

lish) by prominent Chinese intellectuals who were deeply concerned with
"the spirit (or essence) of Chinese philosophy" and sought to characterize
it in contradistinction to Western philosophy but in terms entirely borrowed
from it.
In an article dated 1944, Chan Wing-tsit synthesized "The Story of
Chinese Philosophy" as follows:

Chinese philosophy is an intellectual symphony in three movements.

The first movement, from the 6th to the 2nd century B.C., was essen

tially a period of development of the three major themes of Confucian

ism, Taoism, and Mohism, and the four minor ones of Sophism, Neo

Mohism, Legalism, and Yin Yang Interactionism, all with their con
trasts and harmonies, to the accompaniment of the others of the "Hun
dred Schools". The second movement was characterized by the inter
mingling of the different motives which resolved into the dominant chord
of medieval Chinese philosophy, while the note of Buddhism was in
troduced from India
to give it the effect of counterpoint. In the third

movement, the longest of all, from the 11 th to the present day, the char
acteristic notes of Chinese philosophy were synthesized to transform
the persistent chord of Confucianism into the long and unique melody
which is Neo-Confucianism.7

Note the distinctively Western musical metaphor and historical notion

of a "medieval philosophy", as well as the consistent resort to "-isms" tend
ing to classify the Chinese intellectual tradition into "schools" or "sys
tems" which include "Neo-" forms of revival, and are even at times squarely

designated like their Greek counterparts (e.g. Sophism) or by means of

contrived neologisms (e.g. "Yin Yang Interactionism").
Chan Wing-tsit's synthetical presentation is only one sample among a
steady and uninterrupted production of "histories of Chinese philosophy"
started in the early 20th century. The most well-known is undoubtedly that
of Feng Youlan, dating back to the 1930s, which gained worldwide fame
largely thanks to its translation into English and was to be later entirely re
written directly in English in abbreviated form under the title A Short His
tory of Chinese Philosophy, published in 1948 8. The introductory chapter,

7. See Charles A. Moore, - East and West, Princeton

ed., Philosophy University Press, 2nd ed.
1946, p. 24. Some years later, Chan Wing-tsit was to compile A Source Book in Chinese Phi
losophy, Princeton University Press, 1963.
8. It is this version, obviously aimed at a Western - and more specifically Anglo-Saxon - audi

ence which was in turn translated into French under the title Précis d'histoire de la philosophie
chinoise, repr. Editions du Mail, 1985.

This content downloaded from 160.36.178.25 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:23:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
178 Anne Cheng

called "The spirit of Chinese philosophy", is highly symptomatic of Feng's

contradictory aspirations. On the one hand, he starts with the assertion :
"What I call philosophy is systematic, reflective thinking on life" 9, but
ends up saying :

When one begins to read Chinese philosophical works, the first im

pression one gets is perhaps the briefness and disconnectedness of the

sayings and writings of their authors. [...] A student accustomed to elabo

rate reasoning and detailed argument would be at a loss to understand
what these Chinese philosophers were saying. He would be inclined to
think that there was disconnectedness in the thought itself. If this were

so, there would be no Chinese philosophy. For disconnected thought is

hardly worthy of the name of philosophy. [...] In some philosophic writ

ings, such as those of Mencius and Hsun Tzu, one does find systematic

reasoning and arguments. But in comparison with the philosophic writ

of the West, are 10
ings they still not articulate enough.

The obvious awkwardness and embarrassment of Feng's presentation

only reflects the difficult and problematic character of the overall idea sus
taining his magnum opus mentioned above, which was to show how the
history of Chinese philosophy could be written on the same model as any
history of Western philosophy, that is as a succession of thinkers or sys
tems of thought, and by using the same conceptual framework and catego
ries (such as rationalism, scepticism, etc), the final, although not wholly
explicit, aim being to convince the Western readership not only that China
had a philosophy, but that it had it earlier and in a more enduring way than
the West.
What we have attempted to do in the present volume is not to synthesize
a three thousand year old intellectual tradition into a few pages, nor to
carve out its "spirit" or "essence", and least of all to demonstrate its supe
1 We have tried instead to work out a multi-faceted
riority approach which
tends to deconstruct the object "Chinese philosophy", both along historical
and philosophical lines. The article by Chen Lai, as translated and edited
by Michel Masson 12, takes into account the historical dimension of the

9. A Short History of Chinese Philosophy, repr. in Selected Philosophical Writings of Fung Yu

lan (Feng Youlan), Beijing, Foreign Languages Press, 1991, p. 194.
10. Op. cit., p. 204-205.
11. For a continuous narrative of the Chinese intellectual tradition from antiquity to the early
20th century, those readers who care to read 650 pages may refer to Anne Cheng, Histoire
de la pensée chinoise. Seuil, 1997; updated paperback reed.. Seuil, "Points-Essais", 2002.
12. Chen Lai is a professor at the Department of Philosophy of Beijing University and has
published extensively in Chinese on various aspects and periods of Chinese philosophy,
with a particular concern for its modern impact.

This content downloaded from 160.36.178.25 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:23:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Problem with "Chinese Philosophy" 179

13 and Ivan Kamenarovic 14 offer

problem. In contrast, Robert E. Allinson
some methodological insights, the former in a hermeneutical approach to a
central text of the Chan (or Zen) tradition, and the latter in a reflection on
the meaning and implications of a "philosophical translation". Adopting
such types of approach is especially appropriate here since increasingly in
recent years thinkers from various disciplines have made explicit use of
hermeneutics as a way of conceptualising Western engagement with East
ern ideas and traditions. The remaining articles of this volume are devoted
to Mou Zongsan ( 1909-1995)15 and Xu Fuguan ( 1902-1982) l6, two promi
nent characters of the so-called Contemporary New Confucianism which
is often presented as the most visible attempt to produce a modern Chinese
philosophical discourse, largely formulated in Kantian and post-Kantian
terms. Although such an attempt has come to show its limits, it has exerted
undeniable influence on a new generation of Chinese intellectuals who are
now active in the philosophy departments of both Taiwan and People's

Republic universities.
As Claude Romano
aptly said, the long standing doubts about the "philo
sophical" quality of the Chinese ways of thinking cannot be lifted instanta
neously, once and for all, by decree 17. However piecemeal, haphazard, or

Michel MASSON is a foremost Western specialist on Feng Youlan, see his Philosophy and
Tradition. The Interpretation of China's Philosophic Past : Fung Yu-lan 1939-1949, Taipei,
Paris, Hong Kong, Ricci Institute, 1985.
13. Robert E. Allinson has written extensively on Chinese and East-West comparative phi
losophy. He is notably the author or editor of several influential books including Under

standing the Chinese Mind: The Philosophical Roots, Oxford University Press, 1989, and
Chuang Tzu For Spiritual Transformation, State University of New York Press, 1989.
14. Ivan Kamenarovic is the author of several books and essays on Chinese culture, and is well
known in France for his translations from classical Chinese philosophical literature (see the
references in his article). He is one of the translators of the series of lectures by Mou Zongsan
mentioned below in note 15.
intuition" is by Joël Thoraval
15. The article on "intellectual who has been working and teach
ing on Mou Zongsan's philosophical achievement and its relationship with Kantian philoso

phy for some years and has published a number of articles on these subjects which are men
tioned in his article. His 60-page long introduction to the French translation of Mou Zongsan's
series of lectures. Spécificités de la philosophie chinoise (Editions du Cerf, 2003) is un
doubtedly the best one available in any language. Jean-Claude Pastor, apart from having
shared with Ivan Kamenarovic the translation of that volume, is also a fine connoisseur of
Chinese philosophical tradition. He has published many articles on various aspects of an
cient and Neo-Confucian thought, and has produced a translation of the Zhuangzi "inner

chapters" into French, published by Editions du Cerf in 1990.

16. The article is by Mathias OBERT who has been teaching both on Heideggerian phenomenol
ogy and on Chinese philosophy, first at the University of Munich and now in Berlin. His
doctoral dissertation on hermeneutics and temporality in Huayan Buddhism was published
by Meiner in 2000, and he is now preparing a monography on Chinese esthetics.
17. See his preliminary remarks as the chief editor of n° 44 of Philosophie cited above in note 5.

This content downloaded from 160.36.178.25 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:23:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
180 Anne Cheng

even arbitrary the composition of the present issue of the Revue

internationale de philosophie may appear, one should reflect that such an
unprecedented initiative can only be tentative and experimental for a start.
It therefore takes the form of a laboratory or a "workshop" (a very trendy
term in present day academia) in which the contributors, who all have a
twofold allegiance to philosophy and sinology, find space to expatiate on
their individual intellectual practices. Such has been our parti pris : show
ing "men at work" and "work in progress" I8, instead of producing a smooth
discourse on "Chinese philosophy", an object which has been too often
either ignored, or presented as consensual and unproblematic in a majority
of contemporary publications. After all, is it not the primary task of philo

sophical activity to controvert received ideas, those emanating from the

philosophical milieu itself to begin with?

Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, Paris

18. Some of the articles in this volume in fact reflect the discussions and research work that have
been going on for five years within a seminar run jointly by EHESS (Ecole des Hautes Etudes
en Sciences Sociales) and INALCO (Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales)
in Paris on Chinese philosophy and its relationship to modernity.

This content downloaded from 160.36.178.25 on Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:23:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions