Dialogue Of Philosophies, Religions And Civilizations In The Era Of .

Forewordixthe background for the problem of “the legitimacy of Chinese philosophy”,which has nowadays aroused a campaign against universalism in Chinesephilosophical circles. In the era of globalization, the contrast between Easternand Western philosophies, and cultures in general, becomes a hot topic fordiscussion and dispute which often have involved ideology, nationalism andcounter-globalization movement. The same scenario is happening in Chineseacademic circles. In order for readers to understand the background of thedifferent views above, an introductory paper of mine is presented as anappendix.Dialogue between philosophies in the first Panel was extended to thedomain of science and technology as well. Professor Sasaki Chikara in hispaper discussed the contrast between Eastern and Western civilizations fromthe perspective of mathematics and medicine. He saw a certain blockade ofmodern European medicine, and expected Chinese medical thought to play animportant role in medicine.In the second panel, speakers compared Confucianism and Christianityfrom different visions. Professor Tu Wei-ming talked about the anthropocosmiccharacteristics of Chinese cosmology, and evaluated this Confucian modelof Heaven as being more compatible with what we know today about theorigin of the universe. Commentators gave rise to different evaluations inthe comparison of Confucianism with Christianity. Professor Kelly Clarkemphasized a similarity in monotheism between the early Chinese notion ofHeaven and the Hebrew belief in God. Professor Tran Van Doan questionedthe compatibility between Confucian cosmology and modern science of theorigin of cosmos, such as the theory of Big Bang. Professor Li Chenyangasked for a metaphysical (or “theological”) understanding, more than simplyseeing Heaven as a creative and living process. In a similar manner Dr. ChloëStarr pointed out a fundamental difference between the ontological notion ofGod in Christianity and a Confucian Heaven limited to our earth or universe.Professor Vincent Shen’s and my papers tried to illustrated similaritiesbetween Christianity and Confucianism in the domain of ethics. ProfessorVincent Shen interpreted strangification and generosity to the other as thebasis for both Confucian virtues and Christian values. For modern values,the two key terms are related to localization and globalization. My paperdeals with the Confucian theory of human good and the Christian dogma oforiginal sin, revealing the convergence of the two from logical, theoreticaland practical perspectives. The similarity of perspective was also subjectedto critical assessments. Professor Daniel Bays considered the dialoguebetween Confucianism and Christianity as an historical fact; as time passedConfucianism did not survive social changes with the consequence that “thereare no more Confucians with whom to dialogue”. Other commentators, onthe contrary, acknowledged the real importance of the dialogue of the twosystems, yet demanded an equality of those taking part. From a theologicalpoint of view Dr. Evyn Adams raised the question as to which Christiantheory to dialogue with in regard to the dogma of sin. On this issue, CatholicTheology, the Theology of the Church of England, Wesleyan Theology and

ForewordEastern Orthodoxy, Pelagianism and Semi -Pelagianism are all possiblecounterparts of the Confucian theory of human nature.In the third panel, the dialogue between Islamism and Christianityattracted attention, due to the urgent need for world peace. The paper written“In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful” by Professor SeyyedMohammed Khamenei, interprets the difference of Eastern philosophy,specially, the Islamic philosophies from Western philosophy in terms ofa clash of religions. The author is a brother of Sayyed Ali Khamenei, theLeader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. As a major ideologist of Iran, he seesthe “deadlock” in dialogue as due to the radical divergence between Islamicand Western philosophies and cultures in general. He is concerned also thatglobalization has been misused as a policy “to destroy everything which isagainst western logic”. His presentation gave rise to some counter-criticisms.One scholar at the conference “thought that the style of Professor Khamenei-- “advocating his own ideas but refusing to listen to others – was not dialoguein its real sense”, but showed an attitude of refusing dialogue.2 I neverthelessthought that Professor Khamenei did not mean to refuse dialogue; but thathe set up a prerequisite which is not at present realistic. In fact, he finallywished to conduct dialogue under the principle of “securing the happiness andprosperity of all humanity in the world”.Professor Marietta Stepanyants analyzed the reason of the currentconflicts between Western and Islamic civilization, critically raising thequestion of whether the two civilizations could possibly enter into dialogue.She proposed a pluralist model of religions in dealing with this problem.Nevertheless, the crucial problem is whether the current conflict betweenterrorism and anti-terrorism really is a clash of two civilizations, or of tworeligions? For many it definitely is not. Professor Wang Jianping followeda historical line to illustrate the peaceful co-existence of Islamism andChristianity in the Chinese social context. This may suggest that in the propercircumstances Islamic and Christian civilizations are not in conflict. ProfessorMel Stewart enumerated ten points of similarity between Christian andIslamic beliefs to show that there is no conflict between those two religions.Professor David Burrell’s paper on Al-Ghazali also provides an exampleof how Islamic theology since Middle Ages has been compatible with itsChristian counterpart.Professor Gholamreza Aavani asked a question: is this a clash indialogue or dialogue in clash? Like his colleague, Professor Khamenei, heaccused the West of making of modern philosophy an ideology which blockedthe way of dialogue and hindered the way to Truth. I shared with the manyparticipants that although Professor Gholamreza Aavani’s question hits theright point concerning the relation between Islam and the West after 9.11,a fairer and more moderate solution to the question is given by ProfessorGeorge McLean. In the concluding paper of this book, he examined both badand good attitudes toward Islamism in the West. It is only by overcomingthe bad faith of pseudo generosity, pseudo stability and pseudo peace that,according to Professor McLean, a good attitude toward dialogue can lead to

Forewordxia renewal of religiously based cultures as diverse yet similar, complementaryand convergent in character. This solution for me suggests that dialogue is nota theoretical debate limited within the academic society, but a style of life inthe era of globalization, open for all nations and civilizations.Since globalization has been accompanied by clash and conflict, evenviolence, the emotional and self-interested opinions for or against in everydaylife are unavoidably transformed into the arguments pro or con in the worldof ideas. We can see in the papers of the present book, more or less, oppositetrends. There is opposition: (1) between universalism or particularism inunderstandings, (2) between convergent or divergent approaches in dialogue,(3) between cosmopolitism and nationalism in international relations, (4)between neo-liberalism and neo-totalitarianism in domestic affairs, and (5)between conservative pre- or post-modernism and enlightenment modernismin dealing with traditions. When we employ the generalization of –isms tosimplify the complexity of arguments, we should be warned against hastygeneralization. Philosophers usually do not make an “either-or” choice inthe face of oppositions and dichotomies, but adopt a “both-and” solution,yet with one preference. From this preference we generalize the trend of thephilosopher’s thinking. This mode of assessment can be applied to the authorsof this book. Though they preferred one position to the other, no one deniedthe reasonableness of the opposite position or of a possible change thereto.Because of the philosophers’ good will to dialogue and their overall rationality,debates in these Sessions proceeded in an orderly, moderate and smoothmanner. Although no written agreement was reached, as in any philosophicaldebate we all agreed that since no human being is God, no scholarly researchis divine revelation and no academic book or essay is Holy Scripture. All areable to err; inerrancy does not belong to us humans. With the truism of errorability, the spirit of the dialogical civilization is expressed in the followingmanner:Even though I believe that I am right and you are wrong at present;Most probably, we are both right, or you are right and I am wrong,or we are both wrong;So let us continue to dialogue until we become the friends of truth.With the same spirit, it has been a special delight for me to meetscholars from around the world, from Austria, Canada, Chile, England, France,Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Kanagawa, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand,Oman, Russia, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam. I would like to expressmy gratitude to all participants, especially to the authors of this book, fortheir contribution to the mutual understanding and benefit of peoples living inglobal times. I also thank all assistants of the Forum, and Professor Su Xianguiin particular for their excellent work of communication and reception. Specialthanks are due to Professor George F. McLean who found important value inthe papers of the Sessions and has been willing to publish them in the series“Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change” edited by him.

xiiForewordNOTES1 Book of Zhuangzi, Ch. Five, transl. by P. Kjellberg, in in Readingsin Classical Chinese Philosophy, ed. by P. J. Ivanhoe and B. W. Van Norden,Seven Bridges, New York, 2001, p.227.2 Quoted from Interviews with the Scholars of Beijing Forum, vol. II,ed. by Li Yansong, et al, published by Secretariat of Beijing Forum.

IntroductionGeorge F. McLeanThe first part of the title of this work, “Dialogue of Philosophies,Religions and Civilizations,” invites one to look at different levels of thesedialogues. For this the words of Mohammad Iqbal on the distinction betweenphilosophy and religion can be helpful.The aspiration of religion soars higher than that ofphilosophy. Philosophy is an intellectual view of things; andas such, does not care to go beyond a concept which canreduce all the rich variety of experience to a system. It seesReality from a distance as it were. Religion seeks a closercontact with Reality. The one is theory; the other is livingexperiences, association, intimacy. In order to achieve thisintimacy thought must rise higher than itself, and find itsfulfillment in an attitude of mind which religion describesas prayer -- one of the last words on the lips of the Prophetof Islam.1 and religious life develops the ambition to comeinto direct contact with the ultimate reality. It is here thatreligion becomes a matter of personal assimilation of lifeand power; and the individual achieves a free personality,not by releasing himself from the fetters of the law, but bydiscovering the ultimate source of the law within the depthsof his own consciousness.2In this view, philosophy is theory and provides a speculative viewfrom a distance as it were, whereas religion is the much more outgoing,engaged and lived experience. Civilization integrates the two along withthe actual structures and implementation of social life in all its dimensions:economic, political and social. All of these are grounded in the great religioustradition which shaped that civilization as a whole.The second part of the title “in an Era of Globalization” adds theimportant dimensions of space, time and history. Thus while the philosophical,religious and civilizational are perduring factors which may be diverselyordered at different times, the reference to our specific era introduces anhistorical line particularly important for identifying the work needed in thedialogue on these issues at this specific juncture.This is not to reduce all to a mere succession. In a more dialecticalpattern the synthesis and antithesis remain at work and must never be forgottenlest the new synthesis by hollow and without real meaning. Yet this last partof our title “in the Era of Globalization” raises the issue of authentic novelty.Here, danger lies in attempting to solve the challenges of the present and

Introductionfuture using a paradigm that is already past. This assures that our efforts willbe ill adapted to the present and in danger of being more destructive thancreative.The reason for this lies in a principle of scientific research, namely,that the question serves as a searchlight rendering knowledge only of thatto which it is directed. When the question and the ability to receive answersare tightly conceptualized as in modern rationalism we receive or achieveanswers only in these precise but delimiting term. Moreover, if these questionsare tied to the past in structure and supposition the responses will not beappropriate for the present. Indeed if they are tied to too limited a sense ofreality then inevitably they will not only miss but undermine the deeper lifeof a civilizations and its meaning.In this historical perspective the sequence of the parts of this work isboth illustrative and of particular significance.Part I “Dialogue between Eastern and Western Philosophies”.Chapter I, by Tang Yijie, “Constructing ‘Chinese Philosophy’ inthe Sino-European Cultural Exchange,” traces the history of the academic‘discipline’ of philosophy in China, and then proposes a program for itsfuture. The author notes that Western academic philosophy provoked Chinesescholars to separate-out ‘philosophy’ from the ‘canonical’ literature and thenon-Confucian Masters, the dual matrix in which Chinese philosophicalthinking had been traditionally embedded. Chinese philosophy, the authorproposes, emphasizes jing-jie (the settling of one’s body and life, and inside/outside, into harmony), and can be helpful not only to the future of China, butto that of the world if reconstituted with an emphasis on its deep harmony ofthe inner and out life.Chapter II, by Roger T. Ames, “‘Getting rid of God’: A Prolegomenonto ‘A Dialogue Between Chinese and Western Philosophy in the Era ofGlobalization’,” argues that a Christian sub-text has distorted the historicalrepresentation of Chinese philosophy in the West, much as a displaced andoften unconscious Christian subtext has mislead Western philosophy (bothCartesian dualism and a clandestine transcendentalism, for example). Amesconsiders Dewey’s pragmatism and Whitehead’s process to be the closestanalogues to Confucianism, but as the title of his paper alludes he considersChinese philosophy radically humanist and situational after the manner of hisearlier 20th century analogues.Chapter III, by Kelly James Clark, “The Conception of Divinity inEarly Confucianism,” holds the contrary position. Rather than Confucianismbeing reductively humanistic, Clark carefully details the many evidences of asense of transcendence as a context for its meaning that is at least analogousto the place of the divine in other civilizations. For this he looks not to thelater, but to the earlier, Confucians.This dialogue between a Western reductionism and a more openand subtle Confucianism continues throughout the work till its last paper onIslam. This has great significance in a global age for the response of China to

Introduction the cultural imperialism of Western modernity and its relations with the greatcivilizations, all of which are religiously based.A number of Commentaries on the papers of Roger Ames and TangYijie follow:Commentary 1, by Chung-ying Cheng, “Philosophical Globalizationas Reciprocal Valuation and Mutual Integration,” critiques these two papers.In characterizing Western philosophy, Cheng tends to be more conciliatorythan Ames, cautioning that deep-seated influence and transformation oftentakes 500 years or more. Cheng finds transcendentalism in some Chinesephilosophy and immanentism in some Western philosophy, and in generalsees Eastern and Western traditions as more diverse than does Ames. Chengsingles-out Immanuel Kant as a fertile pivot of the East-West exchange, andcontrasts this to its nadir, the Rites Controversy of the 17th and 18th centuries.Cheng’s remarks tend more to supplement than to critique Tang Yijie’s paper.Chinese dialogic philosophy is said to have four stages: understanding Westernphilosophy, locating parallel issues in Chinese philosophy, discoveringdifferences, and as appropriate justifying these differences.Commentary 2, by Yu Jiyuan, “Making Sense of Cross-CulturalDialogue,” treats the way authentic dialogue functions. Yu locates in Aristotletwo forms of ‘dialogue’ understood as true ‘conversation’, viz., “friend-asmirror” and “saving the phenomena.” Yu focuses on the first form, arguingthat the current popularity of Whitehead and American pragmatism from theWestern side and of traditional Process-oriented thought from the Chineseside allows a dialogical transaction whereby each party can know itself better;the same can be said of the recent renewal of enthusiasm for Virtue-ethics inthe West and the Neo-Confucianist Virtue-ethic in China.Commentary 3 by Jeu-Jenq Yuann, contra Tang Yijie, comes to thedefense of Chinese philosophy, arguing that dependence on Western philosophyis no better than dependence on the ‘Canon and the Non-ConfucianistMasters’. The Western sense of ‘clarity’, demanding ‘understandability’ and‘accessibility’, reveals ignorance of the unique characteristics of Chinesethinking and a misunderstanding of the specific references of Chinese terms.Yuann agrees with the thrust of Roger Ames’s paper, but develops its thesisfurther, arguing that the Western notion of God has been long transposed soit has become the West’s preoccupation with unitary truth, with objectivetechnology/science (and with globalization?). Would the West be willing togive up this masked and displaced (into science and secular politics) notionof God? Yuann thinks the West must confront this subtextual issue, or realdialogue will never occur.Chapter IV, by Carine Defoort, “Western Unacceptance of ChinesePhilosophy: The Legitimacy of an Illegitimate Position,” explains thebackground for the problem of “the legitimacy of Chinese philosophy”,which has nowadays aroused a campaign against universalism in Chinesephilosophical circles. In the era of globalization, the contrast between Easternand Western philosophies, and cultures in general, becomes an important

Introductionissue, which has often touched upon such topics as ideology, nationalism andthe counter-globalization movement.Appendix I, by Zhao Dunhua, “Some Progressive and ProblematicFeatures of the Current Philosophy in China,” gives us a detailed accountof philosophy in Mainland China since the ‘opening’ of the 1980s. Marxistphilosophy, now liberated from Stalinism, either returns to Marx’s own worksor dialogues with Western Marxism. Chinese philosophers specializingin traditional Chinese philosophy or in Western philosophy are no longersubservient to Marxism. The official Charter of Philoso

philosophy in globalization. In order for more persons who are willing to listen to the philosophers' voice to share these fruitful discussions, we have collected, edited and published all papers of the Sessions. The Philosophy Session was divided into three panels as follows. I. Dialogue between Eastern and Western Philosophies. II.