Learning to Emulate the Wise: The Genesis of Chinese Philosophy as an Academic Discipline in Twentieth-Century China

9. Fu Sinian’s Views on Philosophy, Ancient Chinese Masters, and Chinese Philosophy

Chapter 9 Fu Sinian’s Views on Philosophy, Ancient Chinese Masters, and Chinese Philosophy1 Carine Defoort “China did not originally have a so-called philosophy. Thank god our people had such healthy habits.”2 This provocative statement, made by Fu Sinian 傅斯年 (1896–1950) in a letter to a good friend, shows the young author in all his self-confidence, originality, and vigour. “Chinese philosophy ” had just been created or (re)discovered by his contemporaries as an academic sub-discipline through the study of the nation’s ancient masters (zi 子). Its creation, guided by major figures such as Hu Shi 胡適 (1891– 1962) and Feng Youlan 馮友蘭 (1895–1990), demanded an adaptation of past Chinese thought to a modern Western paradigm, as in other academic fields. This forced adaptation did not, in general, diminish the popularity of the new category of “Chinese philosophy” at the beginning of the twentieth century. But, as Fu Sinian’s bold statement shows, there also existed a counter-current which rejected applying the label “philosophy ” to the thought of the ancient Chinese masters. Whereas the academic sub-discipline of Chinese philosophy, at Chinese universities, owes its success to the influence of personalities such as Hu Shi and Feng Youlan,3 Fu Sinian was the first clear and radical voice to oppose it. This resistance, although far from strong enough to stop the emergence of the new discipline, has left its mark on the field. Institutionally, he contributed to the rejection of Chinese philosophy as a field of study at Academia Sinica (Zhongyang yanjiuyuan 中央研究院), and intellectually, he was a forerunner of the contemporary resistance to the identification of ancient Chinese thought with the foreign discipline of philosophy. Fu Sinian’s institutional influence was both direct and indirect. When Academia Sinica was established in 1928, led by Cai Yuanpei 蔡元 培 (1868–1940), Cai had planned to include an Institute of Philosophy, but this ultimately did not happen. According to Mou Zongsan 牟宗三 276 · Carine Defoort (1909–1995), this change of plan was made under the influence of Hu Shi.4 Although Hu’s Outline of the History Chinese Philosophy (Zhongguo zhexueshi dagang 中國哲學史大綱) had been a paragon of the newly created discipline in 1919, as we will see below, Hu Shi changed his mind about the label of “Chinese philosophy” under the influence of his former student and close friend Fu Sinian. As the director of the Institute of History and Philology, Fu also directly influenced the rejection of philosophy by insisting on the importance of objective data and neutral facts over reflection and interpretation. Both decisions resulted from a particular view of science and research which Hu Shi and Fu Sinian shared with several other scholars, mostly trained abroad, who were responsible for determining Academia Sinica’s policies. Since then, the dominance of this view has frustrated other humanist scholars such as Mou Zongsan,5 Xu Fuguan 徐復觀 (1903–1982), and Li Minghui 李明輝 (1953–). In the 1960s, Xu Fuguan reported that when he criticized the anti-philosophy tendency at the Institute of History and Philology and suggested the establishment of an Institute for the History of Chinese Thought at Academia Sinica, he was met only with ridicule and abuse.6 A Preparatory Office of the Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy was eventually established in 1989 and formally inaugurated as an Institute in 2002.7 But the title of this institute (which indicates that it is only half dedicated to philosophy), its research foci, and the experiences of scholars all serve to confirm the Academia Sinica’s enduring anti-philosophy stance.8 Fu Sinian’s second point of contemporary relevance lies in the fact that he was a forerunner of the opinion, increasingly prevalent in contemporary discourse, that ancient Chinese thought should not be lightly subjected to modern Western academic nomenclature and categories. Around the turn of the twenty-first century, the “legitimacy of Chinese philosophy” (Zhongguo zhexue hefaxing 中國哲學合法性) became a major topic of debate among scholars. Some felt that ancient Chinese insights were tainted by twentieth-century philosophical neologisms such as “humanism,” “realism,” “pragmatism,” “scepticism,” “utilitarianism,” “principle,” “essence,” “definitions,” “reason,” “truth,” “subjective,” “objective,” “rational,” “phenomenon,” “inference,” “deduction,” and so forth. As a result of attempts to make sense of Chinese masters by selective interpretation in the modern philosophical fashion, these masters had become increasingly disfigured, like “feet being forced into small shoes” (xue zu shi lü 削足適履).9 Some scholars also stressed the gap Fu Sinian’s Views on Philosophy, Ancient...