汤一介 北京大学
Tang, Yijie, Peking University
原文Original
寻求文化中的“普遍价值”
前 言
“价值论”是当今一种很流行的学说，许多学说都有关于“价值问题”的讨论。例如，经济学有关于经济的价值问题，政治学有关于政治价值的问题，宗教学有关于宗教价值的问题。例如，在美国华盛顿天主教大学有一个学会叫“国际价值哲学学会”，我是该会理事。“价值哲学”是一种什么样的学科？它是讨论哲学学说（如孔子哲学），哲学命题（“仁者爱人”、“道法自然”），哲学概念（如“忠”；朱熹说：“尽己之谓忠”，“恕，推己之谓恕”）的价值问题。今天我们要讨论的是“文化中的价值问题”，而且主要是讨论文化中哲学思想的“普遍价值”问题。就是说文化中有没有“普遍价值”？“普遍价值”和“特殊价值”的关系等等问题。为什么，我们要讨论这个问题？这是因为：关于“普遍价值”的问题，现在已有不少讨论，但大多是具体问题的讨论，而且是偏重政治哲学方面的具体问题。我想，从哲学理论上对这个问题说点我的看法，请大家共同讨论。
如果不承认在文化中有“普遍价值”，那么很可能走向文化的“相对主义”，认为没有什么“真理”（那怕是相对的真理）只能是“公说公有理”、“婆说婆有理”，这样在文化中很难形成对话，很难找到共同话语，很难对共同遇到的问题达成“共识”。这对当前世界的全球化将是一种消极的力量，是不利于人类社会合理发展的。同时，如果我们不讲文化中的“普遍价值”，那么其他文化，特别是西方文化大讲“普遍价值”，这岂不是说我们把讲“普遍价值”的权利让给西方文化了，这将有助于西方鼓吹的“普遍主义”大行其道了，而使他们具有了“话语霸权”。因此，虽然我对这个问题的研究刚刚开始，但希望逐渐能对这个问题的研究做点有益的事。下面我将讲正题。
（一）藉文化沟通与对话寻求共识
自上个世纪九十年代以来，在中国逐渐掀起了“国学热”的浪潮，相当多的学者，特别注意论证中国文化的民族特性和它的价值所在。为什么会发生这种情况，我认为这和世界文化发展的形势有关。因为自上世纪后半叶，西方殖民体系的逐渐瓦解，原来的殖民地民族和受压迫民族为了建立或复兴自己的国家，有一个迫切的任务，他们必须从各方面自觉的确认自己的独立身份，而自己民族的特有文化（宗教、哲学、价值观等等）正是确认自己独立身份的最重要的因素。在这种情况下，正在复兴的中华民族强调应更多关注自身文化的主体性，是完全合理的。但与此同时，西方一些国家已经成功地实现了现代化，而且许多发展中国家也正在走着西方国家已经完成的工业化和现代化的道路。因此，西方发达国家出现了一种“普遍主义”（universalism）的思潮，认为只有西方文化中的理念对现代社会才具有“普遍价值”（universal value）的意义，而其他各民族的文化并不具有“普遍价值”的意义，或者说甚少“普遍价值”的意义，或者说非西方的民族文化只有作为一种博物馆中展品被欣赏的价值。我们还可以看到，某些取得独立的民族或正在复兴的民族，也受到“普遍主义”的影响，为了强调他们自身文化的价值而认为他们的文化可以代替西方文化而成为主导世界的“普世”文化。例如，在中国就有少数学者认为，21世纪的人类文化将是“东风”压倒“西风”，只有中国文化可以拯救世界，这无疑也是一种受到西方“普遍主义”思潮影响的表现。
当前在中国，在发展中国家，更多的关注各民族文化的特殊价值，各发展中国家更加关注自身文化的“主体性”，以维护当今人类社会文化的多元发展，反对西方的“普遍主义”，反对“欧洲中心论”，是理所当然的。当然也要防止在民族复兴中所受西方“普遍主义”影响而形成的民族文化的“至上主义”。
现在的问题是，我们反对“普遍主义”，是不是就要否定文化中有“普遍价值”？所谓“普遍主义”可能有种种不同的解释。本文把“普遍主义”了解为：把某种思想观念（命题）认定为是绝对的、普遍的，是没有例外的，而其他民族的文化思想观念（命题）是没有普遍价值甚至是没有价值。“普遍价值”是说：在不同民族文化之中可以有某些相同或相近的价值观念，而这些相同或相近的价值观念应具有“普遍价值”的意义，它可以为不同民族普遍地接受，而且这些具有“普遍价值”意义的观念又往往寓于特殊的不同民族文化的“价值观念”之中。正是具有“普遍价值”意义的思想往往是寓于某些不同民族文化的“特殊价值”之中，才需要我们去努力寻求其蕴含的“普遍价值”的意义。在哲学上是“共相”与“殊相”的问题。在我看来，在各个不同民族文化中可以肯定地说存在着“普遍价值”的因素。所以我们必须把“普遍价值”与“普遍主义”区分开来。在强调各民族文化的特殊价值的同时，我们应努力寻求人类文化中的“普遍价值”的因素及其意义。当前人类社会虽然正处在经济全球化，科技一体化的形势下，但是由二战后殖民体系的瓦解，“欧洲中心论”的消退，文化呈现着多元化的趋势。因此，要求在不同文化中寻求“普遍价值”必须通过不同文化间的沟通与对话，以致达成某种“共识”，这大概是我们寻求不同文化间的“普遍价值”必由之路。
（二）寻求不同文化间“普遍价值”的途径
为什么我们要寻求各民族文化的“普遍价值”？这是因为同为人类，必然会遇到并且要共同解决的问题，在各种不同文化中都会有对解决人类社会遇到的问题有价值的资源。这些能解决人类社会所遇到的“共同问题”的有价值的思想资源，我认为就具有“普世价值”的意义。
如何寻求人类文化中的“普遍价值”，也许有多条不同的途径，我在这里提出三条可以考虑的途径供大家批评指正：
1、在各民族的文化中原来就有共同或者是相近的有益于人类生存和发展的理念，这些共同理念无疑是有“普遍价值”的意义。1993年在美国芝加哥召开的世界宗教大会，在寻求“全球伦理”问题的讨论中提出寻求伦理观念上的“最低限度的共识”，或者叫做“底线伦理”。为此，在闭幕会上发表了一份《走向全球伦理宣言》，认为“己所不欲，勿施于人”在各民族文化中都有与此相同或相似的理念，它可以被视为“道德金律”。在《宣言》中特别举出佛经所说：“在我为不喜不悦者，在人亦如是，我何能以己之不喜不悦加诸他人？”佛经中这句话可以说十分深刻而精确地表述了具有“普遍价值”意义的“道德金律”。在《宣言》中还列举了一些宗教和思想家的思想中对“己所不欲，勿施于人”的表述，[1]因此认为它具有“普遍价值”的意义。又如，恩格斯在《反杜林论》中提出“勿盗窃”应具有“普遍价值”的意义。这类思想、理念在人类各种文化中是并不少见的。
2、在各不同民族文化的不同理路中寻求“普遍价值”。例如中国儒家的“仁”，西方基督教的“博爱”，印度佛教的“慈悲”虽然形式不同，出发点不同，甚至理路中也有差异，但却都具有“普遍价值”的意义。
孔子的“仁”，是把“亲亲”作为出发点，作为基础，樊迟问仁，孔子曰：“爱人”。为什么要爱人，“爱人”的出发点是什么？《中庸》引孔子的话“仁者，人也，亲亲为大。”[2]“仁爱”是人本身所具有的，爱自己的亲人是最根本的。但孔子儒家认为，“亲亲”必须扩大到“仁民”以及于“爱物”[3]，才是完满的真正的“仁”（仁爱），所以《郭店楚简》中说：“孝之放，爱天下之民。”“爱而笃之，爱也；爱父继之以爱人，仁也。”且儒家也有以“博爱”释“仁”者。[4]这就是说，孔子的“仁”虽是从爱自己的亲人出发，但它最终是要求爱天下老百姓，以实现其“治国，平天下”的目标。因此，我们可不可以说，孔子的“仁”的理念具有某种“普世价值”的意义。
基督教的“博爱”，当然我们可以从多方面理解它的涵义，但它的基础是“在上帝面前人人平等”，而由“在上帝面前人人平等”，可以引发出来的“在法律面前人人平等”，这对人类社会也应是具有“普遍价值”的意义，因为这样人类社会才有公平和正义。在“法律面前人人平等”从表现形式上看是近代西方法律制度的一条重要原则，但其背后支撑的伦理精神理念则是“博爱”，把所有的人都看成是上帝的儿子。[5]
佛教的“慈悲”，《智度论》卷27中说：“大慈与一切众生乐，大悲拔一切众生苦”，其出发点是要普度众生脱离苦海，使众生同乐在极乐世界。《佛教大辞典》的“普度众生”条谓：“佛谓视众生在世，营营扰扰，如在海中。本慈悲之旨，施宏大法力，悉救济之，使登彼岸也。”[6]由小乘的“自救”到大乘的“救他”，这种“普度众生”的精神，我认为也是具有“普遍价值”的意义。
孔子的“仁”、基督教的“博爱”、佛教的“慈悲”虽然出发点有异，进路也不大相同，而精神或有相近之处。故而是不是可以说有着某种共同的价值理念就是“爱人”。[7]“爱人”对人类社会说无疑是有着极高的“普遍价值”的意义。
3、在各不同民族文化中创造出的某些特有的理念，往往也具有“普遍价值”的意义。
要在各民族文化的特有的理念中寻求“普遍价值”的意义，很可能有不同的看法。我想，这没有关系，因为我们仍然可以在“求同存异”中来找寻某些民族文化特有理念中的“普遍价值”的意义。因为我对其他民族文化的知识了解不在行，我只想举一两个中国哲学中的某些理念谈谈我的一点想法。
在不同民族文化中存在着不同的思想观念（如宗教的、哲学的、风俗习惯的，价值观的等等）这是毫无疑意的，而且可能因文化的不同而引起矛盾和冲突，这不仅在历史上存在过，而且在当今世界范围内也存在着。在这种情况下，“和而不同”的观念是不是对消除“文明的冲突”会有“普遍价值”的意义？“不同”而能“和谐”将为我们提供可以通过对话和交谈的平台，在讨论中达到某种“共识”，这是一个由“不同”达到某种程度的相互“认同”，这种相互“认同”不是一方消灭另一方，也不是一方“同化”另一方，而在两种不同文化中寻求交汇点，并在此基础上推动双方文化的提升，这正是“和”的作用。就此，我们是不是可以说“和而不同”对当今的人类社会具有某种“普遍价值”的意义？
1992年世界1575名科学家发表了一份《世界科学家对人类的警告》在开头提到：人类和自然正走上一条相互抵触的道路。为什么会发生这种情况，就是因为人们对自然无序无量的开发，残暴的掠夺，无情的破坏，把“自然”看成是与“人”对立的两极。针对这种情况也许中国的“天人合一”的理论会对解决这种情况提供某些有意义的思想资源。朱熹有段话可以说是对“天人合一”很有意义的解释，他说：“天即人，人即天。人之始生，得之于天；即生此人，天又在人矣。”意思是说，“天”离不开“人”，“人”也离不“天”。人是由“天”产生的，一旦有了“人”，“天”的道理就要由“人”来彰显。也就是说，“人”就对“天”负有保护的责任。这样的思想理论对当前“自然界”遭受惨重地破坏，是不是可以说是很有意义的，因而也可以说它有“普遍价值”的意义。其实这种观点，在当今西方学术界也有，例如过程哲学的怀德海曾提出“人和自然是一生命共同体”这样的命题[8]，这个命题深刻地揭示着人和自然之不可分的内在关系，人必须像爱自己的生命那样爱护自然界。这个理念应该说有着重要的“普遍价值”的意义。
（三）“多元现代性”的核心价值
最后，我想谈谈“多元现代性”的问题。对“多元现代性”可能有多种说法，至少有两种很不相同的解释：一种是，现代性是多元的，不同民族有不同的“现代性”；另一种看法是：“现代性”就是“现代性”，有着共同的基本内涵，只能是不同民族进入现代化的道路不同，形式有异，实现方法更可能千差万别。我个人的意见，也许第二种意见较为合理。我们知道，“现代性”就其根源性上说是源自西方，因为西方早已实现了现代化，而且现在许多发展中国家也正在走现代化的道路。因此，就“现代性”说必有其基本相同的核心价值。什么是作为根源性的“现代性”的核心价值？这里我想借用严复的观点谈谈我的看法。
严复批评“中学为体，西学为用”，他认为，不能“牛体马用”，这是基于中国哲学的“体用一源”（“体”和“用”是统一的）而有。[9]他基于此“体用一源”的理念，认为西方近现代社会是“自由为体，民主为用”的社会。[10]我想，严复所说的“西方近现代社会”不仅仅是指“西方近现代社会”，而是说的人类社会的“近现代社会”。那么，我们能不能说“近现代社会”的特征是“自由为体，民主为用”的社会；而“自由”、“民主”从根源性上说是“现代性”的核心价值？我认为是可以这样说的。对现代社会说，“自由”是一种精神（包括自由的市场经济和个体的“人”的“自由”发展，因为“自由”是创造力），而“民主”从权力和义务两个方面来使“自由”精神的价值得以实现。就这个意义上说，“自由”和“民主”虽源自西方，但它是有着“普遍价值”的意义。我们不能因为它源自西方就认为不具有“普遍价值”的意义。当然，如何进入“近现代社会”，所走的道路，所采取的方法，所具有的形式可能是不同的。但它不可能是排除“自由”和“民主”的社会。
如果我们用中国哲学“体用一源”的思维模式来看世界历史，也许会有一个新的视角。我们可以把“现代社会”作为一个中间点，向上和向下延伸，我们可以把人类社会分成“前现代社会”、“现代社会”和“后现代社会”，如果用中国的“体用一源”的观点看，我们是不是可以说“前现代社会”是以“专制为体，教化为用”类型的社会；“现代社会”是以“自由为体，民主为用”类型的社会；“后现代社会”是以“和谐为体，中庸为用”类型的社会。
人类社会在前现代时期，无论是中国的“皇权专制”或是西方中世纪的“王权专制”（或“神权专制”）都是“专制”，但要维持其“专制”就要用“教化”作为手段。中国在历史上自汉以来一直是“皇权专制”，它把儒学政治化用来对社会进行“教化”以维持其统治。[11]当前中国社会可以说正处在由“前现代”向“现代”过渡之中。其他许多发展中国家大概也都是如此。西方中世纪以“王权或神权专制”，他们用基督教伦理为“教化”之手段，以维持他们的统治。[12]因此，当时的世界是一个“多元的前现代性”的社会。关于“现代性”的价值问题上面已经说过，在这里再多说一点我的看法。“自由”是一种精神，“民主”应是一种维护“自由”得以实现的保证。但是，在现代社会中“自由”和“民主”也不是不可能产生种种弊病。因为任何思想体系都会在其自身体系中存在着矛盾。[13]任何制度在一时期都只有相对性的好与坏，“自由”、“民主”等等也是一样。但无论如何“自由”和“民主”对于人类社会进入“现代”是有着根本性意义的。[14]人们重视“自由”，因为“自由”是一种极有意义的创造力。正因为有“自由经济”（自由的市场经济）才使得工业化以来人类社会的财富极大增长，使人们在物质生活上受益巨大。正因为“自由思想”，使得科学、文化日新月异。但不可讳言，“自由经济”却使贫富（包括国家与国家的、民族与民族的以至于同一国家、民族内部）两极分化日益严重；特别是自由经济如果不受到一定程度的控制，将会引起经济危机和社会混乱，近日发生的金融危机就是一明证。[15]“科学主义”、“工具理性”的泛滥扼杀着“人文”精神。“现代性”所推崇主体性和主客对立哲学，使得“人和自然”的矛盾日益加深，因而出现了对“现代性”的解构思潮，这就是“后现代主义”。关于“后现代”问题，我没有多少研究。只能粗略地谈点看法。在上个世纪60年代兴起的后现代主义是针对现代化在发展过程中的缺陷提出的，他们所作的，是对“现代”的解构，曾使一切权威性和宰制性都黯然失色，同时也使一切都零碎化、离散化、浮面化。因此，初期的后现代主义目的在于“解构”，企图粉碎一切权威，这无疑是有意义的。但是它却并未提出新的建设性主张，也并未策划过一个新的时代。到20世纪末，以“过程哲学”为基础的“建构性后现代”提出将第一次启蒙的成绩与后现代主义整合起来，召唤“第二次启蒙”。例如，怀德海的过程哲学认为，不应把“人”视为一切的中心，而应把人和自然视为密切相连的生命共同体。他并对现代西方社会的二元思维方式进行了批判，他提倡的有机整体观念，正好为他提供了批判现代二元论（科学主义）的理论基础。过程研究中心创会主任约翰·科布说：“建设性后现代主义对解构性的后现代主义的立场持批判态度，……我们明确地把生态主义维度引入后现代主义中，后现代是人与人，人与自然和谐相处的时代。这个时代将保留现代性中某些积极性的东西，但超越其二元论、人类中心主义、男权主义，以建构一个所有生命共同福祉都得到重视和关心的后现代世界。”“今天我们认识到人是自然界的一部分，我们生活在生态共同体中，……。”[16]这种观点，也许会使中国古老的“天人合一”思想与之接轨。他们还认为，如果说第一次启蒙的口号是“解放自我”，那么第二次启蒙的口号是尊重他者，尊重差别。例如里夫金在他的《欧洲梦》中强调，在崭新的时代，每个人的权利都获得尊重，文化的差异受到欢迎，每个人都在地球可维持的范围内享受着高质量的生活（不是奢侈生活），而人类能生活在安定与和谐之中。他们认为，有机整体系统观念“都关心和谐、完整和万物的互相影响。”[17]上述观点，在某种程度上也许和中国传统文化中的“和谐”观念有相通之处。过程哲学还认为，当个人用自己的自由专权削弱社会共同体的时候，其结果一定会削弱其自身的“自由”。因此，必须拒绝抽象自由观，走向有责任的深度自由，要把责任和义务观念引入自由中，揭示出“自由”与义务的内在联系。这与中国传统文化所强调人只能在与他人的关系中才能生存的观点有着某种相似之处。[18]因此，有见于建构性的后现代主义在西方逐渐发生影响，那么相对于“现代社会”是不是后现代社会将可能是以“和谐为体，中庸为用”的社会呢？“和谐”作为一种理念它包含着“人与自然的和谐”、“人与人的和谐”（社会的和谐）、“人自我身心的和谐”等极富价值的意义。在这种种“和谐”中必须不断地寻求平衡度，这就要求由“中庸”来实现。如果中国社会能顺利地走完现代化过程，这当然是非常困难而且漫长的。但是由于在中国传统文化中，有着关于“和谐”和“中庸”的思想资源，在我们给以适应人类社会以新的诠释的努力下，[19]也许我们很可能比较容易进入“建构性的后现代社会”。正如科布所说：“中国传统思想对建设性后现代主义是非常有吸引力的，但我们不能简单的回到它。它需要通过认真对待科学和已经发生的变革的社会来更新自己。前现代传统要对后现代有所裨益，就必须批判地吸收启蒙运动的积极方面，比如对个体权利的关注和尊重。”[20]科布的这段话，对我们应该说是很有教益的。因而，寻求不同文化中的“普遍价值”成为当前学术界关注所在是一必然趋势。
冯友兰先生在他的晚年常常提出一些新奇的看法，他自己说，他的这些新看法是“非常可怪之论”。人到晚年常会发出“奇想”。我想，我的上述看法也许也是一种“非常可怪之论”吧。请大家批评。
注释：
[1]在孔汉思和库合尔编，何光沪译的《全球伦理—世界宗教议会宣言》中《全球伦理普世宣言的原则》罗列了许多与孔子“己所不欲，勿施于人”相同或相近的话，如《圣经·利未记》：“要爱自己的人，像爱自己一样。”犹太教的主要创立者希勒尔说：“你不愿施诸自己的，就不要施诸别人。”《摩诃婆多》：“毗耶婆说：你自己不想经受的事，不要对别人做。”
[2]《郭店楚简》中的《性自命出》中说：“道始于情”。人与人之间的关系开始是建立在“情感”的基础上。
[3]《中庸》：“唯天下至诚，为能尽其性。能尽其性者，则能尽人之性。能尽人之性，则能尽物之性。能尽物之性，则可以赞天地之化育。可以赞天地之化育，则可以与天地参矣。”
[4]《孝经·三才章》：“‘君王’则天之明，因地之利，……是故先之以博爱，而民莫遗其亲。”如果能使“博爱”（即如天地一样及人、及物）成为社会伦理准则，那么就不会发生违背家庭伦理的事。《圣经·加拉太书》：“你们因信基督耶稣都是神的儿子。你们受礼归入基督的，都是披载基督了。并不分犹太人和希腊人，自由人和奴隶，男人和女人，因为你们在基督里都成为一了。”
[5]《圣经·马太福音》记有耶稣的《登山教训》中说：“使人和睦的人有福了，因为他们必称为上帝的儿子。”
[6]丁福保编纂《佛教大辞典》，文物出版社，1984年1月，第1046页。
[7]在佛教的“十二因缘”中有“爱”，但“十二因缘”中的“爱”是指“欲望”的意思，有“占有”义，而“慈悲”是一种无“占有欲”、无功利目的“爱”，是“普度众生”的“博爱”。这里可能有翻译问题。
[8]《怀德海的＜过程哲学＞》中说：“（怀德海）的过程哲学（process philosophy）把环境、资源、人类视为构成密切相连的生命共同体，认为应该把环境理解为不以人为中心的生命共同体，这种新型生态伦理观，对于解决当前的生态环境危机具有重要的现实意义。”见于上海《社会科学报》，
[9]严复：《与＜外交报＞主人书》中说：“善夫金匮裘可桴孝廉之言曰：体用者，即一物而言之也。有牛之体，则有负重之用；有马之体，则有致远之用。未闻以牛为体，以马为用者也。……故中学有中学之体用，西学有西学之体用，分之则并立，合之则两亡。”见《严复集》第3册，558－559页，中华书局，1986年1月。
[10]语见严复：《原强》，《严复集》第一册，第5页，中华书局，1986年1月。
[11]《白虎通义·三纲六纪篇》说：“《含嘉文》曰：君为臣纲，父为子纲，夫为妻纲。又曰：敬诸父兄，六纪道行，诸舅有义，族人有序，昆弟有亲，师长有尊，朋友有旧。……所以张理上下，整齐人道也。……是以纲纪为化，若纲罗之有纲纪，而万目张也。”
[12]恩格斯《费尔巴哈与德国古典哲学的终结》中说：“在中世纪，随着封建制度的发展，基督教形成为与封建制度相适应的宗教，……中世纪把哲学、政治、法律等思想体系的一切囊括在神学之内，变成神学的分科。”
[13]罗素：《西方哲学史》中说：“不能自圆其说的哲学绝不会完全正确，但是自圆其说的哲学满可以全盘错误，最富有结果的各派哲学向来包含着显眼的自相矛盾，但正因为了这个缘故才部分正确。”见《西方哲学学》下册，143页，商务印书馆，1988年版。罗素这段话应说对任何哲学都有意义。
[14]《北京晚报》
[15]“自由主义既使人免于市场经济之前时代的束缚，也使人们承受着金融和社会灾难的危机。”见于耶鲁大学教授保罗·肯尼迪《资本主义形式会有所改变》，《参考消息》，
[16]《为了共同的福祉－约翰·科布访谈》（王晓华访问记），上海《社会科学报》，
[17]杰里米·里夫金：《欧洲梦》，杨治宜译，重庆出版社，2006年9月。
[18]在中国传统文化的儒家思想中，特别是先秦儒家思想认为，人与人之间有着一种相互对应的关系，如“君义臣忠”、“父慈子孝”、“兄友弟恭”等等。《礼记·礼云》：“何谓人义？父慈子孝，兄良弟敬，夫义妇听，长惠幼顺，君义臣忠，十者谓之人义。”《左传·昭公二十六年》：“君令臣共，父慈子孝，兄爱弟敬，夫和妇柔，姑慈妇听，礼也。”
[19]关于“和谐”观念在中国典籍中论述颇多，如《周易·乾卦·彖辞》：“乾道变化，各正性命、保合太和，乃利贞。”（《张子正蒙注》：“太和，和之至。”《论语》中有：“礼之用，和为贵”；“和而不同”。《国语·郑语》：“夫和实生物，同则不继。”）在西方，莱布尼兹哲学被称为是一种“和谐的体系”（system of Harmony）,他的思想建立在所谓普遍的和谐（universal Harmony）之上，即视宇宙整体为和谐系统的一种理念，而在分殊性中看出统一性来。关于“中庸”的观念，如《书经·大禹谟》：“允执其中”；《论语》：“子曰：中庸之为德也，其至矣乎，民矣乎，民鲜久矣。”（朱熹《四书集注·论语集注》：“中者，无过不及之名也，庸，平常。”） 《中庸》中的“中和”（“中也者，天下之大本也；和也者，天下之达道也。”）郑玄《礼记·中庸》题解：“名曰中庸者，以其记中和之用也。庸，用也。”“执其两端，用其中于民。”西方哲学中有“mean”一词，我们把它译成“中庸”。亚里士多德把“中庸”和节制相联系，并提出一套系统的理论。他认为，万物皆有其中庸之道，如“
[20]《为了共同的福祉－约翰·科布访谈》（王晓华访问记），上海《社会科学报》，
译文Translation
Searching for the ‘Universal Values’ in Cultures
Introduction
“Axiology” is quite popular nowadays, and there have been many discussions related to “problems of values”. For instance, in Economics, there is the problem of economic value; in Political Science, there is the problem related to political value; and in Religious Studies there is the problem of religious value. What is more, in the Catholic University of America there is an “International Society for Philosophical Axiology”, which I am a member of. What kind of discipline is “Philosophical Axiology”? It is a discipline which focuses on the values held by various philosophical schools, such as the value of Confucius Philosophy with it’s value in the philosophical premise of “ren zhe ai ren” (a compassionate person loves human beings) and “Dao fa ziran” (the ultimate essence of Dao is nature), or the value of other philosophical concepts such as “zhong” (loyalty). Today we will focus on the “Problem of Values in Cultures”, and specifically on the “universal values” held in various philosophies and cultures. In other words, do “universal values” exist in human cultures? What is the relation between “universal values” and the sense of a “unique value”? Why should we contend with this problem? The problem of “universal values” has been widely discussed, with many of the discussions being based upon specific, practical questions, usually in the field of political philosophy. I hope to share my thoughts on this problem with you from a philosophical theoretical perspective.
If we do not agree that “universal values” exist within cultures, we might become “cultural relativists”, thinking that there no “truth” exists (not even relative truth). In this way we cling on to our own ideas, and are unable to engage in successful dialogue between cultures. As a result, it is hard to find a topic in common, and hard to reach a common agreement on some problems which both cultures share. That will lead to a serious weakness in our global community, and will not help the development of human society. If, at the same time, we Chinese do not study the “universal value” in cultures, it means that we are giving up our voice to those in western countries who passionately study and discuss the notion of “universal values”. In this way, although I am just approaching this problem, I hope to my studies will offer a contribution to this area.
My paper will focus on the following areas related to this topic:
I. To search for a common ground through cultural communication and mutual dialogue.
Ever since 1990s, China has had a renewed enthusiasm to learn the Chinese Classics. Many scholars have paid special attention to the uniqueness of the Chinese culture as well as its unique value. Why has this come about? I think it is related to the development of the world culture. The western colonial system has been gradually collapsing since the end of the 20th century. Many colonized and oppressed nations have established or revived their own nationality. An urgent task for them to undertake at that time was the search for their own independent identity. A unique culture (including elements such as philosophy, religion and value system) is the most important component in the establishment of the identity of a nation. It was under such circumstances that a renascent China wanted to stress the subjectivity of Chinese culture. At the same time, however, western countries had successfully achieved modernization, and many developing countries were following the path of western developed countries to get modernized. In advanced western countries there emerged a trend of “universalism”, holding that only the ideas and thoughts emerging from western cultures contained any universal value. In their eyes, other nations from other parts of the world were not in possession of any “universal values” or constituted less “universal value”. Some even went so far as to think that non-western cultures only had one value- that of an antique to be exhibited in museums. It is also evident that some of the newly independent nations, those in revival, were also influenced by “universalism”, stressing their own cultural value and arguing that their unique culture could replace that of western cultures in becoming the leading “universal” culture. For instance, a few Chinese scholars believed that in the 21st century the “Eastern Wind” would blow away the “Western Wind”, and only the Chinese culture could save the world. Such naïve ideas can be regarded as being influenced by western “universalism”.
Currently, in China and many other developing countries in the world, increasing numbers of people are paying attention to the unique value of each nation or country in order to protect the plural development of human cultures and to fight against western “universalism” and “Euro-centrism”. Such attempts are quite understandable. Yet, it is also necessary to be aware that nations often form a kind of “prioritization” of their own national culture, in the process of national revival, as a result of the influence of western “universalism”.
The problem is: when we stand against “universalism”, does it necessarily mean that we are to negate the existence of “universal values” in cultures? This so-called “universalism” might have varied definitions and explanations. This essay defines “universalism” as regarding certain ideas or ethos as the absolute, as universal, exclusive truths but treat other nations’ cultural ideas or ethos as valueless or without any universal value. “Universal value” means that similar or identical values exist among different cultures, and that these similar or same values should carry some “universal values” which could be universally accepted by a range of nations. Such values which contain universal elements are rooted in different national value systems. It is precisely because these “universal values” are rooted in the “unique value” of each different nation that we need to strive for the “universal value” embodied in each unique culture. Philosophically speaking, it is the problem concerning the “universals” and “particulars”. However, in my view, there do exist “universal values” in all nations and cultures. We need to differentiate between a “universal value” and “universalism”. When we stress the unique value of each nation and culture, we should work hard to search for the elements of “universal value” which exist among all nations and cultures. We are now in the era of globalization, enjoying the “advantages” which science and technology bring. At the same time, we are also experiencing the collapse of colonization and “Euro-centrism”, with human culture becoming more and more pluralistic. The search for “universal values” in different cultures can only be achieved through the dialogue and communication between cultures. Dialogue and communication might be the only way for us to seek “universal values” in different nations.
II. The paths that can help us discover “universal values” shared between all nations.
Why is it necessary for us to look for “universal values”? It is important because different nations are all encountering the same problems and are having to collaborate in order to solve these problems. Valuable resources exist in every nation that can help alleviate human problems. I believe that such valuable resources of thoughts carry “universal values” which can help us resolve these common or “universal problems” that we have encountered. How do we seek “universal values”? There are various paths. I hope to point out three here:
1. The similar or common ideas that exist in each culture can be of benefit to people. Such ideas undoubtedly contain “universal value”. In 1993 when pursuing a “global ethic”, the Second Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago promoted a search for the “least common agreement” on ethics, or the “bottom-line ethic”. At the closing ceremony The Global Ethic Declaration expressed the idea that the Confucius Golden Rule (“What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.”) shares similar or identical concepts with other nations. It can be regarded as the “Golden Rule of Ethics”. In the Declaration there was a verse from the Buddhist Scripture expressing a similar idea, and we can find similar expressions of this Golden Rule in the other religious or theological thoughts. [1] On this basis, the Gold Rule of Confucius is regarded as containing “universal value”. Friedrich Engels claimed in his book Anti-Duhring that “Do not steal” should be regarded as having “universal value”, because such a concept is commonplace in all national cultures.
2. Seeking “universal values” from different systems of reasoning in different cultures. For instance, “ren” in Chinese Confucianism, “benevolence” in Christianity, and “ci bei” (mercy) in Indian Buddhism share a “universal value”, although they have different forms and varied starting points, containing different ways of thinking.
When Confucius talked about “ren”, he started from “qin-qin” (kinship relations) and set it as the basis of thinking. Fanchi asked for the meaning of “ren”, and Confucius answered, “To love others.” Why should we love others? What is the starting point of this love? In Zhongyong (The Doctrine of the Mean), Confucius explained that “Ren equals the love among human beings but this love should first of all be embodied by the love among family members.” “Qin-qin” [2] means that to love is part of human nature and to love our family members is a fundamental requirement. But Confucius and his disciples believed that only when one extended this sense of “qin-qin” to “ren-min” (to love the people) and “ai-wu” (to love the natural environment)[3]can one attain the complete and genuine “ren”. Therefore, it is said in Guodian Chujian (Bamboo Slips of Chu State excavated in Guodian) that “One should start from loving one’s family members and then extend this love to the people in the world.” “The deepest love to one’s relatives can be called ‘love’; to love one’s father and extend this love to others, which is what we called ‘benevolence’.” Some Confucius scholars interpreted “ren” as “benevolence”.[4] This means that “ren” in Confucian terms starts from the love one has for one’s family members, but its ultimate requirement is to love others in the world so that they can fulfill their goal of “managing the country and bringing peace to the nation.” Thus, we can claim that Confucius’ “ren” contains a certain “universal value”.
The “benevolence” found in Christianity can also be interpreted from a variety of aspects, but its foundation is the belief that “All humans are created equal by God.” This ethos brought about an ideal of equality that “All humans are equal in front of the law.” Thus such understanding carries a “universal value”, because only on this foundation can we obtain justice and equality. Superficially, “All humans are equal in front of the law” is only an important principle in the western legal system; actually the ethical ethos behind the saying is that of “benevolence”, namely to treat all human beings as the sons and daughters of God. [5]
The Buddhist concept of “ci bei” (mercy) is explained in Zhidulun (Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom): “The Great Mercy enjoys happiness with all human beings, and carries the sufferings of all human beings.” The starting point of this saying is to bring all human beings away from the sea of sufferings so that all can partake in a happy life in the other world. In the Buddhist Lexicon, the article of “pu-du-zhong-sheng” says: “Buddha thought all human beings are suffering in this world, swimming in an endless sea of sufferings. In order to help with all the means of getting away from suffering, Buddha not only meditated and assiduously practiced the Great Wisdom, but also explained and presented the methods and wisdom to all through different approaches according to the varied talents of human beings so that all can master the truth and arrive at the other shore of the sea and live a happy and peaceful life.”[6] From the “saving of one’s own life” in Hinayana (Lesser Vehicle) to “saving the life of the other” in Mahayana (Greater Vehicle), such spirit of “salvation for all beings” also carries “universal value”.
Although “ren” in Confucianism, “benevolence” in Christianity, and “ci bei” in Buddhism, bring with them different starting points and various approaches, they share a similar spirit. Therefore, we might conclude that they share the common value of “loving others”. [7] And “loving others” undoubtedly bears the ultimate “universal value” of all human societies.
3. Some unique ideas in different national cultures which carry the “universal value” as well.
To search for a “universal value” in a unique national culture might lead to various understandings. I think we still can look for “universal value” if we can “seek the common ground while shelving our differences.” I will focus on Chinese philosophy here.
It is natural that different cultures possess different ideas or systems of thoughts (i.e. religion, philosophy, customs, values etc.), which can sometimes cause conflict and tension. History and the current world situation have clearly told us this. Facing up to this challenge, does “unity in diversity” bring any “universal value” to the resolution of “conflicts between civilizations”? “Being different” as well as “Being in harmony” can provide a platform for us to communicate and converse, and in conversation we may finally reach a “common ground”. Such is the process of arriving at a “common agreement” from “different ideas”. This kind of “mutual acknowledgement” is not about trying to eliminate the other, nor is it about assimilating the other, but it seeks to merge the point of the two cultures. The two sides can lift up and improve their respective cultures at this merging point. As a result, we can witness the effect of “harmony”. Can we therefore conclude that “unity in diversity” also brings a “universal value” to the contemporary human society?
In 1992, 1575 scientists issued a statement “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity”, in which they warned us that humanity and nature were in conflict with one another. Why is this happening? It is because the human beings are exploiting nature with their endless greed. They ruthlessly plunder and destroy nature, treating “nature” as the opposite dichotomy of “human beings”. The Chinese traditional thinking of “tian ren he ye” (harmony between human beings and nature) may offer some resources to our thinking and contribute to a solution to this problem. Some of Zhu Xi’s sayings may well explain the meaning of “tian ren he yi”: Heaven cannot exist without human beings, and human beings cannot live without Heaven. Human beings are created by Heaven, and once the human beings are created, the truths of Heaven are embodied in human beings. In other words, human beings bear the responsibilities of protecting Heaven. [8] This kind of understanding of the relation between human beings and nature (Heaven) contains a “universal value”. In fact, western thinkers share similar understandings. Process theologian A. N. Whitehead once promoted a thesis of “humans and nature being in the same living community” [9]. This thesis has displayed the innately inseparable relation between human beings and nature. Human beings should love nature in the same way as they love themselves. Such idea definitely contains “universal value.”
III. Core value of “Plural Modernity”.
In conclusion, I hope to deal with the problems of “plural modernity”. There are various explanations to “plural modernity”, with at least two very different explanations: 1) Modernity is plural, with different nations bearing different features of “modernity”. 2) Modernity in all nations shares the same basic connotation, but different nations enter into modernity in a variety of different ways and in different forms and they reach their goal of modernization through a variety of ways. I intend to agree with the second point of view. As we know, modernity came from the West and the Western countries entered into modernized society earlier than other countries. Now many developing countries are trying to become modernized. Therefore, “modernity” must have a common core value that can be shared by all nations. But what exactly is the core value of “modernity”? I hope to explain my understanding through Yan Fu’s point of view.
Yan Fu criticized the view of “zhongxue wei ti; xixue wei yong” (Setting Chinese traditional knowledge as the essence and applying western knowledge as a practical method), which in his view was similar to “making an ox run as a horse”. Yan’s thinking is based on the traditional Chinese philosophy, “ti yong yi yuan” (that the essence and the application should be integrated.)[10], and he thinks that modern western society is “setting freedom as its essence and democracy as its practical method” [11]. I think Yan Fu’s “modern western society” not only refers to the western societies in modern times but also the “modern history” of the whole of human society. Can then “setting freedom as essence and democracy as practice” be the guiding characteristic of a “modern human society”? “Freedom” and “democracy” can be regarded as the core value of “modernity” judging from its root. To a modern society, “freedom” is a kind of spirit (including the “free” market and the “free” development of individual being because “freedom” has the power of creativity), but “democracy” helps the value of a “free” spirit to be perfected from power and responsibility. Therefore, we believe that “freedom” and “democracy” contain “universal value” that can be shared by non-western countries. Each nation may have varied ways or forms of entering into modern society, but it should be “free” and “democratic” in the ultimate sense.
If we see the world history from the Chinese philosophical perspective of “ti yong yi yuan” we may come to a whole new conclusion. We may treat contemporary society as the middle point that extends both upward and downward, and then we can divide human society into “pre-modern society”, “modern society” and “post-modern society”. Thinking from the point of view of “ti yong yi yuan”, we might conclude that “pre-modern society” is a kind of society that “sets autocratic monarchy as the essence and applied education and assimilation as the practical method”. “Modern society” is “setting freedom as the essence and applying democracy as the practical method”. “Post-modern” society is to “setting harmony as the essence and applying Zhongyong as the practical method.”
In pre-modern society, no matter whether it was the Chinese “imperial dictatorship” or the western “royal monarchy” (or “theocracy”), there existed an autocratic ruling system, and in order to maintain its rule it had to use the means of “teaching” (“jiao hua”). Since the Han Dynasty, China was always an “imperial autocratic system” (“huang quan zhuanzhi”), and this system politicized Confucianism in order to “teach” (“jiao hua”) the society only in order to stay in power. [12] We can say that China today is in the process of moving from a “pre-modern period” into “modernity”. Many other developing countries are probably in the same stage. The western Middle Ages were an age of “royal autocracy or theocracy”, they used Christian ethics to “teach” (“jiao hua”) the people in order to keep their power. [13] Therefore, our world today is a “pre-modern pluralist” society. I have already mentioned the values of “modernity”, and here I want to make some additional remarks. “Freedom” is a kind of spiritual value, and “democracy” is a kind of guarantee for the realization of “freedom”. However, “freedom” and “democracy” can also lead to some problems within to modern society, because any system of thought has some contradictory elements within its own system. [14] Any system is only relatively good and relatively bad within a certain period of time, and the values of “freedom”, “democracy” etc. are no exception. However, “freedom” and “democracy” have some basic significance for humankind as it enters modernity.[15] The people emphasize “freedom”, because “freedom” is a kind of creativity which is extremely meaningful. Only because of the “free economy” (free market economy) the wealth of human society could increase so much since the age of industrialization, and the material life of the people made such a huge progress. Exactly because of this “free thought” science and culture could constantly develop and change. However, it cannot be denied that the differences between rich and poor people are seriously increasing (which includes the differences between rich and poor nations, but also within one nation or within one people). Especially if the free market economy is not controlled to some extent, it will cause a social and economic crisis, as the recent financial crisis shows. [16] The rampant “scientism” and the unrestrained use of “instrumental reason” are strangling the spirit of “humanism”. “Modernity” adores the philosophy of subjectivity and the opposition of the subject and of the object, but this led to an ever deeper conflict between “man and nature”, and thus there appeared the current of deconstructing “modernity”, and this exactly is “post-modernism”. About the problems of “post-modernity” I do not know much, I can only present some general observations. The post-modernism which emerged in the 1960s was a reaction to the deficiencies within the developments of modernization, and at some time their de-construction of “modernity” led to the fading of any authority and control, but at the same time it led to a universal phenomenon of fragmentation, dispersal, and ostentation. Therefore, the early period of post-modernism aimed at “de-construction”, they intended to crush all kinds of authority, which was doubtless meaningful, but this did not lead to the set up of a new constructive viewpoint, and it did not usher in a new period. At the end of the 20th century, the “constructivist post-modernism” based on “the philosophy of process” proposed to combine the first enlightenment and post-modernism which it calls “the second enlightenment”. For example, the process philosophy of Whitehead thinks that man should not be seen as the center of everything, and one should view man and nature as an integrated whole. He criticized the dualistic thinking of modern western society and proposed the concept of an organic whole, which is the basic theory of his criticism of modern dualism (scientism). The director of the center of process philosophy studies, John Cobb, says: “Constructive post-modernism is critical of de-constructionist post-modernism, … we have clearly introduced the ecological dimension into post-modernism; post-modernity is a period of harmony between man and man, between man and nature. This age will preserves some positive elements from modernity, but it will transcend its dualism, anthropocentrism, and male dominance, so as to build a post-modern world in which all life is respected and cared for and can prosper in blissful community.” “Today we realize that man is a part of nature, we live within an ecological organism…” [17] This viewpoint may possibly be a point of contact to the old Chinese thinking of “tian ren heyi” (unity of heaven and human beings). They think that if the slogan of the first enlightenment was “liberation of the self”, then the slogan of the second enlightenment should be “respect for the other, respect for the differences”. For example, Rifkin states in his book The European Dream that the rights of every person in this new period should be respected, cultural differences are welcomed, and every person could enjoy a life of high quality (not of luxury) in a manageable corner of the world. Mankind can live in peace and harmony. They think that the idea of a system of an organic whole “must be concerned with harmony, the whole and the mutual influences of all beings”. [18] This theory is perhaps in some points similar to the traditional “harmony” aspect within Chinese culture. Process philosophy thinks that if any individual uses his or her power to weaken the body of the common society, then the effect will be that his or her own “freedom” will also be diminished. Thus one must object to an abstract concept of freedom, one must work towards a deeper freedom that includes responsibility, we must include the ideas of responsibility and duty in the idea of freedom, and one must show the inner relationship between freedom’ and duties This again has some similarities to the traditional Chinese emphasis on the view that life needs the relationship to other people.[19] Thus the post-modernism of a more constructive type has gradually more influence in the West, and we can ask if that means that in difference to “modern society” this post-modern society will be “setting harmony as the essence and applying the middle way as the practical method” (“hexie wei ti, zhongyong wei yong”) ? The concept of “harmony” (hexie) implies “harmony between human beings and nature”, “inter-personal harmony” (social harmony), “harmony of soul and body” and other very valuable dimensions. Within all these “harmonies” one must continually strive for a balance, and thus we need the “middle way” (“zhongyong”) for its realization. It will be very difficult and a long-term effort for Chinese society to go through the process of modernization, but due to the traditional Chinese culture with its spiritual resources of “harmony” and “zhongyong” and in an effort to present a new interpretation adjusted to human society [20], it may perhaps be easier for us to enter the “society of constructive post-modernism”. Just as Cobb says: “Chinese traditional thought is very attractive for constructive post-modernism, but we cannot simply return to it. It must honestly face science and the society that has changed already, and it must renew itself. If the pre-modern tradition should be fruitful for post-modernity, we must critically accept the positive elements of the enlightenment movement, for example the concern and respect for the individual person.” [21] This word of Prof. Cobb should be an important lesson for us. Thus it is an inevitable tendency of the current academic world to look for “universal values” within different cultures.
In his last years Mr. Feng Youlan often presented some new and strange views, he himself said that these new ideas were “very strange theories”. People will often come up with some “strange ideas” when they are old. I believe that what I have just told you now may also be some “very strange theories”, please feel free to correct them.
Notes:
[5]Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”
[6]Ding Fubao, ed., Dictionary of Buddhism (Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House, 1984), p.1046.
[8]Zhu Xi, Yulei, 17.
[9]There was one article in Shanghai Social Science Weekly commenting that: “A. N. Whitehead’s Process Theology treats nature, resources and humanity as one closely related living community. This theology thinks that the nature should be regarded as a living community that is not circling around human beings. This new type of eco-ethics can contribute to the environmental crisis we are now facing.” (Aug. 15, 2008)
[10]In Yan Fu’s article “Letter to the Owner of Foreign Affairs Newspaper” he expressed this idea. See The Collected Works of Yan Fu, vol. 3 (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1986), pp.558-559.
[11]See Yan Fu, The Collected Works of Yan Fu, vol. 1 (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1986), p. 5.
[12]In books like White Tiger General Interpretation, there were such regulations: “The ministers should be subject to the emperors; the sons should be subject to their fathers; and the wives should be subject to their husbands.”
[13]Frederick Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy: “In the Middle Ages, in the same measure as feudalism developed, Christianity grew into the religious counterpart to it, ……The Middle Ages had attached to theology all the other forms of ideology — philosophy, politics, jurisprudence — and made them subdivision of theology.”
[14]Russell said, “A philosophy which is not self-consistent cannot be wholly true, but a philosophy which is self-consistent can very well be wholly false. The most fruitful philosophies have contained glaring inconsistencies, but for that very reason have been partially true.” See Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, vol. 2 (Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1988), 143. Russell’s saying is significant to all philosophies.
[15]Premier Wen Jiabao replied to a reporter from French Newspaper The World: “Democracy, law, freedom, human rights, equality, benevolence, etc are not the unique values owned by capitalism. In fact, these values are the fruits of all civilizations formed in the long process of human history. These are the common values that all human beings are pursuing.” (See Beijing Evening News, March, 16, 2007)
[16]“Liberalism has freed people from the bonds of time before the market economy, and it also has made people suffer the financial crisis as well as social catastrophe.” See Paul Kennedy, “The Capitalist Form Will Change,” in Reference News, 16th, March, 2009.
[17]John Cobb, “For the Common Good（An Interview by Wang Xiaohua）”, in Shanghai Social Science Weekly, 13th, June, 2002.
[18]Jeremy Rifkin, The European Dream, trans. Yang Zhiyi (Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House,2006).
[19]In traditional Confucius thinking, especially the pre-Qin thinking, there should be a reciprocal relations among human beings, such as “the just emperor and loyal minister”, the “caring father and filial son”, and “friendly brother and faithful cousin” etc. It is said in Liji that “‘What are the things which men consider right? ‘Kindness on the part of the father, and filial duty on that of the son; gentleness on the part of the elder brother, and obedience on that of the younger; righteousness on the part of the husband, and submission on that of the wife; kindness on the part of elders, and deference on that of juniors; with benevolence on the part of the ruler, and loyalty on that of the minister;these ten are the things which -men consider to be right.” And in Zuozhuan, it is said, “The lord is righteous; the subject carries out [the lord’s commands]; the father is kind; the son is filial; the elder brother is caring; the younger brother is respectful.”
[20]There are many expressions on “harmony” in Chinese Classics. For instance, in Yijing (Book of Change), it is said: “The variation of the heaven’s law makes all things on earth ensure their own natures and keep harmony. Therefore, it is beneficial to all things on earth to hold on faith.” In Analects, it is said, “In practicing the rules of propriety, a natural ease is to be prized.” In Guoyu: State of Zheng: “Harmony fosters diversity, homogeneity undermines sustainability.” In the West, Leibniz’s philosophy has been called as the “system of Harmony”, and his ideas were established on the so-called “universal harmony”. In other words the whole universe comes from one integrated source, and even in particularities we can find the unity. As to “zhongyong” (Middle-way), it is expressed in Shujing: “sincerely hold fast the due Mean.” In Analects, “the Master said, ‘Perfection is the virtue according to the Doctrine of Mean. It’s a long time since people could put it into practice.’” In Zhu Xi’s Compiled Notes on the Four Books, it explained that “The equilibrium is the great root of all things on earth. The harmony is the universal principle.” We have translated “mean” in western philosophy as “zhongyong”. Aristotle has detailed explanations of this concept “mean”, believing that all things in the universe have the “middle way”.
[21]John Cobb, “For the Common Good（interview by Wang Xiaohua）”, in Shanghai Social Science Weekly, 13th, June, 2002.