requestId:6852da3e1f9814.90498935.
Levinson’s “Razor” – Traditional Civilization and Generality
Author: Zhao Jinshen (Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy in Qing Dynasty)
Source: Author Author Authorized by Confucian Network, Original “Opening Age” No. 5, 2023
Content summary: The point of the generalization transformation proposed by Levinson in “Confucianism China and its Modern Destiny” is to observe the “Razor” of the current traditional civilization. Levinson had a good presence in the Qing dynasty and was influenced by Weiber’s China discussion. Through a comprehensive assessment of Confucianism and modern China, he believed that after entering modern times, Confucianism was no longer the general principle of Chinese society and entered the “museum”. In modern China, the general principle was the energy of the modern world. He believed that whether it was the “Chinese and Western use” or the “national racialism”, it abandoned the traditional generality and received new general values. Therefore, in Levinson’s view, the protection of tradition based on “nationality” and “speciality” does not seem sufficient. However, Levinson’s “one-dollar broad” view can also be reviewed from a different perspective. In short, how to understand the generality of traditional civilization and how to understand the relationship between tradition and Marxism are the problems that we must deeply consider when facing Levinson’s “razor”.
Keywords: Levinson, generalized, Confucianism, modern,
The overall situation of the revival of traditional civilization facing China today is worthy of discussion and thinking with the method of learning. The various social civilization thoughts of living people who participate in this revival are worthy of attention and analysis. In the case of “resurrection” of traditional civilization, “gender” or “gender nature” are often high. Will such a statement lead to a narrow gender theory? Or may we fall into the trap of civilization conflict without any hesitation? These questions are worth our consideration. Tomorrow, should we build a simple “Chinese civilization” with a simple “location”, or will we let the once again revived Chinese civilization have worldly meanings and come from the scene with a broad attitude? All those who are passionate about traditional civilization need to be wise to deal with this problem in the air. In this regard, Levinson ordered the Confucianism China and its modern orders to take out bottles and cats and feed some water and food. The view proposed in the book “Xiaoyao” [1] undoubtedly becomes a “razor”, which examines the “emotion and wisdom” of those who hold traditional civilization tomorrow – in philosophy, the “Occam razor” aims to cut off redundant concepts. In the eyes of the writer, Levinson’s view is about how we treat the “razor” with similar compositions of traditional civilization tomorrow. ”, that is, we eliminate the unnecessary conditions when we observe traditional civilization, reflect on whether we can mess with the “emotional” reasons when we observe traditional civilization, and explore whether we can place tradition in “secondary” when we observe traditional civilization, without any interest in realizing that we have received other value systems contracts on the bottom layer of thinking. Can we accept a series proposed by LevinsonThe test and assessment of the question are actually related to our own attitude towards tradition, especially whether the tradition can be truly honest. The response to Levinson’s observations is related to how we can give the bottom line of the problem of “what influence and position should tradition develop in the entire Chinese civilization and social structure tomorrow” [2]. In this sense, as long as we are experienced by Levinson’s “Razor”, we can become more rooted in the air to traditional ourselves.
What Levinson is most familiar to the Chinese academic community is his judgment that the traditional Chinese civilization represented by Confucianism has entered the “museum” – “Confucius retreated into the silence of the museum in a generous manner.” [3] Confucianism has fallen to all real meanings, but the Chen Lie in the museum is no longer a “living thing”.
Levinson was able to draw this judgment related to his comprehensive assessment of Confucianism and modern China. The trilogy of “Confucianism and its Modern Destiny” adopts the “reconciliation” method, and develops from the perspective of three differences, sorting out the reversal of the entire traditional civilization in the recent modern period of China. The first volume focuses on thinking, the second volume focuses on political system, and the third volume focuses on historical meaning. The author describes the “civilized thoughts” behind various thoughts and initiatives in modern China, so we can regard these three plots as a “mind history” work. This description may not be correct when viewed by tomorrow’s academic views, but Levinson gave a logical story in his book. This form of description allows Levinson’s problem consciousness to be clearly visible in front of readers, and his museum’s statement can also be presented “justly”. More importantly, Levinson’s careful description will still have a “reply” tomorrow: whether it is traditional or anti-traditional thought, its form seems to have long been typified by Levinson.
1. Levinson and Veber
Understand Levinson’s Chinese narrative, and the needs assessment shows two aspects: one is the Qing school and its influence, and the other is the research and development of Veber in China and Levinson’s understanding of Veber. The Qing dynasty hopes to have a comprehensive view of China, and its research includes two dimensions: political and academic. In politics, the Qing dynasty hoped to serve american’s Chinese policy, and at that time, they tried to figure out why communism could benefit China and why american’s Chinese policy was defeated. This political goal is a comprehensive study of Chinese politics, economy and civilization in science. Levinson inherited and developed the “strike-response” form of Fei Zhengqing, and through a comprehensive review of modern Chinese thinking, he gave him a conclusion on why communism gained victory: the broad form of communism’s modernity, most successfully assembling the “mind” of Chinese intellectuals in modern times, resolving the duality of value-sensibility, and using materialist historical perspective to interpret China’s “continuity” from tradition to modernity. This area is more concerned and discussed by the academic community, and this article will not be given a comment. [4]
From a deep-seated science, the “comfort” and “influence” of Veber’s “comfort” and “influence” on Levinson is also unabashed. It was precisely on the basic viewpoint of Fei Zhengqing and received relevant insights from Veber that Levinson was able to propose his focus. In the 50s of the 20th Century, “Verbo Hot” appeared in the american, [5] Levinson was affected by this tide and participated in it. A more obvious body is that Levinson once had a special review of Veber’s book “Confucianism and Taoism” – “Victory of Veber’s “Confucianism and Taoism” (1953). Levinson combined the basic content of the book:
The development of modern capitalism has not appeared in China, and Mr. Wei Bo regards Confucius’ ethics as the reason for hindering this development. Because Confucianism and Puritanism formed a clear contrast in several key points – Confucian aesthetic value, self-sufficiency conception and Puritanism’s “heavenly” conception, Confucianism’s conception of adapting the world and the Puritanism’s conception of transforming the world through sensory methods – Vober concluded that the absolute impact of Confucianism on the development of capitalism in China proved that his theory about the European Puritanism had an important impact on this aspect. [6]
In Levinson’s view, Veber importantly from the perspective of thinking, he regarded Confucius as the inherent reasons why China did not produce a modern capitalist society, but Veber’s important goal of China’s argument was to prove his relevant views in “New Teaching Ethics and Capitalist Energy”. However, compared to the reason for thinking that Veber cared more about, Levinson cared more about social reasons. He said: Is it social or ideological reasons that are affected by arrangements? The collapse of Confucianism can be traced back to the 19th century industrialized Oriental’s impact on Chinese agricultural-rights society, reminding the bottom line of this problem. This conclusion is incompatible with Veber’s conclusion. Whether in Europe or China, a certain ethics determines the “economic mentality” and then determines which of the two potential paths a society will take. Mr. Wei Bo has made a brilliant reminder that Confucianism has the connotation of anti-citism; however, the leading position of Confucianism does not stifle capitalism in a society with capitalism potential, but instead uses a stable society wit TC: