Preface to Science and the Philosophy of Life 科学与人生观序

Before the Yadong Library printed the collection of articles regarding the debate on science and the philosophy of life, I was invited to write a preface for this collection. Though sick and idle at the time, I joyfully wrote the preface. Firstly, the issue of science and the philosophy of life, owing to the cultural backwardness of China, has not been discussed until recently. (Culturally backward Russia has had heated discussions on this issue before. Since then, their social sciences have developed, and any Russian who knows a little about social sciences will no longer have such meaningless discussions. This is similar to the situation where the Chinese clerisy will not talk about such questions as the ancient Chinese cosmology of the round sky and the square earth, what it is like when the sky moves and the earth is still, and whether the electric wires are spider monsters.) No matter how slow the process is, the issue has finally begun to be discussed. Although the supporters of science seemed to be triumphant in the opposing the debate on Zhang Junmai and Liang Qichao, it was a pity that they did not break through the enemies’ stronghold. They only broke up several detachments, and some advocates of science, behind the facade of fighting, have secretly surrendered. (For instance, “A priori modes” from Fan Shoukang and Agnosticism of Science from Ren Shuyong’s Philosophy of Life.)¹“A priori and a posteriori” were popularized by Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, an influential work in the history of philosophy. Kitcher, Philip “A Priori Knowledge Revisited” in New Essays on the A Priori. ed. Paul Boghossian & Christopher Peacocke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002): 65-91. Serving as the “chief debater”, Ding Wenjiang strongly refuted Zhang Junmai’s idealistic views. In fact, Ding himself was an example of “the pot calling the kettle black”. Although there was a weapon that could be used to break through the enemies’ stronghold, they never believed it, so they were not willing to use it. The supporters of metaphysics presented some plausible evidence on “How science cannot dominate the philosophy of life”; however, there was no evidence provided on “How science can dominate the philosophy of life” by the supporters of science. From my perspective, this was not a victory for the advocates of science, but virtually a disastrous defeat. Although there were a large number of articles written, most of them were “thousands of words written, straying far from the topic”. For readers, they seemed to read “the lecture notes of the introduction to science”, yet they could barely find the arguments of both sides. The excessively irrelevant arguments from Zhang were straying away from the topic, the greatest pity throughout the dispute! Secondly, Hu Shi still believed that “Historical materialism can at most explain most problems of life”.²The general theory of the motive forces and laws of social change, developed on the basis of Marx’s discoveries, is known as the materialist conception of history, or historical materialism. The materialist conception of history was arrived at by applying the materialist world outlook to the solution of social problems. And because he made this application, materialism was with Marx no longer simply a theory aimed at interpreting the world, but a guide to the practice of changing the world, of building a society without exploitation of man by man. Above all, historical materialism has a contemporary significance. Cornforth, Maurice Campbell, Historical materialism (New York: International Publishers, 1954), Vol. 2, 12. After participating in this debate, Hu Shi would no doubt make great progress in his philosophy of life! Concerning the two previous reasons, I was delighted to write this preface.

There is no need to discuss the relationship between mathematics, physics, chemistry, and other natural sciences and the philosophy of life. However, scientific methods of observation and classification are subsequently applied to living creatures, and even to human society with the highest activeness. Therefore, science is roughly divided into two categories, i.e., natural sciences and social sciences. The most prominent pillars of social sciences are economics, sociology, history, psychology, and philosophy. Here, philosophy refers to experimentalism and historical materialism, but not the metaphysics of ontology and cosmology. Needless to say, social sciences, along with natural sciences, are still immature. Even so, they have already achieved undeniable achievements. If we abandon those sciences because of their weaknesses, it is not a wise move. It is incontestable that the natural sciences have demonstrated and explained many phenomena in the natural world, and the social sciences also have illustrated many phenomena in human society. Nature and human society have their own actual phenomenon. A scientist’s hypothesis will not change the truth; neither will the flight of fancies of a metaphysician; the actual phenomenon is solid and immutable with either materialism or idealism. Before Copernicus’s discovery, the earth has always been revolving around the sun. Following Mencius, the world gradually became one without kings. The final success is when scientific inductions can match this immutable reality one after another. The reason why we believe in science (either natural sciences or social sciences) is that “The ultimate goal of scientists is to eliminate the role of human inclination and objectify all phenomena. Therefore, all phenomena can be projected and all the causation can be calculated.” (quoted from Zhang Junmai). If so, then we can seek further realities based on truth and conclude that the immutable reality of nature and human society is different from the fallacies of metaphysicians. 

数学、物理学、化学等科学，和人生观有什么关系，这问题本不用着讨论。可是后来科学的观察、分类说明等方法应用到活动的生物，更应用到最活动的人类社会，于是便有人把科学略分为自然科学与社会科学二类。社会科学中最主要的是经济学、社会学、历史学、心理学、哲学（这里所指是实验主义的及唯物史观的人生哲学，不是指本体论、宇宙论的玄学，即所谓形而上的哲学）。这些社会科学，不用说和那些自然科学都还在幼稚时代，然即是幼稚，已经有许多不可否认的成绩，若因为还幼稚便不要他，我们不必这样蠢。自然科学已经说明了自然界许多现象，这是我们不能否认的；社会科学已经说明了人类社会许多现象，这也是我们不能否认的。自然界及社会都有他的实际现象。科学家说明得对，他原来是那样；科学家说明得不对，他仍旧是那样；玄学家无论如何胡想乱说，他仍旧是那样；他的实际现象是死板板的，不是随着你们唯物论唯心论改变的。 哥白尼以前，地球原来在那里绕日而行，孟轲以后，渐渐变成了无君的世界；科学的说明能和这死板板的实际一一符合，才是最后的成功。我们所以相信科学（无论自然科学或社会科学）也就是因为“科学家之最大目的，曰摒除人意之作用，而一切现象化之为客观的，因而可以推算，可以穷其因果之相生”（张君劢语），必如此而后可以根据实际寻求实际，而后可以说明自然界及人类社会死板板的实际，和玄学家的胡想乱说不同。

人生观和（社会）科学的关系是很显明的，为什么大家还要讨论？哈哈！就是讨论这个问题之本身，也可以证明人生观和科学的关系之深了。孔德分人类社会为三时代，我们还在宗教迷信时代。你看全国最大多数的人，还是迷信、巫鬼、符咒、算命、卜卦等超物质以上的神秘；次多数象张君劢这样相信玄学的人，旧的士的阶级全体，新的士的阶级一大部分皆是，象丁在君这样相信科学的人，其数目几乎不能列入统计。现在由迷信时代进步到科学时代，自然要经过玄学先生的狂吠，这种社会的实际现象，想无人能够否认。倘不能否认，便不能不承认孔德三时代说是社会科学上一种定律。这个定律便可以说明许多时代、许多社会、许多个人的人生观之所以不同。譬如张君劢是个饱学秀才，他一日病了，他的未尝学问的家族要去求符咒仙方，张君劢立意要延医诊脉服药；他的朋友丁在君方从外国留学回来，说汉医靠不住，坚劝他去请西医，张君劢不但不相信，并说出许多西医不及汉医的证据；两人争持正烈的时候，张君劢的家族说，西医、汉医都靠不住，还是符咒仙方好。他们如此不同的见解，也便是他们如此不同的人生观，他们如此不同的人生观，都是他们所遭客观的环境造成的，决不是天外飞来主观的意志造成的，这本是社会科学可以说明的，决不是形而上的玄学可以说明的。

Zhang Junmai enumerated nine philosophies of life, all of which he said were subjective, arising from intuition, synthesis, freedom of will, and the singularity of personality, but not governed by such attributes of science as objectivity, logic methods, analytical approach, and causation. Zhang’s nine philosophies of life are analyzed into nine points listed below: Firstly, the phenomena of Dajiazu Zhuyi (大家族主义, an extended family) and Xiaojiazu Zhuyi (小家族主义, a nuclear family) are purely natural evolutions from an agrarian patriarchal society to an industrial military society. Secondly, the changes in the status of men and women and the forms of marriage are also the results of social changes. In the agrarian patriarchal society, parents and husbands treat their children and their wives as instruments of production and as a form of property. In the industrial society, where domestic handwork is no longer applicable and labor hire exists, there is no need to use the family as an instrument of production, so the feminist movement naturally flourished. Thirdly, the difference between common and private ownership of property. In primitive societies, where humankind was weaker than beasts, there was no need or possibility of private ownership of property, so men were bound to cooperate in groups. (For example, Mr. X, with his unique personality, lived in a primitive society. Even though he wanted to have private ownership of property out of subjectivity and the freedom of will, there was no place for him to store the fruit and meat he acquired, nor were there ways for him to preserve and sell the food and save the money in the bank. I am afraid that Mr. X had to give up his private ownership of property. In the agricultural society, where there was a certain number of shelters and storehouses, and grains were easier to preserve, the individual farmers only needed to occupy the land with no demands to collaborate. This is how the notion of private property came about. In industrial society, self-reliant family labor has disappeared, and thousands of people are organized in cooperative units. Everyone must make a living by working with tools. Only a few capitalists own the production tools. Without common property, everyone must work hard for capitalists. Then the notion of common property exists. Fourthly, the conflict between conservatives and reformists. As a result of economic changes in society, the former social system, which was incompatible with these changes, remained in place and fettered the development of society. Therefore, classes with different economic interests naturally clashed with each other in a mild or radical way due to the degrees of these changes. Fifth, people have different views of material and spiritual objects. A minority of people can possess a unique/luxurious environment. Generally, it is not just manual workers in factories, even the editors at Shangwu Yinshuguan (商务印书馆, the Commercial Press), who earn 20 to 30 silver coins a month, are worried about food and clothing every day. They do not have the leisure time or energy to talk about Eastern spiritual civilisation as Zhang Junmai and Liang Qichao do. Sixth, the emergence of socialism is inherently the same as common ownership. Seventh, there are two instincts in human nature, egoism, and altruism. However, the occurrences of one instinct, either for the self or for others, are subject to the time and the social environment where an individual is living. Eighth, different understandings of the same matter, either from a pessimist or an optimist, are also affected by time and the social environment. Statistics on suicide in various countries have indicated that they are caused by the environment, in addition to other factors, such as age, gender, occupation, seasons, etc. Ninth, the shift of religious thinking is dictated more by time and social forces. The primitive religions of various ethnic nations, according to their own legends, were mostly nature religions worshiping natural objects, including the sun, fire, mountains, boulders, poisonous snakes, beasts, and so on. Later, in the patriarchal society based on the agricultural economy, polytheism prevailed as people worshiped clan spirits, ancestor spirits, and agricultural gods. Later developments in commerce and the national unification movement allowed monotheism to dominate mainstream religion. The subsequent development in industry and the flourishing of science led to the popularisation of atheism and antitheism. Even though people of different ethnic nations lived in the same period, the pace of their social and technological developments varied, and so are their religious thoughts. The primitive tribal peoples in Africa, America, and Southeast Asia practiced naturalistic religions, those in China and India polytheism, and those in Europe and the United States, with the developed commerce and industry, Christianity. If a follower of Confucius were born in London, he would also believe in Christianity and praise Jehovah. If a Christian were born in a desolate place in China, he would worship his ancestors and foxes. Each of these nine views of life is governed by objective causation, which can be analysed one after another by social sciences. None of these philosophies of life can exist without objective causes, occurring groundlessly out of subjectivity, intuition, and freedom of will.

张君劢举出九项人生观，说都是主观的，起于直觉的、综合的、自由意志的，起于人格之单一性的，而不为客观的、论理的、分析的、因果律的科学所支配。今就其九项人生观看起来：第一，大家族主义和小家族主义，纯粹是由农业经济宗法社会进化到工业经济军国社会之自然的现象。第二，男女尊卑及婚姻制度，也是由于农业宗法社会亲与夫都把子女及妻当作生产工具，当作一种财产，到了工业社会，家庭手工已不适用，有了雇工制度，也用不着拿家族当生产工具，于是女权运动自然会兴旺起来。第三，财产公有私有制度，在原始共产社会，人弱于兽，势必结群合作，原无财产私有之必要与可能（假定有人格之单一性的张先生，生在那个社会，他的主观，他的直觉，他的自由意志，忽然要把财产私有起来，怎奈他所得的果物兽肉无地存储，并没有防腐的方法，又不能变卖金钱存在银行，结果恐怕只有放弃他私有财产的人生观）；到了农业社会，有了一定的住所，有了仓库，谷物又比较的易于保存，独立生产的小农，只有土地占有的必要，没有通力合作的必要，私有财产观念，是如此发生的。到了工业社会，家庭的手工的独立生产制已不能存立，成千成万的人组织在一个通力合作的机关之内，大家无工做便无饭吃，无工具便不能做工，大家都没有生产工具，生产工具已为少数资本家私有了，非将生产工具收归公有，大家只好卖力给资本家，公有财产观念，是如此发生的。第四，守旧维新之争持，乃因为现社会有了经济的变化，而与此变化不适应的前社会之制度仍旧存在，束缚着这变化的发展，于是在经济上利害不同的阶级，自然会随着变化之激徐，或激或徐的冲突起来。第五，物质精神之异见，少数人因为有他的特殊环境，一般论起来，慢说工厂里体力工人了，就是商务印书馆月薪二三十元的编辑先生，日愁衣食不济，那有如许闲情像张君劢、梁启超高谈什么精神文明东方文化。第六，社会主义之发生，和公有财产制是一事。第七，人性中本有为我利他两种本能，个人本能发挥的机会，乃由于所遭环境及所受历史的社会的暗示之不同而异。第八，悲观、乐观见解之不同，亦由于个人所遭环境及所受历史的社会的暗示而异，试观各国自杀的统计不但自杀的原因都是环境使然，而且和年龄、性别、职业、季节等都有关系。第九，宗教思想之变迁，更是要受时代及社会势力支配的。各民族原始的宗教，依据所传神话，大都是崇拜太阳、火、高山、巨石、毒蛇、猛兽等的自然教；后来到了农业经济宗法社会，族神祖先农神等多神教遂至流行；后来商业发达，随着国家的统一运动，一神教遂至得势；后来工业发达，科学勃兴，无神非宗教之说随之而起；即在同一时代，各民族各社会产业进化之迟速不同，宗教思想亦随之而异，非洲、美洲、南洋蛮族，仍在自然宗教时代，中国、印度，乃信多神，商工业发达之欧美，多奉基督；使中国圣人之徒生于伦敦，他也要奉洋教，歌颂耶和华；使基督信徒生在中国穷乡僻壤，他也要崇拜祖宗与狐狸。以上九项种种不同的人生观都为种种不同客观的因果所支配，而社会科学可一一加以分析的论理的说明，找不出那一种是没有客观的原因，而由于个人主观的直觉的自由意志凭空发生的。

梁启超究竟比张君劢高明些，他说：“君劢列举‘我对非我’之九项，他以为不能用科学方法解答者，依我看来，什有八九倒是要用科学方法解答。”梁启超取了骑墙态度，一面不赞成张君劢，一面也不赞成丁在君，他自己的意见是：

“人生问题，有大部分是可以——而且必要用科学方法来解决的。却有一小部分——或者还是最重要的部分是超科学的。”