why china has no science-fungyulan

8/2/2019 Why China Has No Science-FungYuLan

1/28

Why China Has No Science--An Interpretation of the History and Consequences of ChinesePhilosophyAuthor(s): Yu-Lan FungReviewed work(s):Source: International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Apr., 1922), pp. 237-263Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2377487 .

Accessed: 27/03/2012 03:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

International Journal of Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2377487?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2377487?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/28

T H E INTERNATIONALJOURNAL O F ETHICS

APRIL, 1922

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE -AN INTERPRE-TATION OF THE HISTORY AND CONSEQUENCESOF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY.'YU-LAN FUNG.

In one of his articlespublished last year in the New Re-public,ProfessorDewey, said:"It may be questionedwhether the most enlighteningthing he [thevisitor]can do for otherswhoareinterested n China s not to sharewiththem his discovery hat Chinacan be knownonly in terms of itself, andolder Europeanhistory. Yet one must repeat that China is changingrapidly;andthat it is as foolish o goonthinkingofit in termsof olddynas-tic Chinaas it is to interpret t by pigeon-holingts facts in Westerncon-ceptions. China s anotherworldpoliticallyandeconomicallypeaking,alargeandpersistentworld,anda worldboundno oneknows ustwhere."

It is truly a discovery. If we compare Chinese historywith the historyof Europeof a few centuriesago, say beforethe Renaissance,we findthat, althoughthey are of differentkinds, they are neverthelesson the same level. But nowChinais still oldwhile thewesterncountriesarealreadynew.Whatkeeps Chinaback? It is a naturalquestion.What keeps Chinaback is that she has no science. Theeffect of this fact is not only plain in the materialside, but1In publishingthis paperI take the opportunityto thank many membersofthe faculty of the Philosophy Department of Columbia University for en-couragementand help. By science I mean the systematic knowledgeof naturalphenomenaand of the relationsbetween them. Thus it is the short term forNatural Science.2 TheNew Republic,Vol. XXV, 1920, New York, p. 188.

Vol. XXXII-No. 3.


3/28

238 INTERNATIONAL OURNALOF ETHICS.alsoin the spiritualside, of the presentcondition of Chineselife. China produced her philosophy at the same timewith, or a little before, the height of Athenian culture.Why did she not producescience at the same time with,or even before, the beginning of modern Europe? Thispaper is an attempt to answerthis question in terms ofChina herself.It is beyond question that geography, climate, andeconomicconditionsare very importantfactors in makinghistory, but we must bearin mind that they are conditionsthat make history possible, not that make history actual.They are the indispensablesettings of a drama,but not itscause. The cause that makes history actual is the will tolive and the desirefor happiness. But what is happiness?People are far from agreeingin their answers to this ques-tion. It is due to this fact that we have many differentsystems of philosophy, many different standardsof value,and consequently many differenttypes of history. At theendof this paperI shall ventureto drawthe conclusion hatChinahasnoscience,becauseaccording o her ownstandardof value she doesnot needany. But beforewe come to thisconclusion, we have first to see what the older Chinesestandardof value is. In doing so a general survey of thehistory of Chinesephilosophyis indispensable.I

At the end of the Chowdynasty, the emperors ost theirpower to control the feudal princes who began to regardthemselves as independent,and the land was subjectedtowarfare. It was an age of politicalconfusion ndeed,but ofgreat intellectual initiative. It was equivalent to theAthenianperiodof mental vigor in Europe.Beforeattackingthe different ypes of Chinese deals,forthe sake of convenienceI shall introduce two wordswhichseem to me to indicate respectivelytwo generaltendenciesof Chinesephilosophy: They are "nature" and "art," or,to translate more exactly, "nature" and "human." Toillustratethis I cite fromChuangTse a passage:


4/28

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE. 239"Whatis nature? Whatis human? That ox andhorsehavefourfeetis nature;to halterthe head of a horseor to pierce the nose of an ox ishuman."

Thus "nature"meanssomethingnatural;"human" meanssomethingartificial. The one is madeby nature,the otherby man. At the end of the Chowdynasty there were twotendencies representingthese two extremes and a thirdrepresentinga mean between the two. The one said thatnature is perfectin itself and that men areself-sufficientandneed no help fromoutside; the other said that nature is notperfectin itself and that menarenot self-sufficientandneedsomethingoutside in orderto be better; the third made acompromise. These three main types of ideal did notappearone afterthe other, but ratherarosesimultaneously,and expressed at one time the differentaspects of humannature and experience. Now accordingto the "Book ofHan," at the end of the Chow dynasty there were ninebranchesof thought: Confucianism,Taoism, Moism, theSchool of Religion, the School of Law, the School of Logic,the Schoolof Diplomacy,the Schoolof Agriculture,and theMiscellaneousSchool. But amongthem the mostinfluentialat that time were Confucianism,Taoism, and Moism. Inalmostevery book written at the end of the Chowdynasty,we are informedthat these three were strugglingfor exist-ence. To illustrate this I cite fromthe polemicspeechesofMencius,a greatdefenderof Confucianismat that time:

"Philosopher mperors easeto arise; he princesof the statesgivereinsto their lusts; and the scholarsindulgein unrationaldiscussions. Thewordsof YangChuandMoTi fillthe world. Thediscourseof the peoplehas adoptedthe viewseither of Yang or of Mo. Yang'sdoctrine s: eachone for himself;then there will be no king. Mo's doctrine is: love allequally; hentherewillbenofather. To have neitherkingnorfather s tobe beasts. . . . If the doctrinesof Yangand Mo arenot stoppedandthe doctrineof sagesnot set forth, then the perverse peakingswill deludethe people,and stop the path of benevolenceand righteousness. Whenbenevolence ndrighteousness restopped,beasts will beled on to devour3From the chapter entitled "The Autumn Floods." Comparewith H. A.Giles' translation in his book, ChuangTsu, Mystic, Moralist, and Social Re-

former. London, 1889, p. 211.


5/28

240 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.menandmenwillthemselvesdevouroneanother. I amalarmedby thesethings and addressmyself to the defence of the doctrinesof the formersages,andto opposeYang andMo. . ."4Now Mo Ti was the founderof Moism,and Yang Chuwasthe discipleof the founderof Taoism,Lao Tse. This pass-age seems to me to be a vivid picture of the state of warexisting between these three powers. They were not onlystruggling for existence,but each one of them had the am-bition to conquerthe whole empire.

To illustratetheirdoctrinesa little morein detailI chooseLao Tse (570 B. C.?-480 B. C.?), Yang Chu (440 B. C.?-360 B. C.?), and ChuangTse (350 B. C.?-275 B. C.?) torepresentTaoism; Mo Tse (Mo Ti, 500 B. C.?-425 B. C.?)to representMoism; and Confucius(551 B.C.-479 B. C.)and Mencius (372 B. C.-289 B. C.) to represent Con-fucianism. Referringto the three tendencieswhich I justmentioned,Taoism stands for nature, Moism for art, andConfucianism or the mean. It seems tome that in everyaspect of theirdoctrines,Taoismand Moismwerealwaysatthe two extremes and Confucianismin the middle. Forinstance, with regard to their ethical theories, Menciusagreesin arranging hem in a scheme as I do. He said:

"The doctrine of the philosopherYang was: each one for himself.Thoughhe mightbenefit he wholeworldby pluckingout a singlehair,hewould not do it. The doctrineof the philosopherMo was: to love allequally. If by rubbing moothhiswholebodyfromthe crown o the heel,he could benefitthe world,he would do it. Tse Mo helda meanbetweenthem. By holding t withoutleaving room for the changeablenessf cir-cumstances,heresembled hemin maintaininghisone point to the exclu-sion of others."5It goes without saying that to hold the mean while leavingroom for the changeablenessof circumstances s the onlyright way of action. It is exactly the teaching of Con-fucianism.- I shallmakeit clearera little later.

4JamesLegge'stranslation,with some modification. See the ChineseClassics,second ed., London,1895, Vol. II, pp. 282-83.'James Legge's translation, with some modification. See the Chinese

Classics,Vol. II, pp. 464-465.


6/28

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE. 241II

The teaching of Taoism can be summarizedn onephrase:"returning to nature." The omnipotent Tao gives every-thing its own nature, in which it finds its own satisfaction.For instance:

"In the northernoceanthere s a fish, called he Leviathan,manythou-sand li 8 in size. This Leviathanchanges nto a bird, called the Rukh,whose back is many li in breadth. With a mighty effortit rises and itswingsobscure he sky like clouds. At the equinox,this birdprepares ostart for the southernocean, the CelestialLake. And in the 'RecordofMarvels'we readthatwhentheRukhfliessouthwards,hewater s smittenfor a spaceof three thousand i around,whilethe birditself mounts upona typhoonto a height of ninety thousandi for a flightof sixmonths'dura-tion. . . . A cicada aughed,and said to a dove: 'Now whenI flywithmy might,it is as muchas I can do to get fromtree to tree. And some-timesI do not reach,but fall to the groundmidway. What, then, canbethe use of goingup ninety thousandi in order o startforthe South?"'This passageis cited from a chapter entitled "The HappyExcursion" romChuangTse'swork. It showsclearly hatboth the greatRukh and the small cicadaareperfectlysat-isfied, each with his ownexcursion. They continueto be soas long as they live in accordancewith theirnaturewithoutimitating artificiallyeachother. So everything s perfect nits natural condition. Art simply disturbs nature andproduces pain. For, as Chuang Tse said;"A duck's egs, thoughshort,cannotbe lengthenedwithoutpainto theduck,and a crane'segs, though ong, cannotbe shortenedwithoutmiseryto the crane,so that which is long in nature cannotbe cut off, nor thatwhich s shortbelengthened. Allsorrowsarethusavoided,"8Yang Chu's egoism,therefore, s not selfish in the ordinarysense of that word. He was simply teaching that everymanshould live as his naturewishes to live; but he neednotimpose upon others what he thinks to be good. So he said:

"If the ancientby injuringa singlehaircouldhave rendered service othe world,he wouldnot have doneit; and had the worldbeen offered o a6The "Ii" is about one-third of an English mile.7H. A. Giles'translation. See his ChuangTsu, etc., pp. 1-2.8Fromthe chapter entitled "The Joined Toes." See Giles'ChuangTsu, etc.,

p. 101.


7/28

242 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.single person,he would not have accepted t. If nobody woulddamageevena hair, and nobodywouldhave the world or profit,the worldwouldbe in a perfectstate."9Another passagefrom ChuangTse:

"'Tell me,' said Lao Tse, 'in what consist charityand duty to one'sneighbor?' 'Theyconsist,'answeredConfucius,in a capacity orrejoicingin all things; n universalove, without the elementof self. Theseare thecharacteristics f charityand duty to one'sneighbor.' 'Whatstuff!' criedLao Tse, 'doesnotuniversal ove contradicttself? Is notyoureliminationof self a positivemanifestation f self? There s the universe, ts regularityis unceasing; hereare the sun and the moon,their brightness s unceasing;thereare the stars, heir groupingsneverhange; here arebirdsand beasts,they flock togetherwithout varying; there trees and shrubs,they growupwardswithoutexception. Be like these; follow Tao; and you will beperfect. Why, then,these struggles orcharityanddutyto one'sneighbor,as though beating a drum in searchof a fugitive? Alas! sir, you havebroughtmuch confusionnto the mindof man.'"lThus the Taoists see only the goodaspects of what is calledthe state of nature. Every kind of human virtue and socialregulation s to them againstnature. As Lao Tse said:

"Cast off your holiness,rid yourselfof sagacity, and the peoplewillbenefita hundredfold.Discardbenevolence nd abolishrighteousness,ndthe peoplewill returnto filialpiety and paternal ove. Renounceyourschemingand abandongain, and the thieves and robberswill disappear.These three preceptsmeanthat outward howis insufficient, ndthereforethey bid us be true to ourpropernature:to showsimplicity,to embraceplain dealing, o reduce elfishness, o moderatedesire." 1The government,if the Taoists need any, must be extremelaissez-faire.

"As restrictionsand prohibitionsare multipliedin the country, thepeople grow poorerandpoorer. When the peoplearesubjectedto over-muchgovernment, he land is thrown into confusion. When peopleareskilled n manycunningarts, strangeare the objectsof luxury hat appear.Thegreater he numberof lawsandenactments, he morethievesand rob-berstherewill be."12

I From the chapter,"Yang Chu," in the workof Lieh Tse.10Fromthe chapterentitled "The Way of Nature." See Giles' ChuangTsuetc., p. 167.11Lionel Giles: TheSayingsof Lao Tsu, p. 44.12 Ibid., p. 38.


8/28

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE. 243Governmentshould imitate nature:

"The Tao in its regular coursedoes nothing and so there is nothingwhich it does not do." 3This is because Tao lets everythingwork for itself in its ownway:

"Thereforehe sagesaid: 'So longas I do nothing,the peoplewillworkout their ownreformation. So longas I love calm,the peoplewill berightthemselves. So long as I am freefrommeddling, hepeoplewill growrich.So long as I am free from desire,the people will comenaturally back oSimplicity." '114

So what man oughtto do is to accordwith his natureandbe content with his destiny. To illustrate this passivenature of Taoism I cite from ChuangTse:"Tse Lai fell ill. . . . Tse Li went to see him. Leaningagainstthe door,he asked the dying man: 'Greatindeedis the Creator! Whatwill he now make you to become? Wherewill he take you to? Willhemake you the liver of a rat?or an arm of an insect?' Tse Laianswered:'Where a parenttells a son to go,East, West,South,or North,he simplyfollowsthe command. The Yin andYang (the two forces of nature) aremore to a manthan hisparentsare. If they hastenmy death andI do notquietly submitto them, I shall be obstinate and rebellious,but they arenot mistaken. The greatmass of naturemakesme to be movedwith thebody,to be busywithlife, to be at ease with old age,and to be at restwithdeath. Thereforewhat has mademy life a good makes also my death a

good."'Ad15Knowledge is of no use and can do only harm:

"Our life is limited, but knowledgeis not limited. With what islimitedto pursuewhat is not limitedis a perilous hing." 6What we need and ought to know and to get is the Tao,but it is in us. It is like the Godof the pantheisticphiloso-phy. So what we ought to do is to know and to controlourselves:

13 James Legge: TheTextsof Taoism(in the SacredBooksof theEast series).London, 1891, Pt. I, p. 70.14 Ibid., p. 38.15 From the chapter on "The Great Master," Giles'James Legge's TextsofTaoism, Pt. I, p. 249.15From the chapter on "Nourishing the Essence of Life." Ibid., p. 198.


9/28

244 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS."He who knows others is clever, but he who knows himselfis enlight-ened. He who overcomesothers s strong,but he who overcomeshimselfis mightier till."17

Besides, we have to use an altogether differentmethod toknow and to get the Tao. Lao Tse said:"He who devotes himselfto knowledgeseeks from day to day to in-crease. He who devoteshimself o Tao seeks fromday to dayto diminish.He diminishes ndagaindiminishesillhearrivesat doingnothing. Havingarrivedat the point of doingnothing,there is nothingwhichhe does not

do." 8As Tao is already in us, it can be known not by addingsomething artificiallyto it, but by taking away what hasbeen artificiallyaddedto it before. That is what Lao Tsemeant by "diminish." So the argumentsof those whoweresimply interestedin intellectual exercisewereto the Taoistsof little value. Thus in Chuang Tse's book one passagereads:

"To wear out one's intellect in trying to argue without knowingthefact that the arguments rethe same s called three nthe morning.''Whatis three in the morning?'askedTse Yu. 'A keeperof monkeys,'repliedTse Chi, 'said once to his monkeys with regard o their chestnuts,thateach wasto havethreein the morningand fourin the night. But to thisthe monkeys were very angry, so the keeper said that they might havefourin the morningandthreein the night, with whicharrangement heywereall well pleased.'219Thus Taoism stood for nature as against art.

IIIThe fundamental dea of Moismis utility. The sanctionof virtue is not that it is natural, but that it is useful. In

the book bearingMo Tse's name one passagereads:"Righteousnesss what is beneficial o us. Benefit s that whichwe areglad to have." 017 Lionel Giles: The Sayings of Lao Tsu, p. 44.18 James Legge: The Texts of Taoism, Pt. I, p. 90.19From the chapter on "The Identity of Contraries,"H. A. Giles: ChuangTsu, etc., p. 20.20 From the first of the two chapters on "Definitions."


10/28

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE. 245Thus Mo Tse's position in ethics was essentially that ofutilitarianism. He was also a pragmatist and an empiri-cist. He said:"Forargument here must be a standard. If we arguewithout a stand-ard, it is just like fixingmorningand night on a moving circle:we cannotknowclearlywhether t is rightorwrong,useful or harmful. Fortestingan argument here are three standards.What are these three standards?Theyare:to traceit, to examinet, andto use it. Wheretrace t? Traceit in the authority of the ancient philosopherkings. Whereexamine t?Examine t in the facts whichthe commonpeople see and hear. Whereuse it? Put it into practiceandsee whether t is usefulforthe benefitofthe country and the people. These are the three standardsfor argu-ment." 21Among these three standards, the third seems to be themost important. So Mo Tse taught the doctrine of uni-versal love, because it seemed to him to be the most "use-ful for the benefit of the country and the people." To lethim speak for himself, I select from the chapters entitled"Universal Love":

"The businessofthe benevolentman must be to striveto promotewhatis advantageouso the worldand to take awaywhat is injuriouso it. Atthepresent ime, what are to beaccounted he most injurious hings to theworld? They aresuch as the attackingof small states by the greatones;the inroadon small familiesby the great ones;the plunderof the weak bythe strong; the oppressionof the few by the many. . . . Let us askwhenceall these injurious hingsarise. Is it from oving othersoradvan-taging others?It must bereplied No'; and it must likewisebe said' Theyarise clearlyfrom hating othersand doingviolenceto others.' Do thosewhohate and do violenceto othershold the principleof lovingall, orthatof makingdistinctionsbetweenmanandman? It mustbe replied, Theymake distinctions.' So then it is the principleof making distinctionsbetweenmanandman,whichgivesrise to all that is mostinjurious o theworld. On this accountwe conclude hat that principle s wrong. .There s a principleof loving all which s ableto change hat whichmakesdistinctions. . . . If the princes were as much for the state ofothers as for their own, which one among them would raise the forcesofhis state to attack that of another? He is for that as much as for hisown. . . 'So thenit is the principleof universal,mutual ove, whichgivesrise to all that is most beneficial o the world. On this account we

21 From hefirstof thethreechapters n the"Absurdity f Predestination."


11/28

246 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.conclude hat that principle s right. . . . Othersmay say, 'It is good,but it is extremelyhard to be carried nto practice.' But how can it begood, andyet incapableof being put intopractice? . . . I apprehendthere is no one underheaven, man or woman,howeverstupid,though hecondemn he principleof universal ove, but would at such a time (themost dangerous ime), make one who held it the subject of his trust.I apprehendhere is no one underheaven, howeverstupid, manorwoman,though he condemn he principleof universal ove, but wouldat such a time (the most dangerous ime), prefer to be underthe sov-ereignwho holds it.".22This shows that the doctrineof universal love is not onlyadvantageous to others, but to those as well who act ac-cordingto this principle. In the book that bears Mo Tse'sname three chapters are devoted to describingthe disad-vantages ofwar. War is not only injurious o the conquered,but to the conqueroras well. Even occasionallysome ofthe states may make profit at the expense of others, itstill cannot be justified. He comparedthis to medicine.There is medicine;if ten thousand people use it and onlyfour or five are benefited, it is surely not a good medicine.Mo Tse stood for the greatest happiness of the greatestnumber.He also, unlike the Taoist, knew the imperfection ofhuman nature. Mankind is too shortsighted to see itsown interests. Men cannotbe convincedthat loving othersis advantageous to themselves and selfishnesscan do onlyharm. So, Mo Tse, again unlike the Taoist, saw the needof authorities to regulate human action. He taught thatthere is a personalGod. Men should love each other, notonly because so doing is advantageous,but also because itis the will of God. Even belief in the existence of spiritsand ghosts as the invisible watchers over men's conduct isupheld as a valuableaid in maintainingmorality.The function and authority of the state are likewiseemphasizedby Mo Tse as aids to a right life:

22 Up to the present time there is no English translation of the book bearingMo Tse's name. But these three chapters on universal love were translatedby James Legge in the introductionto the workof Mencius. See the ChineseClassics, Vol. II, pp. 108-111.


12/28

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE. 247"In ancient imes, whenmankind ust began to enterthe worldand hadno political association,every one had his own righteousness. If therewas one man, there was one righteousness;f two, two righteousnesses;ften, ten righteousnesses;he moremen,the morerighteousnesses. Everyone consideredhis own righteousnessas right and others' as wrong.Therefore,peoplewereagainst each other. . . . The world was indisorderand people were like birds and beasts. They knew that thereasonthat the worldwas in disorderwas that there was no right leader;therefore, hey elected a wise and ableman to be their emperor.Then the emperorordered he people,saying: 'If you hear what is goodand what is not good, tell all of them to your superior. What your

superiorconsidersas right, all of you must consideras right; what yoursuperiorconsidersas wrong, all of you must consideras wrong."' 23This is altogetherdifferentfrom the Taoistic conception ofthe state. Besides this, Mo Tse also emphasised the im-portanceof education. In the book that bears his name,one chapter is entitled: "What is Dyed," in which onepassagereads:

"Master Mo Tse saw one dyeingsilk. He sighedand said: 'Dyed inblue,thesilkbecomesblue; dyedin yellow,the silkbecomesyellow. Whatit enters changes; it changesits color accordingly. By entering fivetimes,it is turned into five colors. Thereforet is necessary o take careof the dyeing."' 4Followingthis he cited a long list of facts to showhow somemen becamegood by associatingwith good men, and othersbad by associatingwith bad men. Humannatureseemstohim to be a tabularasa and its color depends entirely onhow one dyes it. This again is very different from theTaoistic conceptionof human nature.In contrast with Taoism Mo Tse deniedpredestination.Rewardand punishmenteither by God or by the state arethe results of men's voluntary action. If the will is notfree, men will not be responsible,for their bad doing,andwill not be encouraged o do good. They will think, asMo Tse said:

"He whois punisheds predestinedo be punishedbut not becausehe isbad. He who is rewarded s predestinedo be rewardedbut not because23 From he firstof the threechapters n "ThePreferencef Uniformity."24From the chapter n "What s Dyed."


13/28

248 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.he is good. Thereforef they becomeprinces, hey will not be righteous;if they becomeministers, hey will not be loyal. . . . Ad5

Thus Mo Tse worked out many devices for makingpeople good. His ideal is to have the greatest number ofpopulation, with the necessary external goods, living to-gether peacefullyand loving each other. Mo Tse said:"When a philosophergovernsa country,the wealth of that countrycanbe doubled;whenhe governs he world, he wealth of the worldcan bedoubled. It is doublednot at the expenseof others, but by utilizing the

countryandby cuttingoff uselessexpenditures. . . . What is it thatis not easy to be doubled? It is the populationonly that is not easy to bedoubled. But there s a wayto double t. The ancientphilosopher ingshad a lawsaying: Whenthe boyis twentyyearsold,he must havea home;when the girl is fifteen years old, she must have her man. . . . 26This is Mo Tse's ideal of progress. Progress is possiblenot by struggleand competition,but by universal love andmutualhelp. To this I must add that the ideal of Mo Tseis not a Platonic one. Mo Tse was too realistic to becontent to put his pattern in heaven. He was ready tofight against anythingthat seemed to him to be incompati-ble with the increaseof wealth and population. He taughteconomyof expenditurebecause,as he said:

"Philosopherkingsdo not do those thingswhich increasethe expendi-ture but not the profitof the people." 7He was also against music and fine art, because they havenothing to do with the fact that:

"Peoplehave threetroubles: hose who arehungrybut have no food;thosewhoarecold buthave no clothes;andthose who are tiredbut cannotrest." 28He was also against the Confucianistteaching of the lux-uriousway of buryingthe deadand the threeyears'mourn-ing on occasion of the death of parents. Because peopleought not spendtheirtime, energy,and wealth in this way;in doing so,

25 Fromthe first of the threechapterson "The Absurdity of Predestination."26 From the first of the three chapterson "The Economy of Expenditure."27 Ibid., second chapter.28 From the chapteron "Against Music."


14/28

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE. 249"The countrymust become poor; the populationmust becomesmall;and politicsmust becomecorrupted."9

These steps probably represent the decisive attitude ofMoism to oppose nature. Indeed if one sees things whollyfrom the point of view of intellect, music and fine art arereally of no use at all. If we know that death is a naturalprocess, what is the use of mourning? Suen Tse said:"Mo Tse was blindedby utility, anddid not knowrefinement."0

This criticism is quite justified.Anyway, Mo Tse was certainly a philosopher who taughtmen to find happiness in the external world. He did notthink, as the Taoists did, that men are most happy in thestate of nature, and. that what men need and should do isto return to nature, instead of turning away from it. Heknew, in contrast with Taoists, that men in nature are im-perfect, foolish, and weak; that, in order to be perfect,strong, and wise, they need the help of the state, of virtue,and of a personified God. So in his philosophy there was astrong sense of progress and of the future. In the bookbearing his name one passage reads:

"Pung ChingShinTse said:'The pastcanbeknown,but notthefuture.Mo Tse said: 'Supposethat your parents are at a placeone hundred ifromhere, and meet some trouble: hey ask you to go to them withinoneday;if you can doso, they will be alive;if not they will die. Nowthereisa good car with a good horse,and a bad horsewith a car with squarewheels. I ask you to choosebetweenthem. Whichone will you take?''I take the good carwith the goodhorsein orderthat I may be able toarriveearlier'wasthe answer. MoTse said: 'Then why do you say thatyou cannot knowthe future?' 31This is indeed a good illustration of utilizing the past tocontrol the future. The spirit is scientific. In the bookbearing Mo Tse's name there were several chapters de-voted to what we now call logic or definitions. They

29From the chapter on "The Economy of Burying."0From the chapter on "The Elimination of Blindness" in the work ofSuen Tse.31From the chapter "Lu Wen."


15/28

250 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.must be the product of Mo Tse's followers, if not of themasterhimself. They contain many definitionswhich aresometimesinterestingand scientific. For instance:"Space is that that covers differentplaces. Duration is that thatcoversdifferent imes. Causeis that aftergettingwhich a thing can be.Circle s that one middlehasthe same length to all sides. Energy s thatby whicha form arises." 2There are many others like these, which seem to be germsof science. Indeed Mo Tse was famous also for makingmachinesto defendthe city-wall, to whichseveralchaptersin the book bearinghis name are devoted.This is all I wish to say to support my statement thatMoism stood for art as over against nature. Now let usturn to the third system, Confucianism.

IVConfucianism,as I saidbefore,is a mean betweenthe twoextreme standpoints of nature and art. But at the timeimmediately after Confucius, there were two types ofConfucianism. The one, representedby Mencius, stoodnearerto the extremeof nature; the other, representedbySuen Tse, stood nearer to that of art. The teaching ofConfuciushimselfwas nearerto the extremeof nature. So

afterwardsMenciuswas and is consideredas the true andlegal heir of Confucianism. Here I follow tradition inchoosing Confuciusand Mencius to represent Confucian-ism, but shall discuss Suen Tse in another place and shallconsiderhim as anotherphilosopher n Chinesehistorywhoattempted to develop the art line of Chinese thought.Confucius,as Menciussaid, was a "sage of time."

"Whenit wasproper o go away quickly,he didso; when it wasproperto delay,he didso;whenit wasproper o keepretirement,hedidso;whenit was proper o go into office,he didso:-this was Confucius." 3So Confucius emphasized discrimination of situations. Itis not a first question whether I should love a person in

32 All are selectedfromthe firstof the two chapterson "Definitions."33 James Legge: ChineseClassics,Vol. II, p. 371.


16/28

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE. 251such and such a way or not; the first question is who thatpersonis. Menciussaid:"In regard o the inferiorcreatures, he superiormanis kind to them,but not loving. In regard o peoplegenerally,he is friendly o them, butnot affectionate. He is affectionate o hisrelatives,andfriendly o peoplegenerally. He is friendly o peoplegenerally,andkindto creatures."4He said again in anotherplace:

"Here is a man, and a strangerbends his bow to shoot him. I willadvise him not to do so, but speakingcalmlyandsmilingly,for no otherreasonbut that he is not related o me. But if my brotherbe bendinghisbow to shoot the man, I will advisehimnot to do so, weepingandcryingthe while, forno otherreasonbut that he is relatedto me."35Thus was developedthe doctrineof loving with a differenceof degree,as over against that of universallove on the onehand and that of each for himselfon the other. We oughtto love with differenceof degree,because t is humannature.Thus one passagein the work of Menciusreads:

"E Tse said:'Accordingo the principleof the learned,we findthat theancientsactedtowards he peopleas if they werewatchingover an infant.What does this expressionmean? To me it seemsthat we areto love allwithout differenceof degree;but in practicewe beginwith ourparents.'Seu Tse reportedthis to Mencius. Menciussaid: 'Does E Tse reallythink that a man'saffection or the child of his brother s merely ike hisaffection for that of his neighbor? . . . Heaven gives birth to crea-tures in such a way that they have one root, and E Tse makesthem tohave two roots."3nHumannature, accordingto the teachingof Confucianism,is essentially good. This seems to have been a traditioneven before the time of Confucius. Becausehumannatureis originally good, so the sanction of virtue is its beingadmirableand desirable. Thus Mencius said:

"Men's mouths agreein havingthe same relishes;their ears agreeinenjoying he samesound;theireyesagree n recognizinghe samebeauty;shalltheir minds alone be withoutthat whichthey similarlyapprove? Itis, I say, reason and righteousness. The sages only apprehended efore34James Legge: ChineseClassics,Vol. II, p. 476.35 Ibid., p. 427.3a bid., pp. 258-259.

Vol. XXXII-No. 3. 2


17/28

252 INTERNATIONALJOURNALOF ETHICS.us what ourmind alsoapproves. Therefore easonandrighteousness reagreeableo ourmind, just as goodfood is agreeable o ourmouth."In anotherplace he said:

"Whatis desirables whatis calledgood."38But, althoughhumannature is originallygood, it is not tobe inferredthat men are born perfect. They cannot beperfect until their innate reason is completely developed,and their lower desires are wholly taken away. ThusMenciussaid:"The feeling of commiserations the beginningof benevolence;thefeelingof shameand dislikeis the beginningof righteousness;he feelingof modestyand complaisances the beginningof propriety; he feelingofapprovingand disapprovings the beginningof wisdom. . . . Sinceall menhavethese fourfeelings n themselves, et them knowhow to givethem their developmentand their completion,and the issuewillbe likethat offirewhichhasbegun o burn,orthat of a springwhichhasbegun ofind vent. If they have their completedevelopment, hey will sufficetolove andto protectall within the fourseas. If they bedenied heirdevel-opment,they willnot suffice or a man to servehis parents." 9And to develop reason on the one hand is to diminishthelower desires on the other:

"To nourish he mind thereis nothingbetter than to makethe desiresfew." 40So in order to develop men's natural faculties, they needsome positive organization. The simple Taoistic way ofreturning to nature is not sufficienthere. Therefore thestate is indispensable:

"In the Book of History t is said: 'Heaven havingproducedhe peoplein the lowerearth, appointed or them rulersand teachers."'41But teachers and rulers are not to be separated. Most ofthe Chinesepoliticalideals are the same as Plato's. Kingmust be philosopher;philosophermust be king. This is

37 James Legge: ChineseClassics,Vol. II, pp. 406-407.38 Ibid., p. 490.39Ibid., pp. 203-204.40 Ibid. p. 497.4' Ibid., p. 156.


18/28

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE. 253especially emphasizedin the Confucianist's conception ofthe state. The chief duty of the state is first to maintain acertainamountof wealth to enable peopleto live, and thento teach them. Thus one passage in the Confucian Ana-lects reads:

"Whenthe Master went to the state of Wei, Yen Yew acted as thedriver of his carriage. The Master observed:'How numerousare thepeople!' Yewsaid:'Sincethey are thusnumerous,what shall be done forthem?' 'Enrich them,' was the answer. 'And when they have beenenriched,what moreshallbe done?' The Mastersaid: 'Teach them."' 42Moreoverin a state, teaching is more important than en-riching. In the ConfucianAnalectsanother passage reads:

"The Duke King of Tse asked Confuciusabout government. Con-fuciusreplied: The prince s prince,the minister s minister,the father isfather,andthe sonis son.' 'Good,'saidthe duke, 'If, indeed,the princebenot prince, he ministernot minister, he fathernot father,andthe son notson, although here is food, can we enjoyit?"' 3As for the individual, external things are determined bydestiny. Therefore n'the ConfucianAnalects we read:

"Death andlife have theirdeterminedappointment; ichesandhonorsdependon Heaven."44And Mencius said:

"Whenwe get by our seekingand lose by ourneglecting; n this caseseeking s of use to getting,and thething soughtforis somethingwhich sin ourselves. Whenour seeking s conductedproperly,but the gettingisonlyas destinydetermines,n this caseourseeking s of no use to getting,andthe thing soughtfor is that which is withoutus."45Therefore,what manshould do is to seek what is in himself.The fact that he is not able to controlwhat is outside himdoes not make him imperfect;he is given by Heaven thegodly reason within him, in whichhe can find truth and behappy. So Mencius:

"He who has exhaustedall his mind, knows his nature. Knowinghisnature, he knows Heaven. To preserveone's mind and nourishone's42JamesLegge: ChineseClassics,Vol. I, pp. 266-267.43Ibid., p. 256.44Ibid., p. 253.46 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 450.


19/28

254 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.nature, s the wayto serve Heaven. Whenneithera prematuredeathnora long life makes any difference,but he waits in the cultivationof hischaracter or whatever comes; his is the way in which he establisheshisHeaven-ordainedeing."6In another place he said:

"All thingsarealready n us. Turn our attention to ourselvesand findthere this truth;there is no greaterdelightthan that."47In this point Confucianismis much nearer Taoism thanMoism. Happiness and truth are in our mind. It is inour own mind, not in the external world, that we can seekfor happinessand truth. We are self-sufficient, f only wedevelop our innate power. To learn is to cultivate ourcharacter accordingto our rational nature, not to makeintellectual exercise or simply to remembermechanicallywhat the books said.We have now completedour generalsurvey of the threeoriginaltypes of Chineseideals. We have seen that in thetheory of existence, the power that governs the universe,to Taoismis the omnipotentTao or Nature, to Moism is apersonified God, and to Confucianismis the HeavenlyReason. In the theory of the state, Taoism needed a"laissez faire" government, f any; Moismneeded the stateto regulatethe different ndividualopinions,andConfucian-ism needed it to develop men's moral faculties. In thetheory of life, Taoismsaid that human nature is perfect initself and that every one should only live in accordancewith one's own nature; Moism said that human nature isnot perfect in itself, and that one should love all equally inorder to make possible the prosperityof all; Confucianismsaid that although humannatureis good, one needs effortsto "'develop,"o "'nourish," ndto "complete" it, and thatalthough one should love others, the differenceof naturalrelation shouldbe considered. In the theory of education,Taoismtaught a returnto nature,Moismtaught controlofthe environment, and Confucianismtaught the way of

46 JamesLegge:ChineseClassics,Vol. I, pp. 448-449, with some modification.4 Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 450-451.


20/28

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE. 255self-realization. These seem to me to have justified mystatement that in the history of Chinese thought Taoismstood for nature, Moism for art and Confucianism or themean. We have seen that they struggledbitterly for ex-istence. The result of that great war was the completefailureof poor Moism, whichsoon disappearedonce for all.The causesof the failure of Moism were unknown; but, Ithink, thechiefcausemust have been the defectof the systemitself. To illustratethis I cite from ChuangTse a passage:

"Mo Tse composedthe treatise 'Against Music' and the subjectofanotherwascalled'Economy n Expenditure.' He wouldhave no singingin life, and no wearingof mourningon the occasion of death. He in-culcateduniversal ove anda commonparticipationn all advantages,andcondemned fighting. . . . The teaching of such lessons cannot beregarded s a proofof hislove formen; his practicinghemin his own casewouldcertainly howthat he did not love himself. But this has not beensufficient o overthrow he doctrine of Mo Tse. Notwithstanding,menwillsing,and hecondemnsinging;menwillwail,andhe condemnswailing;men will expresstheir joy, and he condemnssuch expression. Is thistruly accordingo men'snature? Throughifetoil, and at deathniggard-liness; causingmen sorrowandmelancholyanddifficult o be carried ntopractice, fear t cannotberegarded s the wayofsages. Contrary o theminds of men, menwillnot endure t. ThoughMo Tse himselfmightbeable oendure t, howis the aversionof the world o it to be overcome?"48Truly the aversion of the world to Moism had not beenovercome, and people turned their back from it after thedisappearanceof the enthusiastic, great personalityof MoTse himself.But, as already noted, there was another man at thattime, who, althoughdifferent romMo Tse, tried to developthe art line of Chinese deal. He was SuenTse (269B. C.?-239 B. C.?), who consideredhimself as the true successorofConfucianism. He taught that humannatureis absolutelybad andthat to makeit goodis the dutyof rulerandteacher.He condemnedChuangTse as:

"One who was blindedby nature and did not know human."4948 From the chapter "The World." James Legge: Texts of Taoism, Pt. II,pp. 218-219.49 From the chapteron "The Elimination of Blindness" in the work of Suen

Tse.


21/28

256 INTERNATIONALJOURNALOF ETHICS.Accordingto his own ideal, he would conquer natureinstead of returningto it:"It is betterto treat natureas a thing and regulate t than to considerit very greatand alwaysthinkof it. It is betterto controlnatureand useit than to followand admire t." 50

This is nearly the same as the Baconian conception ofpower. But, unfortunately, his pupils did not develophis thoughtalong this line. They carriedout theirmaster'spolitical philosophy and carried it too far. In the thirdcentury B. C. Shi Hwang Ti, or the "First UniversalEm-peror,"of the Chin Dynasty, unifiedagain warringstatesinto one, and Li Si, the disciple of Suen Tse, became thePremier. He helped the emperor n every respectto unifythe empireand carriedthe authority of the governmenttoan extreme. Having abolished the existing feudalismandthus absolutely unified the empire politically, he took astep farther to unify the people's thought. He burnedbooks, killed scholars,and orderedthe people to come tothe state or governmentprofessorsto learn things. Thusthe emperor became an extreme tyrant and the peoplerebelled. Suen Tse's teaching, together with the ChinDynasty, disappeared oon and forever.VAfter the Chin Dynasty the "art" motive of Chinesethought almost never reappeared. Soon came Buddhism,which again is a "nature" philosophyof the extreme type.The Chinese mind oscillatedamongTaoism, Confucianism,and Buddhismfor a long time. It was not until the tenthcenturyA. D. that a new groupof men of geniussucceededin combining these three, Taoism, Confucianism, andBuddhism, into one, and instilling the new teaching intothe Chinese national mind, which has persisted to thepresentday.Because this new teaching started in the Sung Dynasty,it is known as the "Learningof Sung." These philosophers

50From the chapter on "On Nature" in the work of Suen Tse.


22/28

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE. 257themselves claimed that their teaching was the genuineConfucianism. But it must be a new Confucianism,f it isConfucianismat all. Most of its representativeswere atfirst believers in Taoism and Buddhism, and afterwardscame back to Confucianism. Then they picked from the"Li Ki" as their textbooks two chapters, to which fewscholars had paid any attention before that time. Trulyit was their merit to call attention to these two chapters,"The Great Learning" and "The Doctrine of Mean andCommon,"whichembodiedConfucianismn a very system-atic way. I cannot refrainfrom citing from the "GreatLearning"certain passages, which were regardedtill veryrecent time by the Chinese people as the sole aim of life.The passagesare:

"The doctrineof the Great Learning s: to enlightenthe enlightenedvirtue,to makepeople ove each other, and to stop at the supremegood.. . . The ancientswhowish to enlighten he enlightenedvirtuein theworld first orderedwelltheirown states. Wishing o orderwelltheirownstates, they first regulatedtheirown families. Wishing o regulate heirownfamilies,hey firstcultivated heir owncharacter.Wishing o cultivatetheir own characters, hey first rectified heirminds. Wishing o rectifytheir minds,they firstsoughtto be sincere n theirwishes. Wishing o besincere n theirwishes,they first extended heirwisdom. Suchextensionof wisdom ay in the investigationof things." 1This in a few words gave an admirable exposition of theConfucianist aim and art of life. The philosophers ofNeo-Confucianism picked out these passages and uncon-sciously read Taoism and Buddhism into them. Theydifferedfrom the originalConfucianismn that they set upwhat they called the "'heavenlyreason" as over against'human desire," conceptionswhich were really suggestedby the ideas of "Norm" and "Ignorance" in Buddhism,and were never spoken of very much before this period.Accordingto the genuine Confucianism,as we have seen,althoughhuman nature is good,the goodis only a germora"beginning,"to use the term of Mencius,and much effortis needed to "nourish,"to "develop," and to "complete"

61 James Legge: ChineseClassics,Vol. I, pp. 356-358, with modification.


23/28

258 INTERNATIONAL OURNALOF ETHICS.it. Now according to Neo-Confucianism, the heavenlyreason,though covered by human desires, is as perfect asever, and men need only to remove these desires,and thetrue mind, like a diamond, will shine itself. This is verylike what Lao Tse called "to diminish." Yet Neo-Con-fucianism differedfrom Taoism and Buddhism radicallyand attacked them seriously. It held that in order to"diminish" human desire and to recover the heavenlyreason, t is not necessary oroneto be in a state of completenegation of life. What is necessaryis to live accordingtoreason, and it is only in life that the reason can be fullyrealized.Now these philosophers set out to investigate the"things," of the above quotation, and faced immediatelythe question: What are these things? This gave rise totwo types of Neo-Confucianism. The one said that the"things" are all external things and affairs. It is impos-sible to investigate all of them at once, and no one carriedthis interpretation into practice, not even the interpreter,Chu He, himself. The other said that "things" refer tophenomena in our mind. This interpretation was moresuccessfully carried out. There were many subtle andconvincing arguments from both sides, and all of themmadesomegreatcontributions o the theory and what maybe called the art of life.This period of the history of Chinese philosophy wasalmost perfectlyanalogousto that of the developmentofmodernsciencein Europeanhistory, in that its productionsbecamemore andmoretechnical,and had an empiricalbasisand an applied side. The only, but important, differencewas that in Europethe techniquedevelopedwas for know-ing and controllingmatter, while in China that developedwas for knowing and controlling mind. To the lattertechnique India has also made a great contribution. Butwhile the Indian technique can be practiced only in thenegation of life, the Chinese technique can be practicedonly within life. Arts differaccordingto the differenceofideals.


24/28

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE. 259But these controversies are not important for the presentpurpose. What concerns us here is the ideals that direct

the Chinese mind, not the methods of realizing them. Wemay, therefore, say that so far as the ideal or aim is con-cerned all types of Neo-Confucianism are the same: theideal is to diminish the human desire in order to recover theheavenly reason, and that is all.VI

Such is the Chinese idea of good. In the history of man-kind Mediaval Europe under Christianity tried to find goodand happiness in Heaven, while Greece tried, and ModernEurope is trying to find them on earth. St. Augustinewished to realize his "City of God," Francis Bacon his"Kingdom of Man." But China, ever since the disap-pearance of the "nature" line of her national thought, hasdevoted all her spiritual energy to another line, that is, tofind good and happiness directly in the human mind. Inother words, Mediaeval Europe under Christianity tried toknow God and prayed for His help; Greece tried, andModern Europe is trying to know nature and to conquer,to control it; but China tried to know what is within our-selves, and to find there perpetual peace.

What is the use of science? The two fathers of modernEuropean philosophy gave two answers. Descartes saidthat it is for certainty; Bacon said that it is for power.Let us first follow Descartes and consider science as forcertainty. We see at once that if one is dealing with one'sown mind, there is at first no need of certainty. Bergsonsays in Mind Energy that Europe discovered the scientificmethod, because modern European science started frommatter. It is from the science of matter that Europe getsthe habit of precision, of exactness, of the anxiety for proof,and of distinguishing between what is simply possible andwhat is certain.

"Thereforecience,had it been applied n the first nstanceto the thingsof mind, wouldhave probablyremaineduncertain and vague, however


25/28

260 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.far it may have advanced; t would, perhaps,never have distinguishedbetweenwhatis simplyplausibleand whatmustbe definitelyaccepted." 2So Chinahas not discoveredthe scientificmethod, becauseChinese thought started from mind, and from one's ownmind. Is it necessaryfor me when I am hungryto proveto myself with roundabout,abstract,scientific methodthatI am desiringfood?Besides, Chinese philosophersconsideredphilosophy assomethingmost serious. It is not for intellectualinforma-tion, it is for doing. Chu He, the philosopher of Neo-Confucianism,said that the sages would not tell whatvirtue was like; they simply asked you to practice it; asthey would not tell how sugar was sweet, they simplyaskedyou to taste it. In this sense we may say that Chi-nese philosophersoved the certaintyof perception,not thatof conception,and therefore,they would not, and did nottranslatetheir concretevision into the formof science. Inone word China has no science, becauseof all philosophiesthe Chinese philosophy is the most human and the mostpractical. While the philosophersof the West are proudoftheir clear thinking and scientificknowledge, the Chinesephilosopherwould say with MarcusAurelius:

"Thanks,too, that in spite of my ardour orphilosophy, did not fallinto the hands of a professor,or sit poring over essays or syllogisms,orbecomeengrossedn scientific peculations."3. . . "Nothing is more disheartening han the weary round ofspyinganything,probing as Pindarsays) 'the depthof the earth,'guess-ing and pryingat the secrets of our neighbors' ouls, insteadof realisingthat it is enough o keep solelyto the god within,and to serve himwithallhonesty. . . ." 54

But, although in comparison with the West China isshort of clear thinking, in compensation she has morerational happiness. Bertrand Russell said in the Nation62H. Bergson: Mind Energy;Translatedby H. W. Carr; New York, 1920,p. 102.53Marcus Aurelius Antoninus: To Himself; translated by G. H. Rendall;London, 1910. I, 17, p. 9.5 Ibid., II, 13, p. 15.


26/28

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE. 261(London) that the Chinese people seem to be rationalhedonists, differingfrom Europeansthroughthe fact thatthey preferenjoymentto power.55 It is becauseof the factthat the Chinese ideal prefers enjoyment to power thatChinahas no need of science,even though science, accord-ing to Bacon, is for power. The Chinesephilosophers,asI said just now, had no need of scientificcertainty,becauseit was themselvesthat they wishedto know; so in the sameway they had no need of the power of science, because twas themselvesthat they wishedto conquer. To them thecontent of wisdom is not intellectual knowledge and itsfunction is not to increase external goods. To Taoism,external goods seem to be something that can only bringconfusion to man's mind. To Confucianism,while theyare not so bad as Taoism supposes,they are by no meansthe essentials of human welfare. Then what is the use ofscience?It seems to me that if the Chinesepeople had followedMo Tse identifyinggood with useful, or Suen Tse so as totry to controlnatureinstead of admiring t, it is very likelythat China would have produced science at a somewhatearly time. Of course this is only a speculation. Butthis speculationis justifiedby the fact that in the books ofMo Tse and Suen Tse we do find the germs of science.Unfortunately or fortunately this "art" line of Chinesethought was conqueredby its opponents. What is the useof science, if intellectual certainty and the power to con-quer the external world are not included in the idea ofgood?One questionmay be raised: Why could Europeturn itsattention from heaven to earth,whereasChinaat the sametime could not turn from the internalto the external? Tothis I answer: No matter whether the people of Europetried 'to find good and happiness in heaven or in earth,their philosophiesall belong to what I called the line of"art." Before the establishmentof Christianity,Stoicism,

5LVol. XVIII (1921), p. 505.


27/28

262 INTERNATIONALJOURNALOF ETHICS.which seems to me to be the "nature" line of Europeanthought, taught man to serve his god within. But thencame Christianity, which taught man to serve his Godwithout. Man was no longer a self-sufficientbeing, but asinner. Accordingly he European mind occupied itself inproving the existence of God. Philosophers proved itwith the Aristotelian logic and by the study of naturalphenomena. Philosophy and science, according to mostphilosophers of scholasticism, even Roger Bacon, wereneeded to explain the contents of the Scripture. ModernEurope has continued this spirit of knowing and provingthe outside,only changing God for "Nature," creation formechanism-that is all. There is a continuation of his-tory, but no clear demarcation between medieval andmodern,Europe. Both try to know the outside world.They firsttry to knowit, and after getting acquaintedwithit, they try to conquer it. So they are bound to havescienceboth for certaintyand for power. They areboundto havescience, becausethey all supposethat human natureis imperfectin itself. Men are weak, foolish, and helpless.In order o be perfect, strong,andwise, they need somethingthat is to be added artificially. They need knowledgeandpower. They need society, state, law, andvirtue. Besidesthey need the help of a personifiedGod. But how aboutwhat I calledthe "nature" line of thought? If everythinggood is alreadyin us for all eternity, what use to searchforhappiness in the external world? Will that not be likewhat the Buddhist said about a beggaraskingfor foodwitha goldenbowl? What is the use of scientificcertaintyandpower?

To speak of things in abstract and generalterms is al-ways dangerous. But here I cannot refrain from sayingthat the West is extension, the East is intension; and thatthe West emphasizeswhat we have, the East emphasizeswhat we are. The question as to how to reconcilethesetwo so that humanity may be happy both in body and inmind is at present difficultto answer. Anyway, the Chi-nese conceptionof life may be mistaken, but the Chinese


28/28

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE. 263experiencecannotbe a failure. If mankindshallafterwardsbecome wiser and wiser, and think that they need peaceand happiness in their mind, they may turn their attentionto, and gain something from, the Chinese wisdom. If theyshall not think so, the mind energy of the Chinese people offour thousand years will yet not have been spent in vain.The failure itself may warn our children to stop searchingfor somethingin the barrenland of human mind. This isone of China'scontributionsto mankind.

YU-LAN FUNG.COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

why china has no science-fungyulan

Documents