人文精神和中国文化

吉耶斯【法国】

法国国立集美亚洲艺术博物馆（巴黎）前馆长/法国文化部前文化事务总监

人文精神包含了博大精深的中华思想，又汲取了西方哲学的精华，翻译成中文有两个汉字组成，即“人文”（ren wen）。人指人性，文则代表文化。在这一固有的语言表达形式背后，体现的是一个具有学术意义的术语，指中国的文化史中最重要的是文化的伦理价值。

对于一个西方人来说，原始术语的这种关联性即使是极度相关的，也并不一定就能意识到。这就需要对这一术语所涉及的概念进行解释，尤其是“文化”与“人文主义”之间的哲学关系。因为这些概念是中华文化的基础，展示了她几千年的历史。这就是我希望讨论的文化的核心。

一

我想谈谈中西方之间文化的差异。“人文主义”一词的现代翻译恰好再现了西方思维中所涉及的文化伦理差异。西方的“人文主义”一词有两层含义：一是指在哲学领域，这是一个将对人类问题的思考放在首位的思想体系；二是指在历史研究领域，其源于意大利文艺复兴时期的文化运动——古希腊和古罗马思想的复兴。

但是，可以说，文化和哲学这两个含义存在于中国人对“仁慈”一词的思考中，这是对古典文化“古人之道”的一种类似的回归，这在人文主义的道德价值上是明晰的。

我突然发现，这里的“人文主义”与西方的Humanism的对等性让人震惊，或者说把Humanism翻译成“人文主义”再恰当不过了。对比古代文化研究，所谓“古道”，显然是包括人文精神的道德价值的。或者在这种情况下，它只是一种现代的表达方式，以专门区别于众所周知的含义。

尽管如此，为了明确主题，这里最好把这种从西方借用的人文主义的现代翻译放在括号里，因为这是中西方两种文化的转换，非常明显的是中国和欧洲各自的发展最终以不同的语言表达了这些重要的人类真理。在这方面回顾中国古典语言所表达的意义就会发现，这些字符所表达的含义都是完全独立的，与目前现代翻译中的情况相反，很少出现能与西方话语完全匹配的表达。

这就是孔子（公元前6世纪）强调文化（指斯文）和仁慈以及人性的美德，这种至高无上的理想之间联系的重要性。不仅把美德放在第一位，而且它也是文化的同义词。《论语》里有话为证，当然，这也需要进一步评论。

孔子在匡地被包围，他说，“文王既没，文不在兹乎。天之将丧斯文也，后死者不得与于斯文也；天之未丧斯文也，匡人其如予何！”（《论语》）

在本文中，我们将重点讨论“天之未丧斯文也，匡人其如予何！”

二

本文将论证为了尊重别人的“自我剥夺”（dispossession of Self）是以诚信为本的：这包括孔子所谓的人性美德、仁德。孔子在《论语》 中很清楚地说明了中华古典思想的基本概念：

“夫仁者，己欲立而立人，己欲达而达人。能近取譬，可谓仁之方也已。”

因此，这种对以自我为中心的“自我剥夺”就是走向崇高理想和道德完整的道路：人性（仁）的美德。为了达到这样的要求，孔子曾毫不犹豫地说：

“志士仁人，无求生以害仁，有杀身以成仁。”（《论语》）

为了避免给人以中国的传统思想只有孔子和他的弟子传授的思想学派的印象，在本文中我们也将介绍孔子同一时代的另一代表思想学派——道家学派。这一学派始于老子和庄子 （以及他们的作品），在中国传统文化中同样具有权威性。

与孔子的儒家学派截然相反，人们通常认为人性的原则（仁德）尽管从来没有在这里表达过——或者是故意避开了——因为它与文化不可分割地联系在一起，隐含在庄子的思想里。这就是我们想在此说明的。

因此按照真实性和返朴归真的想法，也就是我们最初是什么的观点，我们首先需要讨论庄子所言的“真”——本性、本原——哲学的直觉。

在庄子看来，自然真实性（真）决定了智者（圣人）或真正之人（真人）的形象。圣人或真人是指能够理解事物的本质并与它和谐相处的人。

当一个人能完美和谐地与“他者”相处（与“以自我为中心的我”不同），这个“他者”，从内部的核心义来看，就是世界，或者说是“道”（dao）。

重要的是，除了强调自然与文化的对立——这一对立就能分别定义孔子的儒家思想和庄子的道家思想体系——他们有本质上的相通性：真。

很显然，这两种思想体系都基于“真实”或“真诚”，因此，在二者分别按照自己的学说向不同方向发展之前，“求真”是他们的重要共通之处。

三

因此本研究中“仁”和“真”的概念（人文精神与真实性）的基石原来是以“自我的剥夺”，即“己欲立而立人”（自己的脚要先站稳，才能够扶起摔倒的人）。作为通向这一最高理想的路径则是道德的完整性和自我的真实性。

在孔子看来，诚实守信是仁德的保证；在庄子看来，与“道”的完美和谐相处的方式是本真。

对“自我剥夺”的劝告在庄子的学说中达到极致，有他的观点作为佐证：

“形固可使如槁木，而心固可使如死灰乎？今之隐机者，非昔之隐机者也？”（《庄子·齐物论》）

按照我们的理解，自我通过对客观世界的感知到对客观现实的认识，就像木头和灰烬一样。这个自我客体就可据此称客体，即外部现实，“形固可使如槁木，而心固可使如死灰乎”。

如《庄子》所言，这一“自我客体”的减小暗示了完全的“自我剥夺”。这就是庄子客观描述的“自我剥夺”——似乎按照佛教“无我”的概念，这没有什么价值。的确如此么？

但我们不会只停留在对这种“自我剥夺”的印象（可借鉴让-保罗·萨特的《辩证理性批判》中的表达）。因为在中国的思想体系中，确切地说，在佛教引入中国之前，并没有这种“缺失”，自我否定。因此我们用这个中位的术语，以自我为中心的“自我剥夺”，来准确地翻译庄子之言。

要证明这一点，只能引用《庄子》中对“真”（真理、真诚）这个词的定义。即“真者，精诚之至也。不精不诚，不能动人。”《庄子·杂篇·渔父》

这就是“人本思想”的证明。“激发他人的情感和激情”；奉行孔子的教义：诚实、真诚；庄子将这些统统合成一个词组：精诚。

当然，这是从众生中的圣人智者的角度看，在精神上处于孤立，在现实中与他们距离却并不遥远。圣人的任务是以自身来示范。

要想深入分析《庄子》，就需要掌握“真”（精诚）的含义：

“真者，所以受于天也，自然不可易也。故圣人法天贵真，不拘于俗。”(《庄子杂篇·渔父》)

四

我们分别从以孔子和庄子为代表的中国两个传统思想体系中看到，人文思考最终走向了类似的人文关怀。庄子主张道法自然，即原始真实性，不受世俗的约束。“故圣人法天……不拘于俗。”

“客观化自我剥夺”（objectifying dispossession of Self）所刻画的“形容枯槁”就是精神练习，一种达到美妙本质的方法，即自然法则。在任何情况下（尽管从纯粹的修辞上与此相反，如庄子的格言）都不会忽略或撇开人文主义的反思。

关于这一点，我想提到《天道》（《庄子·外篇》）。这是关于尧舜间的对话中所强调的孔子和庄子的理想之间的深刻的理解：

“昔者舜问于尧曰：天王之用心何如？”尧曰：“吾不敖无告，不废穷民，苦死者，嘉孺子而哀妇人。此吾所以用心也。舜曰：美则美矣，而未大也。”

但应该注意的是，庄子的人文主义，与孔子传授的人文主义相比，更具有真理的主题形成了。虽然二者间的关系是紧密的，决定了总体上的相对性。因此，有人可能会想：没有庄子，哪儿来的孔子的示范价值？

事实上，这段对话里几乎每一个字都介绍了孔子关于人性美德的最高理想的实现：

子贡曰：“如有博施于民而能济众，何如？可谓仁乎？”子曰：“尧舜其犹病诸！”

并继续解释，“夫仁者，己欲立而立人。”

五

因为它显然出现在第一和主要概念的这个层次上，说明来源于上述两种思想之间的关系。

我可以看到中国传统思想的这种一致性以及超越哲学体系的多样性。更值得一提的是，一谈到人文价值观和文化，我就会谈及中国思维的独特性。正如我们刚刚看到的，这种思维支配着哲学体系的道德有效性，即使对那些声称完全摆脱哲学体系的人也是如此。因此，应该提到的是，那些总是被提到的、在文人圈子内传播的且人人都离不开的，是老子和庄子的教义。

人文与文化的契合，体现了中国传统文化的独特性。事实上，这一特点也延伸到与之密切相关的艺术创作领域。11世纪伟大的诗人苏轼（1037—1101）的诗句就是很好的证明。在他的诗中，提到了他同时代的文同（1018—1079）的画作。对我们来说，诗中表现出被剥夺的自我的积极含义。

我们把这首描写文同的画的诗放在这儿，因为它说明了这些理想的文化持久性。

苏轼评论这首诗里“客观化自我剥夺”，佛教以及庄子的思想是北宋学者关于当下的概念形成的来源。以下是这首诗的部分内容，它说明了这些理想的文化持久性。

与可画竹时，见竹不见人。

岂独不见人，嗒然遗其身。

其身与竹化，无穷出清新。

庄周世无有，谁知此凝神。

（苏轼：《书晁补之所藏与可画竹三首》）

Humanism and Chinese Culture

Jacques Gies/France

Former President-Director of the Musée Guimet - National Museum of Asian Art,Paris and Former General Inspector of Cultural Affairs,French Ministry of Culture.(Retired)

Introduced as such in the universe of Chinese thought,the term“humanism”,adopted following the meeting with Western philosophy,had to receive a modern translation by the pair of characters renwen人文：expression made from the prefixes of the two terms:renxing人性“humanity”and wenhua文化“Culture”.Behind the ready-made linguistic expression,arises a very scholarly composition of the term referring to the cultural history of China;namely，first and foremost,to the ethical values of Culture.

For a Westerner the expression of this correlation of the original term is not immediate,even though it turns out to be deeply relevant.It requires the explanation of the concepts in question,and particularly the philosophical relationship made here between“Culture”and“humanism”.For,these concepts are at the very foundations of the Chinese civilisation,determining its several-thousand-year history.It is this cultural singularity we wish to consider here.

Ⅰ

I'm just talking about the cultural distance between the West and China.It so happens that the modern translation into Chinese of the term humanism accurately reproduces the cultural and ethical nuances involved in the Western thinking.

The thing is quite remarkable to be mentioned.Thus,the double meaning given in the Western to the term“humanism”:on the one hand,in philosophy,a system of thought attaching prime importance to human matters;on the other hand,in historical studies,a Renaissance cultural movement in Italy(14th-16thcenturies),which revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought and antique Art.

However,one could say that these two meanings,cultural and philosophical,exist in the Chinese thinking about the term“humanity”(ren ci 仁慈),that is a comparable return to the antique Culture,“the Way of the Ancients”,is plainly inclusive in the moral value of humanism.

Let it be said at once that the parallelisms are striking.Can we talk about a genius of the Chinese translation? Or,as is the case,it is but a modern expression,precisely unique in its use,to distinguish it from a well-known thing,in other respects.

Nonetheless,for the clarity of the subject,it is preferable here to put in brackets this modern translation of humanism(renwen zhuyi人文主义)borrowed from the West;because the respective developments in these two cultural worlds,China and Europe,to finally express these cardinal human truths,are very distinct.It will be recalled,in this regard,that the Chinese classical language use of words(characters)in their full and independent meanings,rarely combined in pairs—contrary to what is the case in the present modern translation of the term.

That is all the merit of Confucius(6thcentury BC)to have emphasized the importance of the link between Culture(wen文):“this culture of ours”(si wen斯文),which he declared himself the“depositary and guarantor”,and the virtue of humanity(ren 仁),this supreme Ideal.Not only this ideal shed light on thefirst,but still it is a synonym.That is evidence in reading the Analects of Confucius.Of course,it deserves a commentary.

“ Threatened with death in Kuang,the Master(Confucius)said:“After the death of King Wen,its culture(wen文)should not live here in me?If heaven had wanted to bury this Culture(si wen斯文),a mortal like me would not have been let known about it.However,if that is not the intention of heaven,what can the men of Kuang do to me?”(Analects,IX-5).

In this paper,we will focus on the conclusion,“If that is not the intention of heaven,what have I to fear from Kuang?”

Ⅱ

The line taken in this paper proposes to demonstrate that dispossession of self for the sake of respect for others is the path to the(proper)sincerity,honesty(cheng诚):that includes the Confucian notion of virtue of humanity,both of perfect virtue(ren de仁德).Cardinal notion of the Classical Chinese thinking,very clearly expressed by Confucius in his Analects:

“Practice the virtue of humanity(ren仁)is to start with oneself:wanting to establish others as much as we want to establish ourselves,and wishing their success as much as we want our own.Draws in you the idea of what you can do for others—that is what put you on the path to perfect virtue(ren仁)!”(Analects VI-30.)

Therefore,such dispossession of ego-centered Self is the path to the lofty ideals and moral integrity:the active virtue of humanity(ren仁).This,in its integrity,is of such a requirement that Confucius does not hesitate to say that:

“The follower committed to the Way,the man of true benevolence(ren仁),far from caring for his live if it costs to the ren,will be brave enough to sacrfice his life to accomplish the quality of the ren.”(Analects XV-9.)

In order to avoid giving the impression that all the classical Chinese thoughts hold in the teaching of Confucius and his disciples,we will also consider in this paper,another thought,the Taoism:announced by Laozi and extended by Zhuangzi,whose authority is just as essential in traditional Chinese culture.

Far from professing a teaching diametrically opposed,as it is often presented,the principle of humanity(ren d e仁德),though never formulated as such here,or knowingly eluded,because it is indissolubly linked to Culture,is,in some ways,implicit in Zhuangzi.That is what we want to show.

Therefore,we must begin with this philosophical intuition that Zhuangzi refers to by the term zhen真(Truth);here in the sense of‘nature'(ben xing本性),“natural state”(ben yuan本原),according to the idea of original simplicity,original authenticity:what is“us”originally.

For Zhuangzi,the natural authenticity(zhen 真)determines the figure of the Wise(sheng 圣)or the“Real man”(zhenren 真人).The saint or the“real man”is the one who understands the nature of things,who lives in harmony with it,spreading his wonderful and effective virtue within the universe.In other words,one that is in perfect harmony with what is“the Other”(different,for his limited self-centered ego),but that is“His”,internally,in essence:namely here,the world or Nature:the Way(dao道).

What matters here,beyond the opposition stressed between Nature and Culture—opposition that would define the respective systems of thoughts of Confucius and Zhuangzi—it is their first common requirement of Truth,Sincerity.

It is clear that these two systems of thought are based on the common basis of the imperative of the ‘Truth'(zhen 真),the“Sincerity”(cheng 诚).Thus,the essential kinship,before that happens the well-known divergence of their respective developments in separate doctrines.

Ⅲ

It would seem that the cornerstone of these remarks about the concept of“humanity-authenticity”,turns out to be the principle of dispossession of Self in equality of respect for others,“If one wants to establish each other as much as he wants to establish himself”,as a path to this supreme ideal that is moral integrity or original authenticity to oneself.

For Confucius,sincerity,moral integrity(cheng 诚)is the guarantee to accomplish the cultivation of the quality of humanity(ren 仁);for Zhuangzi,the truth(zhen真)is the pledge of the fulfillment of the perfect harmony with the way(dao道).

The injunction of the dispossession of Self is even taken to the extreme in Zhuangzi,as it is said in the famous sentence of the chapter.II,Of the equality of things:

“Can your body really become thus like a withered tree and your heart like dead ashes,doesn't feel we do part of the wonderful Essence?”(Zhuangzi)

According to our interpretation,this body of mine perceived through my objectification of the world,transformed into an objective reality as wood and ashes:this“me-object”that happens to me,and on which a judgment may be reported to as a simple objet,referred to an external reality:“like a withered tree and your heart like dead ashes…”

This me-object on which a drastic reduction can take place,as Zhuangzi says,indicates a total dispossession of Self.Such is the Zhuangzi's objectifying dispossession of Self—anticipating,it seems,on the Buddhist concept of“absence,negation of Self”,it is worth noting.But is it so?

Nonetheless,we will not stay on this impression of a total dispossession of Self(“of a bleeding without return”,to borrow a term from Jean-Paul Sartre in Critique of dialectical reason.)In the Chinese thinking,precisely before the introduction of Buddhism,it has not been conceived such absence,negation of Self.Hence,the median expression of“dispossession of Self”we use to translate accurately the words of Zhuangzi.

To demonstrate this,it is but to refer to the definition that Zhuangzi gives to the term zhen真(Truth,natural Authenticity),or better said here,of(proper)Truth:

“The natural disposition means the apex of absolute sincerity.Without absolute sincerity,you will never be able to elicit the emotions and passions of others.”[7](Zhuangzi)

As it is here,a real proof of a humanist thought.The Sincerity is therefore envisaged in the relationship to others:“to elicit the emotions and passions of others.”Moreover,the demonstration use the terms specific to those of Confucius:honesty,sincerity(cheng 诚);Zhuangzi simply affixed a superlative:pure authenticity(jing cheng精诚).

As well,the perspective proposed here is really that of the wise man present among men,and not distant from them in his spiritual solitude,whose mission is to teach them the Wa y by the example he gives of himself.

Further reading this chapter of the Zhuangzi is needed to grasp what this concept of pure authenticity(jing cheng精诚)means.

“the Truth is that which is received from the Heaven;natural,it is immutable.Therefore,the Sage takes his law from Heaven and prizes it highly as his(proper)Truth,without submitting to the restrictions of custom.”(Zhuangzi)

Ⅳ

What we have seen through the two systems of Chinese traditional thinking,respectively from Confucius and from Zhuangzi,is eventually the convergence towards a comparable humanistic consideration.

Zhuangzi appeals to the law of Heaven,to the principle of Nature.This is defined the original authenticity,to which he opposed the Customs(su俗),“Therefore,the Sage takes his law from Heaven… without submitting to the restrictions of custom.”

The objectifying dispossession of Self,inscribed in the phrase“Can your body really become thus like a withered tree…”is nothing else than a spiritual exercise,a way to reach the wonderful essence,the law of Heaven who rules over everything.In no case(despite the contrary,purely rhetorical,formulas such as Zhuangzi's)is ignored or leave aside a humanistic reflection.

In this regard,we should mention this passage from the chapter“The Way of Heaven”,of Zhuangzi(Outer Chapiter,chap.30.).This imaginary dialogue between the Wise Kings of Mythology:Yao and Shun,emphasizes the linkage,in a profound understanding,between the ideal of Confucius and that which is proper to Zhuangzi:

“Anciently,Shun asked Yao,saying,‘In what way does your Majesty by the Grace of Heaven exercise your mind?' The reply was,‘I simply show no arrogance towards the helpless;I do not neglect the poor people;I grieve for those who die;I love their infant children;and I compassionate their widows.”

Shun rejoined,“Admirable,as far as it goes;but it is not what is great.”

But it should be noted that the(more celestial)thesis of Zhuangzi—thesis developed in all its relevance—is formed in this way compared to the humanism taught by Confucius.The relationship is intimate;it determines the objection in all its terms.Thus,one may wonder:without the first,which would have been the demonstrative value of the second?

In fact,this dialogue resumes almost word for word that presents Confucius about the realization of the supreme ideal of the virtue of humanity(Analects,Ⅵ.30.),as given here:

“Zi Gong:Master,if there is a man who extensively conferring benefits on the people,and able to assist all,would he not deserve the name of ren(perfectly virtuous)?The Master:(…)Even Yao and Shun were still solicitous about this.”

Follows this comment(by which we started):

“Practice the ren(the virtue of humanity)(...)it is wanting to establish the others as much as one wants to establish oneself...”

Ⅴ

It follows from the foregoing evidence of a kinship between the two thoughts,as it obviously appears at this level of the first and prime concepts.

I can see this consistency of the traditional Chinese thought,beyond the diversity of philosophical systems.But,better still,I could talk,as soon as it comes to humanistic values—and Culture that subtends—of the uniqueness of the Chinese thinking.Because,as we have just seen,this thinking dominates the moral validity of philosophical systems,even those that claim precisely to break free from it.As such,it should be mentioned those that deliver,in a quest interior and undivided for everyone,the teachings of Laozi and Zhuangzi.

This correspondence between humanism and culture characterizes the uniqueness of the Chinese traditional culture.Indeed,it extends into the intimate domain of artistic creation.It is evidenced by the poem of the great scholar of the 11thcentury,Su Shi(1037-1101),about the art of his contemporary,Wen Tong(1018-1079);it becomes clear to us the positive meaning that must be given to the dispossession of Self.

We give this poem on Wen Tong's painting,in its entirety,because it illustrates the cultural permanence of these ideals.

Su Shi comments in it the objectifying dispossession of Self,legacy of Buddhism,but also of Zhuangzi's thinking,as a very present concept for the scholars of the Northern Song.

When Yuke painted bamboo,

He saw bamboo and nor himself.

Not simply unconscious of himself,

Trance-like,he left his body behind.

His body was transferred into bamboo,

Creating inexhaustible freshness.

Zhuangzi is no longer in this world,

So who can understand such concentration?[8]