Abstract:A Critical Reflection on the Systematics of Traditional Chinese Learning Zhao-hui Fang and David R. Schiller Introduction Since the beginning of the twentieth century, Chinese scholars have tended to take traditional Chinese learning and split it apart and then rearrange it according to the systematics of the modern Western academic disciplines. The purpose of this essay is to examine this tendency from a new standpoint, based on the history of modern Chinese scholarship rather than on what is happening elsewhere in the world. It neither aims at disclosing the problem of the conventional academic disciplinary boundaries of Western learning1 nor merely insists on the importance of classical Chinese learning and its own inner logic independent of that of Western learning. The main points of this essay are as follows. First, while it is true that in some areas Chinese learning and Western learning contain similar subject matter, modern Chinese scholars are often unaware of the essential differences between Chinese and Western learning with regard to their respective inner logics. This has resulted in the great historical error of conferring the various titles of Western academic disciplines upon certain categories of classical Chinese learning. To subsume the latter under Western disciplines often means that the inner logic of Chinese learning is obscured and its independent existence exploited. Second, classical Chinese learning has always had its own systematics (see the section on this below), one that is extremely complex and that has endured within a long tradition and undergone continual improvement over time. For this reason, Chinese learning is well beyond any criticism that may be leveled at it from the standpoint of Western systematics. Even so, modern Chinese intellectuals have become accustomed to understanding classical Chinese learning through the prism of Western learning. One of the sad consequences of this tendency is that the identity of Chinese learning has been distorted almost beyond recognition. To my mind, the process of cutting apart and rearranging classical Chinese learning according to Western systematics is one of the oddest features of Chinese academics in the twentieth century. In the introduction to his Zhongguo lunlixue shi (A history of Chinese ethics), published in 1910, Cai Yuanpei stated that this attempt to "rearrange classical Chinese theories of morals with the principles of Western ethics" had been initiated by two Japanese scholars, Kimura and Kubotoku, and that it was on the basis of their efforts that Cai had written his History.2 Later, this process was continued by Hu Shi , whose book Zhongguo zhexue shi dagang (An outline of the history of Chinese philosophy) (1918) was based on his teachings [End Page 36] at Beijing University.3 Then, volume 1 of Fung Yu-lan's famous Zhongguo zhexue shi (A history of Chinese philosophy) was published in 1930, and this work immediately became influential.4 At most Chinese universities during this time, Western models were being used to establish both academic departments and teaching and research sections. The classical Chinese systems of learning were thus divided up into a series of new sections upon which were imposed titles such as "philosophy," "ethics," "economics," "politics," and "sociology," all according to the systematics of the West. Since then, a movement that favors this rearrangement of Chinese learning has arisen in modern China, and it has still not run its course. This has resulted in a series of books with titles like A History of Chinese Philosophy, A History of Chinese Ethics, A History of Chinese Politics, A History of Chinese Economics, and A History of Chinese Historical Science. In this way, nearly every branch of learning in the modern Western humanities and social sciences has found some kind of "corresponding discipline" within the classical Chinese systems of learning, the only difference between the two, in the modern Chinese academic view, being that the corresponding disciplines in China appear to lack the maturity achieved in the West. Not surprisingly, however, the contents of these "corresponding disciplines" differ considerably. Thus, the typical view held by modern Chinese scholars is that classical Chinese learning has fallen far behind its Western counterpart. This is thought to have occurred because, in the context of Western academic disciplines, traditional Chinese subjects are seen...

The Century Malposition and Correction of the Western Academic Learning and Chinese Literature——From Wang Guo- Wei' S CoMments on Hongloument and Ren- Chien Tz'u- Hua

Dispute of ″Jinwen″ and ″Guwen″ and Orientation of Confucianism under the Background of ″National Calamity″

The Disputes Between Guwen Classics and Jinwen Classics:Liao Ping and Liu Shipei in Sichuan Academy of Traditional Chinese Learning

The Collection of Roots and the Reconstruction of Modern East Zhejiang Scholarship Chinese Full Text

Beyond the Jinwenand the Transformation from Classics to Historiography in Modern China

Exploration and Thoughts on the Teaching Reform of Chinese Contemporary Literature

Reflections upon the Centennial Abolition of the Imperial Examination System

On Critical Position, Orientation and Methodology of Chinese Foreign Literature Criticism in the New Era

Subject Constructions of Chinese Literature Criticism on the Turningpoint of the Century

Integration between China and the West and Innovation for Chinese Literary Theory in the New Century

Scholars' State of Mind in Great Educational Changes——Reading Notes on "Diary of Yun Yuding in Cheng Zhai"

The Western Learning into the East and the Cultural Changes of the Qing Dynasty

A Critical Reflection on the Systematics of Traditional Chinese Learning

A Critical Reflection on and Construction of Modern Chinese Literary Theory

Gu Hongming and His Criticism on New Literature

The Construction of the Position and Totality of Literature:A Review of History,Legend and Spirit:One Hundred Years of Chinese Universities

From Literary Rules to Cultural Criticism- On Zhou Xian’s Literary and Academic Thoughts

Reflections on The Relationship Between Western Contemporary Literary Theories and Chinese Literary Theory

Globalizing Chinese literature: toward a rewriting of contemporary Chinese literary culture

Has Sagely Within and Kingly Without Really Been Outdated?——A Late Interpretation of an Academic Case

Instruction according to Disciplines and the Chinese Academic Transformation at the Turn of the Ming and Qing Dynasties