Professor of the Department of Philosophy at East China Normal University; Major research field: Chinese Philosophy; Selected works: The First Page and the Embryo: Chinese and Western Cultural Comparisons During the Ming-Qing Transition (2015) [Chinese], Twelve Lectures on Chinese Philosophy (2008) [Chinese].

Speech Abstract

It seems that Julian thinks that the issue of universality is monopolized by Western culture, and that Chinese culture cannot raise the issue of universality. However, he also says that Chinese cultural considers that its universality is self-evident. The author thinks that this explanation cannot possibly reveal the true nature of Chinese thought. In fact, the Confucian tradition has always had a strong tendency toward universalism and universal values. The essence of the Confucian “Chinese-Barbarian” debate—really a “civilization-savagery” debate—is focused on whether or not an uncivilized person can comply with and carry out the “Chinese rituals.” This clearly is a self-reflective questioning about the possible universalizable nature of the Confucian “Chinese rituals.”

Ritual, as the embodiment of communication ethics, covers a wide range of meanings. “Benevolence” and “trustworthiness” are the essences of ritual, “respect” is the form of ritual, and “consideration” is the concrete rule of ritual. In fact, Confucius used benevolence, trustworthiness, respect, and consideration as nearly universally applicable terms. However, it is Mencius who laid the foundation of Confucian universalism. Mencius thought that people all have compassion, shame, humility, and propriety as the four moral sprouts of their hearts. The heart is moral (good) because people are born with the heart of goodness, and if we want fully realize this potential goodness, we must cultivate the four sprouts of heart so they can become the four virtues (Benevolence, Righteousness, Ritual propriety, Wisdom).

Without a doubt, Mencius thought that Benevolence, Righteousness, Ritual propriety, and Wisdom should be universal. Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism established a universal theory that took “principle” and “nature” as its core. Principle exists in all things but in humans it manifests as human nature in the body-governing heart. Thus, nature is equivalent to principle. Nature possesses all principles, the heart possesses all principles, and its basic framework is comprised of Benevolence, Righteousness, Ritual propriety, and Wisdom. It is clear that Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism considered these four virtues to be innate, and their nature to be universal.

Furthermore, Zhu Xi gave “principle” a Western-style formulation, considering it an priori existence. Lu Jiuyuan’s proposition of the “common heart common principle” echoes the Mencian argument. His affirmation of the commonality of the heart (all are pleased by righteousness) and the universality of principle is simple and direct. However, this discussion of the specific qualities of principle is limited. Of course, that his “principle” contains the main traditional Confucian virtues is self-evident. Wang Yangming highlighted the Mencius concept of “conscience,” and thought that which is shared in common is conscience; he used this core concept to construct his theory. The content of “conscience” also contains the basic notion of Confucian ethics, but Wang particularly emphasized that “conscience is a sense of right and wrong,” and that right or wrong is just about likes and dislikes. In other words, Wang thinks that the basic likes and dislikes are common feelings of humanity. Therefore, once we have removed likes and dislikes, then we will have no disputes.

In short, Neo-Confucianism (both Cheng-Zhu and Lu-Wang varieties) has repeatedly affirmed that “principle” (the principle of Heaven), “conscience,” "eternal" and “filling the universe” are strongly universal theories. Certainly, principle is universal, as are its core content of Benevolence, Righteousness, Ritual propriety, Wisdom, and Trustworthiness. In another words, Confucian “universal values” are these five virtues.

So, how do we determine true “universal values”? Julian went against the traditional Western transcendental universalism, advocating that we understand “universalism” in terms of commonness, advocating to explore the distances between cultures and to promote dialogues and translations among cultures. The author emphatically feels that we in addition to “comprehensibility” we need “acceptability.” Universal values should be a set of comprehensible and acceptable values that are based on what is common to all human hearts and minds.