Plato in modern China: A study of contemporary Chinese Platonists

PLATO IN MODERN CHINA: A STUDY OF CONTEMPORARY CHINESE PLATONISTS by Leihua Weng Bachelor of Arts Zhejiang University, 2001 Master of Arts Peking University, 2005 ___________________________________________ Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Comparative Literature Languages, Literatures and Cultures College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2010 Accepted by: Paul Allen Miller, Major Professor Meili Steele, Committee Member Jie Guo, Committee Member Mark Beck, Committee Member Tim Mousseau, Dean of the Graduate School

UMI Number: 3433192

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3433192 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

© Copyright by Leihua Weng, 2010 All rights reserved

ii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to James, and to Garfield who never considers himself to be a cat.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Completion of this graduate program and dissertation would not have been possible without the input, guidance, support, and patience of my committee, my family and my friends. As director of my committee, Dr. Paul Allen Miller, offered tremendous guidance and assistance from the inception to the completion of this project. His knowledge, his strategic advice and his vision inspired me to continue reading and researching in this area. His support and encouragement repeatedly saved this dissertation project. Half the good ideas in this paper, were conceived during our conversations, and most of the rest, came to me immedeately after. Likewise, the suggestions and contributions of Dr. Jie Guo are much appreciated for the countless ways in which they made the project deeper and more scholarly. Her knowledge and expertise in Chinese studies prompted me to explore more deeply many important aspects of this topic that I would otherwise have overlooked. Her careful readings and critiques made this into a much stronger dissertation. The works of Dr. Meili Steele and Dr. Beck greatly enhanced this project. I thank them for their contributions. My family has stood by me in many ways through years of academic pursuits. I especially thank my brother Nianxia, who can proudly announced to the world that he has successfully assisted his “old sister” to become a Ph. D. Last, but in no way least, I thank James whose love, care, and strong support guided my daily steps. Without his skillful handling of our domestic chores, combined with merciless iv

reminders to “get on with it”, it is hard to imagine this project could have ever been completed. I want to thank University of South Carolina and the entire North American academic community, which I am so proud to have become a part of.

v

ABSTRACT This dissertation focuses on the Hermeneutic approach to reading and translating Plato since the 1990s, in the larger context of Platonic reception generally. The dissertation is based on a philological analysis of the translations, commentaries and discussions of the Platonic works in contemporary China, and examines the influence of Leo Strauss on these Chinese interpretations of Plato. The Hermeneutic approach to Plato adopted by contemporary Chinese Platonists, with its genealogical connection to the Phenomenological School in the Great Culture Discussion of the mid 1980s, is identified as an effort to address the problems of modernity in China.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION .............................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... iv ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. vi

INTRODUCTION: Chinese Platonic Study as an Academic School ......................................... l CHAPTER ONE: Philological Aspects and Underlying Themes ……………………………… 12 CHAPTER TWO: Chinese Platonists as Straussians…………………………………………... 44 CHAPTER THREE: Phenomenological/Hermeneutic Approach to Plato and Chinese Modernity …………………………………………………………………. ..85 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 122 WORKS CITED ........................................................................................................................ 123

vii

INTRODUCTION: Chinese Platonic Study as an Academic School This dissertation discusses features and underlining concerns of a group of contemporary Chinese scholars who study Plato‟s dialogues in China since the 1990s. Sharing same or similar views and approaches, they are considered in this dissertation as constituting an academic school which differs from other academic groups in contemporary China. This chapter provides a general picture of this group of scholars as an academic school in the contemporary Chinese academic arena, including their main features, basic approaches, representative scholars as well as a brief contextualization with other academic schools and intellectual trends in contemporary China. The contemporary Chinese Platonic Study in this dissertation refers to a particular group of Chinese scholars who translate, comment, and introduce works of Plato and the Platonic study with special approaches and concerns since the end of 20 century. Their academic activities go around the translation project Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis in Chinese Translations, with approaches heavily influenced by American political philosopher Leo Strauss. There are two identifiable features of this group of scholars. They are more or less connected to the translation project 1

Platonis opera Omnia cum commentariis, and most of them have their works published under this project. Besides, they agree on Leo Strauss‟s political philosophy and use strategy of Straussian esotericism in their reading of Plato and other Western and Chinese classics. Accordingly, the study scope of this dissertation does not extend to other translations and study of Plato so far existing in Chinese language. Chinese translations of Platonic dialogue done before 1990s including the works by Wang Qintai and Chen Kang are mentioned only briefly in the other chapters. The recent translations done by Wang Xiaochao, which are related neither in approaches nor in underling themes to Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis, are not included in the discussion of this dissertation. Instead, this dissertation considers that the school of Chinese Platonists is consisted of Liu Xiaofeng, Zhang Hui, Lin Guohua etc. Liu Xiaofeng is treated in this dissertation as the key person and leader of this school. He is the editor of Platonis opera ommia cum commentariis and is the one who decides the overall approaches of this school. Wu Fei, Zhang Hui, Lin Guorong, Lin Guohua and some other scholars share the same or similar approaches to Western and Eastern classics and they all more or less accept on Liu‟s interpretation of Plato and Strauss. As Liu, they can be considered as Straussians in China. Wu Fei takes a close participation in Platonis cum commentariis. He is the one who translated Plato‟s Apology as part of this translation project. In his translation, commentary and preface 2

to his Chinese translation of Apology, we can find Straussian approaches which are present in Liu‟s works. As Liu always does, Wu Fei adopts Straussian political philosophy to interpret Confucian classics, which can be found in his paper “Zhongguo de xiandai chujing yu gudai ziyuan” collected in Kongzi yu dangdai zhongguo (Confucius and Modern China). Lin Guohua and Lin Guorong are so far not directly participating in the translation project of Platonis cum commentariis; however, their reading of Plato and other Western classics are closely related to Liu‟s approach to Plato. As revealed by Zhang Hui in his preface to Liu Xiaofeng's Chinese translation of Apology, there was a study group among these young Chinese scholars at Harvard in 2001 and 2002, in which they did close reading of Plato's Apology. These Chinese scholars including Zhang Hui, Lin Guohua and Wufei used a Straussian translation version of Apology[1], and received direct reading guides from Straussians such as Seth Benardete and Stanley Rosen (Zhang 2). Their Straussian approaches to Plato are very similar to the way Liu and other Chinese Platonists treat Platonic dialogues. There are some difficulties in grouping Gan Yang and Jiang Qin to the school of Chinese Platonic Study. As it is discussed both in Chapter Two and Chapter Three, Gan is closely related to the school of Chinese Platonic Study. He does studies on Strauss with his concern for Chinese modernity and on Plato. More importantly, he 3

was the leader of the Phenomenological School in the 1980s which provided direct intellectual resources for the school of Chinese Platonic Study in 1990s. However, on the other hand, he approaches Strauss‟s political philosophy from an angle fundamentally different from Liu Xiaofeng. As it is discussed in detail in Chapter Two, he does not emphasize the essential Straussian principles such as strategy of esotericism and political persecution, which assume ultimate importance to the scholars of the School of Chinese Platonic Study. For this reason, Gan and his works are extensively discussed in this dissertation to illustrate main features of the school of Chinese Platonic study, but he is not considered as part of the school in discussion. Compared to Gan, Jiang Qin is closer to Liu Xiaofeng‟s view on Strauss and, especially, on Chinese Confucian classics. Chapter Four discusses the similarities and differences between Jiang Qin and Liu Xiaofeng, holding that Liu in many places adopts views on Confucian Jin-wen School, which are quite similar to Jiang Qin‟s Political Confucianism. However, Liu does not go so far as claiming of reviving Confucian political system in contemporary China; instead, he consciously draws a line between himself and Qiang Qin (Rujia 106). Considering that the School of Chinese Platonic Study is in many aspects a Chinese version of the School of Strauss in America in the spirit of Straussian political prudence, this dissertation does not group Qiang Qin as Chinese Platonist. Besides, Qiang Qin‟s main focus is on Chinese 4

classics, and he does not directly participate in Platonis cum commentariis. Liu Xiaofeng, Lin Guohua, Lin Guorong and other scholars have been considered to be one group that shows special interest in Western classics and who are Straussians in many ways. Though many people have recognized the traits they share, no one yet has ever thought to term them as an academic school. It might be because that there is not yet systematic and comprehensive research on their works. This dissertation takes them as of an academic school out of following considerations. First of all, they hold distinctive views which are very different from other academic school in contemporary China and in modern Chinese intellectual history. Their views on the issue of modernity, the conflicts between the ancient and the modern, as well as insistence on the theory of political persecution, find no parallel in current China. And they are presented with systematic and sophisticated arguments. Besides, they constantly and actively apply their theories and views into practice, especially into the large project Platonis cum commentariis. They do have connection with other intellectual schools in modern history, such as the Phenomenological School in the 1980s, but they nevertheless have modified and altered many theories and views of the Phenomenological School , as discussed in Chapter Four, and have legitimately claimed its intellectual independence as an academic school. Therefore, this school is described not as a new version of any previous trend, but a new school 5

with the concerns of its own and socio-historic realities. Secondly, this school has a number of scholars which is quite consistent over the past twenty years. Liu Xiaofeng‟s status in this group of scholars is so dominant that sometimes people tend to ignore others with similar views. However, we cannot deny that Lin Guohua, Lin Guorong and Wu Fei regularly publish their works on Plato and other classics from Straussian perspective, just as Liu does. Though not officially recognized as an academic school, they are often criticized by their Chinese peers for their Straussian views as one group. Besides, though developing their views over the past two decades, these Chinese Platonists still remain on the ground and never fundamentally altered their understanding on Plato and Strauss. Thirdly and lastly, their influence among college students and young scholars can hardly be ignored and have an increasing momentum. Their works, though constantly criticized, always gain most attention in journals, classrooms as well as internet forum. Under their influence through publications, more and more classes on Plato and Western classical works and languages are provided at different academic institutes all over China. It is not exaggerating to say that the Chinese Platonic School dominates Western classical study in China. A reader interested in learning Western classics, especially in Plato, is more or less under this school‟s influence, no matter he agrees or rejects. 6

As it is, this group of scholars is considered to be an independent academic school in this dissertation. However, there are still some difficulties in naming it as School of Chinese Platonic Study. As it is pointed out by many others (Huang 22-4, Zong PAGE), Liu came through different stages before he came to Plato and Strauss. In the 1980s, he was considered by most people to be the leader of Cultural Christian Group. Even after he started reading Plato, he shows seemingly same amount of interest in Carl Schmidt and Confucian scholars in later 19th centuries. His extensive interests seem to be shared by other Chinese Platonists. We may wonder whether we should call them Chinese Platonists, or Chinese Schmidtians, or modern Gong Yang scholars. The dissertation names them as school of Chinese Platonic Study mainly based on the fact that, despite their rigorous publications in different fields, their most important work is Platonis cum Commentariis which they, too, consider to be of fundamental importance. As to them, Plato serves as the foundation of their vast theoretical investigations and philosophical speculations, though it remains a question whether it is Plato or Straussian Plato that they study. Leo Strauss‟s influence upon this school is undeniable. Often accused of imposing Straussian concepts on readers who are interested in Plato, these Chinese Platonists are Straussians in many aspects. Platonis cum commentariis is actually an 7

organization of Plato‟s works within the framework of Strauss‟s political philosophy. Or rather, in one sense, Plato only serves as a medium of the transportation of Strauss‟s theory into Chinese academia. Out of these considerations, these Chinese Platonists are referred to as Chinese Straussians. The implications of the acceptance of Leo Strauss through Platonic study are discussed in detail in Chapter Two. This dissertation considers the School of Chinese Platonic Study as complicated cultural and intellectual phenomenon with its significance going well beyond mere academic study. It does not remain on the philological significance of these Chinese Platonists‟ translations and commentaries. It is intended to discover and discuss the cultural, intellectual and political signification in its unique approach to the issue of Chinese modernity, as it considers Chinese Platonic study as an adventure into Western classics looking for ways to address the issues in China. Their concerns of Chinese modernity underline all their understandings of Plato, Strauss, as well as any other Western thinkers. It is because of their consistent concerns of Chinse modernity that they come back to Chinese Confucian tradition and try to link Platonic/Straussian concepts with New School Confucianian ideas of “de 德” and “shengren 圣人.” Therefore, this dissertation places the School of Chinese Platonic study in the background of the Western Classical studies, and more importantly, in the modern intellectual history in China. 8

This dissertation is composed of three chapters besides the introduction. The first chapter of the dissertation investigates the philological aspects of the translations and commentaries made by the Chinese Platonists to locate the underlying themes and concerns, such as the emphasis on the strategies of esoteric writing, and the attempts in locating parallels of Platonic concepts in Chinese tradition. One of Liu‟s essays on popular culture is introduced and analyzed to illustrate Chinese Platonists‟ attempts of applying Straussian concepts in their interpretation of cultures other than philosophical works. The second chapter looks into the influence of Leo Strauss against the cultural and social backdrop of contemporary China. It considers their acceptance of Leo Strauss‟s political interpretation of Plato, as well as their efforts in connecting Platonic/Straussian concept of Philosopher-king and Confucian idea of Suwang 素王(Uncrowned King), as an important indication of their understanding of Chinese modernity and the general anxiety of Chinese intellectuals in the age of commercialism and globalism. The third chapter places the Chinese Platonic study in the background of the Chinese modern intellectual history and addresses its heritages from the Phenomenological School of the 1980s and from the Confucian scholars of Gongyang School 公羊学 of the Reform Movement of 1898 戊戌变法. It emphasizes that the Chinese Platonic study, with its understanding of Chinese modernity, consciously breaks away from May Fourth Tradition on the cultural encounters 9

between the East and the West and revolts against May Fourth‟s imagination about Western science, technology and democracy and tries to find cultural support in Confucian interpretations by Kang Youwei and Liao Ping. The dissertation concludes by contending that current Platonic study in China is an intellectual endeavor to address the issues of modernity in China using both Chinese and Western intellectual traditions. The Platonic Study in China, as part of the modern reception of Platonism, makes a unique contribution to the tradition of Plato. It shows how Plato is accepted and adapted into a complicated non-Western background. The Chinese Platonic study is no longer mere continuation of the classical study happening in America or Europe. Instead, it is a new set of expression used by a group of Chinese scholars to discuss their concerns and speculations about cultural, historical and social realities in China. This dissertation is intended to look into this extremely rich cultural phenomenon in contemporary China.

10

Notes [1] According to Zhang Hui, they in that study group at Harvard used Seth Benardete‟s translation and commentary of Symposium, and Allan Bloom‟s commentary as well. Both Seth Benardete and Allan Bloom are important Straussians to these Chinese Platonists. Liu Xiaofeng‟s Chinese translation of Symposium, which is the first work of Platonis cum commentariis, including essays by Benardete and Allan Bloom.

11

CHAPTER ONE: Philological Aspects and Underlying Themes This chapter focuses on the main body of current Platonic study in China, that is, translations, commentaries and textual interpretations of Platonic dialogues, so as to provide a comprehensive view of this school for reader and also help to build up the arguments in other chapters. Textual aspects of Platonic studies, together with their explicit meaning, are the main concern in this chapter while political and cultural significance of this school, which are beyond philological aspects of translation and commentary, are left to be further discussed in the next two chapters. This chapter starts with a general introduction to the translations, commentaries and interpretative works on Plato in China, including purposes and intentions of the authors/editors, the main features, and responses etc. Then it focuses on two books, Huiyin《会饮》and Shenbian《申辩》, which include the translations of, commentaries and interpretative essays on Plato‟s Symposium and Apology respectively. Main features of these two books are pointed out to provide an overall view of the basic stands and approaches of this school. This chapter then goes on to a brief examination of the discussions on Platonic ideas and issues, the discussions which are beyond the immediate textual context of Platonic dialogues, yet key to the concerns of this school 12

of scholars. An example is provided to illustrate how these scholars approach certain issues with Platonic ideas. The chapter ends up with a short survey of the responses in Chinese academia to the current Platonic scholars concerning their attitudes and approaches. The main body of the current Platonic studies in China goes under the project titled as “Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis in Chinese Translations,” which includes three series, namely, translations of Platonic works with commentaries and interpretative essays; translations of the pre-modern interpretative works of Plato going from Plotinus to Friedrich Schleiermacher; modern Western interpretation of Platonic works which includes authors such as Heidegger and Leo Strauss etc. There are other works which are not included in these three series, but should be considered to be Platonic studies. Compared to the books in “Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis,” these books have a greater variety in topics, ranging from a particular issue in Platonic studies to similar debates or issues in Chinese classical studies. For instance, the book Sugeladi Wenti《苏格拉底问题》（Problems of Socrates）is not part of “Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis,” but as the title Problems of Socrates indicates, this book collects essays related to the main issues in Platonic studies, but discussed on a much broader level. For example, one of the essays is on the historical portraits of three disciples of Confucius, as a discussion related to the 13

portrait of Socrates. The works outside of “Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis” are an important part of Platonic studies in China; however, due to the limitation of size, this chapter devotes its main attention to the works within the series. By the end of the chapter, a short analysis of an essay outside of the series is included as an illustration of the profound influence of Plato on this group of scholars. The books of “Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis” began its publication in early 2000s. Though it is a process with full momentum, due to the massiveness of the project, only part of the series is completed and published. For the series of Platonic dialogues, Symposium, Apology and Ion are translated and published with comprehensive commentaries[1]. For the series of pre-modern commentaries on Plato, there are Chinese translations of Alfarabi‟s The Philosophy of Plato, Averroes‟ Averroes on Plato’s Republic; etc. For the series of modern interpretation, there are in Chinese Martin Heidegger‟s Vom Wesen der Wahrheit: Zu Platons Hohlengleichnis und Theatet, Anissa Castel-Bouchouchi‟s Platon Les Lois, etc. For each series, there is a long list of books which are going to be published soon[2]. As we can see, due to the fact that the Platonic study in China is an on-going process, it is impossible to get a complete view of this academic phenomenon. However, through the existing publications and researches, though limited in amount, 14

we can obtain a nevertheless comprehensive idea of the perspectives, methods, and viewpoints adopted by this group of scholar and thus have a better understanding of the current Platonic study in China as a unique academic and cultural event. To each book in “Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis,” two explanatory short essays are attached. The first essay is on the larger project of “Western Tradition: Classics and Interpretation,” which the project “Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis” is subordinate to. This essay, since it indicates important information of “Platonis opera cum commentariis,” is introduced in detail together with the second essay which is exclusively for the project of “Platonis opera cum commentariis.” The first essay makes a distinction between the project of “Western Tradition,” of which “Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis” is understood as an important part, and all the previous translations in Chinese modern history. It provides a short survey of the modern Chinese translation history, while at the same time pointing out the defects of each stage. It goes back to the very beginning of Chinese translation of Western works, and points out that these predecessors, though aware of the historical importance of their work, chose the books to translate according to their own personal interest. Therefore, their choice of translation was quite random and lacked any systematic scheme. Then it goes on to a brief evaluation of the official project of translation which was organized by the government in later 1950s and lasted to the 15

mid of 1980s. It affirms the academic value of this official project, but criticized that it was too much interested in serving its own political purpose and ignored most of the Western classics on political and social system. The only translation movement this essay gives full credit to is a project named “Xiandai xifang xueshu wenku 现代西方 学术文库（Modern Western Classics).” It points out that, even thought the working goal of that project was to translate the modern Western classics, its long term purpose was to obtain a better understanding of the whole Western intellectual tradition by way of a more systematic and comprehensive translation project. It asserts that, if this project was not interrupted unexpectedly by certain historical event[3] at the end of the 1980s, it would have eventually gone back to translate the ancient Western classics. This explanatory essay also criticizes the translations in 1990s, arguing that most scholars in 1990s were too much interested in following modern academic trends, ignoring the Western tradition itself. As a result of unsuccessful century-long translation experience, the essay concludes that Chinese intellectuals lack understanding of Western intellectual tradition, even after they have translated many works; and the solution to this problem is to make full use of the modern Western classical studies through translating and introducing Western ancient classics as well as their interpretations. The second essay is for the project of “Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis 16

in Chinese translation.” It first goes through how people disagreed and came back to the first collection of Platonic dialogues started by Thrasyllus Θπἀζςλλορ in the age of Alexander. It then cites the famous saying “Shengshi bi xiu dian 盛世必修典 (Editing classics is a necessity for people at a prosperous historical time)” and further explains that in modern China, we need to edit both Western classics as well as Chinese classics. It states the basic approach for the project of “Platonis opera” which was practiced by the intellectuals in Qing Dynasty (1616-1911) in their attitudes toward ancient texts, that is, to respect ancient texts and the wisdom of ancient authors; accordingly, in the practice of translation, they approach the ancient texts through commentaries of different generation, while paying attention to the difference of each version. From these two essays, we can find the ambition of this school of scholars. First of all, these scholars have a critical view of the academic practices in China since the 1950s and try to distinguish themselves from them.[4] Secondly, while translating Western ancient classics as well as their interpretations, they are eager to put themselves in the Chinese intellectual tradition. By citing “Shengshi bi xiu dian 盛世 必修典,” which was considered as a responsibility by the ancient Chinese scholars, these Chinese Platonic scholars actually identify themselves with ancient Chinese scholars in their ambition. They further connect themselves to the practice of 17

philology in the Qing Dynasty by focusing on textual details and commentaries. The influence of Chinese intellectual tradition is discussed more in later passages of this chapter. The project of “Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis” is massive. Usually several kinds of interpretations are translated together with one particular dialogue. Take Republic for instance. The Chinese translation of Book Ten of Republic together with commentaries is going to be published under the title of Wangzh《王制》. Ralph Lerner‟s Averroes on Plato’s Republic is already in hard copy on the market as part of the series of “Classical Commentaries on Plato;” modern Western scholars‟ works on Plato have been selected and translated as part of the series. Among them are Lun zhenli de benzhi《论真理的本质》(Vom Wesen der Wahrheit: Zu Platons Hohlengleichnis und Theatet）, a work by Heidegger, and a collection of essays by Gerhard Kruger, Friedlander and Eric Voegelin under the title of Wangzhi Yaoyi《王 制要义》(Three Interpretations of Plato’s Politeia), etc. However, as Platonic dialogue itself is the core of this project, we in the following passages focus on Huiyin and Shenbian, two translations of Symposium and Apology.[5] While looking into these two books, we are able to see the points indicated both inside and outside of these two explanatory essays introduced above. The discussion of these two books is conducted in roughly three groups: form, theme 18

and influence. These three groups of discussion may overlap each other in topic. One of the dominant features of these translations is the change they make to the Chinese titles of Platonic dialogues. Most of the Chinese translators of Plato works put the word “pian 篇”[6] to end of the title. For instance these titles used to be Huiyin Pian《会饮篇》and Shenbian Pian《申辩篇》. The translators of this new school leave this word out. As Zhang Hui explains in his preface to Liu‟s Huiyin, dropping this word in title is a way of restoring the practice of treating Platonic dialogues as plays from the common misconception of taking them merely as philosophical treatise (5).[7] It seems this group of scholars, through making changes in titles, expect to help readers get rid of the previous misconceptions of Plato and to provoke them to new ways of thinking.[8] Besides the new translation of titles, we can find some of their new ways to translate certain Greek terms which are consistent in Huiyin and Shenbian. The translation of ἡ ἀπεηή used to be “meide 美德” by previous translators and now in both Huiyin and Shenbian, it becomes “dexing 德性.” As for the words “ἀγαθόρ” and “ηό ἀγαθόν,” the usual way is to translate it as “shan 善” and “zhishan 至善.” In Huiyin and Shenbian and most other places they are translated as “hao 好” and “zuida de hao 最大的好.” It seems that these scholars are more conscious in identifying moral meanings in Greek words in their translation. Besides, they make efforts to make the 19

terms sound less philosophical. Huiyin and Shenbian are quite similar in their format. In addition to the two same explanatory essays at the very beginning, each contains a long preface, [9]which is comprehensive on the history, structures and themes of the dialogue. The translation itself contains both the translation of Platonic dialogue and the commentaries made by different scholars and by themselves. Compared to Liu Xiaofeng‟s translation, Wu Fei‟s Shenbian pays more attention to previous Chinese translations of the dialogue. He compares different translations in his commentaries and explains the particularity of his own translation.[10] After the dialogue, each book includes interpretative essays on the dialogue it is treating. In Huiyin, Allan Bloom‟s “The Ladder of Love” and Seth Benardete‟s “On Plato‟s Symposium” are included, while to Shenbian, a long interpretative essay by the translator Wu Fei is attached. In each book, the preface serves as a guide for the reader; or rather, it reiterates the guiding principles for the translators in their understanding of the text. These principles are exhibited in their translation and commentary. And the interpretative essays by the end of book are further explanation of the ideas conveyed previously, but in a much more systematic and comprehensive way. As it is, the preface, dialogue, commentary and interpretative essays are consistent in many ways. Accordingly, this chapter treats them as a totality and does not discuss them separately. 20

As it is mentioned briefly in previous passage, these translators drop the word “pian 篇” in titles of Platonic dialogues to restore Platonic dialogues as plays from people‟s misconception of them as mere philosophical treatise. Indeed, considering Plato‟s dialogues as plays is one of the main views these translators take. In his preface to Huiyin, Zhang Hui insists that Symposium is more thoroughly a drama than any other Platonic dialogue (1). This point is reaffirmed again and again in Liu Xiaofeng‟s commentaries. Wu Fei does not make such a strong assertion in Shenbian that Apology is a play; however, he fully acknowledges the importance of Socrates‟ portrait in understanding the dialogue of Apology. For this school of scholars, taking Platonic dialogues as plays instead of philosophical treatises is a guideline for their translation practice. First of all, they assert that, since it is a play, we should not only pay attention to words, but also to deeds. Accordingly, small details on location, action etc. assumes great importance in the interpretation of Platonic dialogues. Zhang Hui puts in his preface, “since it is to see a play, what we should pay attention to is not merely „speeches‟ of different characters, but also, put in Leo Strauss‟ words, „deeds‟ at the same time. Rather, „deeds‟ are of greatest importance” (4). As to the question what the deeds are, he cites Leo Strauss‟ The City and Man, and explains that the elements of plays are the setting and action in each dialogue, that is, who does Socrates talk to? How do participants of 21

the dialogue act? At which age? What kind of personality? At which time and location does the dialogue take place etc. (4-5). Both Liu and Wu faithfully follow this principle by pointing out a lot of details and background information in their translations and commentaries. For instance, both Zhang and Liu explain quite a lot on the change of seats and the complicated narrative structure in Symposium, while Wu in Shenbian points out the structural parallel between Apology and Phaedo (154-5). Treating Platonic dialogues as plays and paying enormous attention to details, especially to the non-verbal details, has an important assumption, that is, the author uses an indirect, even secret, way of passing on information to readers. Zhang quotes Nietzsche in the preface and says „the profound thoughts like to wear a mask” (5). He states that in Platonic dialogues, Plato stays behind the plays; moreover, the spokesmen he chooses are often hiding their true opinion. Liu repeatedly reminds reader of the secrecy of the dialogue. To “ηαῦηα δὴ ἐκαλλωπιζάμην, ἵνα καλὸρ παπὰ καλὸν ἴω (So I got myself up in this handsome style in order to be a match for my handsome host)” (174a), Liu puts down his own commentary, “Here the dressing up is a metaphor of taking up a different look: Plato puts on a mask before he goes to the banquet” (8) (my translation). This assumption has several important implications. First of all, it has close connection to the long-time debate on the relationship between Socrates and Plato: is 22

dialogue more close to Socrates‟ idea or Plato‟s own thought? As to this question, Zhang, Liu and Wu seem to have their definite opinion. In Zhang‟s preface and Liu‟s commentary, Socrates is considered to be an expression of Plato. What they concern most is what Plato indicates through Socrates, and all their efforts are pointing to find out the true intention of Plato. Wu puts forward a more systematic explanation of their attitude. He explains that they do not make special efforts to separate Socrates from Plato, nor do they try to approach Plato‟s works through different stages; instead, they pay more attention to the internal relations between different dialogues and consider Apology as an expression of Plato (38). Second, if the main purpose of reading Plato‟s dialogues is to find out the true intention of Plato and Plato skillfully conceals his true intention and meaning from the average reader in his works, then, interpretation becomes especially important. Zhang in his preface shows that he acquired more authentic knowledge of Plato under the guidance of Leo Strauss as well as the commentaries and interpretations of his students such as Allan Bloom and Seth Benardete. Liu tries to find an example to demonstrate the significance of interpretation in Plato himself. On the fact that Socrates receives teaching from Diotima in Symposium, Liu puts a note, “The Socrates in Plato‟s Symposium explains his thoughts in the form of interpreting the ideas of someone else, even though he himself comes up with these ideas. In other words, only 23

through the interpretation of a text, a person who loves thinking can come closer to higher knowledge. Alcibiades‟ praise of Socrates in a later passage can be considered to be an interpretation of Socrates” (72) (my translation). Their emphasis on interpretation in a large degree explains why they take so much effort in translating the interpretative essays and commentaries of Plato into Chinese. It at the same time leads to another question. If they believe that, only by interpreting someone else‟ thought can they convey their own ideas, just as Plato expresses himself through interpreting Socrates, and Socrates gets his self-expression through his interpretation of Diotima, then, what do these Chinese scholars want to express through their translation and interpretation of Plato and the related works? In order to make this chapter stay more pact, this question is left for more discussion in later chapters. Third, and most importantly, they believe that the indirect expression of one‟s thoughts has its raison d’être in the tension between philosophy and politics. In other words, the possible harms from politics force philosophers to carefully disguise their ideas either through interpretation of someone else‟s thoughts or through sophisticated literary techniques. Zhang explains why Plato uses the literary form of drama in his writing, “Instead of taking the „drama‟ here as a literary genre, it is more appropriate to consider it as a way of living and writing that Plato adopts by himself: it is a way of self-concealing as well as at the same time of self-expressing” (2) (my translation). He 24

explains the change of seats during the banquet in Symposium in term of politics. He holds that the change of seats between Agathon and Alcibiades indicates Socrates‟ relationship between the poet and the politician; and his interpretation is that Socrates is more distanced from the politician than from the poet (13). Having a similar attitude, Liu in his commentary repeatedly reminds readers to pay attention to Socrates‟ presence among politicians and poets. Liu first mentions it at the beginning of the dialogue, and then by the end of the dialogue. To a passage on Alcibiades‟ arrival in 213b, Liu notes, “Alcibiades is a beautiful man too. His arrival changes Socrates‟ relationship between Agathon, the beautiful man----„three persons drinking together.‟ One a sophist poet, one is politician. Thus, Socrates‟ political situation in the city becomes clear at this point” (97). Though both Liu and Zhang constantly emphasize the political interpretation of Symposium as a play characterized by indirect expression, they do not go into fuller explanation. This issue is addressed more fully and specifically in Allan Bloom‟s “The Ladder of Love,” which is translated and included as the first interpretative essay in Huiyin. Bloom points out that the particular literary arrangements of the setting as well as the double indirect narration corresponds to the political situation of Socrates in terms of Peloponnesian war and Alcibiades‟ supposed impious deeds. He then further explains the possible harm in philosopher‟s teaching of his followers as well as other people: 25

But there is a danger that he [the teacher] will be misinterpreted or rigidified or codified by them [the followers] in a way contrary to the spirit of his teaching. There is the further danger that the pupil‟s imprudence, partly connected with preening himself with this special learning, will attract undue and hostile attention to that teaching....This risk may have to be accepted when one teaches, but it involves a real problem of responsibility or even self-protection....Plato, as we see here is very much aware of the problem, and that awareness informs his artful mode of writing. But certain kinds of abuses, like Neoplatonism, were unavoidable. In Plato‟s case, at least, his teaching could never be used as the ideology for a tyranny . 144 In this passage quoted above, Bloom explains how teaching even within a small circle can cause harm from citizens, and ends up in misconception; and as protection of himself and of his thoughts, Plato has to adopt an “artful mode of writing,” including the indirect narration and ambiguity of location etc. The underlined message here is the tension between citizen and philosopher. The inevitable tension between the philosophy and the citizen is the main point of Wu‟s interpretation of Apology. The whole book of Shenbian edited and translated 26

by Wu goes around this theme. His basic stand leads him to put special explanation or argument in several places in his commentary. Wu in his preface addresses Vlastos‟ approach to Apology through the theme of democracy, but he insists that the key point of Socrates‟ death is not about democracy but the eternal struggle between philosophy and politics. In his note to 35e where Athenians voted death for Socrates by a small amount, he does not agree with Burnet‟s suggestion that this death sentence might be an accident; he reaffirms his point that Socrates‟ death is inevitable because of the fundamental opposition between philosophy and politics (125). He further explains his point in his note to 37d4-e1, a passage in which Socrates states that even if he is exiled to another city, he would still attract young people and as a result be exiled again. Wu puts, “Judging from the whole text of Apology, it is impossible to solve the problems between philosophy and politics; not even Socrates intends to” (130) (My translation). Therefore, Wu disagrees with Burnet and Strycker that Socrates refuses to be exiled because he believes democracy in Athens is the best form of political system; Wu holds that it is not because of democracy that Socrates loves Athens so much (130). While being eager to interpret the whole text of Apology in term of politics, Wu sometimes seems to over-interpret in his reading. In 41b-c, Socrates goes into an elaborate description of the possible life he may enjoy after death. “ἐπὶ πόρῳ δ‟ ἄν ηιρ, 27

ὦ ἂνδπερ δικαζηαί, δέξαιηο ἐξεηάζαι ηόν ἐπὶ Τποίαν ἀγαγόνηα ηὴν πολλὴν ζηπαηιὰν ἢ Ὀδςζρέα ἤ Σίζθθον ἢν ἄλλοςρ μςπίοςρ ἄν ηιρ εἴποι καί ἄνδπαρ καί γςναῖκαρ, οἷρ ἐκεῖ διαλέγεζθαι καί ζςνεῖναι καὶ ἐξεηάζειν ἀμήσανον ἂν εἴη εὐδαιμονίαρ; (What price would any of you pay, judges, to examine him who led the great army against Troy or Odysseus, or Sisyphus, or countless others, both men and women, whom I mention? To converse and associate with them and examine them would be immeasurable happiness)” (41b-c). People raise question as why Agamemnon, Odysseus, and Sisyphus are mentioned here. Wu goes further than any of other commentators and asserts that, these three persons mentioned here by Socrates are politicians without virtue, “they do have small craft, but no virtue, just as the politicians in this life” (141). He further suggests that these three persons stand for wicked rulers in a diagram displayed here (141). Wu‟s interpretation of this passage is enlightening; however, it does not have much proof. Plato in many dialogues does show his suspicion of Homer, but mainly because of the portrait of gods in Homer. He does not disapproved the Homeric heroes. Therefore, it is rather doubtful that Plato would associate Odysseus, Agamemnon and Sisyphus with injustice [11] . Another noticeable attitude shared by both Wu and Liu is their assurance of Socrates‟ knowledge of transcendental being. Both of them believe that Socrates in the Platonic dialogue is a firm believer in the existence of gods and he is more pious 28

than other Athenians (Wu 184). Wu associates Socrates‟ famous claim of his own ignorance with his belief in god. He says, “For Socrates, it is impossible for human beings to get real knowledge. It is not because that knowledge can not be exhausted, as Zhuangzi holds; instead, it is because of the huge difference between mortal human beings and immortal god. Only god has real wisdom” (161). To most Platonic scholars, divinity in Socrates‟ thinking is identifiable with the Form. Wu makes a firm stand and differs from them. In his refutation, he says, “Even though Socrates believes that god is good, he does not substitute god for goodness” (183). In Liu‟s commentary, as for Wu and other scholars of this school, Socrates is a pious believer of god. This very understanding of Socrates‟ belief has implications in their translations and commentaries. First of all, they differ themselves from skeptics. While some scholars remain reserved in their understanding of certain ambiguous passages on transcendental beings in Plato, these Chinese Platonists seem to be more assured. This attitude can be found in the Liu‟s translation of the famous passage on the transcending journey of eros. In this passage, both words “ηὀ κάλλορ (the beauty)” and “ηὀ καλόν (the thing that is beautiful)” are used. However, on a key point at the end of journey, it is “ηι θαςμαζηὸν ηὴν θὺζιν καλόν.” (210 e) With the use of the word “ηὀ καλόν,” it literally means “how amazing the nature of the things that are beautiful,” without naming anything of the very thing which is at the end of the 29

journey. Liu does not translate this layer of ambiguity and uncertainty into Chinese. He simply takes it as “the beauty itself” (91). It can be taken that, for Liu, Socrates in Plato‟s writing is quite confident in the knowledge of the transcendental being [12] . Second, these translators‟ understanding of Socrates‟ belief in divinity also makes them feel it necessary to differentiate Plato‟s ideas about transcendental being from traditional Chinese thinking. In more than one place, Wu reminds readers to separate Socrates‟ claim of ignorance from Zhuangzi‟s famous saying that it is futile to seek after knowledge. As it is cited earlier, he makes a difference between the Socratic philosopher and Zhuangzi: the former is to desire perfection which only a god has, while the latter is satisfied with the imperfect state, considering that knowledge cannot be exhausted (161). Wu not only distinguishes these two attitudes toward knowledge, but also briefly points out the philosophical and cultural frameworks behind these two attitudes. Liu is more critical of the lack of transcendental knowledge in Chinese cultural, but we have to look into his other books on this point of view. Therefore, more discussion is to be continued in another chapter. As we may have found out already, influence from Leo Strauss, as well as his students, is profound in “Platonis opera omnia.” Almost each book in this project includes writings of Leo Strauss or of his students or of both. In Huiyin and Shenbian, the authors constantly cite from Leo Strauss in their arguments. Wu‟s main argument 30

in Shenbian that philosophy and politics are forever in contradiction, and Liu‟s view of the esoteric writing in Plato and his corresponding approach of close reading to discover the hidden meaning, as well as many of their arguments, are from Leo Strauss. And they never hesitate to admit it. However, we cannot say that they are merely repeating Leo Strauss. If we agree with their argument that great thoughts only express themselves through interpretation of other thoughts, we may say that they are expressing themselves through Leo Strauss who is expressing himself through Socrates which is an expression in the form of dialogue by Plato. They have their own concerns. As mentioned briefly at the beginning of the chapter, their purpose of organizing such a large project is “to continue the precious learning from great scholars in previous generations, and to provide prosperity for the later generations.”[13] Wu explains it in a more specific way in his preface to Shenbian, “The Western scholars try to understand their current situation through their study of classical thoughts. We, too, can have better understanding of our own situation in China, with the help of their classical studies” (62). In Huiyin and Shenbian, they relate Platonic ideas to Chinese thoughts, sometimes as correspondence, sometimes as differentiation. Liu uses a Chinese traditional poetic style to translate Agathon‟s ode to eros in Symposium (179d) and he points out that there are quite a lot of literary characters in Zhuangzi‟s writing which are close to the 31

characterization of Diotima (73). Wu cites Confucius‟ saying “This is doing politics. Otherwise, what should be called doing politics? 是亦为政，奚其为为政” as an equivalent saying to Socrates‟ attitude toward doing politics as profession (114); He also cites and compares Zhuangzi‟s famous saying with Socrates‟ claim of ignorance. Their efforts to introduce readers to the thinking of Chinese culture and situation are quite subtle in these two books. However, in books such as Meide ke Jiao ma?《美德 可教吗》（Can virtue be taught?） and Sugeladi de Wenti 苏格拉底的问题 (The Problems of Socrates), they discuss Chinese problems in light of Plato or Platonic studies on a much larger scale. In these books, interpretative essays of Plato‟s dialogues are often put forward first, and then they are followed by essays on Chinese classical studies. Take Sugeladi de Wenti 苏格拉底的问题 for instance, the first part of the book is Leo Strauss‟ six lectures on the problem of Socrates, while the rest of the book is made up of essays of Chinese classical studies by different Chinese scholars. These topics are various but nevertheless related to certain issues in Platonic studies. For instance, one essay is on different historical portraits of three disciples of Confucius; one is on the commentary method in interpretation of a classical text. They discuss more extensively on Chinese historical and cultural issues, more or less through Plato, in other books, which is not to be discussed here in this chapter. Even though both Wu, Liu and Zhang cite Leo Strauss frequently, we cannot 32

say that Leo Strauss is the only influence upon these scholars. It is hard to ignore the Confucian interpretative tradition in their works. They came up with the purpose of translating Platonic dialogues as “to continue the precious learning from great scholars in previous generations, and to provide prosperity for the later generations,” which puts them in line with the tradition of Chinese Confucian scholarship. They use the traditional system of “Jing 经, Zhu 注, Shu 疏, Yi 义, Jijie 集解...” to describe and to classify their work. It is highly doubtful that they, with their knowledge in Chinese classical studies, do not have in their mind the debate between Old Text Confucianism and New Text Confucianism which went on for over thousand years and had substantial influence over different disciplines and social changes in Chinese history.[14] Considering these Platonic scholars‟ emphasis on philology and close reading, they are close to the Old Text School; however, their tendency to search for “meaning behind words,” and their interest in looking for political, social and theological implications of text put them more in line with the New Text School. In fact, they tend to go between these two schools, but they actually show more interest in the New Text School scholars. There is a very direct association of New Text School in both Shenbian and Huiyin, Liu in Huiyin cites Kang Youwei, a controversial New Text School scholar who is famous for his interpretation of Confucian texts for 33

revolutionary purpose (102). In his other works, Liu makes research on Kang Youwei‟s famous political commentary on Confucian texts. Another New Text School scholar he studies is Liao Ping. Once we put these Platonic scholars together with New Text Confucianism, we find some interesting questions. As New Text School considers Confucius as the Suwang 素王 (uncrowned king), Liu comes up with the term of Zhexue wang 哲学王 (philosophical king) as the ideal ruler in his reading of Plato, particularly in his reading of Republic. We naturally question in which sense Zhexue wang 哲学王 responds to Suwang 素王, and in which sense they differ from each other. Once again, in order to answer these questions, we have to look into other works by this group of scholars, thus we leave this issue for later discussion in another chapter. In the following discussion, we shall look into a text which is not directly related to any dialogue of Plato; however it is believed in this chapter that, with this example, we are able to see how Platonic dialogues help to shape the view points of this school of scholars. Liu published an essay entitled “Indecipherable,” which is included in his Confucianism and Nation titled in Latin as Discipuli Confucii et eorum civitas. It is a talk among three scholars on a Chinese TV show on modern Chinese history, which has nothing to do with Plato‟s dialogues or with the Western tradition. Nonetheless, it 34

has distinctive Platonic features. We cannot say that these features are absent in Chinese writing, but they are not commonly found in Chinese authors, and distinctively Platonic both in style and in theme. First, as with most of Platonic dialogues, it is a dialogue among intellectuals on certain topic. There is hardly any story line in this essay. And interestingly, the dialogue is in the form of an interpretation, that is, they are interpreting the hidden message in a TV show. Second, the sentence structure in this essay greatly resembles Plato‟s style of writing. The constant use of clauses in sentences reminds us of the typical Greek way of writing, which tends to include different parts into one piece with the use of genitive absolute and other grammatical techniques. Third, there are constant details of action during the dialogue in “Indecipherable,” which echoes Liu‟s claim that Platonic dialogues are plays and we should pay attention not only to words but also to deeds. Besides, a more important feature of style is the multi-layered narration in “Indecipherable” which can be considered as an imitation of the narrative framework of Platonic dialogues. The main character “I” was absent from the talk. The story, or rather, the discussion reaches the reader through Xiaowan, a fresh Ph. D who later narrated the talk to the first narrator “I.” This multi-layered indirect narration is the main narrative form featuring Platonic dialogues, as is noted with special attention by 35

Zhang, Liu and Wu in Huiyin and Shenbian. In Symposium, Apollodorus repeats to his companion the dialogue he has heard from Aristodemus who was present during the dialogue with Socrates and others. In “Indecipherable,” after the introduction of the narrative framework at the beginning, the first narrator “I” constantly asserts his voice in the later text, reminding the reader that he himself was not present during the dialogue, and thus the information that reaches reader has already been filtered and re-created by someone else [15] . The constant shifting of the narrative voices among the main characters, “I,” Xiaowan, and the other two conversation participants creates a kind of uncertainty as well as an atmosphere of secrecy and mystery. Besides the ambiguity created by indirect narration, there are other places that are deliberately made ambivalent in the text of “Indecipherable.” The narrator “I” explains that he does not recall clearly the date when the dialogue occurs. And he does not even quite know the exact spelling of the name of one of the participants. The place where the talk takes place is new and unknown to him. This ambiguity and secrecy are found by Zhang and Liu in their reading of Symposium. In his essay which is translated and included in Huiyin, Allan Bloom explains how the special arrangements of narration, time and time contribute to the theme of Symposium (Huiyin 141). The discussion in Liu‟s essay covers various topics around this TV show. 36

Nevertheless, the main purpose of the discussion is to find out why the main character changes her mind and gives up her love pursuit. The protagonist, Huang, is highly praised during the dialogue for her courage in pursuing what is higher and better. Several of the characteristics of Socrates are detected and described for Huang. She is pious, and offers sacrifices to gods; she displays daring courage in going against social nomos, etc. These characteristics are found and commented upon by Zhuang, Liu and Wu in both Shenbian and Huiyin. More importantly, in Liu‟s “Indecipherable,” the word aiyu 爱欲(eros) is used to refer to the drive of her pursuit. As Liu points out in his commentary in Huiyin, this very word “eros” is the core of the dialogue in Symposium. Here in the essay “Indecipherable,” this word assumes similar philosophical meaning. In Symposium, the journey of eros is a rising process toward the transcendental being. Like Socrates in Symposium, according to the interpretation of the scholars in “Indecipherable,” Huang starts her journey of eros from the desire for the body, that is, she is in love with a man. However, what she seeks is not simply physical love, but something higher and better. As she finds out that the physical love is apart from what is better and higher, she changes the object of her pursuit from a man to something transcendental. This Platonic interpretation of Huang‟s change gains agreement among all the participants in the conversation in “Indecipherable.” In addition to the transcending journey of eros, we can find another Platonic 37

idea, that is, the contradiction between minority and majority. In the conversation, they discuss the difference between minority and majority. They agree that the majority of people in society may have natural virtue, but they usually do not know what it is, while only a small group of people love thinking and are concerned with what is virtue. Yet, this small group of people, among whom is Huang, as they agree, do not have any right to look down upon them and should respect their average concerns. We may find that this differentiation between minority and majority is actually a variation of the paradigm of philosophers and citizens. Both Wu and Liu make a lot of efforts in explaining the inevitable difference and even tension between them. However, at the same time, Liu puts a note in Huiyin to passage 220c of Symposium, “Nietzsche once says, the philosopher should not look down upon the rights for average living of average persons; he should not pull them up to a higher place. It is because after someone reaches a higher spot, the life will become harsher, and is accompanied by more responsibility” (111) (my translation). The idea of tolerance of non-philosophical living, as Liu asserts, is actually quite absent in Symposium and Apology. In these two dialogues of Plato, Socrates talks more of the necessity of abandoning non-philosophical life and of engagement in a philosophical living, as we can find in Socrates‟ metaphor of gadfly in Apology. The idea of tolerating and respecting the average life style may be one of Liu‟s thought in his 38

reading of Plato; it may be what he gets from Socrates‟ death and his tragedy. More importantly, this can be seen as a compromise he makes between Straussian Platonism and the Confucian tradition which emphasizes the social responsibility of intellectuals. The project of “Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis in Chinese tradition,” though still far from completion, has already made a big impact upon Chinese academia. These translations receive high evaluations for their thoroughness in including commentaries. And because of these series, many students and scholars get interested in reading the original texts of Platonic dialogue. As Zhang notes in his preface, after some students read the translation of Apology by Liu, they started taking classes in Greek (Huiyin 15). On the other hand, however, the political interpretation as well as the overt influence of Leo Strauss in these series gets constant criticism. Quite a lot of scholars criticize that these works misleadingly provide a Straussian Plato and thus fail to remain true to the Platonic dialogues. Nonetheless, considering the impact this project has upon different disciplines in China, including Western classical study, Chinese classical studies, politics etc, we can be sure that this is a significant on-going event in Chinese modern translation history, or rather, in the Chinese modern intellectual history.

39

Notes [1] The translations of Phaedrus and Republic (Book Ten) as well as some other dialogues are cited occasionally. It seems that these scripts of translation are already circulated in a small circle but not yet officially published. [2] The information of the to-be-published book lists is put on the back cover of almost each book. [3] What the authors refers to in an indirect and cryptic way is the Crackdown of the Tiananmen Square Movement in 1989. After the 1989, the government took a much tighter censorship over the intellectual activities and publications in China. [4] Their attitude toward the translators of the project of “Xiandai xifang xueshu wenku 现 代西方文库” in 1980s is somehow different. The relationship between this school and the scholars in 1980s are further discussed in the third chapter. [5] There is thematic reason to choose in this chapter Huiyin and Shenbian to focus upon, as will be discussed below. [6] The Chinese word “pian 篇” has strong association of exposition, treatise, etc. [7] Zhang says, “A careful reader may have already discovered, this new translation by Mr. Liu Xiaofeng is Huiyin, instead of Huiyin Pian, as we used to know. This change of one word is small, but is part of the efforts of restoring the literary features of Platonic dialogues as plays. In fact, Feiduo《斐多》translated by Yang Jiang 40

(Liaoning Jiaoyu Chubanshe, 2000) has already dropped the word “pian 篇,” which is more or less associative of philosophical treatises, and reminds people of the treatises like “Quanxue Pian《劝学篇》,” “Wuxing Pian《五行篇》” etc.” (My translation) (Zhang 5) [8] They changed Falupian《法律篇》to Fayi《法义》for Plato‟s Law, and Lixiangguo 《理想国》to Wangzhi《王制》for Republic. Apart from their efforts of promoting new understanding of Platonic studies in general among readers, they intend to encourage them to consider aspirations for better way of living and social system as important themes in Platonic dialogues. They provide a philological explanation for the choice of Wangzhi《王制》for Plato‟s Republic. As they assert, the Greek title πολιτεία refers to citizenship, the life of a citizen, the condition or constitution of a state. The Latin translation as Respublica is not far from the Greek original meaning; however, the modern word “Republic” or “Staat” no longer carries the same meaning of πολιτεία. Accordingly, the word “lixiangguo 理 想国” as the Chinese equivalent to “Republic” or “Staat” is rather far from the original meaning of πολιηεία, since it does not have any association of way of living, and way of conducting a state. Their new translation as Wangzhi《王制》is intended to help reader go back to the original meaning ofπολιτεία with its Chinese connotations in way of living, way of conducting a state and rulership. It is questionable whether their translations of title are better than the 41

previous ones; however, as they claim, the main purpose of making such changes is to encourage more discussions on Platonic dialogues. Nevertheless, it is true that their new choice of words for title do help readers to associate Platonic dialogues with discussion of political system or way of living in Chinese ancient classical texts. [9] For Huiyin, there are two prefaces; the longer one is by Zhang Hui, and the short one is by the translator, Liu Xiaofeng. [10] Liu Xiaofeng acknowledged the contribution made by the translator Zhu Guangqian for translating Symposium; however, he does not mention Wang Taiqing‟s translation of the same dialogue, which was more widely used and cited in Chinese academia before his translation came out. [11] Wu‟s over-interpretation of his passage indicates another feature of this school. They are eager to interpret Platonic dialogues in terms of the inevitable struggle between philosophy and politics. Even though they acknowledge that both politics and philosophy tends to search for a better life in their own ways, while in their reading practice, they are often too ready to associate politics with wicked rulers and injustice. The theories they have seem to be an over-simplified version of Leo Strauss‟ theory. [12] It is very different from Derrida‟s reading of Plato. As to Derrida, the meaning in Plato is elusive and there is great ambiguity in identifying what it is. [13] “继往圣之绝学，开万世之太平” is from Zhang-Hengju in Song Dynasty. 42

[14] The controversy between New Text School and Old Text School originated in a period around 5 B. C. to 1 A. D. on which Confucian texts were more authentic. As the debate went on, these two schools formed totally different views. The New Text school emphasized political and social as well as theological applications of Confucian text; while the Old Text school focused more on philology and resisted free political interpretation. In nineteen century there emerged several famous New Tex scholars and activists who used Confucian texts to promote social and political changes. Among there were Kang Youwei, a scholar to whom Liu and other Chinese Platonists pay much attention. [15] In one sense, the constant insertion of the voice of the first narrator is similar to ἒθη in Platonic dialogues, especially in Symposium and Republic.

43

CHAPTER TWO: Chinese Platonists as Straussians The previous chapter points out that the acceptance of Leo Strauss is one of the dominant features of the contemporary Platonic studies in China. In many aspects, these Platonists are the Chinese “disciples” of Strauss. They not only cite Strauss extensively in their commentary on the Platonic dialogues but also dedicate themselves to introducing Strauss‟s political philosophy to the Chinese reader through translating, editing and publishing his books as well as the works of his students. The readership of Strauss in China is mainly constituted by Platonists, but is not confined to them. Partially because of the consistent efforts of these Chinese Platonists, most of Strauss‟s works have been translated into Chinese and thus have created a relatively large group of readers in China. Strauss is presented to the Chinese reader as a thinker on political theory and political philosophy whose work covers a swath of different academic areas, rather than a specialist in the classics. For instance, the debate between Strauss and Isaiah Berlin on liberalism has greater frequency of citation within the realm of Chinese scholarship than Strauss‟s esoteric reading of Plato. However, despite the complexity of the image of Strauss in China, it is well recognized that it is upon his reading of Plato that Strauss founds the 44

preponderance of his political and philosophical speculations. Accordingly, a picture of the Straussian brand of Platonism in China covers topics that go around, but sometimes, beyond the Platonic dialogues. The popularity of Strauss in Chinese academia makes a sharp contrast to the popular suspicion that has lead to the marginalization of Strauss in America. If Strauss‟ marginalized status in American can be explained by his indictment as an enemy of liberal democracy1 in the public media, then how to explain the status Strauss enjoys in China? According to Thomas A. Metzger, the acceptance of concepts from another culture is decided both by the effectiveness of the concepts themselves and by the extensiveness of the readiness for this acceptance: Cultural diffusion is a two-way street and so depends on both the availability of ideas to import and the intensity of the indigenous impulse to import them. Neither side of this transaction can be taken for granted. The Chinese mind was not a tabula rasa reaching out for instructions from the outside. (17) Metzger‟s concept can be applied to the case of the Chinese mass acceptance of the Straussian Platonism. It means that we have to examine the foreign concepts accepted and transplanted into the Chinese background while at the same time looking into the preconditions in the socio-historic-cultural realities in China that 45

facilitate the popularity of these concepts. The first part of this chapter focuses on the characteristics of the Straussian Platonism in China in light of an alternative interpretation of Strauss in the contemporary Chinese value system. The second part moves to a discussion on the historical issues behind the reading of Strauss by the Chinese Platonists, and on the conflicts between the Chinese Platonists‟ avowed support for the individual freedom and their elitist tendencies. The final part of this chapter consists of the Chinese Platonists‟ attempts to read Confucian classics within the framework of Strauss‟s political philosophy and the tradition of New School of Confucianism. As it is, the acceptance of Strauss by the Chinese Platonist community is treated in this chapter as a distinctive phenomenon of cultural encounter. The discussions on Strauss in America are mentioned as background information, but most attention in this chapter is directed toward the realities that make possible such a wide acceptance which has strong selectiveness on the interpretation of Strauss, especially his views on Plato. Emphasis is also made in this chapter on the changes Struassian Platonism has caused to the existing concepts and ideas associated with China‟s classical texts and its classical history. In other words, the Straussian influence on the Chinese Platonists is treated as a fundamentally Chinese phenomenon with fundamentally Chinese concern for tradition, history, and future, as its primary impetus. 46

There is great ambiguity and controversy in the interpretation of Strauss. Besides the fact that Strauss himself is a difficult thinker, there are other factors that make Strauss more complicated than most other modern thinkers. One reason is that he hides his ideas behind his readings of other major figures in the history of political and philosophical thought in a most indirect way, and therefore is believed to “hide his views behind a veil of scholarship” (Drury PILS, ix). One main factor contributing to Strauss‟s complexity and controversy is his theory and practice of “esoteric writing.” Drury believes that Strauss himself wrote esoterically and she writes a whole book to “uncover his esoteric philosophy” (Drury PILS, ix)2 As a philosopher who is always reluctant to disclose himself to the reader, Strauss leaves ample room to both his followers and his critics for a plethora of interpretations. It is not surprising, therefore, that people argue that Strauss himself needs to be distinguished from his students and from groups which are referred as “the political Straussians” (Zuckert TALS, 22). To underscore this point, the Zuckerts devotes an entire chapter in their book The Truth about Strauss to the classification of the American Straussians into three philosophically and geographically distinct groups: the East Coast, the West Coast, and the Midwest. In this chapter, the interpretation of Strauss in America is presented roughly in two groups: First, in America media, Strauss is presented as a political philosopher who had a strong influence upon the 47

Reagan and the Bush Administrations; second, Strauss is seen as a thinker and a scholar unjustly defamed by the America public. The first interpretation in this chapter is based on Shadia B. Drury‟s works on Strauss, and the second interpretation is supported by Catherine and Michael Zuckert‟s books which make counter-argument to Drury‟s criticism. The majority of Chinese scholars are well aware of the controversy existing within American academia concerning Strauss and his philosophy. Their awareness only serves to make more interesting their particular preference in reading Strauss. Theoretically, Chinese Platonists‟ portrayal of Strauss by is closer to the first interpretation in America, the one criticized by the public media. However, differing from Gan Yang, who tends to place Strauss in the background of American conservatism, Liu Xiaofeng only emphasizes the the German intellectual background of Strsuss. In many occasions, he explicitly states that his understanding of Strauss is indebted to Heinrich Meier, a German scholar. Nevertheless, the controversy in the interpretation of Strauss in America is reflected in the Chinese academia. Besides the consistent efforts devoted to introducing Strauss to the Chinese readership so far undertaken by the Chinese Platonists, there is another significant and detailed introduction to Strauss, namely the one authored by Gan Yang. Gan Yang‟s interpretation shares a great deal of 48

similarity with that of the Chinese Platonists represented by Liu Xiaofeng; however, the difference between them, far from being diminished by the points held in common by each side, is only sharpened by the apparent similarity. A comparison of these two different readings can help us to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the unique characteristics of the Chinese Platonists as Straussians and of how the issue of Chinese modernity goes through these Chinese scholars‟ understanding of Strauss. Gan Yang is not treated as a Platonist in this paper. He does not participate in the project of Platonis cum Commentariis or any other translation project of Western Classical texts. The only discussion he has ever undertaken on the subject of Plato is in his preface to the Chinese translation of Natural Rights and History as a statement on his understanding of Strauss‟ political philosophy. In contrast to the Chinese Platonists who tend to restrict their analysis to the Western classics and tend to keep their distance from the contemporary issues, Gan is more than willing to engaging himself in a multitude of contemporary debates, not least of which are the controversial problems raised by attempted renovation of political and economic systems within the rural areas of China, or the ongoing challenges posed by educations reform. More importantly, he has radically different philosophical stances than those held by Liu Xiaofeng, Lin Guohua and other Chinese Platonists, 49

especially on the relation between philosophy and politics. At a glance one might mistakenly take Gan and his works as an important constituent of the school of Chinese Platonists, since he has numerous connections with this particular academic group. The Phenomenological School he started and led in the 1980s created the intellectual platform by which emergence of the school of Chinese Platonists was rendered possible. Gan used to hold similar views on Chinese culture and issue of Chinese modernity as his colleague Liu Xiaofeng. It was with his support that Liu published his famous book Delivering and Dallying. However, despite the common ground he used to have with Chinese Platonists, Gan now takes a different stance from Chinese Platonists, especially in regards to his understanding of Strauss as well as the application of Strauss‟s philosophy in contemporary China. Gan‟s long preface to Natural Right and History can be considered as a counter-reading to those of the Chinese Platonists. It is worth noting that Gan actually came to know Strauss earlier than any of Chinese Platonists did. He did his Ph. D. study at the Committee on Social Thought of the Chicago University, where Strauss first established his influence in America academia. After he came back to China, Gan busily engaged himself in the various debates on contemporary issues and remained silent on Strauss until he wrote his long prefaces in which he revealed 50

his great respect for Strauss in 2002. As it is noted, Gan‟s long silence on Strauss is significant. One is tempted to draw a parallel between Gan‟s conspicuous silence and the deliberate avoidance showed by Foucault towards any reference to Heidegger, a man to whom he was and is greatly indebted for his thoughts (Shui). Then why does he all of sudden talk about Strauss, about whom he has remained silent for an entire decade? Gan‟s preface to Natural Right and History immediately drew substantial attention, partially because he does not usually produce long essays, let alone a long and comprehensive introduction to a specific thinker. By the time Gan wrote his preface, Strauss had already become very popular in China because of the consistent efforts made by the Chinese Platonists represented by Liu Xiaofeng. Liu Xiaofeng‟s reading of Strauss is largely based on the German Straussian Heinrich Meier‟s books. In his important essay entitled “Strauss as a Sign Post,” Liu cites Meier extensively to support his reading of Strauss. It is noteworthy that in his preface, Gan makes a special note that he does not find Heinrich Meier‟s explanatory works on Strauss satisfactory (21). In other words, he subtly points out that Liu‟s reading which favors Meier‟s interpretation is not satisfactory. The political philosophy of Strauss he constructs in his preface to Natural Right and History is very different from the one introduced by Chinese Platonists. His preface can be looked upon as an effort to modify and correct the views held by the Chinese Platonists. 51

This chapter starts with Gan‟s preface before we come to a detailed discussion on Liu Xiaofeng‟s acceptance of Strauss. It is hoped that in light of Gan‟s reading, we can come to a better understanding of the unique characteristics of the Straussian influence on the Chinese Platonists. After all, the key issues Gan deals with are also the major concerns of Chinese Platonists in their reading of Strauss. Similarly, Gan and Liu have a congruent understanding of Strauss. Both of them consider Strauss as a thinker who has extremely profound understanding of modernity. Both acknowledge the fact that Strauss builds up his theory on the reading of Western classics, especially on the dialogue of Plato. Both discuss the meaning of Socrates‟ death in the sense of the political status of philosophy. Furthermore, they both conclude that Strauss‟s political philosophy has important practical value and can be applied to the problems of contemporary China. And yet, these structural similarities do not prevent them radically contradicting each other in their explanations of Strauss. In the following, I focus on several key issues in the dialogue Liu and Gan are engaged with the interpretation of Strauss: What kind of dilemma does modernity create for human beings? In which sense is politics necessary to philosophy? What kind of status does exoteric/esoteric writing have in Strauss‟s political philosophy? On these issues, Gan and Liu have different understanding. 52

Gan states in his preface that Strauss maintains that the crisis of modernity lies in radical historicism, that is, the denial of the existence of any ultimate value. Gan does not stop there; instead, he uses the work of William Galston, one of the Straussians, to explicate the concept of radical historicism as crisis of modernity in the concept of liberalism. According to radical historicism, there is no ultimate value and all values are equal. If so, there are inevitable conflicts between equal values. In order to solve these conflicts, liberalism tries to set up a kind of “value free” mechanism, which is not based on “right or wrong,” but on individual “rights.” In other words, liberalism considers the ultimate good should be able to equally treat all claims on morality; therefore, the ultimate good is not to tell which claim is good or not, but to remain value free as it considers all claims are personal choice rather than something to be decided in the public sphere (55). However, Gan through Strauss questions the validity of this mechanism. Liberalism bases its theory on Kant‟s idea of self autonomy. Liberalism holds that the self is capable of freedom from any presumption of good, that is, a human being is identified as free because he does not submit himself to any particular presumption of good. There arises the question as to what the free human being does after he obtains absolute freedom. Kant would say that a free human being will make laws for himself (54). However, as it is pointed out by modern theories, there is no guarantee for a free human being 53

to choose to submit himself to the state of law (54).Gan points out that Foucault would argue that a free human being will choose not rights but power, not justice but control of others (52-3). Accordingly, Foucault characterizes freedom as the libidinous energy to negate everything: in order to get absolute freedom, it is necessary to negate all the restraints imposed by race, religion, history, culture, and gender etc. (53-4). Strauss considers this freedom in the Kantian sense as the problem of nihilism, since it uproots man and places him in abyss (56). Strauss holds that freedom of negativity by Kant might be possible to certain people, but not to everyone; besides, not everyone wants this absolute freedom, since the majority of society wants not negative deconstruction but positive construction (56). In conclusion, Strauss considers that radical historicism, or rather, nihilism, puts modern society in great danger and styles as the ultimate crisis of modernity. In order to solve the problem, Strauss comes up with his theory of political philosophy. He considers that modern philosophers like Kant erase the differences between societal and philosophical concerns, and wrongly assume that each member of society tries his best to obtain absolute negative freedom as a philosopher would do. He calls this modern phenomenon “politicization of philosophy.” Previously, philosophy is a personal intellectual activity, but now, it is brought into public and political arena in the form of ideology. In Strauss‟s words, “philosophy has gone 54

mad.” He proposes a return to Socrates and the political philosophy Socrates puts forth in order to turn philosophy from its current madness back to “sobriety” and “moderation” (61). Gan makes it clear that a philosopher needs to be a political philosopher, or rather, politics is necessary to philosophy largely because philosophy by nature is dangerous and has the inherent tendency of going mad, because it by nature demands absolute freedom of negativity. In order to save itself from madness, Gan maintains, philosophy needs the practical outlet of political participation to keep its sobriety. At the same time, Gan mentions also that a philosopher needs to have political philosophy for the safety of society. After all, every society, which consists primarily of non-philosophers, does not need the deconstructive negativity of philosophy but constructive and positive works. In conclusion, politics is a requisite part of the healthy practice of philosophy for two reasons: firstly, it is required by philosophy itself; without politics, philosophy would become insane; secondly, without politics, philosophy would do serious damage to society. By its own nature, philosophy needs to transform itself into political philosophy. Thus is Gan‟s interpretation of Strauss‟s intention of going to back to Plato for the original form of Political Philosophy. It is within this framework that Gan introduces Strauss‟s most controversial 55

theory of esoteric writing. In order to keep philosophy away from its attempt of philosophizing society, philosophers have to adopt a special way of writing. The same piece of writing implies two teachings: the socially useful teaching, also called the exoteric teaching; and the true teaching, also called the esoteric writing, which is implied between the lines and requires special training to apprehend. By combining esoteric writing and exoteric writing, the philosopher is able to protect morality and opinions that are essential to the existence of society in his teaching of philosophy. While explaining the concepts of the exoteric writing versus the esoteric writing, Gan obviously places more emphasis on exoteric writing. Overall, in Gan‟s reading, Strauss‟ theory of esoteric versus exoteric writing does not have the same importance as in Liu Xiaofeng‟s understanding. Liu Xiaofeng starts with the same thesis of Strauss on the issue of modernity: radical historicism, or rather, nihilism poses the most serious problem in this modern age (“Shitelaosi”); He quotes from Strauss‟s “The Three Waves of Modernity,” asserting that “modern western man no longer knows what he wants---that he no longer believes that he can know what is good and bad, what is right and wrong” (PAGE). However, while Gan discusses historicism as opposite of the political concept of liberalism, Liu understands Strauss‟s idea of historicism more in the metaphysical sense as the opposite of relativism. In his essay “Ciwei de 56

Wenshun (Tameness of Hedgehog),” Liu introduces the debate between Strauss‟s value absolutism and Isaiah Berlin‟s value pluralism. Berlin takes over Max Weber‟s concept of polytheism and asserts that fundamental values such as truth, goodness, beauty, love, etc, always vary and go against each other. There are two reasons for these conflicts: none of the fundamental values are absolute; different people have their own understanding of the fundamental values (“Ciwei”). Liu questions Berlin‟s position: if there is no absolute and transcendental truth, or rather, no natural law in Socrates‟ words, what is the point of having a philosophical life? How does philosopher justify his philosophical life? (Ciwei. PAGE.). Liu explains in his essay that Strauss provides another perspective to the justification of a philosophical life: the value conflicts are inevitable (Ciwei, PAGE); but, this inevitability does not provide a justification for the value-free attitude of relativism (Ciwei, PAGE); instead, a philosopher should always concern himself with the ultimate question: what is a good life? (Ciwei, PAGE) Liu affirms Strauss‟s position that philosophical life is a life of eros, a forever desire for the ultimate truth/value (Ciwei, PAGE). And here lies the eternal conflicts between philosophy and politics. For a philosopher, especially an Athenian philosopher like Socrates, it is important to question the authority of ancestors. As he puts it, philosophers are “those who discourse on nature,” and are different from 57

“whose who discourse on gods.” Here “nature” refers to beings that grow by themselves, instead of being created either by deities or by human beings (Ciwei.). If a good life is defined by god, people only need to follow what is said by god or by customs; if it is defined by “nature,” people have to question and study whether the concept of good or beauty goes with the nature. Socrates is a philosopher who questions whether our concepts go with nature or not (Ciwei.). However, not every member of society is capable of the philosophical life by nature, only a small group of people can be philosophers. This small group of philosophers has to face political persecution from society, as Socrates has to stand the accusation from the Athenian citizens. Liu considers the concept of political persecution that philosophers have to deal with a most important concept in Strauss. Liu explains that there are two main causes of the persecution from the people. First of all, to live a philosophical life means being different from the life of the majority of society, which indirectly indicates that the life most people live is not good. Besides, as philosophers contemplate what is good, they deny that people are born to be good. Therefore, they put themselves in constant tension with the existing social morals; Secondly, philosophers also meditate on what is a good political system, and they thus deny that the existing political system is good (Ciwei). The challenge philosophers make 58

to the existing social morality and political systems puts them in eternal political danger. It is to avoid political persecution that philosophers need to be political. In other words, according to Liu‟s understanding, politics is needed by philosophy merely for the sake of the safety of philosopher. Liu explicitly states that the first philosophical priority is to deal with the relationship between philosopher and people (“Nicai” PAGE). Accordingly, exoteric writing and esoteric writing become important strategy to avoid political persecution while maintaining the philosophical life. There are major differences between Liu and Gan in their reading of Strauss. Shui Yili describes Gan‟s approach as political and Liu‟s philosophical. Shui‟s understanding of their differences is exact. As to Gan, Strauss advocates going back to the world of politics/opinions and to put politics as the end of philosophical life; to Liu, Strauss‟s suggestion of political participation is only a means to end, which is purely philosophical. Liu considers that the necessity of political participation to philosophers mainly lies in the fact that philosophers need to protect themselves from political persecution. In other words, in Liu‟s understanding politics, or rather, the concerns/benefit of society is only a means to end, which is described as philosophical eros toward ultimate and transcendental values. With philosophy as 59

the end, Liu emphasizes the theory of political persecution and the necessity of esotericism. Besides, Gan understands Strauss in the Western tradition of political theory, mainly as a criticism to Rawls‟ liberalism, which started to be popular in the 1990s in China (Shui). Different from Gan, Liu emphasizes more on the philosophical tradition behind Strauss. He tries to represent the conversations Strauss has with metaphysical thinkers of different generations, Plato, Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc. To him, Strauss‟s criticism of value relativism/nihilism is one of his greatest achievements in the history of philosophy. More importantly, Gan seems to follow Straussian‟s advice to go back to the opinion world by actively involving himself in current debates on various political issues, such as Rural China, Reformation of Education System, etc. As a contrast, in many ways, Liu consciously stays away from these political debates and remains philosophical rather than political. Compared to Gan, Liu is much more philosophical in his approach to the political philosophy of Strauss. However, it does not mean that Liu abstains entirely from any participation in the realities of China. As Shui points out, both Liu and Gan approach Strauss with their concerns for China; or rather, they both hope to find in Strauss the expression of their concerns with and understandings of the dilemmas of modern China (Shui). As it is, while being “philosophical,” Liu engages himself in the conversation on Chinese modernity in a much more indirect way than Gan Yang 60

does. Liu‟s emphasis on Strauss‟s theory of political persecution strongly reminds readers of his previous writings on Chinese modern history, which were published in 1980s and 1990s. The issue of history seems to loom behind Straussians. Strauss himself seldom discussed immediate history, even the history of his homeland Germany before and during the World War II. However, according to Drury, Strauss‟s deep distrust of liberal democracy is actually caused the by his experience of Weimar Republic which convinced him of the political teachings of Plato. A great enemy of democracy, Plato described it as the second worst form of government, and was convinced that it inevitably leads to tyranny. For Strauss as for Plato, democracy is a licentious state of affairs in which a multiplicity of conflicting and irreconcilable appetites compete for dominance. Plato describes a society torn apart by insatiable and conflicting appetites, and he surmised that in this state of disorder, one master passion was bound to become supreme and rule despotically over all others. The scenario described by Plato, whereby democracy gives way to tyranny, mirrors the scenario where Weimar sets the licentious state of Hitler to emerge victorious. Drury further points out that for Strauss and for his students such as Allan 61

Bloom, American liberalism “is a recreation of the spineless liberalism of Weimar” (LSAR 5, 6). If Drury‟s claim that Strauss is haunted by the ghost of history is valid, we can make a similar claim about Liu Xiaofeng and other Chinese Platonists who grew up during the chaotic age of Cultural Revolution and started to seriously reflect on this part of history in 1980s. Liu Xiaofeng was one of many writers who first established their reputation with their writings of personal memories and thoughts during the Cultural Revolution. In these writings, the cruelty of collectivity over individuality was greatly stressed. Regrets were shown to the fact that intellectualism was crushed during political persecutions. Liu‟s early essay, “In memory of Donia,” was one of the most acknowledged writings of this genre at that time. We have to notice that the criticism on collectivity in favor of individuality was a main trend in the 1980s. Chinese Platonists, who emerged in the late 1990s, were either young scholars at that time, or young readers of these works, and more or less fall under the shadow of the Chinese modern history in their later choice of Strauss. With the keen experience and memory of the political movements of the past decades, they are ready to accept Strauss‟s philosophical on political persecution and esoteric writing as protective strategy for intellectuals. History matters a great deal to both Strauss and the Chinese Straussians. 62

Liu‟s criticism on the Chinese modern history written in his earlier age touches on the classical Straussian theme, that is, the conflicts between philosophy and politics. However, at that time it mostly appeared in the form of the conflicts between individuality and collectivity. Because of the impression Liu gave to his reader in 1980s and 1990s, he was considered to be a liberal in China until he came to write about Strauss. Actually, his recent series of lectures on the Chinese modern history, especially on the Civil War in the 1940s, the Chinese government‟s role in the Korean Civil War in the 1950s, shocked many readers who did not quite follow Liu‟s recent changes and still considered him to be a liberal who was forced into exile because of the Tiananmen Square Student Movement in 1989. In these lectures, he portrayed Mao Zedong as a Superman straight from the pages of Nietzsche, a Platonic Philosopher-King. Such a portrayal is quite contradictory to his previous impression of Mao as a tyrant, a symbol of the negative destroying power of the masses. Surely Liu applies Straussian concepts to re-read the Chinese modern history, as we can detect classical Straussian themes such as the rulership of philosopher-king. Besides, Liu‟s emphasis on Chineseness in confrontation with Americanism reminds reader of Strauss‟s concern of the conflicts between Judaism versus universalism. Yet, has Strauss drastically transformed Liu‟s and other Chinese Platonists‟ vision of the world and of the life? Or is there some deeper 63

undercurrent of consistency flowing throughout? With his belief that the Chinese mind is not a “tabula rasa reaching out for instruction from the outside,” Thomas Metzger would disagree that acceptance of Strauss‟s philosophy re-molds the whole framework of Liu Xiaofeng or any other Chinese scholar who later became Chinese Platonists/Straussians. Then besides the immediate history, what is the “intensity of the indigenous impulse to import” (Metzger 17) these Straussian concepts with such strong preference? Liu first expressed his value absolutism in the language of Christian philosophy in the 1980s. He held a defiant stance against Confucianism, arguing that there is a lack for the transcendental being in the Chinese culture, which leads the culture to nihilism. His main argument goes as follows: people always attempt to seek meaning of existence in this world; however, there is no such meaning for existence; Chinese culture either tends to nullify such attempts, emphasizing that the meaning-seeking attempts are by nature meaningless (wu ming), or tries to create certain meaning through moral cultivation; however, the meaning of life can only be given by the transcendental god of Christianity, who cares for individuals who live in this meaningless world (Zhengjiu 49, 50, 88). In this book, Liu emphasizes his strong stance on value absolutism: absolute value transcends geographical, cultural and historical differences. He identifies Christian value in its philosophical sense as 64

absolute value in this book. However, the philosophical and theoretical support for his value absolutism that he found in Christianity somehow disappeared in the years after he published Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao(Redemption and Dallying). He had a new question: since philosophy is loosing ground in this modern society, does it work to introduce Christianity into China as one kind of philosophy (Shui)? His later book Xiandai xing lilun xulun (Preface to Social Theory of Modernity) seems to express the idea that that the real issue in China is not about whether to have Christianity or not, but about modernity itself, that is, philosophy tends to disintegrate itself and nihilism is inevitable. He admits later that while writing Xiandai xing lilun xulun, he was retreating from his previous strong stance on value absolutism (“Ciwei de wenshun”). By that time, he seems to wander between value absolutism and relativism. He even came to the position of relativism asserting for “value neutral” by emphasizing the necessity of objectivity (Xiandaixing 2). In other words, value absolutism Liu previously acquired in Christianity was challenged by modernity. He gradually modified or even dropped his position about Christianity and tried to find an alternative support for his value absolutism, that is, how to defend philosophy which searches for some ultimate value in a modern age where all values are considered to be equal. We can see that his position 65

of value absolutism was quite close to his later understanding of Strauss‟s thesis on absolutism and relativism/nihilism. Actually he states that he was immensely attracted to Strauss when he found out that Strauss‟s criticism of value relativism and nihilism was exactly the same as his in his Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao (Ciwei PAGE). As he states, Strauss made him feel both “shocked” and strengthened” (Ciwei PAGE), and reaffirmed his strong position in value absolutism. As we can see, Liu‟s position about value absolutism is consistent before and after he came to Strauss. It might be the same reason that he differs from Gan in his approach to Strauss by emphasizing Strauss‟s criticism of relativism and nihilism. Through reading Strauss, Liu finds raison d‟être and strategy for the existence of philosophers in modern society. Besides, Liu starts to reconsider Chinese culture within the framework of Straussian political philosophy. As we mentioned earlier, Liu takes a defiant position against Chinese culture in his early work Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao. He criticized that both Confucianism and Daoism ignored people‟s instinct of seeking ultimate values, an argument based on his understanding of Christianity. After he started reading Strauss, while his position about Christianity is greatly modified or even dropped, his interest in Chinese culture keeps increasing. Chinese culture, either Confucianism or Daoism, now seems to Liu to be something worthy of philosophical investigation. It is interesting 66

that Strauss changes Liu‟s attitude toward Chinese culture. Liu might be inspired by Strauss‟s consistent efforts in detecting consistencies between thinkers of Jewish thinkers such as Maimonides and Hellenistic thinkers like Plato and Xenophon. As an active participant in Cultural Debates in 1980s, Liu is familiar with dialogues between different cultures, as he demonstrated in Zhengjiu yu xiaoayao. Instead of detecting differences, now he is more interested in locating the similarities between the Western Tradition and Chinese culture with regard to Strauss‟s concept of philosophy. I mentioned in the previous chapter that Liu frequently refers back to Chinese classics in his commentary on Symposium. He makes more connections with Straussian Platonism and Confucianism and Daoism in his other essays. He interprets the Confucian scholar Kang Youwei‟s refusal to publish his works as an illustrating example of esotericism in the Chinese modern history. At the same time, he asserts that esotericism is embodied in Xujing 虚静, a Daoist virtue emphasized by Dao de jing. However, the most noticeable effort he makes is to build up a connection between Platonic Philosopher-King/Nietzschean Superman and Shengren/Suwang（圣人/素王） in Chinese culture. Jiang Qin, a contemporary scholar who advocates so-called Political Confucianism, affirms Liu‟s change of attitude toward Chinese culture, saying that 67

“Liu Xiaofeng has taken radically different stand toward Confucian culture in the past twenty years. Liu Xiaofeng no longer rejects Confucianism; instead, he now respects Confucian scholars like Liao Ping as Shengren（Sage）” (PAGE). Jiang‟s comment has several implications. First of all, Jiang points out that Liu takes the New School/Gong Yang approach to Confucian classics. Secondly, the theory of Shengren is key to Liu‟s new interpretation of Chinese Confucianism. These two aspects are related. Kang Youwei (K‟ang Yu-wei) (1858-1927) was one of the most famous reformers and Confucian scholars who tried to use Confucian texts to promote reformation of political system. He was accused of plagiarizing from Liao Ping (Liao P‟ing) (1852-1932) for his Confucian theory (Levenson III. 6). Both Kang Youwei and Liao Ping belong to the School of Gong Yang, a branch of New School (Chin-wen) Confucianism. The School of Gong Yang represented by Liao and Kang in the nineteenth century distinguished itself by its assertion that Confucius, instead of King Wen of the Zhou (?), is Shengren. Furthermore, this school emphasizes political applications of Confucian texts. Its tendency toward political participation culminated in the political reformation led by Kang Youwei by the end of the nineteenth century. Furthermore, Gong Yang School emphasizes esoteric reading in its treatment of Confucian classics. Liao Ping credited Confucius 68

as the one who started the esoteric writing tradition: Liao‟s Confucius, in his stories about his idol, Wen Wang [文王], for example, had an esoteric message to convey, wrapped within the spurious, metaphorical, outside „historical‟ surface. For Confucius, as a su-wang („throneless king‟), was confined to the inner realm of knowledge, barred from the outer realm of executive action, and he expressed his knowledge in specifically „empty words‟, words, that is, which did not record what they seemed to record—past and open politics—but future, hidden prospects. (Levenson III. 12) In other words, the scholars of Gong Yang used the esoteric reading as a strategy to obtain hidden messages from the Confucian classics on politics about the past and about the future. The secret message has universal and time-transcending meaning. In this sense, the school of Gong Yang represented by Kang Youwei and Liao Ping is close to Strauss‟s theory with regard to their belief that an esoteric strategy should be adopted to extract a hidden philosophical meaning out of the classic text. Liu is well-aware of this similarity, and cites the example of Kang Youwei to support Strauss‟s theory of esotericism (Nicai P5). Liu‟s effort of locating Western values in Confucian tradition itself is not 69

rare in the tradition of Gong Yang School. As Levenson noticed, Kang Youwei tried to keep western values and rediscover them inside Confucianism3. With a nod to his predecessor Kang Youwei, Liu pushes forward Kang‟s efforts in the modern era and asserts that the political philosophy as stated by Strauss exists in the Chinese culture, demonstrated by sages like Confucius and Laozi. Liu‟s most systematic interpretation of Confucian classics is exemplified in his theory of Shengren, which is actually the Chinese version of Straussian/Platonic philosopher-king. Strauss‟s Platonic philosopher is modeled after Nietzsche‟s superman” (Drury PILS 180). In his “Nietzsche‟s Beyond Good and Evil,” Strauss comprehensively connects Nietzsche to Plato on the nature and the function of philosopher. According to him, the will to power is an equivalence to eros, “the striving for „the good in itself,‟” in Plato (“Note on Nietzsche” 176); and philosophizing is “the most spiritual (der geistigste) will to power,” which ascribes true value, or in Strauss‟s words, the natural right, “what or how it ought to be” (176). Philosopher, with the will to power, is free from the restraints of the social nomos of his time. “The philosopher as philosopher belongs to the future and was therefore at all times in contradiction to his Today; the philosophers were always the bad conscience of their time” (187). The philosopher ascribes values and maintains the order of rank with his “cosmic responsibility” (187-9). The philosopher should be the leader of society. Strauss thus 70

identifies the philosopher of future in Nietzsche as his understanding of the Platonic philosopher-king. “The leaders who can counteract the degradation of man which has led to the autonomy of the herd ... must be philosophers, new philosophers, a new kind of philosophers and commanders, the philosophers of the future” (184). Liu fully acknowledges Strauss‟s understanding of the connection between Nietzsche and Plato on philosopher-king/super-man. And he tries to identify the Confucian concept of Shengren (sage) as the Chinese version of the Straussian Philosopher-King. He asserts that the only difference between Shengren and the Platonic Philosopher-king lies in the fact that, the key issue to Platonic philosopher is whether or not he should take over rule, and how to rule; such issue does not exist to Shengren, since Shengren was initially the ruler, since Zhou Gong (Wen Wang) was both a philosopher and a king (“Shengren” P3). He further points out that Confucius is Suwang (Uncrowned King), since he does not rule as king (P4). In other words, by clarifying the concepts of Shengren and Suwang, Liu indirectly affirms that Shengren since the period of Wen Wang has become the “uncrowned king,” and thus is identical to the Platonic/Straussian concept of Philosopher-king. Liu takes the traditional view of the School of Gong Yang, holding the most important task in Confucianism is to follow the example of Confucius rather than Wen Wang. Liu makes it more specific that Confucius assumes higher status than 71

Wen Wang by setting up “dafa” (great laws) for later generations in his writings, especially in the book Chun Qiu (Rujia 55). Liu‟s idea of “dafa” comes from Liao Ping, who considers Confucius both a sage and a prophet making prophecy for the future generations (Levenson 278). In other words, Liu takes Confucius as philosopher like Plato, who teaches political philosophy or law of natural right through writing. The message implied in the writings of Confucius, as Liu insists, is political, or rather, “revolutionary.” Liu re-interprets the word “geming” (revolution): “the basic implication of „geming‟ is not to obtain the ruling power; instead, it is to re-set the legitimacy of the ruler as well as the moral set of society/state” (Rujia 45). This issue did not exist at the time of Wen Wang, since Wen Wang himself is philosopher and king. However, by the time of Confucius, the philosopher is no long the king; Confucius does not have any decisive power of re-setting the existing political and moral orders. There generated tension between suwang as philosopher who is not in power and king as the ruler, and it therefore attributes political/revolutionary spirit to suwang. Liu states, “Suwang has virtues to rule and should rule but does not rule....As suwang is the one who should rule but does not rule, who does not rule but wants to rule, how else can he do besides being revolutionary?” (Rujia 58). Besides, Liu attributes transcendental meaning to the Chinese concept 72

of tian. Liu argues that it is with order from heaven that Confucius tries to re-set the political order (shou tian ming gai zhi). And the order from heaven/god is absolute and takes the form of “de (virtue)” in suwang (60). “The order suwang receives is from the absolute god” (Rujia 57). It is controversial whether the Confucian concept of “tian (heaven)” has transcendental quality or not. Liu‟s main thesis in his early book Delivering and Dallying argues that there is no transcendental concept in Confucian tradition. His earlier argument does not prevent him from coming up with the argument that Confucius receives absolute order from the transcendental heaven like prophets in the Old Testament or like the Platonic philosopher who insists that there are ultimate values regarding to what is right, what is wrong. In Liu‟s interpretation of “tian” and “de,” we can find traits of Strauss‟s understanding of Platonic philosophers as well as the prophets in Jewish culture. On the other hand, by asserting that suwang receives order from a transcendental “heaven,” Liu actually greatly enhances the political meaning of Confucianism: The political participation of Confucian philosophers is necessary, since its goal is to carry out the heavenly mission! Furthermore, Liu holds that the goal of political participation of Shengren is to jiaohua tianxia (to civilize people). More specifically, it is to make people to observe “li” (ritual, or Confucian order) to secure the rectified social and political 73

order (67). In other words, suwang as the one who is going to carry out tianming (the mandate of Heaven) has to popularize “de” (virtue) embodied by him. Society-wide campaign of certain moral codes is necessary to Shengren. Accordingly, the Cultural Revolution led by Mao Zedong as a social campaign to re-set morality is inevitable (73). Liu‟s interpretation of jiaohua tianxia comes close to Straussian idea of exoteric writing, that is, philosophers need to set moral codes for people. However, Liu comes closer to Strauss in the sense that liberalism does not have any place in Confucian societies. According to Liu, as Shengren receives order from heaven to set social, moral orders for people, there is no place for his personal choice. “There is no freedom for individual to make his personal choice. Instead, the mission is clear, that is, to cultivate people with political system and institution” (73).4 On the other hand, individuals of society have to observe the social, political and moral orders set by Shengren. Decided by the nature of the political mission of Shengren, Confucian society excludes individual freedom and has to be morally tyrannical (73). Liu comes to a Straussian conclusion in his understanding of Confucian concept of Shengren, that is, democracy does not fit well in Confucian tradition. He states that democracy and liberalism are based on the social recognition of individual freedom and equality, not on the philosophy of Shengren which emphasizes that 74

social justice should be based on Heavenly order through Shengren (105). Liu‟s conclusion reminds people of Strauss‟s criticism of democracy and liberalism, and more strongly reminds Chinese readers of the recently emerged theory Political Confucianism. Chinese scholar Jiang Qin came up with his theory of Political Confucianism in recent years. As Liu Xiaofeng, Jiang bases his theory on the School of Gong Yang of Jin Wen, especially on the works of Liao Ping. He holds that the most serious mistake of contemporary study on Confucianism is its ignorance of the political aspects of Confucianism and thus it has gone astray. He asserts that Confucianism has provided sufficient political resources and that contemporary China should go back to Confucianism instead of democratization. Liu is more reserved on the application of Confucianism than Jiang by stating that the “re-emergence of so-called Political Confucianism is not the right solution for political reformation in China” (106). However, because of the similarities between Liu and Jiang, Liu‟s statement does not clarify people‟s suspicion that Liu and Jiang are on the same track, trying to influence the political reformation in the contemporary China, as their predecessor Kang Youwei once tried and as Strauss actually did through his students. Liu‟s Straussian approaches to classics, either Western classics such as 75

Platonic dialogue or Chinese Confucian classics, such as Chunqiu, have “Straussian” criticism in China. In other words, he has encountered the same criticism from his Chinese peers as Strauss had in America from other scholars and from public media. Apart from the criticism from Gan Yang, who comes up with an alternative reading of Strauss and of the application of Straussian political philosophy, the criticism Liu receives roughly fall into two groups: the first is about Liu‟s academic methods; the second is about the potential political danger it poses. While Strauss constructs his political philosophy on readings of thinkers on different generation, he is criticized for imposing his own ideas on these writers, either ancient or modern. Drury sharply points out that Strauss uses Machiavelli as his mouthpiece (PILS, 26): Those who consider Strauss‟s exposition of the esoteric style of writing to be a hermeneutic for the study of ancient text, not surprisingly, complain about the arbitraries of this hermeneutic. Strauss‟s penchant for arriving at conclusions based on Machiavelli‟s silences lead his critics to maintain that Strauss asserts whatever he pleases. His apparent precision and meticulousness seems to be but a cover for his resolve to fit Machiavelli into his preconceived view of the tradition of political philosophy. That Strauss completely ignores 76

not only recent scholarship on Machiavelli but the whole intellectual life of Italy at the time is yet another source of criticism of Strauss‟s methods. (114) The criticism Drury makes to Strauss‟s reading, can be largely applied to Liu‟s reading of Plato, Nietzsche, Lessing and other thinkers with his esoteric reading strategy. Same as the defect in Strauss‟s reading of Machiavelli, Liu does not include much of the recent study of Plato in his Platonis cum commentariis. Besides, he does not go into the whole intellectual life of the time of these authors. Liu receives more criticism on his reading methods in the Chinese circle when he attempts to fit the Straussian ideas into the Chinese classics in his theory of Shengren. He is accused by Chinese scholars of not having enough knowledge or adequate training in the Chinese philosophy and philology (PAGE). So far the most powerful criticism on Liu‟s scholarship is from Zong Chenghe, who wrote an article on the Straussian approach Liu and other Chinese Platonists adopt. Zong points out that Liu and Lin Guohua, another Chinese Platonist, either add their own words to Nietzsche‟s passage or twist Nietzsche‟s words to fit in their Straussian framework (P6). Thus, their conclusions on esoteric meanings are often invalid (P6). As Liu and other Chinese Platonists pay special attention to the inconsistent place in the text according to Straussian theory of esotericism, Zong 77

points out that these inconsistencies may simply indicate the inconsistency in Nietzsche rather than intentionally concealed ideas. He states: I would rather think the inconsistency in Nietzsche does not imply his intentional lies, but reveals that there is a lack of consistency in his thought.... Nietzsche himself often forgets certain ideas he once has, and sometimes even is not conscious of the conflicts in his ideas. However, it is the richness generated by this kind of inconsistency that makes Nietzsche a great thinker and that benefits different groups of people. On the other hand, the inconsistency in Nietzsche may indicate that he himself have many unsolved problems. (P7) Zong‟s criticism actually challenges the contemporary Chinese Platonism in different aspects by questioning the validity of the practice of esotericism. The practice of Straussian esotericism can only be valid when we believe that the hidden philosophy in ancient writings is consistent. Consistency is necessary when we assume that the writing features such as “contradictions, principles frequently stated but silently contradicted by upholding incompatible views, inexact repetitions, pseudonyms, strange expressions, a frequent use of technical language, ambiguity of expression, and other infelicities of style” (Drury PILS 25) are deliberately intended 78

to conceal certain hidden meaning. We may believe that the writings of Plato may be consistent5 and all the inconsistent parts come together to uphold some grand concealed philosophical scheme. Then how about other thinkers like Nietzsche, who may produce their writings in some mentally unstable conditions or who do not care so much about consistency? If we persist in our belief that all these writers, either ancient or modern, are “prophet-like” and they are free from random errors, we would be forcing our own ideas into the lines of these writings and draw an arbitrary conclusion which comes from our own rather from these works. While Zong criticizes Liu Xiaofeng‟s arbitrary interpretation of Nietzsche, he mentions that Lin Guohua, another Chinese Platonist, makes a similar mistake of scholarship in reading Nietzsche. Lin Guohua holds the same idea as Liu Xiaofeng does, stating that Nietzsche insists the necessity of lying, quoting Nietzsche‟s sentence “to cheat in misfortune.” However, Zong points out that Lin ignores the context and thus forces his own ideas onto Nietzsche. Zong here points out another main defect of the Chinese Platonists, which make them fail to gain more appreciation from the mainstream in Chinese academic circle. Loose quotations, forced conclusions, as well as other causal mistakes in scholarship are more or less harming their credibility as serious experts of Plato. Though popular among young scholars and graduate students, they receive more skeptical criticism from the 79

scholars with more solid academic training. As a result, the project of Platonis Cum Commentariis has to mostly rely on graduate students under Liu‟s supervision who are not yet totally adequate in Classical Greek nor in serious scholarship, and thus invites more criticism from those who are already skeptical. The major attack Straussians in America receive is on their affiliation with Reagan and Bush administrations and in the Republican Party.6 Besides, Strauss is accused of providing theoretic support of the war in Afghanistan by the American government. Liu Xiaofeng and other Chinese Platonists/Straussians have encountered similar accusation from their Chinese peers, though in a different situation. As it is mentioned earlier, Liu‟s interpretation of the Confucian classics shares many in common with the school of Political Confucianism by Jiang Qin, who is suspected as serving the current political system in China. Jiang Qin‟s basic argument is that the political system of democracy and liberalism does not work in the Chinese culture; the Chinese government should not follow the example of the modern Western country but should go back to the original Confucian political mode. It supports the Chinese government‟s claims that Western democracy does not work in China and political reformation in favor of democracy should be prevented (Xiao,). Though Liu declares that he does not agree with Jiang Qin‟s plan of reviving Political Confucianism in the contemporary China, he receives almost the same 80

accusation for his similarity with Jiang. In fact, Liu‟s preference of Gong Yang and Straussian approaches to the Chinese classics strongly reminds people of the political Confucian scholars like Kang Youwei and makes people wonder what he is going to do next. In recent years, Liu makes a series of lectures on the Chinese Civil War during the 1940s and the Korean Civil War in 1950s. His views, with numerous citations of Strauss and Schmitt, seem to validate people‟s suspicion of him. While portraying Mao Zedong as the onfucian Shengren and Straussian Philosopher-king, Liu seems to support the legitimacy of the current rule of the Chinese government as well as its role in preventing democratization in other countries. It remains a question whether Liu and other Chinese Platonists, who are equipped with the political philosophy of Strauss and of Gong Yang School of Confucianism, will exert the same influence upon Chinese domestic and foreign policy-making or not. Will they follow the examples of earlier Confucian scholars like Kang Youwei to promote radical reformation of the current political system? Or will they be more like American Straussians, who advocate political conservatism by joining the government administration and participating domestic and foreign policy-making? It seems it is not yet time to tell which direction they will take. It is more likely that they will choose a way between these two options according to their understanding of the social, historical and cultural realities of modern China. On the 81

other hand, it is interesting to see that the dialogues of Plato, may one day, through lens of Strauss, Nietzsche as well as Confucianism, exert some real influence in a culture that is not Hellenistic. Plato, after Karl Marx, Freud, and Foucault, now takes a place in the conversations going on in current China.

82

Notes [1] Shadia B. Drury shares the views of other critics of Strauss, and considers Strauss to beskeptical of democracy. She states, “Strauss‟s experience in Germany confirmed the political teaching of his beloved Plato. A great enemy of democracy, Plato described it as the second worse form of government, and was convinced that it inevitably leads to tyranny. For Strauss as for Plato, democracy is a licentious state of affairs in which a multiplicity of conflicting and irreconcilable appetites compete for dominance” (Drury 1997, 4). However, Catherine and Michael Zuckert have written a book to defend Strauss‟s political stands. They assert that there is no antipathy between Strauss and liberal democracy, “Thus we have three chief goals for this volume: 1. To explain Strauss‟s way of holding together his philosophic and political projects, which include his advocacy of a „return to the ancients‟ in philosophy and the endorsement, qualified, to be sure, of modern liberal democracy....” (Zuckert TALS 22). [2] Zuckerts disagree with Drury on Strauss‟s practice of esoteric writing. They assert that Strauss exposes, defends and justifies the practice of esoteric writing in the past, but he does not apply the esoteric theory in his own writing. “Contrary to what appears obvious to Drury and many others, we are maintaining, then, that Strauss does not write as he reads, that he is not presenting esoteric expression as 83

necessary or desirable for himself or his followers” (Zuckert TALS, 130). [3] Levenson observes that the scholars of New School Confucianism like Kang Youwei re-interpreted li and yong, “substance and function, waht one is and what one does” (I. 56) and thus to make “the values of the modern West not a complement to the Chinese tradition but an integral part of it” (I. 77). [4] Liu‟s concept on Shengren‟s personal choice differs from Strauss‟s concept of philosopher. The Straussian philosophers definitely have full freedom for their personal choice, that is, to live a philosophical life. The political participation philosophers do is only to guarantee their personal freedom. Liu‟s understanding of Shengren is closer to Straussian concept of prophets, who are chosen by God to fulfill the mission of social campaigns. Actually, in more than one places does Liu point out similarity between Shengren and Jewish prophets (107). [5] However, it is still quite doubtful that Plato never revises his earlier ideas in his later writings and thus creates certain inconsistency which cannot be fully explained by the esoteric writing techniques. [6] For a partial list of the Straussians who held or hold important political positions, see Drury‟s Strauss and the American Right, page 3.

84

CHAPTER THREE: Phenomenological/Hermeneutic Approach to Plato and Chinese Modernity As the previous chapter indicates, Chinese Platonic Study is not a replication of one of the Western disciplines in a third-world country. Neither is it a continuation of the American Straussian reading of Plato. With its many pre-understandings and strong preferences, it is more like a cultural and intellectual phenomenon which reflects modern Chinese scholars‟ understandings and concerns of the social and historical realities in China. The ancient texts of Plato, together with the views of Leo Strauss, provide them a new perspective on the realities they are experiencing in modern China and new expressions of their concerns. We may wonder what kind of concerns they have behind their consistent efforts in reading and translating Plato. There was a revival of classics, especially the study of Plato, in the twentieth century. Modern thinkers such as Heidegger, Derrida, and Foucault come back to the dialogues of Plato in their different ways with their understanding of the Western modernity and their attempt to find a solution for this very problem. Leo Strauss is one of these modern Platonists. As he believes, and as is acknowledged both by the Chinese Platonists and other Chinese scholars such as Gan Yang, Strauss bases his theory of 85

political philosophy on Plato and tries to address to the problems created by modern liberalism/nihilism with the political philosophy of Plato. As their Western precedents, Chinese Platonists are aware of the crisis of modernity. On one hand, they share a lot of similarities with those Western thinkers in their understanding of modernity because of the modern globalization. Marketization and commercialization have now quickly turned Western problems into universal problems. Furthermore, the academic dialogues Chinese scholars have with their Western counterparts in the past two decades have equipped them with a set of vocabulary and expressions to participate in the Western discussion on the issue of modernity. However, on the other hand, the modernity Chinese Platonists are experiencing and expressing has its strong and distinctive features of locality. In their reading of Plato, especially, in their synthesis of Platonic philosopher-king and Confucian Shengren, there is a strong inclination toward the Chinese culture. In addition, when Liu Xiaofeng tries to apply the Straussian theory of the rule of philosophers to the Chinese modern history, he is actually making a statement on Chinese historic and political realities. The modernity they are experiencing and expressing through Plato is not only universal but also distinctively Chinese. As Liu puts the word “chanshi (hermes)” in the cover page of each works of the project Platonis cum commentariis, the Chinese Platonists‟ approaches to Plato 86

and Strauss is strongly phenomenological and hermeneutic. It is held in this chapter that through these phenomenological/ hermeneutic approaches we can find the deep concerns Chinese Platonists have in their reading of Plato. Furthermore, through the discussion on this very feature, we can place this school in modern Chinese intellectual history and give a general picture of how it develops and differs from its precedents in their understanding of modernity in China. With this understanding, the phenomenological/hermeneutic feature of Chinese Platonists is not only discussed as an essential part of the philosophy and practices of this school but is also taken as a connection to the previous intellectual movements in Chinese modern history, including the Great Discussion in the mid of 1980s, May Fourth tradition, as well as the Reform Movement of 1898. Accordingly, this chapter first discusses how the phenomenological/ hermeneutic approaches go through Chinese Platonists‟ reading of Plato and Strauss and reveals their understanding of the issue of modernity in the West and in China. The second part moves to an argument holding that Chinese Platonism has genealogical connections with the thoughts of the Hermeneutic School during the Great Cultural Discussion during the 1980s. The continuity and divergence between these two schools is discussed. The third part places Chinese Platonism in the modern Chinese intellectual history and looks for its conscious attempts of breaking from the 87

May Fourth Tradition and its consciousness of the attitudes held by the Confucian scholars during the Reform Movement of 1989. In the previous chapter, Chinese Platonists‟ reading of Strauss was synchronically compared to Gan‟s as well as American Straussians‟ alternative interpretations. Taking a different perspective, this chapter views the school of Chinese Platonists mainly in diachronic sense, emphasizing its historical background as well as cultural heritage. The whole project of contemporary Platonic study in China identifies itself as Hermeneutic endeavor. It puts a special note on the word “chanshi (Hermes)” on the cover page of each book of this project. Liu Xiafeng further emphasizes the meaning and association of Hermeneutic approach in his preface. He points out that the ongoing translation projects of Western scholarly works in China are productive but not profound; they focus only on general introduction of the most popular theories in the Western academic circle and do not have the “chanshi shendu (Hermeneutic depth),” which is essential to any translation project ( “Translator‟s Preface,” Huiyin). He does not clearly state but implies that only Hermeneutic approaches can help Chinese scholars obtain a comprehensive and deep understanding of the Western tradition; With such help, Chinese scholars can avoid superficial repetition of what is popular in Western academic circles. Furthermore, he also indicates that only through Hermeneutic approaches are we able to not only fully comprehend and but also 88

participate and contribute to the encounter between Western tradition and Chinese culture (“Translator‟s Preface,” Huiyin). The Chinese Platonists identify themselves with the German Hermeneutic tradition. In the commentaries put forth by these Chinese scholars, these names of Phenomenological/Hermeneutic thinkers, including Friedrich Scheleiermacher, Gadamer, and Heidegger, are mentioned frequently. The Chinese Platonists‟ emphasis on the necessity of close reading as an effort to discover the lost or hidden meaning is from Scheleiermacher. And, their ultimate purpose of understanding our own situation through reading of Western classics is nevertheless a Hermeneutic idea of “subjectivity.” Liu and other Chinese Platonists‟ consciousness of the “subject” in the cultural encounter between the West and the East strongly indicates Gadamerian concept of “Fusion of Horizons.” The Phenomenological/Hermeneutic approach is actually more than a mere methodological maneuver to them; rather, it reveals their basic intellectual attitudes to the problems they are concerned with. Though prominent as intellectual features of Chinese Platonic School, the Phenomenological/Hermeneutic approach had its role in the Chinese academic discussion before Chinese scholars started paying much attention to Plato and Strauss and formed the school of Chinese Platonists. Actually, it is under the influence of the Phenomenological/ Hermeneutic attitude that Chinese scholars came to Plato and 89

other Western classics with strong pre-understandings. This very feature of the School of Chinese Platonic Study is key to our understanding of the deep concerns behind their reading of Plato and Strauss. It is necessary to examine the intellectual resources contemporary Chinese Platonists use in order to have a comprehensive understanding of their Phenomenological/ Hermeneutic Approach. Zhang Xudong asserts that the academic discussions of the 1990s [and the 2000s] are developments and continuations of the Great Culture Discussions of the 1980s (Huanxiang, xiii). His assertion can be precisely applied to the current Platonic study in China. The most immediate resource these Chinese Platonists have is the Phenomenological School of the Great Cultural Discussion in the 1980s. The Phenomenological School has high status in the Chinese modern intellectual history on account of its unique perspective. According to Zhang Xudong, these young scholars of the Phenomenological School “not only illustrate the temporal development of Chinese cultural reflection in the post-Mao era, but also form a constellation of contemporary Chinese thinking that bears the complexity and tension of Chinese society in transition, a constellation that absorbs a global history and is made possible by the global context” (Chinese Modernism 71). The Phenomenological School of the 1980s provides fundamental principles and perspectives for the current Platonic study in China. 90

Zhang Xudong is not the only one who detects this genealogical connection. In the general preface to the translation project, Liu Xiaofeng gives a brief introduction of the massive project of translating Western classics. While he is generally critical of the majority of translation projects in the modern Chinese intellectual history, he gives full credit to the achievements and values of the translation project of “xiandai xifang xueshu wenku (Modern Western Classics Series)” of the 1980s with Gan Yang as the chief editor. Liu in his preface acknowledges the genealogical connection between these two translation movements by suggesting that, if not interrupted by certain historical events, the translation project of “xiandai xifang xueshu wenku” would have naturally proceeded to the reading and translating of Western classics, especially the works of Plato, in an effort to understand the Western Tradition as a historical dynamic totality. Liu concludes in a way similar to Zhang‟s observation that the translation of Plato is a continuation of the translation project in a new era started by the Phenomenological/ Hermeneutic School in the mid 1980s. Between early 1985 and the eve of the crackdown on the Tiananmen Square Movement, there was an extraordinary cultural phenomena that is often referred to as “the Great Cultural Discussion” (Wenhua da taolun) or as “the Culture Fever” (Wenhua re). It was an extensive social discussion on culture, reaching into different layers of society. It took forms of scholarly discussions in academic meeting and street 91

talks by factor workers. “All over the country, from big-name professors to high school students, from government officials to interested workers and soldiers, individuals stepped forward to offer information and opinion; seminars, research groups and reading circles mushroomed in Beijing and Shanghai as well as in provincial towns” (Zhang, Political Hermeneutics 1). The Great Cultural Discussion occurred at a time when people continued to examine and to react to the past. Edward Gu states, As a result of the engagement of both establishment and non-establishment cultural intellectuals, the cultural public spaces newly emerged in the 1980s….Intellectually, despite its nonofficial nature, the „culture fever‟ first of all was an echo of the ideological campaign against feudalism, which was an intrinsic part of the officially launched „Emancipating the Mind Movement‟” (393). While Gu defines it as “an echo of the ideological campaign against feudalism,” Gan Yang tends to define the movement as a cultural phenomenon. In his famous “Preface to the Chinese Contemporary Cultural Consciousness (Zhongguo dangdai wenhua yishi qianyan),” the Great Cultural Discussion is a protest against the over-politicalizing ideology, which should be traced back not only to „the left‟ in the past decades but also to the whole Chinese tradition (“Zhongguo,” 105). 92

The Great Cultural Discussion has its own political and historical mission. It occurred in a period when China started its first full-blown “reform and opening to the outside world” in the history of People‟s Republic. Chinese scholars once again got access to the Western intellectual and academic discussions. The historical and social backgrounds of the Cultural Discussion are summarized by Gan Yang in the following passage: …once the “Ten Years of Calamity,” was ended, the task of modernization was to be raised once again. The Chinese people did not concern themselves with the cultural problematics until having accomplished three steps, namely: first was the inauguration of the open-door policy and the introduction of advanced technology from the advanced countries. Second was the strengthening of the democracy and legality, and the rapid reform of the economic system—since without a corresponding system of management, the advanced technology would be useless. Finally, the question of culture was placed in the fore of the entire society, because the improvement of political institutions and the reform of the economic system had touched the cultural tradition in general, that is to say, the cultural background, cultural psyche and cultural enterprises in the social world. 93

From my point of view, this is the real background and the truth-content of today‟s cultural fever and of the fashion in „East-West Comparison.” (1989, 1-2) (Translated by and quoted in Zhang, Political Hermeneutics 5.) The new atmosphere for discussion, the desire to examine Chinese modern history as well as the Chinese tradition itself, the access to Western theories all contributed to the fever of discussing the relationship between the East and the West. According to most people in the 1980s, the “Great Cultural Discussion” is a continuation of the May-Fourth tradition, which examined the relationship between the West and the East for possible solution to the Chinese modern crisis. During the discussion, among different schools, Neo-Confucianism advocated remembrance of Chinese tradition to rescue China from Western instrumental rationality (Wang 75, 79), and the Qimen School advocates were eager to demonstrate that the material condition of China in the late sixteenth century was already ripe for the rational critique which characterizes the Western culture (Wang 79). However, the Hermeneutic School represented by Gan Yang believes that it is misleading to put the Great Cultural Discussion in the May-Fourth Tradition, since the crucial problem in contemporary China lies not in the conflicts between the East and the West, but rather the conflicts between the ancient and the modern (Wang 109). 94

One of the criticisms Gan Yang makes of the School of Neo-Confucianism and the Qimen School that they tend to ignore the fact that both Chinese and Western culture undergo constant changes and thus it is impossible to make general comparisons of different cultures as static and unchangeable phenomena. He says, The key problem is this: the geocultural differentiation between Chinese and the Western culture is usually stressed in such a boundless fashion that we often neglect the more substantial, more fundamental problem of the differentiation between traditional and modern cultures, of Chinese culture itself having to undergo a transition from its traditional paradigm to its modern paradigm…We tend to engage in a general, abstract comparison between an abstract Chinese (Effectively, traditional Chinese culture, with Confucianism as its bottom line) and an abstract Western culture (in fact, modern Western culture after its „epistemological break‟), in which we avoid, obstruct, remove or even suspend the more substantive difference between traditional and modern Chines cultural paradigms. By doing so, we also neglect the fact that there is a difference between a traditional stage and a modern one within Western culture itself. (trans. by and qtd. In Zhang, Political Hermeneutics 37). 95

This recognition of cultural conflict as a “historical dynamic” (Zhang, Political Hermeneutics 37) gives Gan and other scholars of this school a totally new perspective on the definition of Chinese modernity and on its solution, which are different from their predecessors of the May-Fourth Movement and of earlier ages. Based on the historical dynamic view of the cultural conflicts, Gan points out that we need to recognize the changes and the crisis the West is experiencing. In his famous essay “Zhongguo dangdai wenhua yishi qianyan (Preface to The Cultural Consciousness of the Contemporary China),” Gan cites B. I Schwartz that once the Chinese intellectuals awake from the nightmare of the Cultural Revolution, they would find that the West in this age is no longer the state known to the Chinese of the May-Fourth generation at the beginning of nineteenth century; it is because the West is experiencing an unprecedented spiritual and intellectual crisis (Gan, Gujin 108). He further points out that this crisis, innate in the commercialized society, is universal. While constructing the positive values such as freedom, democracy, legislation, etc, the commercialization of the modern age at the same time disintegrates traditional value systems and inevitably causes nihilism and alienation to human beings in modern society, especially intellectuals (108, 109). He states that the intellectual discussions in the West in the twentieth century mainly address this vey dilemma of modernity. Therefore, when we study the examination and approaches to this problem 96

of modernity in the West, we are actually addressing our own problems in China (109). Gan Yang‟s standpoint on the definition of Chinese modernity as a paradigm of tradition versus modernity (Gujing zhi zheng) introduces a totally new viewpoint in the Great Cultural Discussion and it is accompanied by the modern ideology of Hermeneutic phenomenology. Influenced by Heidegger and Gadamar, Gan Yang clearly applies the Hermeneutic views of subjectivity and fusion of horizons. He explains: Tradition is something “that has not yet been prescribed.” It is always in the process of making and creating. It forever unfolds to the “future” infinite possibilities or a “world of possibilities.” Exactly because of this [nature], “tradition” can never be equated with things that “already existed in the past. (Bashi niandai, 55) (trans. by and qtd. in Wang Jing 88). Facing “tradition,” [every generation of us Chinese] should undertake a mission whose burden cannot be carried by the “past.” This mission is to create that which was absent in the “past.” (57) Specifically, the “tradition” that we understood is the sum total of the possibilities engendered by the endless encounters, confrontations, 97

conflicts, and appropriations (the new homogenizes the old) that took place between the “past” and the “present.” (60) (qtd. in Wang 89). The hermeneutic dialogue of the present with the past delivers the holistic experience of the subject. The objective meaning of history is dissolved in the perceiving and interpreting consciousness of the subject. As Wang Jing questions, “who is to „create that which was absent in the „past‟ but the interpreter who stands on the shifting ground of the here and now?” (89) Since it is necessary to experience the past and the present as a subject, the next question would be how to experience the past and the present. Here, the Gadamerian concept of “fusion of horizons” serves as “both a critical bridge across tradition and the modern, and a fruitful conflation between an emerging Chinese cultural discourse and a „Western‟ paradigm of human sciences understood as essentially a critique of modernity” (Zhang, Political Hermeneutics 41). Both the concepts of the “Subject” and “Fusion of Horizons”, which are distinctively Hermeneutic, underline the views presented by the Hermeneutic school represented by Gan Yang. Gan Yang‟s understanding and views on the issue of Chinese modernity is largely influenced by Heidegger. Gan received his graduate study at the Institute of Foreign Philosophy of Peking University between 1981 and 1984. Xiong Wei, the vice director of the Institute, studied philosophy under Martin Heidegger and was a 98

specialist in phenomenology and existentialism. Through Xiong Wei and Gan Yang, Heidegger directly influenced a group of Chinese scholars represented by Gan Yang in the middle of the 1980s. While forming his unique understanding on the conflicts between the ancient and the modern through reading Western classics, such as Heidegger, Gadamer, Neitzsche, etc., Gan and other scholars of this school exerted their influence upon the Great Cultural Discussion through massive translation projects. In 1986, Gan Yang‟s Culture: China and the World Editorial Committee was established in Beijing. The Committee was made up of young and middle-aged elites whose mission was to introduce Western masterworks of humanities and social sciences through large-scale translation projects. In these projects, authors such as Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Gadamer, Riceour were chosen by the editorial committee and the influence was significant. Over 200, 000 copies of Sartre‟s Being and Nothingness were sold[1]. Through translation, the committee exercised significant influence upon university students and young scholars. The editorial committee also issued Culture: China and the World, a cultural-critical quarterly, and a “series in Humanities,” which includes many independent research studies, among which the most eminent study was done by Liu Xiaofeng for his Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao. The influence exerted by the Hermeneutic School represented by Gan Yang 99

reached far beyond the Great Cultural Discussion in the middle of the 1980s. The translations and publications organized by the Editorial Committee not only prepared a whole generation of readers with renewed views on the issue of Chinese modernity but also directly prepared scholars for the translation of Western ancient classics in the later 1990s till the present. In Zhang Xudong‟s words, “large-scale translation and introduction of Western works, especially of the twentieth century, not only overwhelmed the intellectual market but also radically changed the fabric of the contemporary Chinese cultural language” (Chinese Modernism 35). Though Liu Xiaofeng did not start reading Plato until the later 1990s, some of his basic views stated in Zhengjiu yu xiaoayo are consistent with his views on the Straussian Plato. As it is noted in the last chapter, Liu‟s stance has experienced a lot of changes under the influence of Strauss. For instance, he no longer insists on his Christian viewpoints; as mentioned earlier in the last chapter, he greatly modified his previous radical perspective on Chinese culture, especially on Confucianism. In the following paragraphs, we take a look into his Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao before we proceed to detect its close connection with and subtle but important divergence from the contemporary Platonic study in China. Liu‟s Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao was a product of the Cultural Comparison fever in the 1980s, and it was published as part of the “Series in Humanities” by the Editorial 100

Committee of Culture: China and the World in 1988. It was a time before Liu Xiaofeng went to do his Ph. D study in theology at Basel University and read Plato in his Classical Greek class. The book was revised and some parts even rewritten, and then republished in 2001, a time after Liu started his editorial series of “Hermes: Classics and Interpretation” which included his translation of Plato‟s Symposium. Therefore, in one sense, the second version of Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao is more in accordance with the project of Platonic study organized by him. By reading Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao, especially his preface to the second version, we can find the concepts and ideas which echo both the Hermeneutic School in the 1980s and his project of Platonic study. The book Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao in many aspects is a work which stays closest to the spirit of the Hermeneutic School in the 1980s. Though originally written as a book on cultural comparative study, it differs from other works of this kind at that time. Instead of mediating the conflicts between the East and the West, Liu declares in his book that there is no comparability in the roots of the Chinese culture and of the Western culture, since there is an absence of the transcendental being and of the quest for redemption in the Chinese culture. Accordingly, the main mission for the contemporary Chinese intellectuals is not to locate the compatibility of two fundamentally different cultures: rather, it should be a task of finding in the Western 101

culture the resources we cannot find in our own culture. Liu‟s argument in his Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao is highly Phenomenological/ Hermeneutic. He emphasizes the function of subjectivity in the dialogue between different cultures. Accordingly to him, discussions on cultural comparative study should not aim at defending one culture against another one; rather, they should be guided by the intentionality of the subject. He states, “The genuine meaning of historical texts presents itself only in the time of the existence of the present. The time of the present is nothing other than the present intentional structure of our own, the axiological demand expressed by the sorrow and hope stocked in the history of our life” (12).[2]As the axiological quest is originated in the intentionality of the subject, the fusion of horizons is necessary. He explains, “The purpose of the conflicts of spirits is not to impose certain judgment on one particular culture; rather, it is a quest for the true meaning in the historical culture. The subject is led by the axiological quest, no matter it is in the West or in the East” (14) [3] Though Liu had not yet started his Platonis cum Commentariis under Strauss‟s influence when he finished Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao, he nevertheless reveals his stance on the necessity of obtaining axiology through the ancient texts, which is directly related to his basic principle in his Platonic study in the following years. He says, The ancient texts can be true only in the consciousness of the contemporary 102

reader. Hamlet is true, only when I engage a dialogue with him; he is facing the same problem as I do: he is posing questions to me, just as I am doing the same thing to him…. The historical texts and the contemporary consciousness are in dialectical coexistence in the form of questioning and answering. The texts in history reveal their meaning only to the people who are participating in this internal interaction in the consciousness of the subject; the authentic meaning of historical texts can only present itself in the questioning activity of the consciousness of the self; in other words, it is originated in the intentionality of the consciousness of the existence of the self. (12) [4] We can directly apply Liu‟s statement quoted here to our understanding of the contemporary Platonic study. The meaning of the Platonic dialogues is genuine and meaningful only because the subject is participating in a dialogue with the text with its own concerns and intentionality. In other words, the subject brings the questions and concerns of the present into the reading of the ancient texts of Plato for a solution and new perspective. Here arises one question: what are the questions and concerns of the subject at present, especially of Platonists in the contemporary China? In his Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao, Liu gives an answer similar to that of Gan Yang. According to both Gan and Liu, neither the Chinese tradition nor the modern Western culture are sufficient to provide a strong value system for an individual who experiences tremendous changes 103

during the transition from ancient society to a modern commercialized one. The axiological quest, or rather, the search for an efficient value system, is to be undertaken in the reading of the ancient texts, including and especially, the dialogues of Plato. Considering itself to be a continuation of the Hermeneutic School in the middle of the 1980s, the Chinese Platonic study continues with the general purpose of understanding the Western tradition as a dynamic totality in order to better address the problem of modernity in China. Phenomenological/Hermeneutic methodology approaches, especially the concepts of subjectivity and fusion of horizon, are applied in the Platonic study. As discussed in the previous chapter, Confucianism, especially the New School Confucianism with the concept for Suwang, is an important part of Liu‟s interpretation of the Platonic concept of the Philosopher-king. Confucian tradition and Plato‟s concept come together as different horizons and fuse into the Subject of the present in Liu Xiaofeng‟s reading. We may say that, Chinese Platonists‟ strong interest in Strauss‟s Jewish background is in some aspects revelatory of their eagerness in finding a model of “fusion of horizons” for their attempt to fuse their own Chinese culture and the Western classical tradition. Just as Strauss addresses the problem of modernity through reading Jewish and Arabic philosophers in the Middle Ages, they attempt to read Plato and Strauss to address the problem of modernity in 104

the contemporary China. The quest and the definition of value, especially the Socratic question “what is the best life?” is raised again and again in the reading of the Chinese Platonists. Accordingly, Strauss‟s strong stance in defending the philosophical life as the best life, and his theories and strategies in protecting such a life, assume an important status and profound implications for these Chinese scholars. In spite of so many continuities between Chinese Platonic Study and the Phenomenological School of the 1980s, we cannot take these two as the same. Even though Liu indicates in his preface that if the translation project conducted by the editorial committee of Culture: China and the World had continued, it would naturally have turned to Western classics, there is no guarantee that these Phenomenologists would have read Plato through Leo Strauss, nor that they would have looked for a Philosopher-King or Suwang in Chairman Mao. The social-political realities have radically changed in the post-Tianmen era. Accordingly, the languages and perspectives Chinese scholars adopt in the 1990s and the 2000s are different from those in the 1980s. As the Phenomenological School “illustrate[d] the temporal development of Chinese cultural reflection in the post-Mao era” (Zhang, Chinese Modernism, 71), contemporary Chinese Platonic study illustrates a new age, the age of Post-Tianmen Era with rapid development of economic conditions and of a new social structure. 105

Zhang remarks, “The transformation of post-Mao China is widely credited as a result of its irreversible integration with the world market and its tantalizing merger with the social-cultural conventions of global capitalism” ( “Making of the Post-Tiananmen Intellectual Field,” 1). The development of marketization and capitalism started in the 1980s and reaches its full scale in the post-Tiananmen Era. We may consider that the main difference between the 1980s and the 1990s and 2000s lies in the fact that China has fully embarked into the global market since the 1990s. There are several factors contributing to the rapid economic development. First of all, marketization is irreversible in today‟s world. Once embarking on the market, China had no other choice but connecting itself to the world and changing itself into part of the global market. Secondly, after cracking down on the Tiananmen Square Movement, the Chinese government decided to focus on the economic development in order to divert people‟s attention from politics. As a result, the economic development continues at a phenomenal speed in the Post-Tiananmen Era. Though Gan predicted that China would suffer from a fully commercialized society in the mid of 1989s in his “Preface to the Chinese Contemporary Cultural Consciousness (Zhongguo dangdai wenhua yishi qianyan),” he at that time did not give a comprehensive picture of what China would soon be like. Zhang Xudong points out that the new economic-political conditions in the Post-Tiananmen Era were once 106

the collective imagination in the 1980s and the goals of modernization for intellectuals through generations; and now people find all of sudden that the imagination about the future has become realities, the realities of their daily life which they are not totally happy with. Zhang Xudong describes the sudden awareness as “shocking” and “unsatisfied” (Huanxiang, ix). As a result of the economic development and marketization, people in the contemporary China find they are in surprisingly close connection to the international world. Capitalism has quickly turned China into a part of global market. Globalization has become an important issue in contemporary China, and Chinese scholars constantly get involved in the heated debates on locality versus globalism. We may consider that globalization as result of commercialism is one of the most decisive factors underlying the difference between the Phenomenological School in the 1980s and the Chinese Platonic Study in the 1990s and the 2000s. Gan‟s statement in his “Preface to the Chinese Contemporary Cultural Consciousness” which was written in 1988 showed his anxiety about the coming commercialized age and about the crisis of “restlessness” that Chinese people were going to experience in the coming era. The vague future Gan pictured in this preface soon become a reality in the 1990s and 2000s and was internalized as part of the Chinese intellectuals‟ experience of the new age. With a keen awareness of the new changes, the Chinese 107

scholars used a new set of vocabulary to state their understanding of Chinese modernity. These new vocabulary and views can be roughly grouped into two categories: native culture and democracy. Under the heavy influence of globalization, locality/native culture assumes important status. As early as in the 1980s, Liu and Gan started to use Hermeneutic concepts such as “subject” and “fusion of horizons” to erase the demarcation between the Chinese and the West as they argued that the main issue in the modern China is not the conflicts between the West and the East (zhongxi zhi zheng), but rather the conflicts between the ancient and the modern (gujin zhi zheng). However, there is some change after 1989. Chinese Platonism represented by Liu still continues with the assertion that in Modern China, the biggest issues are those which occur during the transition from traditional society to modern one, but they emphasize the Chinese culture more than ever before. The paradigm of Conflicts between the ancient and the modern has subtly changed to the conflicts between modern Western and ancient Chinese/Greek modes of thought. Chinese culture assumes more importance to the School of Chinese Platonic Study than to the Phenomenological School in the 1980s. Liu‟s reliance on Chinese culture in his understanding of Chinese modernity is accompanied by his declining interest in Christianity as philosophy. Liu in the late 1990s has greatly modified his religious views. The dilemma he discusses in 108

Chengzhong de roushen, is formulated later by his own words, what is the position of Christianity in a modern commercialized society when Christianity as philosophy is no longer sufficient enough to support a personal life? He seems to get a negative answer and henceforth modifies his strong position on Christianity. As he withdraws his views on the functionality of Christianity in modern society, he is, at the same time, more open to Chinese culture. The strong criticism of Chinese culture we used to find in his Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao has disappeared; instead, he is combining Chinese Confucianism with Straussian Platonism in order to search for an alternative political system to the Western model of democracy. Furthermore, as mentioned in the previous chapter, Liu, with Straussian concepts, has started to re-read Chinese modern history, especially the Chinese Civil War in the 1940s and the Chinese government‟s role in the Korean Civil War in the 1950s. Liu‟s new interest in the Chinese culture and Chinese modern history may reveal his anxiety in the age of globalization. When native culture is giving place to the global commercial culture, when commercialism has replaced any historical experiences, some Chinese scholars are more eager than ever to identify themselves as part of something unique and different from the global commercialism. In other words, they consciously try to escape the global commercialism and commercial culture which is dominantly American. Some of them such as Liu Xiaofeng and other Chinese 109

Platonists turn to their own tradition and their historical experiences to look for their identity as Chinese in the confrontation with global commercial culture. At the time when Liu focuses himself on Plato and Leo Strauss, he also reads Schmitt and publishes essays on the theories of guerrilla force and its modern application in China. He draws a conclusion that the legitimacy of guerrilla force lies in protecting the native traditional life in the face of an overwhelming foreign way of living. In his opinion, Mao Zedong adopts a guerrilla strategy to defend the native culture from the invading Japanese culture. Continuing with his investigation, we may wonder if he would agree that we need a guerrilla strategy in order to protect our own tradition from the overpowering American commercialism which seems to be invincible? Since he titles his essay as “Guerilla and Chinese Modernity,” he gives readers endless associations on the tension between localities and globalism. His efforts in applying Schmitt‟s theory to the reading of Chinese modernity, and his interest in Strauss‟s Jewish background[5], point to a problem that keeps troubling contemporary Chinese scholars, that is, an intense anxiety of cultural identity in this age of commercialism and globalization. Apart from the increasingly dominant issue of globalism, the political realities in contemporary China have also taken a different look, as a result of economic development. Accompanying marketization, ordinary citizens are taking an 110

increasingly a more and more important role in public space, which was used to be dominated by the political elites and intellectual elites. Disregarding the Chinese government‟s reluctance for promoting democracy, there is more space for ordinary citizens in public decisions of public affairs than ever before. Liu and Gan have different reactions to this new reality. Before Gan wrote his long preface to Strauss‟s Natural Right and History, he was participating in a nation-wide debate on liberal education, initiated by the new policy on tenure by Chinese colleges and institutes. Gan wrote a series of articles on the importance of liberal education in China, with a special emphasis on the reading of ancient classics. Gan‟s stand may be taken as a measure against the commercialism prevalent in China. However, Gan‟s consistent efforts at popularizing liberal education among colleges in China suggest something further. Gan‟s efforts in promoting liberal education in Chinese universities and colleges can be taken as a measure to “equip” people to be wiser decision-makers in public affairs in this new age in which they have more voice. Its ultimate purpose is same as what he expresses in his preface to Strauss‟s Natural Right and History: politics/public affairs have to be the ultimate goal both to philosophers and to ordinary citizens. Compared to Gan, Liu is less supportive to this new trend. Seemingly, Liu is doing the same thing which Gan Yang does, while translating, publishing books of 111

Western ancient classics for college students and young scholars. So far, he has published several textbooks for learning Classical Greek in college, in addition to his phenomenal translation project. However, his focus is slightly different. Liu‟s books and lectures are mostly intended to those students and young scholars who are interested in him and who agree with him in his reading of Leo Strauss, and thus have a more selective audience. In other words, different from Gan who is actively engaged in having a conversation with contemporary Chinese scholars and different intellectual groups, Liu is only interested in talking to those Chinese Straussians, or those who have the potentiality to be converted to Straussians. His stance and his practice are definitely elitist. Compared to Gan and other Chinese intellectuals, Liu seems to be more conservative and alert to the new political reality. Zhang Xudong notes that the process of recounting the events of the 1980s is always accompanied with “shocks” (Huanxiang, ix). It is interesting to notice that Gan and Liu who were both important members of the Phenomenological School, sharing many attitudes or similar opinions on various issues, but now differ from each other in the post-Tiananmen Era. One explanation for such a change may go to the distance between imagination and reality. When the West was still an institution constructed in the imagination to most of Chinese, it was easy for them to share the same perspective, with an anxiety for the coming prevalence of commercialized society. However, once 112

the imagination has become reality and they find themselves to be part of globalization, they adopt different perspectives to react to the new reality. Furthermore, the social and political situations in the post-Tiananmen Era are much more complicated and fall beyond the scope of any existing theory, as contemporary China refuses to fall into any theoretical category but constantly reminds people of its unique complexity. Liu and Gan take actions according to their respective understanding of the new issues of modernity in China and thus differ from each other. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, Chinese Platonic Studies both continues with and differs from the Phenomenological School of the 1980s, with its renewed concerns in a new age in China. However, the 1980s is not only the age it refers back to; the traditions it converses with are not limited to the cultural heritage provided by the Cultural Discussion in the 1980s. Instead, it goes back further than the May Fourth Tradition, and it actually identifies itself more to the Reform Movement of the 1898. When Liu in his reading of Plato constantly refers to the reading by Kang Youwei and Liao Ping of the Confucian classics, he is actually connecting himself to the experience of Chinese Confucian scholars dealing with Western values for the first time in Chinese modern history. The Chinese Platonists‟ reactions to the May Fourth Tradition are obvious. First of all, they do not agree with May Fourth scholars‟ understanding of Chinese 113

modernity as a tension between the West and the East and they replace the paradigm with the conflicts between the ancient and the modern. Secondly, Liu and other Chinese Platonists do not agree with the scholars of May Fourth Movements on the benefits brought by technology and modernity. As a sharp contrast to the eagerness shared by May Fourth intellectuals toward technology and democracy, Liu is more aware of the negative aspects of modernity. Furthermore, unlike Chen Duxiu, Lu Xun and other intellectuals active during the May Fourth Movements who were looking forward to the Western Marxism, the Chinese Platonic School does not show particular interest in defending Marxist theory and practice in China. Liu‟s interest in defending Mao Zedong is more initiated by his efforts in seeking his cultural identity rather than any ideological reason. Finally, after Liu modified his defiant attitude toward Chinese culture, he has actually distanced himself more from the May Fourth Movement, which is characterized by fierce criticism of Confucian tradition in light of Western modern values such as democracy and individualism. To summarize, different from most intellectual movements in the Chinese modern history, contemporary Chinese Platonic Study is a reaction to the May Fourth Movement. Chinese Platonists may find similar sentimentality in the Confucian scholars such as Kang Youwei and Liao Ping by the end of the nineteenth century and before the May Fourth Movement. They do share many similarities in their situations and 114

attitudes. Kang Youwei and Liao Ping lived in the age when the traditional Confucian world was severely challenged by the modern West. It was a time of dramatic change of world views. According to Joseph Levenson, the native culture is able to absorb foreign concepts when the old society exists and still functions; however, when the foreign culture is overwhelmingly strong and threatens the native culture, it will replace the native culture and changes not only the vocabulary but also the language itself (PAGE). In Levenson‟s view, there is no such fundamental change in Chinese history as the one occurred in the later nineteenth century when the Western culture started to destroy the relative unchanging Chinese traditional society. It was during that time of fundamental change caused by the invasion of foreign culture that Kang Youwei and Liao Ping postulated their original reading of Confucian classics. Kang Youwei and Liao Ping did not identify themselves as traditional Confucian scholars. They were totally original and innovative. Levenson emphasizes the unconventional qualities in Liao Ping. He points out that “the millenarian quality of Liao‟s thoughts” is clearly distant from “basic Confucianism” (Confucian China. Vol. III. 8). Kang Youwei was considered to be bolder in his political attitude. He claimed that the Confucian classics were not authentic works by Confucius and thus did not have any validity. With these claims, he tried to promote political reform according to the Western values. Whether or not Kang plagiarized from his teacher 115

Liao Ping, his claim on the invalidity of Confucian classics were shocking to most Chinese at that time. Liao Ping in his theory and philosophy and Kang Youwei in his works and political practices, were very different from the conventional Confucian scholars of that time. They were much more prone to a new way of reading of Confucian classics according to the new circumstances in China. Besides, compared to other intellectuals at that time, these Confucian scholars, especially Kang Youwei, were more eager to continue the political tradition of the Gong Yang School and incorporate their political concerns and ambition into their reading of Confucian classics. Their intellectual tendency has been found by Liu Xiaofeng as he constantly refers to their works in his efforts in introducing Strauss‟s political reading of Plato and other classics. Liu and other Chinese Platonists come to the scholars of the Reform Movement of 1898 because of the echoes of realistic concerns in the reading of classics, either Confucian classics or Platonic dialogues. Besides, like Kang Youwei who tries to locate Western values in Confucian tradition, Liu and others are basically doing the same thing. The Chinese Platonic School is looking for the common ground between Plato and Confucius. As they find and as they believe, Confucian concept of Suwang according to Gong Yang School is almost, if not exactly the same as Plato‟s idea of philosopher-king. The only difference is that Liu, being fully aware of the negative aspects of modern Western 116

society, no longer values the modern Western concepts such as democracy and individualism, and he would rather go back to tyrannical rulership which was exactly what Kang Youwei wanted to remove. On the other hand, the similarities Chinese Platonists share with the Confucian scholars of the Reform Movement of 1898 cannot change the fact that there is no longer a Confucian world in China. Kang Youwei and Liao Ping were the first Chinese intellectuals experiencing the integration of Confucian culture in front of invading foreign culture. Nowadays, Chinese intellectuals such as Liu Xiaofeng are still experiencing the invasion of powerful foreign culture, that is, the global commercialism and the accompanying set of concepts and world views, but now Confucianism no longer exists in reality in China neither as political system nor as philosophy pertinent to real life. As Kang Youwei and Liao Ping tried to preserve Confucianism in front of cruel challenge from the invasion of foreign culture, Liu Xiaofeng and Jiang Qing seem to look for some opportunity to revive Confucianism from antiquity in new form. Considering that this is a totally new world in which Confucianism no longer has any considerable application in reality, Liu and Jiang seem do not have less possibility to realize their ambitions. The other difference between Chinese Platonists and their precedents of the Reform Movement of 1898 is that Liu and other contemporary scholars do not have 117

much emotional attachments to Chinese tradition. Levenson points out that intellectuals like Liang Qichao, who was of the same age as Kang Youwei and Liao Ping, were experiencing the pains of being torn between intellectual alienation from the Chinese tradition and emotional ties to it: The modern Chinese commitment to the general, of which I have spoken, is the commitment to seek the answers that are „true‟; these thinkers‟ commitment to the special is their need of answers that are somehow „theirs‟. The first commitment brings many men to intellectual alienation from Chinese tradition, while the second leaves them with an emotional tie to it. And intellectual alienation and emotional tie intensify each other. (Confucian China. Vol. I. xviii.) As to Liu and other Chinese Platonists, they are more committed to seek the answers that are “true,” and less concerned with the ownership of the native Chinese culture. After all, the traditional Confucian world was not immediate experience to these modern scholars of the post-Tiananmen age. As discussed earlier, their interest in reading Chinese classics is more out of their anxiety of identity in the age of globalization rather than emotional attachments. The lack of emotional tie may explain why Chinese Platonists only selectively read Chinese Confucian classics, and only follow the Gong Yang tradition of Jin-wen School, which is considered to only a 118

small part of Confucian intellectual tradition. As it is, Chinese Platonic Study is not only a cultural event of Platonic reception but also, and more importantly, is an intellectual phenomenon in Chinese modern history. It carries concerns with the new realities of its own age; or rather, it uses the vocabulary of Western Classical thinkers such as Plato, and modern consciousnesses such as Leo Strauss, to express its realistic concerns. It is fully conscious of its position in Chinese modern history, as well as its cultural heritages and, perhaps, its historical missions. We do not know what kind of conclusion it will draw after absorbing different sets of language and world views. Will it continue in the Gong Yang tradition as Kang Youwei did to fully participate in the change of history with certain political actions? Or will it continue to remain as “philosophy” only and make a difference between Chinese Straussianism and American Straussianism? As to these questions and many others, this paper does not have an answer.

119

Notes [1] Cfr. Yang Ren, “Beijing wenhua congshupai” (School of Cultural Series‟ in Beijing”), Contemporary, Vol. 73 (May 1992): 42. Qtd. in Zhang 34. [2] The original text goes, “历史文本的真实意义只在当前现在的生存时间中浮现 出来。当前现在的时间不是别的，恰恰是我们自身的精神一项，现时生命历史 中的苦恼和愿望所表达的价值要求。”My translation is based on Zhang‟s translation in his The Political Hermeneutics of Cultural Constitution, 42. [3] My translation. The original text goes, “精神冲突的目的，不是要贬扬某种文化， 而是要追问历史文化中的意义真实。哪里有真实的价值，就奔哪里，无论东方 还是西方。” [4] My translation. The original text goes: “古代文本只有在当代接受者的精神意 识中才是真实的。阿姆莱特饰真实的，知识由于我在与他倾谈，与我面临着共 同的问题：他向我提出问题，我也向他提出问题，并共同寻求解答….历史文本 与现实的精神意识在这种问与答的对话中构成生存性辩证法。历史中的文本只 向那些在属己的精神意识中实际参与到这种内在交往中去的人启明自身的意义， 历史文本的真实意义只是在现时属己的精神意识的提问过程中才得以呈现，归 根到底只是属于生存的精神意向。” [5] Liu has shown consistent interest in Strauss‟s Jewish background. The project of “Hermes: Classic and Interpretation” includes a book titled as Disciples to Plato in 120

Jewism which devotes itself to the discussion of the Platonism in Jewish thinkers.

121

CONCLUSION The Plato in Modern China is more than a Plato. Once placed in the backdrop of modern China, Plato is sometimes identified as a new version of Confucian Uncrowned King, or as a revolutionary historical figure as Chairman Mao, or as both at the same time. In the social, historical and intellectual context of ChinaPlatonic dialogues are fully explored by the school of Chinese Platonists through the lens of Leo Strauss to address their concerns of Chinese modernity in the age of globalism. Their efforts and their work enable people to discover another aspect of Plato. To use Derrida‟s concept expressed in The Postcard, these Chinese scholars are participating in the meaning-generating web of Platonic tradition. With their understanding of Plato in their own context, they are attributing new meaning to Plato and thus re-writing Plato, as well as revising people‟s perception about Western classics and contemporary China. The circulating “postcard” of Plato, once passed through them, has been acquired new meanings.

122

WORKS CITED Bloom, Allan. “The Ladder of Love.” Trans. Qin Lu. Liu Xiaofeng. 125-239. Print. Drury, Shadia B. Strauss and the American Right. New York: St. Martin‟s P, 1997. Print. --. The Political Ideas of Strauss. New York: St. Martin‟s P, 1988. Print. Gan Yang 甘阳. Gujin zhongxi zhi zheng 古今中西之争 Conflicts between the Ancient and the Modern, the Chinese and the Western. Beijing: Shenghuo, dushu, xinzhi sanlian shudian, 2006. Print. --. “Zhengzhi zheren shitelaosi: gudian baoshou zhuyi zhengzhi zhexue de fuxing. 政 治哲人斯特劳斯：古典保守主义政治哲学的复兴 Political Philosopher Strauss: Renaissance of Classic Conservative Political Philosophy” Ziran Quanli yu Lishi 自然权利和历史 Natural Right and History. Strauss. Trans. Peng Gang. Beijing: Shenghuo, Dushu, Xingzhi Sanlian Shudian, 2003. 1- 82. Print. Gu, Edward X. “Cultural Intellectuals and the Politics of the Cultural Public Space in Communist China (1979-1989): A Case Study of Three Intellectual Groups.” The Journal of Asian Studies. 58. 2 (May, 1999). 389- 431. Print. 123

Huang Jing 黄晶. “Jiushi niandai hou nicai canshi de zhuanzhe—yi Liuxiaofeng nicai de weiyandayi wei zhongxin 九十年代后尼采的转折：以刘小枫“尼采的微 言大义”为中心 The Changing Interpretations of Nietzsche in China after 1990.” Dissertation. Beijing: Beijing U, 2007. Print. Jiang Qin 蒋庆. Ruxue de shidai jiazhi 儒家的时代价值 The Contemporary Value of Confucianism. Sichuan renming chuban she, 2009. Print. Levenson, Joseph R. Confucian China and its Modern Fate: the Problem of Intellectual Continuity. Vol. I. Berkeley: U of California P, 1958. Print. --. Confucian China and its Modern Fate: the Problem of Historical Significance. Vol. III. Berkeley: U of California P, 1965. Print. Liu Xiaofeng 刘小枫. Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao 拯救与逍遥 Redemption and Dallying. Shanghai: Shanghai Sanlian, 2001. Print. --. “Ciwei de wenshun 刺猬的温顺 Tameness of Hedgehog.” Shuwu Housebook.2 (2001): n. pag. Web. 16 Sept. 2009. --. “Nicai de weiyan dayi 尼采的微言大义 Esotericism in Nietzsche.” Chongqi gudian shixue 重启古典诗学 Poetica classica retractata. Beijing: Huaxia Chubanshe, 2010. Print. --. “Shengren de xujing 圣人的虚静.” Jiangjing hanzhi 捡尽寒枝 Caelum non animum mutant. Beijing: Huaxia chubanshe, 2007. 219-254. Print. 124

--. “Shitelaosi de lubiao 施特劳斯的路标 Strauss as sign post.” Gongfa. n.pag. Web. 15 Sept. 2010. Print. --. Rujia geming jingsheng yuanliu kao 儒家革命精神源流考 The Tradition of Confucian Revolutionary Spirit. Shanghai: Shanghai sanlian shudian, 2000. Print. --. Rujiao yu Minzu Guojia 儒教与民族国家 Confucius and National States. Beijing: Huaxia chuban she, 2007. Print. --. Xiandai xing shehui lilun xuyu 现代性社会理论绪论 Preface to Social Theory of Modernity. Shanghai: Shanghai sanlian shudian, 1998. Print. --. Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao 拯救与逍遥 Delivering and Dallying. Shanghai: Shanghai sanlian shudian, 2001. Print. --, trans. Bolatu de Huiyin 柏拉图的《会饮》Plato’s Symposium. Plato. Beijing: Huaxia chuban she, 2003. Print. Metzger, Thomas A. Escape from Predicament: Neo-Confucianism and China’s Evolving Political Culture. New York: Columbia U P, 1977. Print. Shui Yili 水亦栎. “Zhengzhi yu zhexue：Gan Yang he Liu Xiaofeng dui shitelaosi de liang zhong jiedu 政治与哲学：甘阳和刘小枫对斯特劳斯的两种解读 Politics and Philosophy: Two Interpretations of Strauss by Gan Yang and Liu Xiaofeng.” Open Times 开放时代. 171. 3 (2004): n. pag. Web. 12 Sept. 2010. 125

Print. Strauss. “Note on the Plan of Nietzsche‟s Beyond Good and Evil.” Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983. 174-191. Print. Wang Jing. High Culture Fever: Politics, Aesthetics, and Ideology in Deng’s China. Berkeley: U of California P, 1996. Print. Wu Fei 吴飞 trans. Sugeladi de Shenbian 苏格拉底的申辩 Socrates’ Apology. Beijing: Huaxia chuban she, 2007. Print. Xiao Hongyong 肖洪泳. “Zhengzhi ruxue de qiongtu molu 政治儒学的穷途末路 The End of Political Confucianism.” China Modern Studies 中国当代研究. 3(2008): n. pag. Web. 16 Sept. 2010. Print. Zhang Hui 张晖. “Zhongyiben qian yan: yibu xiju de qige wenti 中译本前言: 一部 戏剧的七个问题 Preface to the Chinese Translation: Seven Issues on a Play.” Huiyin 会饮 Symposium. Liu Xiaofeng. Beijing: Huaxia chuban she. 2003. 1-15. Print. Zhang Xudong. “The Making of the Post-Tiananmen Intellectual Field: a Critical Overview.” Whither China?: Intellectual Politics in Contemporary China. Ed. Zhang Xudong. Durham: Duke UP, 2001. 1-78. Print. --. Chinese Modernism in the Era of Reforms: Cultural Fever, Avant-garde Fiction, and the New Chinese Cinema. Durham: Duke UP, 1997. Print. 126

--. Huanxiang de zhixu: piping lilun yu dangdai zhongguo wenxue huayu 幻想的次

序：批评理论与当代中国文学话语 The Order of Imagination: Criticism Theory and theLanguage of Contemporary Chinese Literature. Hongkong: Oxford UP, 1997. Print. --. The Political Hermeneutics of Cultural Constitution: Reflections on the Chinese “Cultural Discussion” (1985-1989). Durham: Duke UP, 1994. Print. Zong Chengh 宗成河. “Ping Liu Xiaofeng de nicai jiedu 评刘小枫的尼采解读 Comments on Liu Xiaofeng‟s interpretation of Nietzsche.” Zhejiang Academic Journal 浙江学刊. 5(2002). Print. Zuckert, Catherine & Micahel. The Truth About Strauss: Political Philosophy and American Democracy. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006. Print.

127