Why must Chinese people be completely anti-traditional?

There are some foreign-minded gentlemen who "analyze" "tradition" as if it were a completely neutral concept, and thus conclude that "tradition" cannot be completely "anti-tradition" but can only be gradually advanced in "inheritance". They conclude that "tradition" cannot be completely "anti-", but can only gradually advance "tradition" in the "inheritance". Some people simply quote Hayek's words about the need to maintain "tradition" as an argument. But this is in fact confusing the historical "heritage" of a nation as "tradition".

The nature of Chinese "tradition" is fundamentally the opposite of Western "tradition".

Chinese Neo-Confucian scholars of the third phase of the Neo-Confucianism are obviously suffering from the above mentioned problem of "eating foreigners without being able to digest them".

The Neo-Confucian scholars fantasized that they would continue to promote the Confucian tradition in order to develop the "spirit of capitalism" and "the spirit of natural science" in China. This has proved to be the opposite of what was intended, a complete "academic" fantasy.

They don't even know the minimum law of thinking - logic - and only rely on the similarity of "chapters and sentences" to make a great deal of ignorant fantasies. Both the pitfalls of their own "academic" life, but also miss the Chinese people to develop their own culture in the modern era, a rare opportunity.

It is precisely for this reason that the Chinese people in the Eastern world can only continue to lag behind Japan and even Korea.

In the mid-1980s, a book by Mr. Lin Yusheng, who had streamed into China from overseas, The Crisis of Chinese Consciousness - Fierce Anti-traditionalism during the May Fourth Era, was released. The book, "The Crisis of Chinese Consciousness - Fierce Anti-Traditionalism in the May Fourth Period," created a wave of Neo-Confucianism in mainland China, which was echoed by many literati on the mainland, including even some so-called "thought leaders" or "spiritual guides".

One of the major themes of this book is the accusation that in the last half century mainland China has inherited a new tradition of fierce anti-traditionalism from the May Fourth period, thus interrupting the "bloodline" of the Confucian "tradition" of the Chinese nation.

This is really an absurd invitation to a doctor to "cure" Chinese culture, and even more absurd prescriptions.

This "prescription" is still in effect today. The evidence is: in today's China up and down is launching a "return to tradition", "return to nationalism", "respect for the Confucian reading of the Bible" social and cultural countercurrent of extremely harmful, is now in the ascendant. The first is to be a "return to tradition", "return to nationalism", "respect for Confucius" social and cultural countercurrent, is now in the ascendant.

In fact, this issue, I in a previous article "East and West culture of the "watershed" has been involved. The so-called "watershed" of culture itself is also the "watershed" of cultural tradition. In this article, I pointed out that the so-called "watershed" between Eastern and Western cultures refers to the fact that Western culture (tradition) has always struggled to move forward and develop in the general direction of the truth that "all men are created equal"; on the contrary, Eastern culture (tradition), especially Chinese culture, has always struggled to develop in the general direction of the truth that "all men are created equal"; on the other hand, Eastern culture (tradition) has always been in the direction of the truth that "all men are created equal". （On the contrary, the Eastern culture (tradition), especially the Chinese culture, has always been caught in the "trap" of long-term stagnation of cultural development in the general direction of the evil that "all men are born unequal". I must point out today that this is in fact the fundamental difference between the "tradition" of Western culture and the "tradition" of Chinese culture. It is precisely for this reason that the Western cultural "tradition", although in the long course of history it may also take a detour, and may contain a great deal of "mud" and "garbage", their "tradition" has a very different direction, and it is the "tradition" of China. The general direction of their "tradition" is essentially correct. China's cultural "tradition" is not, the general "direction" is wrong, and then toss can only be to the dead end or quagmire "forward", and more and more deep. Therefore, the Chinese people today, can only completely anti-traditional, and not just the old "tradition" of small changes and reforms. If the "general direction" is not corrected, the Chinese people's historical path can only go farther and farther away from the right path of mankind, and even end up in self-destruction. Incidentally, the Indian "culture" is in fact also a "culture" that has gone in the wrong direction, so it can only go to destruction or wait for someone else (Westerners) to wipe it out.

There are two more questions to be addressed in the following part of this article, one of which is why China's "culture" has been heading in the wrong direction for a long time, and the other is that China's Confucianism is not equal to the whole of China's ancient cultural "heritage". Another issue is that the Chinese Confucian tradition is not equal to the entire ancient Chinese cultural "heritage", and the complete rejection of the Confucian "tradition" does not prevent us from continuing to carry forward the truly outstanding cultural "heritage" of the ancient Chinese nation. Let's start with the first question: Why has Chinese "culture" gone in the "evil" direction for so long?

When it comes to "culture", we must first talk about "literati". The Chinese "literati" are different from the Western "literati". The Western "literati" basically came from two types of people: one is the Hebrew religion of the clergy, initially called "prophets"; the other is the Greek philosophy of the "philosophers". Both groups of "men of letters" shared a common characteristic, namely, that their will to create culture was not subject to the severe control of the violence of secular political strongmen. In other words, their minds were both natural and autonomous, and they enjoyed a relatively large degree of freedom. The prophets worshipped only "God", the "priests" added "Jesus", "the Son of God", and the "priests" added "Jesus", "the Son of God", and the "priests" added "Jesus". The prophets worshipped only "God", the "priests" added the "Son of God" - "Jesus", and the philosophers worshipped only "truth" in the form of "ideas", and none of them had to fear the intimidation and threat of violence from the secular political strongmen.

The first Chinese "literati" were very different from the Western "literati" mentioned above, and they all came from the "scholars" of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Periods. The "Shishi" belonged to the fourth tier of the "ladder" of the Zhou Ritual - "the Son of Heaven, the Vassals, the Great Doctors, the Shishi, and the Commoners". On the one hand, they were the retainers of the household of the great lords, and on the other hand, they were also the "rulers" at the bottom of the hierarchy of the "common people". Chinese "literati" from the beginning is a link in the secular power system, they have no god "God" in their hearts, and even less conceptual "truth", their hearts in addition to the unpredictability of "heavenly destiny", "the world", "the world", "the world", "the world", "the world", "the world", "the world", "the world". In their hearts, apart from the unpredictable "Heaven's Mandate", there is only the "Lord", and the highest "Lord" - the "Saints". "In the Analects, they are "Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, and the Duke of Zhou"; in fact, no matter who the "lords" and "sages" are, they are all political leaders. "In fact, all of them are the embodiment of political "power" - potential "violence".

This makes it obvious that the Chinese "literati", from the very beginning, have lost the right to natural equality, the right to social autonomy, and the right to spiritual freedom. Chinese culture, to put it bluntly, was "created" from the very beginning by such a group of "literati" who had lost the natural equality, the autonomous subject and the spirit of freedom. The Hundred Schools of Thought of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Periods were basically composed of such a group of "literati" called "scholars," such as Laozi, Confucius, Mozi, Mencius, Zhuangzi, Xunzi, and Han Feizi, and so on and so forth. All of them could not escape the intimidation and threat of violence by the secular political powers. It is for this reason that their "cultural" creations were all severely limited by great inequality, lack of autonomy, and lack of freedom. It is indeed remarkable that Laozi was able to create the Tao Te Ching, which implies the concepts of "all men are created equal" and "born without having, created without being used, grown without being slaughtered", under such harsh environmental conditions; and Mozi was able to create the Tao Te Ching, which implies the concepts of "all men are created equal", under such harsh environmental conditions as well. Mozi was also able to create under such harsh conditions the concept of "love for one another and benefit for all" which implies that "all men are created equal", and created his own unique logical system, which is also rare and precious. As for Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi, they "created" their Confucian "culture" in response to the secular political strongman's "rite" of "all men are born unequal". "This kind of Confucian culture y impressed the people of China. This Confucian culture is y marked by the eternal historical stigma of "all men are born unequal". Especially after Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty designated Confucius and his Confucianism as "the only one", successive rulers have been conferring additional titles - "Sage", "King Wenxuan", "King of the World", "King of the World", "King of the World", "King of the World" and "King of the World". Wen Xuan Wang", "the most sacred teacher"

, "teacher of the ages", and so on and so forth, so that it completely monopolized the Chinese "culture". From then on, the tradition of Chinese culture, in fact, can only be the "tradition" of Chinese Confucian culture.

This "tradition" is the "tradition" of culture that has completely oriented the general direction of Chinese culture in the evil direction of "all men are born unequal"

Obviously, in the ancient Chinese culture, there are still a lot of excellent cultural "heritage", such as the ideological heritage of Laozi and Mozi mentioned earlier, in fact, it is more important to mention that it should also include the quite important cultural "heritage" of "Fuxi". In fact, it is even more important to mention the rather important cultural "heritage" of "Fuxi". About Fuxi, I have also talked about in the previous article, his abstract "symbols" about seventy-two hexagrams (eight trigrams and sixty-four hexagrams) will be a very important ancient thought resource to enlighten the logical research in the new era. I will devote my future articles, including my book, to this subject.

Through this article, I hope to let more compatriots see how important it will be for the future development of the culture and civilization of the Chinese nation to completely oppose "tradition", especially the cultural "tradition" of Confucius and his Confucianism. How important it will be for the future development of our culture and civilization. In this sense, it can be said that the 21st century is simply a great century for the Chinese culture to "shed its bones" and "re-create" its own new cultural traditions. (Please enter my personal webpage:

)