A Review of Gu Jun's Historical Thought

A Review of Gu Jun's Historical Thought

Gu Jun was a maverick thinker. He had a difficult life, but he left behind two empiricist historical works, From Idealism to Empiricism and The Greek City-State System. By reflecting on China's long period of stagnation, Gu Zhun explored the differences between Eastern and Western cultures and argued for the illogicality of historical development. His person and his studies played a typical role of intellectual liberation for the academic world.

Keywords: empiricism; dogma; pluralism;

Gu Zhun is an outstanding modern liberal thinker in China. He joined the revolution at an early age, but suffered repeated bad luck in the latter half of his life, until he was arrested during the ? The Cultural Revolution He died of illness in the Cultural Revolution. Adversity did not make him spiritually decadent, but the harsh reality prompted him to calmly reflect on history and the future of the nation. As an intellectual with conscience and sense of responsibility, in that special historical era, Gu Jun stood on the high point of history and looked down on the whole world, and put forward a series of profound and unique insights, which broke the dullness of China's intellectual circles and made the people of the country hear the vivid voice again.

Gu Jun was not a liberal at first. At the age of twenty, he joined the Chinese ***, and as a determined soldier, he was happy to witness the victory of the revolution during the fierce battles. However, soon after the founding of the country, the guiding ideology gradually tilted towards dogmatization, a series of political movements followed, and the country's political situation continued to be turbulent. In this environment, the once-contested ideology also became monolithic, and the sideways movement was regarded as heresy. The clash between ideals and reality made it difficult for him to understand: how could the revolution for which he had fought for decades become so alienated? Gu Zhun began to seriously consider the question: What happened after Nala's departure? What happened after Nala's departure? that is, the construction of the post-revolutionary regime. He frankly admitted that I used to be in great pain when I turned to such sober analysis, and used to be like Levin, written by Tolstoy, for my faithlessness.? He gradually came to the sobering realization that ? There is no such thing as a perfect system. This earthly world will never be absolutely perfect, and all we can do is always but ? We can never do more than to choose between two advantages and two disadvantages, and to choose the lesser of them. So? What will happen after Nala's departure? Therefore, what happens after Nala's departure can only be solved empirically. So Gu Zhun's thought completed from idealism to empiricism.

On the basis of empiricist philosophy, Gu Zhun, who was not a historian, wrote From Idealism to Empiricism and The System of the Greek City-State, two works of history that shook the Chinese academy. In these two works, Gu focused on the following issues: how to look at the Marxist theory of history, how to look at traditional Chinese culture, how to look at Western civilization, how to understand reality through history and how to look to the future. In the following, I will discuss these issues in detail.

First, how to look at Marxist theory of history

Marxist theory is the guiding ideology of our revolution and construction. In its doctrine of class revolution, class struggle is given the direct impetus to push society forward. At the beginning of socialist construction, ? The class struggle as a program? was first seen at the level of the Party's political decision-making. The direction of work then shifted to the ? Left? tilted, and there were successive major blunders, culminating in the Cultural Revolution. the Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution was a catastrophe. Chewing on the bitter fruit of the country, in the dogmatic political air is still unable or dare not break through the barriers of thought. It is in this kind of? All Horses Are Mute? In the midst of this, Gu Jun began to analyze Marxist theory with the fearless courage of pursuing the truth.

As a Jew, the religious complex gave Marx an innate? The desire for salvation? ; as a thinker who grew up in the early days of industrial society, ? The social conscience? made Marx sympathetic to the underprivileged. By his middle age Marx had completed the construction of his morally rich theory, the theory of proletarian revolution. In his representative works, The French Civil War and Critique of the (Gotha Programme) Marx discussed this theoretical system, which can be summarized as follows: the proletariat bears the historical mission of liberating all mankind; the development of social history is logical; the historical mission of the proletariat is in line with the logic of historical development.

In response to this ? logic? Gu Jun read the essay "The Logic of Dialectics" by Dietzgen, an early Marx loyalist, in which the purpose of metaphysical logic is to put into practice the logic of the metaphysical world. The aim of metaphysical logic is to extend its domain to the realm of eternity, to seek even the logical programs of the heavens, and to seek to solve even the final problem of all knowledge? It seeks to solve even the final problems of all knowledge. It gives the people logical grounds so that they may deny all clericalism and mysticism and seek their liberation in that world where this Divine Truth dwells. It seeks their liberation. and elsewhere, he keenly captured that once metaphysicalized, dialectics becomes logical pantheism. Marx, in The Holy Family, had harshly denounced Hegel's ? logical pantheism? and Engels' Theses on Feuerbach repeatedly insisted that ? In the view of dialectical philosophy, there is nothing permanently certain, absolute, or divine. and so on. Anti-Theology position. Guzun was alerted to the fact that dialectics, if given a priori, could not be considered to be a dialectical philosophy. truth indivisibilism? and monism? attributes, it would also take on the nature of absolute truth. The logical leap between rationality and divinity would make dialectical absolutization itself a philosophical god-making movement. The logical support of necessity, i.e., the support of absolute truth, did and has rallied the revolutionary ranks, strengthened revolutionary beliefs, and become the idealistic banner of the revolution in the proletarian revolution. As the revolution and the construction of ? As a revolutionary and constructive person in Mt. , Gu Zhun has a particularly deep sense of this, ? Revolutionary idealists can not be not rationalists?

On this basis, Gu Zhun further pointed out that Marx added an extremely important Baconian transformation to Hegel. ; the dialectic also takes on a theoretical and practical consistency, i.e., a historical and logical consistency. According to Gu Jun, if it is interpreted as ? Historical development, conforms to my theory; my theory, states clearly the law of historical development? , then the philosophical foundation of this historical theory falls into monism and linear thinking. Admittedly, such a methodology? gives sanctity to the revolution of socialist ****anism? The sanctity of religion? , at the time of the revolution is called ? broken? The great role played by the aspect of the revolutionary camp for the revolutionary camp encouraged; but if persistently, its serious alienation effect can not be avoided; once as the absolute truth by the sole respect, * * * sex is very likely to submerge the individuality, the original rich and colorful world, I am afraid that only the existence of the class will remain. Gu Zhun is painfully aware of this: "Can you admit that today? Can you admit that today? The socialized Chinese? is the unconditional ****ness of the Chinese people as a whole? Or do you think it is essentially a hypocritical ****ness of the Chinese people as a whole imposed by means of terrorism? That is why Gu Zhun insists: ? Only pluralism, not monism, is consistent with the blossoming of a hundred flowers and the contention of a hundred schools of thought.? If from this imagination (? Man is capable of grasping absolute truth? , that is, ? the agreement of history and logic?) ), we can certainly accomplish the miracle of history, but we cannot solve the problem of? What will happen after Nala's departure? The question of what happens after Nara's departure is not solved.

In order to facilitate the thoroughness of the argument, Guzun again introduced the study into the realm of the laws of historical development. Marx in the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy has mentioned: ? Broadly speaking, the Asiatic, ancient feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be regarded as epochs in the evolution of social and economic forms.? So does history verify such a consistent evolution? In his empirical comparisons, Gu Zhun found significant differences in the historical patterns of development between East and West. For example, the power of the agricultural territorial empires of the Eastern continent rested on the tribute of the peasantry and the corvée and military service, while the power of the maritime commercial city-states of the West rested on the maritime trade and the navy. Another example is slavery, which was prevalent in the more civilized industrial and commercial city-states of Greece and Rome; while in ancient China, although slaves existed (not on the basis of developed commodity-money relations), slavery did not exist. All these confirm the diversity of human civilization and the plurality of human social changes. Therefore, the Marxist theory of history should be a theory that can be continuously developed in practice, and it is not appropriate to dogmatize it in guiding the real work.

Second, how to look at Chinese traditional culture

Sensing China's long-term stagnation, Gu Zhun y reflected on China's traditional culture. In the contrast between East and West, he calmly realized that: ? Chinese thought is impoverished? that it could not produce science and democracy. Western culture is a democratic culture that originated in ancient Greece, and the essence of democratic culture is Greek thought. Greek thought is aristocratic rather than royal. The open space for thinking allowed people to explore the mysteries of the universe freely. Thus, on this fertile soil, which allowed the individuality of the citizens to flourish, logic, geometry, grammar, and the pragmatism of pluralism sprang up. Chinese culture, on the other hand, was a culture of historians dependent on political authority, and preached the very idea of kingship. Under authoritarian power, ? the king's order has no escape from heaven and earth? Under this closed and introverted system, science was stifled, leaving only unsystematic technology and the burgeoning science of emperors and generals. Therefore, Gu Zhun y felt: to establish? democracy and science?

Gu Zhun's critique of traditional Chinese thought centered on the pre-Qin period, which was the mainstay of traditional Chinese culture, and was aimed directly at the three core figures of Laozi, Confucius, and Han Feizi.

Gu first pinpoints the philosophy of Laozi as a purely political and ethical philosophy. Laozi and the ancient Greeks had their own focus on exploration: the ancient Greeks used rigorous logical argumentation, and were obsessed with things as ? The ancient Greeks used rigorous logical arguments and insisted on thinking about things as things in themselves. The ancient Greeks used rigorous logical arguments and insisted on thinking about things as things in themselves; Laozi, on the other hand, made extensive use of analogical arguments that were relatively less rigorous. Heaven and earth and the universe are but metaphors for the ruling philosophy? Thus, the former represents the spirit of serious scientific inquiry, while the latter is entirely intended to provide a rational basis for authoritarian rule. Laozi had no interest at all in the regularities of natural phenomena? , in order to safeguard the exclusive position of authoritarian power at all costs, he adopted the politics of inaction and the policy of fooling the people by abandoning social progress. Gu Zhun sadly realized that this is part (not all) of the policy we are now pursuing, and is the very reason for our stagnation over the past two thousand years.?

Gu Jun goes on to compare Laozi with Confucius. Gu Jun points out that Laozi's policy of concession actually has principled premises, namely ? recognizing the existing social order, recognizing? The beginning of the system is famous? of the "name of the beginning" and the "name of the end". The great righteousness of the name? cannot be changed. This is not different from the ultimate purpose of Confucius' preaching of rules and rituals, but only the methods are different. Gu Zhun further points out that the power element of Laozi's philosophy of rule was extended by Xunzi and Han Feizi, the later scholars who advocated the technique of the southern face of the ruler, towards ? The total value, rights, and creative impulses of the common man have been obliterated. to the extreme of erasing all the values, rights and creative impulses of ordinary people. Though the development of culture under this historical accumulation has its own inevitability, its historical responsibility for China's long-term stagnation cannot be avoided.

Next, Gu Zhun begins his critique of Confucius with the paradoxical fit between political proposition and means of implementation. Gu Zhun coldly dissected Confucius: ? The "forgiveness" is for others to listen to, is to educate the masses of people, as for the people in power to become a hegemony, not ruthless, mow down dissenters is not possible? I'm not going to say anything about that, but I'm going to say it. His destiny is to be a legalist. Xunfang was his direct descendant. Gu Zhun further pointed out that Confucius? Confucius' political ethic of logical leapfrogging is still alive and well. The logic-spanning political ethics is still at work, and its harmfulness is far from being eradicated. It was only in the past that it was manifested as a way to? The authoritarian imperial power of Confucius is still at work. The authoritarian imperial power of? In the past, it was the loyalty to the authoritarian imperial power that was like a son to the people. Now, it is the loyalty to the "serve the people" principle. To serve the people. "for the people"? Revolutionary helmsman? and now to the helmsman of the revolution. And the individual creative freedom and independent thinking of the citizen is as much a part of the subject as it is of the subject. Suffocated? s fate.

Finally, in his layered analysis of the starting point of Han Fei's philosophy of rule, Gu Zhun launches a *** naked critique. Gu Zhun pointed out that the insidious and brutal monarch's technique of ruling and the monarch's right to unlimited indulgence said that the positive effects were minimized and the negative effects were minimized. The positive role played the least, the negative role played the most? In the final analysis, these are Han Fei's views on ? The king's family is the most powerful and the most powerful. The methodology of Han Fei is ? His methodology is one-sided monism. one-sided monism, a dogmatism that is faithful to the dogma it sets up? Why must it be so? Without this it is impossible to argue that its ? How can the Lord and his ministers be put to death? s rationality. That is why Gu Zhun said: ? I am of the opinion that he did not play a single positive role in Chinese history, and that he himself was morally undesirable?

Through a penetrating critique of the most influential parts of traditional Chinese culture, Gu reveals that Chinese thought is so impoverished that all that is left is? imperialism? and that this deficiency is precisely what leads to backwardness. The theory of internal causes. What is more valuable is that Gu Jun's self-exposure does not stop at criticism. History has nothing to praise or criticize. The lessons of history can only illuminate the future, and the future is indeed waiting for history to illuminate it! These sober realizations indicate Gu Jun's critical purpose, which is rich in the responsibility of the times: in his criticism, he awakens the people of China to free themselves from the nightmare of looking up to the political authority, to embrace the rich and colorful world, to move towards science and democracy, and to create the "Shenwu Scenery" of Chixian Shenzhou. Shenwu Jingqi?

Third, how to look at Western civilization

?

The failure of China to produce science and democracy is due to the negative influence of traditional Chinese culture in social progress, so why did the West produce science and democracy? How did the Western traditions of science and democracy survive in the long course of history? And what are the reasons for such a significant difference in the history of China and the West? It is with these questions in mind that Gu Zhun explores the development of Western civilization through time in his comparison of Chinese and Western history***temporal states, i.e., the maritime civilization of the classical era, the chivalric civilization of the Middle Ages, and the capitalism of the modern era, thus giving Western civilization a more objective appraisal.