Tu Wei-ming - Zander on the dialogue of civilization and cultural diversity

 Tu Wei-ming and Sandell
on the conditions of globalization and cultural diversity among civilizations dialogue
Time: 6:30-8:30
evening of May 27 Location: 1st Floor, Yifu Building, Fudan University Report Office
Moderator: Professor Wei Sen, vice president of Fudan Economics
(based on transcripts)
and Writing: Liang Yiwen, Chang (Shan + Hill)
revision
Moderator Wei Liang Jie Johnson: Ladies and gentlemen, good evening! Today we are very honored to have the contemporary master of the world's two thoughts, two prominent Harvard professors, Sandor (Michael Sandel) Professor and Professor Tu Weiming, in front of us for a Field spectacular dialogue. in the beginning of the dialogue, please allow me to do them two professors brief.
Sandel, a Harvard professor Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government Chair. His books include The case against perfection: The ethics of genetic engineering. taught undergraduate and graduate courses of contemporary political philosophy, including ; of fairness Europe, Japan, India, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and other countries has given presentations, and in 1998 at Oxford University as a Now here is a brief introduction Professor Tu Weiming. on the Doo, you may already be familiar with. As a renowned the world, modern Confucianism Eastern philosopher and one of the representatives, Professor Tu Weiming of Harvard University has been appointed the Harvard - Yenching Society president than a decade. Mr. Du graduated from Tunghai University in Taiwan in 1961, 1962 by the Harvard-Yenching Institute at Harvard University for postgraduate scholarship. have obtained master's at Harvard, Ph.D., has taught at Princeton University, University of California at Berkeley in 1981 has taught at Harvard University In 1988, Tu was elected Fellow of American Arts and Social Sciences, Harvard University, is currently Professor of Literature and Philosophy Academia Sinica, Chairman of Advisory Board, member of the World Economic Forum in Davos, United Nations to promote dialogue among civilizations distinguished members of the group, and since 1996 has served as Yenching Institute. as an international academic and contemporary Chinese and representatives of Neo-Confucianism, Professor Tu Weiming of the Confucian tradition of China into the center of modern Confucian culture in the modernization of the role of different types of modern, pluralistic world of modern and so on major issues of contemporary theoretical develop their own. published 11 books in English, Chinese, 16 books, published hundreds of articles. his thoughts widely valued by scholars, resulting in a worldwide impact. because of their outstanding contribution, Tu Wei-ming in 2001 and 2002, respectively, won the Research Award of the Ninth International Toegye and the United Nations awarded the eco-religious awards.
in your two begin their dialogue famous professor, I especially would like to share here also introduce the two of them are not only thinking of the contemporary world famous master of the two, and at Harvard University are two of the most popular teachers of students. For example, Zander lecturing professor at Harvard's Chinese philosophy and ethics class in China is also very popular, said every year there are hundreds of people listening to his lesson. Tonight, let each of us here to listen to their conversation in person presentations, to see the two of them are why the class at Harvard so popular. Now, I put the time to the two professors.
Tu Wei-ming: This is a dialogue, it can be said is very formal. We also hope that you can prepare in time to talk about to us or any one of us questions, of course, I also want to hear your comments and views. I know, Professor Zander has been a long time, two years before he and I had such a dialogue at Harvard University, We are also trying to publish the transcript of that published the Chinese version if possible so that everyone will see. you should know, Professor Sandel opened the political science curriculum, so far, at Harvard it is the most popular and most important The most substantial political science class. And I though only the size of classes taught in small classes, but I like to discuss with the students. because they talk to me all the time had considered beforehand.
First of all, let me briefly to ask a question, I think this is a context of globalization, and issues related to human care, a problem related to the field of political science. My question is: liberals believe that we should not be pointing people how or how survive, but to give them free and let them choose their own lives. may appear, this is a proposition acceptable to all. but let me interested in is that people have been arguing for this place. I want to ask is, who control or arrange for the relationship between the political forces, I also very much focused on economic growth and development of links between the wealthy class. According to some local observations, the ability of liberals to the market economy into question also raised some questions about how we should understand the growing market economy and many are concerned with the ultra-liberal. I basically agree with the idea of such research, since it is through dialogue in the form of a topic I mentioned , related to ultra-liberal and liberal practice in the United States, I can tell you a lot of control issues related to the argument. So we start here, I have the mountains for a dialogue now.
Sandel: very grateful to Professor Tu. I'll be answering Professor Tu's such a great proposition, but first I want to say to Fudan University to give lectures on is a great honor for me, I've long heard of this school. The can be with my friends, but also the object that I can learn - Professor Tu Weiming sitting here, it makes my point. He studied the problem is to try to find the traditional resource materials, and then thinking the relationship between public morality and the times. This not limited to the classic study of traditional Confucianism, or the traditional sense of morality, the soul and the relationship between religion and the public a try. so I am very honored to start this dialogue and Professor Tu.
So now let me begin to answer For just under liberalism and liberal communitarianism problem. liberalism contains too many meanings, so I have to figure out what we are discussing what kind of liberalism. Broadly speaking, the traditional liberal Political Science is about individual rights, respect for freedom, respect for individual ideas. at this level, roughly speaking, I do not support the liberal view. I admit to respect individual freedom is very important, but also respect for the moral religious tradition, I do not oppose such content. But in the community criticism of Liberalism, the combination of that part of my research, I do not agree with the liberal philosophy is mainly another point of view, that is, without too much about life and virtues of the concept of discussion and reflection on the premise alone, starting from the desire to satisfy self to simply define our and free discussions, then these arguments and the meaning of life, and discuss together the meaning of virtue is necessary and must be seen to understand. I really do not agree with the place is not no. power is of course important, In my view, the relationship between such things are indivisible, not talk separately. that the role of public affairs in the public domain single concept is not appropriate. Modern politics of the most influential liberals such as the Law Wales and Habermas agree that public affairs should be life, the concept of virtue and the like to distinguish. Citizens should limit this doctrine in the private area, making the public domain important moral, spiritual and other elements is empty, has nothing to with it. The real communitarianism is that the ethical spirit of public governance are inextricably linked. This is my understanding of this issue for a summary of it. how do you think?
Tu Wei-ming: To me, your argument is persuasive. I also believe that religion and ethics for today's public is very important. This knowledge not only from the bottom of my heart feelings. For example, Lo Wales this we respected scholar, should be considered the most important 20th century pioneer in the field of political science. He believes that with the spirit of religion-related things that should not be implanted into the scope of discussion in the public domain. allows people worry about is that, for religion and the understanding of the meaning of life, there are too many different ideas, too many different opinions. Once this allows people to argue in the public domain, certainly there will be differences, and the community is likely to This discussion can not be balanced. This forces try to avoid such a deep discussion and public affairs into contact. I think I am more inclined to this view. This concern is not temporary, in reality, how should we view this kind of problem then ?
Sandel: You raised a very important point. People often try to separate the concept of a universal public affairs with the moral, religious relations, which is tolerance, dissent and other quality related. No matter what the society will have people object to these things. These are real. then I say, the liberal tradition was not born there, is created by man, is a response to world religions. as in Europe, liberalism have been a hundred years of history. Similarly, we can easily trace the historical context that the development of communitarianism, as mentioned by Professor Tu, the private sector and the interdependence of the public domain is emphasized by the content of communitarianism. Many political science we all hold this view. But the question now is: Even with recognition of the history of the problems has been a consensus, but still may have two reactions cause for concern. The first reaction is that since We have positions, ideas, differences, then it should be insisted. This response ignores the political commentary, as liberals will be moved out of the political opposition outside the context of the same. The other is respect for the dissenting response, not to escape but to face a different view, arguing with them, listen to different points of view, and then learn from each other and promote consensus. The second is my understanding of the true depth of communitarianism. In practice, the community of public area overhead, but people can not live without a moral religious significance in the public areas of life.
Tu: About 15 years ago or longer time period, I have continued to participate in a dialogue on the discussion of communitarianism, including and Kong Hans scholars such dialogue. many political parties are very concerned about this, start the universal ethics of global research. although I do not agree with many points of view, and I think I have strong reason to refute them One suspect is aimed at different positions, different religious backgrounds argument object of respect. political dialogue is conducted within the world, such respect can achieve the desired results or is to be accepted, is doubtful.
Zander: I am with you always been interested in dialogue, Kong Hans. I think I have something in common with your point of view the place, so let me talk about my ideas, see if you agree. As you said, If you do not respect your talking to, then you are difficult to achieve the purpose of conversation, and I think such thoughts as Confucianism, has been advocated not to impose values upon others. When people fall into a long and continuing dispute When I do not think that such should have a correct answer to this problem, the problem unless we deeply into, or trapped in the process of dialogue and speculation, as also of no significance. no one can force others to argue, even if someone is willing to do such things. You know I think about this challenge in an article in the word, This is the difference between civilization and the gorilla. Why this is virtue? I can imagine the reason is that you may be convinced, I might be persuaded, but I do not think there any way to make people can help themselves. This is the destiny of humanity, is why the idea of political theory will always be the model of all things divine rule. In the eyes of some politicians, such thinking may be very reasonable, but I do not think there is any evidence to prove it .
Tu: First, I agree with you this view, and this reminds me of and a dialogue between Professor MacIntyre, according to my understanding, in order to prove this understanding, there will be more than an understanding, it will There are all kinds of life on a good understanding of understanding, or moral, in short, more than one. just like to say in Chinese classical In fact there may be four or five explanations for the different situations have different interpretations. Therefore, we must recognize that, otherwise it would cause a complete misunderstanding. On the other hand, you do not allow all opinions are equally respected by the . The question came, the key is how you that want to distinguish between these heterogeneous description of how we do it?
Sandel: I think, for example, this may well explain the concept. This example is the definition of the good life. In the ancient Western philosophy, Aristotle them, the problem is the supreme problem of human life, they are concerned about is the highest realm of what is human? kind of thinking the answer is full of life and the lives of philosophers . Aristotle does not agree that he considered political activity, participation in political activity, public life, it is full of thought for the answer to life a challenge. Aristotle thought the reason there is a certain human kinds of capabilities, the liberation of the public interest, the development of practical wisdom, this capability is only through some kind of civic life in order to be trained, is the political organization of life. No matter how smart philosopher, in an isolated environment in the practice of thinking the lack of participation in collective life, unrest, and controversial human activities, the lack of human capacity to fully develop these thinking hard for him to have success. So we have two explanations for the good life, a life full of thinking One is the life of the people involved in political activities. Ancient Greeks difficult choice, but of course the Greeks, including Aristotle might agree that there is a third possible explanation for the good life is the life of pleasure . But they all agree that this concept can not withstand scrutiny, it can not constitute the thinking of the third competition, but it is very popular, many people believe in this interpretation, simply fall into the pleasure of life, to meet sit the drink, spirits, but this is not what is the good life on an interpretation.
Tu: On the issue of market economy, a United States company to study ideology, that the existence of neo-conservatives and the market fundamentalists the Union. I think we are worried about the market, especially when it linked to the time of individualism. On the other hand, we all know the market is a strange power to generate wealth, will not agree with the way many of our operation. It is said that globalization, like water rising, so more people may be rich, but should not the poor poorer. It is also good. The problem is that the face of market forces, government and public intellectuals, as well as the whole community, should be how to deal with the resulting political problems?
Sandel: In the U.S., the real danger comes from the market. This is a powerful tool for affecting economic development, the risk of this tool can not be When people know, will bring great disaster. we transition to a market economy from the market society, the market ideology of dominant social relations, this is the real danger lies. This trend in the United States and even some European countries CKS place. So I advocate restrictions in some areas the market, of course, not a total ban, but to make them the market is in place to prevent the concept of commodity goods to other areas of market penetration. I think this is the United States and Europe need careful handling. I heard before coming to China to China's enormous economic reform, market reform and opening up, which is considered a great achievement. I also note that economic growth together with the arrival of the growing gap. Professor Tu Weiming soared mentioned, this is a saying to describe the market. But the fact was pointed out that the ship is not necessarily the water rose high, there are winners there are always losers, American society is so, the global economy is also true . For Westerners in China from a distance, they saw a problem, China's economic growth is very fast, when economic reforms will naturally lead to political reform? This is the attitude that they look at this situation. They feel that this is certain, this is the natural law, market economy, the reform is sure to bring political pressure, to democracy. But I do not think this is inevitable. I'm interested in what you say. I fear that China will have to face United States social consequences of the challenges for social cohesion, and soon established a form of political participation with the city, using the scale of the market this tool will cause the public great discussion. I do not think the U.S. market economy and democratic society, between the introduction of certainly, certainly, the inevitable association, but why the United States so sure? because I think that the market economy and democratic politics in between there is a pressure, we always feel them coming, free economy, democratic capitalism, it is natural that they have tied together. But I think in my country in Europe, in fact, the market value and the pressure between the democratic values, democratic values and the market in which there is always the conflict between the position, because of this pressure, I think we can not guarantee market economy and the inevitable correlation between democracy.
Tu: I agree with your theory of civic virtue, we must cultivate civic virtue, citizenship up to a sense of identity, so that not only stay in the ideological level, the same people also practice the form of a healthy body to confirm citizenship and civic participation. but a person as an economic, rational animal is very clear that their own interests, always trying to maximize the benefits. In this relatively free market competition, Of course the premise that compliance with the law, and this is the definition of economic man. It is very important, and with you on civil morality, contrary to the concept of collective solidarity.
Zander: Yes, through the practice of citizenship must be to develop . I think the composition of civic virtue, there are two essential elements or conditions. First Citizens must have a sense of belonging to a group identity, participation, loyalty, solidarity; the second constitutes a condition of civic virtue right to speak, able to influence government policy, or a kind of participation. in the United States, all kinds of challenges are overwhelming challenge. due to the strong tradition of individualism, hard to call a collective sense of solidarity or so members, so the United States individualism and non-traditional countries. the challenges facing the United States is how to overcome individualism and self-interest around the negative impact of mass culture for the public interest concerns. compared to the U.S., I tentatively made the following comparison, China the problems faced, are facing barriers leading to social morality, the second condition is the right to speak on the issue. As a collective sense of identity and loyalty to the organization, resulting in the Chinese tradition the absence of the right to speak, which is different from problem in the United States, it is the second condition of the problem is the right to speak is missing. This is the two required conditions, it is difficult to meet the two conditions. different societies face different problems to solve. < br> Tu: Perhaps the concept of a collective sense of a harmonious society was well represented. in the classical tradition, harmony is the opposite of monotony. A condition for the recognition of diversity, if you do not understand diversity, then you will understand harmony. Confucius, the Chinese people even before, there is awareness of the harmony of the classic manifestation of that is Chinese food. ancient emperor of a minister and dialogue between the emperor that his relationship with the minister is very harmonious, but the ministers strongly opposed. He said: just out of fear rule your compliance with the order, so your approach is uniform and not bring harmony, let me tell you what is harmonious. like the Chinese dishes, to stew a delicious soup, you need a lot of different seasoning, the salt, sour, sweet spices h you all together, it tastes delicious. but if you only as condiments, sweet or salty, do not drink out. Harmony means agree with you, so ministers disagree with you, and you can challenge your views, so as to be harmonious. would be very monotonous. So I think that harmony is not the only difference is a necessary condition for a harmonious, there is no difference, there is no harmony between the social wealth.
Sandel: I must admit, when I from the Chinese government where hear the efforts to build a rich and diverse society. I really appreciate the harmonious interpretation of Professor Tu, the opposite is the only harmonious, harmony is odd. When I first heard the harmonious society when I do not feel very comfortable, I would prefer a to the controversial community. but now I knew that he misunderstood the intention of the Chinese government, they are actually in the multiple demands, thanks for giving me such a new understanding. Although I'm not entirely sure whether this is also the understanding of government leaders. < br> Tu Wei-ming: Thank you, I do not know if deserve such praise. I do not sure if government leaders would agree with me, mainly it was my own thoughts. But I think this question is very important. recent published a book, American style.
Sandel: I now find themselves affected by the American bias, such as the judge of ultra-liberal. I even thought he was a mainstream of society against their own thoughts, but maybe now I find he is still an American thinker, so when they heard of instinctive aversion. I think of the French political thinker to a Jacques Rousseau b, he first proposed the modern political theory, to some extent also the first communist. he proposed the People as individuals should be thoroughly pursue personal interests. He said to achieve the objective of social contract should be concerned about the ideological self-interest of a correction. I too like to judge and analysis of American society. but when Rousseau develop their own silent. because if silent, no arguments, then it means that everyone will at the same level of public consensus, not different views, multiple disappear, this is for me a bit like a communist point of view. that is concerned about the common values of society, went to the extreme only the ideal, uniform, denying people the gap directly, will not have different opinions. Perhaps as an American thinking, and I prefer to discuss the life of major controversy thing. When I hear your explanation of harmony, I think, maybe the so-called silent Rousseau is what I mean. But maybe I understand the wrong.
Tu: I do not know your understanding is accurate. But this is a very interesting topic, when we talk to collective solidarity, we found that everyone in the group must agree to abide by certain basic principles or ideals, or completely different opinions can not form a group, some of the word reflects the All kind of bias and prejudice, and sometimes even worse. I very much agree with you about the discussion of Rousseau's general will, when a few people control the right to speak your opinion and when the change channels, but on the other hand, controversy is essential in the process of social construction, has more than proven by practice. we can imagine other cases, dialogue is not to change or even not to leave an opinion only, In order to correct the misunderstanding by not even to help others understand themselves. Why should we dialogue? a very important part of the dialogue is to listen. argument when we often do not like to listen. But the dialogue, you have to listen out from the other views. One of the advantages here is to improve their knowledge. because if you do not listen to other opinions, you will become very narrow field of vision, if you want to expand their knowledge, we must expose yourself to those completely different concept. Another very important factor, the results of the dialogue is to enhance the potential flexibility of their own to overcome the limitations of their own, in different contexts can be flexible and responsive. So this case, we can imagine a dialogue led by the vibrant, flexible society?
Sandel: I think it is perfectly conceivable. but I also have a little reservation. listen to your argument and say the difference between the dialogue, which makes me think my high school scene. When I again in high school, I joined the debate team, very serious discussions with others, and today the situation is very similar. we have a debate for a whole year, you must have done for the positive and negative themes preparation, and then participate in the debate, will tell you that today you are temporarily or anti-side square, then you must strive to defend their position. I suddenly thought that Parliament should debate mm unilaterally send troops to stop U.S. interference in the affairs, it is probably 1969 or 1970 at that time, of course, referred to here is to send troops for the war in Vietnam. These problems triggered a debate any time, of course, is not the purpose of argument in order to understand the other's point of view. In fact, you get the last day, For the other's point of view has already been prepared, you just want to overcome to convince the other side. You probably also the case of debate, not for the purpose of dialogue is a debate to debate, competitive. This is a very different activity, which is useful for young people to enable them to cultivate the ability to express their views, but this is not what we have discussed the cross-cultural understanding between the exchange model. Now I want to say about the one he is still hesitant place, perhaps with a certain discriminatory, perhaps not, if the dialogue just to understand each other's position that, ideally, is still possible. But for the following reasons, this dialogue can only be a sociology of religion, all the dialogue is just propaganda. genuine dialogue is different and the exchange of views, it is not intended to win, for the people involved is not without risk, I think the real dialogue can not rule out the danger, the danger is that you may give up their point of view. This means that the exchange of ideas in fact have some very compelling moments, neither side may change their views. In order to enter into a genuine cultural traditions and even a religion on the dialogue, I think There certainly exists danger, neither may change their point of view. If you sincerely, you may be losing their faith after the dialogue.
Tu: dialogue is a culture, do have you said dangerous. Perhaps you will still be unchanged in the dialogue, that this is not a real dialogue. a real conversation or even identify your own point of view, or you take the risk, as you said, to give up their point of view. I want to ask you, I know your personal beliefs of God, that is your personal beliefs. usually many Muslim pilgrims will go to Israel, read the also invited a lot of involvement with Jewish backgrounds, such as Putnam, Professor and so on. people together, one sentence read, items such experience you?
Sandel: This is an example. I think you created the model of learning Confucian texts, and we learn that the Jewish classical model is very similar. I am not the theory or a research traditional academics, but I am very interested to learn this thought, would like to learn more. So we Jewish scholars and researchers together to study, try to learn more about our own traditions, but also learn about traditional Chinese to understand the core activities of these civilizations is to be the kind of dialogue we call a prerequisite. I think that in our era of dialogue between civilizations biggest obstacle, not the people do not want to meet or dialogue, but we when faced with other cultures, they find that they actually know very little about their culture. So we must be more fuller understanding of our own traditions, and then go face the other cultures of the dialogue ....