论文部分内容阅读
As the rejuvenation of fine traditional Chinese culture gets underway， it is increasingly common for people to turn to and read the Chinese classics. The Confucian classics in particular have gained considerable popularity and influence in society. However， as we approach the Chinese classics， what kind of attitude should we adopt？ Should we give absolute respect and trust to the classics， or take a sober and critical attitude？ Should we hold the classics， as the ancients did， in reverence， or take them with a grain of salt or even with strong suspicion？ These questions are not as simple as they appear; in fact， they are very complex， concerning not only the influence of the classics on sociocultural trends and mores but also the way of viewing and understanding the classics.
From Traditional Understanding to Philosophical Understanding [13]
What is a classic？ Viewed from outside， there are always some qualities which help to define a classic; however， viewed from inside， especially from the perspective of the evolution of a classic， its boundaries are not clear-cut， and even tend to blur and disappear. Broadly speaking， the contours and configurations of the Confucian classics in history are clear. Although there are large accumulations of commentaries and explanations which overlap， criss-cross， and even depart from each other， they are basically committed to a correct understanding of the meaning of the sages. Today when it comes to the understanding of the Confucian classics， the issue is not confined merely to a correct understanding， but deals with a range of intellectual activities revolving around the interpretation of the classics.
To understand a classic， one should first understand the term “understanding”： what is the nature of understanding， what are the conditions for understanding， and how does one theorize about understanding. Understanding can be roughly classified into three types. The first type is centered on seeking textual meaning， or understanding a text correctly so as to grasp the author’s intention. The second type is an interactive process in which the author， the text， and the reader participate. The three mingle and converse with each other， thoughts and ideas are spawned and accumulated， and a complex hermeneutic system is set in motion. The third type is philosophical speculation about understanding， associating understanding with human existence， with the belief that being is understanding. This third type thus becomes an ontology. The study of the Confucian classics， in its classical sense， is a kind of exegesis of the classics. The fact that they are “classics” is made central， which explains the demand that they be held in reverence. Hermeneutics in modern times is concerned with the issue of correct understanding. Central to historical interpretation and standard philosophical interpretation is the nature of understanding. Philosophical hermeneutics takes an ontological approach， and addresses “the conditions of understanding” as well as the existential relationship between “understanding” and “the conditions that make understanding possible.” “Gadamer’s account of hermeneutic understanding is devoted to examining the conditions of this latter understanding of meaning.”
Traditional understanding means chiefly that， relying on one’s substantive knowledge， one turns to the object of interpretation directly， and has intuitive insights about it. In the process of understanding， one brings into coherence relevant thoughts and ideas， construing the object as appertaining to a specific category or perceiving it in terms of a totality， along with the production of systematic knowledge or the disclosure of some sort of coherence. For example， Confucius makes the remark： “to elaborate the thoughts of the ancients （shu 述）， not to express the thoughts of my own （zuo 作）” （Analects 7：1）. Later scholars come up with various interpretations of this remark， and these interpretations certainly contain many internally coherent understandings. To illustrate， Zhu Xi 朱熹 （1130–1200） says， “To elaborate the thoughts of the ancients is to transmit the old. To express the thoughts of my own is to initiate the new. Only sages can initiate the new while worthy men are capable of transmitting the old.” Shu and zuo， or “transmitting the old” and “initiating the new，” constitute the links in the chain of historical development， with the sages and worthies coming on stage in sequence and playing different roles. Although shu and zuo have different functions， it cannot be assumed that one is more important than the other. In fact， people make a choice of the two in concrete hermeneutic situations， and the choice is made according to which one is more appropriate instead of which one is more important. Jiao Xun 焦循 （1763–1820） says，
Confucius states， “To elaborate the thoughts of the ancients， not to express the thoughts of my own.” Later scholars also assert， “To elaborate the thoughts of the ancients， not to express the thoughts of my own.” However， only Confucius can elaborate the thoughts of Fuxi 伏羲， Yao 堯， Shun 舜， Yu 禹， Tang 汤， King Wen of Zhou， and the Duke of Zhou. Only Mencius can elaborate the thoughts of Confucius. After the death of Mencius， few people can elaborate the thoughts of the ancients. To elaborate the thoughts of the ancients， one must apprehend the heart-mind of the ancients， and to elaborate the heart-mind of the ancients， one must apprehend the Way （dao 道） of the ancients. If a scholar uses his own heart-mind to explain his own Way， and uses his own Way to explain the words of the ancients， although he says he elaborates the thoughts of the ancients， what he really does is using the words of the ancients to express his own thoughts. If a scholar does not use his heart-mind to seek the meaning of the words of the ancients， although he spends the whole day on the words of the ancients， he does not understand the heart-mind of the ancients. Although he says he elaborates the thoughts of the ancients， what he really does is reciting and copying. As can be seen from the words above， shu is not inferior to zuo， and does not mean merely linguistic exegesis; shu is a kind of understanding that prioritizes the connection of one mind with another mind， and entails selecting and inheriting some of the previous understandings. Therefore， one truly elaborates the thoughts of the ancients when he comprehends the words and grasps the meaning， penetrating deep into the core of the message. Seen in this light， shu is not one-sided understanding， nor is it understanding at a particular historical moment; instead， shu is a kind of comprehensive understanding which achieves the coherence of the old and the new， the exterior and the interior， and transcends the understanding of earlier scholars.
How does one arrive at this higher state of understanding？ Zhu Xi’s thought is highly pertinent here. Believing that a reader should grasp the entire meaning of a text， Zhu says， “As one reads a work， he should read it in its entirety instead of focusing on one part to the detriment of the rest. One achieves progress only if his reading penetrates every part of the work and clears every obstacle in the way.” An overall grasp of the work is also accompanied by meticulous analysis and examination of its components. Zhu says， “The first time a scholar reads a text， what he gets is a confusing mess. As he reads the text more， he gradually advances， finding that the text is made up of two to three parts， and finally of over ten parts.” In the reading process， one must not let one’s insight and opinion formed at a particular moment affect one’s subsequent reading and overall grasp of the work.
While reading a book， one has some insight， but the insight may not be true， so it cannot be adhered to. The reader had better put the insight aside for a while， read more books， and have more insights. If the reader sticks to one insight， his heart-mind is in the shade cast by the insight and is blind to more insights. . . . A sage extends his heart-mind in all directions， and his talk of things leaves no room for improvement.
A good reader makes analogies and associations in understanding， which is an interactive process. “While reading the classics and the commentaries on the classics， one may encounter things he cannot comprehend， and when that happens， he should make analogies and associations. As long as the analogies and associations are properly made， the text becomes immediately comprehensible.” Readers should also engage in self-cultivation， and base their understanding on their personal experience of self-cultivation. “One should read the Six Classics as if the classics did not exist. If the reader tries to understand through his personal experience， he will find it easier to grasp the truth of the words.” Zhu Xi’s discussion on reading first addresses the issue of comprehending the text， with a consideration of how to better understand the arrangement of the ideas in the text as well as how to adopt a good overall perspective. In addition， Zhu’s theory reveals the interactive process between the author， the text， and the reader in understanding， which is clearly within the purview of hermeneutics. Zhu’s thought on reading is an indication that ancient Chinese philosophy abounds with insights into “understanding，” and these insights are at an advanced level. Understanding as Creative Self-Cognition [15]
Considering the three types of understanding mentioned above， the “understanding” involved in the interpretation of the Confucian classics mainly falls into the first two types but not the third type， which is marked by ontological speculation （Confucian thought on interpretation may contain ontological thinking， but in a different form， so further analysis in this regard is needed）. The inquiry into and reflection upon “understanding” indicates the maturity of hermeneutics as an independent field of scholarly inquiry. According to Hans-Georg Gadamer， Schleiermacher’s hermeneutic theory bases understanding on the dialogue and ordinary mutual understanding between people， and thus not only enhances the foundation of hermeneutics but also enriches the scientific systems built upon hermeneutics; as a consequence， hermeneutics begins to serve as the foundation of theology and of all the historical spiritual sciences.
While analyzing the path from “symbolism to reflective thought，” Paul Ricoeur proposes three stages in his hermeneutics of symbols. The first stage is the understanding of symbol by symbol. A symbol is understood by the category or the totality of symbols it belongs to， and thus “the multiple values of one and the same symbol” are displayed， and “an internal coherence” is brought out. The second stage “enters into a relationship with symbols that is emotionally intense and at the same time critical. . . . Only by sharing in this dynamics does understanding enter the properly critical dimension of exegesis and become a hermeneutics.” The third stage is philosophical reflection on how can “a meaning be disengaged from symbol that will put thought into motion， without presupposing a meaning already there， hidden， dissimulated， covered over， or without getting involved in the pseudo-knowing of a dogmatic mythology.” This is a creative way of interpretation as well as philosophical reflection and speculation， with an enhanced understanding of meaning and the generation of new meanings. Given the richness and complexity of “understanding，” some knowledge of the content of understanding constitutes the precondition and foundation of interpretation. Despite the differences among the three types of understanding in terms of scope and depth， “on both sides the fundamental question was the same， namely， that of the relation between sense and self， between the intelligibility of the first and the reflexive nature of the second.” Therefore， “understanding” is in fact a narrative of circumstance， through which one reconfigures his or her temporal experience. By interpretation， the interpreter selects contexts to construct both narrative unity and his or her identity. Thus， reading and understanding are activities to raise a person’s awareness of identity. “That deployment of an alternative identity is what we do when we read and when we connect parts of the text to other parts and when we go on to expand the area of attention to include widening circles of pertinence.” At present， Confucianism finds itself in a new situation， which is unique in the history of its development; consequently， the interpretation of the Confucian classics should try to achieve a coherence between the old narrative and the new imagination. The new horizons opened up by modern research provide new ideas about how to understand tradition and how to enter into history. Qian Mu 錢穆 （1985–1990） says，
Confucius says， “I elaborate the thoughts of the ancients instead of expressing the thoughts of my own， and I trust and like the thoughts of the ancients.” But Confucius was born in a time different from that of the ancients. Although he trusts and likes the thoughts of the ancients， what he elaborates cannot be exactly the same as the thoughts of the ancients. As Confucius “elaborates the thoughts of the ancients，” he in fact expresses his understanding， which is certainly new but does not betray the thoughts of the ancients. Confucius’s approach can be called “establishing a connection” （tong 通）. A connection has been established between the Han dynasty （206 BCE–220 CE） and the Xia， Shang， and Zhou dynasties （ca. 2070 BCE–256 BCE）; also a connection has been established between the Tang dynasty （618–907） and the Han dynasty. A single string runs through the five thousand years of history， and this precious connection is what makes Chinese civilization retain its identity.
“Establishing a connection” also entails the uniting of the continuity of cultural identity and the understanding appertaining to human existence. Understanding cannot be regarded as a method of knowing; instead， it is an inherent quality of human life， and it opens the human world to endless possibilities. Ultimately， every understanding is the understanding of the self. In understanding， one neither tries to transform nor surrenders oneself to the object; rather， the purpose of understanding is to have a better and deeper understanding of the self. Therefore， all things considered， understanding is essentially self-understanding， which consists in listening to and conversing with the other to establish a coherence between the self and the other. This kind of understanding， which is a form of philosophical reflection， is a process of self-cognition and of creative internalization， or， as Gadamer and Ricoeur call it， “appropriation.” Ricoeur notes that “interpretation retains the feature of appropriation.” Here， “appropriation” means that：
The interpretation of a text culminates in the self-understanding of a subject who thenceforth understands himself better， understands himself differently， or simply begins to understand himself. This culmination of the understanding of a text in self-understanding is characteristic of the kind of reflexive philosophy that， on various occasions， I have called “concrete reflection.”
For one thing， understanding the other （texts or things） is a process of making the strange familiar， and bridging the gap between the self and the other： “interpretation ‘brings together，’ ‘equalizes，’ renders ‘contemporary and similar，’ thus genuinely making one’s own what was initially alien.” At the same time， understanding is a process of self-cognition. Ricoeur says， “In short， in hermeneutic reflection—or in reflective hermeneutics—the constitution of the self is contemporaneous with the constitution of meaning.” It is also in this sense that Gadamer says， “It still remains true that all such understanding is ultimately self-understanding.” Gadamer also says that understanding is possible only when those who understand succeed in bringing in their assumptions， and the innovative contribution of an interpreter always belongs to what is understood.
With regard to the understanding of the classics， “appropriation” is not about digesting the text in one’s own way， but about staying open and continuing to respond to the subjects brought up by the text. Or， as Ricoeur puts it， “to interpret is to follow the path of thought opened up by the text， to place oneself on the route indicated by the text.” The world of meaning opened up by the text includes not only the sphere of concrete knowledge but also that which is fictional and imaginary. It is precisely the diversity of the latter that opens up endless possibilities of existence and points to more profound ontological issues， with higher expectations and requirements for understanding. Advancing in the direction of a multiplicity of meanings， people can continually understand the rich spiritual world， and by understanding make their allotted contribution to the construction of the world; simultaneously， human self-understanding is continually deepened. Ricoeur says， This is why philosophy remains a hermeneutics， that is， a reading of the hidden meaning inside the text of the apparent meaning. It is the task of this hermeneutics to show that existence arrives at expression， at meaning， and at reflection only through the continual exegesis of all the significations that come to light in the world of culture. Existence becomes a self—human and adult—only by appropriating this meaning， which first resides “outside，” in works， institutions， and cultural monuments in which the life of the spirit is objectified.
This hermeneutics is reflective and philosophical， and sheds new light on “understanding”： understanding is not merely copying， and it is always a creative act.
Proving the Universality of the Confucian Classics from the Perspective of Philosophical Ontology [17]
From the perspective of philosophical or ontological understanding， the Confucian classics cannot be regarded merely as historical materials or dead objects， nor can what they “speak” be understood merely in philological terms. Instead， we should take them as a vehicle for us to know the world， understand life， and reflect upon ourselves. By understanding the classics， we gain a better comprehension of our present life， and an accurate perception and a deeper grasp of existence as it really is. Historically， the thoughts in the Confucian classics were derived from life， so the classics provided guidance on how to conduct one’s life， and in turn， a person’s daily conduct and way of living were largely shaped by the ideas of the classics. Therefore， people “lived” in the classics， in the coherence between the meaning of the classics and their experience. They accepted and understood the classics through their daily activities. However， in the late Qing dynasty （1644–1911）， when the study of the Confucian classics came to an end， so did this way of understanding through living.
In modern society， the status of the classics has been long forgotten， and the classics no longer play the role they once did in people’s lives. To modern readers， the classics are merely ordinary books， and reading the classics is no more than reading a book for information about the ancient past. Sometimes， in order to get transported to the scene in the ancient past， and to recover the immediate historical meaning of the classics， readers imagine the scene in order to simulate the historical events， and take part in the performance in order to get a better understanding. However， since access to this hermeneutic vantage point can only be gained through language which is abstract， the encounter with the ancient past in this manner is nothing but an affective result of imagination， a process produced and enhanced through rhetorical devises such as rhetorical simulation and metaphor. In this process， the reader’s imagination is aroused to give a feeling of travelling back in time， which is certainly not true but feels real. This process is captured by the ancients when they remind people to read the Great Learning as if seeing Confucius and Zeng Shen 曾參 （505–436 BCE） in person， to read the Doctrine of the Mean as if seeing Zisi 子思 （483–402 BCE） in person， to read the Analects as if questioning Confucius in person upon the Zhu and Si Rivers， and to read the Mencius as if serving Mencius during his discussions with the kings of the Qi and Liang states. People can gain a better understanding of the meaning of a text if they have a vision in their minds and the imagination to transport themselves to the historical scene. This approach is often called talking with the ancients， or having a dialogue with the text and the author. However， as is known to all， this “talk” or “dialogue” does not happen in reality， nor does it possess any of the immediacy of something real. As a result， in modern society， a different attitude should be adopted toward the classics. One does not need to imaginatively transport oneself into the situation of the ancients. In contrast， one should start from the present， and have a creative understanding of “understanding.” True understanding does not lie in experience only; rather， it is often gained through thinking， and it lies in one’s thought and feeling alongside a spirit of innovation. The “understanding” revealed by philosophical hermeneutics is the understanding of ideas， clearly not based on sensory experience; likewise， “experience” actually has more to do with the universality of human history than with an individual’s finite perception. In this connection， Gadamer says， “Real experience is that whereby man becomes aware of his finiteness. In it are discovered the limits of the power and the self-knowledge of his planning reason.” Real experience is also called “historically effected consciousness，” which is “a genuine form of experience” and “must reflect the general structure of experience.” This form of experience is perfect experience and hermeneutic experience， which is concerned with tradition. This link with tradition is achieved not through that which is subject to sensory experience but through language， which is a system of signs and is highly abstract. “The heritage is not something that one can control， nor is it an object over against one. One comes to understand it， even while standing in it， as an intrinsically linguistic experience.” The linguistic experience is far removed from real-life experience. In other words， the reality expressed by language is not the reality of the world of sensory experience but the reality arrived at through reason and logic. In conclusion， the most universal and basic understanding can only be gained through philosophical reflection， and it does not rely on the immediacy of feeling. This type of understanding gives strong support to the universality of the meaning of the Confucian classics.
Translated by Hou Jian
From Traditional Understanding to Philosophical Understanding [13]
What is a classic？ Viewed from outside， there are always some qualities which help to define a classic; however， viewed from inside， especially from the perspective of the evolution of a classic， its boundaries are not clear-cut， and even tend to blur and disappear. Broadly speaking， the contours and configurations of the Confucian classics in history are clear. Although there are large accumulations of commentaries and explanations which overlap， criss-cross， and even depart from each other， they are basically committed to a correct understanding of the meaning of the sages. Today when it comes to the understanding of the Confucian classics， the issue is not confined merely to a correct understanding， but deals with a range of intellectual activities revolving around the interpretation of the classics.
To understand a classic， one should first understand the term “understanding”： what is the nature of understanding， what are the conditions for understanding， and how does one theorize about understanding. Understanding can be roughly classified into three types. The first type is centered on seeking textual meaning， or understanding a text correctly so as to grasp the author’s intention. The second type is an interactive process in which the author， the text， and the reader participate. The three mingle and converse with each other， thoughts and ideas are spawned and accumulated， and a complex hermeneutic system is set in motion. The third type is philosophical speculation about understanding， associating understanding with human existence， with the belief that being is understanding. This third type thus becomes an ontology. The study of the Confucian classics， in its classical sense， is a kind of exegesis of the classics. The fact that they are “classics” is made central， which explains the demand that they be held in reverence. Hermeneutics in modern times is concerned with the issue of correct understanding. Central to historical interpretation and standard philosophical interpretation is the nature of understanding. Philosophical hermeneutics takes an ontological approach， and addresses “the conditions of understanding” as well as the existential relationship between “understanding” and “the conditions that make understanding possible.” “Gadamer’s account of hermeneutic understanding is devoted to examining the conditions of this latter understanding of meaning.”
Traditional understanding means chiefly that， relying on one’s substantive knowledge， one turns to the object of interpretation directly， and has intuitive insights about it. In the process of understanding， one brings into coherence relevant thoughts and ideas， construing the object as appertaining to a specific category or perceiving it in terms of a totality， along with the production of systematic knowledge or the disclosure of some sort of coherence. For example， Confucius makes the remark： “to elaborate the thoughts of the ancients （shu 述）， not to express the thoughts of my own （zuo 作）” （Analects 7：1）. Later scholars come up with various interpretations of this remark， and these interpretations certainly contain many internally coherent understandings. To illustrate， Zhu Xi 朱熹 （1130–1200） says， “To elaborate the thoughts of the ancients is to transmit the old. To express the thoughts of my own is to initiate the new. Only sages can initiate the new while worthy men are capable of transmitting the old.” Shu and zuo， or “transmitting the old” and “initiating the new，” constitute the links in the chain of historical development， with the sages and worthies coming on stage in sequence and playing different roles. Although shu and zuo have different functions， it cannot be assumed that one is more important than the other. In fact， people make a choice of the two in concrete hermeneutic situations， and the choice is made according to which one is more appropriate instead of which one is more important. Jiao Xun 焦循 （1763–1820） says，
Confucius states， “To elaborate the thoughts of the ancients， not to express the thoughts of my own.” Later scholars also assert， “To elaborate the thoughts of the ancients， not to express the thoughts of my own.” However， only Confucius can elaborate the thoughts of Fuxi 伏羲， Yao 堯， Shun 舜， Yu 禹， Tang 汤， King Wen of Zhou， and the Duke of Zhou. Only Mencius can elaborate the thoughts of Confucius. After the death of Mencius， few people can elaborate the thoughts of the ancients. To elaborate the thoughts of the ancients， one must apprehend the heart-mind of the ancients， and to elaborate the heart-mind of the ancients， one must apprehend the Way （dao 道） of the ancients. If a scholar uses his own heart-mind to explain his own Way， and uses his own Way to explain the words of the ancients， although he says he elaborates the thoughts of the ancients， what he really does is using the words of the ancients to express his own thoughts. If a scholar does not use his heart-mind to seek the meaning of the words of the ancients， although he spends the whole day on the words of the ancients， he does not understand the heart-mind of the ancients. Although he says he elaborates the thoughts of the ancients， what he really does is reciting and copying. As can be seen from the words above， shu is not inferior to zuo， and does not mean merely linguistic exegesis; shu is a kind of understanding that prioritizes the connection of one mind with another mind， and entails selecting and inheriting some of the previous understandings. Therefore， one truly elaborates the thoughts of the ancients when he comprehends the words and grasps the meaning， penetrating deep into the core of the message. Seen in this light， shu is not one-sided understanding， nor is it understanding at a particular historical moment; instead， shu is a kind of comprehensive understanding which achieves the coherence of the old and the new， the exterior and the interior， and transcends the understanding of earlier scholars.
How does one arrive at this higher state of understanding？ Zhu Xi’s thought is highly pertinent here. Believing that a reader should grasp the entire meaning of a text， Zhu says， “As one reads a work， he should read it in its entirety instead of focusing on one part to the detriment of the rest. One achieves progress only if his reading penetrates every part of the work and clears every obstacle in the way.” An overall grasp of the work is also accompanied by meticulous analysis and examination of its components. Zhu says， “The first time a scholar reads a text， what he gets is a confusing mess. As he reads the text more， he gradually advances， finding that the text is made up of two to three parts， and finally of over ten parts.” In the reading process， one must not let one’s insight and opinion formed at a particular moment affect one’s subsequent reading and overall grasp of the work.
While reading a book， one has some insight， but the insight may not be true， so it cannot be adhered to. The reader had better put the insight aside for a while， read more books， and have more insights. If the reader sticks to one insight， his heart-mind is in the shade cast by the insight and is blind to more insights. . . . A sage extends his heart-mind in all directions， and his talk of things leaves no room for improvement.
A good reader makes analogies and associations in understanding， which is an interactive process. “While reading the classics and the commentaries on the classics， one may encounter things he cannot comprehend， and when that happens， he should make analogies and associations. As long as the analogies and associations are properly made， the text becomes immediately comprehensible.” Readers should also engage in self-cultivation， and base their understanding on their personal experience of self-cultivation. “One should read the Six Classics as if the classics did not exist. If the reader tries to understand through his personal experience， he will find it easier to grasp the truth of the words.” Zhu Xi’s discussion on reading first addresses the issue of comprehending the text， with a consideration of how to better understand the arrangement of the ideas in the text as well as how to adopt a good overall perspective. In addition， Zhu’s theory reveals the interactive process between the author， the text， and the reader in understanding， which is clearly within the purview of hermeneutics. Zhu’s thought on reading is an indication that ancient Chinese philosophy abounds with insights into “understanding，” and these insights are at an advanced level. Understanding as Creative Self-Cognition [15]
Considering the three types of understanding mentioned above， the “understanding” involved in the interpretation of the Confucian classics mainly falls into the first two types but not the third type， which is marked by ontological speculation （Confucian thought on interpretation may contain ontological thinking， but in a different form， so further analysis in this regard is needed）. The inquiry into and reflection upon “understanding” indicates the maturity of hermeneutics as an independent field of scholarly inquiry. According to Hans-Georg Gadamer， Schleiermacher’s hermeneutic theory bases understanding on the dialogue and ordinary mutual understanding between people， and thus not only enhances the foundation of hermeneutics but also enriches the scientific systems built upon hermeneutics; as a consequence， hermeneutics begins to serve as the foundation of theology and of all the historical spiritual sciences.
While analyzing the path from “symbolism to reflective thought，” Paul Ricoeur proposes three stages in his hermeneutics of symbols. The first stage is the understanding of symbol by symbol. A symbol is understood by the category or the totality of symbols it belongs to， and thus “the multiple values of one and the same symbol” are displayed， and “an internal coherence” is brought out. The second stage “enters into a relationship with symbols that is emotionally intense and at the same time critical. . . . Only by sharing in this dynamics does understanding enter the properly critical dimension of exegesis and become a hermeneutics.” The third stage is philosophical reflection on how can “a meaning be disengaged from symbol that will put thought into motion， without presupposing a meaning already there， hidden， dissimulated， covered over， or without getting involved in the pseudo-knowing of a dogmatic mythology.” This is a creative way of interpretation as well as philosophical reflection and speculation， with an enhanced understanding of meaning and the generation of new meanings. Given the richness and complexity of “understanding，” some knowledge of the content of understanding constitutes the precondition and foundation of interpretation. Despite the differences among the three types of understanding in terms of scope and depth， “on both sides the fundamental question was the same， namely， that of the relation between sense and self， between the intelligibility of the first and the reflexive nature of the second.” Therefore， “understanding” is in fact a narrative of circumstance， through which one reconfigures his or her temporal experience. By interpretation， the interpreter selects contexts to construct both narrative unity and his or her identity. Thus， reading and understanding are activities to raise a person’s awareness of identity. “That deployment of an alternative identity is what we do when we read and when we connect parts of the text to other parts and when we go on to expand the area of attention to include widening circles of pertinence.” At present， Confucianism finds itself in a new situation， which is unique in the history of its development; consequently， the interpretation of the Confucian classics should try to achieve a coherence between the old narrative and the new imagination. The new horizons opened up by modern research provide new ideas about how to understand tradition and how to enter into history. Qian Mu 錢穆 （1985–1990） says，
Confucius says， “I elaborate the thoughts of the ancients instead of expressing the thoughts of my own， and I trust and like the thoughts of the ancients.” But Confucius was born in a time different from that of the ancients. Although he trusts and likes the thoughts of the ancients， what he elaborates cannot be exactly the same as the thoughts of the ancients. As Confucius “elaborates the thoughts of the ancients，” he in fact expresses his understanding， which is certainly new but does not betray the thoughts of the ancients. Confucius’s approach can be called “establishing a connection” （tong 通）. A connection has been established between the Han dynasty （206 BCE–220 CE） and the Xia， Shang， and Zhou dynasties （ca. 2070 BCE–256 BCE）; also a connection has been established between the Tang dynasty （618–907） and the Han dynasty. A single string runs through the five thousand years of history， and this precious connection is what makes Chinese civilization retain its identity.
“Establishing a connection” also entails the uniting of the continuity of cultural identity and the understanding appertaining to human existence. Understanding cannot be regarded as a method of knowing; instead， it is an inherent quality of human life， and it opens the human world to endless possibilities. Ultimately， every understanding is the understanding of the self. In understanding， one neither tries to transform nor surrenders oneself to the object; rather， the purpose of understanding is to have a better and deeper understanding of the self. Therefore， all things considered， understanding is essentially self-understanding， which consists in listening to and conversing with the other to establish a coherence between the self and the other. This kind of understanding， which is a form of philosophical reflection， is a process of self-cognition and of creative internalization， or， as Gadamer and Ricoeur call it， “appropriation.” Ricoeur notes that “interpretation retains the feature of appropriation.” Here， “appropriation” means that：
The interpretation of a text culminates in the self-understanding of a subject who thenceforth understands himself better， understands himself differently， or simply begins to understand himself. This culmination of the understanding of a text in self-understanding is characteristic of the kind of reflexive philosophy that， on various occasions， I have called “concrete reflection.”
For one thing， understanding the other （texts or things） is a process of making the strange familiar， and bridging the gap between the self and the other： “interpretation ‘brings together，’ ‘equalizes，’ renders ‘contemporary and similar，’ thus genuinely making one’s own what was initially alien.” At the same time， understanding is a process of self-cognition. Ricoeur says， “In short， in hermeneutic reflection—or in reflective hermeneutics—the constitution of the self is contemporaneous with the constitution of meaning.” It is also in this sense that Gadamer says， “It still remains true that all such understanding is ultimately self-understanding.” Gadamer also says that understanding is possible only when those who understand succeed in bringing in their assumptions， and the innovative contribution of an interpreter always belongs to what is understood.
With regard to the understanding of the classics， “appropriation” is not about digesting the text in one’s own way， but about staying open and continuing to respond to the subjects brought up by the text. Or， as Ricoeur puts it， “to interpret is to follow the path of thought opened up by the text， to place oneself on the route indicated by the text.” The world of meaning opened up by the text includes not only the sphere of concrete knowledge but also that which is fictional and imaginary. It is precisely the diversity of the latter that opens up endless possibilities of existence and points to more profound ontological issues， with higher expectations and requirements for understanding. Advancing in the direction of a multiplicity of meanings， people can continually understand the rich spiritual world， and by understanding make their allotted contribution to the construction of the world; simultaneously， human self-understanding is continually deepened. Ricoeur says， This is why philosophy remains a hermeneutics， that is， a reading of the hidden meaning inside the text of the apparent meaning. It is the task of this hermeneutics to show that existence arrives at expression， at meaning， and at reflection only through the continual exegesis of all the significations that come to light in the world of culture. Existence becomes a self—human and adult—only by appropriating this meaning， which first resides “outside，” in works， institutions， and cultural monuments in which the life of the spirit is objectified.
This hermeneutics is reflective and philosophical， and sheds new light on “understanding”： understanding is not merely copying， and it is always a creative act.
Proving the Universality of the Confucian Classics from the Perspective of Philosophical Ontology [17]
From the perspective of philosophical or ontological understanding， the Confucian classics cannot be regarded merely as historical materials or dead objects， nor can what they “speak” be understood merely in philological terms. Instead， we should take them as a vehicle for us to know the world， understand life， and reflect upon ourselves. By understanding the classics， we gain a better comprehension of our present life， and an accurate perception and a deeper grasp of existence as it really is. Historically， the thoughts in the Confucian classics were derived from life， so the classics provided guidance on how to conduct one’s life， and in turn， a person’s daily conduct and way of living were largely shaped by the ideas of the classics. Therefore， people “lived” in the classics， in the coherence between the meaning of the classics and their experience. They accepted and understood the classics through their daily activities. However， in the late Qing dynasty （1644–1911）， when the study of the Confucian classics came to an end， so did this way of understanding through living.
In modern society， the status of the classics has been long forgotten， and the classics no longer play the role they once did in people’s lives. To modern readers， the classics are merely ordinary books， and reading the classics is no more than reading a book for information about the ancient past. Sometimes， in order to get transported to the scene in the ancient past， and to recover the immediate historical meaning of the classics， readers imagine the scene in order to simulate the historical events， and take part in the performance in order to get a better understanding. However， since access to this hermeneutic vantage point can only be gained through language which is abstract， the encounter with the ancient past in this manner is nothing but an affective result of imagination， a process produced and enhanced through rhetorical devises such as rhetorical simulation and metaphor. In this process， the reader’s imagination is aroused to give a feeling of travelling back in time， which is certainly not true but feels real. This process is captured by the ancients when they remind people to read the Great Learning as if seeing Confucius and Zeng Shen 曾參 （505–436 BCE） in person， to read the Doctrine of the Mean as if seeing Zisi 子思 （483–402 BCE） in person， to read the Analects as if questioning Confucius in person upon the Zhu and Si Rivers， and to read the Mencius as if serving Mencius during his discussions with the kings of the Qi and Liang states. People can gain a better understanding of the meaning of a text if they have a vision in their minds and the imagination to transport themselves to the historical scene. This approach is often called talking with the ancients， or having a dialogue with the text and the author. However， as is known to all， this “talk” or “dialogue” does not happen in reality， nor does it possess any of the immediacy of something real. As a result， in modern society， a different attitude should be adopted toward the classics. One does not need to imaginatively transport oneself into the situation of the ancients. In contrast， one should start from the present， and have a creative understanding of “understanding.” True understanding does not lie in experience only; rather， it is often gained through thinking， and it lies in one’s thought and feeling alongside a spirit of innovation. The “understanding” revealed by philosophical hermeneutics is the understanding of ideas， clearly not based on sensory experience; likewise， “experience” actually has more to do with the universality of human history than with an individual’s finite perception. In this connection， Gadamer says， “Real experience is that whereby man becomes aware of his finiteness. In it are discovered the limits of the power and the self-knowledge of his planning reason.” Real experience is also called “historically effected consciousness，” which is “a genuine form of experience” and “must reflect the general structure of experience.” This form of experience is perfect experience and hermeneutic experience， which is concerned with tradition. This link with tradition is achieved not through that which is subject to sensory experience but through language， which is a system of signs and is highly abstract. “The heritage is not something that one can control， nor is it an object over against one. One comes to understand it， even while standing in it， as an intrinsically linguistic experience.” The linguistic experience is far removed from real-life experience. In other words， the reality expressed by language is not the reality of the world of sensory experience but the reality arrived at through reason and logic. In conclusion， the most universal and basic understanding can only be gained through philosophical reflection， and it does not rely on the immediacy of feeling. This type of understanding gives strong support to the universality of the meaning of the Confucian classics.
Translated by Hou Jian