"Is it the case that the Chinese have no science?"
Article is selected from Ming Pao from the columnist Richard and translated at sight by Tristan
"This is a question that is not settled in the past hundred years. Do the Chinese have science? Why is the Chinese's science so far behind [with respect to the West]? [But the Chinese have] Written and published many essays and books.
"But the direction of this question, is not a correct one. Because, it is not that the Chinese have no science, but rather [they have] no knowledge. What Confucius and Lao Zi both monopolized as "knowledge", is but a special organization method. Or perhaps it is not even a method, but it is a "rule" that is to be followed by the common people. Confucius is one without any thirst for knowledge. What is the universe? Is the earth a square? Confucius has absolutely no interest. For two thousand years, the spirit of knowledge of the Chinese, it has been suppressed to nearly nothing. Hence, the question is [or should be]: why cannot the spirit of knowledge of the Chinese develop, [not the question of] why do science does not develop.
"The knowledge of humankind, from a micro point of view can be generally detailed, but from a macro point of view, it can actually cover the whole of space and time. When knowledge is arbitrarily being categorically controlled, the whole of spirit of knowledge, no longer exists."
Well, somebody is Eurocentric...What difference does it make if our world is squared or rounded? Science is not the only knowledge, is not the only symbol of progress, is not the only way we engage reality. For most of us, reality is a human affair, and hence Confucius' primary focus on Ethics remains the truest of all types of knowledge. The lack of "progress" that Richard is refering to is a 18th Century European Enlightenment philosophical fallacy.
"This is a question that is not settled in the past hundred years. Do the Chinese have science? Why is the Chinese's science so far behind [with respect to the West]? [But the Chinese have] Written and published many essays and books.
"But the direction of this question, is not a correct one. Because, it is not that the Chinese have no science, but rather [they have] no knowledge. What Confucius and Lao Zi both monopolized as "knowledge", is but a special organization method. Or perhaps it is not even a method, but it is a "rule" that is to be followed by the common people. Confucius is one without any thirst for knowledge. What is the universe? Is the earth a square? Confucius has absolutely no interest. For two thousand years, the spirit of knowledge of the Chinese, it has been suppressed to nearly nothing. Hence, the question is [or should be]: why cannot the spirit of knowledge of the Chinese develop, [not the question of] why do science does not develop.
"The knowledge of humankind, from a micro point of view can be generally detailed, but from a macro point of view, it can actually cover the whole of space and time. When knowledge is arbitrarily being categorically controlled, the whole of spirit of knowledge, no longer exists."
Well, somebody is Eurocentric...What difference does it make if our world is squared or rounded? Science is not the only knowledge, is not the only symbol of progress, is not the only way we engage reality. For most of us, reality is a human affair, and hence Confucius' primary focus on Ethics remains the truest of all types of knowledge. The lack of "progress" that Richard is refering to is a 18th Century European Enlightenment philosophical fallacy.
posted by Tristan at 11:44 a.m.
2 Comments:
Yes, Richard is eurocentric in his thoughts and ideas...
But I think that one cannot say the Chinese have no 'science', or scientific knowledge. It is merely that Chinese Science is of a different mindset than what we are taught is science today, which, of course, is the eurocentric view/definition of science.
Eurocentric science is aimed at understanding the how's and why's of our world. Chinese science, on the other hand, is more basic/general or precise and purposeful. They do not investigate the how's and why's, but rather, they investigate to solve a problem.
Take, for example, gunpowder. The Chinese took it and used it in fireworks (and perhaps other things). I can't see them investigating exactly why it works, what atoms it is composed of, etc.
Or perhaps, medicine. Traditional medicine I find, is very factual. "We know that this herb can be used for this disease with these symptoms. Now go forth and heal." They're not as interested in why this herb works but this root doesn't.
(My knowledge of Chinese culture/history is very scant.. so I am probably wrong on many counts.. but the gist is there. I hope.)
Sometimes, perhaps, the Chinese 'way' is better. When thought of in terms medicine-wise, the Chinese stay closer to nature; and thus, perhaps, they avoid many of the side effects of Euro-medicines.
"Chinese science, on the other hand, is more basic/general or precise and purposeful. They do not investigate the how's and why's, but rather, they investigate to solve a problem."
Bullshit...How is this more basic/precise? Science basics is the study of fundamentals. It IS the study of how's and why's.
And what's with putting both general and precise in the same description?
Post a Comment
<< Home