The current situation, problems and tasks before Chinese philosophy Xie Dikun Institute of Philosophy , Chinese Academy of Social Sciences The cause of Chinese philosophy has made significant progress since the beginning of reform three decades ago. However, Chinese philosophy also faces many problems. Shaken by current market economic forces, it now confronts the huge challenge of taking up its mission of raising and responding to theoretical and practical questions using the methods of philosophy. This article analyzes developments and problems in the three sub-disciplines of philosophy: Marxist philosophy, the history of Chinese philosophy and foreign philosophies. On this basis, it will purposefully address the great historical responsibility facing Chinese philosophers. Research on Marxist philosophy In modern China , the most significant event in the field of philosophy was the introduction of Marxist philosophy. Although it originated in the soil of Western civilization, Marxist philosophy differs from Western philosophy. It not only opposes the abstract nature of Western metaphysics and holds that philosophy is real and concrete, but also defines its mission as changing the world by means of revolutionary practice. The practical nature of Marxist philosophy was the major reason it became the dominant discipline in philosophy and the social sciences in China. Before the beginning of reform in 1978, Marxist philosophy in China was deeply influenced by the Soviet textbook model. This model simplistically and dogmatically limited philosophy to the four principles stipulated in the fourth chapter of A Concise History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. This petrified model restricted the further development of Marxist philosophy in China. In 1978, the great debate on the criterion of truth heralded a great liberation of the mind, leading to deep reflection about their own discipline on the part of Marxist philosophers and immense change in this research field. Over the past three decades, Marxist philosophy in China has been greatly enriched and developed. Research displaying multiple perspectives has appeared. Researchers conduct their work from the perspective of classical texts, intellectual history, ontology, epistemology, concepts of value, views of history and hermeneutics. Their work is complementary and mutually supporting. Together, they contribute to the development of Marxist philosophy. In the 1980s, the topical issues under discussion were world view, ontology, epistemology, views of history and concepts of value, with a focus on reflection on the discipline of philosophy itself. The issues that concerned people in the 1990s can be discussed under two headings: the deepening of the discussions of the 1980s, elevating them to the level of the pursuit of and reflection on the theoretical nature of philosophy, the subject matter and forms of philosophical research, modes of thought and conflicts between different schools of philosophy; and in-depth thinking about such real-world issues as development and its costs, justice and efficiency, truth and values, tradition and modernity, and the scientific spirit and humanist concern. These issues involved changes in the Chinese way of life, way of thinking and concepts in the course of thoroughgoing social transformation.1[1] As we enter the 21st century, Marxist philosophy in China faces three major tasks. The first task is that of sinicizing Marxist philosophy. In the course of this process, we have witnessed the emergence of Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, and the important ideas of the “Three Represents,” “the scientific view of development” and “the building of a harmonious society.” They all belong to “Chinese forms” of Marxism. We should elucidate the philosophical foundation of these theories and ideas and the way they enriched and developed Marxism at different historical periods and should base ourselves on the practice of today's socialist road of development with Chinese characteristics, striving ceaselessly to provide support for the exploration of new developmental paths for China; this is the primary task facing Chinese Marxist philosophy. The sinicization of Marxism represents the direction of future development of Chinese philosophy; it brings about changes in the Chinese people’s values, world outlook and view of life and changes the face of Chinese society. The second task is to conduct historical textual research for an edition of the complete works of Marx and Engels. This research should be based on the second German edition to provide an in-depth exposition of distinctive features of the stance, viewpoints and methodology of Marxist philosophy through a process of comparing and analyzing the manuscripts of Marx and Engels manuscripts at different historical periods and tracing the development of and changes in their philosophical thought. The aim of this research is to provide an important theoretical resource for the sinicization of Marxism. The third task is the compilation of teaching materials on Marxist philosophy sponsored by the Central Project for Marxist Theoretical Research and Construction. This textbook should not only accurately set out the fundamental viewpoints of Marxist philosophy and fully display the academic outcomes of Chinese research on Marxist philosophy, but should also address itself to contemporary questions and fully reflect the fruits of the sinicization of Marxism. On this basis, it should quite comprehensively present the world outlook, epistemology, methodology and value concepts of Marxism. The three tasks mentioned above essentially go together. First, we should stick to the basic principles of Marxism, and further develop Marxism on the basis of grasping the fundamental viewpoints and methods of Marxist philosophy. At the same time, we should address ourselves to serving socialist construction with Chinese characteristics and derive from its practice new ideas and views that will provide theoretical backing for future development. The teaching materials should embody these two features. Our objective is to build a Marxist philosophy that embodies Chinese characteristics and styles. The path to realizing this objective is the flexible application in a richly creative way of the basic principles of Marxist philosophy in the course of responding to practical issues in contemporary China , enriching and developing it in both form and content with distinctively Chinese characteristics. However, a number of urgent questions await solution if we are to achieve this objective. The first is how to approach Marxist philosophy. The practical nature of Marxist philosophy is readily apparent, but if it is viewed only as a practical necessity completely at the service of the current reality, how can its theoretical transcendence be revealed? How can we avoid entangling it with specific problems, so that we can study and analyze major practical issues by raising and expressing questions in a way that has Chinese characteristics, how can we abstract universal philosophical concepts and ideas from these issues? If these questions are not resolved, it will be hard for us to solve the next two problems. The first of these is that facts are divorced from issues: we only see the specific facts before our eyes and not universal theoretical issues; and are incapable of deriving philosophical concepts from specific facts. The second is that academia is divorced from social reality: Marxist philosophy is taken as a purely scholarly form of learning, so that it loses the dynamism it should have. The key issue in the recent discussion of “philosophical problems and problem-oriented philosophy” that arose out of these problems is how to achieve theoretical innovation in Marxist philosophy. “Our appreciation and understanding of this issue represents the historical course, spiritual journey and progress of mental liberation of the development of contemporary Chinese society.” [2]Appreciating and understanding of this major issue is, therefore, a great challenge to contemporary Chinese philosophy. The second question we need to discuss is normal criticism and debate among different academic viewpoints. For instance, whether Marxist philosophy should be defined as dialectical materialism, historical materialism or practical materialism is an academic debate that broadens our perspective, and hence should be encourage. In another instance, whether differences exist between Marx’s and Engels’ philosophical ideas is a legitimate topic for discussion, as it can reveal the progress of Marxism and deepen research on the history of Marxist philosophy. It is wrong to define these differences as “antagonistic” and try to ban such discussion. Such efforts can only harm research on the history of Marxist philosophy. The third question is that of doing justice to research on Marxism in other parts of the world. We should be aware that many problems Western societies face today are global in nature; we may meet the same or similar problems tomorrow. For instance, the “eco-Marxism” advocated by contemporary Western Marxists unhappy about environmental damage, the “analytical Marxism” that grew out of assimilation of the achievements of modern Western philosophy, the post-Marxism” that sprung from dissatisfaction with earlier Western Marxism3[3], and the “alternative globalization and alternative Marxism” that react against US-led monopoly capitalism’s domination of the global economy[4] and all serve not only as a theoretical reference point but also as extremely practical ideas to which we should give due attention. All the above questions did not appear overnight. The main reason we have failed to solve them is that something is wrong with our approach to philosophy. If we stress only the practical nature of philosophy and deny its transcendent nature, we turn it into a mere tool. On the other hand, if we stress only its transcendent nature while ignoring its practicality, we turn it into empty and purposeless talk. If we cannot resolve these issues, if we do not find a suitable balance in the tension between the practically and the transcendence of philosophy, we will be unable to build a true Marxist philosophy with Chinese characteristics. Research on the history of Chinese philosophy The concept of philosophy is an imported one. Traditionally, we had philosophical thought but no complete system that could establish philosophy as a discipline. It was only in the nineteenth century that our traditional civilization encountered unprecedented challenges and degenerated into “speechlessness.” We were forced to make the painful choice between the modern world and traditional civilization; we had no choice but to accept Western philosophy and express our ideas using a Western conceptual system. In the process of accepting the Western philosophies of an alien culture, we were either hesitant and irresolute or went to extremes, thinking we had to opt for either this or that, either the Western or the Chinese. This phenomenon was evident in the early introduction of Western thought into China. We can see it from the end of the nineteenth century, with such debates such as “the distinction between Chinese and barbarian” and “Chinese learning for the essence, Western learning for practical application” up to the “May Fourth Movement” from 1919 on when ideas of complete Westernization and the negation of national culture emerged. Great thinkers among our predecessors were keenly aware of these trends. At the beginning of the last century, Wang Guowei put forward the idea that "true learning knows no East or West." He claimed that "scholarship seeks only to distinguish between the true and the false. Beyond this, if it is mixed with the views of a particular country, race or religion, it becomes a means only instead of an end.”[5] Li Dazhao explicitly stated that Eastern and Western culture complemented each other and neither could be dispensed with; the future development of world civilization would see them merged into one. Great thinkers like Feng Youlan, Xiong Shili, Jin Yuelin and He Lin all transcended the division between East and West and attempted to apply Western rationalist thinking to the exploration of philosophical issues in China and open up a new line of reasoning for philosophy and culture. In so doing, they revealed unprecedented hope for Chinese philosophy. Since opening up and reform started in 1978, after criticizing and transcending the dogmatic approach of viewing the history of philosophy solely as a confrontation between materialism and idealism, research on the history of Chinese philosophy now presents an imposing scene. We have made great progress not only in approaches to the history of philosophy and the preparation of a general history of philosophy but also made substantial achievements in research on historical periodization and on schools of thought and individuals. In the research field of Confucianism, monographs have appeared on pre-Qin and Han philosophy, Song and Ming Neo-Confucianism and the new Confucianism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. These works focus on particular aspects of the development of Chinese philosophy, and allow us to deepen our understanding of this process of development. As the first stage of one of the key national research projects, “The Compilation and Research of Scripture of Confucianism” we have edited five hundred classics from the Confucian canon. In addition, the bamboo and silk documents unearthed since the 1990s have contributed significantly to our understanding of some links in the evolution of pre-Qin philosophy and stimulated questioning of some of the interpretations of Song Confucianists. In the field of Taoism, the most significant research achievement is the completion of the compilation and editing of the Compendium of Chinese Taoism and the publication of A Dictionary of Chinese Taoism. In addition, Chinese scholars have been conducting research on the secret heart of Taoist culture, the theory of an inner elixir, for as long as twenty-six years, resulting in the collection of a great amount of valuable material that had been scattered in the possession of individuals. The veil of mystery that had covered this theory is now being lifted, enabling it to become part of legitimate research culture rather than being part of the repertoire of wandering mountebanks. In the research field of Buddhism, more scholars are now paying attention to the debate on different research paradigms. In this respect, the research ideas and methodology of the history of religion are becoming increasingly popular. Strictly speaking, this venture approaches the history of Buddhism as part of the history of religion divorced from the history of philosophy or intellectual history. However, in philosophical circles, researchers still conduct their studies of the history of Buddhism in accordance with the paradigm of the history of Chinese philosophy, and examine Buddhist concepts by elevating them to the level of philosophical concepts in an effort to give them universal theoretical significance. This debate will not end soon. At present, the two most controversial questions for historians of Chinese philosophy are how to understand the relationship between Chinese and imported philosophy, i.e. between Chinese and Western philosophy, and how to unify research on the history of philosophy with the theoretical construction of philosophy. As far as the first question is concerned, those engaged in philosophical research generally agree that the history of Chinese philosophy should be considered as part of the history of the development of human thought, since “the history of philosophy is concrete, is developing. Cultural and philosophical traditions naturally flow and change.”[6] They also agree that the history of Chinese philosophy is both connected to and distinct from the history of human thought in other countries. In the long history of human thought, different and even contradictory standpoints and ideas about people, the external world and human relations with the external world inevitably emerge. However, as long as some of these standpoints and ideas embody part of the truth in a creative way, they constitute significant links in the history of the development of human understanding. Secondly, since Chinese philosophical thought evolved in connection and interaction with the philosophical thought of other peoples and countries, it has a universality common to all mankind as well as its own uniqueness. For example, the reason Buddhism entered China was that it supplemented the lack of transcendence in Chinese philosophy. According to Chinese philosophers from the seventh century on, Buddhism enabled them to revisit their own cultural traditions, and especially the pre-Qing classics. In this way, Buddhism wrought great changes in Chinese philosophy while itself undergoing a process of sinicization. Another example is the debate a few years ago over “the legitimacy of Chinese philosophy.” The main points at issue were the question of how to handle the relationship between “philosophy” as an interpretative mode and disciplinary construction imported from the West on the one hand and China’s ancient indigenous intellectual culture and classical literature on the other. In fact, these questions have been around for a long time. While our traditional culture has to defend itself in order to gain a foothold in the modern world, the so-called “legitimacy of Chinese philosophy” has triggered debate not only on the issue of China versus the West but also on the issue of the universality versus the particularity of philosophy. Wang Guowei’s claim that “true learning knows no East or West” and Jin Yuelin’s view that the term “Chinese philosophy” was inappropriate and should be replaced by “philosophy in China” both display a deep appreciation of the issue. For Feng Youlan, on the other hand, “Chinese philosophy” was a legitimate term because it contained a substantial general philosophical content; adding “in China” indicated a concrete particularity that fell under the universal and abstract concept of philosophy. The arguments and expositions of the older generation have not exhausted the truth about this topic, but they can certainly give us food for thought. In the excitement of the recent vogue for the Chinese classics, it is salutary to review some fundamental issues in philosophical research so as to broaden our field of vision. We need to emphasize here that when faced with a conflict between academic choices and subjective feelings or values, scholarship cannot be replaced by subjective values, and still less can a scientific attitude be replaced by bigoted passion. Academic issues should always be handled with a scientific attitude; only by identifying problems as we progress can we ensure the development of our philosophical enterprise. With regard to the last question, I believe the history of both Chinese and Western philosophy contains a variety of philosophical ideas and of schools, systems and people who represent these ideas. As far as the present day is concerned, these schools, systems and philosophers have become history, but they undoubtedly made an original contribution to the philosophy of their day, reflecting the philosophical thought of their era and representing the flower of its philosophy. We do not only study the history of philosophy in order to sort it out and analyze it, but, more importantly, to understand and grasp the philosophical ideas it contains, and, on this basis, to carry them on, develop them in an innovative way, and thence bring out our own new ideas and theories. All philosophers in every historical period came into being by studying their predecessors, whose work they inherited and developed in a process of constant renewal. It was only thus that the history of philosophy achieved its current brilliant achievements. The study of history is not only a process of textual research and annotation that sticks to the topic in hand; it must also rise to the stage of integrating theories of history in a process of synthesis and creation. To continue, the study of the history of philosophy is the foundation on which we construct new philosophical theories. This constriction is the direction and aim of our research; the two are inseparable. Obviously, today’s research into the history of Chinese philosophy cannot be satisfied simply by textual work on historical sources. The more important task is the creation and construction of new philosophical theories on this basis. The difficulty we encounter here is not simply the interrelationship of Chinese and Western philosophy, but also the union of traditional civilization and modern society. If we remain complacent, conservative and over-confident, surrounding ourselves with heaps of old paper, we will not only lose the present-day significance of Chinese philosophy, but, what is worse, its continuity and its vitality. We should confidently absorb the advanced cultures of all nations and face today’s world with an attitude that treasures the past while not “looking down on the present” and use creative research to advance the history of Chinese philosophy (or more exactly, “philosophy in China”) - this is the historical mission that history has entrusted to Chinese philosophers of our generation. Research on Western philosophy In the Chinese mainland, research on foreign philosophy concentrates on the field of Western philosophy. Although a few research institutions and universities conduct research on Asian philosophy, they are small scale and their research level and influence are rather limited. Moreover, the orientation and scope of the discipline itself are yet to be discussed and determined. As with research into the history of Chinese philosophy, after the model of the two opposing camps of materialism and idealism was discarded with the beginning of reform in the late 1970s, Chinese researchers in the field of foreign philosophy have ceased to reject non-Marxist schools of thought and non-Marxist philosophers and their works, nor do they condemn wholesale as decadent and reactionary those Western philosophical trends that followed Marx. Rather, we have returned to considering in a serious and rational way those schools and personages that we once rejected and denounced, approaching new ideas and new schools of thought with a tolerant and open-minded academic attitude. This has greatly broadened our horizons and the scope of our research. We no longer simply introduce and analyze foreign philosophy, but learn from the strong points of others; we absorb Western philosophy's conceptual judgments, logical analysis and reduction and essence which at the same time carrying on the tradition of imagistic thinking and the combination of ethics and logic in Chinese culture. We are endeavoring to open up a new line of reasoning and methodology for Chinese studies of Western philosophy that will create new and distinctively Chinese forms of research into Western philosophy. Thanks to the reforms and the emancipation of mind that started in 1978, Chinese research on Western philosophy was quickly resumed and expanded, so that it not only continued the research achievements of the previous century but also opened up unprecedentedly wide-ranging and in-depth research into Western philosophy. A large number of Western philosophical works have been translated into Chinese, including the complete works of Aristotle, Plato, Kant and Wittgenstein, the selected works of Fichte and the works of Nietzsche. Other important works by major Western philosophers are being translated or are scheduled for translation and publication in full or in part: these include the complete works of Hegel, Gadamer, and Cicero. Translations of these works have a fundamental and indispensable significance in enabling Chinese researchers in this field to make critical use of the research achievements of Western philosophy and correctly understand and grasp Western philosophy’s essence and its internal evolution. At the same time, researchers are doing excellent work on the major schools and philosophers and their representative works for every historical period. In particular, they have undertaken in-depth research on subjects including classical German philosophy, Greek philosophy, modern empiricism and rationalism, phenomenology, existentialism, analytical philosophy, linguistic philosophy and Western Marxism. On this basis, they have begun to compile comprehensive histories of Western philosophy that give a complete view of its development and cover all schools and personages in a way that reveals its developmental laws and inner logic. So far, two major works have appeared: History of Western Philosophy in eight volumes, mainly authored by researchers at the Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,[7] and a ten volume work of the same title chiefly authored by researchers at the Department of Philosophy, Fudan University.[8] These works are the fruit of rigorous scholarship and represent a serious contribution by Chinese scholars to the intellectual community; they will leave a lasting imprint on the history of Chinese scholarship. In summary, the last three decades of Chinese research on Western philosophy has the following features: Firstly, it has taken on the task of bridging Marxist philosophy and Western philosophy. In conducting our research under the guidance of Marxism, we also broaden the scope of Marxist philosophy, understanding and examining it in the context of the whole of classical Western philosophy and our dialogue with modern Western philosophy, especially Western Marxism so that Marxist philosophy can keeps up its communication and competition with Western philosophy. Secondly, in terms of breadth, we have broadened the scope of our research from the traditional concentration on classical German philosophy to other aspects of Western philosophy: modern empiricism and rationalism, ancient Greek philosophy and the religious philosophies of medieval Europe have all been systematically explored. Moreover, modern Western philosophy, whether it be continental philosophy, Anglo-American analytical philosophy or today’s postmodernism, political philosophy, applied ethics or cultural philosophy are all tracked with unprecedented care in a way that keeps up almost entirely with changes and developments in the West. Thirdly, from the point of view of the effect of research, Chinese scholars’ research on Western philosophy, and especially on enlightenment philosophy, classical German philosophy, phenomenology, analytical philosophy and postmodernism, have had a deep influence on their interpretation and understanding of Chinese philosophy. We can safely say that research of this kind truly opens up a contextual perspective for Chinese scholars’ research on traditional Chinese philosophy, and hence provides rich resources for the integration of Eastern and Western philosophy and for the rebirth of Chinese philosophy. However, while giving full credit to our achievements, we should remain clear-headed about the present situation in research on Western philosophy. The most striking problem we face in this field is the fact that academic research is divorced from social reality. This problem manifests itself chiefly in the following ways: ● Chinese scholars do not scrutinize Western philosophical theories from an independent perspective, but blindly follow Western fashions, ignoring China's social reality and measuring Chinese scholarship by a Western yardstick; they follow slavishly in the footsteps of Western scholars and repeat what they say. It is rare for them to make a creative contribution. In losing their own independence, they also lose the vitality of Chinese studies of the West. ● They do not see study of the West as creative work but as simple introduction and commentary. Many researchers use a kind of Chinese that no native speaker can make head or tail of to translate and expound Western philosophies that they do not fully understand themselves. Their translations are incomprehensible not only to the general reader but also to experts. ● There is a tendency towards superficiality, with researchers straining to present something new or different. Some researchers deliberately talk up certain theories or people, laboring to create new words for some concepts to give currency to their personal interpretations and take the part for the whole. For example, there are many new Chinese translations for the German word “transcendental” “超拔的”(outstanding),“超绝的”(superb),“超越的”(going beyond) and “超验论的”(transcendentalist). On the surface, all these translations can be justified. However, the translators have ignored the fundamental meaning of the word “transcendental,” which means specifically “existing prior to being experienced.” Related concepts include “transcendent,” “a priori,” “a posteriori,” etc. Earlier translators such as He Lin translated these words as“先验的” (prior to experience),“超验的” (above experience),“先天的” (innate) and “后天的” (acquired).[9] Their translations take into account both the philosophical significance of this term and the subtle differences in the way it is used within the work of a particular philosopher. In terms of Chinese expression, they all use the modifier-modified construction to produce an elegant phrase. By contrast, so-called innovative translations are redundant at best, if not misleading. ● There is a lack of normal scholarly criticism. Many researchers are well aware of problems, some of which are very obvious, but to save face or for other reasons they are seldom willing or bold enough to raise their criticisms publicly. Of course this situation is largely caused by our academic management and assessment system. It is incontestable that our academic atmosphere and the quality of our scholarship are declining. To solve these problems in research on Western philosophy, what is important is that researchers should be culturally self-aware and see such studies as a really demanding task and “a creative theoretical transformation.”[10] They should take the initiative in combining their research with China’s culture, national situation and current reality and develop an organic unity of the Chinese and the global perspective. Rather than “repeating what others say,” they should "develop what others say" and enter the autonomous creative realm of "saying something for oneself." In this process they should seek universal principles to solve both global problems and globalized Chinese problems, with a view to ultimately providing intellectual and theoretical resources to help China actively participate in the construction of the international order. A historical responsibility The debate held thirty years ago in Chinese philosophical circles on the criterion for truth brought about profound intellectual and social changes in China. It also “baptized” philosophy as a research field. Today, an important lesson emerging from our reflections on the present situation and problems of philosophy in China is that this debate was closely connected to the social reality of its times and took "practice" as its point of entry. If we want philosophy today to revive its past glories, we should again focus on “practice” as our point of entry. Philosophy is “the soul of a people,” and “creating contemporary Chinese philosophical theory is an innate demand and urgent necessity for the Chinese people in reflecting on their own life journey, understanding the circumstances of their existence and seeking their own path to future development.”[11]Obviously, the vitality of contemporary Chinese philosophy and its opportunities for development still depend on our ability to understand and respond correctly to the major practical questions posed by the development of Chinese society. In our scrutiny and criticism of Chinese reality, we should offer rational propositions for future development, providing the Chinese of today with a correct and rational life realm, thought and value ideals and fulfilling philosophy’s practical role in guiding, providing norms for and promoting the progress of society. To realize this aim, philosophy must engage in theoretical innovation and ceaselessly expand its own theoretical content and formation, so that it truly becomes “the flower of the spirit of the times.” On this premise, philosophy should undergo the following changes: Firstly, our philosophical paradigm should change from being “system-oriented” to being “problem-oriented.” Although we have, over the last thirty years, broken away from the dogmatic textbook model presented by Zhdanov, his influence persists. Consciously or unconsciously, our philosophical thinking still remains within a system paradigm in which all philosophical questions are summed up as either “ontological,” “epistemological” or “dialectical.” The key to this change lies not only in changing our attitude toward the life world, but also in the degree to which we can objectively view and grasp the living questions of real-life society without subjective bias. In philosophy, "progress consists not in the disappearance of any of the age-old philosophical problems, nor in the increasing dominance of one or other of the conflicting sects, but in a change in the fashion in which the problems are posed, and in an increasing measure of agreement concerning the character of their solution.”[12] Therefore, if we truly want our philosophical theories to meet the inherent needs of the times, the central focus of our research must be problem-oriented. We need to give conscious and in-depth thought to the conditions of existence for the Chinese today, reform our way of thinking, perceiving and expressing ourselves, respond boldly to the major intellectual issues of the time and guide the direction of the spirit of the times, to realize the contemporary value of philosophy. Secondly, we should change from a “Chinese” to a “global” perspective, broadening our field of vision. Philosophy is distinguished by the fact that it combines particularity with universality. There can be no doubt that Chinese philosophy should strive to offer solutions to Chinese problems, but this is simply a manifestation of its particularity and national character. At the same time, it must look outward to the world, making its own contribution to the exploration of universal truths of a global nature. Today’s world is characterized by globalization: the problems faced by a particular country or people are often global in nature. Such a situation demands that we “change the focus of our way of observing and discussing issues from a national perspective to thinking and researching with a globalized perspective that enables us to complement and improve our own Chinese approach.”[13] Our task is to deal with the relationships among traditional Chinese philosophy, Marxist philosophy and other cultural traditions and philosophies. Like the ocean into which a hundred streams flow, we should welcome the challenges of various intellectual cultures and ceaselessly reinvent our research methods to adapt to world changes. Thirdly, we should gradually merge the three separate research fields of Chinese, Marxist and Western philosophies into one integrated vision, gradually setting up the concept of “macro-philosophy.” Philosophy was originally a foundation subject that combined the natural and the social sciences, but it became divorced from the former in recent centuries. In China, philosophy has been artificially divided into three competing disciplinary strongholds, leading to a situation in which narrow-minded and rigid researchers may even have no common language on common subjects. As we enter the twenty-first century, the philosophical community has convened several meetings of the discipline as a whole that have played a role in the development of Chinese philosophy. The question now is how researchers can avoid promoting standpoints and views solely from the perspective of their own sub-discipline, advance research in Chinese philosophy, and use philosophical topics of common interest to advance intellectual communication and disciplinary exchanges, reaching a genuinely creative synthesis so that Chinese philosophy can truly "grasp the manifold changes of the past and the present, combine all the learning under the sun, and arrive at an understanding of universal truths.” To realize these three “transformations” is the common historical task of Chinese researchers in the field of philosophy, requiring disciplinary consciousness and theoretical boldness. If we look around us, we see that Western philosophy, although past its heyday, is still trying to respond to challenges although its sun has been setting over the last few decades. Chinese philosophy, on the other hand, despite having experienced setbacks, is still capable of reviving and constantly renewing itself, incorporating and interpenetrating other philosophies and revealing a promising vitality. We firmly believe that “Chinese philosophy, like Chinese civilization, has cast ‘the light of dawn’ on world philosophy”.[14] We can open a new era for Chinese philosophy in the world history of philosophy if we strive to identify significant practical questions in the development of Chinese society, construct innovative theories to advance the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics and use real Chinese speech to express our philosophical ideas so that they tally with the Chinese way of thinking. If we bend our efforts to making philosophy palatable to the broad mass of the people, it will have a broad and deep impact on the mental world of the Chinese people and on Chinese society.