学术研究
前沿动态
陈来教授《回向传统：儒学的哲思》（Philosophy and Confucian Tradition）英译本书评翻译
发表时间：2020-05-21 10:04:05 作者： 来源：
本文为陈来教授《回向传统：儒学的哲思》
英译本书影：
Philosophy and Confucian Tradition （《回向传统：儒学的哲思》）
(Philosophy and Confucian Tradition）英译本书评翻译
原网站地址：
http://readingreligion.org/books/philosophy-and-confucian-tradition
英译本书影：
Philosophy and Confucian Tradition （《回向传统：儒学的哲思》）
作者：Chen Lai （陈来）
出版商：Houston, TX: Bridge21 Publications, LLC, November 2018. （休斯顿，得克萨斯州：Bridge21出版有限责任公司，2018年11月。）
页数：256 pages. （256页）
定价：$110.00.
装帧：Hardcover. （精装）
ISBN：9781626430365.
Review 书评
儒学，在经历了被攻击和嘲讽为中国封建王朝的遗物和现代化进程的障碍的几乎整个20世纪之后，如今正在声势壮大地卷土重来。1980年代晚期的“文化热”运动以及在香港、新加坡、台湾和韩国等地人气日益高涨的“儒家”资本主义（“Confucian” capitalism），促使中国开始重新接纳孔夫子。这一被冠以“大陆新儒家（Mainland New Confucianism）”之名的运动，从蒋庆的儒家宪政主义（political constitutionalism of Jiang Qing）到于丹的平民主义的写作（populist writings of Yu Dan.），推出了多种多样的政治学、社会学和哲学方面的见解。
陈来，《回向传统：儒学的哲思》（Philosophy and Confucian Tradition）一书的作者，被认为是大陆新儒家运动的学术领袖之一。他身为清华大学哲学教授，并担任着该校国学研究院院长一职，是一位备受尊敬的公共知识分子（a well-respected public intellectual）。《回向传统：儒学的哲思》是一部论文集，它为读者们提供了瞥见陈来在儒家哲学史方面博大渊深之学识的一孔之窥，并介绍了陈来有关儒家哲学的当代复兴及其对中国社会、文化之未来的潜在影响的立场。
陈来的这部著作收录有十三篇论文，其中大部分聚焦于中国历史上的儒学思想家们各自学说的一些具体的方面：包括三篇论及战国时代的古典儒学（公元前475年–221年）；三篇论及近世宋明理学的学者（early modern Neo-Confucian scholars），如朱熹，王阳明和王夫之；还有四篇论及19世纪末至20世纪初的哲学家们，如熊十力、马一浮、梁漱溟和冯友兰。陈来简明的行文风格和敏锐的洞察力使得这些案例研究对于大多数读者而言都是平易近人的，但它们亦可引起汉学家们和比较哲学学者们特别的兴趣。另一方面，业余读者们也许更愿意关注如下简介的三个章节：
第一章，“中国近代思想的回顾与前瞻”，概述了陈来对于21世纪的儒学的设想。在整个20世纪的大部分时间里，从最开始的五四新文化运动，到后来的的文化大革命，中国传统文化与价值一直被描绘为现代性的绊脚石。毛泽东的逝世，以及1980年代的改革开放，预示着一种态度上的变化，这一变化导致人们对于传统文化思想，特别是儒学，再一次地发生了兴趣。陈来支持儒学的这一复兴，他指出，虽然儒学可能“永远不会在现代中国成为统治性或支配性的意识形态” （Confucianism may “never be the ruling or hegemonic ideology in Modern China”）（英译本第22页），但它仍然可以在中国的现代化进程中，扮演起一个很有价值的角色：为中国人提供“精神指引”，以及，在中国已经成为了一个多元文化的国家以及国际社会的成员的时候，成为与其当下的政治和社会制度互为补充的一种道德意识形态（a moral ideology）（英译本第16页）。
在第二章“孔子与当代中国”，陈来的表述与第一章相似，他反对西方汉学家有关儒学在现代世界将难以生存的悲观预判。通过引述黑格尔和列奥·施特劳斯的历史哲学，以及爱德华·席尔斯（Edward Shils）的传统论（theory of tradition），陈来提出了他对于儒学的乐观看法，认为儒学能够成为一种“实质性传统（substantive tradition）”，为指引中国目前的经济改革提供宝贵的思想资源（英译本第27页）。
陈来身为大陆新儒家学术阵营的一员，他强调，需要将儒学重归于中国教育体系的人文与社会科学课程。在第七章“世纪之交中国哲学的挑战”，陈来为学习中国哲学自有其内在价值提供了坚定的辩护。20世纪早期，胡适和冯友兰等学者渴望把中国描绘成为一个现代国家，在此鼓舞之下，他们试图向他们的西方同行证明，中国也拥有着一个正当合法的逻辑推理与合理性的哲学传统（a valid philosophical tradition of reason and rationality）。虽然全球力量的平衡已经发生了转变，这一任务如今还远未完成：非西方哲学家们仍然在继续努力发展一种更具包容性的“哲学”概念，以促进跨文化对话（英译本第123页）。陈来的这本著作回应了万百安（Brian Van Norden）在《回归哲学：一个多元文化宣言》（纽约：哥伦比亚大学出版社，2017年）（Taking Back Philosophy: A Multicultural Manifesto，New York: Columbia University Press, 2017）当中抛出的部分话题，并以一位争相证明其自身传统与全球化世界息息相关的中国哲学家的身份，为之提供了一个具有补充性质的视角。
不久之前，陈来的学术研究在汉学圈子之外还尚未受到较多关注。《回向传统：儒学的哲思》，是继诸如雷敦龢（Edmund Ryden）译《传统与现代：人文主义的视界》（Tradition and Modernity: A Humanist View）和王晓华（Wang Xiaohua）译《孔夫子与现代世界》（Confucius and the Modern World）等先前的作品之后，陈来著作的又一译本。王秋海[音]（Wang Qiuhai）的译文，使得英语读者们可以更全面地了解这位已经出版了超过三十本专著的作者的这部作品，而且本书收录的大部分文章甚至对于业余读者而言也是平易近人的。但是，这一可读性可能会为一些尚可商榷的翻译决策（questionable translational decisions）所妨碍。本书译文虽然遵照了以其拉丁名指称诸如孔子（Confucius）、孟子（Mencius）等著名人物（而非以“Kongzi”和“Mengzi”称之）的通行做法，但它仍以“Zhuzi”（“朱子”）指称宋明理学家朱熹，这恐怕会令部分读者感到困惑。除此之外，对于数个关键性的哲学术语，译者也决定不使用与之相对应的标准英语翻译。比如，他们将“礼”译为“rite[译者注：典礼]”而非“ritual[译者注：既有典礼义，也有习惯、惯例之义]”，将“天命”译为“destiny[译者注：命运]”而非更通常使用的“Heaven’s Mandate[译者注：上天之命令]”。最后一点，虽然本书出版商将顶尖东亚学者的作品介绍给西方读者的初心宗旨（mission）是值得称赞的，但本书的高价格却有可能使得很多潜在的读者对它望而却步。撇开这些问题不谈，《回向传统：儒学的哲思》是一部由一位中国顶尖的公共知识分子所创作的，富有洞见、博大精深的作品，它为我们理解儒学与中国哲学做出了重要的贡献。
About the Reviewer（关于书评人）：奥里·塔沃（Ori Tavor）是宾夕法尼亚大学中国学研究（Chinese Studies at the University of Pennsylvania）的高级讲师（Senior Lecturer）。
Date of Review（书评日期）：2020年02月20日
About the Author（关于作者）：陈来是清华大学教授、国学研究院院长。
*附书评英文原文
Review
Confucianism is making a grand comeback after having spent most of the 20th century under attack and derided as a relic of China’s imperial past and a hindrance to modernization. Prompted by the “Culture Fever” movement of the late 1980s and the emerging popularity of “Confucian” capitalism in Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea, China is beginning to embrace Confucius again. This movement, which has been dubbed “Mainland New Confucianism,” promotes multiple political, social, and philosophical points of view, from the political constitutionalism of Jiang Qing to the populist writings of Yu Dan.
Chen Lai, the author of Philosophy and Confucian Tradition, is regarded as one of the academic leaders of the Mainland New Confucianism movement. As a professor of Philosophy at Tsinghua University, where he also serves as the dean of the Institute of Chinese Studies, Chen is a well-respected public intellectual. Philosophy and Confucian Tradition is a collection of essays that offers readers a glimpse into Chen’s vast body of scholarship on the history of Confucian philosophy and serves as an introduction to his stance on its contemporary resurgence and potential impact on the future of Chinese society and culture.
Lai’s work contains thirteen essays, the majority of which focus on specific aspects of the work of Confucian thinkers throughout Chinese history. The book includes three essays on Classical Confucianism in the Warring States period (475–221 BC), three essays on early modern Neo-Confucian scholars such as Zhu Xi, Wang Yangming, and Wang Fuzhi, and four essays on late 19th and early 20th century philosophers such as Xiong Shili, Ma Yifu, Liang Shuming, and Feng Youlan. While Chen’s clear style and keen observations render these case studies accessible to most readers, they will be of special interest to sinologists and scholars of comparative philosophy. Non-specialists, on the other hand, may want to focus their attention on the three chapters profiled below.
Chapter 1, “Review and Forecast of Modern Chinese Ideologies,” outlines Chen’s vision for Confucianism in the 21st century. Throughout most of the 20th century, Chinese traditional culture and values were depicted as impediments to modernity, first during the May Fourth and New Culture movements and later during the Cultural Revolution. The death of Mao Zedong and the Reforms and Opening Up of the 1980s signaled a change in attitude that resulted in a renewed interest in traditional culture and thought, particularly Confucianism. Chen supports this resurgence. He argues that, while Confucianism may “never be the ruling or hegemonic ideology in Modern China” (22), it can nevertheless serve a valuable role in the country’s modernization as “spiritual guide” for the Chinese people and a moral ideology that is complementary to the contemporary political and social systems of a China as a multicultural state and a member of a global community (16).
Chen makes a similar claim in Chapter 2, “Confucius and Contemporary China,” in which he argues against pessimistic evaluations made by Western sinologists regarding Confucianism’s chances of survival in the modern age. Drawing on Hegel and Leo Strauss’ philosophy of history, as well as Edward Shils’ theory of tradition, Chen promotes an optimistic view of Confucianism, claiming it can serve as a “substantive tradition” and a valuable resource for navigating China’s current reformation of its economy (27).
As a member of the academic branch of Mainland New Confucianism, Chen emphasizes the need to reintegrate Confucianism into the humanities and social sciences curriculums of the Chinese educational system. In Chapter 7, “Challenges of Chinese Philosophy at the Turn of the Century,” Chen gives an ardent defense of the inherent value of studying Chinese philosophy. In the early twentieth century, scholars such as Hu Shi and Feng Youlan, who were motivated by a desire to depict China as a modern nation, tried to demonstrate to their Western peers that China also had a valid philosophical tradition of reason and rationality. Despite shifts in the global balance of power, this project is far from over, as non-Western philosophers continue their efforts to develop a more inclusive concept of “philosophy” that promotes cross-cultural dialogue (123). Echoing some of the themes raised by Brian Van Norden in Taking Back Philosophy: A Multicultural Manifesto (New York: Columbia University Press, 2017), Chen’s work offers a complementary perspective from a Chinese philosopher vying to show the enduring relevance of his own tradition in a globalized world.
Until recently, Chen’s body of scholarship has not received much exposure outside of sinological circles. Philosophy and Confucian Tradition adds to previous translations of Chen’s work, such as Edmund Ryden’s Tradition and Modernity: A Humanist View and Wang Xiaohua’s Confucius and the Modern World. Wang Qiuhai’s translation provides English-language readers with a more comprehensive access to the work of a scholar who has published over thirty monographs, and the majority of the essays contained within this book are accessible even for non-specialist readers. This accessibility may be hindered by questionable translational decisions, however. While the book follows the common custom of referring to figures such as Confucius and Mencius by their Latinized names (instead of Kongzi and Mengzi), it refers to the Neo-Confucian philosopher Zhu Xi as “Zhuzi” (Master Zhu), which may confuse some readers. In addition, the translator has decided not to use the standard English translations of several key philosophical terms. For example, they render li (禮) as “rite” instead of “ritual” and tianming (天命) as “destiny” instead of the more commonly used “Heaven’s Mandate.” Finally, while the publisher’s mission to introduce the work of leading East Asian scholars to a Western audience is commendable, the high price of this volume has the potential to keep it out of the reach of many potential readers. These issues aside, Philosophy and Confucian Tradition is an insightful and erudite work by one of China’s leading public intellectuals and offers an important contribution to our understanding of Confucianism and Chinese philosophy.