迦思佑2010年考研英語寫作預(yù)測（三） 迦思佑2010年考研英語寫作預(yù)測（三）

飲可樂還是飲茶？

《紅色娘子軍》舞動巴黎

儒學(xué)在美國

文明沖突(civilization conflict/ Huntington defines eight major civilizations: (1) Western - which includes Western Europe and North America; (2) Slavic-Orthodox; (3) Islamic - which includes three subdivisions: Arab, Turkic and Malay; (4) Latin American; (5) Hindu; (6) Confucian; (7) Japanese; and (8) African.

Huntington says that "The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future." He continues, "Over the centuries ... differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflict" [2] - more so even than ideological conflict. The reason? - because differences between civilizations "... are far more fundamental than differences among political ideologies and political regimes ..."[3] And the evidence for Huntington's assertion is easily discernible in what's going on in the former Yugoslavia. Indeed, it's only in "civilization" (or religious) terms that any sense can be made of the alliance structures that have grown up as a result of the conflict: Germany, France and Austria (and, as a result, the E.C.) favor Slovenia and Croatia (which are Catholic and Western Christian); Russia and the "Eastern Slavs" favor Serbia (which is - like the rest of the Slavic states - Orthodox); and Turkey and Iran favor the Muslims of Bosnia (which are Islamic). Indeed, the Balkans have been a tinderbox of conflict for hundreds of years precisely because they lie at the convergence of three major civilizations (or religions) and the cultures which these religions undergird: Western Christianity (Slovenia, Croatia, etc.); Orthodox Christianity (Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia, etc.); and Islam (Turkey, Albania, etc.).

I think, we’re in a New Axial Age. The idea of Axial Age was proposed by German philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883-1969), defined as around 500 B.C. when great thinkers appeared almost simultaneous in Ancient Greece, Israel, India and China, contributing their original ideas to the problems concerning the existence of human being. Distinctive cultural traditions were then formed respectively by Socrates and Plato in Ancient Greece, Lai-zi and Confucius in China, Sakyamuni in India, and Jewish prophets in Israel, which, after more than two thousand years of progress, have become the principle part of human intellectual wealth. These local cultural traditions were independent in birth, without mutual influence. “Until today mankind has lived by what happened during the Axial Period, by what was thought and created during that period. In each new upward flight it returns in recollection to this period and is fired anew by it. Even since then it has been the case that recollections and reawakenings of the potentialities of the Axial Period — renaissances — afford a spiritual impetus.” For example, the Europeans in Renaissance had recollected the origin of their culture, Ancient Greece, which had fired anew the European civilization and left its mark on global culture. Similarly, the Song and Ming Neo-Confucianism in China was stimulated by the impacts of Indian Buddhism; the Confucian thinkers, by “recollecting” Confucius and Mencius in pre-Qing Period, had promoted the ingenious Chinese philosophy to a new height. In a certain sense, the contemporary progress of global cultures might be a new leap on the basis of Axial Age. Has the contemporary human culture created, or will create, a New Axial Age then? -- Judged from certain evidences, it might be.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

If Chinese culture hopes to contribute to the “coexistence of civilizations” in contemporary human society, it must needs to know itself, which means a cultural self-consciousness. The so-called “cultural self-consciousness” is the serious self-reflection by certain people in certain cultural tradition on their own culture’s origin, its history of formation, its characters (including both advantages and disadvantages) and its tendency of progress. The renewal of Chinese nation is on the eve. To achieve this goal, we must have a self-knowledge about Chinese culture, posit it on a proper place, and search with enthusiasm the genuine spirit of this culture with a long history, in order to present its essence to modern human society. Besides, we must reflect the disadvantages of our culture as well, to better the absorptions of other cultures’ essences, and to re-interpret it in a modern way adapting to the general tendency of progress of modern society. Only after this retrospective reflection could our country march as vanguard in the progress of global culture, and create a brave new world together with other cultures.

Confucianism and Taoism were principle schools of thinking in traditional Chinese culture, usually regarded as mutual complementary – of course, after Indian Buddhism was introduced into China, it also played an important role in Chinese society and culture. Now I’d like to discuss whether the Confucian and Taoist thinking could provide meaningful sources for the doctrine of “coexistence of civilizations”.

(1) The Confucian doctrine of Ren (仁: benevolence, virtue) is a resource of thinking with positive meaning for the “coexistence of civilizations”.

“The Way originates in Emotion” (道始于情), as prescribed in “Destiny is the resource of Human nature” (性自命出), manuscript in Guodian Bamboo Slips (《郭店竹簡》). “The Way” here means “the Way of Human” (人道), i.e. the principles in dealing with human (or in anther word, social) relationships, which is different from “the Way of Heaven” (天道), i.e. the laws of nature or of universe. Human relationships are established on the basis of emotion, which is the starting point of Confucian doctrine of Ren. Once a disciple named Fan Chi asked Confucius: “What is Ren?” The answer was: “To love people.” Where is the origin of this thought, “to love people”? In The Doctrine of the Mean a saying of Confucius was quoted as: “Ren is the characteristic element of humanity, and the great exercise of it is in loving relatives.”[17] The spirit of Benevolence and Love (仁愛) is rooted in human nature, and to love one’s relative is the most basic exercise of it. But the spirit of Ren goes far beyond this level. To quote Guodian Bamboo Slips: “To love and love deep, that is love; but to enlarge the love of one’s father to the love of human being, that is Ren.”[18] “The enlargement of filial piety is to love all the people below Heaven.”[19] From these sayings we observe that the Confucian Doctrine of Ren demands to enlarge “the love of relatives” to “the benevolence on people”, i.e. to “enlarge one’s self-concern to the concern on others” (推己及人), to “treat with the reverence due to age the elders in your own family, so that the elders in the families of others shall be similarly treated; treat with the kindness due to youth the young in your own family, so that the young in the families of others shall be similarly treated”[20] – that is Ren. It is not easy to practice the doctrine of “enlarging one’s self-concern to the concern on others”, which requires a “practice of Ren” rooting in “the Way of Loyalty and Forgiveness” (忠恕之道), i.e. “never do to others as you do not wish done on yourself”[21], “wishing to be established himself, he seeks also to establish others; wishing to be enlarged himself, he seeks also to enlarge others”.[22] (“Loyalty is complete devotion of oneself; Forgiveness is the deduction of one’s self-concern.” 朱熹：《四書集注》).

If Ren is to be enlarged to the whole society, it would be as what Confucius once said: “To subdue one’s self and return to propriety, is perfect virtue. If a junzi (君子: gentleman, nobleman) can for one day subdue himself and return to propriety, all under heaven will return to Ren (after his example). Is the practice of Ren from a man himself, or is it from others?”[23] “To subdue one’s self” and “to return to propriety” are usually interpreted as paralleling teachings, but I don’t think this is the best explanation of this doctrine. “To subdue one’s self and return to propriety, is perfect virtue” actually means only the “returning to propriety” based on “subduing of one’s self” could be regarded as Ren. Mr. Fei Xiaotong had his own interpretation about this doctrine: “Only after one has subdued one’s self could one return to propriety. The return to propriety is prerequisite for one to enter the society and become a social man. Perhaps it is just on this point Western and Eastern civilizations have parted, that is, whether to expand or to subdue one’s self.”[24] I think Mr. Fei has made a proper remark. Zhu Xi also had an exegesis on this doctrine. “To subdue means to conquer,” he said, “and the ‘self’ means one’s personal desires. To return means to restore, and the ‘propriety’ means the laws and patterns of the Principle of Heaven.” According to this exegesis, one should subdue one’s personal desires to abide by proprieties and social criterions. Ren is one’s natural virtues (“Love is born in nature.”[25]); and propriety is exterior conventions to rule one’s behavior, the function of which is to adjust social relationships so that people could live in harmony, as: “The most valuable function of propriety is harmony.”[26] Only if one abides by proprieties and social criterions by free will, i.e. by an innate will to love people, could one fulfill the demands of Ren. Thus Confucius asked: “Is the practice of Ren from a man himself, or is it from others?” He made definite prescriptions to the relationship between Ren and propriety: “If a man be without Ren, what has he to do with the rites of propriety? If a man be without Ren, what has he to do with music?”[27] He who sets the rites or music without a heart of Benevolence and Love is hypocrite, and is in a purpose of cheat. It is in this sense that Confucius thought, if people would pursue Ren by freewill and practice the demanding of a heart of Benevolence and Love according to proprieties in everyday life, harmony and peace would be realized in society, -- “If a junzi can for one day subdue himself and return to propriety, all under heaven will return to Ren.” I think this Confucian teaching is not totally meaningless for the political leaders of a state or the ruling classes in developed countries (United States in particular). “The politics of Ren” (仁政), or “the Way of virtuous emperor” (王道) instead of “the Way of hegemon” (霸道), is indispensable to “order the state” (治國) and to “harmonize all under Heaven” (平天下). If “the politics of Ren” or “the Way of virtuous emperor” is practiced, different cultures would be able to coexist and develop in peace; while “the Way of hegemon” will bring forth the “clash of civilizations”, resulting in monoculturalism and cultural Hegemonism. If Confucian doctrine of Ren is applied in regulating intercultural relationships, clash or war of civilizations will be avoided, and the coexistence of civilizations achieved.

Of course, even the Confucian doctrine of Ren is no miracle drug to solve all the problems about the existence of civilizations in contemporary society. However, as a set of moral self-regulations based on Ren, it would undoubtedly be of some practical significance to harmonize the coexistence of civilizations if practiced as a principle to regulate intercultural relationships.

It is not easy to make different cultures get on in harmony and thus to make states and nations in different cultural traditions coexist in peace. Probably the Confucian doctrine of “Harmony in Diversity” (和而不同)[28] could provide us with an illuminating resource of thinking. According to Confucius, “The virtuous (junzi) get on in harmony without agreeing to each other; the base (xiaoren) agree with others without harmony.”[29] Junzi, as intellectuals with moral discipline practicing the Way of Loyalty and Forgiveness, should try to get on in harmony in spite of their different opinions; but those with no morality or discipline always force others to accept their opinions, thus could not stay harmoniously. If this doctrine of “Harmony in Diversity” could be applied as a principle in dealing with intercultural relationships, it should be of very positive meaning to solve the conflicts among states or nations. It would be especially true in dealing with those disaccords and conflicts provoked by cultural differences (e.g. the differences on religious believes or values) among states or nations, that if we practice the teaching of “Harmony in Diversity” as principle to solve these conflicts.

“Harmony” and “Sameness” are generally regarded as different concepts in traditional Chinese thinking. There was even “a debate on the difference between Harmony and Sameness”. As a story recorded in Zuo-zhuan told us, once the Duke of Qi asked Yan-zi: “Is there only Ju get on with me in harmony?” The reply of Yan-zi was: “Ju merely expresses the same opinion with Your Highness, -- how could it be called harmony?” “Is there any difference between Harmony and Sameness?” asked the Duke. “They are quite different.” replied Yan-zi, “Harmony is like well-cooked dish, you must concoct fish and meat with water, fire, vinegar, sauce, salt and plum, and then cook the dish with firewood. The cook harmonizes these flavors to make it moderate. If it is too light, then salt should be added; if too salty, then water. When Junzi dines with such a dish, his heart would be pacified. This is analogous to the relationship between the King and his magistrates… But Ju is different from it. When Your Highness say that something is right, he agrees; when Your Highness say the opposite, he agrees as well. It is as if to moderate water with water, -- who could tolerate to eat such a dish? Or as if a zither always plays the same tune, -- who could tolerate to enjoy such music? This is why Sameness differs from Harmony.” (《左傳•昭公二十年》) Another saying of Shibo (史伯) was recorded as: “In fact, only Harmony could activate the growth of lives, and Sameness would stop it on the contrary. Harmony is to moderate something with heterogeneous things, -- only in this way, the lives would flourish and find their belongings. If something is supplemented by homogeneous things, it could only be abandoned after exhausted. Thus the ancient virtuous emperors had concocted Earth with Metal, Wood, Water and Fire[30], to transform it into miscellaneous lives.” [31](《國語•鄭語》). From the quotes above we see that Harmony and Sameness are totally different concepts. Only under the presupposition of difference and correlation could things “be moderated with heterogeneity”, and the diverse things progress together in harmony with each other. “To supplement something with homogeneity” is to aggregate the sameness, which would only suffocate the lives. The supreme ideal of traditional Chinese culture is that “miscellaneous lives are nourished together without harming each other; miscellaneous ways are practiced together without counteracting each other.”[32] The “miscellaneous lives” and “miscellaneous ways” mean Diversity; the “without harming each other” and “without counteracting each other” mean Harmony. This doctrine would provide us with inexhaustible resource of thinking for the coexistence of diverse cultures.

Now in Western countries, people of insight have already admitted the possibility of coexistence of civilizations, that the clash or war provoked by mere cultural differences should be avoided. They believe that different nations and states should be able to achieve common understanding through cultural exchanges, dialogues, and discussions. This would be a process from “Diversity” to mutual understanding. This mutual understanding is neither to extinct nor to assimilate the other, but to find a crossing point in the coordinate system and to propel the progress of both cultures, -- such is the function of “Harmony”. It is just because of the differences of cultures that human civilization has become so colorful, and that the inter-supplementary and interactive structure has been formed gradually in the flowing river of human history. Cultural differences might lead to clashes or even wars, but not all differences are destined to cause clashes or wars. Especially in an era when sciences and technologies are rapidly developing, a massive war, if it happened, would destroy human being ourselves. Thus we must endeavor to pursue the harmonious coexistence through intercultural dialogues. Many scholars in China and abroad has realized now the importance of mutual understanding achieved by the dialogues bridging different cultures; for example, Habermas, who begins to emphasize the concepts of justice and solidarity. In my opinion, they are significant principles in dealing with international cultural relationships. Habermas’ “Principle of Justice” could be understood as a right for every national culture to protect its independence and autonomy and to develop by free will; his “Principle of Solidarity” could be understood as an obligation to sympathize, understand and respect other national cultures. By incessant dialogues and communications, there will be one day, sooner or later, that a positive cycle of interactions between different national cultures be formed.[33] Another example is Gadamer, the German philosopher who left us only recently. He proposed that “understanding” should be extended to “universal dialogue”. Because of this extension, the relationship between subject and object (as cognitive or grammatical concepts) is able to be transformed from inequality to equality; in another word, only when the dialogists are in equal status could they have meaningful dialogues and fruitful results. Gadarmer’s consciousness of equality between subject and object and his theory of “cultural dialogue” are important ideas earnestly needed by our time,[34] illuminating enough for us to understand properly and thoroughly the cultural or national relationships between China and other nations. However, no matter Habermas’ principles of justice and solidarity or Gadamer’s theory of universal dialogue, their common presupposition should be the principle of “Diverse Harmony”, since, only when nations and states in different cultural traditions could coexist in harmony through dialogues, could they acquire equal rights and obligations and could the “universal dialogue” between them be meaningful and fruitful. Thus, the Confucian principle of “Harmony in Diversity” based on the belief that “harmony is most valuable”[35] could be practiced as one of the basic principles in dealing with intercultural relationships. This principle, if practiced in dealing with relationships between states and nations in different cultural traditions, would be of positive meaning not only in eliminating the disaccords, conflicts and even wars, but as dynamics in propelling states and nations to progress through communications. It is just in this sense that Bertrand Russell said: “Contacts between different civilizations have often in the past proved to be landmarks in human progress.”[36] The contemporary human society needs different cultures to develop their proper traditional characters through mutual learning and convergence, in order to realize the coexistence of civilizations on a new basis.

(2) The Taoist Doctrine of the Way (tao) could provide significant resources of thinking to prevent “the clash of civilizations”.

If Confucius is a “man of virtue” (仁者), then Lao-zi is a “man of wisdom” (智者). The Way is the basic concept in Lao-zi’s Tao Te Ching, while “the spontaneity and doing-nothing” (自然無為: to obey natural laws without offences) is the basic feature of the Way. “The spontaneity and doing-nothing is the Way of Heaven,” said Wang Chong in his Lun Heng.[37] All kinds of conflicts in contemporary human society are undoubtedly caused by the greedy desires for power and wealth. Those great powers, in their pursuit of selfish gains and expansions of power, exploit the resources of undeveloped countries and practice a politics of great powers, which is the fundamental cause of global chaos. Lao-zi’s doctrine of “spontaneity and doing-nothing” could be interpreted as to do nothing against people’s will, which will render the society and the world peace. Lao-zi once quoted the saying of an ancient sage: “As I do nothing, the people will reform by themselves; since I like quiet, they will keep order by themselves; when I seek no trouble, the people will prosper by themselves; when I have no desire, they will live in austerity by themselves.”[38] It means: the ruler with political powers should neither interfere his people (doing-nothing), nor disturb their everyday life (liking quiet), nor act against their will (seeking no trouble), nor exploit them insatiably (having no desire); thus, the people will reform by themselves, keep order by themselves, prosper by themselves, and live in austerity by themselves. If we give a modern interpretation to this teaching and renew it in contemporary world, it would not only render peace to a country but function significantly in eliminating the clash of civilizations. It could be interpreted as: in international politics, the more a country interferes another, the more chaotic the world will be; the more those great powers threaten others with military might, the more turbulent and disorderly the world will be; the more those great powers exploit the undeveloped countries under the pretext of international aids, the poorer those undeveloped countries will be; the more those developed countries desire and fight for the world dominance of wealth and power, the more immoral and terrorized the world will be. So I think, maybe the doctrine of “doing-nothing” is a medicine prescription for the leaders of the so-called “new empires”. If they would accept this prescription, the world will have peace. However, the “new empires” always treat other states and nations with means of “doingness” (有為), such as interference, exploitation or military threat, which is undoubtedly determined by its greedy desires in the nature of all empires. According to Lao-zi, “No calamity’s worse than to be discontented. Nor is there a sin more dreadful than coveting. He who knows to be contented, truly he’ll always be so.”[39] Aren’t the “new empires” discontented and coveting? Lao-zi said again: “Is not the Way of Heaven much like a bow bent? The upper part has been disturbed, pressed down; the lower part is raised up from its place; the slack is taken up; the slender width is broader drawn. For thus the Way of Heaven cuts people down when they have had too much, and fills the bowls of those who are in want. But not the way of man will work like this: the people who have not enough are spoiled, for tribute to the rich and surfeited.”[40] Why is human society in a state of turbulence and disorder now? Isn’t it totally caused by human being themselves, especially those leaders of “new empires” acting against the Way of Heaven and losing the hearts of men, practicing a policy of spoiling those who have not enough for tribute to the rich and surfeited? Isn’t it the root of disaccords, conflicts and wars in contemporary world? Thus we find that the “clash of civilizations” theory is closely related with the theory of “new empire” hiding in its back.

Lao-zi strongly opposed wars for world peace. In Chapter 31, Tao Te Ching, he said: “Weapons at best are tools of bad omen, loathed by all. Thus those of the Way avoid them.”[41] In wars there are always people dying, production destroyed and social orders broken, thus Lao-zi thinks it’s nothing good, that people hate it, and statesmen of the Way should not engage the country in war to solve their problems. Again Lao-zi said: “To those who would help the ruler of men by means of the Way: let him not with his militant might try to conquer the world; this tactic will be revenged by Heaven. For where armies have marched, there do briers spring up; where great hosts are impressed, years of hunger and evil ensue.”[42] This is generally true in histories of all nations. In our country, after each mass war, the population would reduce dramatically, earth disserted, production destroyed, and robbers and thieves infesting. The two world wars were ended in this way, and so is the present warfare in Middle East. “New empire” whatsoever, if its leaders enkindled wars every where, as consequence, it would surely slide into hot water, since the people in the conquered countries would not surrender, and would fight without fearing even death, as Lao-zi said: “The people do not fear at all to die; what’s gained therefore by threatening them with death?”[43] And: “As for those who delight to do murder, it is certain they never can get from the world what they sought.”[44] From history we see that those who had initiated the wars, though momentary successes they might get, would finally fail and be dishonored. Hitler was an example, and Japanese Militarism another. As a “man of wisdom”, Lao-zi could observe the latent converse side with his wisdom, as he said: “On bad fortune the good fortune always leans; in good fortune the bad fortune always hides.”[45] Now people in some countries are suffering, but it would be a necessary precondition prepared for their nation’s renewal in future. Take an example from the recent hundred years of history of our country, it is just after being beaten times and times again that our people had finally waken up, and that today we dare say the Chinese are on the eve of their nation’s great renewal. In my opinion, leaders of every country, especially of the new empires, should learn some teaching from the wisdom of Tao Te Ching, and realize that, in a long run of world history, the politics of great powers and Hegemonism have no future. Thus, I think the thinking of Lao-zi is very valuable to dismiss the theories of “clash of civilizations” and “new empire”. We advocate the theory of “coexistence of civilizations” and agree with Lao-zi’s thinking of “doing-nothing”, in the expectation of a world of Great Equality, of peace, of general progress and of common wealth for human being. Of course, as the thinking of Lao-zi was born two thousand years ago, it could not solve all the problems that contemporary human society is confronted with (including the disaccords and conflicts among nations), but his wisdom should be of important value to illuminate our way. Our task is to rediscover and develop the essence of his thinking, to give it a modern interpretation, and to facilitate those researchers for edifications in the treasury of classical thinking.

Differences in religious believes, values and ways of thinking could lead to conflicts among nations and states; and conflicts could lead to wars. However, are conflicts inevitable? Couldn’t they be pacified without warring for cultural differences? We must needs to find resources of thinking in all national cultures advocating the coexistence of civilizations, in order to counteract those cultural elements possible to invite conflicts. As argued above, the Confucianism and Taoism in Chinese culture could provide significant resources of thinking to counteract the clash of civilizations and to bring forth the coexistence of civilizations. I believe the same kind of resources could be found in cultures of all nations and states too. When human civilization is on threshold of the 21st century, should we practice a theory of “clash of civilizations” to deal with the problems among nations and states, or a theory of “coexistence of civilizations” to guide human society on a road leading to peaceful coexistence instead? This is a question. We must ponder at it seriously and make a thoughtful choice. It would be the blessing of human being if it chooses not the clash but the coexistence of civilizations. The Book of History told us: “All the states under Heaven should be harmonized.”[46] As many other nations, the Chinese is a great one with a long and brilliant tradition of history and culture, which is undoubtedly a most valuable treasure for mankind. We should make good use of this treasure, exert its proper contributions to the peaceful coexistence of human society, in order that harmony might befall on the world, pushing forward the global cultural exchanges.

—— “Clash”or“Coexistence” of Civilizations? Tang Yijie From:(Beijing Forum) Translated by: YANG, Zhiyi

中文：照我看，也許我們正處在一個新的軸心時代。德國哲學(xué)家雅斯貝爾斯曾經(jīng)提出“軸心時代”的觀念。他認(rèn)為，在公元前五百年前后，在古希臘、以色列、印度和中國幾乎同時出現(xiàn)了偉大的思想家，他們都對人類關(guān)切的問題提出了獨(dú)到看法。古希臘有蘇格拉底、柏拉圖，中國有老子、孔子，印度有釋迦牟尼，以色列有猶太教的先知們，形成了不同的文化傳統(tǒng)。這些文化傳統(tǒng)經(jīng)過兩千多年的發(fā)展已經(jīng)成為人類文化的主要精神財富，而且這些地域的不同文化，原來都是獨(dú)立發(fā)展出來的，并沒有互相影響。“人類一直靠軸心時代所產(chǎn)生的思考和創(chuàng)造的一切而生存，每一次新的飛躍都回顧這一時期，并被它重新燃起火焰。自那以后，情況就是這樣。軸心期潛力的蘇醒和對軸心期潛力的回憶或曰復(fù)興，總是提供了精神動力。”例如，歐洲的文藝復(fù)興就是把目光投向其文化的源頭古希臘，使歐洲文明重新燃起火焰，而對世界產(chǎn)生重大影響。中國的宋明理學(xué)（新儒學(xué)）在受到印度佛教文化沖擊后，再次回到先秦的孔孟，而把中國本土哲學(xué)提高到一個新水平。在某種意義上說，當(dāng)今世界多種文化的發(fā)展很可能是對二千多年前的軸心時代又一次新的飛躍。

………………………………………………………………………………

   中國文化能否為“文明的共存”作貢獻(xiàn)

    化解沖突，需要我們從各個不同民族的文化中找出文明共存的資源。中國文化中的儒道兩家可以為化解“文明的沖突”、實現(xiàn)“文明的共存”提供有意義的資源。

    中國文化要對當(dāng)今人類社會的“文明的共存”作貢獻(xiàn)，必須對自身文化有所了解，即對自身文化有一個“自覺”。

    所謂“文化自覺”，是指一定文化傳統(tǒng)的人群對其自身的文化來歷、形成過程以及特點(diǎn)、發(fā)展趨勢等能作出認(rèn)真思考和反省。應(yīng)該說，中華民族正處在民族復(fù)興的前夜，因此我們必須對中國文化有個自覺的認(rèn)識，必須給中國傳統(tǒng)文化一個恰當(dāng)?shù)亩ㄎ?，認(rèn)真發(fā)掘我們古老文化的真精神所在，以便把我們的優(yōu)秀文化貢獻(xiàn)給人類社會；認(rèn)真反省我們自身文化的缺陷，以便我們更好地吸取其他國家和民族的文化精華，并在適應(yīng)現(xiàn)化社會發(fā)展的總趨勢下給中國文化以現(xiàn)代的詮釋，這樣，我們國家才能真正走在世界文化發(fā)展的前列，與其他各種文化一起共同創(chuàng)造美好新世界。

    中國傳統(tǒng)文化中主要是儒道兩家，而且是儒道互補(bǔ)。當(dāng)然，印度佛教傳入后，對中國社會和文化也發(fā)生著重要影響?，F(xiàn)在我想討論一下儒道思想理論能否對“文明的共存”提供有意義的資源。

    1、儒家的“仁學(xué)”為“文明的共存”提供了有積極意義的資源

    《郭店竹簡·性自命出》中說：“道始于情”。這里的“道”說的是“人道”，即人與人的關(guān)系的原則，或者說社會關(guān)系的原則，它和“天道”不同，“天道”是指自然界的運(yùn)行規(guī)律或宇宙的運(yùn)行法則。人與人的關(guān)系是從感情開始建立的，這正是孔子“仁學(xué)”的基本出發(fā)點(diǎn)。“仁愛”的精神是人自身所具有的，而愛自己的親人最根本。但是“仁”的精神不止于此；愛自己的親人，這只是愛，愛自己的父親，再擴(kuò)大到愛別人，這才叫作“仁”。對父母的孝順要放大到愛天下的老百姓。“仁學(xué)”是要由“親親”擴(kuò)大到“仁民”，也就是說要“推己及人”。做到“推己及人”并不容易，必須把“己所不欲，勿施于人”，“己欲立而立人，己欲達(dá)而達(dá)人”的“忠恕之道”作為“為仁”的準(zhǔn)則。如果要把“仁”推廣到整個社會，這就是孔子說的：“克己復(fù)禮曰仁，一日克己復(fù)禮，天下歸仁焉。”自古以來把“克己”和“復(fù)禮”解釋為兩個平行的方面，我認(rèn)為這不是對“克己復(fù)禮”好的解釋。所謂“克己復(fù)禮曰仁”是說，只有在“克己”基礎(chǔ)上的“復(fù)禮”才叫作“仁”。費(fèi)孝通先生對此也有一解釋：“克己才能復(fù)禮，復(fù)禮是取得進(jìn)入社會、成為一個社會人的必要條件。揚(yáng)己和克己也許正是東西方文化的差別的一個關(guān)鍵。”這是很有道理的。“仁”是人自身內(nèi)在的品德，“禮”是規(guī)范人的行為的外在禮儀制度，調(diào)節(jié)人與人之間的關(guān)系使之和諧相處。要人們遵守禮儀制度必須是自覺的，出乎內(nèi)在的“愛人”之心，才符合“仁”的要求。所以孔子認(rèn)為，有了追求“仁”的自覺要求，并把這種“仁愛之心”按照一定規(guī)范實現(xiàn)于日常社會之中，社會就會和諧安寧了?？鬃雍腿寮业倪@套思想，對于一個國家的“治國”者，對于現(xiàn)在世界上那些發(fā)達(dá)國家的統(tǒng)治集團(tuán)，不能說是沒有意義的。如果把孔子的“仁學(xué)”理論用于處理不同文明之間的關(guān)系，那么在不同文明之間就不會引起沖突以至于戰(zhàn)爭，從而實現(xiàn)“文明的共存”。

    孔子的“仁學(xué)”理論雖然不能解決當(dāng)今人類社會存在的“文化的共存”的全部問題，但它作為一種建立在以“仁”為本之上的“律己”的道德要求，作為調(diào)節(jié)不同文化之間關(guān)系的一條準(zhǔn)則，使不同文化得以和諧相處，無疑仍有一定的現(xiàn)實意義。

    要使不同文化之間和諧相處并不容易，孔子提倡的“和而不同”可以提供極有意義的資源。孔子認(rèn)為，以“和為貴”而行“忠恕之道”的有道德有學(xué)問的君子應(yīng)該做到在不同中求得和諧相處；而不講道德沒有學(xué)問的人往往強(qiáng)迫別人接受他的主張而不能和諧相處。如果把“和而不同”用作處理不同文化之間關(guān)系的原則，對于解決當(dāng)今不同國家與民族之間的紛爭應(yīng)有非常積極的意義。

    現(xiàn)在西方國家的有識之士都認(rèn)識到不同文明之間應(yīng)能共存。不同民族和國家應(yīng)該通過文化的交往與對話，在對話（商談）和討論中取得某種“共識”，這是由“不同”到某種意義上的相互“認(rèn)同”的過程。這種相互“認(rèn)同”不是一方消滅一方，也不是一方“同化”一方，而是在兩種不同文化中尋找交匯點(diǎn)，并在此基礎(chǔ)上推動雙方文化的發(fā)展，這正是“和”的作用。其中，德國思想家哈貝馬斯提出了“正義”和“團(tuán)結(jié)”的觀念；我認(rèn)為，把它們作為處理不同民族文化之間關(guān)系的原則，是有意義的。哈貝馬斯的“正義原則”可理解為，要保障每一種民族文化獨(dú)立自主、按照其民族的意愿發(fā)展的權(quán)利；“團(tuán)結(jié)原則”可理解為，要求對其他民族文化有同情理解和尊重的義務(wù)。不斷通過對話和交往等途徑，總可以在不同民族文化間形成互動中的良性循環(huán)。不久前去世的德國哲學(xué)家伽達(dá)默爾提出，應(yīng)把“理解”擴(kuò)展到“廣義對話”層面，主體與對象（主觀與客觀或主與賓）才得以從不平等地位過渡到平等地位；反過來說，只有對話雙方處于平等地位，對話才可能真正進(jìn)行并順利完成。可以說，伽達(dá)默爾所持的主體——對象平等意識和文化對話論，正是我們這個時代所需要的重要理念。這種理念，對我們正確深入地理解中外文化、民族關(guān)系等，具有重要啟示。但是，無論是“正義”和“團(tuán)結(jié)”原則，還是“廣義對話論”，都要以承認(rèn)“和而不同”原則為前提，這樣，不同文化傳統(tǒng)的民族與國家才能獲得平等權(quán)利和義務(wù)。儒家“和而不同”原則應(yīng)成為處理不同文化之間的一條基本原則。羅素說：“不同文明之間的交流過去已經(jīng)多次證明是人類文明發(fā)展的里程碑。”當(dāng)今人類社會，需要的正是不同文化在相互吸收和融合中發(fā)展不同的文化傳統(tǒng)的特色，以期達(dá)到在新的基礎(chǔ)上的“文化的共存”。

    2、道家的“道論”能為防止“文明的沖突”提供有意義的資源

    如果說孔子是一位“仁者”，那么老子則是一位“智者”?！兜赖陆?jīng)》中，“道”是基本概念，而“自然無為”（順應(yīng)自然規(guī)律，不做違背自然規(guī)律的事）是“道”的基本特性。今日人類社會之所以存在種種紛爭，無疑是由于貪婪追求權(quán)力和金錢引起的。那些強(qiáng)國為了私利，擴(kuò)張勢力，掠奪弱國的資源，實行強(qiáng)權(quán)政治，正是世界混亂無序的根源。帝國霸權(quán)正是“文明沖突”的根源。老子說：古代圣人曾經(jīng)說過：“我無為而民自化，我好靜而民自正，我無事而民自富，我無欲而民自樸。”意思是說：掌握權(quán)力的統(tǒng)治者不應(yīng)該對老百姓作過多的干涉（無為），不要擾亂老百姓的正常生活（好靜），不要作違背老百姓意愿的事（無事），不要貪得無厭地盤剝老百姓（無欲），這樣老百姓就會自己教化自己（自化），自己走上正軌（自正），自己富足起來（自富），自己生活樸素。如果對這段話給以現(xiàn)代詮釋，那就不僅可以使一個國家內(nèi)部安寧，而且對消除不同文明之間的沖突無疑有重要意義。為什么今日世界人類社會處在一種十分混亂不安定的狀態(tài)？這完全是由人自身造成的，特別是那些“新帝國”的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者造成的，他們違背了“天道”，失去了“人心”，奉行的是“損不足以奉有余”；“文明的沖突”論與其背后的“新帝國”論有著密切聯(lián)系。

    為了社會的和平和安寧，老子強(qiáng)烈地反對戰(zhàn)爭?！兜赖陆?jīng)》第三十一章說：“夫兵者，不祥之器，物或惡之，故有道者不處。”（打仗用兵是不吉祥的東西，大家都厭惡它，所以有道德的人不使用它。）戰(zhàn)爭總要死人，總要破壞生產(chǎn)，使社會秩序破壞。老子又說：“以道佐人主者，不以兵強(qiáng)天下，其事好還。師之所處，荊棘生焉，大軍之后，必有兇年。”（我們應(yīng)該用道德來告誡領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者，不要用兵力逞強(qiáng)于天下。用兵這件事一定會得到報應(yīng)。軍隊所到的地方，就會破壞一切，使荊棘叢生。大戰(zhàn)之后，一定會是荒年。）反觀各國歷史，無不如此。從歷史上看，發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭的人雖然一時可以得逞，但最終總要失敗。世界各國應(yīng)從《道德經(jīng)》中吸取智慧，認(rèn)識到強(qiáng)權(quán)政治、霸權(quán)主義從長期的世界歷史發(fā)展看是沒有前途的。老子思想對消解“文明的沖突”論、新“帝國論”是十分有價值的。當(dāng)然，兩千多年前的老子思想不可能全然解決當(dāng)今人類社會的問題（包括各民族之間的矛盾、沖突等問題），但是他的智慧之光對我們應(yīng)有重要啟示。我們應(yīng)該做的，是如何發(fā)掘和發(fā)揮他的思想精華并給以現(xiàn)代詮釋，使之有利于人們得到某些寶貴啟示。

在不同民族和國家之間，由于宗教信仰的不同、價值觀念的不同、思維方式的不同可能引起沖突，甚至可能由沖突導(dǎo)致戰(zhàn)爭。但是，是否必然要引起沖突，能不能化解沖突、使之不因文化的不同而導(dǎo)致戰(zhàn)爭，這就需要我們從各個不同民族的文化中找出文明共存的資源。如上所述，中國文化中的儒道兩家可以為化解“文明的沖突”、實現(xiàn)“文明的共存”提供有意義的資源。我相信，在各民族、各國家的文化中同樣有可以化解“文明的沖突”并實現(xiàn)“文明的共存”的有價值的資源。是用“文明沖突論”來處理各民族、國家間的問題，還是用“文明共存論”來引導(dǎo)人類社會走向和平共處，這是當(dāng)前必須認(rèn)真考慮和慎重選擇的問題。反對“文明沖突”論，倡導(dǎo)“文明共存”論，無疑是人類社會的福祉。《尚書·堯典》說：“協(xié)和萬邦”。中華民族和其他許多民族一樣是偉大的民族，有很長燦爛光輝的歷史文化傳統(tǒng)，對人類社會是極為寶貴的財富。我們對這筆財富應(yīng)善加利用，使之為實現(xiàn)不同文化之間的協(xié)調(diào)共存，推進(jìn)世界各種文化之間的交流，做出應(yīng)有的貢獻(xiàn)。