周濂：BookReviewonZhaoTingyangsTh

　　ZhaoTingyanghasbeenwidelyacknowledgedasoneoftheleadingChinesephilosophersinthenewgenerationsincethepublicationofhissecondbookentitledOnPossibleLifein1993。ThelatestofhissixbooksisTheWorldwithoutWorldview。Thisbookconsistsoftenpapersdeliveredafter2000，witharemarkablybroadperspective，oninternationalpolitics，comparativeculturalstudies，ethics，postmodernity，gametheory，etc。
　　ManywillwonderwhyZhaodealswithsodifferenttopicswithinonebook，theanswercouldbefoundinthepreface“OftheMethodologies”。
　　TwomainmethodologiesinthisbookhavebeendevelopedbyZhaosinceabouttenyearsago：oneisthesocalled‘syntext’andtheother‘nonstand’analysis。Inthepreface，Zhaopointsoutthat‘itshouldnotbeasurprisethatthecentralfocusofphilosophicalworkisnowonpoliticalethicalphilosophy’（1）。Hearguesthat‘becausethereareeconomicalissuesbehindcontemporarypoliticalethicalissues，sothepoliticalissuesarestructurallylinkedwitheconomicalones。Sinceculturalissuesarecloselyrelatedtothehistoricalstanceofpoliticalproblems，andperhapstoadeepstructureofpoliticsandeconomics，hencethehistoricalstructureofphilosophycomesintobeing：itismutualstructureofpoliticseconomicsculture。’（1）Basedonsuchobservations，Zhaoconcludesthatcontemporaryphilosopherswouldhavetopursuetheanswersinsuchreciprocalknowledgestructures。Asamatteroffact，theconceptof‘reciprocalknowledge’hasrecentlybeendevelopedintooneofEuropeanepistemologicalmovement，whileZhao，withoutknowingtheterminthefirstplace，hascreatedhisowntermsimilarto‘reciprocalknowledge’almostatthesametime。Henamesit‘syntext’，whichmeansthat‘givencyclopedicknowledgeaboutanyonething，theremustbemutualrewritingofdifferentknowledgesystemsbysomekindofmethod，sothatwecan，first，changethoseknowledgesystemsstructurally，andsecond，createnewknowledgeandquestionscooperatively’。（2）
　　Theothermethodologyis‘nonstand’analysis，itrequiresthat‘thethinkersuspendhisownpreferenceorinclinationwhenheismakingjustification，thushewouldseeothers，hearothersandunderstandothers。’（3）Theapproachofoldphilosophyis‘frommyselftotheothers’。Onthecontrary，Zhao’smethodologyof‘nonstand’analysisis‘fromtheotherstomyself’。Hestressesthattheprincipleofphilosophicalanalysisshouldbe‘fromtheothers’or‘fromthethings’。JustaswhatLaozi（老子）hadsummarizedthemethodologymorethantwothousandyearsago：“amancouldonlybeunderstoodinhisinterests，avillagecouldonlybeunderstoodinitssituation，astatecouldonlybeunderstoodfromthepointofviewofastate，andallunderheavencouldonlybeunderstoodinthehorizonofallunderheaven”（4）。Althoughonemaydoubtthepossibilityofsuchapure‘nonstand’analysis，this“seeXfromX”principlewouldbeveryhelpfulforustounderstandtheworldfromitselfandforitsownsake。
　　Combiningthe‘syntext’with‘nonstand’analysis，letusrethinkthetitleNoWorldviewfortheWorld，itshouldbeinterpretedas‘“nonstand”analysisonthe“syntext”ofpoliticaleconomicalculturalworld’。
　　Inmyopinion，thetwomostimportantpapersofthebookare“Allunderheavenasempireandworldinstitution”and“Chineserepresentationofphilosophy”。
　　Letusstartwiththelatter。Thephraseof“Chineserepresentationofphilosophy”shouldbeunderstoodattwolevels：oneis‘therepresentationofphilosophy’ingeneral，theotherisparticularly‘Chineserepresentationofphilosophy’。Zhaodoesnothandletheformeradhocinthisbook，butwecanrecognizehisbasicattitudetothisquestionbetweenthelines，i。e。，tryinghisbestnottousethosebigtheoreticaltermsbutordinarylanguage。Iinterpretitas‘letphilosophyspeakinordinarylanguage’，inwhichmanywillrecognizetheinfluenceoflaterWittgenstein。ForZhao，‘Chineserepresentationofphilosophy’couldbeinterpretedas‘letphilosophyspeakinChinese’。ThisisinfactthemainpointthatZhaowantstoargueinthatpaper。
　　ZhaoarguesthattheChineseWesterncomparativeculturalstudieshaveturnedintounilateralinterpretationsolelybasedonWesternstandardforalongtime。Inotherwords，Chineseculturehasbeenonlytheinterpretednottheinterpreter（159161）。SoaccordingtoZhao，everyChinesephilosophershouldaskthequestionwhetherChinesephilosophycouldbeonepartofworldphilosophyornot。Toputitconcretely，couldChinesephilosophybenotonlytheobjectofstudyforwesternersbutalsothelivewordsthatcancontributetotheworldphilosophy？（164）
　　Inordertoanswerthequestionpositively，Zhaothinksthatwemustmakegreateffortsintwofields：oneistomakesometraditionalChineseconceptsintotheworldthoughtsystem，andtheothertomakesomeparticularChinesequestionsintotheworldquestionssystem。
　　（168）OnlywhensometraditionalChinesekeyconceptsbecomeuniversalandgeneralones，willCandonlywhenphilosophyspeaksinChineseindeed，couldphilosophyberepresenteddifferentlyandtheworldberepresenteddifferentlytoo。（168）Furthermore，Zhaopointsoutthattherearethreekeyquestionsinthefuturephilosophy：1，theoryofcommunicationandcooperation，2，philosophyofheart，3，therelationshipbetweenrightandobligation。Chinesephilosophyshouldandmustcontributetoresolvingtheseproblems。（1789）
　　IfZhaowantstotheoreticallyanswerthequestionhowChinesephilosophycancontributetotheworldphilosophythrough‘theChineserepresentationofphilosophy’，then‘Allunderheavenasempireandworldinstitution’ishispracticalanddirectreplytothisquestion。
　　‘Allunderheavenasempireandworldinstitution’wasoneofthetopicshepresentedonaninternationalconferencenamed‘UniversalKnowledgeandReciprocalKnowledge’（India，Goa，200211）andthe‘EmpireandPeace’internationalconference（France，Paris，20032）。ItwasalsopublishedinKeyWordsStudiesforTransculturaEncyclopediaofLeRobertinEnglishin2003。
　　Beginningwiththeamazingstatement‘Oursupposedworldisstillanonworld”（7），Zhaowantstopointoutthat‘theworldthatwehavenowisoneofitsgeographicalonenessratherthanitspoliticaloneness，forthereisnothingofarealcoherentworldsocietyunderauniversallyacceptedworldinstitution’（7）。Inordertoorganizetheglobalintoaworld，aworldinstitutionseemsnecessary。Butasweallknow，‘inthewesternframeworkofpolitics，thegreatestpoliticalentityisfoundtobethe“state”whichconfinesthewesternunderstandingofpoliticaltheoryfromthepointofthestate。Consequently，thewesternimaginationsoftheintegralityoftheworldarebutinternationalism，unitednationorglobalization，nothinggoingbeyondtheframeworkofnationstates。Andsuchprojectshaveessentialdifficultiestoattaintheonenessoftheworldduetotheirlimitationoftheperspectivesofnationstates。’（12）Bytheprincipleofnonstandanalysis，itisevidentthatseeingtheworldfromtheworldisnotthesameasseeingtheworldfrompartofit。Westernphilosophyhasnoworldviewastheviewfromtheworldthoughithastheviewoftheworldasanideologyofastate。（1314）Furthermore，thaveafullconceptoftheworldthoughithasitsscientificconceptoftheworld。（1011）Onthecontrary，accordingtoZhao，theChinesetraditionalconcept‘AllunderHeaven’（TianXia，天下）isjustsuchafullconceptoftheworld。InZhao’sview，theterm“Allunderheaven”（Tianxia天下）hasbeenthemostimportantkeywordforanypossibleapprehensionofChineseperceptionofworld，society，institutionandpolity。（910）Insteadofthewesternconceptofempire，the“Allunderheaven”iscloselyrelatedtothesupposedlyuniversaleidosofempire。Thatistosay，inotherwords，itisrelatedmoretotheeidosofempirethantoahistoricalstatusofempire。Briefly，allunderheavenmeansaworldinstitutioninformofempire。Andanempirewouldbeconsideredunqualifiedifitdoesnotmeetthestandardofallunderheaven（9）。
　　ByanalyzingsuchtraditionalChinesethoughtastheprincipleof“allincluded”or“nothingexcluded”（无外）andtheprincipleof‘Rite’（礼），ZhaoarguesthattheframeworkofChinesephilosophycouldcontribute“allunderheaven”asthefirstconceptinpoliticaltheory。
　　Besidestheabovetwopapers，theothereightpapersarealsoveryappealing。By“IdentityandCulturalIdentity”，“UnderstandingandAcceptance”，“HistoryasLocalKnowledge”，Zhaooffersanexceptionallyclearanduniqueaccountofthecomparativephilosophyandinternationalpolitics。“Knowledge，FortuneandHappiness”isashortpaperwhichtriestoanswerthequestionwhatkindsofknowledgecouldgiveabetterfortuneorlifetohuman，andZhao’sreplyisthat‘knowledgeofhappiness’mustreplace‘knowledgeofessence’。“APhilosophicalRemarkonTheoriesofGame”and“TheStrategicConditionforViolence”arephilosophicalexercisesof“gametheory”whichembodythemethodof‘syntext’concretely。Thelasttwopapers，“ACriticalAnalysisofPostmodernity”and“PostmodernityWithoutInstitution”aretwomostinsightfulandbrilliantpapersonpostmodernityinChineseasfarasmyreadingstell。
　　Becausethetopicsinthisbookaresoradicalandfreshto“old”philosophy，Idon’tthinkZhaohavefoundtheperfectconceptualschemesandmethodologiestodealwiththem，butthetheoreticalcharmandtheproblematicspaceheexhibitsarenodoubtfascinating。SoIcanrecommendwithouthesitationthisbookasoneofthefinestphilosophicalworkspublishedinChinainrecentyears，andIhavelittledoubtthatthisbookwillprovetobeasubstantiveandinterestingcontributiontotheongoingtraditionofChinesephilosophyaswellasitsdialoguewithothertraditionsinworldphilosophy。