- Good afternoon, everyone
on this beautiful afternoon. My name is Tom Banchoff,
I am vice president for global engagement here at
Georgetown and director of our Berkley Center for Religion,
Peace, and World Affairs. And it's my great pleasure
this afternoon to welcome you to this Berkley Center lecture
with professor Tu Weiming on the topic Confucianism and liberal education for a global era. Now as many of you know,
over the past several years, we've invited distinguished
public intellectuals to spend some time with
us at the Berkeley Center and here on campus to
meet with small groups of faculty and students, but also to give a public lecture on a key
film at the intersection of religion, values, and world affairs. In past years we've had
Charles Taylor speak, Jurgen Habermas, so a terrific lineage. And today of course we're
delighted to welcome Professor Tu Weiming, who is
widely considered the world's foremost expert on the
tradition of Confucianism, to share some of his reflections with us. Just a brief introduction. Tu Weiming is director of the Institute for Advanced Humanistic
Studies at Peking University, and Peking University chair
professor of humanities, as well as a research
professor and senior fellow of the Asia Center at Harvard University, where he taught from 1981 to 2000. His long engagement in the academy and his stream of publications have helped to define the modern
field of Confucian studies. And his work in and around China has placed him at the center
of a Confucian revival with far-reaching implications and impacts for the world of education which
we'll be focusing on today, but also for culture, society,
and politics more broadly. Professor Tu has a long
list of publications. I'll just mention a few of the most influential, really they're my favorites. His work Humanity and Self
Cultivation from 1979, his work from 1985, Confucian Thought, Selfhood as Creative Transformation, and a remarkable series of
essays published in 2010, the Global Significance
of Concrete Humanity: Essays on the Confucian
Discourse in Cultural China, which marks an even stronger engagement with other cultural traditions
and the global horizon within which we all find ourselves today. Professor Tu is a fellow
of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
position he's held since 1988, and chair of the Advisory
Board of the Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy. He serves on the Editorial
Boards of several journals, including the Harvard
Journal of Asiatic Studies and the journal Philosophy, East and West. His eight-volume series of
collected works, Eight Volumes, is in the process of being
published this year in Chinese. Professor Tu, we're
particularly delighted today to invite you to speak on the
topic of liberal education and Confucianism from
a global perspective, because here at Georgetown
we've started something called the Global Liberal
Education Initiative, just last year, my colleague
Randy Bass, who's here. It's a cross-campus effort
to, on the one hand, infuse global themes
into our core curriculum. But on the other hand, and this is what brings us here today, to engage in a global
dialogue across cultures and civilizations about
what a liberal education might and should mean in
this global era we live in. To kind of take ideas that have
been most fully articulated in the United States and in
Europe and in Western tradition, ideas like self-reflection,
ideas like ethical judgment, ideas like engaging with difference, I say fully articulated in
the context of this project of liberal education in the West. But really, ideas that have
analogs in other traditions, traditions from which we can learn. And Confucianism is certainly
at the top of that list, so we're delighted to have you here and hear your reflections. After Professor Tu's remarks,
my colleague Jose Casanova, also known to many of you,
will join him on the stage for a conversation and then we'll
open it up to your questions. Jose is a senior fellow
at the Berkley Center. He's also professor of
sociology and one of our foremost authorities
on the role of religion in the secular and public life. So thank you all for
coming and please join me in welcoming Professor Tu Weiming. (audience applauding) - Thank you very much,
Professor Tom Banchoff for your generous introduction, Professor Jose Casanova, and colleagues and friends, I'm delighted to have this rare opportunity to address to a question
that's very close to my heart. That's Confucian humanism. And, you know, at such
a elegant environment with such a distinguished audience. I knew Georgetown University
when I was very young, when I was in primary school. Because my father was offered a fellowship to study management and transportation in the United States in 1945. The first step was in
Georgetown University to attend a summer school in English. He actually majored in English
Literature and Economics. He told me his great
experience at Georgetown. And also informed me
that Georgetown has one of the great departments
of English literature. So I'm very delighted I'm here. Let me begin with a short reflection on my understanding of
the Confucian project. Educational project. It's often stated that Confucian learning is learning for the sake of the self. But in Chinese, we use it very broadly. (speaking in foreign language)
Learning to be human. And in the Analects, Confucius
said learning is for the sake of the self, so which may
turn out to be a surprise. In 1985, I gave a course on Confucian philosophy at Peking University. I asked the question, say,
what is Confucian learning for? For the self or for others? Most of my students at the time
probably under the influence of Maoism, say of course,
learning for the others. (speaking in foreign language) Learning for the sake of serving the people. I said, I'm sorry, that's
not Confucian learning, that's probably Maoist learning. Confucian learning's learning
for the sake of the self. And it's also characterized as learning of the heart and mind. (speaking in foreign language)
Or learning of human nature and destiny, human destiny,
(speaking in foreign language) and Confucius said learning for the sake of the self is authentic learning. You don't learn for your
parents, you don't learn for society, you don't learn
for any external forces. You learn to build your character. This is the primary concern, therefore, Confucian philosophy has also been characterized as the philosophy of (speaking in foreign
language) self cultivation. In one of the great books,
actually one of the four books, the Great Learning, and
there's the statement that from emperor to the commoner, each should regard
self-cultivation as the root. This is not self-cultivation
for the elite, for the wealthy and powerful, influential, but self-cultivation for everybody. And also, this kind of
learning for the self, learning for the sake of the self, is using Max Weber's notion,
this worldly learning is not aestheticist, is
not learning in order to develop a vision of the transcendent. It's learning for the self, here and now, as a concrete living person. And that's part of the
reasons I decided to use the term concrete humanity to describe the collection of basics in mind. Among the Axial Age civilizations, many of you know Karl Jasper's idea that roughly in the first millennium, 600, 600 B.C. to millennium, at
least four great civilizations emerged relatively independent continued shaped human destiny
for thousands of years. Greek philosophy to be
sure, the Judaic tradition, later evolved into Christianity
and Islam, Hindu in China. And the Hindu tradition of course, Hindus, and also Buddhism in China,
basically Confucianism in those. Unlike many of the other
great spiritual traditions, Confucianism opted to work
in the world, here and now. Confucius made a remark, which is I think it's very characteristic, I am a human being among
other human beings, I cannot hurt with birds and beasts. I want to be among the humans. Therefore he considered
himself as a transmitter and not as a maker, in a
sense creating something new. We know that Jesus, the founder of Christianity, is perhaps the most Christian
than anyone you can imagine. Difficult to imagine
Christianity before Jesus. And difficult to imagine
Buddhism before Buddha. But Confucianism, the English
word, is basically a misnomer. It's very difficult to translate back to Chinese, Japanese, or Korean. Because in that language,
in east Asian languages, Confucianism's called Rujiao. which is probably understood
as the tradition of the scholar or the tradition of the
engaged intellectual. There are many ways of doing that. So Confucius is not the founder of Rujiao He may be one of the most well-known. Confucius himself made it very explicit that one of his great heroes was the Duke of Zhou, Zhou Gong. And of course, beyond Zhou Gong, we have the great sage kings,
like Yao, Shun, and Yu. So some Korean scholars were
aboslutely right, saying, look, maybe more than 1,000
years prior to Confucius, the Confucian tradition began. So he was a transmitter. And very much committed
to the world here now. In 1972, the official
publication of American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Daedelus,
published a special issue called the Transcendental Breakthrough. Basically a study of
Axial Age civilizations. Benjamin Schwartz, one of
my mentors, was the editor. An the idea is to say, among
the Axial Age civilizations, the reference to something
beyond, the transcendent, is characteristic. I actually objected to that. I was the only voice. Feeble one, not very consequential. So was not taken seriously. I said, this is not fair
to the Confucian tradition. If you say transcendental breakthrough, then Confucian tradition not only didn't make the
breakthrough, chose not to. If they did that, it could
be considered as incomplete, or limited, Axial Age civilization. They say, well, you have a better choice. I didn't at the time, but then, the, the Israeli scholar,
Elkana, later developed a very interesting idea about thinking about thinking,
second-order thinking. He said, maybe in Axial Age civilizations, all of these traditions develop
a form of human reflexivity which has never happened before in the arcade period or before. For the Greeks, they reflect on how the ultimate reason of
reality, a logos, came up. And for the Judaic thinkers, Yaweh. So, transcendent. And for Hindu, Brahman. And for China, Tian. But anyway, Tian. is not
radical transcendence. And especially under the
influence of Confucianism, there's a different kind of conception, I'll have a chance to refer to that. Therefore, it is in the
world, transforming the world. Max Weber, despite his real
genius in understanding human civilization comparatively, seems to have got it wrong. He said, look, this
tradition, unlike protestant, or the other traditions,
decided to be in the world. And therefore the transformative
power of this tradition is limited, so they
cannot change the world, because you're in it,
unlike the Protestant ethic of viewing the world from
the transcendent perspective. You can shape the world, like Calvin, like many of the great Theologians. And therefore, the transformative
power is tremendous. And the Confucian tradition,
by being committed to the world, therefore the notion of our submission to the world. Therefore Confucianism's
always characterized theologically and
intellectually as conservative. If not reactionary, and
not very powerful, not very creative, very much not very
innovative, and so forth. But, I've arguing for
some time now, you can be in the world but, using
the Grecian expression, not off the world, and
you can try to transform the world from within,
if you have an idea of being human which is, if
not diametrically opposed, but significantly different
from the rules that began governing the wealth and
power of the world here now. That's possible. In fact, the Confucian idea of learning for the sake of the self,
learning to be be human, is predicated on the belief
that the idea of the self is always understood as the
center of relationships. There are two dimensions. One is centered, therefore
a concrete person here now can only reflect upon the world from that particular perspective. So, it has to be centered. But it is also a form of relationships. At the center, the autonomy, independence, and dignity of the individual
has to be established. That's the reason why
Confucius made it explicit, learning is for the sake of
building your own character. This self-centeredness,
which is predicated on the importance of
establishing personality as an independent, autonomous
being, and with dignity. Therefore, self-cultivation philosophy is at the core of Confucian education. But as relationships, this center can never be an isolated individuality. A human being is never an island. It's always a flowing stream,
automatically transforming, therefore enters into communication with many other flowing streams. The relationships are precisely defined as a series of concentric circles that begins with people
who are closest to you. That's human nature< the dependence need. Human beings, unlike any other
beings, any other animals, rely very heavily upon
the primary caretakers. Three years, five years. Now even as college students, you're still part of the family. I recently learned even
in the United States, the increasing percentage of college kids before marriage stay home. Out of necessity now. But in China, the dependence
need is much longer. And of course the parents
welcome to be part of. But, you have to move beyond the fact. Therefore, integrated learning again, (speaking in foreign language) You regulate your
family, you try to govern the state and move beyond
so you become (mumbles) in other words, the
relationality of being human is extended from closest
kin to the families to neighborhood, to the community, to the nation, to the
race, to the world beyond. And the outer realm, if you
envision that as a series of concentric circles, the
outer realm is always open. And later I want to know that it's open even beyond humanity. Beyond the animal kingdom. Beyond the life world, and actually it ought to embrace the cosmos. And therefore, in the very beginning in the Confucian Project
of learning to be human, a critical issue is the
difference between the privatized self, because the self, and
the self as public domain, (speaking in foreign
language) the major debate. And to make a long story short, I think, you know, you read the Confucian classics, the education very much focused upon the clear distinction
between what is really you and what is certainly a bundle of desires shaped by forces beyond your control. Make a clear distinction between them. And therefore, to go
beyond the privatized self, no matter how that is understood, and to become public, and hopefully to cultivate
a public spiritness is the project for self-cultivation. So you go beyond egoism in
order to truly realize yourself. You go beyond nepotism to really enjoy the warmth of your family. You go beyond parochialism so you're properly located in
the neighborhood in village. You go beyond ethnocentrism or nationalism so you can be truly patriotic. You go beyond the human
world, anthropocentrism, so you can be united
without a larger horizon. You go beyond simply as a
member of the animal kingdom, as a member of the live world, and you really have to go
beyond, so to overcome egoism, parochialism, nationalism, ethnocentrism, anthropocentrism, and so
forth, is the way to be human. Therefore, to define humanity
in the Confucian tradition, you have to say it's not just
egoistic, it's true self. It's not even anthropocentric. Therefore I think the
anthropological understanding of the self, no matter how
broadly defined, is restricted. I coined a rather awkward word. As soon as I coined it I
became committed to it. It's a combination of
anthropological and cosmologic. So the Confucian vision of
being human is anthropocosmic in the sense that it is
not just anthropological, if it's anthropological,
it becomes limited. Another way, probably a more
complex way of understanding the Confucian project, which
is I think somewhat unique, that is all the forces, I
call them primordial ties, that shape a person into
a concrete human being, ethnicity, gender, age cohort, language, social stratification, social structure, birthplace, or place of birth, belief, or religion, all these forces that shape
person to a concrete person, are not constraining forces
to be totally overcome. They are, using a fashionable word in evolutionary biology,
enabling constraints. These are the constraint
that would eventually help the person to be a concrete humanity with the ever-extended
vision of human relatedness. So I can, in a shorthand way, you can say the Confucian project of
self-cultivation is an attempt to try to transform one's
constraints, limitations, into vehicles or instruments
of self-realization. Remember, in many other
great spiritual traditions, Buddhism is the most radical. You have to transcend
virtually everything. Not only transcend all
the primordial ties, you have to transcend any
attachment to anything. Because the ultimate reality
is this vision of kong, I don't know how to translate it, empty. And any attachment of self is to limit you into a being that is not liberated. We know that. And in the Christian world,
let the dead bury the dead. Follow me. You move out of this
natural family, you have a new fellowship, which is
meaningful, which is important. So in this sense, the Confucian
tradition is very tradition. Your own ethnicity, your own language, your own age cohort, your
own gender, all your own primordial ties are
considered significant. Of course, if you are, this
is one of Confucian problems, if you are not able to transform, then you're being, you
suffer from the kind of closed particulars, you cannot
transform your own ethnicity, your own gender, your
own language, of course. And this reminds me of
great Confucian thinker, in the 17th century, who made all the politically incorrect ideas. He said, I'm so happy I'm a human being, I'm not other animals. I'm so happy I'm Chinese,
I'm not those barbarians. I'm so happy I'm a man,
I'm not like women. I'm so happy I'm an intellectual, not a farmer, not a worker, not a trader. Now, from our right now
modern ecumenical vision, the guy suffers from anthropocentrism, male chauvinism, elitism, and of course, ethnocentrism. But a proper way of reading it, this is how he actually did it, is say, as a human being, I'm not against any other animals, but I
have a human responsibility. I'm glad I'm going to be human, because I'm going to
take care of the world, of the animals and so forth. I'm a man because I'm born a
man, I have my responsibility. And you can reread it, instead of saying, I'm a man, therefore I can
discriminate against women, I'm a man, I have the
responsibility of doing what I ought to do as a human
being who happens to be male. But as a Chinese, I should
respect all the other people, of course, this modernistic reading, all kinds of other people,
and yet, as Chinese, I should feel proud about
my own cultural identity. That's also true, I am an educated person, so I have responsibility
of being educated person. So one very important feature
of the Confucian ethic is that the people who are
more powerful, influential, wealthy, and have resources
to, have access to resource and information, ought to
feel more obligated for the wellbeing of an extended
domain of human interest. So this sense of being
situated to concretely is not necessarily a lamentation. You'd have to transcend that, no. You realize it, and transform it. And with this kind of particularism,
I think kind of I would call a cosmopolitan, not
cosmopolitan particularism, this is oxymoron, something
like rooted cosmopolitanism. Mr. Appiah has used the term. The recognition there are
many many paths to its, not just salvation, to
its human transformation. My path is the path I
have to walk through. Doesn't mean that there
are no other paths. There are numerous other paths. Therefore, the idea of
different paths converge into one project. And therefore, a very basic
ethical principle in Confucian self-cultivation philosophy
is the idea of reciprocity. Care for the other. And reciprocity is often understood as the golden rule stated in the negative. Do not do to others what you would not want others to do to you. And I think this is deliberate choice. I would argue that this position
is probably more congenial to intercivilizational dialogue than the golden rule stated in the positive. A concrete example, I was
fortunate to be a part of a group appointed by (mumbles)
to facilitate a dialogue on our civilizations in the year 2001. And one of my colleagues,
Professor Hans Kung, he made it very explicit in
the very beginning of the conversation, the golden rule
is the universal principle, do to others what you would
want others to do to you. This happens not only
in the Christian Bible, in many other places, this ought to be the most basic principle that the dialogue on our civilizations
would have to observe. Everybody agreed, then
I offered this idea. How about state it in the negative first? And he said, what's the difference? Well, the difference is the following. I'm blessed with the Gospel. It's my obligation to
share my joy with others. It's obligated. Therefore, I have to, if not preach, I have to share my Gospel with others. Especially if I know someone
who's never heard it. So it's my responsibility to let the person know what that is. If the person resists,
I know my obligation is greatly enhanced,
because for his own sake, or her sake, he should hear it. Now, if it so happens the other
guy turn out to be a Muslim, who's also committed to
transform the gentile into the community of
faith, and of course, conflict of interpretation
unavoidably, inevitably occurs. But if you say do not do to others, you mean you take the
recognition of the other as an extremely important
principle for communication. You try to think what
the others really want. Do not do that, however, I also mentioned to Hans Kung, you have to have the second principle. If you simply have the negative
idea of do not do to others, then you probably don't
care for the others. And therefore, reciprocity may lead to a sense of irresponsibility. So you have to have the
principle of positive humanity, that's the principle (mumbles) in order to establish myself, I must help others establish themselves. In order to enlarge
myself, I must help others to enlarge themselves. So these two principles
will have to come together, but there is a sense of priority. In this intercivilizational dialogue, if you insist upon do to
others, you get into trouble. Maybe that's one of the reasons in the Confucian tradition
preaching is not allowed. And many people to say, you know, Mr. Tu, you've been advocating Confucianism, you've been preaching
Confucianism and so forth. I feel of course compliments,
but I always feel nervous. And I don't want to be
considered as an advocate. Because this idea, very deep-rooted idea that it is not proper to impose your truth upon others. Yuan Xiong, for example,
traveled all the way from Beijing to Washington, D.C. as
part of our Confucianism, against Confucian principle. (audience laughing) The idea is light show, the idea of light show is if they're interested, they'll come to Beijing. And one scholar, a great Confucian thinker in the modern times, Mai
Fu, actually observed that. Religiously. And he really got himself
into trouble, because he just refused to go to Beijing,
he was in Hangzhou. When he was offered a professorship at Beida by (mumbles) he
said, we're not coming. They said, no, no, you have
to come to Beida to teach, he said no, it's against
Confucian principle, I'm not going to Beida. And he insist upon it, finally, he was invited to teach at Beida. So not to go out to teach, if people think you have something to
offer, they'll come to you. And this actually gives a summary of the basic Confucian
approach to learning, which is predicated on what I consider a wholistic vision about being human. A human being, this Ben
Schwartz and many others talked about, against a kind
of a reductionist model. Human beings never understood
in definitional term. The idea that human beings,
of course rational beings, or the human being is a tool user. Or more recently we say the
human being is linguistic, or symbolic manipulator, all these definitional
understandings of being human in the Confucian tradition is wrongheaded. Because any definition
focused on a dimension of being human at expense of many others. But human being in the
Confucian sense is emotional. Is an emotional being,
a being of feelings, of emotions, like animals. But human beings are
also political beings, like aristotelian idea. But they're social beings,
they're historical beings. They are aesthetic beings. And they're even metaphysical beings. So, this is simplified, maybe
even simple-minded vision of the Confucian classics, six classics. the book of poetry is a clear
indication that human beings are loaded with emotionality,
therefore affectivity. The Book of Rights is
basically a statement about human beings as social beings. The book of so-called documents, the book of talking about governments, is the idea of human
beings as political beings. The Spring and Autumn
Annals added in by Confucius is basically statement about human beings as historical beings. And of cousre the book of
change is a human being as metaphysical, in quest
for ultimate meaning of life. And the book of music, unfortunately lost. There are chapters, remaining chapters, indicates human beings
are aesthetic beings. Therefore, what is in human,
what is a human being? A human being from evolutionary
perspective is an observer. Of course, dogs and cats, you
know, these other animals, are more observant in terms
their sensory perceptions. Audio vision and visual, but
human beings are observers, eventually matures and consistently trying to understand the world around. But human beings are also appreciators. And they can understand
things, look at nature, with no utilitarian motivation whatsoever. Martin Bruegel's idea of we are (mumbles) but human beings are also participants. This is very critical in
the Confucian tradition. That a human being is
engaged in the cosmic process as a participant. Let me cite a statement from Zhong Yong, the Doctrine of the Mean, I
read it, Centrality Commonality. Only the most true or authentic,
real human, human beings, can fully realize themselves. If they can fully realize themselves, then they can fully realize human nature. If they can fully realize human nature, then they can fully realize
the nature of things. If they can fully realize
the nature of things, they can take part in the transforming and nourishing process
of heaven and Earth. If they can take part in the transforming and nourishing process
of heaven and Earth, they can thus form a trinity
with Heaven and Earth. Therefore the human is linked between heaven and Earth, earth is nature. Heaven is creativity in itself. So the meaning floats beyond. Therefore the human in
the sense of learning for the sake of the self is
not simply the acquisition of knowledge or internalization of skill, it's the cultivation of the
true potential of the human as observer, as appreciator,
as a participant, we can even say as a co-creator
of the cosmic process. This makes the Confucian idea of heaven in a particular context. Heaven is creativity in itself. Heaven is omnipresent and omniscient, in the sense, heaven is everywhere. There's a very interesting
statement about someone who bribed an official,
a Confucian official. They said, well, this is just
between us, under the table. He said, are you sure, he said, of course. He said, you know, I know,
heaven knows, Earth knows, how can you say it's private? So this idea of heaven
everywhere, very strong, and heaven is omniscient, heaven feels. Heaven concerns, heaven
sees as the people see, heaven hears as the people hear. And heaven is always present. But heaven definitely is not omnipotent. It's not all-powerful. Part of the reason is because
the advent of the human. Therefore, a statement in
the Analects which can be easily misunderstood, and
that the idea is that humans can enlarge the way, the
way cannot enlarge human. So it's blasphemous if you
translate it into a language, you know, with a transcendent
language almost like the human beings can make
Allah great, not that Allah can make human beings
great, that's ridiculous. But the idea is not
grandiose of the human, it's human responsibility. It is always possibility to make heaven's presence in the world here now. Heaven doesn't need us, but we
need heaven, that's the idea. That's the reason why Confucius's self-understanding, he's a transmitter. He is not a maker. He's responsible for historical memory. He's responsible for
transmission of culture that had lost for centuries. And therefore, in the book of natures, which is real, you know,
exemplification of the Confucian project, a human being, a
fully cultivated human being, will have to be able to cultivate at least the following dimensions. Self. I choose to use the term
subjectivity, in other words, the true self, you cultivate
your own character, your own independence, your own autonomy. So the idea of self understanding. But you really need to have
a sense of relationship to all other human beings. So an educated person in this
sense is not simply someone who served the purpose of
the politic, of the emperor. But serve the wellbeing of
everyone, that's why he mentions we do have this (speaking
in foreign language) idea of people as the root. The people are the most important. The state's secondary, the
king is the least important. So this, you can say, a
proto-democratic idea. Then a human being is responsible
as a historical being. That's one of the reasons
why history, or historical consciousness, has developed
in China in such a way. And also, human being ought
to be responsive to heaven, to the transcendent. Now finally, what we do
here now is not only for us, but for future generations. So two dialogues are built
into the Confucian project. One is rationality and faith. The other one is tradition, we don't use modernity, it's
the past and the present. So in the idea of being human
as rational animal to be sure, but also affective, that the
problem is that human beings always suffer from affective surplus and a cognitive deficit. Our ability to know always falls short of our emotions to know. And so human beings are affective. And with this overall plane, acquisition of knowledge
or internalization skill is not as important as
the cultivation of wisdom. You can even say some
form of spirituality. So learning is a continuous process of self-refinement and self-reflection. In a comparative civilization perspective, this Confucian project has
some distinctive features. It is a project which is not based upon any dogma. This may sound unusual. In other words, since
Confucius is not the founder, Confucius may not even be highest manifestation of the Confucian principle. Because the sage king
ought to be understood as the highest manifestation. Therefore you don't emulate Confucius. He's a source of inspiration. Sometimes even a limited one. Yuan Yaoming made a very
interesting observation, he said, if a statement is from Confucius,
I don't feel comfortable. You know, my conscience doesn't accept it. I certainly will not simply blindly accept Confucius' instruction, let alone yours. And if a statement from a commoner strikes a sympathetic resonance
in me, I will accept it. How much more I would accept
it if it comes from Confucius. And since many of the
statements come from Confucius that strike a sympathetic resonance in me, so I'm a follower of Confucius. And this idea leaves open to many possibilities. For the last 25 to 30
years, I've been involved in intercivilizational dialogues. And some of them are very encouraging, some of them are most frustrating. But my own experience is
that, first, of course, with Christianity, I'm not a Christian, but I'm a beneficiary
of Christian theology or Christian studies in general. So I learn a great deal from
many Christian theologians, (speaking in foreign language) in particular. And my colleague at Harvard,
Gordon Kaufman, who's been very close associate, and I can claim (mumbles) as my teacher friends, so I learned a great
deal from Christianity. And I'm also very pleased to
know that many Christians, quite a few of them, that is, are willing to call themselves
Confucian Christians. And this is the Project
of Boston Confucianism. As some of you know, in
Boston, and John Berthrong, Rob Neville, Christian theologians, developed this Confucian project. And many Buddhist friends call themselves Confucian Buddhists, especially those who are engaged Buddhists and humanistic Buddhists. And more recently, I have
vocations to meet people who deliberately call
themselves, I'm a Confucian Jew, like (mumbles) I'm a Confucian Hindu, like (mumbles) who
actually coined the idea of Confucianism and spiritual humanism. So, what is the message? I think as a broad, wholistic, humanistic vision, it is compatible with virtually
all major spiritual quests, not only the great civilizations
in the Axial Age tradition, but indigenous traditions as well. So, the term that I used
first, in the dialogue, in 2001 to facilitate
the dialogue, you know, the dialogue on civilizations,
with Hans Kuhn and others, and then, 2004, I was asked by UNESCO to address the executive board on the dialogue on our civilizations. And more recently, with Alliance
of Civilizations in Vienna. And I coined this idea
of spiritual humanism, which is, if not diametrically opposed, significantly different
from secular humanism of the enlightenment
mentality of the modern West. And over the last few years,
also, Professor Casanova and I were involved with a project
that Charles Taylor organized. I think we may call it
(speaking in foreign language) the Secular Age. And there, we need to have a vision of human flourishing,
not only human survival, but human flourishing, which is based upon the idea of human flourishing predicated
on some shareable core values that all spiritual
traditions will subscribe to. Christianity, Buddhism, for example, in addition to their own
distinctive religious traditions and languages who have to
develop a new language, which I simply call it the
language of global citizenship, which is sensitive to
ecological consciousness, international order, poverty,
all these kind of problems in the 21st century
that confront humanity. And the Confucian
tradition, as it contributed to this particular language
has served as a reference. Thank you. (audience applauding) - Thank you, Professor Tu, for a fascinating and cognitively and effectively moving lecture that was not
preaching, but a reflection. An engaged reflection.
- Thank you. - Professor Tu is actually
here in Washington, D.C. the whole week, the entire week. At the end of the week, will take place see now U.S. Symposium on values in global order that Professor Tu has been
one of the main organizers. And Professor Tu would like to offer an invitation, it's open to the public. Then you'll need to
register, so please if you are interested, it's at
the Carnegie Library. Friday and Saturday, this correct? - Yes, just briefly, a few years ago, and I realize that there have been quite a few so-called
Sino-American dialogues on the climate change, on the (mumbles) on economic collaborations, strategic collaborations, so forth. And none of these so-called
dialogues were dialogical. They were bargains, confrontations, even outright aggressive condemnation. So I would like to see the
possibility of a genuine Sino-American dialogue. And therefore, I'm encouraged
by Robert Bella and (mumbles) and Robert Fuller, who is the
former president of Oberlin, we developed this Sino-American
dialogue on core values. And the first time it was, it
took place in Beijing, 2011. And it was very stimulating,
it was small one. Then the follow, in the
following year, 2012, for the second one, and
(mumbles) took part. And he urges to immediately organize something in the United States. So in December of last year, we organized one in the
(mumbles) Hotel in San Francisco. Robert Bella gave the opening statement. Francis (mumbles) also took part. And Swittler, with Tampa University. So this time, it's the fourth one. But it's organized by
energy, Chinese energy fund, based in Hong Kong. And in collaboration with
Georgetown University. Professor - [Casanova] Branchaeau. - Brancheau and Casanova
have been instrumental in helping to identify the people. So some of the really best minds from my point of view
in China will be here. Some younger ones too. (speaking in foreign language) And from the American side, a number of senior scholars as well. So this will take place
in the Carnegie Library Friday and Saturday. And I understand it's open. So if you're willing to
take part and just go there. - [Casanova] You need
to register, I think. - You need to register.
- Online. - Yeah, online, okay, thank you. - Before we open the
conversation to the public, I would like you to invite you to give us some of your reflections on
the kind of liberal education that we need in our global age. We are at Jesuit education institution. The Jesuits were actually pioneers in the formation of a
new type of liberal arts education in the 16th, 17th century. It was different from medieval university. It was very much based
on renaissance humanism. Recovering of the Asian classics, fascination with the Asian,
Greek, and Roman classics. But of course it was Western centered. It was what was considered the classic Asian tradition of the West. We know of course that
the code of Confucian is used besides with
these historical memory. This continuation of this
classical Asian tradition. We find ourselves in the
situation of needing to develop a liberal arts education that
brings all the human traditions, all the faces of humanity
together on the one hand. And particularly also one
that is able to inform but is otherwise purely a technique of scientific engineering education. We know that today in science, obviously, the fascination with
technical and economic and professional education is very strong. We know how interested they are in ranking the universities in entire world. So, how can we work together,
what needs to be done, to do this, to determine a
global liberal arts education really engaged in dialogue
with all the traditions of humanity, and also one
that conserves critical reflection with otherwise
a democratic professional? And of utilitarian education. - Well liberal arts
education is translated into Chinese in three ways. And the one is called
(speaking in foreign language) which means broad and elegant
education which cultivates a person broadly, and with
refinement, that's one. The second translation is
(speaking in foreign language) actually means education of quality. Not just qualitative analysis. The third one is (speaking
in foreign language) education for knowledge
which is comprehensive. So first, we know in the
21st century, all students have to not only learn, but
to relearn continuously, and also to unlearn. It's difficult to translate
unlearn into Chinese., I don't know how to do that. If you know how to translate unlearn, (speaking in foreign language) unlearn, (speaking in foreign
language) is not right, (speaking in foreign language)
is not right, but anyway. So in that context, we know that in the world
today, we tend to confuse data with information,
information with knowledge, knowledge with wisdom. And sometimes wisdom with
spirituality, anyway, the younger you are, the more equipped you are technologically. Therefore your
accessibility to information is just infinite. So in this particular
situation that the older people like myself will have
to learn from the young. I always call my friends to
help with computers, always. And also, you have to respect the young because they're more cosmopolitan, they're more open to all
kinds of possibilities. The word hybridity may be
negative in some sense, but in knowledge sense, it's a good word. I think Richard (mumbles) likes it. So the young people,
they're economical, and yet, the mind that is not disciplined, if one is not learned,
there're three things that are absolutely critical
for human flourishing from Confucian point of view. One is the art of listening. Increasingly difficult for the young to cultivate the art of listening. If you don't capture their attention in five minutes, they're gone. So the art of listening is one. The other one is to enhance
your intellectual horizon. The ability to confront radical others. And the third one of course is to also enhance your own self-reflexivity. So I think modern education
is, liberal education, has to be in a dialogue
and our civilization has to build into it. So we need to accept UNESCO's idea of culture diversity seriously. I know quite a few of my
colleagues worry about multiculturalism. I know Huntington is worried about it. And but multiculturalism,
or religious pluralism, for that matter, may turn
out to be relativistic. I think Michael Sandel once
was asked by the president of Harvard, Drew Faust,
said, you've taught this famous course on justice
to thousands of students. Do you think they've become
more just, or what happened? He paused for a while and he said, when they come to class,
they're all relativists. After they've taken the course, they're still relativists,
but they know why. So that's the contribution. Now in a sense, you've become
more pluralistic and open and more self-reflexive, so
the idea of ethical reflection. Now China actually suffers
from a kind of disease. Not Marxism or socialism, of course. But a kind of outvoted scientism. Some people say China's, you know, China suffers from the
tyranny of the engineer. But many leaders in government, in business, in economic, are engineers. And the situation's
only changing this year. For the first time, the top
leaders, seven top leaders, there're more people in the
social sciences and humanities that they are engineers,
but China is dominated. Therefore, liberal arts
education has been very widely debated in China, I think
also for the first time, I don't think it's just lateral. That is, development
should not be understood in economic and political terms alone. So there are three other
kinds of development that will have to be debated, social,
cultural, and ecological. So, once you have that, I think for China to move from the idea of an economic man to be a culture person, to be
eventually ecological person. So in that sense, a modern
liberal arts education will have to help students to develop the art of listening,
the idea of expanded intellectual horizon
and spiritual horizon. And at the same time to
enhance their self-reflexivity. In addition to economic capital, how to account for the social capital. Rob Portman's notion. But how to enhance cultural competence, in addition to technical
competence, and how to enhance ethical intelligence in relation
to cognitive intelligence. And how to become sensitive
to spiritual matters. I think one form of education
in China we feel very strong is to develop a sense of
awe, a sense of reverence. With the Maoist philosophy, we struggle. And with the Confucian tradition, which never develop a very
powerful radical transcendence. So the sense of awe about the world is very much lacking. In traditional China,
(speaking in foreign language) Heaven, Earth, king, or
emperor, or means nation, parent, teacher, these are
all objects of reverence. And how to restore that sense of reverence is also very challenging task in the liberal arts
education in China today. - Very good, let's open up the floor. We have about 20 minutes,
we'll need to leave this room sharp a few minutes before
5:30 because it needs to be made available for another function. We are always slaves
of the clock, of time. But please. Identify yourselves and be as brief, concise, and articulate
as you can, please. (audience member speaking off mic) - [Audience Member] And I have
been speaking Confucianism, near Confucianism to
foreigners for several years. And I really admire with
Professor Tu Weiming's works. So my question is quite simple. Confucianism can be used to,
we say it helps cultivate or moral character, moral
force, or vast moral force, this is really good for the civil society. My question is, Confucianism's
to we say, it's a big deficit in exhorting what should
be done by the government, in other words, human rights,
the topic, human rights. Said to have been enacted by
many, many we say classical works in Confucianism,
even in neo-Confucianism. In a certain sense, the
Confucian can be regarded as a kind of praxis or ethical principle, what should be done,
what should not be done. So, sometimes I ask
where I lack of justice of fallacy in today's
society in my country, China, to the great impact of
Confucianism or neo-Confucianism. So I would like to hear your insights. - Thank you. - Thank you for the question. I think the universal declaration
of human rights, in 1948, two Confucian scholars actually took part. And in fact, the person who
assisted, with Roosevelt, in the original draft, turned
out to be one of my teachers, Wu Deiyao, who just passed
away two or three years ago. And the two Confucian
participants insisted that in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, it has to be so universal that no specific cultural traditions are to be represented. That's why the word god doesn't appear. And also it's very, very comprehensive. It includes all three generations
of human rights that we're talking about, political
rights, economic social rights, cultural rights, and even group rights. So it's very comprehensive. That to me is compatible
with my understanding of the Confucian tradition. But human rights as the practice,
as practiced in America, you know, we do have a commission, secretary of human rights, it's something that has
generated a great deal of debate. The whole debate on Asian
values versus human rights occasioned because of
Li Guanyao in Singapore, together Mahatir. And that to me is very unfortunate. Because what they should
have done, of course, is not to politicize it, but simply to say in addition to the human
rights that are being practiced all over, we need to have something more than simply human rights. Instead, they pitted human rights against obedience, submission. And group identity. So Asian values then become stigmatized, therefore the NGOs all
fighting against human values, even though the government's
embracing values. So my own sense is that, I discuss this actually in the book added together with (mumbles) of Columbia, it's called Confucianism in Human Rights. John Rose's student, Josh, Josh Fogel, who's now
teaching at Stanford, actually wrote a short
paper commenting on my idea of human rights from the
Confucian point of view. And one suggestion may be useful. If we insist upon the duty consciousness, and the ethic of
responsibility of the elite, In other words, all those who
are powerful, influential, and so forth, ought to be
obligated by very strong sense of their ethical responsibility
in Max Weber sense, then the functional
equivalent of human rights can be not only developed,
but also flourish. And I agree with you, China
suffers from inability understanding how human
rights actually work. Give you one example. One day, after the American
bombing of the embassy (mumbles) and I was in Beijing giving a talk, I was at the time still at Harvard. Talk on globalization, especially economic, cultural globalization. The first question actually, I didn't touch even human rights. The first question's,
Professor Tu, your view on the importance of sovereignty rights and human rights, which is more important? (speaking in foreign language) Because Li Pang previous
day announced, in China, (speaking in foreign language)
is more important than (speaking in foreign language). I didn't even think, I
said, of course human rights is more important than sovereignty rights. And then I give a number of
examples, including, say, South Africa, when they
practiced apartheid, everybody condemned South
Africa, including China. But now, Mandela is one of
most respected statesmen. And person who asked the question stood up and said, I agree with you, he sat down, and nobody raised questions
about human rights. Now, among the intellectuals
in China, I think human rights discourse is very widely
accepted, like you. So, not just the dissidents. But I think (mumbles)
believed human rights. The Chinese market is not good. We should improve. - Of course, we gather a
group of three questions, and hopefully we will have two rounds. If you are please brief
and (mumbles) so please. Yes, please? You first. - [Audience Member] You've
described Confucianism as a project in self-reflection and extension through
relationships outward. But self-reflection on
its own, free floating, and extended outwards, can go wrong. And reflection without
learning can be dangerous. So would you, are you proposing a reflection for reflection's sake? Or would you grant that liberal education has to be grounded in tradition and text? And what is the role of this
kind of study of text and tradition in a authentically
Confucian liberal education? - Yes. - That was a great question,
mine isn't nearly as good. I'm wondering if the
Confucian negative version of the golden rule, if perhaps to China's leaders and foreign policy thinkers explicitly base the formal non-interventionist aspect of China's foreign policy on that. Or if you think they do, or if that's a reason for such a foreign policy. Or if that foreign policy is
perhaps merely instrumental. - And the third question, please. - Ed Barrett for the U.S. Naval Academy. Is there a Confucian
revival in China, and if so, what does it look like, among
who, and what is the content? And if there is such a revival, how's it gonna play out
with the political forces, the Communist Party? - Why don't I answer the
third question first? - Yes. - I think there is-- - But, very briefly,
because otherwise. (laughs) - Yes.
- These questions. - And yes, there's a revival. And to illustrate, more
than 10 million children from age to 13 now can
recite the Four Books. And all universities now have centers, especially comprehensive
university have centers in classical Chinese
studies, Confucian studies. Many private academies established now the most recent estimates, over 1,000. Business people, this is to
me very important, the CEOs, and many of them in the
50s and 60s missed out because of the cultural revolution, now we've turned to universities. Peking University, the
Department of Philosophy holds weekend sessions
on Confucian classics, filled all the time now. I think that's not unique to Peking. Most major universities will
open their doors to teaching. And while one negative
teaching, some of these professors become os
fascinated by teaching CEOs, they neglect their
teaching undergraduates. So there's a lot of interest going on. I think one implication
is how the government adjusts to this new phenomenon. They can abuse it, they can use it. They can turn this into a
kind of patriotic nationalism. And that they can listen to it. And I think the juries are still out. And I think that next few years
are very, very significant. And I'm not, I think I'm
cautiously optimistic, but also see the danger of
that being hijacked into a kind of chauvinistic
nationalism, very powerful one. And the negative, golden
rule stated in the negative, may have been used. I think the government's
position of noninterference is much more instrumental. But at the same time,
there is a commitment. I think the commitment
is based upon the belief that China needs to have
the space for development. And I think China is fully
committed to free trade. And America's not. And the idea is that any kind
of free trade open peaceful environment will help China
to develop economically. And any conflict will be very negative. Yeah, this Confucian project
of self-reflection, and, I probably (mumbles) the primary function of,
the content of education, is really based upon text. Group reading. We call it (speaking in foreign language) it's a Japanese idea,
(speaking in foreign language) I introduced it to Peking university. To read, you know, 15
students get together to read the classics line by line. And with a professor
who's not giving lectures, but to listen and to
engage in the conversation. This is now very popular. To have students together
early in the morning, have recitation, reading texts. In America, only two universities are really committed to this. One is Columbia's great books. The other one is Chicago. And I think these two models
are now being imitated by many university in China. And how to institute
this classical learning as an integral part of
liberal arts education. - Please? (audience member speaks off mic) - [Audience Member]
For me, I wanted to ask about the difference
between the notions of duty and responsibility in Confucianism. And for me it's interesting. In respect to who duty,
in respect, in relations to whom responsibility or
whom we are responsible for, it's not straightforward. Thank you. - Any other question, please? - [Audience Member]
Hi, you were mentioning about liberal education,
liberal arts education, and how science students
tend not to get enough of it. And people in liberal arts often
decry scientific, you know, science students who are
not trained in liberal arts, but they seem to be very
happy with liberal arts students who know nothing about science. Does that really make sense? - Final question? Yes, please. Who, I am very happy. - [Audience Member] Professor
Tu, you mentioned that-- - Please, introduce yourself, who? - Who?
- Yes. - [Audience Member] Who is who? My name's Whitney, I'm
from (mumbles) University. And a question that you mentioned Heaven, or Tian, by itself or creative. And humans need Heaven, but
the Tian doesn't need humans. Does that mean that human
beings create the heaven, or? What's the, you know, God created the world,
according to Christianity. And Heaven created humans,
or human created Tian? - I should?
- Yes, yes, and then me. - Well, well I have to think
about the last question. May not be able to answer that. And I think duty is rendered in Chinese as (speaking in foreign language) And responsibility is
(speaking in foreign language) Now responsibility is a category that's probably in the social environment, in the political environment. So we are responsible, you
know, ethical responsibility is to say that with all
the good intentions, if the outcome turn out to be negative, the person has to be obligated. Another person has to be responsible. So the ethical responsibility is more in the area of politics. It was more related to an obligation, like feel piety, or like
your sense of reverence, towards not just your
ancestors, towards Heaven. Now Heaven, as I pointed out, is
omnipresent, omniscient, may not be omnipotent. And the notion is that
all the natural disasters, human beings was able to survive, the only disaster that human beings cannot survive is manmade. So this one very important statement, (speaking in foreign language) if Heaven brings havoc, you know, all these natural disasters,
earthquake and so forth, human beings will survive. But the only kind of disaster human beings will not survive is
turn out to be manmade. You know, certain death,
there's a nuclear holocaust, or gradual suicide, that's
ecological degradation. I think the actual situation is, many scientists turn out to be writers, artists, musicians. You know, I know so many great writers turn out, not the other way around. So, liberal arts education or humanities are really open to every human being. A scientist may be very sophisticated in certain area of the humanities. And people would trained
in the humanities normally would not be able to do
engineering or other kind of work. That's how educational structured is formed. So I don't think, that's one of the reasons why
it's, in China, for example, because the scientific
education is so complete, and the people, very, you
know, they're mathematics, or all these kinds of
quantitative analysis, they're really brilliant. But to write, to reflect, to make ethical judgment,
that's very difficult. So my sense is that, you know, you have Howard Gardner's idea
of multiple intelligences. Some people very strong in geography, in mathematics, some in music,
some in sports, and so forth. But ethical intelligence is not a choice. In other words, you cannot
say, ethically handicapped, and then I can do all kinds
of lousy things, right? Aesthetic, mathematics,
and so forth, right? If I'm not a mathematical genius, I can be accused of being not very musical about mathematics. But ethics is very different,
so I think liberal arts education is not about
humanities and social sciences. It's about how to be an
ethical, moral person, informed by this great wisdom. Now, Heaven, I think you can make a case in the Confucian tradition that human, no, because idea
is our human nature is come from by Heaven. So the transcendence is understood
as eminent transcendence. I can understand Heaven
through self-knowledge. You know, the citation from the (mumbles) If you know yourself,
you know human nature, you know human nature,
you know nature of things, and you can form a trinity
with Heaven, Heaven and Earth. So my understanding of Heaven
through self-knowledge, this is the proper path, it's
very different from the idea of radical otherness,
or human intelligence always fails to understand how
the creator actually works. So in this sense, human
beings are not creatures. Human beings are
co-creators in this sense. And I think Gordon Kaufman,
my colleague in theology, wrote a book called God the Problem. In a sense, the conceptions
of what God has created by theologians continue to harm us. The whole idea of God as ultimate reality beyond human comprehension itself has to be interpreted time and time again. So in the Chinese situation, I can understand Heaven
through my self-knowledge. But, the comprehensive power
and influence of Heaven is always beyond my comprehension. Because, no matter how hard I try, I cannot really fully understand myself. So, let me conclude with
this (mumbles) statement now. There are two ideas, on the
surface, they're contradictory. But both are significant. One is that all human beings are sages. The second one is no human being, including Confucius,
can ever become a sage. The first statement is
ontological statement like every human being is
embodied with the Buddhahood. No, every human being can
essentially become a sage. The second one is an
existential condition. No matter how hard you try,
you never reach sagehood. So the idea of true Confucius will have a certain augmentation,
and there's a statement, if Confucius lived to
the prime old age of 80, like Buddha, he died at 73, because he reached his whole stage of, he can follow the dictate of his heart, and everything's right. So fusion between what it
is and what ought to be. And can he just relax, you know? And the answer of all
the Confucian thinkers is no no no, the old man will
have to struggle even harder to become better. So to, from 73 to 80, the struggle become painfully difficult. But he had to do it,
that's the way of learning. So that learning never completes, despite the fact that every human being is endowed with sagehood. So in this sense, we never create Heaven. We are children of Heaven. We try to understand Heaven. And we cannot fully understand
Heaven, even though, through our self-understanding, we can earn the right to
have some appreciation. So in this sense, it's very
Christian, I say very Christian. Some people would accuse
me of Christianizing the Confucian project,
but I'm happy to do that. - Well, thank you to
all of you for coming, and please join me in
thanking Professor Tu for this wonderful lecture.
(audience applauding)
