In spite of the apparent chaos in Chinese social and political affairs，there has been great progress，since the beginning of this century，in the intellectual life of the Chinese，especially in their philosophical thinking. This was to be expected. The chaos in China is one aspect of the transformation of Chinese society from a medieval to a modern character. In the transformation，a vacuum is created between the traditional ways of living，which already have become archaic，and the new ones，which are still to be adopted. Such a vacuum is quite inconvenient for practical daily life but is very good for philosophy，which has always flourished in times when no dogmas or conventions restrained the free movement of the human spirit.
In a period of transformation，all ideas or ideals of the past are equally to be reviewed and revalued，and none of them can claim to have more authority than the others. The man who does the reviewing and revaluing is the philosopher，who thereby reaches a higher point of view than those who confine themselves to a single way of thinking.
In the present transformation going on in China，the Chinese philosophers are especially fortunate，because，since the beginning of this century，they have had as the object of their review and revaluation the ideas or ideals not only of their own past but also of the past and present of the West. Systems proposed by the great minds of both Europe and Asia are seen and understood from new angles and in a new light. Old interests in philosophy are revived as new ones are arising. Under such circumstances it would be very surprising if there were not great changes in contemporary Chinese thought.
Changes have taken place rather rapidly. Many views have been expressed，only to be superseded by later ones resulting from more study and understanding of Western philosophy. Although my own view may also be superseded，I shall express it as an indication of how Chinese and Western philosophies can be complementary and how，in this give-and-take，Chinese thought may contribute to a future world philosophy. I shall make two points：one on the method to be used by philosophy，and the other on the ideal life to be achieved by it.
There must be some fundamental similarity between Chinese and Western philosophies，or there would be no reason why they should be referred to by the same word. In the analysis of their similarity，I shall confine myself mostly to their metaphysical theories，or to epistemological ones that have metaphysical implications，because it is here that Chinese and Western philosophies can most easily be compared. I shall take up for discussion two main traditions in Western philosophy，the Platonic and the Kantian，and compare them with two main traditions in Chinese philosophy，the Confucianist and the Taoist. The Platonic and Confucianist traditions represent what may be called the ontological approach of metaphysics，while the Kantian and Taoist traditions，so far as their metaphysics or the metaphysical implications of their philosophies are concerned，represent what may be called the epistemological approach. What is fascinating to me is that，whereas the aim of metaphysics is a rational analysis of experience，each of these approaches arrives in its own way at a “something” which logically is not the object of reason and therefore refuses to be analyzed by it. This is not because reason is weak，but because the “something” is such that a rational analysis of it involves a logical contradiction.
The ontological approach begins by distinguishing between the character and the existence of things. As a contemporary expounder of Platonism，George Santayana，has said ：“It is axiomatic that a thing can have no existence if it has no character;only things with some character can exist. Yet existence involves change or the danger of change；things may be transformed，or in other words，they may drop one essence and pick up another.”(2) This approach reveals the logical identity and eternity of the essences，which are properly the object of reason. But what is “existence” which picks up and drops essences？Reason，in analyzing a thing，gets rid of its characteristics one by one until they are all removed，only to find that there must be “something” left，which has no character，but is that by virtue of which things of any character exist.
This “something” is what is called “matter” in Platonism；that which，as Plato said，“is to receive all forms” and therefore “should have no form.” (3) “Matter” cannot be analyzed，not because reason is not potent enough，but because what can be analyzed must have some character. Whatever has character will be other than that “something” which is called “matter.”
Some philosophers do not like this Platonic conception of “matter，” and try to say that “events” or “matter，” in the sense of “material，” must be the ultimate being of the universe. But such an attempt is not a strictly rational analysis. I should say that these philosophers mistake for the ultimate certain positive ideas which represent scientific knowledge of matters of fact and are not formal ideas reached by logical analysis. “Event” or “material” is just another kind of thing which needs further analysis. When subjected to it an event or a piece of material is also reduced to the characterless “something” plus some character.
In Chinese philosophy the Confucianist school，from its very beginning，had a respect for the ming or “name” which was thought to represent the principles of human conduct or the essences of virtue. The metaphysical implications of this aspect of Confucianism were developed to their full significance in the system of Chu Hsi （1130-1200），which became the orthodox state philosophy of China from the thirteenth century until the beginning of the twentieth，when the state philosophy was overthrown together with the monarchy in 1911. If one compares Chu Hsi's metaphysical system with that of Plato，one is very much impressed by the similarity of thought in these two great philosophers，except that Chu Hsi did not consider the actual world a mere imperfect copy of the ideas but rather a concrete actualization of the ideal. In this respect，he moved along the line of Plato's great disciple Aristotle.(4)
As the ontological approach begins with the distinction between the form and matter of things，the epistemological approach distinguishes the form and matter of knowledge. The latter is what was done by Kant. According to him，the forms of knowledge，such as time and space，and the categories as discussed in traditional logic，are inherent in man's faculty of knowing. With this faculty he can have knowledge. But what his knowledge includes is only what is within its forms and is thus inextricably mixed up with them. What is ideally distinct from these forms may be called the matter of knowledge，but what that really is，man can never know. That is what Kant called the “thing-in-itself，” or “noumenon，” instead of which man knows only the phenomenon. He can not know the thing-in-itself，not because his intellect is not potent enough，but because if what is called the “thing-in-itself” could be known，it would in turn be only another phenomenon，and not the thing-in-itself.
Thus，Kant maintained that there is a “boundary” between the known and the unknown——the unknown not in the sense of not yet being known but in that of being unknowable. This boundary is，he said，“as it were，a spot where the occupied space （viz.，experience）touches the void （that of which we can know nothing，viz.，noumena）.”(5) “But，”Kant continued to say：“as the boundary itself is something positive，which belongs as well to that which lies within，as to the space which lies without the given complex，it is still an actual positive recognition，which reason only acquires by enlarging itself to this boundary，yet without attempting to pass it.”(6)
In one respect，Taoism in Chinese philosophy is Kantian. Taoism also made the distinction between the knowable and the unknowable. While Confucianism considered ming or“name”as representing principles or essences which are the standards of things in the actual world，Taoism considered ming as representing subjective distinctions made by the human intellect. The term ming-yen was often used by the Taoists. Yen means language;and by the term ming-yen the Taoists reduced ming to an affair of language，which is the necessary accompaniment of knowledge. Man knows only through ming-yen. But what is behind and beyond ming-yen？That is“something”which，in principle and by definition，cannot be known. To use Kant's terminology，that something is on the other side of the boundary and may be described as the“void.” That is exactly the word that the Taoists used to describe the other side of the boundary. They used to describe it as wu，meaning“not-being，”and hsu，meaning“void.”
I say that in one respect Taoism is Kantian，but in another respect Taoism is not Kantian. In ethics，or what Kant called the metaphysic of morals，he was quite in agreement with the Confucianists，especially in his theory of the categorical imperative and the metaphysical ground of it. But insofar as the distinction of the knowable and the unknowable is concerned，there is quite an agreement between Kant and the Taoists.
Nonetheless，even in this respect，there is a great difference between them. Kant saw no way of crossing，as it were，the boundary with the help of pure reason. In his system，no matter how much effort pure reason makes to cross the boundary，it always remains on this side of it. The effort is something like what the Taoists described as“racing with one's own shadow.”But the Taoists did cross the boundary with pure reason and went to the other side，as it were. Their crossing is not the result of what Kant called the dialectical use of reason，which is in fact not a crossing at all，but rather of the negation of reason. The negation of reason is itself an act of reason，just as a man committing suicide kills himself by one of his own acts.
By the negation of reason，one gets to what the Taoists called a“realm of non-distinction and undifferentiableness.”It is meaningless to ask whether by the negation of reason one really crosses the boundary，because，according to the Kantian and the Taoist，this boundary is reason's own creation. With the negation of reason，there is no longer a boundary to cross. As a matter of fact，to cross the boundary is to abolish it. It is also meaningless to ask what one can find after crossing the boundary or abolishing it；because，according to the Kantian and the Taoist，to distinguish or identify anything is just the function of reason. With the negation of reason there is nothing to distinguish.
To the Taoists，the term，“thing-in-itself，” which Kant used constantly，is quite a misleading one，because it has a positive meaning and gives people the wrong impression that，for instance，the table before me is but an appearance，whereas behind it there is a real table which is the thing-in-itself. Of course what is across the boundary cannot be described by such a word as“table，” but neither can it be designated by such a term as“real.” It can be indicated only in negative terms. Finally，even the negative symbol must itself be negated.
So，if one has a right understanding of Taoism，one sees that ultimately there is nothing to say and that what one has to do is to be silent. And in silence one also crosses the“boundary”to the other side. This is what I call the negative method of metaphysics，which was much used by Taoism. It was also employed by Ch'anism，the latter being a school of Buddhism developed in China under the influence of Taoism.
In other words，description is essentially a task of knowledge and intellect，but what is on the other side of the boundary is by definition beyond knowledge and intellect. In trying to describe what is on the other side，one is trying to say with language what cannot and should not be put into words. One cannot say what it is，but only what it is not. This is the essence of the negative method.
From the point of view of knowledge and intellect，what is put this way is a negative idea，an X，which is but a symbol of one's ignorance. If it is an idea at all，it is only a negative one. But in crossing the boundary，one has to give up even this idea. When one has crossed the boundary，one not only has no negative idea but no idea of negativity.
Here we have real mysticism. From the point of view of Taoism and Ch'anism，although there is mysticism in Western philosophy，it is not mystical enough. Most of the mystical philosophers in the West have spoken of God and of union with Him. But God，with his omnipotence and omniscience，is essentially an intellectual idea. So long as one has an intellectual idea or ideas，one remains this side of the“boundary.”
On the other hand，the method of logical analysis，which I call the positive method of metaphysics，was never fully developed in Chinese philosophy. In Chu Hsi's system，for instance，although the conclusions of his reasoning have much similarity with Platonism in Western philosophy，his arguments and demonstrations are far from being adequate. The same is true of the arguments and demonstrations used by the Taoists against knowledge and intellect. In this respect，the Chinese philosophers have much to learn from the West.
In the past twenty years，my colleagues and I have tried to introduce the method of logical analysis into Chinese philosophy and make it more rationalistic. It seems to me that the future world philosophy must be more rationalistic than the traditional Chinese philosophy，and more mystical than the traditional Western philosophy. Only a union of rationalism and mysticism will make a philosophy worthy of the one world of the future. This is the first point that I would like to establish here.
A question may be asked：What practical effect can what is called crossing the“boundary”have upon human life？The answer to this question brings me to my second point which concerns the ideal life to be achieved by philosophy.
A philosophy like that of many schools of India would say that when one gets to what is beyond word and thought，one is identified with what is called the absolute reality，and the state of this identification is called nirvana. When one reaches nirvana，one can get rid of the individual immortality cherished by the people of the West but considered a curse in traditional India. Chinese philosophy is not so pretentious. In the Chinese tradition，the practical effect of crossing the boundary is the improvement of life by the elevation of what I would like to call man's sphere of living.
In my book，A New Treatise On the Nature of Man，(7)I have observed that man differs from other animals in that when he does something，he can understand what he is doing and be conscious that he is doing it. It is this understanding and self-consciousness that give significance for him to what he is doing. The varied significance that thus attaches to his various acts，in their totality，constitutes what I call his sphere of living.
Different men may do the same things，but，according to their different degrees of understanding and self-consciousness，these things may have varying significance to them. Every individual has his own sphere of living，which is not quite the same as that of any other individual. Yet in spite of these individual differences，we can classify the various spheres of living into four general grades. Beginning with the lowest，these are：the innocent sphere，the utilitarian sphere，the moral sphere，and the transcendent sphere.
A man may simply do what his instinct or the custom of his society leads him to do. Like children and primitive people，he may do what he does without being self-conscious or with much understanding of what he is doing. Then what he does has little significance，if any，for him. His sphere of living is what I call the“innocent”sphere.
Or a man may be aware of himself and be doing everything for his own sake. That does not mean that he is necessarily an immoral man. He may do something，the consequences of which are beneficial to others，but with a selfish motive. When everything he does has the significance of utility for himself，his sphere of living is what I call the“utilitarian”sphere.
Yet again，a man may come to understand that a society exists of which he is a member. The society constitutes a whole，and he is a part of the whole. Having this understanding，he does everything for the benefit of the society and takes the moral command as a categorical imperative. He is a truly moral man，and what he does is moral action in the strict sense of the word. Everything he does has a moral significance. Hence，his sphere of living is what I call the“moral”sphere.
And finally，a man may come to understand that over and above society as a whole there is the great whole which is the universe. He is not only a member of society but at the same time a member of the universe. Having this understanding，he does everything for the benefit of the universe. He understands the significance of what he does and is self-conscious of the fact that he is doing what he does. This understanding and self-consciousness constitute for him a higher sphere of living，which I call the“transcendent”sphere.
Of the four spheres of living，the innocent and the utilitarian are the products of man as he is，while the moral and the transcendent belong to man as he ought to be. The former two are the gifts of nature，while the latter two are the creation of the spirit. The innocent sphere is the lowest，the utilitarian comes next，then the moral，and finally the transcendent. This is so because the innocent sphere requires almost no understanding and self-consciousness，whereas the utilitarian and the moral require more，and the transcendent requires most. The moral sphere is that of moral value，and the transcendent is that of what may be called supermoral value.
According to the tradition of Chinese philosophy，the function of philosophy in general and of metaphysics in particular is to help man achieve the two spheres of living which are the creation of the spirit. The transcendent sphere must be thought of as the sphere of philosophy，because it cannot be achieved unless through philosophy one gains some understanding of the universe. But the moral sphere，too，is a product of philosophy. Moral actions are not simply actions that accord with the moral rule，nor is a moral man one who simply cultivates certain moral habits. He must act and live with understanding of the moral principle involved；otherwise his sphere of living may be simply an innocent one. It is the business of philosophy to give him this understanding.
In Chinese philosophy，the Taoists emphasized the delight and happiness which one can have in the highest sphere of living. But to the Confucianists，the elevation of one's sphere of living to the highest is not merely a matter of pleasure and enjoyment，but a realization of man as a man. A man may be perfect as some particular kind of man，an engineer or a statesman for instance，but may not be perfect as a man. Only man in the highest sphere of living is perfect man. The function of philosophy is to train a man to become a perfect man，who，in his highest achievement，is one with the universe.
But the universe cannot be the object of reason. What we call the universe in philosophy is the totality of all that is. It is equivalent to what the Taoists called the“One.”According to them，since the One is one，it cannot be spoken or thought. When we say“One，” there are already two，the One which is spoken and the speaking of it.
In terms of modern logic，when we think about the totality of all that is，we are thinking reflexively，because we are trying to include ourselves and our thinking in the totality. But when we think about the totality，the totality in our thought logically does not include the particular thought that thinks about the totality. So the totality which we think is not the totality of all that is. The totality of all that is，strictly speaking，is an idea of thought，but such that we must get rid of it in order to have it. And we must first have it in order to get rid of it.
In the Republic，Plato said that the philosopher must be elevated from the“cave”of the sensory world to the world of intellect. If the philosopher is in the intellectual world，he is also in the transcendent sphere of living. Yet the highest achievement of the man living in this sphere is the identification of himself with the universe. As we just have seen，the universe cannot be the object of reason or intellect. So in the identification of oneself with the universe，one also negates the intellect，which is the same as“crossing the boundary.”
The identification of the individual with the universe is the intellectual love of God in Spinoza's theory. By God he also seemed to mean the totality of all that is. But if that is what He is，He cannot be the object of love，just as He cannot be the object of reason. One cannot love Him，except by identifying oneself with Him. This identification must be accomplished by negating the intellect，because only by this negation can one become identified with what cannot be the object of intellect or reason. Yet this identification is an intellectual love，because the negation of intellect is itself an intellectual act. Spinoza did not make this point clear.
By“crossing the boundary”one is absorbed in the“realm of nondistinction and undifferentiableness，” but this absorption must be made by the negation of reason through reason，otherwise the resulting sphere of living is not the fourth，but the first——not the highest，but the lowest. In one sense the baby or the child，in the state of pure experience，as William James called it，also lives in a“realm of nondistinction and undifferentiableness.”But the infant is not absorbed there；he is just there. He is in an innocent sphere of living，which is the gift of nature and not a creation of the spirit. That is why，before crossing the boundary，one must have a clear understanding of the boundary. One must have full use of reason in order to get rid of it. That is why a true mysticism must be preceded by a true rationalism，and why the negative method of metaphysics must be combined with the positive.
It may seem that a philosophy advocating the negation of reason must be other-worldly. This is not necessarily the case，although a true philosophy cannot be merely this-worldly. It is other-worldly in attempting to get rid of man's selfishness and meanness，but this need not mean the exclusion of interest in the ordinary affairs of this world. A true philosophy is both other-worldly and this-worldly，in stressing the realization of the highest sphere of living in the daily tasks of human life.
Achievement of this realization is the main aim and problem of the Chinese philosophical tradition. In my book，The Spirit of Chinese Philosophy ，(8) I have tried to show that this problem has been central in the progress of Chinese philosophy from the time of Confucius to the present.
The man in the transcendent sphere，who is called the“sage”in Chinese philosophy，cannot perform miracles，nor need he try. He does nothing more than most people do，but，having a higher understanding，what he does has a different significance. In other words，he does what he does in a state of enlightenment，while other people do what they do in a state of ignorance. This，which results from his understanding，constitutes the highest sphere of living，which is realized by him in the daily tasks of human life. According to the Chinese tradition，this is the ideal life to be achieved by philosophy.
What Chinese philosophy reveals about life is just this open secret. It simply takes life as a fact of nature and tries to improve it spiritually in order to make the best of it. Here is not simply a body of moral teachings or religious dogmas，as some people suppose. Here is an age-old attempt to transform the meaning and value of daily life to make it most worth while in the best sense. This is why，throughout Chinese history，philosophy could guide spiritual life without any supernaturalism，and also guide practical life without being vulgar or mundane. If China can make a contribution toward a future world philosophy，it will be this open secret of realizing the highest values in daily life itself，in addition to the method of “crossing the boundary”through the negation of reason.
FUNG YU-LAN
Reprinted from The Philosophical Review，Vol.57，No.6（Nov.，1948），PP. 539-549.
————————————————————
(1) Acknowledgment is due to my colleague Professor V.M.Ames and Mrs.Ames，who read the manuscript and made suggestions.
(2) Twentieth Century Philosophy，ed.D.D.Runes，p.315.
(3) Timaeus，51.
(4) See Fung Yu-Lan，“The Philosophy of Chu Hsi，” trans. by Derk Bodde，Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies，7（1942），1-51.
(5) Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics，trans.by Paul Carus，p.125.
(6) Ibid.，p.133.
(7) Chungking：Commercial Press，1943.（In Chinese.）
(8) Trans. by E. R. Hughes （London：Kegan Paul，1947）.