Hu Shih, pragmatism, and the Chinese tradition.
详细信息
文摘
This is a study of the interpretation of pragmatism by Hu Shih (1890-1962). On several occasions, Hu identified his major intellectual and practical activities in terms of the introduction and application of John Dewey's (1859-1952) pragmatism. My inquiry shows that Hu's interpretation of pragmatism, however, embodied a mode of thinking closer to the traditional Chinese Neo-Confucian idea of self-cultivation (hsiu-shen) than to the ideas of Dewey.;In spite of Hu's adoption of some Deweyan ideas, such as the emphases on method rather than absolute values and on the consequences of actions, while Dewey emphasized the role of objective conditions and aimed at controlling the environment, Hu was more concerned with the ideas and dispositions of the individual and appealed to his/her decision to change the self. As I have illustrated by explicating Hu's ideas concerning scientific method, the study of history, the issue of valuation, and the approach to social and political change, this basic difference between Dewey and Hu had also led to a variety of implications that deserve our attention.;I have been able to uncover this distinctive character of Hu's thought by identifying the differences that existed between Hu and Dewey, by examining the inner logic of their arguments and their modes of thinking, and by exploring the nature of the pragmatist emphasis on judgment based on the consequences of actions. In addition, I suggest that, rather than consciously propagating this particular mode of thinking, Hu appears to have inherited it from his early education of the Neo-Confucianism of Chu Hsi (1130-1200). Notwithstanding his later changes, Hu retained the same emphasis on the individual's self-effort, an idea which was prominent in the Neo-Confucian idea of self-cultivation and, in Hu's case, was reinforced by his readings of Western sources with respect to the individual's development. At the same time, Hu's predominant interest in philology, his limited concern for social and economic matters, and his inadequate study of Dewey's writings all helped prevent him from breaking through this mode of thinking.