Man Vs. Nature and Natural Man:

One Aspect of the Concept of Nature in China and the West

Chen Kuide

It is becoming more and more widely accepted that many important differences between relatively independent cultures of mankind may, in reality, be traced back to earlier, especially to so-called “Axial age” (around 500 BC). The basic hypotheses, value systems and modes of thinking which extensively dominate the various cultures were established at that time. This is especially true in philosophy. It raises the problem of identifying the essential factors, which confront people in different cultures and exert a great influence in generating the above-mentioned hypotheses, value systems, etc.

Undoubtedly, people in every culture must first deal wit their natural environment; their basic problem must be that of the relationship between “Man and Nature.” True, a problem such as how people should form a community or a society must be important, but even problems of this kind arise from man's primary need to cope with nature so as to protect and develop himself. Therefore, the relation between men as well as social ethics is derivative of the relation of “Man and Nature.” We can move a step further and suggest that refection upon, and behavioral response to the essential problem of “Man and Nature” greatly influence the features of particular cultures, especially their basic philosophical hypotheses, modes of thinking and value systems.

Despite apparent differences, theoretical research about early features of cultures all touch upon the cause-effect relation between the natural environment of a certain culture and its reflection on the problem of “Man and Nature.” This paper is concerned with the basic differences between the philosophical reactions to the relation of “Man and Nature” in Chinese and Western cultures, the elements related to this difference and present developments in this respect.

MAN'S NATURE AND NATURAL MAN

A correlation between the natural environment and culture seems undeniable. Ancient Greek civilization, one of the sources of Western culture, supports this point of view, for the Greeks attached great importance to the natural environment and its influence. Hippocrates, father of medicine and Greek scholar, suggested a theory of difference with regard to geography, soil and climate: “human physiognomies may be divided between: a mountain type resulting from rich forests and water; a scarcity of water type on barren marshland; and a marshland type where there is wide low land that drains well… Human body and character depend largely upon the natural circumstances.”

The modern Irish writer G. Bernard Shaw agreed, A.J. Toynbee, the famous historian, disagreed, adding the untestable physical and behavioral reaction of human response. Nevertheless, his reciprocal behavioral model of “challenge and response” does consider the challenge from natural circumstances to be one of the prerequisites of civilization, and in the final analysis he still includes human reaction to the relation between “Man and Nature” among the essential elements that form early civilization.

In detailed research, however, this emphasis upon the hostility of natural circumstances seems insufficient to explain the birth of all cultures and only potentially reflects the natural circumstances in which ancient Greek civilization came into being. For example, as the islands in the Aegean Sea had poor soil tree fifths of the land was unfit for cultivation, while commerce and fishing often suffered from storms. Therefore life in this area was challenging. This kind of seashore and hilly land is a typical non-agriculture area. Though nature provided scant food, the beautiful sea and landscapers compensated for this loss. Meanwhile, for the sake of commerce, it was necessary to predict storms. All this helped form basic visual-centered hypotheses for knowledge of nature. The rise of commerce that made possible communication among states and resulted in the exchange of cultural outlooks also helped to create an open, even aggressive, culture. In view of this, it is not difficult to understand why the basic Greek hypothesis was one of the separations between the subject and the object. Give this contrast between man and nature, the basic aim of Greeks was to know the laws of nature so as to conquer and reform it.

Thus, early (Pre-Socratic) Greek philosophy was focused upon nature or “nature-centered.” Contrary to man by whom it is to be known and conquered, this nature will be termed “Man's nature” in this paper. This rational, analytic and logicized outlook sets man and nature as opponents. It is characterized by a separation between subject and object, and by a dualism that counterpoises the two in mutual confrontation.

Another main element, the Hebrew element, in the formation of Western culture contributes a transcendent dimension. In some respect this has something to do with the natural environment which surrounded the Jews, their national characteristic and their unfortunate historical experiences.

The barren environment, the bitter racial surroundings, and the misfortune of being conquered by other countries exerted great influence upon the Hebrew psyche and the essential features of Hebrew civilization. As “the chosen of God,” they imputed that all their suffering to their betrayal of God. That is, they believed that worldly seeking and satisfaction were evils against God; man should regard worldly life as a punishment from God, as a hell of degradation. The only way to save oneself was to be converted to God, to regard worldly life was a pilgrimage to heaven and thus transcend the real world. This led to a highly transcendent cultural psychology and to philosophical hypotheses contrasting God and man, heaven and the world. In this philosophical horizon, God and heaven are transcendent, outside of man and beyond his reach. The combination of Hebrew transcendence caused by religion and the Greek separation of subject and object based upon reason formed Christian civilization or Western culture.

But this “challenge-response” model cannot be applied without limit, especially in meeting other cultures. In fact, hostility to nature represents only the basic feature of seaside environment or of hubs of communication; it cannot be a feature of all cultures. For example, it is quite alien to the Far Eastern continental and agricultural milieus.

Clearly, the cultural formation of ancient China is typically continental and agricultural. For this vast land – with the Pacific Ocean to the East, the Gobi desert to the Northwest, Qingzhuang Plateau to the West and Siberia and Mongolia to the North – contact with the outer world was difficult. China was seen as “the center of the world” and the people living here for generations developed a corresponding illusion that influenced their cultural psychology. This continent did not experience the drastic climatic changes of ancient Greece or Europe ; here, the climate is mild, plants prosper and agriculture is the backbone of life. Since nature provides man with what e needs, and good will surpasses hostility, man cultivated a kind feeling toward the land, even combining himself with it. As nature did not present a serious challenge to man or threaten his life, philosophical hypotheses did not separate man and nature, or regard nature as something dead opposed to man, or an object to be known and conquered. On the contrary, these hypotheses emphasized agreement between man and nature. They held that the former was the product of the latter and that the two were one: “Knowing all one's nature and finally knowing the laws of nature ( Tian ),”said Mencius. (Note that Tian in Chinese means: 1, nature, 2. heaven, 3. laws of nature.) Therefore, in Chinese culture the study of nature retreated from primary to secondary place. Ancient Chinese philosophy focused upon moral, human and social relations, upon shaping an image of man, and finally elaborated a “human-centered” culture.

In this culture what is the best example for man, what principle should one follow in order to be a man? The answer is nothing other tan nature, or Tian-Di (Heaven and Earth). The so-called “ Tian-Di , ruler, parents, teacher” means that nature ( Tian-Di ) is above teacher, even parents and ruler. The various schools in Pre-Ch'in (Dynasty), thought differing in particulars, agreed upon the following of nature, belief in an intimate relation between man and nature. This can be seen in the following quotations:

• Lao Tzu's basic hypothesis was that man should follow nature: “Man follows Di (Earth), Di follows Tian (Heaven), Tian follows Tao (Way), Tao follows nature” (Tao Te Ching; Heaven Chap. 25).
• Confucius took nature as man's bosom friend by saying: “Who knows me but Tian?” ( Xian Wen , 14, Cap. 35).
• Yi Zhuan illustrates the Tao of man by means of the Tao of Tian: “Tang Wu revolution followed Tian, and therefore applied to man” ( Yi Zhuan , p. 341-342).
• Mencius declared: “Everything is bestowed on me” ( Jin Xin I, Chap. 4).
• Chuang Tzu followed nature in a calm manner and without intensive efforts: “You are perfect when you know nature and man” ( Da Zhong Shi ).

In these quotations, most ancient Chinese thinkers believed that the “little cosmos” of man and the “great cosmos” of Tian-Di share the same natural feature: the two are correlative and correspond on to the other, as is expressed by the term: “interaction of man and nature.” Once we know this we can thoroughly understand the fact that people predicted their fate by examining the movements of the sun, the moon and the starts, and could call someone “a star descending to the world.” This, of course, does not mean that everyone is the “true man” following nature. It is only a model of the Chinese cultural ideal: The perfect or true man is the one who “knows fate,” who is the disciple of nature, who follows nature, who performs the will of nature and who himself is part of nature. His character is in accordance with laws of nature (Way of Heaven); immanently he actually contains these laws. This is the essential hypothesis, quite characteristic in Chinese philosophy: the unity of nature and Man. In this paper the man with ideal personality is called “natural man”. This manifests that Chinese philosophy is essentially monistic and immanent. Monism here indicates that “Nature” and “Man” are not different objects independent of and separate from, each other, but form an inseparable unity.

Chuang Tzu sought to “go along with the law of nature and adapt to changes of the six kinds of air, (“ Xiao Yao You ” thus minimizing individuality and excluding self-centeredness and other elements contrary to nature. This is what Chuang Tzu meant by “Xiao Yao,” free and unfettered in nature: “ Tian-Di (Heaven and Earth) with me, everything with me” ( Qi Wu Lun ). This, finally, is the “true man.”

In brief, few ancient Chinese thinkers advocated that man should be separated from nature; it is only a minor current of thought. Moreover, we should not ignore the fact that for man to be separated from nature implied the latent prerequisite that man and nature were united and unseparated in origin. If nature and man were independent substances, there would be no need to divide them.

In sharp contrast to western philosophy, Chinese pre-Ch'in (Dynasty) philosophical schools did not think of Tian-Di and nature as transcendental objects, independent of man and in another world, nor did they believe that there was another deified Tian (heaven) or creator beyond everything in the world. There was no such concept as two absolutely separated and independent cosmos. Their cosmos was naturally formed, monistic and immanent. There was no room for exterior transcendence in Chinese philosophical hypotheses. There was no place in the hypotheses of Chinese philosophy for a dualistic contrast between man and nature, for the concept that I was man's duty to know and conquer nature, or for a separation of subject and object.

In sum, the emphasis upon “natural man” in Chinese philosophy and upon “man's nature” in western philosophy are drastically different from the beginning. The features are natural for Chinese culture originating in an agricultural society located in the environment of the Central Plains at that time.

DUALISM AND ITS CRITIQUE: THE WESTERN APPROACH TO CHINESE PRINCIPLES

As has been illustrated, Western civilization with Greek and Hebrew elements as its main components is basically dualistic. In Greek civilization this has its source in the hypothesis of a separation of subject and object. From the outset, nature appeared as something outside man. This hypothesis constituted the basis for a naturalistic, logicized and epistemological civilization.

Note that the definition of dualism in this paper is based on an absolute separation of subject and object. If this separation is the prerequisite of human epistemological activities, the basic spiritual orientation of civilization is dualistic. Thus, many so-called doctrines of monism in history, for example Hobbes' monistic materialism and Hegel's monistic absolute idealism, were more basically dualistic in the sense that only on the ground of the separation of subject and object could they develop their ontological systems.

The impassable gulf between man and God in Hebrew civilization gradually became more apparent and deeper in Christian culture. These two factors were unchangeably independent and unrelated, not two poles of a unity.

The basic dualism in western culture gave rise to various dualistic oppositions in Western philosophy and religion: nature and super-nature, God and man, the creator and the created, subject and object, cause and effect, soul and body, spiritual and material, general and particular, phenomenon and essence, form and matter, knowledge and opinion, idea and action, theory and praxis, reason and experience, and so forth.

This fundamental opposition within culture formed a certain dynamic tension, tendency and immanent dynamic that made the dualistic powers and Greek and Hebrew elements grow or decline, rise or fall, conflict or combine; it brought about historic revolutions and development in the culture which it thereby rendered dynamic.

In their primary principles, the fundamental contrast between Chinese and Western cultures is that of “monism” and “dualism”, “combination” and “separation”, “immanence” and “transcendence.” The rest of the differences are attached to these primary ones.

Anyone who studies Western culture will soon feel two different or even contrary fields – two different worlds: the objective and the subjective, nature and man. The former, submitting to the iron scientific law, with the objectivity as its basic feature, is a dead, quantitative, geological and physical world in which everything except man has its own place. The latter, with subjectivity as its basic feature, is the live, qualitative, psychological world full of feeling, reason and free will. The two are absolutely separate and independent. The cosmos is divided into two quite different parts. The latter is only the audience for the former which it observes, recognizes, studies and conquers, whereas the former is basically passive, analyzed and discovered. From this there develops a culture oriented toward strict logic, analysis, preciseness and science. At the same time, it should be noted that this logicized culture is closely linked with the dualistic hypotheses above. Indeed, it is when this culture focuses its attention upon nature as dead and opposite to man that the logical, geological, scientific and objective cultural patterns emerge.

This logicized and dualistic pattern is further strengthened by the “subject-predicate” pattern in Western language systems. The main Western language systems (Greek, Latin, English, German, French, etc.) belong to the Indo-European linguistic family. All use the basically dualistic “subject-predicate” pattern. This is potentially influential for such philosophical prerequisites as the dichotomy of substance and attribute. As the English mathematician, logician and philosopher A.N. Whitehead noted:

Here the reaction between his (Aristotle's) philosophy and his logic worked very unfortunately. In his logic, the fundamental type of affirmative proposition is the attribution of a predicate to a subject… The unquestioned acceptance of the Aristotelian logic has led to an ingrained tendency to postulate a substratum for whatever is disclosed in sense-awareness, namely, to look below what we are aware of for the substance in the sense of the concrete thing… Accordingly ‘substance'… is a correlative term to ‘prediction'.

It is not clearly known which – language or philosophical hypotheses – was the cause and which the effect. However, the fact that they are related through positive feedback and that both have contributed to each other is unquestionable. We cannot ignore the positive impact of Western language systems upon its dualistic cultural formation.

In Western dualistic, logicized and analytic culture, the cosmos is divided into two separate parts. This separation became all the greater with the emergence of Cartesianism. Descartes defined spirit and matter as two independent substances that could not be linked. His theory, carrying the tension within Western philosophy to the extreme, became the origin of a series of arguments and prejudices, which extended until the end of the last century. Two worlds, two sets of truth, yet without truth: this became the tragedy of Western culture when dualism was carried to its extremes. But when things become extreme they develop in the opposite direction. Thus, since the end of the 19 th century a new spiritual tendency directed toward the Oriental has developed.

In the Twentieth century, in the fields of philosophy and science there arose a critical introspective trend that reexamined these cultural hypotheses, especially the dualistic opposition. The philosophers by their insight and the scientists by their achievements met in a general tendency to emphasize cosmic organicism, systematization, wholeness and unity. Their stress upon the concept that man is product and part of nature, upon the philosophical connotation of the harmony and the agreement between the two, had something in common with the basic hypotheses of Chinese philosophy.

H. Bergson was the first to criticize the belief in traditional logicized Western modes of thought. Whereas the traditional concept regarding nature was still and lifeless, he emphasized the creative flow of life in nature.

In William James's theory the subject-object and soul-material dualisms and the epistemological orientation came under ever-greater challenge. John Dewey questioned dualism in every form: nature and life, mind and body, material and form, feeling and reason, action and standard. Further, he pointed out that experience should be, not a wall separating man and nature, but a link between the two as fundamentally continuous and united.

A.N. Whitehead sharply attacked “The bifurcation of nature” and tried to build a bridge between man and nature, between what was spiritual and what material. “We require that the deficiencies in our concept of physical nature should be supplied by its fusion with life. And we require that, on the other hand, the notion of life should involve the notion of physical nature” (Whitehead, Modes of Thought , p. 205).

M. Heidegger opposed especially the so-called idea of an “objective world” which regards the world as an epistemological object for the subject. He pointed out that in German the term “object” had the etymological meaning of “opposite,” whereas it was the concept of “opposite” that Heidegger tried hard to eliminate. In his later philosophical works, he regarded Lao Tzu's Tao and his own philosophy to be similar in tone. In The Way to Language he had arrived at an interfusion of nature and man.

A similar rebellion was taking place among natural scientists. N. Bohr argued that modern science, especially quantum physics had shown that “Man is both the audience and the actor on the stage of nature.” This emphasized man's involvement in nature as caused by modern science.

“The Principle of Uncertainty” in quantum mechanics discovered by W. Heisenburg tells us that there is no “pure objective reality” because of the uncontrollable interaction between observation and phenomena. The Greek subject-object dualistic “pure observation” is gone forever: the distinction between subject and object, man and nature, self and universe, once limited by the principle of uncertainty was no longer absolute. The development of science has led to what Bohr calls “the principle of integrality” and “the principle of complementarity.” To illustrate these principles, Bohr quotes time and again from Buddha and Lao Tzu. We can easily find in Bohr's works statements similar to such propositions as “correspondence between man and nature,” and “interfusion of nature and man.”

Prigogine, founder of the theory of dissipative structures, claims that the separation of man and nature hypothesized by Western philosophy and science has, through the development of science itself, come nearly to an end. The theory of dissipative structure about self-organization in non-equilibrium systems has probed into the laws shared both by the inorganic and organic worlds, built a bridge between live and dead things, and introduced unity between man and nature on the bases of scientific achievement. Prigogine also mentioned his admiration for ancient Chinese philosophy.

A CRITIQUE OF UNITY IN CHINESE THOUGHT: A SEARCH FOR SOME FACTORS IN WESTERN THOUGHT

 The direction of this new trend in Western culture is quite clear. However, we should avoid being misled by it and blindly contented. This paper does not intend to over-emphasize a trend toward, or an admiration for, oriental culture: just the contrary. Hence, it will attempt to illustrate briefly the following three points.

First, the comparison of the historical richness of the two. True, some Western philosophers and scientists over a long period of time have established a concept of integral nature with such anti-dualistic features as the unity of subject and object and of man and nature. This must be seen in the context of the basically dualistic Western cultural background and moves from “man as contrary to nature” to “natural man.” The words, which explain this concept of unity, are undoubtedly similar to the ancient Chinese philosophical hypothesis of the Interfusion of Nature and Man, but they carry a quite different meaning. The former is the result of overcoming obstacles and proceeds through a spiral development, while the latter is primary, continuous and without negation. One is dynamic, the other is static. As far as richness and concreteness are concerned there is a difference also in the range and depth of the historical connotation, and at present in the main historical trend and challenge confronting the two. In brief, the inert primary hypotheses of the Chinese culture are by no means advantageous.

Secondly, there is a difference in basic methodological principles. Though the critical reexamination by Western philosophers and scientists of some primitive hypotheses in their culture has reached radical conclusions, it must be pointed out that philosophical criticism is still the product of logical deduction. This “logos-centered” doctrine is the inherent prerequisite of Western culture: scientists reach their conclusions through the natural sciences, which are “logos-centered”. It should be noted that the dualistic subject-object principle, which holds that the laws of nature have nothing to do with man, is the basic hypothesis in science. In a logically paradoxical movement the conclusion drawn from this methodological prerequisite has now arrived at its opposite in a logically paradoxical movement. Thus, the Western philosophers and scientists who look critically into their own culture still regard their culture's logic as their basic method.

Though there is a trend toward the primary features of Chinese culture, the foundations of these, that is, the methodological starting points, are essentially quite different. At the same time it should be kept in mind that the conclusions achieved by logical thinking and science may also change according to the same logical deduction or future scientific achievements. That is to say, as change is the character of Western culture, we have no reason to suppose that its basic feature will remain directed toward the concept of unity as some scholars hold now. Nor can we rule out other possible features that may be quite different from those of Chinese culture. We should be clear about this.

Thirdly, let us consider the strengths and weaknesses of the hypotheses in Chinese culture. There are many excellent propositions in the works of Pre-Ch'in (Dynasty) philosophers. As the ancient Chinese language is highly inclusive and condensed, it is rich in meaning and deep in thought; but as it lacks complete logical form it is often polysemous and metaphoric, and thus relatively ambiguous in meaning. The merit of this concise language lies in its self-protection from questioning and negation by logical argument. On the other hand, the lack of logical forms makes it difficult to establish the objective criterion of its truth and falsehood, its truth or error, and to certify this by facts and deductive reasoning.

On further study, we find also that the early linguistic expression of this culture is aesthetic in its essence. It can enlighten varied kinds of images, and has a strong poetic quality; it is full of genial intuition, cleverness and enlightenment. But it is short of Platonic, Aristotelian and Euclidean logical deduction; it is not “logos-centered.” Therefore, it is very hard for Chinese culture totally to falsify or reject any proposition, for lack of an acknowledged criterium to judge a theory or a school. We can say whether a poem is beautiful, but now whether it is right. The process of break-up and falsification needed for historical development and revolution can hardly happen. For reasons mentioned above, deepening ancient Chinese philosophical propositions and theories, as well as new and creative achievements, are nearly impossible; vitality shrinks. Due to their linguistic features ancient Chinese philosophical propositions are over-broad, over-inclusive, too unspecified, ambiguous and polysemous; their aesthetic intent is more important than their logical intent, and their significance is greater in enlightening than for knowledge. They acquire tenacity against refutation and falsification, and hence are conducive to stagnation and conservatism.

In one sense, during the last hundred years one of the important tasks for the Chinese cultural reform has been to solve the above problems, namely, in this new age when different cultures meet, how to create within the Chinese culture or assimilate from without the dynamic elements needed for its development. As is known, because of the historical stagnation of the ancient forms, this reform often has changed course, advancing and retreating with great spiritual suffering, social divisions, and upheavals.

In contrast, contemporary western culture has been carrying out a self-examination of its own perduring logos-centered doctrine at unprecedented depth. We cannot say if it is able to escape this position because, in spite of some novel and creative critical texts, at its deepest levels, it continues to emphasize logic. Perhaps this is the ineluctable fate of the West.

In general, both China and the West are facing up to their own history. Clearly these are different and even take contrary directions. The question remains: is there any point of convergence of the two cultures? The answer to that question must be left to history.

1987

Last Updated: May 19, 2004