China and the West

Interview : Zhang Shenfu and Vera Schwarcz about Bertrand Russell.
Zhang Shenfu : I believe I understand Russell. Maybe I am the only one in China who really does. Russell himself did not understand Confucius. But, in fact his thought is very close to Confucius. I see this similarity even if nobody else does. Even if Russell were to deny it. My philosophy brings them together. I am like a bridge (qiao liang), you might say. Among all philosophers I have read, and there have been so many, those two are the ones I respect and admire the most.
I did not invite Russell to China – Liang Qichao did. I did not translate his public lectures. Zhao Yuanren, an American-educated young man, did. I did not even translate Russell's lecture notes. A member of the New Tide Society, Sun Fuyuan did. I was not even involved in the founding of the Chinese 'Russell Society' in 1921. I had already gone to France. Your friend does not tell my story but that of others who stayed on in China after I left. I did something else, something maybe more important. I translated Russell's philosophy. I introduced him to Chinese readers as an important modern thinker. I think I set the stage for informed appreciation.
I was the first to translate most of Russell's key texts into Chinese. Others followed with longer books, more technical works. But I introduced all the key phrases, all the key themes. I was the first to notice and to emphasize what was new in Russell's thought. For example, I was the first to emphasize the concept of philosophy as 'the science of the possible' – though I am not sure where this concept appears in Russell's works. I was also the first to translate and interpret the logical concept of 'gui lun' – from the English 'falsification' – which is fundamental for all of logical analysis. I also translated the concept of 'analysis' very differently from all others. I used the Chinese term 'jie xi' instead of the more commonly used 'fen xi'. Why, you wonder ? Because I believe 'jie xi' is more logical. It also sounds more new somehow. 'Fen xi' suggests something being cut up. Scattered, severed – as if by one blow. 'Jie xi', by contrast is not so simple. How is it more complex, you ask ? I feel that there are many more steps involved in 'jie xi'. When something is subjected to logical analysis, it is a slow, systematic operation. 'Fen xi' was widely accepted as a synonym for 'analysis' when I began my work on Russell. But I did not think it conveys the full implications of Russell's thought. It was too simple. So I made an innovation through translation. Maybe this is my most important contribution to clarifying Russell's work in twentieth-century China.
But Russell, you see, ended up so one-sided in his philosophical outlook. His philosophy is useful in seeing only discrete parts of a problem. I wanted to think about the whole. In many ways Russell was biased. He opposed materialism. But materialism and idealism are just wo sides of the same coin. Materialism does not see the heart (or 'mind', xin) while idealism fails to appreciate outward realities. My own philosophy seeks for a more comprehensive view of experience, for a more thorough realism, for an expansive objectivity. So I went back to certain ideas in Chinese philosophy – especially to the Confucian notions of 'ren' (tolerance, humanism) and 'zhong' (the unprejudiced golden mean).