Chen Weigang: Confucian Humanism and Theodicy

Confucian Humanism and Theodicy

Weigang Chen, Philosophy and Religious Studies Program, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, The University of Macau, Av. Padre Tomás Pereira Taipa, Macau. E-mail: wgchen@umac.mo.

Abstract

This article explores the puzzle of Confucian “divine humanism” in light of the Weberian scheme of religious rationalization. Relating the Confucian humanistic orientation to current discussions of the phenomenon of “amoral familism,” I argue that the Confucian puzzle calls into question the cornerstone of Max Weber’s comparative religion, namely his influential contrast between religious legitimation and theodicy. In particular, the puzzle suggests that in pre-Confucian China, there was no legitimate cosmic-social world order to which Confucianism managed to adjust, let alone to affirm. As a matter of fact, it was the Confucian solution to the problem of theodicy that laid the foundation for the legitimacy of the ethical polity. Hence, inverting what Weber and neo-Weberian theorists have asserted about the religious breakthroughs in the Axial Age, theodicy constituted the religious prerequisite for political legitimation.

80:4 Journal of the American Academy of Religion 932-970 (2012).

Read/download the Full Text [PDF] of this article.

李世默论仇和

美籍华人李世默先生在他的宏文 “The Life of the Party” 中不吝笔墨，用了相当的篇幅论仇和：

There are also thousands of policy experiments that rise up from the local level. The competitive government job market gives capable local officials incentives to take risks and differentiate themselves from the pack. Among the 2,326 party representatives who attended the 18th Party Congress, one such standout was Qiu He, who is vice party secretary of Yunnan Province. At the congress, Qiu was selected as an alternate member of the Central Committee, putting the 55-year-old maverick near the top of the nation’s political establishment. Qiu is the ultimate political entrepreneur. Born into poverty in rural China, Qiu watched two of his eight siblings die of childhood illness and malnutrition. After taking the national college entrance exam, China’s great equalizer, he was able to attend university. When he entered the work force, he held several low-level civil service jobs before being appointed party secretary of Shuyang County, in northern Jiangsu Province, in the 1990s. With a peasant population of 1.7 million and an annual per capita GDP of only $250 (less than one-fifth the national average), Shuyang was one of the poorest rural areas in the country. The county also suffered from the worst crime rate in the region and endemic government corruption.

Qiu carried out a broad range of risky and controversial policy experiments that, if they failed, would have sunk his political career. His first focus was Shuyang’s floundering economy. In 1997, Qiu initiated a mandatory municipal bond purchase program. The policy required every county resident to purchase bonds to fund much-needed infrastructure development. The genius of the plan was twofold. First, he could not have raised the funds through taxes because, at his level, he had no taxation authority. Second, the mandatory bond program offered the citizens of Shuyang something taxes would not have: yes, they were required to buy the bonds, but they eventually got their money back, with interest. Qiu also assigned quotas to almost every county government official for attracting commercial investments. To support their efforts, in addition to building up the area’s infrastructure, Qiu offered favorable tax rates and cheap land concessions to businesses. In just a few years, thousands of private enterprises sprang up and transformed a dormant, centrally planned rural community into a vibrant market economy.

Qiu’s second focus was combating corruption and mistrust between the population and the government. In the late 1990s, he instituted two unprecedented measures to make the selection of officials more open and competitive. One was to post upcoming official appointments in advance of the final decisions to allow for a public comment period. The other was the introduction of a two-tier voting system that enabled villagers to vote among party members for their preferred candidates for certain positions. The local party committee then picked between the top two vote getters.

Qiu initially met tremendous resistance from the local bureaucracy and population. But today, he is credited with turning one of the country’s most backward regions into a vibrant urban center of commerce and manufacturing. Other poor regions have adopted many of his economic policy experiments. Moreover, the public commenting period has been widely adopted across China. Competitive voting is finding its way into ever-higher levels of the party hierarchy. Qiu has been personally rewarded, too, moving rapidly up the ladder: to vice governor of Jiangsu Province, mayor of Kunmin, vice party secretary of Yunnan Province, and now an alternate member of the Central Committee.

Eric X. Li, “The Life of the Party: The Post-Democratic Future Begins in China,” 92 Foreign Affairs 34 (2013).

2016年12月15日人民网新闻：云南原副书记仇和受贿2千多万 被判处14年6个月

冯象：后悔

没有什么比上帝后悔更可怕的了。《创世记》六章，上帝说：我要把我造的人，连同鸟兽爬虫，从大地上通通消灭。当初真不该造他们的！

可是，造物主全能全知，宏图预定一切。他怎会学我们这些“尘土所造，一碰就碎 / 蛾子般的人类”（伯4:19），一件事稍不顺遂就改变主意，就翻悔？“像亚当子孙，常变心”（民23:19）？甚而雷霆震怒，想毁掉自己的亲手所抟？他这是什么意思？

诚然，逻辑学家早已发现，全知和全能这两项品质，是无法兼容于同一主体的。全知即超越可知而预见未来，但那就意味着，凡已知而尚未发生的皆不受干预，便是上帝也不能“搅局”，绝对不能。故全知者不得享全能。反之，全能等于全知失效，此刻所知，下一刻未必归于已知；大能者随时可以介入历史，改写已知的进程（道金斯，页78）。

那么可否设想，耶和华至大，非我们的时空所能容纳，因而行事不必符合逻辑；“一切造化，皆是他的意愿”（诗115:3），属奥秘？像大卫王咏赞的：圣殿约柜只是至高者的脚凳，他永恒的居处却不在我们中间，在重霄之上（诗99:5, 132:7, 33:14）。这么理解，假若指创世原本的目标，是不错的。那是天父认定的“非常之好”（创1:31），自第一个安息日，便给亚当子孙悬起一幅乌托邦画卷，恰好用来对照今世的朽烂。然而，既已完美，它就不会有任何意外或需要改进处，故也无须高踞天庭宝座的那一位眷顾：全知全能，乃因全善而成。

陈维纲：Confucian Marxism: A Reflection on Religion and Global Justice

Confucian Marxism: A Reflection on Religion and Global JusticeConfucian Marxism: A Reflection on Religion and Global Justice. Brill 2013. ISBN: 9789004228986.

Buttressed by an autocratic system, China’s colossal economic growth over the past decades seems to have had the paradoxical effect of undermining the foundation of Western domination but at the same time invigorating Eurocentricism. In particular, it highlights the current relevance of the central conviction of Weber’s Orient: the absence of civic roots in non-Western societies will create a kind of “uncivic” capitalist system in which one has no choice but to seek to compensate for instabilities through authoritarian institutions. Does this mean that the West may alone afford to harmonize political stability with the universalistic ideal of justice as the basic structure of society? If not, how then is it possible to develop a notion of the primacy of social justice that transcends the limits of liberal democracy? This book aims at addressing these timely questions by drawing on “Confucian Marxism”—a distinctive perspective on civil society.

“That’s capitalism for you.”

The Cambridge History of Capitalism很多人（上至 Bill Gates，下至在下）喜欢阅读《经济学家》杂志，不是没有缘由的。比如这篇针对《剑桥资本主义史》（The Cambridge History of Capitalism）的短评，开头结尾都写得有声有色：

ECONOMICS publishing has recently undergone a great democratisation. High-quality academic writing was once confined to a handful of journals, mostly accessible in academic libraries. The journals still exist, but mostly serve to influence university hiring decisions. Writing has overwhelmingly gone online, where ambitious academics release free working papers, plug them on Twitter, and watch the discussion unfold. Though this democratisation has critics, it has vastly expanded the audience for economics writing.

This, in turn, may prime the market for another throwback: the authoritative collection of essays. For readers whose interest has been piqued online, the anthology provides an appealing way to learn about a range of subjects. “The Cambridge History of Capitalism” is an excellent example of the genre. …

[The Cambridge History of Capitalism is] a thoughtful account of capitalism. Rarely is economic history so accessible. Yet it is unclear who is meant to read it. University libraries will buy a copy, but the material is not especially rigorous by academic standards and is better suited to the ordinary reader. The price, however, is not. At £150, the work may not appeal to the casual economics readers who have benefited most from the online revolution. The publishers will have their reasons: large margins may be earned on limited sales to libraries and rich bankers. There is talk of a paperback version. But the upshot, for the moment at least, is that most readers will turn elsewhere for their economic history. That’s capitalism for you.

— Capitalism through the ages: A grand tour

冯象：说罪

罪，不是上帝所造，一如黑暗，如大水深渊。

太初所造，有两个世界，或同一世界有两个版本。其一完美，六天造就，载《创世记》一章：至高者赞“好”（tob），一连七遍。第六日造人，是男女一同受造、蒙福；一起聆诫命，育子孙，统治大地并鸟兽水族。而且，正因为取了天父的形象，每一个人，无分性别肤色脾气才能，都是造物主的模样，映照着圣容。及至圣言九出，充盈天地，上帝完工：看哪，非常之好（tob me’od，创1:31）！

这天父眼里的“非常之好”，自然是了无瑕疵、一个罪人也容不下的，故而必不是我们栖居的家园。

那另一个，版本二，才属于我们。经书上说，它邪恶当道，充斥暴行（创6:11）。为什么？

因为发生了一件不可能之事，那宇宙间第一桩神迹，竟辜负了“神迹之谋士”（pele’ yo`ez，赛9:5）：

“耶和华上帝造地与天之初，大地茫茫，草木全无”。仿佛晨昏倒流，回到创世的第三日，“耶和华上帝还未曾降雨，也没有人开荒耕耘”（创2:4-5）。是的，耶和华上帝——这是版本二为我们透露的圣名——至仁至慈；他于完美之外重启宏图，发清泉滋润大荒，亲手抟土为人（’adam），“朝他鼻孔里吹进生命之气，亚当（’adam）就有了灵魂，活了”。然而接着，就出了问题：全能者自己说的，他的创造亦即神迹“不好”（lo’-tob），“亚当一个人孤零零的不好”（创2:18）。

不，伊甸园怎会存不好？那里是东方，草木葳蕤，园子中央刚长起新树两株，随风摇曳，果子那么鲜美悦目，名为智慧、生命！莫非降神迹的手指也会失误，造人不该放在种蔬果之前，那主宰“太初与永终”的，弄错了顺序？不然，为何那一系列补救措施，取尘土抟鸟兽让亚当一一命名，给他做伴，居然都不达标，不“般配”（kenegdo）？之后，造物主第三趟努力，抽亚当一条肋骨，塑一个女人，名夏娃，才解决问题：男人终于不再孤独，找到了般配的“帮手”或“佑助”（`ezer，创2:18, 20，联想出18:4，申33:26）。

The Complete Posner on Posner Series @ Concurring Opinions

The Posner on Posner series began on November 24, 2014 and ended with the Afterword on January 5, 2015. Below is a hyperlinked list of all the posts.

Table of Contents

  1. The Maverick – A Biographical Sketch of Judge Richard Posner: Part I
  1. The Maverick – A Biographical Sketch of Judge Richard Posner: Part II, The Will to Greatness
  1. The Man Behind the Robes — A Q & A with Richard Posner
  1. The Judge & Company – Questions for Judge Posner from Judges, Law Professors & a Journalist
  1. On Legal Education & Legal Scholarship — More questions for Judge Posner
  1. On Free Expression & the First Amendment — More questions for Judge Posner
  1. On Privacy, Free Speech, & Related Matters – Richard Posner vs David Cole & Others
  1. On Judicial Reputation: More questions for Judge Posner
  1. Posner on Same-Sex Marriage – Then & Now
  1. Posner on Case Workloads & Making Judges Work Harder
  1. The Promethean Posner – An Interview with the Judge’s Biographer
  1. Afterword: Posner at 75 – “It’s My Job”

Forthcoming: Richard Posner (Oxford University Press, Spring, 2015) by William Domnarski.

Richard Posner

冯象：邓析堂对话——与斯特、成凡、柏峰谈法学如何重新出发

李斯特：冯老师，昨晚您的讲座《要当心假先知》，谈到接班人的问题。我想，我们今晚要讨论的“法学如何重新出发”这个题目，应该跟接班人也有关系。这个接班人，肯定不只是说领导人，含义要广得多吧。您能给我们解释一下吗？尤其是在当下，接班人的问题有什么独特的地方？

冯象：是这样的，斯特，接班人问题，我在《法学的历史批判》里提了一句，称之为二十世纪中国革命的一大历史教训（见《北大法律评论》13:2, 2012）。如何反思，总结经验，开辟新路，我以为是一个世界性的难题，也是当前一切进步思想的艰巨探索的总背景。体制内，新世纪的病症，则没那么复杂。主要是干部的选拔培养跟组织官僚化了，搞出一堆死杠杠，像年龄、学历、秘书渠道、政绩指标等等，很多问题都是由此而来的。例如高校，怎么会走上这条邪道的？做老师的，不要求他好好教书育人，成天“评估”甚至“国际评审”他的论文发表、申请课题、学科基地、排行榜名次什么的。难道主事者不知道，这些花招损害学术糟践人才不算，引发了多少腐败，国家的经费也就是老百姓的钱，都打水漂了？当然不是。他只是在应付干部考核罢了。为官一任，必须出政绩，才能升迁。于是把压力转嫁到老师们身上，玩起了核心期刊、英文发表、影响因子的游戏。打着“世界一流”的幌子，其实是官僚制度的流弊。

那么，具体到法学，接班人的困境又是如何呈现的，出路在哪呢？我指的不是师生间的知识传承，也不是学术梯队的建设。这儿我想讨论的，是更新我们的法律教育，抛弃旧法学而重建伦理的可能。

《经济学家》2014年最佳图书

参考：《经济学家》年度最佳图书：2011；2012；2013；2015；2016；2017；2018。

The best books of 2014 were about the South China Sea, the fall of the Berlin Wall, Kaiser Wilhelm II, the publishing of “Ulysses” and capitalism in the 21st century

Politics and current affairs


The People’s Republic of Amnesia: Tiananmen Revisited. By Louisa Lim. Oxford University Press; 248 pages; $24.95 and ￡16.99. Buy from Amazon.com
Twenty-five years after the bloodshed in Beijing, new details keep emerging. This reconstruction, by a correspondent for America’s National Public Radio, is as important for Western readers as it is for the new Chinese generation that has grown up since 1989 and knows little of what happened.


The Tyranny of Silence: How One Cartoon Ignited a Global Debate on the Future of Free Speech. By Flemming Rose. Cato Institute; 240 pages; $24.95. Buy from Amazon.com
The culture editor of the Danish newspaper that published cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad in 2005 offers a personal account of the ensuing controversy and what it means for democracy.

赵士兵：“自干五”是社会主义核心价值观的坚定践行者

话语标本 · DISCOURSE SPECIMEN

《光明日报》2014年11月15日10版

近段时间以来，来自网上两个群体的论战很是热闹。

一个群体以“公知”为名，将“公民”与“知识分子”二者身份结合起来。他们专找现实社会中的阴暗面进行无限放大，引用几段洋人语录就开始在网上信口雌黄，睁眼说瞎话，专挑社会和政府的不是。

还有一个群体叫“自干五”，全称为“自带干粮的五毛”，指那些自觉自愿为社会正能量点赞、为中国发展鼓劲的网民。贬损“自干五”的人说，“自干五”连收钱发帖的“五毛党”都不如，不收钱，只能“自带干粮”。

在此，笔者要旗帜鲜明地站在“自干五”的角度说几句话，因为他们是在实事求是的前提下对污蔑中国的言论进行理性、历史、客观的辟谣、解释和批判。他们不像“网络水军”那样拿钱发帖，而是废寝忘食地自费查资料、找理论；他们鼓励理性思考，习惯引用文献和已有资料来论证自己的观点，而不是盲目占据什么“道德制高点”；他们对能够提供资料并理性思辨者持有宽容态度——这与那些戴着有色眼镜看社会，用尖刻、嘲弄的语言来攻击政府和社会现实的所谓“公知”和“精英”有着本质的不同。

你看“自干五”们，他们遵纪守法，爱国敬业，希望祖国富强繁荣、社会公正廉明，倡导自由民主、知行合一，文明辩论。他们自觉地遵守并践行社会主义核心价值观，其行为无疑充满正能量。

冯象：错扮“公民”

一

国庆节，校园静了，正好写东西。忽接友人短信：下雨啦，出来遛个弯？人艺上演《公民》，“大导”林兆华讲溥仪的故事，争议很大！还没回，电话来了。我说这年头，有哪样营销不靠“争议”吸引眼球？她说不是噱头，是溥仪亲属和授权传记作家严正质疑，说不定哪天就禁演了呢，您一定感兴趣！

被她说中了。我跟《我的前半生》一案，就是溥仪夫人李淑贤同溥仪的合作者李文达先生（及群众出版社）的马拉松官司，有点缘分。那是法学院二年级，选修知识产权，受该案启发，作了一篇论著作权回溯适用跟政法策略演变的文章。投去全美音乐作者与出版家协会（ASCAP），居然得了奖。我留学八年才回国探亲，用的是那笔奖金。而且马上，麻省两位参议员肯尼迪和克里就寄来了贺信——因我是麻省居民，协会通报了他们。其实那会儿法学刚入门，对于抽象物上的私有产权掩饰社会矛盾改写历史等诸多问题，理论上如何把握，远未想明白。真正攒了心得，是在港大教了几年书以后。所以后来带研究生，也不要求他们想法成熟了再动笔，论证略不周全亦无妨。第一要紧的是能调查实际，有理论自觉，见潜力。年轻人做学问，不能让一篇仅有五个人读（往往也就随便翻翻）的论文给拽住了。

胡凌：法律如何适应高速变化的互联网行业

网络杂谈之二十八

3Q大战反垄断案终于落下帷幕，最高人民法院详细地对即时通信市场的界定和腾讯是否滥用市场支配地位进行了阐释，维持一审判决。互联网行业是一个高速变化的行业，尽管该案处理的是2010年的个人电脑软件不兼容纠纷，但在今天互联网公司们早已开始转战移动互联网和移动设备终端，未来则会出现更多的信息终端（可穿戴设备、汽车）和服务形式，新市场有待开拓。终审判决表明，反垄断法在面对高科技企业纠纷时应保持克制，通过监管不正当竞争行为的举措能更有效帮助互联网行业有序发展，而更多的纠纷则需要交由创新本身得以规避和解决。

最高法院的判决思路仍然是按照传统反垄断法逻辑展开：首先以相当的篇幅对即时通信市场的界定进行阐述，特别是QQ聊天软件与其他信息服务之间的可替代性问题，并纠正了一审法院认为相关地域市场为全球市场的判断，对中国大陆市场进行了更加具体细致的分析。接着从市场份额、相关市场的竞争状况、被诉经营者控制商品价格、数量或者其他交易条件的能力、该经营者的财力和技术条件、其他经营者对该经营者在交易上的依赖程度、其他经营者进入相关市场的难易程度等因素对腾讯是否具有市场支配地位进行分析，认为尽管QQ软件的市场份额较高，但在一个高度竞争的即时通信市场上并不具有胁迫用户的能力，也就谈不上滥用市场支配地位。总体而言，最高法院判决既深度关注个案中的市场划分方法，又为一般性的互联网企业的反垄断认定提供了思路。

胡凌：网络中立在中国

网络杂谈之二十七

“网络中立”（net neutrality）争论源起于美国，扩展到欧洲，最初由宪法学者提出，涉及网络服务提供商（ISP）公平非歧视地为各种网站提供传输服务，特别是非盈利性网站，确保基本的传输质量，保证网络言论表达自由。他们担心ISP只为出价高者提供好的传输服务，却可能歧视众多中小内容服务商，特别是存在利益竞争关系的时候。这种主张还和互联网发展早期的“端到端”（end-to-end）原则和开放架构结合起来，认为正在出现的非中立性专有网络会遏制终端创新，特别是“纵向一体化”（vertical integration）模式。这种上升到意识形态高度的主张没有看到互联网的形态及其服务一直在发生变化，特别是移动互联网发展和接入服务技术的多元化；事实上也很难说创新和消费者福利在整体上降低了。

冯象：法律与文学——《木腿正义》代序

有四样东西，人若认真去想，不如干脆不出娘胎：天上、地下、过去、未来。
Talmud, Hagigah, 2.1

世上本没有抽象的原型，只有她的身体；而身体最美的部位，在她肚子里面。为什么？因为宝宝怀在那儿，你亮堂堂的甜鸡巴乐在那儿，美味佳肴统统落在那儿。难怪人觉得美，觉得了不起。还有迷宫，不就是照着我们那根九曲回肠的样子造的？……所以高比低好，因为头朝下的时候，脑子会充血难受；因为脚臭，头发不那么臭；因为上树摘果子比钻土里喂虫子好……。所以天使住天上，魔鬼住地下。
Umberto Eco, Foucault’s Pendulum, 63

“法律与文学”是滥觞于美国法学院的一个激进的法理学派。因其批判性立场，论者更愿意把它称作一场“运动”。一般把创始人的荣誉归于密执安大学的怀特（James B. White）教授，而把他编的一本教材《法律的想象》（1973）尊为该运动的奠基之作[1]。但直到八十年代中，“法律与文学”在美国法学院才站住了脚跟，并逐渐向英国和其他普通法国家的法学院传布开去[2]。

我是一九八九年写完哈佛的文学博士论文以后转向法律的。那一年，“法律与文学”的一员主将威斯堡（Richard H. Weisberg）教授，在纽约卡度佐法学院创办了美国第一份“法律与文学”学报《卡度佐法律与文学研究》（Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature）。而在耶鲁（记得也是威氏的母校），则刚刚出版了由学生主编的《耶鲁法律与人文学刊》（Yale Journal of Law and Humanities），定期举办“法律与文学”讲座。于是我恰好赶上了这运动开始兴旺发达的时候。

大约因为我的文学兼法律的背景，不断有朋友鼓动写文章介绍、评论“法律与文学”。但我一直不甚积极，原因有两条：一是这运动原本是继七十年代“批判法学”而起，以批判在美国法学院占主流地位的法律经济学（亦称法律的经济分析）为己任的。我虽然在耶鲁的法律、经济与公共政策中心做过研究，却从来没有在法律经济学上用功（只是按时跟几个经济学家聚餐，知道他们的口味及胃口好坏而已）。既然不懂批判的对象，似乎便不好对批判者的立场和观点随便说三道四。二是当时“法律与文学”的路子，偏重叙事（narrative）或故事性文本，颇受文学界解构主义（如德里达）、心理分析（如拉康）等法国后现代主义思潮的影响，学术游戏的“玩”味极浓，跟我所关心的中国的法制改革很难“接轨”。

8 of 60
456789101112