PLATO IN MODERN CHINA: A STUDY OF CONTEMPORARY CHINESE

PLATONISTS
by
Leihua Weng
Bachelor of Arts
Zhejiang University, 2001
Master of Arts
Peking University, 2005
___________________________________________
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Comparative Literature
Languages, Literatures and Cultures
College of Arts and Sciences
University of South Carolina
2010
Accepted by:
Paul Allen Miller, Major Professor
Meili Steele, Committee Member
Jie Guo, Committee Member
Mark Beck, Committee Member
Tim Mousseau, Dean of the Graduate School

UMI Number: 3433192

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3433192
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

 Copyright by Leihua Weng, 2010

All rights reserved

ii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to James, and to Garfield

who never considers himself to be a cat.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Completion of this graduate program and dissertation would not have been possible
without the input, guidance, support, and patience of my committee, my family and my friends.
As director of my committee, Dr. Paul Allen Miller, offered tremendous guidance and
assistance from the inception to the completion of this project. His knowledge, his strategic
advice and his vision inspired me to continue reading and researching in this area. His support
and encouragement repeatedly saved this dissertation project. Half the good ideas in this paper,
were conceived during our conversations, and most of the rest, came to me immedeately after.
Likewise, the suggestions and contributions of Dr. Jie Guo are much appreciated for the
countless ways in which they made the project deeper and more scholarly. Her knowledge and
expertise in Chinese studies prompted me to explore more deeply many important aspects of this
topic that I would otherwise have overlooked. Her careful readings and critiques made this into a
much stronger dissertation.
The works of Dr. Meili Steele and Dr. Beck greatly enhanced this project. I thank them
for their contributions.
My family has stood by me in many ways through years of academic pursuits. I
especially thank my brother Nianxia, who can proudly announced to the world that he has
successfully assisted his old sister to become a Ph. D.
Last, but in no way least, I thank James whose love, care, and strong support guided my
daily steps. Without his skillful handling of our domestic chores, combined with merciless
iv

reminders to get on with it, it is hard to imagine this project could have ever been completed.
I want to thank University of South Carolina and the entire North American academic
community, which I am so proud to have become a part of.

ABSTRACT
This dissertation focuses on the Hermeneutic approach to reading and translating Plato
since the 1990s, in the larger context of Platonic reception generally. The dissertation is based on
a philological analysis of the translations, commentaries and discussions of the Platonic works in
contemporary China, and examines the influence of Leo Strauss on these Chinese interpretations
of Plato. The Hermeneutic approach to Plato adopted by contemporary Chinese Platonists, with
its genealogical connection to the Phenomenological School in the Great Culture Discussion of
the mid 1980s, is identified as an effort to address the problems of modernity in China.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION .............................................................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. vi

INTRODUCTION: Chinese Platonic Study as an Academic School ......................................... l

CHAPTER ONE: Philological Aspects and Underlying Themes 12
CHAPTER TWO: Chinese Platonists as Straussians... 44
CHAPTER THREE: Phenomenological/Hermeneutic Approach to
Plato and Chinese Modernity . ..85
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 122
WORKS CITED ........................................................................................................................ 123

vii

INTRODUCTION: Chinese Platonic Study as an Academic School

This dissertation discusses features and underlining concerns of a group of
contemporary Chinese scholars who study Platos dialogues in China since the 1990s.
Sharing same or similar views and approaches, they are considered in this dissertation
as constituting an academic school which differs from other academic groups in
contemporary China. This chapter provides a general picture of this group of scholars
as an academic school in the contemporary Chinese academic arena, including their
main features, basic approaches, representative scholars as well as a brief
contextualization with other academic schools and intellectual trends in contemporary
China.
The contemporary Chinese Platonic Study in this dissertation refers to a
particular group of Chinese scholars who translate, comment, and introduce works of
Plato and the Platonic study with special approaches and concerns since the end of 20
century. Their academic activities go around the translation project Platonis opera
omnia cum commentariis in Chinese Translations, with approaches heavily influenced
by American political philosopher Leo Strauss. There are two identifiable features of
this group of scholars. They are more or less connected to the translation project
1

Platonis opera Omnia cum commentariis, and most of them have their works
published under this project. Besides, they agree on Leo Strausss political philosophy
and use strategy of Straussian esotericism in their reading of Plato and other Western
and Chinese classics. Accordingly, the study scope of this dissertation does not extend
to other translations and study of Plato so far existing in Chinese language. Chinese
translations of Platonic dialogue done before 1990s including the works by Wang
Qintai and Chen Kang are mentioned only briefly in the other chapters. The recent
translations done by Wang Xiaochao, which are related neither in approaches nor in
underling themes to Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis, are not included in the
discussion of this dissertation. Instead, this dissertation considers that the school of
Chinese Platonists is consisted of Liu Xiaofeng, Zhang Hui, Lin Guohua etc.
Liu Xiaofeng is treated in this dissertation as the key person and leader of this
school. He is the editor of Platonis opera ommia cum commentariis and is the one who
decides the overall approaches of this school. Wu Fei, Zhang Hui, Lin Guorong, Lin
Guohua and some other scholars share the same or similar approaches to Western and
Eastern classics and they all more or less accept on Lius interpretation of Plato and
Strauss. As Liu, they can be considered as Straussians in China. Wu Fei takes a close
participation in Platonis cum commentariis. He is the one who translated Platos
Apology as part of this translation project. In his translation, commentary and preface
2

to his Chinese translation of Apology, we can find Straussian approaches which are
present in Lius works. As Liu always does, Wu Fei adopts Straussian political
philosophy to interpret Confucian classics, which can be found in his paper
Zhongguo de xiandai chujing yu gudai ziyuan collected in Kongzi yu dangdai
zhongguo (Confucius and Modern China). Lin Guohua and Lin Guorong are so far not
directly participating in the translation project of Platonis cum commentariis; however,
their reading of Plato and other Western classics are closely related to Lius approach
to Plato. As revealed by Zhang Hui in his preface to Liu Xiaofeng's Chinese
translation of Apology, there was a study group among these young Chinese scholars
at Harvard in 2001 and 2002, in which they did close reading of Plato's Apology.
These Chinese scholars including Zhang Hui, Lin Guohua and Wufei used a
Straussian translation version of Apology[1], and received direct reading guides from
Straussians such as Seth Benardete and Stanley Rosen (Zhang 2). Their Straussian
approaches to Plato are very similar to the way Liu and other Chinese Platonists treat
Platonic dialogues.
There are some difficulties in grouping Gan Yang and Jiang Qin to the school
of Chinese Platonic Study. As it is discussed both in Chapter Two and Chapter Three,
Gan is closely related to the school of Chinese Platonic Study. He does studies on
Strauss with his concern for Chinese modernity and on Plato. More importantly, he
3

was the leader of the Phenomenological School in the 1980s which provided direct
intellectual resources for the school of Chinese Platonic Study in 1990s. However, on
the other hand, he approaches Strausss political philosophy from an angle
fundamentally different from Liu Xiaofeng. As it is discussed in detail in Chapter Two,
he does not emphasize the essential Straussian principles such as strategy of
esotericism and political persecution, which assume ultimate importance to the
scholars of the School of Chinese Platonic Study. For this reason, Gan and his works
are extensively discussed in this dissertation to illustrate main features of the school of
Chinese Platonic study, but he is not considered as part of the school in discussion.
Compared to Gan, Jiang Qin is closer to Liu Xiaofengs view on Strauss and,
especially, on Chinese Confucian classics. Chapter Four discusses the similarities and
differences between Jiang Qin and Liu Xiaofeng, holding that Liu in many places
adopts views on Confucian Jin-wen School, which are quite similar to Jiang Qins
Political Confucianism. However, Liu does not go so far as claiming of reviving
Confucian political system in contemporary China; instead, he consciously draws a
line between himself and Qiang Qin (Rujia 106). Considering that the School of
Chinese Platonic Study is in many aspects a Chinese version of the School of Strauss
in America in the spirit of Straussian political prudence, this dissertation does not
group Qiang Qin as Chinese Platonist. Besides, Qiang Qins main focus is on Chinese
4

classics, and he does not directly participate in Platonis cum commentariis.

Liu Xiaofeng, Lin Guohua, Lin Guorong and other scholars have been
considered to be one group that shows special interest in Western classics and who are
Straussians in many ways. Though many people have recognized the traits they share,
no one yet has ever thought to term them as an academic school. It might be because
that there is not yet systematic and comprehensive research on their works. This
dissertation takes them as of an academic school out of following considerations.
First of all, they hold distinctive views which are very different from other
academic school in contemporary China and in modern Chinese intellectual history.
Their views on the issue of modernity, the conflicts between the ancient and the
modern, as well as insistence on the theory of political persecution, find no parallel in
current China. And they are presented with systematic and sophisticated arguments.
Besides, they constantly and actively apply their theories and views into practice,
especially into the large project Platonis cum commentariis. They do have connection
with other intellectual schools in modern history, such as the Phenomenological
School in the 1980s, but they nevertheless have modified and altered many theories
and views of the Phenomenological School , as discussed in Chapter Four, and have
legitimately claimed its intellectual independence as an academic school. Therefore,
this school is described not as a new version of any previous trend, but a new school
5

with the concerns of its own and socio-historic realities.

Secondly, this school has a number of scholars which is quite consistent over
the past twenty years. Liu Xiaofengs status in this group of scholars is so dominant
that sometimes people tend to ignore others with similar views. However, we cannot
deny that Lin Guohua, Lin Guorong and Wu Fei regularly publish their works on Plato
and other classics from Straussian perspective, just as Liu does. Though not officially
recognized as an academic school, they are often criticized by their Chinese peers for
their Straussian views as one group. Besides, though developing their views over the
past two decades, these Chinese Platonists still remain on the ground and never
fundamentally altered their understanding on Plato and Strauss.
Thirdly and lastly, their influence among college students and young scholars
can hardly be ignored and have an increasing momentum. Their works, though
constantly criticized, always gain most attention in journals, classrooms as well as
internet forum. Under their influence through publications, more and more classes on
Plato and Western classical works and languages are provided at different academic
institutes all over China. It is not exaggerating to say that the Chinese Platonic School
dominates Western classical study in China. A reader interested in learning Western
classics, especially in Plato, is more or less under this schools influence, no matter he
agrees or rejects.
6

As it is, this group of scholars is considered to be an independent academic

school in this dissertation. However, there are still some difficulties in naming it as
School of Chinese Platonic Study. As it is pointed out by many others (Huang 22-4,
Zong PAGE), Liu came through different stages before he came to Plato and Strauss.
In the 1980s, he was considered by most people to be the leader of Cultural Christian
Group. Even after he started reading Plato, he shows seemingly same amount of
interest in Carl Schmidt and Confucian scholars in later 19th centuries. His extensive
interests seem to be shared by other Chinese Platonists. We may wonder whether we
should call them Chinese Platonists, or Chinese Schmidtians, or modern Gong Yang
scholars.
The dissertation names them as school of Chinese Platonic Study mainly based
on the fact that, despite their rigorous publications in different fields, their most
important work is Platonis cum Commentariis which they, too, consider to be of
fundamental importance. As to them, Plato serves as the foundation of their vast
theoretical investigations and philosophical speculations, though it remains a question
whether it is Plato or Straussian Plato that they study.
Leo Strausss influence upon this school is undeniable. Often accused of
imposing Straussian concepts on readers who are interested in Plato, these Chinese
Platonists are Straussians in many aspects. Platonis cum commentariis is actually an
7

organization of Platos works within the framework of Strausss political philosophy.

Or rather, in one sense, Plato only serves as a medium of the transportation of
Strausss theory into Chinese academia. Out of these considerations, these Chinese
Platonists are referred to as Chinese Straussians. The implications of the acceptance of
Leo Strauss through Platonic study are discussed in detail in Chapter Two.
This dissertation considers the School of Chinese Platonic Study as
complicated cultural and intellectual phenomenon with its significance going well
beyond mere academic study. It does not remain on the philological significance of
these Chinese Platonists translations and commentaries. It is intended to discover and
discuss the cultural, intellectual and political signification in its unique approach to the
issue of Chinese modernity, as it considers Chinese Platonic study as an adventure into
Western classics looking for ways to address the issues in China. Their concerns of
Chinese modernity underline all their understandings of Plato, Strauss, as well as any
other Western thinkers. It is because of their consistent concerns of Chinse modernity
that they come back to Chinese Confucian tradition and try to link Platonic/Straussian
concepts with New School Confucianian ideas of de and shengren .
Therefore, this dissertation places the School of Chinese Platonic study in the
background of the Western Classical studies, and more importantly, in the modern
intellectual history in China.
8

This dissertation is composed of three chapters besides the introduction. The first
chapter of the dissertation investigates the philological aspects of the translations and
commentaries made by the Chinese Platonists to locate the underlying themes and
concerns, such as the emphasis on the strategies of esoteric writing, and the attempts
in locating parallels of Platonic concepts in Chinese tradition. One of Lius essays on
popular culture is introduced and analyzed to illustrate Chinese Platonists attempts of
applying Straussian concepts in their interpretation of cultures other than
philosophical works. The second chapter looks into the influence of Leo Strauss
against the cultural and social backdrop of contemporary China. It considers their
acceptance of Leo Strausss political interpretation of Plato, as well as their efforts in
connecting Platonic/Straussian concept of Philosopher-king and Confucian idea of
Suwang (Uncrowned King), as an important indication of their understanding of
Chinese modernity and the general anxiety of Chinese intellectuals in the age of
commercialism and globalism. The third chapter places the Chinese Platonic study in
the background of the Chinese modern intellectual history and addresses its heritages
from the Phenomenological School of the 1980s and from the Confucian scholars of
Gongyang School of the Reform Movement of 1898 . It emphasizes
that the Chinese Platonic study, with its understanding of Chinese modernity,
consciously breaks away from May Fourth Tradition on the cultural encounters
9

between the East and the West and revolts against May Fourths imagination about
Western science, technology and democracy and tries to find cultural support in
Confucian interpretations by Kang Youwei and Liao Ping. The dissertation concludes
by contending that current Platonic study in China is an intellectual endeavor to
address the issues of modernity in China using both Chinese and Western intellectual
traditions.
The Platonic Study in China, as part of the modern reception of Platonism,
makes a unique contribution to the tradition of Plato. It shows how Plato is accepted
and adapted into a complicated non-Western background. The Chinese Platonic
study is no longer mere continuation of the classical study happening in America or
Europe. Instead, it is a new set of expression used by a group of Chinese scholars to
discuss their concerns and speculations about cultural, historical and social realities in
China. This dissertation is intended to look into this extremely rich cultural
phenomenon in contemporary China.

10

Notes
[1] According to Zhang Hui, they in that study group at Harvard used Seth
Benardetes translation and commentary of Symposium, and Allan Blooms
commentary as well. Both Seth Benardete and Allan Bloom are important
Straussians to these Chinese Platonists. Liu Xiaofengs Chinese translation of
Symposium, which is the first work of Platonis cum commentariis, including essays by
Benardete and Allan Bloom.

11

CHAPTER ONE: Philological Aspects and Underlying Themes

This chapter focuses on the main body of current Platonic study in China, that is,
translations, commentaries and textual interpretations of Platonic dialogues, so as to
provide a comprehensive view of this school for reader and also help to build up the
arguments in other chapters. Textual aspects of Platonic studies, together with their
explicit meaning, are the main concern in this chapter while political and cultural
significance of this school, which are beyond philological aspects of translation and
commentary, are left to be further discussed in the next two chapters.
This chapter starts with a general introduction to the translations, commentaries
and interpretative works on Plato in China, including purposes and intentions of the
authors/editors, the main features, and responses etc. Then it focuses on two books,
Huiyinand Shenbian, which include the translations of, commentaries
and interpretative essays on Platos Symposium and Apology respectively. Main
features of these two books are pointed out to provide an overall view of the basic
stands and approaches of this school. This chapter then goes on to a brief examination
of the discussions on Platonic ideas and issues, the discussions which are beyond the
immediate textual context of Platonic dialogues, yet key to the concerns of this school
12

of scholars. An example is provided to illustrate how these scholars approach certain

issues with Platonic ideas. The chapter ends up with a short survey of the responses in
Chinese academia to the current Platonic scholars concerning their attitudes and
approaches.
The main body of the current Platonic studies in China goes under the project
titled as Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis in Chinese Translations, which
includes three series, namely, translations of Platonic works with commentaries and
interpretative essays; translations of the pre-modern interpretative works of Plato
going from Plotinus to Friedrich Schleiermacher; modern Western interpretation of
Platonic works which includes authors such as Heidegger and Leo Strauss etc. There
are other works which are not included in these three series, but should be considered
to be Platonic studies. Compared to the books in Platonis opera omnia cum
commentariis, these books have a greater variety in topics, ranging from a particular
issue in Platonic studies to similar debates or issues in Chinese classical studies. For
instance, the book Sugeladi WentiProblems of Socratesis not
part of Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis, but as the title Problems of
Socrates indicates, this book collects essays related to the main issues in Platonic
studies, but discussed on a much broader level. For example, one of the essays is on
the historical portraits of three disciples of Confucius, as a discussion related to the
13

portrait of Socrates.
The works outside of Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis are an
important part of Platonic studies in China; however, due to the limitation of size, this
chapter devotes its main attention to the works within the series. By the end of the
chapter, a short analysis of an essay outside of the series is included as an illustration
of the profound influence of Plato on this group of scholars.
The books of Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis began its publication
in early 2000s. Though it is a process with full momentum, due to the massiveness of
the project, only part of the series is completed and published. For the series of
Platonic dialogues, Symposium, Apology and Ion are translated and published with
comprehensive commentaries[1]. For the series of pre-modern commentaries on Plato,
there are Chinese translations of Alfarabis The Philosophy of Plato, Averroes
Averroes on Platos Republic; etc. For the series of modern interpretation, there are in
Chinese Martin Heideggers Vom Wesen der Wahrheit: Zu Platons Hohlengleichnis
und Theatet, Anissa Castel-Bouchouchis Platon Les Lois, etc. For each series, there
is a long list of books which are going to be published soon[2].
As we can see, due to the fact that the Platonic study in China is an on-going
process, it is impossible to get a complete view of this academic phenomenon.
However, through the existing publications and researches, though limited in amount,
14

we can obtain a nevertheless comprehensive idea of the perspectives, methods, and

viewpoints adopted by this group of scholar and thus have a better understanding of
the current Platonic study in China as a unique academic and cultural event.
To each book in Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis, two explanatory
short essays are attached. The first essay is on the larger project of Western Tradition:
Classics and Interpretation, which the project Platonis opera omnia cum
commentariis is subordinate to. This essay, since it indicates important information
of Platonis opera cum commentariis, is introduced in detail together with the second
essay which is exclusively for the project of Platonis opera cum commentariis.
The first essay makes a distinction between the project of Western Tradition,
of which Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis is understood as an important part,
and all the previous translations in Chinese modern history. It provides a short survey
of the modern Chinese translation history, while at the same time pointing out the
defects of each stage. It goes back to the very beginning of Chinese translation of
Western works, and points out that these predecessors, though aware of the historical
importance of their work, chose the books to translate according to their own personal
interest. Therefore, their choice of translation was quite random and lacked any
systematic scheme. Then it goes on to a brief evaluation of the official project of
translation which was organized by the government in later 1950s and lasted to the
15

mid of 1980s. It affirms the academic value of this official project, but criticized that it
was too much interested in serving its own political purpose and ignored most of the
Western classics on political and social system. The only translation movement this
essay gives full credit to is a project named Xiandai xifang xueshu wenku
Modern Western Classics). It points out that, even thought the working
goal of that project was to translate the modern Western classics, its long term purpose
was to obtain a better understanding of the whole Western intellectual tradition by
way of a more systematic and comprehensive translation project. It asserts that, if this
project was not interrupted unexpectedly by certain historical event[3] at the end of
the 1980s, it would have eventually gone back to translate the ancient Western classics.
This explanatory essay also criticizes the translations in 1990s, arguing that most
scholars in 1990s were too much interested in following modern academic trends,
ignoring the Western tradition itself. As a result of unsuccessful century-long
translation experience, the essay concludes that Chinese intellectuals lack
understanding of Western intellectual tradition, even after they have translated many
works; and the solution to this problem is to make full use of the modern Western
classical studies through translating and introducing Western ancient classics as well
as their interpretations.
The second essay is for the project of Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis
16

in Chinese translation. It first goes through how people disagreed and came back to
the first collection of Platonic dialogues started by Thrasyllus in the age of
Alexander. It then cites the famous saying Shengshi bi xiu dian (Editing
classics is a necessity for people at a prosperous historical time) and further explains
that in modern China, we need to edit both Western classics as well as Chinese
classics. It states the basic approach for the project of Platonis opera which was
practiced by the intellectuals in Qing Dynasty (1616-1911) in their attitudes toward
ancient texts, that is, to respect ancient texts and the wisdom of ancient authors;
accordingly, in the practice of translation, they approach the ancient texts through
commentaries of different generation, while paying attention to the difference of each
version.
From these two essays, we can find the ambition of this school of scholars.
First of all, these scholars have a critical view of the academic practices in China since
the 1950s and try to distinguish themselves from them.[4] Secondly, while translating
Western ancient classics as well as their interpretations, they are eager to put
themselves in the Chinese intellectual tradition. By citing Shengshi bi xiu dian
, which was considered as a responsibility by the ancient Chinese scholars,
these Chinese Platonic scholars actually identify themselves with ancient Chinese
scholars in their ambition. They further connect themselves to the practice of
17

philology in the Qing Dynasty by focusing on textual details and commentaries. The
influence of Chinese intellectual tradition is discussed more in later passages of this
chapter.
The project of Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis is massive. Usually
several kinds of interpretations are translated together with one particular dialogue.
Take Republic for instance. The Chinese translation of Book Ten of Republic together
with commentaries is going to be published under the title of Wangzh. Ralph
Lerners Averroes on Platos Republic is already in hard copy on the market as part of
the series of Classical Commentaries on Plato; modern Western scholars works on
Plato have been selected and translated as part of the series. Among them are Lun
zhenli de benzhi(Vom Wesen der Wahrheit: Zu Platons
Hohlengleichnis und Theatet, a work by Heidegger, and a collection of essays by
Gerhard Kruger, Friedlander and Eric Voegelin under the title of Wangzhi Yaoyi
(Three Interpretations of Platos Politeia), etc.
However, as Platonic dialogue itself is the core of this project, we in the
following passages focus on Huiyin and Shenbian, two translations of Symposium and
Apology.[5] While looking into these two books, we are able to see the points
indicated both inside and outside of these two explanatory essays introduced above.
The discussion of these two books is conducted in roughly three groups: form, theme
18

and influence. These three groups of discussion may overlap each other in topic.
One of the dominant features of these translations is the change they make to
the Chinese titles of Platonic dialogues. Most of the Chinese translators of Plato works
put the word pian [6] to end of the title. For instance these titles used to be Huiyin
Pianand Shenbian Pian. The translators of this new school leave
this word out. As Zhang Hui explains in his preface to Lius Huiyin, dropping this
word in title is a way of restoring the practice of treating Platonic dialogues as plays
from the common misconception of taking them merely as philosophical treatise
(5).[7] It seems this group of scholars, through making changes in titles, expect to help
readers get rid of the previous misconceptions of Plato and to provoke them to new
ways of thinking.[8]
Besides the new translation of titles, we can find some of their new ways to
translate certain Greek terms which are consistent in Huiyin and Shenbian. The
translation of used to be meide by previous translators and now in both
Huiyin and Shenbian, it becomes dexing . As for the words and
, the usual way is to translate it as shan and zhishan . In Huiyin
and Shenbian and most other places they are translated as hao and zuida de hao
. It seems that these scholars are more conscious in identifying moral
meanings in Greek words in their translation. Besides, they make efforts to make the
19

terms sound less philosophical.

Huiyin and Shenbian are quite similar in their format. In addition to the two
same explanatory essays at the very beginning, each contains a long preface, [9]which
is comprehensive on the history, structures and themes of the dialogue. The translation
itself contains both the translation of Platonic dialogue and the commentaries made by
different scholars and by themselves. Compared to Liu Xiaofengs translation, Wu
Feis Shenbian pays more attention to previous Chinese translations of the dialogue.
He compares different translations in his commentaries and explains the particularity
of his own translation.[10] After the dialogue, each book includes interpretative
essays on the dialogue it is treating. In Huiyin, Allan Blooms The Ladder of Love
and Seth Benardetes On Platos Symposium are included, while to Shenbian, a long
interpretative essay by the translator Wu Fei is attached. In each book, the preface
serves as a guide for the reader; or rather, it reiterates the guiding principles for the
translators in their understanding of the text. These principles are exhibited in their
translation and commentary. And the interpretative essays by the end of book are
further explanation of the ideas conveyed previously, but in a much more systematic
and comprehensive way. As it is, the preface, dialogue, commentary and interpretative
essays are consistent in many ways. Accordingly, this chapter treats them as a totality
and does not discuss them separately.
20

As it is mentioned briefly in previous passage, these translators drop the word

pian in titles of Platonic dialogues to restore Platonic dialogues as plays from
peoples misconception of them as mere philosophical treatise. Indeed, considering
Platos dialogues as plays is one of the main views these translators take. In his
preface to Huiyin, Zhang Hui insists that Symposium is more thoroughly a drama than
any other Platonic dialogue (1). This point is reaffirmed again and again in Liu
Xiaofengs commentaries. Wu Fei does not make such a strong assertion in Shenbian
that Apology is a play; however, he fully acknowledges the importance of Socrates
portrait in understanding the dialogue of Apology.
For this school of scholars, taking Platonic dialogues as plays instead of
philosophical treatises is a guideline for their translation practice. First of all, they
assert that, since it is a play, we should not only pay attention to words, but also to
deeds. Accordingly, small details on location, action etc. assumes great importance in
the interpretation of Platonic dialogues. Zhang Hui puts in his preface, since it is to
see a play, what we should pay attention to is not merely speeches of different
characters, but also, put in Leo Strauss words, deeds at the same time. Rather,
deeds are of greatest importance (4). As to the question what the deeds are, he cites
Leo Strauss The City and Man, and explains that the elements of plays are the setting
and action in each dialogue, that is, who does Socrates talk to? How do participants of
21

the dialogue act? At which age? What kind of personality? At which time and location
does the dialogue take place etc. (4-5). Both Liu and Wu faithfully follow this
principle by pointing out a lot of details and background information in their
translations and commentaries. For instance, both Zhang and Liu explain quite a lot on
the change of seats and the complicated narrative structure in Symposium, while Wu in
Shenbian points out the structural parallel between Apology and Phaedo (154-5).
Treating Platonic dialogues as plays and paying enormous attention to details,
especially to the non-verbal details, has an important assumption, that is, the author
uses an indirect, even secret, way of passing on information to readers. Zhang quotes
Nietzsche in the preface and says the profound thoughts like to wear a mask (5). He
states that in Platonic dialogues, Plato stays behind the plays; moreover, the
spokesmen he chooses are often hiding their true opinion. Liu repeatedly reminds
reader of the secrecy of the dialogue. To ,
(So I got myself up in this handsome style in order to be a match for my
handsome host) (174a), Liu puts down his own commentary, Here the dressing up is
a metaphor of taking up a different look: Plato puts on a mask before he goes to the
banquet (8) (my translation).
This assumption has several important implications. First of all, it has close
connection to the long-time debate on the relationship between Socrates and Plato: is
22

dialogue more close to Socrates idea or Platos own thought? As to this question,
Zhang, Liu and Wu seem to have their definite opinion. In Zhangs preface and Lius
commentary, Socrates is considered to be an expression of Plato. What they concern
most is what Plato indicates through Socrates, and all their efforts are pointing to find
out the true intention of Plato. Wu puts forward a more systematic explanation of their
attitude. He explains that they do not make special efforts to separate Socrates from
Plato, nor do they try to approach Platos works through different stages; instead, they
pay more attention to the internal relations between different dialogues and consider
Apology as an expression of Plato (38).
Second, if the main purpose of reading Platos dialogues is to find out the true
intention of Plato and Plato skillfully conceals his true intention and meaning from the
average reader in his works, then, interpretation becomes especially important. Zhang
in his preface shows that he acquired more authentic knowledge of Plato under the
guidance of Leo Strauss as well as the commentaries and interpretations of his
students such as Allan Bloom and Seth Benardete. Liu tries to find an example to
demonstrate the significance of interpretation in Plato himself. On the fact that
Socrates receives teaching from Diotima in Symposium, Liu puts a note, The Socrates
in Platos Symposium explains his thoughts in the form of interpreting the ideas of
someone else, even though he himself comes up with these ideas. In other words, only
23

through the interpretation of a text, a person who loves thinking can come closer to
higher knowledge. Alcibiades praise of Socrates in a later passage can be considered
to be an interpretation of Socrates (72) (my translation). Their emphasis on
interpretation in a large degree explains why they take so much effort in translating the
interpretative essays and commentaries of Plato into Chinese. It at the same time leads
to another question. If they believe that, only by interpreting someone else thought
can they convey their own ideas, just as Plato expresses himself through interpreting
Socrates, and Socrates gets his self-expression through his interpretation of Diotima,
then, what do these Chinese scholars want to express through their translation and
interpretation of Plato and the related works? In order to make this chapter stay more
pact, this question is left for more discussion in later chapters.
Third, and most importantly, they believe that the indirect expression of ones
thoughts has its raison dtre in the tension between philosophy and politics. In other
words, the possible harms from politics force philosophers to carefully disguise their
ideas either through interpretation of someone elses thoughts or through sophisticated
literary techniques. Zhang explains why Plato uses the literary form of drama in his
writing, Instead of taking the drama here as a literary genre, it is more appropriate
to consider it as a way of living and writing that Plato adopts by himself: it is a way of
self-concealing as well as at the same time of self-expressing (2) (my translation). He
24

explains the change of seats during the banquet in Symposium in term of politics. He
holds that the change of seats between Agathon and Alcibiades indicates Socrates
relationship between the poet and the politician; and his interpretation is that Socrates
is more distanced from the politician than from the poet (13). Having a similar attitude,
Liu in his commentary repeatedly reminds readers to pay attention to Socrates
presence among politicians and poets. Liu first mentions it at the beginning of the
dialogue, and then by the end of the dialogue. To a passage on Alcibiades arrival in
213b, Liu notes, Alcibiades is a beautiful man too. His arrival changes Socrates
relationship between Agathon, the beautiful man----three persons drinking together.
One a sophist poet, one is politician. Thus, Socrates political situation in the city
becomes clear at this point (97). Though both Liu and Zhang constantly emphasize
the political interpretation of Symposium as a play characterized by indirect
expression, they do not go into fuller explanation. This issue is addressed more fully
and specifically in Allan Blooms The Ladder of Love, which is translated and
included as the first interpretative essay in Huiyin. Bloom points out that the particular
literary arrangements of the setting as well as the double indirect narration
corresponds to the political situation of Socrates in terms of Peloponnesian war and
Alcibiades supposed impious deeds. He then further explains the possible harm in
philosophers teaching of his followers as well as other people:
25

But there is a danger that he [the teacher] will be misinterpreted or

rigidified or codified by them [the followers] in a way contrary to the
spirit of his teaching. There is the further danger that the pupils
imprudence, partly connected with preening himself with this special
learning, will attract undue and hostile attention to that
teaching....This risk may have to be accepted when one teaches, but it
involves a real problem of responsibility or even
self-protection....Plato, as we see here is very much aware of the
problem, and that awareness informs his artful mode of writing. But
certain kinds of abuses, like Neoplatonism, were unavoidable. In
Platos case, at least, his teaching could never be used as the ideology
for a tyranny . 144
In this passage quoted above, Bloom explains how teaching even within a small circle
can cause harm from citizens, and ends up in misconception; and as protection of
himself and of his thoughts, Plato has to adopt an artful mode of writing, including
the indirect narration and ambiguity of location etc. The underlined message here is
the tension between citizen and philosopher.
The inevitable tension between the philosophy and the citizen is the main point
of Wus interpretation of Apology. The whole book of Shenbian edited and translated
26

by Wu goes around this theme. His basic stand leads him to put special explanation or
argument in several places in his commentary. Wu in his preface addresses Vlastos
approach to Apology through the theme of democracy, but he insists that the key point
of Socrates death is not about democracy but the eternal struggle between philosophy
and politics. In his note to 35e where Athenians voted death for Socrates by a small
amount, he does not agree with Burnets suggestion that this death sentence might be
an accident; he reaffirms his point that Socrates death is inevitable because of the
fundamental opposition between philosophy and politics (125). He further explains
his point in his note to 37d4-e1, a passage in which Socrates states that even if he is
exiled to another city, he would still attract young people and as a result be exiled
again. Wu puts, Judging from the whole text of Apology, it is impossible to solve the
problems between philosophy and politics; not even Socrates intends to (130) (My
translation). Therefore, Wu disagrees with Burnet and Strycker that Socrates refuses
to be exiled because he believes democracy in Athens is the best form of political
system; Wu holds that it is not because of democracy that Socrates loves Athens so
much (130).
While being eager to interpret the whole text of Apology in term of politics, Wu
sometimes seems to over-interpret in his reading. In 41b-c, Socrates goes into an
elaborate description of the possible life he may enjoy after death. ,
27

 ,

,
; (What price would any of you pay, judges, to examine him who led the
great army against Troy or Odysseus, or Sisyphus, or countless others, both men and
women, whom I mention? To converse and associate with them and examine them
would be immeasurable happiness) (41b-c). People raise question as why
Agamemnon, Odysseus, and Sisyphus are mentioned here. Wu goes further than any
of other commentators and asserts that, these three persons mentioned here by
Socrates are politicians without virtue, they do have small craft, but no virtue, just as
the politicians in this life (141). He further suggests that these three persons stand for
wicked rulers in a diagram displayed here (141). Wus interpretation of this passage is
enlightening; however, it does not have much proof. Plato in many dialogues does
show his suspicion of Homer, but mainly because of the portrait of gods in Homer. He
does not disapproved the Homeric heroes. Therefore, it is rather doubtful that Plato
would associate Odysseus, Agamemnon and Sisyphus with injustice [11] .
Another noticeable attitude shared by both Wu and Liu is their assurance of
Socrates knowledge of transcendental being. Both of them believe that Socrates in
the Platonic dialogue is a firm believer in the existence of gods and he is more pious
28

than other Athenians (Wu 184). Wu associates Socrates famous claim of his own
ignorance with his belief in god. He says, For Socrates, it is impossible for human
beings to get real knowledge. It is not because that knowledge can not be exhausted, as
Zhuangzi holds; instead, it is because of the huge difference between mortal human
beings and immortal god. Only god has real wisdom (161). To most Platonic scholars,
divinity in Socrates thinking is identifiable with the Form. Wu makes a firm stand and
differs from them. In his refutation, he says, Even though Socrates believes that god
is good, he does not substitute god for goodness (183). In Lius commentary, as for
Wu and other scholars of this school, Socrates is a pious believer of god.
This very understanding of Socrates belief has implications in their
translations and commentaries. First of all, they differ themselves from skeptics.
While some scholars remain reserved in their understanding of certain ambiguous
passages on transcendental beings in Plato, these Chinese Platonists seem to be more
assured. This attitude can be found in the Lius translation of the famous passage on
the transcending journey of eros. In this passage, both words (the beauty)
and (the thing that is beautiful) are used. However, on a key point at the
end of journey, it is . (210 e) With the use of the
word , it literally means how amazing the nature of the things that are
beautiful, without naming anything of the very thing which is at the end of the
29

journey. Liu does not translate this layer of ambiguity and uncertainty into Chinese.
He simply takes it as the beauty itself (91). It can be taken that, for Liu, Socrates in
Platos writing is quite confident in the knowledge of the transcendental being [12] .
Second, these translators understanding of Socrates belief in divinity also
makes them feel it necessary to differentiate Platos ideas about transcendental being
from traditional Chinese thinking. In more than one place, Wu reminds readers to
separate Socrates claim of ignorance from Zhuangzis famous saying that it is futile
to seek after knowledge. As it is cited earlier, he makes a difference between the
Socratic philosopher and Zhuangzi: the former is to desire perfection which only a god
has, while the latter is satisfied with the imperfect state, considering that knowledge
cannot be exhausted (161). Wu not only distinguishes these two attitudes toward
knowledge, but also briefly points out the philosophical and cultural frameworks
behind these two attitudes. Liu is more critical of the lack of transcendental knowledge
in Chinese cultural, but we have to look into his other books on this point of view.
Therefore, more discussion is to be continued in another chapter.
As we may have found out already, influence from Leo Strauss, as well as his
students, is profound in Platonis opera omnia. Almost each book in this project
includes writings of Leo Strauss or of his students or of both. In Huiyin and Shenbian,
the authors constantly cite from Leo Strauss in their arguments. Wus main argument
30

in Shenbian that philosophy and politics are forever in contradiction, and Lius view
of the esoteric writing in Plato and his corresponding approach of close reading to
discover the hidden meaning, as well as many of their arguments, are from Leo
Strauss. And they never hesitate to admit it. However, we cannot say that they are
merely repeating Leo Strauss. If we agree with their argument that great thoughts only
express themselves through interpretation of other thoughts, we may say that they are
expressing themselves through Leo Strauss who is expressing himself through
Socrates which is an expression in the form of dialogue by Plato.
They have their own concerns. As mentioned briefly at the beginning of the
chapter, their purpose of organizing such a large project is to continue the precious
learning from great scholars in previous generations, and to provide prosperity for the
later generations.[13] Wu explains it in a more specific way in his preface to
Shenbian, The Western scholars try to understand their current situation through their
study of classical thoughts. We, too, can have better understanding of our own
situation in China, with the help of their classical studies (62). In Huiyin and
Shenbian, they relate Platonic ideas to Chinese thoughts, sometimes as
correspondence, sometimes as differentiation. Liu uses a Chinese traditional poetic
style to translate Agathons ode to eros in Symposium (179d) and he points out that
there are quite a lot of literary characters in Zhuangzis writing which are close to the
31

characterization of Diotima (73). Wu cites Confucius saying This is doing politics.

Otherwise, what should be called doing politics? as an
equivalent saying to Socrates attitude toward doing politics as profession (114); He
also cites and compares Zhuangzis famous saying with Socrates claim of ignorance.
Their efforts to introduce readers to the thinking of Chinese culture and situation are
quite subtle in these two books. However, in books such as Meide ke Jiao ma?
Can virtue be taught? and Sugeladi de Wenti (The
Problems of Socrates), they discuss Chinese problems in light of Plato or Platonic
studies on a much larger scale. In these books, interpretative essays of Platos
dialogues are often put forward first, and then they are followed by essays on Chinese
classical studies. Take Sugeladi de Wenti for instance, the first part
of the book is Leo Strauss six lectures on the problem of Socrates, while the rest of
the book is made up of essays of Chinese classical studies by different Chinese
scholars. These topics are various but nevertheless related to certain issues in Platonic
studies. For instance, one essay is on different historical portraits of three disciples of
Confucius; one is on the commentary method in interpretation of a classical text. They
discuss more extensively on Chinese historical and cultural issues, more or less
through Plato, in other books, which is not to be discussed here in this chapter.
Even though both Wu, Liu and Zhang cite Leo Strauss frequently, we cannot
32

say that Leo Strauss is the only influence upon these scholars. It is hard to ignore the
Confucian interpretative tradition in their works. They came up with the purpose of
translating Platonic dialogues as to continue the precious learning from great
scholars in previous generations, and to provide prosperity for the later generations,
which puts them in line with the tradition of Chinese Confucian scholarship. They use
the traditional system of Jing , Zhu , Shu , Yi , Jijie ... to describe and
to classify their work. It is highly doubtful that they, with their knowledge in Chinese
classical studies, do not have in their mind the debate between Old Text Confucianism
and New Text Confucianism which went on for over thousand years and had
substantial influence over different disciplines and social changes in Chinese
history.[14]
Considering these Platonic scholars emphasis on philology and close reading,
they are close to the Old Text School; however, their tendency to search for meaning
behind words, and their interest in looking for political, social and theological
implications of text put them more in line with the New Text School. In fact, they tend
to go between these two schools, but they actually show more interest in the New Text
School scholars. There is a very direct association of New Text School in both
Shenbian and Huiyin, Liu in Huiyin cites Kang Youwei, a controversial New Text
School scholar who is famous for his interpretation of Confucian texts for
33

revolutionary purpose (102). In his other works, Liu makes research on Kang
Youweis famous political commentary on Confucian texts. Another New Text
School scholar he studies is Liao Ping.
Once we put these Platonic scholars together with New Text Confucianism,
we find some interesting questions. As New Text School considers Confucius as the
Suwang (uncrowned king), Liu comes up with the term of Zhexue wang
(philosophical king) as the ideal ruler in his reading of Plato, particularly in his
reading of Republic. We naturally question in which sense Zhexue wang
responds to Suwang , and in which sense they differ from each other. Once again,
in order to answer these questions, we have to look into other works by this group of
scholars, thus we leave this issue for later discussion in another chapter.
In the following discussion, we shall look into a text which is not directly
related to any dialogue of Plato; however it is believed in this chapter that, with this
example, we are able to see how Platonic dialogues help to shape the view points of
this school of scholars.
Liu published an essay entitled Indecipherable, which is included in his
Confucianism and Nation titled in Latin as Discipuli Confucii et eorum civitas. It is a
talk among three scholars on a Chinese TV show on modern Chinese history, which
has nothing to do with Platos dialogues or with the Western tradition. Nonetheless, it
34

has distinctive Platonic features. We cannot say that these features are absent in
Chinese writing, but they are not commonly found in Chinese authors, and
distinctively Platonic both in style and in theme.
First, as with most of Platonic dialogues, it is a dialogue among intellectuals on
certain topic. There is hardly any story line in this essay. And interestingly, the
dialogue is in the form of an interpretation, that is, they are interpreting the hidden
message in a TV show. Second, the sentence structure in this essay greatly resembles
Platos style of writing. The constant use of clauses in sentences reminds us of the
typical Greek way of writing, which tends to include different parts into one piece
with the use of genitive absolute and other grammatical techniques. Third, there are
constant details of action during the dialogue in Indecipherable, which echoes Lius
claim that Platonic dialogues are plays and we should pay attention not only to words
but also to deeds.
Besides, a more important feature of style is the multi-layered narration in
Indecipherable which can be considered as an imitation of the narrative framework
of Platonic dialogues. The main character I was absent from the talk. The story, or
rather, the discussion reaches the reader through Xiaowan, a fresh Ph. D who later
narrated the talk to the first narrator I. This multi-layered indirect narration is the
main narrative form featuring Platonic dialogues, as is noted with special attention by
35

Zhang, Liu and Wu in Huiyin and Shenbian. In Symposium, Apollodorus repeats to his
companion the dialogue he has heard from Aristodemus who was present during the
dialogue with Socrates and others. In Indecipherable, after the introduction of the
narrative framework at the beginning, the first narrator I constantly asserts his voice
in the later text, reminding the reader that he himself was not present during the
dialogue, and thus the information that reaches reader has already been filtered and
re-created by someone else [15] .
The constant shifting of the narrative voices among the main characters, I,
Xiaowan, and the other two conversation participants creates a kind of uncertainty as
well as an atmosphere of secrecy and mystery. Besides the ambiguity created by
indirect narration, there are other places that are deliberately made ambivalent in the
text of Indecipherable. The narrator I explains that he does not recall clearly the
date when the dialogue occurs. And he does not even quite know the exact spelling of
the name of one of the participants. The place where the talk takes place is new and
unknown to him. This ambiguity and secrecy are found by Zhang and Liu in their
reading of Symposium. In his essay which is translated and included in Huiyin, Allan
Bloom explains how the special arrangements of narration, time and time contribute to
the theme of Symposium (Huiyin 141).
The discussion in Lius essay covers various topics around this TV show.
36

Nevertheless, the main purpose of the discussion is to find out why the main character
changes her mind and gives up her love pursuit. The protagonist, Huang, is highly
praised during the dialogue for her courage in pursuing what is higher and better.
Several of the characteristics of Socrates are detected and described for Huang. She is
pious, and offers sacrifices to gods; she displays daring courage in going against social
nomos, etc. These characteristics are found and commented upon by Zhuang, Liu and
Wu in both Shenbian and Huiyin. More importantly, in Lius Indecipherable, the
word aiyu (eros) is used to refer to the drive of her pursuit. As Liu points out in
his commentary in Huiyin, this very word eros is the core of the dialogue in
Symposium. Here in the essay Indecipherable, this word assumes similar
philosophical meaning. In Symposium, the journey of eros is a rising process toward
the transcendental being. Like Socrates in Symposium, according to the interpretation
of the scholars in Indecipherable, Huang starts her journey of eros from the desire
for the body, that is, she is in love with a man. However, what she seeks is not simply
physical love, but something higher and better. As she finds out that the physical love
is apart from what is better and higher, she changes the object of her pursuit from a
man to something transcendental. This Platonic interpretation of Huangs change
gains agreement among all the participants in the conversation in Indecipherable.
In addition to the transcending journey of eros, we can find another Platonic
37

idea, that is, the contradiction between minority and majority. In the conversation,
they discuss the difference between minority and majority. They agree that the
majority of people in society may have natural virtue, but they usually do not know
what it is, while only a small group of people love thinking and are concerned with
what is virtue. Yet, this small group of people, among whom is Huang, as they agree,
do not have any right to look down upon them and should respect their average
concerns. We may find that this differentiation between minority and majority is
actually a variation of the paradigm of philosophers and citizens. Both Wu and Liu
make a lot of efforts in explaining the inevitable difference and even tension between
them. However, at the same time, Liu puts a note in Huiyin to passage 220c of
Symposium, Nietzsche once says, the philosopher should not look down upon the
rights for average living of average persons; he should not pull them up to a higher
place. It is because after someone reaches a higher spot, the life will become harsher,
and is accompanied by more responsibility (111) (my translation). The idea of
tolerance of non-philosophical living, as Liu asserts, is actually quite absent in
Symposium and Apology. In these two dialogues of Plato, Socrates talks more of the
necessity of abandoning non-philosophical life and of engagement in a philosophical
living, as we can find in Socrates metaphor of gadfly in Apology. The idea of
tolerating and respecting the average life style may be one of Lius thought in his
38

reading of Plato; it may be what he gets from Socrates death and his tragedy. More
importantly, this can be seen as a compromise he makes between Straussian Platonism
and the Confucian tradition which emphasizes the social responsibility of
intellectuals.
The project of Platonis opera omnia cum commentariis in Chinese tradition,
though still far from completion, has already made a big impact upon Chinese
academia. These translations receive high evaluations for their thoroughness in
including commentaries. And because of these series, many students and scholars get
interested in reading the original texts of Platonic dialogue. As Zhang notes in his
preface, after some students read the translation of Apology by Liu, they started taking
classes in Greek (Huiyin 15). On the other hand, however, the political interpretation
as well as the overt influence of Leo Strauss in these series gets constant criticism.
Quite a lot of scholars criticize that these works misleadingly provide a Straussian
Plato and thus fail to remain true to the Platonic dialogues. Nonetheless, considering
the impact this project has upon different disciplines in China, including Western
classical study, Chinese classical studies, politics etc, we can be sure that this is a
significant on-going event in Chinese modern translation history, or rather, in the
Chinese modern intellectual history.

39

Notes
[1] The translations of Phaedrus and Republic (Book Ten) as well as some other
dialogues are cited occasionally. It seems that these scripts of translation are already
circulated in a small circle but not yet officially published.
[2] The information of the to-be-published book lists is put on the back cover of
almost each book.
[3] What the authors refers to in an indirect and cryptic way is the Crackdown of the
Tiananmen Square Movement in 1989. After the 1989, the government took a much
tighter censorship over the intellectual activities and publications in China.
[4] Their attitude toward the translators of the project of Xiandai xifang xueshu
wenku in 1980s is somehow different. The relationship between this
school and the scholars in 1980s are further discussed in the third chapter.
[5] There is thematic reason to choose in this chapter Huiyin and Shenbian to focus
upon, as will be discussed below.
[6] The Chinese word pian has strong association of exposition, treatise, etc.
[7] Zhang says, A careful reader may have already discovered, this new translation
by Mr. Liu Xiaofeng is Huiyin, instead of Huiyin Pian, as we used to know. This
change of one word is small, but is part of the efforts of restoring the literary features
of Platonic dialogues as plays. In fact, Feiduotranslated by Yang Jiang
40

(Liaoning Jiaoyu Chubanshe, 2000) has already dropped the word pian , which is
more or less associative of philosophical treatises, and reminds people of the treatises
like Quanxue Pian, Wuxing Pian etc. (My translation)
(Zhang 5)
[8] They changed Falupianto Fayifor Platos Law, and Lixiangguo
to Wangzhifor Republic. Apart from their efforts of promoting new
understanding of Platonic studies in general among readers, they intend to encourage
them to consider aspirations for better way of living and social system as important
themes in Platonic dialogues. They provide a philological explanation for the choice
of Wangzhifor Platos Republic. As they assert, the Greek title refers
to citizenship, the life of a citizen, the condition or constitution of a state. The Latin
translation as Respublica is not far from the Greek original meaning; however, the
modern word Republic or Staat no longer carries the same meaning of .
Accordingly, the word lixiangguo as the Chinese equivalent to Republic
or Staat is rather far from the original meaning of , since it does not have
any association of way of living, and way of conducting a state. Their new translation
as Wangzhiis intended to help reader go back to the original meaning
of with its Chinese connotations in way of living, way of conducting a state
and rulership. It is questionable whether their translations of title are better than the
41

previous ones; however, as they claim, the main purpose of making such changes is to
encourage more discussions on Platonic dialogues. Nevertheless, it is true that their
new choice of words for title do help readers to associate Platonic dialogues with
discussion of political system or way of living in Chinese ancient classical texts.
[9] For Huiyin, there are two prefaces; the longer one is by Zhang Hui, and the short
one is by the translator, Liu Xiaofeng.
[10] Liu Xiaofeng acknowledged the contribution made by the translator Zhu
Guangqian for translating Symposium; however, he does not mention Wang Taiqings
translation of the same dialogue, which was more widely used and cited in Chinese
academia before his translation came out.
[11] Wus over-interpretation of his passage indicates another feature of this school.
They are eager to interpret Platonic dialogues in terms of the inevitable struggle
between philosophy and politics. Even though they acknowledge that both politics and
philosophy tends to search for a better life in their own ways, while in their reading
practice, they are often too ready to associate politics with wicked rulers and injustice.
The theories they have seem to be an over-simplified version of Leo Strauss theory.
[12] It is very different from Derridas reading of Plato. As to Derrida, the meaning in
Plato is elusive and there is great ambiguity in identifying what it is.
[13] is from Zhang-Hengju in Song Dynasty.
42

[14] The controversy between New Text School and Old Text School originated in a
period around 5 B. C. to 1 A. D. on which Confucian texts were more authentic. As the
debate went on, these two schools formed totally different views. The New Text
school emphasized political and social as well as theological applications of
Confucian text; while the Old Text school focused more on philology and resisted free
political interpretation. In nineteen century there emerged several famous New Tex
scholars and activists who used Confucian texts to promote social and political
changes. Among there were Kang Youwei, a scholar to whom Liu and other Chinese
Platonists pay much attention.
[15] In one sense, the constant insertion of the voice of the first narrator is similar to
in Platonic dialogues, especially in Symposium and Republic.

43

CHAPTER TWO: Chinese Platonists as Straussians

The previous chapter points out that the acceptance of Leo Strauss is one of
the dominant features of the contemporary Platonic studies in China. In many aspects,
these Platonists are the Chinese disciples of Strauss. They not only cite Strauss
extensively in their commentary on the Platonic dialogues but also dedicate
themselves to introducing Strausss political philosophy to the Chinese reader through
translating, editing and publishing his books as well as the works of his students.
The readership of Strauss in China is mainly constituted by Platonists, but is
not confined to them. Partially because of the consistent efforts of these Chinese
Platonists, most of Strausss works have been translated into Chinese and thus have
created a relatively large group of readers in China. Strauss is presented to the
Chinese reader as a thinker on political theory and political philosophy whose work
covers a swath of different academic areas, rather than a specialist in the classics. For
instance, the debate between Strauss and Isaiah Berlin on liberalism has greater
frequency of citation within the realm of Chinese scholarship than Strausss esoteric
reading of Plato. However, despite the complexity of the image of Strauss in China, it
is well recognized that it is upon his reading of Plato that Strauss founds the
44

preponderance of his political and philosophical speculations. Accordingly, a

picture of the Straussian brand of Platonism in China covers topics that go around,
but sometimes, beyond the Platonic dialogues.
The popularity of Strauss in Chinese academia makes a sharp contrast to the
popular suspicion that has lead to the marginalization of Strauss in America. If
Strauss marginalized status in American can be explained by his indictment as an
enemy of liberal democracy1 in the public media, then how to explain the status
Strauss enjoys in China? According to Thomas A. Metzger, the acceptance of
concepts from another culture is decided both by the effectiveness of the concepts
themselves and by the extensiveness of the readiness for this acceptance:
Cultural diffusion is a two-way street and so depends on both the
availability of ideas to import and the intensity of the indigenous
impulse to import them. Neither side of this transaction can be taken
for granted. The Chinese mind was not a tabula rasa reaching out for
instructions from the outside. (17)
Metzgers concept can be applied to the case of the Chinese mass acceptance of the
Straussian Platonism. It means that we have to examine the foreign concepts
accepted and transplanted into the Chinese background while at the same time
looking into the preconditions in the socio-historic-cultural realities in China that
45

facilitate the popularity of these concepts.

The first part of this chapter focuses on the characteristics of the Straussian
Platonism in China in light of an alternative interpretation of Strauss in the
contemporary Chinese value system. The second part moves to a discussion on the
historical issues behind the reading of Strauss by the Chinese Platonists, and on the
conflicts between the Chinese Platonists avowed support for the individual freedom
and their elitist tendencies. The final part of this chapter consists of the Chinese
Platonists attempts to read Confucian classics within the framework of Strausss
political philosophy and the tradition of New School of Confucianism. As it is, the
acceptance of Strauss by the Chinese Platonist community is treated in this chapter
as a distinctive phenomenon of cultural encounter. The discussions on Strauss
in America are mentioned as background information, but most attention in this
chapter is directed toward the realities that make possible such a wide acceptance
which has strong selectiveness on the interpretation of Strauss, especially his views
on Plato. Emphasis is also made in this chapter on the changes Struassian Platonism
has caused to the existing concepts and ideas associated with Chinas classical texts
and its classical history. In other words, the Straussian influence on the Chinese
Platonists is treated as a fundamentally Chinese phenomenon with fundamentally
Chinese concern for tradition, history, and future, as its primary impetus.
46

There is great ambiguity and controversy in the interpretation of Strauss.

Besides the fact that Strauss himself is a difficult thinker, there are other factors that
make Strauss more complicated than most other modern thinkers. One reason is that
he hides his ideas behind his readings of other major figures in the history of
political and philosophical thought in a most indirect way, and therefore is believed
to hide his views behind a veil of scholarship (Drury PILS, ix). One main factor
contributing to Strausss complexity and controversy is his theory and practice of
esoteric writing. Drury believes that Strauss himself wrote esoterically and she
writes a whole book to uncover his esoteric philosophy (Drury PILS, ix)2 As a
philosopher who is always reluctant to disclose himself to the reader, Strauss leaves
ample room to both his followers and his critics for a plethora of interpretations. It is
not surprising, therefore, that people argue that Strauss himself needs to be
distinguished from his students and from groups which are referred as the political
Straussians (Zuckert TALS, 22). To underscore this point, the Zuckerts devotes an
entire chapter in their book The Truth about Strauss to the classification of the
American Straussians into three philosophically and geographically distinct groups:
the East Coast, the West Coast, and the Midwest. In this chapter, the interpretation of
Strauss in America is presented roughly in two groups: First, in America media,
Strauss is presented as a political philosopher who had a strong influence upon the
47

Reagan and the Bush Administrations; second, Strauss is seen as a thinker and a
scholar unjustly defamed by the America public. The first interpretation in this
chapter is based on Shadia B. Drurys works on Strauss, and the second
interpretation is supported by Catherine and Michael Zuckerts books which make
counter-argument to Drurys criticism.
The majority of Chinese scholars are well aware of the controversy existing
within American academia concerning Strauss and his philosophy. Their awareness
only serves to make more interesting their particular preference in reading Strauss.
Theoretically, Chinese Platonists portrayal of Strauss by is closer to the first
interpretation in America, the one criticized by the public media. However, differing
from Gan Yang, who tends to place Strauss in the background of American
conservatism, Liu Xiaofeng only emphasizes the the German intellectual background
of Strsuss. In many occasions, he explicitly states that his understanding of Strauss is
indebted to Heinrich Meier, a German scholar.
Nevertheless, the controversy in the interpretation of Strauss in America is
reflected in the Chinese academia. Besides the consistent efforts devoted to
introducing Strauss to the Chinese readership so far undertaken by the Chinese
Platonists, there is another significant and detailed introduction to Strauss, namely
the one authored by Gan Yang. Gan Yangs interpretation shares a great deal of
48

similarity with that of the Chinese Platonists represented by Liu Xiaofeng; however,
the difference between them, far from being diminished by the points held in
common by each side, is only sharpened by the apparent similarity. A comparison of
these two different readings can help us to obtain a more comprehensive
understanding of the unique characteristics of the Chinese Platonists as Straussians
and of how the issue of Chinese modernity goes through these Chinese scholars
understanding of Strauss.
Gan Yang is not treated as a Platonist in this paper. He does not participate
in the project of Platonis cum Commentariis or any other translation project of
Western Classical texts. The only discussion he has ever undertaken on the subject
of Plato is in his preface to the Chinese translation of Natural Rights and History as
a statement on his understanding of Strauss political philosophy. In contrast to the
Chinese Platonists who tend to restrict their analysis to the Western classics and tend
to keep their distance from the contemporary issues, Gan is more than willing to
engaging himself in a multitude of contemporary debates, not least of which are the
controversial problems raised by attempted renovation of political and economic
systems within the rural areas of China, or the ongoing challenges posed by
educations reform. More importantly, he has radically different philosophical stances
than those held by Liu Xiaofeng, Lin Guohua and other Chinese Platonists,
49

especially on the relation between philosophy and politics.

At a glance one might mistakenly take Gan and his works as an important
constituent of the school of Chinese Platonists, since he has numerous connections
with this particular academic group. The Phenomenological School he started and
led in the 1980s created the intellectual platform by which emergence of
the school of Chinese Platonists was rendered possible. Gan used to hold similar
views on Chinese culture and issue of Chinese modernity as his colleague Liu
Xiaofeng. It was with his support that Liu published his famous book Delivering and
Dallying. However, despite the common ground he used to have with Chinese
Platonists, Gan now takes a different stance from Chinese Platonists, especially in
regards to his understanding of Strauss as well as the application of Strausss
philosophy in contemporary China.
Gans long preface to Natural Right and History can be considered as a
counter-reading to those of the Chinese Platonists. It is worth noting that Gan
actually came to know Strauss earlier than any of Chinese Platonists did. He did his
Ph. D. study at the Committee on Social Thought of the Chicago University, where
Strauss first established his influence in America academia. After he came back
to China, Gan busily engaged himself in the various debates on contemporary issues
and remained silent on Strauss until he wrote his long prefaces in which he revealed
50

his great respect for Strauss in 2002. As it is noted, Gans long silence on Strauss is
significant. One is tempted to draw a parallel between Gans conspicuous silence and
the deliberate avoidance showed by Foucault towards any reference to Heidegger, a
man to whom he was and is greatly indebted for his thoughts (Shui). Then why does
he all of sudden talk about Strauss, about whom he has remained silent for an entire
decade? Gans preface to Natural Right and History immediately drew substantial
attention, partially because he does not usually produce long essays, let alone a long
and comprehensive introduction to a specific thinker. By the time Gan wrote his
preface, Strauss had already become very popular in China because of the consistent
efforts made by the Chinese Platonists represented by Liu Xiaofeng. Liu Xiaofengs
reading of Strauss is largely based on the German Straussian Heinrich Meiers books.
In his important essay entitled Strauss as a Sign Post, Liu cites Meier extensively
to support his reading of Strauss. It is noteworthy that in his preface, Gan makes a
special note that he does not find Heinrich Meiers explanatory works on Strauss
satisfactory (21). In other words, he subtly points out that Lius reading which favors
Meiers interpretation is not satisfactory. The political philosophy of Strauss he
constructs in his preface to Natural Right and History is very different from the one
introduced by Chinese Platonists. His preface can be looked upon as an effort to
modify and correct the views held by the Chinese Platonists.
51

This chapter starts with Gans preface before we come to a detailed

discussion on Liu Xiaofengs acceptance of Strauss. It is hoped that in light of Gans
reading, we can come to a better understanding of the unique characteristics of the
Straussian influence on the Chinese Platonists. After all, the key issues Gan deals
with are also the major concerns of Chinese Platonists in their reading of Strauss.
Similarly, Gan and Liu have a congruent understanding of Strauss. Both of
them consider Strauss as a thinker who has extremely profound understanding of
modernity. Both acknowledge the fact that Strauss builds up his theory on the
reading of Western classics, especially on the dialogue of Plato. Both discuss the
meaning of Socrates death in the sense of the political status of philosophy.
Furthermore, they both conclude that Strausss political philosophy has important
practical value and can be applied to the problems of contemporary China.
And yet, these structural similarities do not prevent them radically
contradicting each other in their explanations of Strauss. In the following, I focus on
several key issues in the dialogue Liu and Gan are engaged with the interpretation of
Strauss: What kind of dilemma does modernity create for human beings? In which
sense is politics necessary to philosophy? What kind of status does exoteric/esoteric
writing have in Strausss political philosophy? On these issues, Gan and Liu have
different understanding.
52

Gan states in his preface that Strauss maintains that the crisis of modernity
lies in radical historicism, that is, the denial of the existence of any ultimate value.
Gan does not stop there; instead, he uses the work of William Galston, one of the
Straussians, to explicate the concept of radical historicism as crisis of modernity in
the concept of liberalism. According to radical historicism, there is no ultimate value
and all values are equal. If so, there are inevitable conflicts between equal values. In
order to solve these conflicts, liberalism tries to set up a kind of value free
mechanism, which is not based on right or wrong, but on individual rights. In
other words, liberalism considers the ultimate good should be able to equally treat all
claims on morality; therefore, the ultimate good is not to tell which claim is good or
not, but to remain value free as it considers all claims are personal choice rather than
something to be decided in the public sphere (55). However, Gan through
Strauss questions the validity of this mechanism. Liberalism bases its theory on
Kants idea of self autonomy. Liberalism holds that the self is capable of freedom
from any presumption of good, that is, a human being is identified as free because he
does not submit himself to any particular presumption of good. There arises the
question as to what the free human being does after he obtains absolute freedom.
Kant would say that a free human being will make laws for himself (54). However,
as it is pointed out by modern theories, there is no guarantee for a free human being
53

to choose to submit himself to the state of law (54).Gan points out that Foucault
would argue that a free human being will choose not rights but power, not justice but
control of others (52-3). Accordingly, Foucault characterizes freedom as the
libidinous energy to negate everything: in order to get absolute freedom, it is
necessary to negate all the restraints imposed by race, religion, history, culture, and
gender etc. (53-4). Strauss considers this freedom in the Kantian sense as the
problem of nihilism, since it uproots man and places him in abyss (56). Strauss holds
that freedom of negativity by Kant might be possible to certain people, but not to
everyone; besides, not everyone wants this absolute freedom, since the majority of
society wants not negative deconstruction but positive construction (56). In
conclusion, Strauss considers that radical historicism, or rather, nihilism, puts
modern society in great danger and styles as the ultimate crisis of modernity.
In order to solve the problem, Strauss comes up with his theory of political
philosophy. He considers that modern philosophers like Kant erase the differences
between societal and philosophical concerns, and wrongly assume that each member
of society tries his best to obtain absolute negative freedom as a philosopher would
do. He calls this modern phenomenon politicization of philosophy. Previously,
philosophy is a personal intellectual activity, but now, it is brought into public and
political arena in the form of ideology. In Strausss words, philosophy has gone
54

mad. He proposes a return to Socrates and the political philosophy Socrates puts
forth in order to turn philosophy from its current madness back to sobriety and
moderation (61).
Gan makes it clear that a philosopher needs to be a political philosopher, or
rather, politics is necessary to philosophy largely because philosophy by nature is
dangerous and has the inherent tendency of going mad, because it by nature demands
absolute freedom of negativity. In order to save itself from madness, Gan maintains,
philosophy needs the practical outlet of political participation to keep its sobriety. At
the same time, Gan mentions also that a philosopher needs to have political
philosophy for the safety of society. After all, every society, which consists
primarily of non-philosophers, does not need the deconstructive negativity of
philosophy but constructive and positive works. In conclusion, politics is a requisite
part of the healthy practice of philosophy for two reasons: firstly, it is required by
philosophy itself; without politics, philosophy would become insane; secondly,
without politics, philosophy would do serious damage to society. By its own nature,
philosophy needs to transform itself into political philosophy. Thus is Gans
interpretation of Strausss intention of going to back to Plato for the original form of
Political Philosophy.
It is within this framework that Gan introduces Strausss most controversial
55

theory of esoteric writing. In order to keep philosophy away from its attempt of
philosophizing society, philosophers have to adopt a special way of writing. The
same piece of writing implies two teachings: the socially useful teaching, also called
the exoteric teaching; and the true teaching, also called the esoteric writing, which is
implied between the lines and requires special training to apprehend. By combining
esoteric writing and exoteric writing, the philosopher is able to protect morality and
opinions that are essential to the existence of society in his teaching of philosophy.
While explaining the concepts of the exoteric writing versus the esoteric writing,
Gan obviously places more emphasis on exoteric writing. Overall, in Gans reading,
Strauss theory of esoteric versus exoteric writing does not have the same
importance as in Liu Xiaofengs understanding.
Liu Xiaofeng starts with the same thesis of Strauss on the issue of
modernity: radical historicism, or rather, nihilism poses the most serious problem in
this modern age (Shitelaosi); He quotes from Strausss The Three Waves of
Modernity, asserting that modern western man no longer knows what he
wants---that he no longer believes that he can know what is good and bad, what is
right and wrong (PAGE). However, while Gan discusses historicism as opposite of
the political concept of liberalism, Liu understands Strausss idea of historicism
more in the metaphysical sense as the opposite of relativism. In his essay Ciwei de
56

Wenshun (Tameness of Hedgehog), Liu introduces the debate between Strausss

value absolutism and Isaiah Berlins value pluralism. Berlin takes over Max Webers
concept of polytheism and asserts that fundamental values such as truth, goodness,
beauty, love, etc, always vary and go against each other. There are two reasons for
these conflicts: none of the fundamental values are absolute; different people have
their own understanding of the fundamental values (Ciwei). Liu questions Berlins
position: if there is no absolute and transcendental truth, or rather, no natural law in
Socrates words, what is the point of having a philosophical life? How does
philosopher justify his philosophical life? (Ciwei. PAGE.). Liu explains in his essay
that Strauss provides another perspective to the justification of a philosophical life:
the value conflicts are inevitable (Ciwei, PAGE); but, this inevitability does not
provide a justification for the value-free attitude of relativism (Ciwei, PAGE);
instead, a philosopher should always concern himself with the ultimate question:
what is a good life? (Ciwei, PAGE)
Liu affirms Strausss position that philosophical life is a life of eros, a
forever desire for the ultimate truth/value (Ciwei, PAGE). And here lies the eternal
conflicts between philosophy and politics. For a philosopher, especially an Athenian
philosopher like Socrates, it is important to question the authority of ancestors. As he
puts it, philosophers are those who discourse on nature, and are different from
57

whose who discourse on gods. Here nature refers to beings that grow by
themselves, instead of being created either by deities or by human beings (Ciwei.). If
a good life is defined by god, people only need to follow what is said by god or by
customs; if it is defined by nature, people have to question and study whether the
concept of good or beauty goes with the nature. Socrates is a philosopher who
questions whether our concepts go with nature or not (Ciwei.). However, not every
member of society is capable of the philosophical life by nature, only a small group
of people can be philosophers. This small group of philosophers has to face political
persecution from society, as Socrates has to stand the accusation from the Athenian
citizens.
Liu considers the concept of political persecution that philosophers have to
deal with a most important concept in Strauss. Liu explains that there are two main
causes of the persecution from the people. First of all, to live a philosophical life
means being different from the life of the majority of society, which indirectly
indicates that the life most people live is not good. Besides, as philosophers
contemplate what is good, they deny that people are born to be good. Therefore, they
put themselves in constant tension with the existing social morals; Secondly,
philosophers also meditate on what is a good political system, and they thus deny
that the existing political system is good (Ciwei). The challenge philosophers make
58

to the existing social morality and political systems puts them in eternal political
danger.
It is to avoid political persecution that philosophers need to be political. In
other words, according to Lius understanding, politics is needed by philosophy
merely for the sake of the safety of philosopher. Liu explicitly states that the first
philosophical priority is to deal with the relationship between philosopher and
people (Nicai PAGE). Accordingly, exoteric writing and esoteric writing become
important strategy to avoid political persecution while maintaining the philosophical
life.
There are major differences between Liu and Gan in their reading of Strauss.
Shui Yili describes Gans approach as political and Lius philosophical. Shuis
understanding of their differences is exact. As to Gan, Strauss advocates going back
to the world of politics/opinions and to put politics as the end of philosophical life;
to Liu, Strausss suggestion of political participation is only a means to end, which is
purely philosophical. Liu considers that the necessity of political participation to
philosophers mainly lies in the fact that philosophers need to protect themselves
from political persecution. In other words, in Lius understanding politics, or rather,
the concerns/benefit of society is only a means to end, which is described as
philosophical eros toward ultimate and transcendental values. With philosophy as
59

the end, Liu emphasizes the theory of political persecution and the necessity of
esotericism. Besides, Gan understands Strauss in the Western tradition of political
theory, mainly as a criticism to Rawls liberalism, which started to be popular in the
1990s in China (Shui). Different from Gan, Liu emphasizes more on the
philosophical tradition behind Strauss. He tries to represent the conversations Strauss
has with metaphysical thinkers of different generations, Plato, Nietzsche, Heidegger,
etc. To him, Strausss criticism of value relativism/nihilism is one of his greatest
achievements in the history of philosophy. More importantly, Gan seems to follow
Straussians advice to go back to the opinion world by actively involving himself in
current debates on various political issues, such as Rural China, Reformation of
Education System, etc. As a contrast, in many ways, Liu consciously stays away
from these political debates and remains philosophical rather than political.
Compared to Gan, Liu is much more philosophical in his approach to the
political philosophy of Strauss. However, it does not mean that Liu abstains entirely
from any participation in the realities of China. As Shui points out, both Liu and Gan
approach Strauss with their concerns for China; or rather, they both hope to find in
Strauss the expression of their concerns with and understandings of the dilemmas of
modern China (Shui). As it is, while being philosophical, Liu engages himself in
the conversation on Chinese modernity in a much more indirect way than Gan Yang
60

does.
Lius emphasis on Strausss theory of political persecution strongly reminds
readers of his previous writings on Chinese modern history, which were published in
1980s and 1990s. The issue of history seems to loom behind Straussians. Strauss
himself seldom discussed immediate history, even the history of his
homeland Germany before and during the World War II. However, according to
Drury, Strausss deep distrust of liberal democracy is actually caused the by his
experience of Weimar Republic which convinced him of the political teachings of
Plato.
A great enemy of democracy, Plato described it as the second worst form of
government, and was convinced that it inevitably leads to tyranny. For Strauss as for
Plato, democracy is a licentious state of affairs in which a multiplicity of conflicting
and irreconcilable appetites compete for dominance. Plato describes a society torn
apart by insatiable and conflicting appetites, and he surmised that in this state of
disorder, one master passion was bound to become supreme and rule despotically
over all others. The scenario described by Plato, whereby democracy gives way to
tyranny, mirrors the scenario where Weimar sets the licentious state of Hitler to
emerge victorious.
Drury further points out that for Strauss and for his students such as Allan
61

Bloom, American liberalism is a recreation of the spineless liberalism of Weimar

(LSAR 5, 6). If Drurys claim that Strauss is haunted by the ghost of history is valid,
we can make a similar claim about Liu Xiaofeng and other Chinese Platonists who
grew up during the chaotic age of Cultural Revolution and started to seriously reflect
on this part of history in 1980s.
Liu Xiaofeng was one of many writers who first established their reputation
with their writings of personal memories and thoughts during the Cultural
Revolution. In these writings, the cruelty of collectivity over individuality was
greatly stressed. Regrets were shown to the fact that intellectualism was crushed
during political persecutions. Lius early essay, In memory of Donia, was one of
the most acknowledged writings of this genre at that time. We have to notice that the
criticism on collectivity in favor of individuality was a main trend in the 1980s.
Chinese Platonists, who emerged in the late 1990s, were either young scholars at that
time, or young readers of these works, and more or less fall under the shadow of the
Chinese modern history in their later choice of Strauss. With the keen experience
and memory of the political movements of the past decades, they are ready to accept
Strausss philosophical on political persecution and esoteric writing as protective
strategy for intellectuals. History matters a great deal to both Strauss and the Chinese
Straussians.
62

Lius criticism on the Chinese modern history written in his earlier age
touches on the classical Straussian theme, that is, the conflicts between philosophy
and politics. However, at that time it mostly appeared in the form of the conflicts
between individuality and collectivity. Because of the impression Liu gave to his
reader in 1980s and 1990s, he was considered to be a liberal in China until he came
to write about Strauss. Actually, his recent series of lectures on the Chinese modern
history, especially on the Civil War in the 1940s, the Chinese governments role in
the Korean Civil War in the 1950s, shocked many readers who did not quite follow
Lius recent changes and still considered him to be a liberal who was forced into
exile because of the Tiananmen Square Student Movement in 1989. In these lectures,
he portrayed Mao Zedong as a Superman straight from the pages of Nietzsche, a
Platonic Philosopher-King. Such a portrayal is quite contradictory to his previous
impression of Mao as a tyrant, a symbol of the negative destroying power of the
masses. Surely Liu applies Straussian concepts to re-read the Chinese modern
history, as we can detect classical Straussian themes such as the rulership of
philosopher-king. Besides, Lius emphasis on Chineseness in confrontation with
Americanism reminds reader of Strausss concern of the conflicts between Judaism
versus universalism. Yet, has Strauss drastically transformed Lius and other
Chinese Platonists vision of the world and of the life? Or is there some deeper
63

undercurrent of consistency flowing throughout?

With his belief that the Chinese mind is not a tabula rasa reaching out for
instruction from the outside, Thomas Metzger would disagree that acceptance of
Strausss philosophy re-molds the whole framework of Liu Xiaofeng or any other
Chinese scholar who later became Chinese Platonists/Straussians. Then besides the
immediate history, what is the intensity of the indigenous impulse to import
(Metzger 17) these Straussian concepts with such strong preference?
Liu first expressed his value absolutism in the language of Christian
philosophy in the 1980s. He held a defiant stance against Confucianism, arguing that
there is a lack for the transcendental being in the Chinese culture, which leads the
culture to nihilism. His main argument goes as follows: people always attempt to
seek meaning of existence in this world; however, there is no such meaning for
existence; Chinese culture either tends to nullify such attempts, emphasizing that the
meaning-seeking attempts are by nature meaningless (wu ming), or tries to create
certain meaning through moral cultivation; however, the meaning of life can only be
given by the transcendental god of Christianity, who cares for individuals who live
in this meaningless world (Zhengjiu 49, 50, 88). In this book, Liu emphasizes his
strong stance on value absolutism: absolute value transcends geographical, cultural
and historical differences. He identifies Christian value in its philosophical sense as
64

absolute value in this book.

However, the philosophical and theoretical support for his value absolutism
that he found in Christianity somehow disappeared in the years after he
published Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao(Redemption and Dallying). He had a new question:
since philosophy is loosing ground in this modern society, does it work to introduce
Christianity into China as one kind of philosophy (Shui)? His later book Xiandai
xing lilun xulun (Preface to Social Theory of Modernity) seems to express the idea
that that the real issue in China is not about whether to have Christianity or not, but
about modernity itself, that is, philosophy tends to disintegrate itself and nihilism is
inevitable. He admits later that while writing Xiandai xing lilun xulun, he was
retreating from his previous strong stance on value absolutism (Ciwei de wenshun).
By that time, he seems to wander between value absolutism and relativism. He even
came to the position of relativism asserting for value neutral by emphasizing the
necessity of objectivity (Xiandaixing 2).
In other words, value absolutism Liu previously acquired in Christianity
was challenged by modernity. He gradually modified or even dropped his position
about Christianity and tried to find an alternative support for his value absolutism,
that is, how to defend philosophy which searches for some ultimate value in a
modern age where all values are considered to be equal. We can see that his position
65

of value absolutism was quite close to his later understanding of Strausss thesis on
absolutism and relativism/nihilism. Actually he states that he was immensely
attracted to Strauss when he found out that Strausss criticism of value relativism
and nihilism was exactly the same as his in his Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao (Ciwei PAGE).
As he states, Strauss made him feel both shocked and strengthened (Ciwei
PAGE), and reaffirmed his strong position in value absolutism.
As we can see, Lius position about value absolutism is consistent before
and after he came to Strauss. It might be the same reason that he differs from Gan in
his approach to Strauss by emphasizing Strausss criticism of relativism and nihilism.
Through reading Strauss, Liu finds raison dtre and strategy for the existence of
philosophers in modern society. Besides, Liu starts to reconsider Chinese culture
within the framework of Straussian political philosophy.
As we mentioned earlier, Liu takes a defiant position against Chinese culture
in his early work Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao. He criticized that both Confucianism and
Daoism ignored peoples instinct of seeking ultimate values, an argument based on
his understanding of Christianity. After he started reading Strauss, while his position
about Christianity is greatly modified or even dropped, his interest in Chinese
culture keeps increasing. Chinese culture, either Confucianism or Daoism, now
seems to Liu to be something worthy of philosophical investigation. It is interesting
66

that Strauss changes Lius attitude toward Chinese culture. Liu might be inspired by
Strausss consistent efforts in detecting consistencies between thinkers of Jewish
thinkers such as Maimonides and Hellenistic thinkers like Plato and Xenophon. As
an active participant in Cultural Debates in 1980s, Liu is familiar with dialogues
between different cultures, as he demonstrated in Zhengjiu yu xiaoayao. Instead of
detecting differences, now he is more interested in locating the similarities between
the Western Tradition and Chinese culture with regard to Strausss concept of
philosophy.
I mentioned in the previous chapter that Liu frequently refers back to
Chinese classics in his commentary on Symposium. He makes more connections with
Straussian Platonism and Confucianism and Daoism in his other essays. He
interprets the Confucian scholar Kang Youweis refusal to publish his works as an
illustrating example of esotericism in the Chinese modern history. At the same time,
he asserts that esotericism is embodied in Xujing , a Daoist virtue emphasized
by Dao de jing. However, the most noticeable effort he makes is to build up a
connection between Platonic Philosopher-King/Nietzschean Superman
and Shengren/Suwang/ in Chinese culture.
Jiang Qin, a contemporary scholar who advocates so-called Political
Confucianism, affirms Lius change of attitude toward Chinese culture, saying that
67

Liu Xiaofeng has taken radically different stand toward Confucian culture in the
past twenty years. Liu Xiaofeng no longer rejects Confucianism; instead, he now
respects Confucian scholars like Liao Ping as ShengrenSage (PAGE). Jiangs
comment has several implications. First of all, Jiang points out that Liu takes the
New School/Gong Yang approach to Confucian classics. Secondly, the theory
of Shengren is key to Lius new interpretation of Chinese Confucianism. These two
aspects are related.
Kang Youwei (Kang Yu-wei) (1858-1927) was one of the most famous
reformers and Confucian scholars who tried to use Confucian texts to promote
reformation of political system. He was accused of plagiarizing from Liao Ping (Liao
Ping) (1852-1932) for his Confucian theory (Levenson III. 6). Both Kang Youwei
and Liao Ping belong to the School of Gong Yang, a branch
of New School (Chin-wen) Confucianism. The School of Gong Yang represented by
Liao and Kang in the nineteenth century distinguished itself by its assertion that
Confucius, instead of King Wen of the Zhou (?), is Shengren. Furthermore, this
school emphasizes political applications of Confucian texts. Its tendency toward
political participation culminated in the political reformation led by Kang Youwei by
the end of the nineteenth century. Furthermore, Gong Yang School emphasizes
esoteric reading in its treatment of Confucian classics. Liao Ping credited Confucius
68

as the one who started the esoteric writing tradition:

Liaos Confucius, in his stories about his idol, Wen Wang [],
for example, had an esoteric message to convey, wrapped within
the spurious, metaphorical, outside historical surface. For
Confucius, as a su-wang (throneless king), was confined to the
inner realm of knowledge, barred from the outer realm of executive
action, and he expressed his knowledge in specifically empty
words, words, that is, which did not record what they seemed to
recordpast and open politicsbut future, hidden prospects.
(Levenson III. 12)
In other words, the scholars of Gong Yang used the esoteric reading as a strategy to
obtain hidden messages from the Confucian classics on politics about the past and
about the future. The secret message has universal and time-transcending meaning.
In this sense, the school of Gong Yang represented by Kang Youwei and Liao Ping
is close to Strausss theory with regard to their belief that an esoteric strategy should
be adopted to extract a hidden philosophical meaning out of the classic text. Liu is
well-aware of this similarity, and cites the example of Kang Youwei to support
Strausss theory of esotericism (Nicai P5).
Lius effort of locating Western values in Confucian tradition itself is not
69

rare in the tradition of Gong Yang School. As Levenson noticed, Kang Youwei tried
to keep western values and rediscover them inside Confucianism3. With a nod to his
predecessor Kang Youwei, Liu pushes forward Kangs efforts in the modern era and
asserts that the political philosophy as stated by Strauss exists in the Chinese culture,
demonstrated by sages like Confucius and Laozi. Lius most systematic
interpretation of Confucian classics is exemplified in his theory of Shengren, which
is actually the Chinese version of Straussian/Platonic philosopher-king. Strausss
Platonic philosopher is modeled after Nietzsches superman (Drury PILS 180). In
his Nietzsches Beyond Good and Evil, Strauss comprehensively connects
Nietzsche to Plato on the nature and the function of philosopher. According to him,
the will to power is an equivalence to eros, the striving for the good in itself, in
Plato (Note on Nietzsche 176); and philosophizing is the most spiritual (der
geistigste) will to power, which ascribes true value, or in Strausss words, the
natural right, what or how it ought to be (176). Philosopher, with the will to power,
is free from the restraints of the social nomos of his time. The philosopher as
philosopher belongs to the future and was therefore at all times in contradiction to
his Today; the philosophers were always the bad conscience of their time (187).
The philosopher ascribes values and maintains the order of rank with his cosmic
responsibility (187-9). The philosopher should be the leader of society. Strauss thus
70

identifies the philosopher of future in Nietzsche as his understanding of the Platonic

philosopher-king. The leaders who can counteract the degradation of man which
has led to the autonomy of the herd ... must be philosophers, new philosophers, a
new kind of philosophers and commanders, the philosophers of the future (184).
Liu fully acknowledges Strausss understanding of the connection between
Nietzsche and Plato on philosopher-king/super-man. And he tries to identify the
Confucian concept of Shengren (sage) as the Chinese version of the Straussian
Philosopher-King. He asserts that the only difference between Shengren and the
Platonic Philosopher-king lies in the fact that, the key issue to Platonic philosopher
is whether or not he should take over rule, and how to rule; such issue does not exist
to Shengren, since Shengren was initially the ruler, since Zhou Gong (Wen Wang)
was both a philosopher and a king (Shengren P3). He further points out that
Confucius is Suwang (Uncrowned King), since he does not rule as king (P4). In
other words, by clarifying the concepts of Shengren and Suwang, Liu indirectly
affirms that Shengren since the period of Wen Wang has become the uncrowned
king, and thus is identical to the Platonic/Straussian concept of Philosopher-king.
Liu takes the traditional view of the School of Gong Yang, holding the most
important task in Confucianism is to follow the example of Confucius rather than
Wen Wang. Liu makes it more specific that Confucius assumes higher status than
71

Wen Wang by setting up dafa (great laws) for later generations in his writings,
especially in the book Chun Qiu (Rujia 55). Lius idea of dafa comes from Liao
Ping, who considers Confucius both a sage and a prophet making prophecy for the
future generations (Levenson 278). In other words, Liu takes Confucius as
philosopher like Plato, who teaches political philosophy or law of natural right
through writing.
The message implied in the writings of Confucius, as Liu insists, is political,
or rather, revolutionary. Liu re-interprets the word geming (revolution): the
basic implication of geming is not to obtain the ruling power; instead, it is to re-set
the legitimacy of the ruler as well as the moral set of society/state (Rujia 45). This
issue did not exist at the time of Wen Wang, since Wen Wang himself is philosopher
and king. However, by the time of Confucius, the philosopher is no long the king;
Confucius does not have any decisive power of re-setting the existing political and
moral orders. There generated tension between suwang as philosopher who is not in
power and king as the ruler, and it therefore attributes political/revolutionary spirit
to suwang. Liu states, Suwang has virtues to rule and should rule but does not
rule....As suwang is the one who should rule but does not rule, who does not rule but
wants to rule, how else can he do besides being revolutionary? (Rujia 58).
Besides, Liu attributes transcendental meaning to the Chinese concept
72

of tian. Liu argues that it is with order from heaven that Confucius tries to re-set the
political order (shou tian ming gai zhi). And the order from heaven/god is absolute
and takes the form of de (virtue) in suwang (60). The order suwang receives is
from the absolute god (Rujia 57). It is controversial whether the Confucian concept
of tian (heaven) has transcendental quality or not. Lius main thesis in his early
book Delivering and Dallying argues that there is no transcendental concept in
Confucian tradition. His earlier argument does not prevent him from coming up with
the argument that Confucius receives absolute order from the transcendental heaven
like prophets in the Old Testament or like the Platonic philosopher who insists that
there are ultimate values regarding to what is right, what is wrong. In Lius
interpretation of tian and de, we can find traits of Strausss understanding of
Platonic philosophers as well as the prophets in Jewish culture. On the other hand,
by asserting that suwang receives order from a transcendental heaven, Liu actually
greatly enhances the political meaning of Confucianism: The political participation
of Confucian philosophers is necessary, since its goal is to carry out the heavenly
mission!
Furthermore, Liu holds that the goal of political participation of Shengren is
to jiaohua tianxia (to civilize people). More specifically, it is to make people to
observe li (ritual, or Confucian order) to secure the rectified social and political
73

order (67). In other words, suwang as the one who is going to carry out tianming (the
mandate of Heaven) has to popularize de (virtue) embodied by him. Society-wide
campaign of certain moral codes is necessary to Shengren. Accordingly, the Cultural
Revolution led by Mao Zedong as a social campaign to re-set morality is inevitable
(73). Lius interpretation of jiaohua tianxia comes close to Straussian idea of
exoteric writing, that is, philosophers need to set moral codes for people. However,
Liu comes closer to Strauss in the sense that liberalism does not have any place in
Confucian societies. According to Liu, as Shengren receives order from heaven to
set social, moral orders for people, there is no place for his personal choice. There
is no freedom for individual to make his personal choice. Instead, the mission is
clear, that is, to cultivate people with political system and institution (73).4 On the
other hand, individuals of society have to observe the social, political and moral
orders set by Shengren. Decided by the nature of the political mission of Shengren,
Confucian society excludes individual freedom and has to be morally tyrannical
(73).
Liu comes to a Straussian conclusion in his understanding of Confucian
concept of Shengren, that is, democracy does not fit well in Confucian tradition. He
states that democracy and liberalism are based on the social recognition of individual
freedom and equality, not on the philosophy of Shengren which emphasizes that
74

social justice should be based on Heavenly order through Shengren (105). Lius
conclusion reminds people of Strausss criticism of democracy and liberalism, and
more strongly reminds Chinese readers of the recently emerged theory Political
Confucianism.
Chinese scholar Jiang Qin came up with his theory of Political Confucianism
in recent years. As Liu Xiaofeng, Jiang bases his theory on the School of Gong
Yang of Jin Wen, especially on the works of Liao Ping. He holds that the most
serious mistake of contemporary study on Confucianism is its ignorance of the
political aspects of Confucianism and thus it has gone astray. He asserts that
Confucianism has provided sufficient political resources and that
contemporary China should go back to Confucianism instead of democratization.
Liu is more reserved on the application of Confucianism than Jiang by stating that
the re-emergence of so-called Political Confucianism is not the right solution for
political reformation in China (106). However, because of the similarities between
Liu and Jiang, Lius statement does not clarify peoples suspicion that Liu and Jiang
are on the same track, trying to influence the political reformation in the
contemporary China, as their predecessor Kang Youwei once tried and as Strauss
actually did through his students.
Lius Straussian approaches to classics, either Western classics such as
75

Platonic dialogue or Chinese Confucian classics, such as Chunqiu, have Straussian

criticism in China. In other words, he has encountered the same criticism from his
Chinese peers as Strauss had in America from other scholars and from public media.
Apart from the criticism from Gan Yang, who comes up with an alternative reading
of Strauss and of the application of Straussian political philosophy, the criticism Liu
receives roughly fall into two groups: the first is about Lius academic methods; the
second is about the potential political danger it poses.
While Strauss constructs his political philosophy on readings of thinkers
on different generation, he is criticized for imposing his own ideas on these writers,
either ancient or modern. Drury sharply points out that Strauss uses Machiavelli as
his mouthpiece (PILS, 26):
Those who consider Strausss exposition of the esoteric style of
writing to be a hermeneutic for the study of ancient text, not
surprisingly, complain about the arbitraries of this hermeneutic.
Strausss penchant for arriving at conclusions based on Machiavellis
silences lead his critics to maintain that Strauss asserts whatever he
pleases. His apparent precision and meticulousness seems to be but a
cover for his resolve to fit Machiavelli into his preconceived view of
the tradition of political philosophy. That Strauss completely ignores
76

not only recent scholarship on Machiavelli but the whole intellectual

life of Italy at the time is yet another source of criticism of Strausss
methods. (114)
The criticism Drury makes to Strausss reading, can be largely applied to
Lius reading of Plato, Nietzsche, Lessing and other thinkers with his esoteric
reading strategy. Same as the defect in Strausss reading of Machiavelli, Liu does not
include much of the recent study of Plato in his Platonis cum commentariis. Besides,
he does not go into the whole intellectual life of the time of these authors. Liu
receives more criticism on his reading methods in the Chinese circle when he
attempts to fit the Straussian ideas into the Chinese classics in his theory of Shengren.
He is accused by Chinese scholars of not having enough knowledge or adequate
training in the Chinese philosophy and philology (PAGE).
So far the most powerful criticism on Lius scholarship is from Zong
Chenghe, who wrote an article on the Straussian approach Liu and other Chinese
Platonists adopt. Zong points out that Liu and Lin Guohua, another Chinese Platonist,
either add their own words to Nietzsches passage or twist Nietzsches words to fit in
their Straussian framework (P6). Thus, their conclusions on esoteric meanings are
often invalid (P6). As Liu and other Chinese Platonists pay special attention to the
inconsistent place in the text according to Straussian theory of esotericism, Zong
77

points out that these inconsistencies may simply indicate the inconsistency in
Nietzsche rather than intentionally concealed ideas. He states:
I would rather think the inconsistency in Nietzsche does
not imply his intentional lies, but reveals that there is a lack of
consistency in his thought.... Nietzsche himself often forgets
certain ideas he once has, and sometimes even is not conscious of
the conflicts in his ideas. However, it is the richness generated by
this kind of inconsistency that makes Nietzsche a great thinker
and that benefits different groups of people. On the other hand,
the inconsistency in Nietzsche may indicate that he himself have
many unsolved problems. (P7)
Zongs criticism actually challenges the contemporary Chinese Platonism
in different aspects by questioning the validity of the practice of esotericism. The
practice of Straussian esotericism can only be valid when we believe that the hidden
philosophy in ancient writings is consistent. Consistency is necessary when we
assume that the writing features such as contradictions, principles frequently stated
but silently contradicted by upholding incompatible views, inexact repetitions,
pseudonyms, strange expressions, a frequent use of technical language, ambiguity of
expression, and other infelicities of style (Drury PILS 25) are deliberately intended
78

to conceal certain hidden meaning. We may believe that the writings of Plato may be
consistent5 and all the inconsistent parts come together to uphold some grand
concealed philosophical scheme. Then how about other thinkers like Nietzsche, who
may produce their writings in some mentally unstable conditions or who do not care
so much about consistency? If we persist in our belief that all these writers, either
ancient or modern, are prophet-like and they are free from random errors, we
would be forcing our own ideas into the lines of these writings and draw an arbitrary
conclusion which comes from our own rather from these works.
While Zong criticizes Liu Xiaofengs arbitrary interpretation of Nietzsche,
he mentions that Lin Guohua, another Chinese Platonist, makes a similar mistake of
scholarship in reading Nietzsche. Lin Guohua holds the same idea as Liu Xiaofeng
does, stating that Nietzsche insists the necessity of lying, quoting Nietzsches
sentence to cheat in misfortune. However, Zong points out that Lin ignores the
context and thus forces his own ideas onto Nietzsche. Zong here points out another
main defect of the Chinese Platonists, which make them fail to gain more
appreciation from the mainstream in Chinese academic circle. Loose quotations,
forced conclusions, as well as other causal mistakes in scholarship are more or less
harming their credibility as serious experts of Plato. Though popular among young
scholars and graduate students, they receive more skeptical criticism from the
79

scholars with more solid academic training. As a result, the project of Platonis Cum
Commentariis has to mostly rely on graduate students under Lius supervision who
are not yet totally adequate in Classical Greek nor in serious scholarship, and thus
invites more criticism from those who are already skeptical.
The major attack Straussians in America receive is on their affiliation with
Reagan and Bush administrations and in the Republican Party.6 Besides, Strauss is
accused of providing theoretic support of the war in Afghanistan by the American
government. Liu Xiaofeng and other Chinese Platonists/Straussians have
encountered similar accusation from their Chinese peers, though in a different
situation. As it is mentioned earlier, Lius interpretation of the Confucian classics
shares many in common with the school of Political Confucianism by Jiang Qin,
who is suspected as serving the current political system in China. Jiang Qins basic
argument is that the political system of democracy and liberalism does not work in
the Chinese culture; the Chinese government should not follow the example of the
modern Western country but should go back to the original Confucian political mode.
It supports the Chinese governments claims that Western democracy does not work
in China and political reformation in favor of democracy should be prevented (Xiao,).
Though Liu declares that he does not agree with Jiang Qins plan of reviving
Political Confucianism in the contemporary China, he receives almost the same
80

accusation for his similarity with Jiang. In fact, Lius preference of Gong Yang and
Straussian approaches to the Chinese classics strongly reminds people of the
political Confucian scholars like Kang Youwei and makes people wonder what he is
going to do next. In recent years, Liu makes a series of lectures on the Chinese Civil
War during the 1940s and the Korean Civil War in 1950s. His views, with numerous
citations of Strauss and Schmitt, seem to validate peoples suspicion of him. While
portraying Mao Zedong as the onfucian Shengren and Straussian Philosopher-king,
Liu seems to support the legitimacy of the current rule of the Chinese government as
well as its role in preventing democratization in other countries.
It remains a question whether Liu and other Chinese Platonists, who are
equipped with the political philosophy of Strauss and of Gong Yang School of
Confucianism, will exert the same influence upon Chinese domestic and foreign
policy-making or not. Will they follow the examples of earlier Confucian scholars
like Kang Youwei to promote radical reformation of the current political system? Or
will they be more like American Straussians, who advocate political conservatism by
joining the government administration and participating domestic and foreign
policy-making? It seems it is not yet time to tell which direction they will take. It is
more likely that they will choose a way between these two options according to their
understanding of the social, historical and cultural realities of modern China. On the
81

other hand, it is interesting to see that the dialogues of Plato, may one day, through
lens of Strauss, Nietzsche as well as Confucianism, exert some real influence in a
culture that is not Hellenistic. Plato, after Karl Marx, Freud, and Foucault, now takes
a place in the conversations going on in current China.

82

Notes
[1] Shadia B. Drury shares the views of other critics of Strauss, and considers
Strauss to beskeptical of democracy. She states, Strausss experience
in Germany confirmed the political teaching of his beloved Plato. A great enemy of
democracy, Plato described it as the second worse form of government, and was
convinced that it inevitably leads to tyranny. For Strauss as for Plato, democracy is a
licentious state of affairs in which a multiplicity of conflicting and irreconcilable
appetites compete for dominance (Drury 1997, 4). However, Catherine and Michael
Zuckert have written a book to defend Strausss political stands. They assert that
there is no antipathy between Strauss and liberal democracy, Thus we have three
chief goals for this volume: 1. To explain Strausss way of holding together his
philosophic and political projects, which include his advocacy of a return to the
ancients in philosophy and the endorsement, qualified, to be sure, of modern liberal
democracy.... (Zuckert TALS 22).
[2] Zuckerts disagree with Drury on Strausss practice of esoteric writing. They
assert that Strauss exposes, defends and justifies the practice of esoteric writing in
the past, but he does not apply the esoteric theory in his own writing. Contrary to
what appears obvious to Drury and many others, we are maintaining, then, that
Strauss does not write as he reads, that he is not presenting esoteric expression as
83

necessary or desirable for himself or his followers (Zuckert TALS, 130).

[3] Levenson observes that the scholars of New School Confucianism like Kang
Youwei re-interpreted li and yong, substance and function, waht one is and what
one does (I. 56) and thus to make the values of the modern West not a complement
to the Chinese tradition but an integral part of it (I. 77).
[4] Lius concept on Shengrens personal choice differs from Strausss concept of
philosopher. The Straussian philosophers definitely have full freedom for their
personal choice, that is, to live a philosophical life. The political participation
philosophers do is only to guarantee their personal freedom. Lius understanding
of Shengren is closer to Straussian concept of prophets, who are chosen by God to
fulfill the mission of social campaigns. Actually, in more than one places does Liu
point out similarity between Shengren and Jewish prophets (107).
[5] However, it is still quite doubtful that Plato never revises his earlier ideas in his
later writings and thus creates certain inconsistency which cannot be fully explained
by the esoteric writing techniques.
[6] For a partial list of the Straussians who held or hold important political positions,
see Drurys Strauss and the American Right, page 3.

84

CHAPTER THREE: Phenomenological/Hermeneutic Approach to Plato and Chinese

Modernity
As the previous chapter indicates, Chinese Platonic Study is not a replication of
one of the Western disciplines in a third-world country. Neither is it a continuation of
the American Straussian reading of Plato. With its many pre-understandings and strong
preferences, it is more like a cultural and intellectual phenomenon which reflects
modern Chinese scholars understandings and concerns of the social and historical
realities in China. The ancient texts of Plato, together with the views of Leo Strauss,
provide them a new perspective on the realities they are experiencing in modern China
and new expressions of their concerns. We may wonder what kind of concerns they
have behind their consistent efforts in reading and translating Plato.
There was a revival of classics, especially the study of Plato, in the twentieth
century. Modern thinkers such as Heidegger, Derrida, and Foucault come back to the
dialogues of Plato in their different ways with their understanding of the Western
modernity and their attempt to find a solution for this very problem. Leo Strauss is one
of these modern Platonists. As he believes, and as is acknowledged both by the Chinese
Platonists and other Chinese scholars such as Gan Yang, Strauss bases his theory of
85

political philosophy on Plato and tries to address to the problems created by

modern liberalism/nihilism with the political philosophy of Plato.
As their Western precedents, Chinese Platonists are aware of the crisis of
modernity. On one hand, they share a lot of similarities with those Western thinkers in
their understanding of modernity because of the modern globalization. Marketization
and commercialization have now quickly turned Western problems into universal
problems. Furthermore, the academic dialogues Chinese scholars have with their
Western counterparts in the past two decades have equipped them with a set of
vocabulary and expressions to participate in the Western discussion on the issue of
modernity. However, on the other hand, the modernity Chinese Platonists are
experiencing and expressing has its strong and distinctive features of locality. In their
reading of Plato, especially, in their synthesis of Platonic philosopher-king and
Confucian Shengren, there is a strong inclination toward the Chinese culture. In
addition, when Liu Xiaofeng tries to apply the Straussian theory of the rule of
philosophers to the Chinese modern history, he is actually making a statement on
Chinese historic and political realities. The modernity they are experiencing and
expressing through Plato is not only universal but also distinctively Chinese.
As Liu puts the word chanshi (hermes) in the cover page of each works of
the project Platonis cum commentariis, the Chinese Platonists approaches to Plato
86

and Strauss is strongly phenomenological and hermeneutic. It is held in this chapter

that through these phenomenological/ hermeneutic approaches we can find the deep
concerns Chinese Platonists have in their reading of Plato. Furthermore, through the
discussion on this very feature, we can place this school in modern Chinese
intellectual history and give a general picture of how it develops and differs from its
precedents in their understanding of modernity in China. With this understanding, the
phenomenological/hermeneutic feature of Chinese Platonists is not only discussed as
an essential part of the philosophy and practices of this school but is also taken as a
connection to the previous intellectual movements in Chinese modern history,
including the Great Discussion in the mid of 1980s, May Fourth tradition, as well as
the Reform Movement of 1898.
Accordingly, this chapter first discusses how the phenomenological/
hermeneutic approaches go through Chinese Platonists reading of Plato and Strauss
and reveals their understanding of the issue of modernity in the West and in China.
The second part moves to an argument holding that Chinese Platonism has
genealogical connections with the thoughts of the Hermeneutic School during the
Great Cultural Discussion during the 1980s. The continuity and divergence between
these two schools is discussed. The third part places Chinese Platonism in the modern
Chinese intellectual history and looks for its conscious attempts of breaking from the
87

May Fourth Tradition and its consciousness of the attitudes held by the Confucian
scholars during the Reform Movement of 1989. In the previous chapter, Chinese
Platonists reading of Strauss was synchronically compared to Gans as well as
American Straussians alternative interpretations. Taking a different perspective, this
chapter views the school of Chinese Platonists mainly in diachronic sense,
emphasizing its historical background as well as cultural heritage.
The whole project of contemporary Platonic study in China identifies itself as
Hermeneutic endeavor. It puts a special note on the word chanshi (Hermes) on the
cover page of each book of this project. Liu Xiafeng further emphasizes the meaning
and association of Hermeneutic approach in his preface. He points out that the
ongoing translation projects of Western scholarly works in China are productive but
not profound; they focus only on general introduction of the most popular theories in
the Western academic circle and do not have the chanshi shendu (Hermeneutic
depth), which is essential to any translation project ( Translators Preface, Huiyin).
He does not clearly state but implies that only Hermeneutic approaches can help
Chinese scholars obtain a comprehensive and deep understanding of the Western
tradition; With such help, Chinese scholars can avoid superficial repetition of what is
popular in Western academic circles. Furthermore, he also indicates that only through
Hermeneutic approaches are we able to not only fully comprehend and but also
88

participate and contribute to the encounter between Western tradition and Chinese
culture (Translators Preface, Huiyin).
The Chinese Platonists identify themselves with the German Hermeneutic tradition.
In the commentaries put forth by these Chinese scholars, these names of
Phenomenological/Hermeneutic thinkers, including Friedrich Scheleiermacher,
Gadamer, and Heidegger, are mentioned frequently. The Chinese Platonists emphasis
on the necessity of close reading as an effort to discover the lost or hidden meaning is
from Scheleiermacher. And, their ultimate purpose of understanding our own situation
through reading of Western classics is nevertheless a Hermeneutic idea of
subjectivity. Liu and other Chinese Platonists consciousness of the subject in the
cultural encounter between the West and the East strongly indicates Gadamerian
concept of Fusion of Horizons. The Phenomenological/Hermeneutic approach is
actually more than a mere methodological maneuver to them; rather, it reveals their
basic intellectual attitudes to the problems they are concerned with.
Though prominent as intellectual features of Chinese Platonic School, the
Phenomenological/Hermeneutic approach had its role in the Chinese academic
discussion before Chinese scholars started paying much attention to Plato and Strauss
and formed the school of Chinese Platonists. Actually, it is under the influence of the
Phenomenological/ Hermeneutic attitude that Chinese scholars came to Plato and
89

other Western classics with strong pre-understandings. This very feature of the School
of Chinese Platonic Study is key to our understanding of the deep concerns behind
their reading of Plato and Strauss.
It is necessary to examine the intellectual resources contemporary Chinese
Platonists use in order to have a comprehensive understanding of their
Phenomenological/ Hermeneutic Approach. Zhang Xudong asserts that the academic
discussions of the 1990s [and the 2000s] are developments and continuations of the
Great Culture Discussions of the 1980s (Huanxiang, xiii). His assertion can be
precisely applied to the current Platonic study in China. The most immediate resource
these Chinese Platonists have is the Phenomenological School of the Great Cultural
Discussion in the 1980s. The Phenomenological School has high status in the Chinese
modern intellectual history on account of its unique perspective. According to Zhang
Xudong, these young scholars of the Phenomenological School not only illustrate the
temporal development of Chinese cultural reflection in the post-Mao era, but also
form a constellation of contemporary Chinese thinking that bears the complexity and
tension of Chinese society in transition, a constellation that absorbs a global history
and is made possible by the global context (Chinese Modernism 71). The
Phenomenological School of the 1980s provides fundamental principles and
perspectives for the current Platonic study in China.
90

Zhang Xudong is not the only one who detects this genealogical connection. In
the general preface to the translation project, Liu Xiaofeng gives a brief introduction
of the massive project of translating Western classics. While he is generally critical of
the majority of translation projects in the modern Chinese intellectual history, he gives
full credit to the achievements and values of the translation project of xiandai xifang
xueshu wenku (Modern Western Classics Series) of the 1980s with Gan Yang as the
chief editor. Liu in his preface acknowledges the genealogical connection between
these two translation movements by suggesting that, if not interrupted by certain
historical events, the translation project of xiandai xifang xueshu wenku would have
naturally proceeded to the reading and translating of Western classics, especially the
works of Plato, in an effort to understand the Western Tradition as a historical
dynamic totality. Liu concludes in a way similar to Zhangs observation that the
translation of Plato is a continuation of the translation project in a new era started by
the Phenomenological/ Hermeneutic School in the mid 1980s.
Between early 1985 and the eve of the crackdown on the Tiananmen Square
Movement, there was an extraordinary cultural phenomena that is often referred to as
the Great Cultural Discussion (Wenhua da taolun) or as the Culture Fever
(Wenhua re). It was an extensive social discussion on culture, reaching into different
layers of society. It took forms of scholarly discussions in academic meeting and street
91

talks by factor workers. All over the country, from big-name professors to high
school students, from government officials to interested workers and soldiers,
individuals stepped forward to offer information and opinion; seminars, research
groups and reading circles mushroomed in Beijing and Shanghai as well as in
provincial towns (Zhang, Political Hermeneutics 1). The Great Cultural Discussion
occurred at a time when people continued to examine and to react to the past. Edward
Gu states,
As a result of the engagement of both establishment and
non-establishment cultural intellectuals, the cultural public spaces
newly emerged in the 1980s.Intellectually, despite its nonofficial
nature, the culture fever first of all was an echo of the ideological
campaign against feudalism, which was an intrinsic part of the
officially launched Emancipating the Mind Movement (393).
While Gu defines it as an echo of the ideological campaign against feudalism, Gan
Yang tends to define the movement as a cultural phenomenon. In his famous Preface
to the Chinese Contemporary Cultural Consciousness (Zhongguo dangdai wenhua
yishi qianyan), the Great Cultural Discussion is a protest against the
over-politicalizing ideology, which should be traced back not only to the left in the
past decades but also to the whole Chinese tradition (Zhongguo, 105).
92

The Great Cultural Discussion has its own political and historical mission. It
occurred in a period when China started its first full-blown reform and opening to the
outside world in the history of Peoples Republic. Chinese scholars once again got
access to the Western intellectual and academic discussions. The historical and social
backgrounds of the Cultural Discussion are summarized by Gan Yang in the following
passage:
once the Ten Years of Calamity, was ended, the task of
modernization was to be raised once again. The Chinese people did not
concern themselves with the cultural problematics until having
accomplished three steps, namely: first was the inauguration of the
open-door policy and the introduction of advanced technology from
the advanced countries. Second was the strengthening of the
democracy and legality, and the rapid reform of the economic
systemsince without a corresponding system of management, the
advanced technology would be useless. Finally, the question of culture
was placed in the fore of the entire society, because the improvement
of political institutions and the reform of the economic system had
touched the cultural tradition in general, that is to say, the cultural
background, cultural psyche and cultural enterprises in the social world.
93

From my point of view, this is the real background and the

truth-content of todays cultural fever and of the fashion in East-West
Comparison. (1989, 1-2) (Translated by and quoted in Zhang,
Political Hermeneutics 5.)
The new atmosphere for discussion, the desire to examine Chinese modern history as
well as the Chinese tradition itself, the access to Western theories all contributed to the
fever of discussing the relationship between the East and the West. According to most
people in the 1980s, the Great Cultural Discussion is a continuation of the
May-Fourth tradition, which examined the relationship between the West and the East
for possible solution to the Chinese modern crisis. During the discussion, among
different schools, Neo-Confucianism advocated remembrance of Chinese tradition to
rescue China from Western instrumental rationality (Wang 75, 79), and the Qimen
School advocates were eager to demonstrate that the material condition of China in the
late sixteenth century was already ripe for the rational critique which characterizes the
Western culture (Wang 79). However, the Hermeneutic School represented by Gan
Yang believes that it is misleading to put the Great Cultural Discussion in the
May-Fourth Tradition, since the crucial problem in contemporary China lies not in the
conflicts between the East and the West, but rather the conflicts between the ancient
and the modern (Wang 109).
94

One of the criticisms Gan Yang makes of the School of Neo-Confucianism and
the Qimen School that they tend to ignore the fact that both Chinese and Western
culture undergo constant changes and thus it is impossible to make general
comparisons of different cultures as static and unchangeable phenomena. He says,
The key problem is this: the geocultural differentiation between
Chinese and the Western culture is usually stressed in such a boundless
fashion that we often neglect the more substantial, more fundamental
problem of the differentiation between traditional and modern cultures,
of Chinese culture itself having to undergo a transition from its
traditional paradigm to its modern paradigmWe tend to engage in a
general, abstract comparison between an abstract Chinese (Effectively,
traditional Chinese culture, with Confucianism as its bottom line) and
an abstract Western culture (in fact, modern Western culture after its
epistemological break), in which we avoid, obstruct, remove or even
suspend the more substantive difference between traditional and
modern Chines cultural paradigms. By doing so, we also neglect the
fact that there is a difference between a traditional stage and a modern
one within Western culture itself. (trans. by and qtd. In Zhang,
Political Hermeneutics 37).
95

This recognition of cultural conflict as a historical dynamic (Zhang, Political

Hermeneutics 37) gives Gan and other scholars of this school a totally new
perspective on the definition of Chinese modernity and on its solution, which are
different from their predecessors of the May-Fourth Movement and of earlier ages.
Based on the historical dynamic view of the cultural conflicts, Gan points out
that we need to recognize the changes and the crisis the West is experiencing. In his
famous essay Zhongguo dangdai wenhua yishi qianyan (Preface to The Cultural
Consciousness of the Contemporary China), Gan cites B. I Schwartz that once the
Chinese intellectuals awake from the nightmare of the Cultural Revolution, they
would find that the West in this age is no longer the state known to the Chinese of the
May-Fourth generation at the beginning of nineteenth century; it is because the West
is experiencing an unprecedented spiritual and intellectual crisis (Gan, Gujin 108). He
further points out that this crisis, innate in the commercialized society, is universal.
While constructing the positive values such as freedom, democracy, legislation, etc,
the commercialization of the modern age at the same time disintegrates traditional
value systems and inevitably causes nihilism and alienation to human beings in
modern society, especially intellectuals (108, 109). He states that the intellectual
discussions in the West in the twentieth century mainly address this vey dilemma of
modernity. Therefore, when we study the examination and approaches to this problem
96

of modernity in the West, we are actually addressing our own problems in China
(109).
Gan Yangs standpoint on the definition of Chinese modernity as a paradigm
of tradition versus modernity (Gujing zhi zheng) introduces a totally new viewpoint in
the Great Cultural Discussion and it is accompanied by the modern ideology of
Hermeneutic phenomenology. Influenced by Heidegger and Gadamar, Gan Yang
clearly applies the Hermeneutic views of subjectivity and fusion of horizons. He
explains:
Tradition is something that has not yet been prescribed. It is always
in the process of making and creating. It forever unfolds to the future
infinite possibilities or a world of possibilities. Exactly because of
this [nature], tradition can never be equated with things that already
existed in the past. (Bashi niandai, 55) (trans. by and qtd. in Wang Jing
88).
Facing tradition, [every generation of us Chinese] should undertake
a mission whose burden cannot be carried by the past. This mission
is to create that which was absent in the past. (57)
Specifically, the tradition that we understood is the sum total of the
possibilities engendered by the endless encounters, confrontations,
97

conflicts, and appropriations (the new homogenizes the old) that took
place between the past and the present. (60) (qtd. in Wang 89).
The hermeneutic dialogue of the present with the past delivers the holistic experience
of the subject. The objective meaning of history is dissolved in the perceiving and
interpreting consciousness of the subject. As Wang Jing questions, who is to create
that which was absent in the past but the interpreter who stands on the shifting
ground of the here and now? (89) Since it is necessary to experience the past and the
present as a subject, the next question would be how to experience the past and the
present. Here, the Gadamerian concept of fusion of horizons serves as both a
critical bridge across tradition and the modern, and a fruitful conflation between an
emerging Chinese cultural discourse and a Western paradigm of human sciences
understood as essentially a critique of modernity (Zhang, Political Hermeneutics 41).
Both the concepts of the Subject and Fusion of Horizons, which are distinctively
Hermeneutic, underline the views presented by the Hermeneutic school represented
by Gan Yang.
Gan Yangs understanding and views on the issue of Chinese modernity is
largely influenced by Heidegger. Gan received his graduate study at the Institute of
Foreign Philosophy of Peking University between 1981 and 1984. Xiong Wei, the
vice director of the Institute, studied philosophy under Martin Heidegger and was a
98

specialist in phenomenology and existentialism. Through Xiong Wei and Gan Yang,
Heidegger directly influenced a group of Chinese scholars represented by Gan Yang
in the middle of the 1980s.
While forming his unique understanding on the conflicts between the ancient
and the modern through reading Western classics, such as Heidegger, Gadamer,
Neitzsche, etc., Gan and other scholars of this school exerted their influence upon the
Great Cultural Discussion through massive translation projects. In 1986, Gan Yangs
Culture: China and the World Editorial Committee was established in Beijing. The
Committee was made up of young and middle-aged elites whose mission was to
introduce Western masterworks of humanities and social sciences through large-scale
translation projects. In these projects, authors such as Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault,
Gadamer, Riceour were chosen by the editorial committee and the influence was
significant. Over 200, 000 copies of Sartres Being and Nothingness were sold[1].
Through translation, the committee exercised significant influence upon university
students and young scholars. The editorial committee also issued Culture: China and
the World, a cultural-critical quarterly, and a series in Humanities, which includes
many independent research studies, among which the most eminent study was done by
Liu Xiaofeng for his Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao.
The influence exerted by the Hermeneutic School represented by Gan Yang
99

reached far beyond the Great Cultural Discussion in the middle of the 1980s. The
translations and publications organized by the Editorial Committee not only prepared
a whole generation of readers with renewed views on the issue of Chinese modernity
but also directly prepared scholars for the translation of Western ancient classics in the
later 1990s till the present. In Zhang Xudongs words, large-scale translation and
introduction of Western works, especially of the twentieth century, not only
overwhelmed the intellectual market but also radically changed the fabric of the
contemporary Chinese cultural language (Chinese Modernism 35). Though Liu
Xiaofeng did not start reading Plato until the later 1990s, some of his basic views
stated in Zhengjiu yu xiaoayo are consistent with his views on the Straussian Plato. As
it is noted in the last chapter, Lius stance has experienced a lot of changes under the
influence of Strauss. For instance, he no longer insists on his Christian viewpoints; as
mentioned earlier in the last chapter, he greatly modified his previous radical
perspective on Chinese culture, especially on Confucianism. In the following
paragraphs, we take a look into his Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao before we proceed to detect its
close connection with and subtle but important divergence from the contemporary
Platonic study in China.
Lius Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao was a product of the Cultural Comparison fever in
the 1980s, and it was published as part of the Series in Humanities by the Editorial
100

Committee of Culture: China and the World in 1988. It was a time before Liu
Xiaofeng went to do his Ph. D study in theology at Basel University and read Plato in
his Classical Greek class. The book was revised and some parts even rewritten, and
then republished in 2001, a time after Liu started his editorial series of Hermes:
Classics and Interpretation which included his translation of Platos Symposium.
Therefore, in one sense, the second version of Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao is more in
accordance with the project of Platonic study organized by him. By reading Zhengjiu
yu xiaoyao, especially his preface to the second version, we can find the concepts and
ideas which echo both the Hermeneutic School in the 1980s and his project of Platonic
study.
The book Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao in many aspects is a work which stays closest to
the spirit of the Hermeneutic School in the 1980s. Though originally written as a book
on cultural comparative study, it differs from other works of this kind at that time.
Instead of mediating the conflicts between the East and the West, Liu declares in his
book that there is no comparability in the roots of the Chinese culture and of the
Western culture, since there is an absence of the transcendental being and of the quest
for redemption in the Chinese culture. Accordingly, the main mission for the
contemporary Chinese intellectuals is not to locate the compatibility of two
fundamentally different cultures: rather, it should be a task of finding in the Western
101

culture the resources we cannot find in our own culture.

Lius argument in his Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao is highly Phenomenological/
Hermeneutic. He emphasizes the function of subjectivity in the dialogue between
different cultures. Accordingly to him, discussions on cultural comparative study
should not aim at defending one culture against another one; rather, they should be
guided by the intentionality of the subject. He states, The genuine meaning of
historical texts presents itself only in the time of the existence of the present. The time
of the present is nothing other than the present intentional structure of our own, the
axiological demand expressed by the sorrow and hope stocked in the history of our life
(12).[2]As the axiological quest is originated in the intentionality of the subject, the
fusion of horizons is necessary. He explains, The purpose of the conflicts of spirits is
not to impose certain judgment on one particular culture; rather, it is a quest for the
true meaning in the historical culture. The subject is led by the axiological quest, no
matter it is in the West or in the East (14) [3]
Though Liu had not yet started his Platonis cum Commentariis under Strausss
influence when he finished Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao, he nevertheless reveals his stance on
the necessity of obtaining axiology through the ancient texts, which is directly related
to his basic principle in his Platonic study in the following years. He says,
The ancient texts can be true only in the consciousness of the contemporary
102

reader. Hamlet is true, only when I engage a dialogue with him; he is facing the same
problem as I do: he is posing questions to me, just as I am doing the same thing to
him. The historical texts and the contemporary consciousness are in dialectical
coexistence in the form of questioning and answering. The texts in history reveal their
meaning only to the people who are participating in this internal interaction in the
consciousness of the subject; the authentic meaning of historical texts can only present
itself in the questioning activity of the consciousness of the self; in other words, it is
originated in the intentionality of the consciousness of the existence of the self. (12)
[4]
We can directly apply Lius statement quoted here to our understanding of the
contemporary Platonic study. The meaning of the Platonic dialogues is genuine and
meaningful only because the subject is participating in a dialogue with the text with its
own concerns and intentionality. In other words, the subject brings the questions and
concerns of the present into the reading of the ancient texts of Plato for a solution and
new perspective. Here arises one question: what are the questions and concerns of the
subject at present, especially of Platonists in the contemporary China? In his Zhengjiu
yu xiaoyao, Liu gives an answer similar to that of Gan Yang. According to both Gan
and Liu, neither the Chinese tradition nor the modern Western culture are sufficient to
provide a strong value system for an individual who experiences tremendous changes
103

during the transition from ancient society to a modern commercialized one. The
axiological quest, or rather, the search for an efficient value system, is to be
undertaken in the reading of the ancient texts, including and especially, the dialogues
of Plato.
Considering itself to be a continuation of the Hermeneutic School in the
middle of the 1980s, the Chinese Platonic study continues with the general purpose of
understanding the Western tradition as a dynamic totality in order to better address the
problem of modernity in China. Phenomenological/Hermeneutic methodology
approaches, especially the concepts of subjectivity and fusion of horizon, are applied
in the Platonic study. As discussed in the previous chapter, Confucianism, especially
the New School Confucianism with the concept for Suwang, is an important part of
Lius interpretation of the Platonic concept of the Philosopher-king. Confucian
tradition and Platos concept come together as different horizons and fuse into the
Subject of the present in Liu Xiaofengs reading. We may say that, Chinese Platonists
strong interest in Strausss Jewish background is in some aspects revelatory of their
eagerness in finding a model of fusion of horizons for their attempt to fuse their own
Chinese culture and the Western classical tradition. Just as Strauss addresses the
problem of modernity through reading Jewish and Arabic philosophers in the Middle
Ages, they attempt to read Plato and Strauss to address the problem of modernity in
104

the contemporary China. The quest and the definition of value, especially the Socratic
question what is the best life? is raised again and again in the reading of the Chinese
Platonists. Accordingly, Strausss strong stance in defending the philosophical life as
the best life, and his theories and strategies in protecting such a life, assume an
important status and profound implications for these Chinese scholars.
In spite of so many continuities between Chinese Platonic Study and the
Phenomenological School of the 1980s, we cannot take these two as the same. Even
though Liu indicates in his preface that if the translation project conducted by the
editorial committee of Culture: China and the World had continued, it would naturally
have turned to Western classics, there is no guarantee that these Phenomenologists
would have read Plato through Leo Strauss, nor that they would have looked for a
Philosopher-King or Suwang in Chairman Mao. The social-political realities have
radically changed in the post-Tianmen era. Accordingly, the languages and
perspectives Chinese scholars adopt in the 1990s and the 2000s are different from
those in the 1980s. As the Phenomenological School illustrate[d] the temporal
development of Chinese cultural reflection in the post-Mao era (Zhang, Chinese
Modernism, 71), contemporary Chinese Platonic study illustrates a new age, the age of
Post-Tianmen Era with rapid development of economic conditions and of a new social
structure.
105

Zhang remarks, The transformation of post-Mao China is widely credited as a

result of its irreversible integration with the world market and its tantalizing merger
with the social-cultural conventions of global capitalism ( Making of the
Post-Tiananmen Intellectual Field, 1). The development of marketization and
capitalism started in the 1980s and reaches its full scale in the post-Tiananmen Era.
We may consider that the main difference between the 1980s and the 1990s and 2000s
lies in the fact that China has fully embarked into the global market since the 1990s.
There are several factors contributing to the rapid economic development. First of all,
marketization is irreversible in todays world. Once embarking on the market, China
had no other choice but connecting itself to the world and changing itself into part of
the global market. Secondly, after cracking down on the Tiananmen Square
Movement, the Chinese government decided to focus on the economic development in
order to divert peoples attention from politics. As a result, the economic development
continues at a phenomenal speed in the Post-Tiananmen Era.
Though Gan predicted that China would suffer from a fully commercialized
society in the mid of 1989s in his Preface to the Chinese Contemporary Cultural
Consciousness (Zhongguo dangdai wenhua yishi qianyan), he at that time did not
give a comprehensive picture of what China would soon be like. Zhang Xudong points
out that the new economic-political conditions in the Post-Tiananmen Era were once
106

the collective imagination in the 1980s and the goals of modernization for intellectuals
through generations; and now people find all of sudden that the imagination about the
future has become realities, the realities of their daily life which they are not totally
happy with. Zhang Xudong describes the sudden awareness as shocking and
unsatisfied (Huanxiang, ix).
As a result of the economic development and marketization, people in the
contemporary China find they are in surprisingly close connection to the international
world. Capitalism has quickly turned China into a part of global market. Globalization
has become an important issue in contemporary China, and Chinese scholars
constantly get involved in the heated debates on locality versus globalism.
We may consider that globalization as result of commercialism is one of the
most decisive factors underlying the difference between the Phenomenological School
in the 1980s and the Chinese Platonic Study in the 1990s and the 2000s. Gans
statement in his Preface to the Chinese Contemporary Cultural Consciousness
which was written in 1988 showed his anxiety about the coming commercialized age
and about the crisis of restlessness that Chinese people were going to experience in
the coming era. The vague future Gan pictured in this preface soon become a reality in
the 1990s and 2000s and was internalized as part of the Chinese intellectuals
experience of the new age. With a keen awareness of the new changes, the Chinese
107

scholars used a new set of vocabulary to state their understanding of Chinese

modernity. These new vocabulary and views can be roughly grouped into two
categories: native culture and democracy.
Under the heavy influence of globalization, locality/native culture assumes
important status. As early as in the 1980s, Liu and Gan started to use Hermeneutic
concepts such as subject and fusion of horizons to erase the demarcation between
the Chinese and the West as they argued that the main issue in the modern China is not
the conflicts between the West and the East (zhongxi zhi zheng), but rather the
conflicts between the ancient and the modern (gujin zhi zheng). However, there is
some change after 1989. Chinese Platonism represented by Liu still continues with the
assertion that in Modern China, the biggest issues are those which occur during the
transition from traditional society to modern one, but they emphasize the Chinese
culture more than ever before. The paradigm of Conflicts between the ancient and the
modern has subtly changed to the conflicts between modern Western and ancient
Chinese/Greek modes of thought. Chinese culture assumes more importance to the
School of Chinese Platonic Study than to the Phenomenological School in the 1980s.
Lius reliance on Chinese culture in his understanding of Chinese modernity is
accompanied by his declining interest in Christianity as philosophy. Liu in the late
1990s has greatly modified his religious views. The dilemma he discusses in
108

Chengzhong de roushen, is formulated later by his own words, what is the position of
Christianity in a modern commercialized society when Christianity as philosophy is
no longer sufficient enough to support a personal life? He seems to get a negative
answer and henceforth modifies his strong position on Christianity.
As he withdraws his views on the functionality of Christianity in modern
society, he is, at the same time, more open to Chinese culture. The strong criticism of
Chinese culture we used to find in his Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao has disappeared; instead,
he is combining Chinese Confucianism with Straussian Platonism in order to search
for an alternative political system to the Western model of democracy. Furthermore,
as mentioned in the previous chapter, Liu, with Straussian concepts, has started to
re-read Chinese modern history, especially the Chinese Civil War in the 1940s and the
Chinese governments role in the Korean Civil War in the 1950s.
Lius new interest in the Chinese culture and Chinese modern history may
reveal his anxiety in the age of globalization. When native culture is giving place to
the global commercial culture, when commercialism has replaced any historical
experiences, some Chinese scholars are more eager than ever to identify themselves as
part of something unique and different from the global commercialism. In other words,
they consciously try to escape the global commercialism and commercial culture
which is dominantly American. Some of them such as Liu Xiaofeng and other Chinese
109

Platonists turn to their own tradition and their historical experiences to look for their
identity as Chinese in the confrontation with global commercial culture. At the time
when Liu focuses himself on Plato and Leo Strauss, he also reads Schmitt and
publishes essays on the theories of guerrilla force and its modern application in China.
He draws a conclusion that the legitimacy of guerrilla force lies in protecting the
native traditional life in the face of an overwhelming foreign way of living. In his
opinion, Mao Zedong adopts a guerrilla strategy to defend the native culture from the
invading Japanese culture. Continuing with his investigation, we may wonder if he
would agree that we need a guerrilla strategy in order to protect our own tradition from
the overpowering American commercialism which seems to be invincible? Since he
titles his essay as Guerilla and Chinese Modernity, he gives readers endless
associations on the tension between localities and globalism. His efforts in applying
Schmitts theory to the reading of Chinese modernity, and his interest in Strausss
Jewish background[5], point to a problem that keeps troubling contemporary Chinese
scholars, that is, an intense anxiety of cultural identity in this age of commercialism
and globalization.
Apart from the increasingly dominant issue of globalism, the political realities
in contemporary China have also taken a different look, as a result of economic
development. Accompanying marketization, ordinary citizens are taking an
110

increasingly a more and more important role in public space, which was used to be
dominated by the political elites and intellectual elites. Disregarding the Chinese
governments reluctance for promoting democracy, there is more space for ordinary
citizens in public decisions of public affairs than ever before. Liu and Gan have
different reactions to this new reality.
Before Gan wrote his long preface to Strausss Natural Right and History, he
was participating in a nation-wide debate on liberal education, initiated by the new
policy on tenure by Chinese colleges and institutes. Gan wrote a series of articles on
the importance of liberal education in China, with a special emphasis on the reading of
ancient classics. Gans stand may be taken as a measure against the commercialism
prevalent in China. However, Gans consistent efforts at popularizing liberal
education among colleges in China suggest something further. Gans efforts in
promoting liberal education in Chinese universities and colleges can be taken as a
measure to equip people to be wiser decision-makers in public affairs in this new
age in which they have more voice. Its ultimate purpose is same as what he expresses
in his preface to Strausss Natural Right and History: politics/public affairs have to be
the ultimate goal both to philosophers and to ordinary citizens.
Compared to Gan, Liu is less supportive to this new trend. Seemingly, Liu is
doing the same thing which Gan Yang does, while translating, publishing books of
111

Western ancient classics for college students and young scholars. So far, he has
published several textbooks for learning Classical Greek in college, in addition to his
phenomenal translation project. However, his focus is slightly different. Lius books
and lectures are mostly intended to those students and young scholars who are
interested in him and who agree with him in his reading of Leo Strauss, and thus have
a more selective audience. In other words, different from Gan who is actively engaged
in having a conversation with contemporary Chinese scholars and different
intellectual groups, Liu is only interested in talking to those Chinese Straussians, or
those who have the potentiality to be converted to Straussians. His stance and his
practice are definitely elitist. Compared to Gan and other Chinese intellectuals, Liu
seems to be more conservative and alert to the new political reality.
Zhang Xudong notes that the process of recounting the events of the 1980s is
always accompanied with shocks (Huanxiang, ix). It is interesting to notice that Gan
and Liu who were both important members of the Phenomenological School, sharing
many attitudes or similar opinions on various issues, but now differ from each other in
the post-Tiananmen Era. One explanation for such a change may go to the distance
between imagination and reality. When the West was still an institution constructed in
the imagination to most of Chinese, it was easy for them to share the same perspective,
with an anxiety for the coming prevalence of commercialized society. However, once
112

the imagination has become reality and they find themselves to be part of
globalization, they adopt different perspectives to react to the new reality.
Furthermore, the social and political situations in the post-Tiananmen Era are much
more complicated and fall beyond the scope of any existing theory, as contemporary
China refuses to fall into any theoretical category but constantly reminds people of its
unique complexity. Liu and Gan take actions according to their respective
understanding of the new issues of modernity in China and thus differ from each other.
As discussed in the previous paragraphs, Chinese Platonic Studies both
continues with and differs from the Phenomenological School of the 1980s, with its
renewed concerns in a new age in China. However, the 1980s is not only the age it
refers back to; the traditions it converses with are not limited to the cultural heritage
provided by the Cultural Discussion in the 1980s. Instead, it goes back further than the
May Fourth Tradition, and it actually identifies itself more to the Reform Movement
of the 1898. When Liu in his reading of Plato constantly refers to the reading by Kang
Youwei and Liao Ping of the Confucian classics, he is actually connecting himself to
the experience of Chinese Confucian scholars dealing with Western values for the first
time in Chinese modern history.
The Chinese Platonists reactions to the May Fourth Tradition are obvious.
First of all, they do not agree with May Fourth scholars understanding of Chinese
113

modernity as a tension between the West and the East and they replace the paradigm
with the conflicts between the ancient and the modern. Secondly, Liu and other
Chinese Platonists do not agree with the scholars of May Fourth Movements on the
benefits brought by technology and modernity. As a sharp contrast to the eagerness
shared by May Fourth intellectuals toward technology and democracy, Liu is more
aware of the negative aspects of modernity. Furthermore, unlike Chen Duxiu, Lu Xun
and other intellectuals active during the May Fourth Movements who were looking
forward to the Western Marxism, the Chinese Platonic School does not show
particular interest in defending Marxist theory and practice in China. Lius interest in
defending Mao Zedong is more initiated by his efforts in seeking his cultural identity
rather than any ideological reason. Finally, after Liu modified his defiant attitude
toward Chinese culture, he has actually distanced himself more from the May Fourth
Movement, which is characterized by fierce criticism of Confucian tradition in light of
Western modern values such as democracy and individualism. To summarize,
different from most intellectual movements in the Chinese modern history,
contemporary Chinese Platonic Study is a reaction to the May Fourth Movement.
Chinese Platonists may find similar sentimentality in the Confucian scholars
such as Kang Youwei and Liao Ping by the end of the nineteenth century and before
the May Fourth Movement. They do share many similarities in their situations and
114

attitudes. Kang Youwei and Liao Ping lived in the age when the traditional Confucian
world was severely challenged by the modern West. It was a time of dramatic change
of world views. According to Joseph Levenson, the native culture is able to absorb
foreign concepts when the old society exists and still functions; however, when the
foreign culture is overwhelmingly strong and threatens the native culture, it will
replace the native culture and changes not only the vocabulary but also the language
itself (PAGE). In Levensons view, there is no such fundamental change in Chinese
history as the one occurred in the later nineteenth century when the Western culture
started to destroy the relative unchanging Chinese traditional society. It was during
that time of fundamental change caused by the invasion of foreign culture that Kang
Youwei and Liao Ping postulated their original reading of Confucian classics.
Kang Youwei and Liao Ping did not identify themselves as traditional
Confucian scholars. They were totally original and innovative. Levenson emphasizes
the unconventional qualities in Liao Ping. He points out that the millenarian quality
of Liaos thoughts is clearly distant from basic Confucianism (Confucian China.
Vol. III. 8). Kang Youwei was considered to be bolder in his political attitude. He
claimed that the Confucian classics were not authentic works by Confucius and thus
did not have any validity. With these claims, he tried to promote political reform
according to the Western values. Whether or not Kang plagiarized from his teacher
115

Liao Ping, his claim on the invalidity of Confucian classics were shocking to most
Chinese at that time. Liao Ping in his theory and philosophy and Kang Youwei in his
works and political practices, were very different from the conventional Confucian
scholars of that time. They were much more prone to a new way of reading of
Confucian classics according to the new circumstances in China.
Besides, compared to other intellectuals at that time, these Confucian scholars,
especially Kang Youwei, were more eager to continue the political tradition of the
Gong Yang School and incorporate their political concerns and ambition into their
reading of Confucian classics. Their intellectual tendency has been found by Liu
Xiaofeng as he constantly refers to their works in his efforts in introducing Strausss
political reading of Plato and other classics. Liu and other Chinese Platonists come to
the scholars of the Reform Movement of 1898 because of the echoes of realistic
concerns in the reading of classics, either Confucian classics or Platonic dialogues.
Besides, like Kang Youwei who tries to locate Western values in Confucian
tradition, Liu and others are basically doing the same thing. The Chinese Platonic
School is looking for the common ground between Plato and Confucius. As they find
and as they believe, Confucian concept of Suwang according to Gong Yang School is
almost, if not exactly the same as Platos idea of philosopher-king. The only
difference is that Liu, being fully aware of the negative aspects of modern Western
116

society, no longer values the modern Western concepts such as democracy and
individualism, and he would rather go back to tyrannical rulership which was exactly
what Kang Youwei wanted to remove.
On the other hand, the similarities Chinese Platonists share with the Confucian
scholars of the Reform Movement of 1898 cannot change the fact that there is no
longer a Confucian world in China. Kang Youwei and Liao Ping were the first
Chinese intellectuals experiencing the integration of Confucian culture in front of
invading foreign culture. Nowadays, Chinese intellectuals such as Liu Xiaofeng are
still experiencing the invasion of powerful foreign culture, that is, the global
commercialism and the accompanying set of concepts and world views, but now
Confucianism no longer exists in reality in China neither as political system nor as
philosophy pertinent to real life. As Kang Youwei and Liao Ping tried to preserve
Confucianism in front of cruel challenge from the invasion of foreign culture, Liu
Xiaofeng and Jiang Qing seem to look for some opportunity to revive Confucianism
from antiquity in new form. Considering that this is a totally new world in which
Confucianism no longer has any considerable application in reality, Liu and Jiang
seem do not have less possibility to realize their ambitions.
The other difference between Chinese Platonists and their precedents of the
Reform Movement of 1898 is that Liu and other contemporary scholars do not have
117

much emotional attachments to Chinese tradition. Levenson points out that

intellectuals like Liang Qichao, who was of the same age as Kang Youwei and Liao
Ping, were experiencing the pains of being torn between intellectual alienation from
the Chinese tradition and emotional ties to it:
The modern Chinese commitment to the general, of which I have
spoken, is the commitment to seek the answers that are true; these
thinkers commitment to the special is their need of answers that are
somehow theirs. The first commitment brings many men to
intellectual alienation from Chinese tradition, while the second leaves
them with an emotional tie to it. And intellectual alienation and
emotional tie intensify each other. (Confucian China. Vol. I. xviii.)
As to Liu and other Chinese Platonists, they are more committed to seek the
answers that are true, and less concerned with the ownership of the native Chinese
culture. After all, the traditional Confucian world was not immediate experience to
these modern scholars of the post-Tiananmen age. As discussed earlier, their interest
in reading Chinese classics is more out of their anxiety of identity in the age of
globalization rather than emotional attachments. The lack of emotional tie may
explain why Chinese Platonists only selectively read Chinese Confucian classics, and
only follow the Gong Yang tradition of Jin-wen School, which is considered to only a
118

small part of Confucian intellectual tradition.

As it is, Chinese Platonic Study is not only a cultural event of Platonic
reception but also, and more importantly, is an intellectual phenomenon in Chinese
modern history. It carries concerns with the new realities of its own age; or rather, it
uses the vocabulary of Western Classical thinkers such as Plato, and modern
consciousnesses such as Leo Strauss, to express its realistic concerns. It is fully
conscious of its position in Chinese modern history, as well as its cultural heritages
and, perhaps, its historical missions. We do not know what kind of conclusion it will
draw after absorbing different sets of language and world views. Will it continue in the
Gong Yang tradition as Kang Youwei did to fully participate in the change of history
with certain political actions? Or will it continue to remain as philosophy only and
make a difference between Chinese Straussianism and American Straussianism? As to
these questions and many others, this paper does not have an answer.

119

Notes
[1] Cfr. Yang Ren, Beijing wenhua congshupai (School of Cultural Series in
Beijing), Contemporary, Vol. 73 (May 1992): 42. Qtd. in Zhang 34.
[2] The original text goes,

My translation is based on Zhangs

translation in his The Political Hermeneutics of Cultural Constitution, 42.
[3] My translation. The original text goes,

[4] My translation. The original text goes:

[5] Liu has shown consistent interest in Strausss Jewish background. The project of
Hermes: Classic and Interpretation includes a book titled as Disciples to Plato in
120

Jewism which devotes itself to the discussion of the Platonism in Jewish thinkers.

121

CONCLUSION
The Plato in Modern China is more than a Plato. Once placed in the backdrop
of modern China, Plato is sometimes identified as a new version of Confucian
Uncrowned King, or as a revolutionary historical figure as Chairman Mao, or as both
at the same time. In the social, historical and intellectual context of ChinaPlatonic
dialogues are fully explored by the school of Chinese Platonists through the lens of
Leo Strauss to address their concerns of Chinese modernity in the age of globalism.
Their efforts and their work enable people to discover another aspect of Plato. To use
Derridas concept expressed in The Postcard, these Chinese scholars are participating
in the meaning-generating web of Platonic tradition. With their understanding of Plato
in their own context, they are attributing new meaning to Plato and thus re-writing
Plato, as well as revising peoples perception about Western classics and
contemporary China. The circulating postcard of Plato, once passed through them,
has been acquired new meanings.

122

WORKS CITED
Bloom, Allan. The Ladder of Love. Trans. Qin Lu. Liu Xiaofeng. 125-239. Print.
Drury, Shadia B. Strauss and the American Right. New York: St. Martins P, 1997.
Print.
--. The Political Ideas of Strauss. New York: St. Martins P, 1988. Print.
Gan Yang . Gujin zhongxi zhi zheng Conflicts between the
Ancient and the Modern, the Chinese and the Western. Beijing: Shenghuo,
dushu, xinzhi sanlian shudian, 2006. Print.
--. Zhengzhi zheren shitelaosi: gudian baoshou zhuyi zhengzhi zhexue de fuxing.
Political Philosopher
Strauss: Renaissance of Classic Conservative Political Philosophy Ziran
Quanli yu Lishi Natural Right and History. Strauss. Trans.
Peng Gang. Beijing: Shenghuo, Dushu, Xingzhi Sanlian Shudian, 2003. 1- 82.
Print.
Gu, Edward X. Cultural Intellectuals and the Politics of the Cultural Public Space in
Communist China (1979-1989): A Case Study of Three Intellectual Groups.
The Journal of Asian Studies. 58. 2 (May, 1999). 389- 431. Print.
123

Huang Jing . Jiushi niandai hou nicai canshi de zhuanzheyi Liuxiaofeng nicai
de weiyandayi wei zhongxin
The Changing Interpretations of Nietzsche in China after
1990. Dissertation. Beijing: Beijing U, 2007. Print.
Jiang Qin . Ruxue de shidai jiazhi The Contemporary Value of
Confucianism. Sichuan renming chuban she, 2009. Print.
Levenson, Joseph R. Confucian China and its Modern Fate: the Problem of
Intellectual Continuity. Vol. I. Berkeley: U of California P, 1958. Print.
--. Confucian China and its Modern Fate: the Problem of Historical Significance.
Vol. III. Berkeley: U of California P, 1965. Print.
Liu Xiaofeng . Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao Redemption and Dallying.
Shanghai: Shanghai Sanlian, 2001. Print.
--. Ciwei de wenshun Tameness of Hedgehog. Shuwu Housebook.2
(2001): n. pag. Web. 16 Sept. 2009.
--. Nicai de weiyan dayi Esotericism in Nietzsche. Chongqi
gudian shixue Poetica classica retractata. Beijing: Huaxia
Chubanshe, 2010. Print.
--. Shengren de xujing . Jiangjing hanzhi Caelum non
animum mutant. Beijing: Huaxia chubanshe, 2007. 219-254. Print.
124

--. Shitelaosi de lubiao Strauss as sign post. Gongfa. n.pag. Web.

15 Sept. 2010. Print.
--. Rujia geming jingsheng yuanliu kao The Tradition of
Confucian Revolutionary Spirit. Shanghai: Shanghai sanlian shudian, 2000.
Print.
--. Rujiao yu Minzu Guojia Confucius and National States. Beijing:
Huaxia chuban she, 2007. Print.
--. Xiandai xing shehui lilun xuyu Preface to Social Theory of
Modernity. Shanghai: Shanghai sanlian shudian, 1998. Print.
--. Zhengjiu yu xiaoyao Delivering and Dallying. Shanghai: Shanghai
sanlian shudian, 2001. Print.
--, trans. Bolatu de Huiyin Platos Symposium. Plato. Beijing:
Huaxia chuban she, 2003. Print.
Metzger, Thomas A. Escape from Predicament: Neo-Confucianism and Chinas
Evolving Political Culture. New York: Columbia U P, 1977. Print.
Shui Yili . Zhengzhi yu zhexueGan Yang he Liu Xiaofeng dui shitelaosi de
liang zhong jiedu
Politics and Philosophy: Two Interpretations of Strauss by Gan Yang and Liu
Xiaofeng. Open Times . 171. 3 (2004): n. pag. Web. 12 Sept. 2010.
125

Print.
Strauss. Note on the Plan of Nietzsches Beyond Good and Evil. Studies in Platonic
Political Philosophy. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983. 174-191. Print.
Wang Jing. High Culture Fever: Politics, Aesthetics, and Ideology in Dengs China.
Berkeley: U of California P, 1996. Print.
Wu Fei trans. Sugeladi de Shenbian Socrates Apology.
Beijing: Huaxia chuban she, 2007. Print.
Xiao Hongyong . Zhengzhi ruxue de qiongtu molu The
End of Political Confucianism. China Modern Studies .
3(2008): n. pag. Web. 16 Sept. 2010. Print.
Zhang Hui . Zhongyiben qian yan: yibu xiju de qige wenti :
Preface to the Chinese Translation: Seven Issues on a Play.
Huiyin Symposium. Liu Xiaofeng. Beijing: Huaxia chuban she. 2003.
1-15. Print.
Zhang Xudong. The Making of the Post-Tiananmen Intellectual Field: a Critical
Overview. Whither China?: Intellectual Politics in Contemporary China. Ed.
Zhang Xudong. Durham: Duke UP, 2001. 1-78. Print.
--. Chinese Modernism in the Era of Reforms: Cultural Fever, Avant-garde Fiction,
and the New Chinese Cinema. Durham: Duke UP, 1997. Print.
126

--. Huanxiang de zhixu: piping lilun yu dangdai zhongguo wenxue huayu

The Order of Imagination: Criticism

Theory and theLanguage of Contemporary Chinese Literature. Hongkong:
Oxford UP, 1997. Print.
--. The Political Hermeneutics of Cultural Constitution: Reflections on the Chinese
Cultural Discussion (1985-1989). Durham: Duke UP, 1994. Print.
Zong Chengh . Ping Liu Xiaofeng de nicai jiedu
Comments on Liu Xiaofengs interpretation of Nietzsche. Zhejiang Academic
Journal . 5(2002). Print.
Zuckert, Catherine & Micahel. The Truth About Strauss: Political Philosophy and
American Democracy. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006. Print.

127