Thomé H. Fang

(Taipei: The Linking Publishing Co., Ltd., Taipei, 1981)

Sandra A. Wawrytko

Professor Thomé Fang belongs to that rare, but ever necessary, breed of scholars who exemplify the cosmopolitan ideal in their life and work. This is amply demonstrated in his ability to pass with ease from a discussion of abstruse points in Chinese Buddhist theory to observations on contemporary trends in existentialism, interspersing his remarks with detailed references to Indian satras. By his own account Professor Fang was "a Confucian by family tradition; a Taoist by temperament; a Buddhist by religious inspiration," and "a Westerner by training." Each of these threads—Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, and, to a much lesser extent, Western thought—has been skillfully interwoven into the complex tapestry of Fang’s magnum opus, Chinese Philosophy: Its Spirit and Its Development. As such the volume represents a form of intellectual autobiography.

However, it is more accurate to describe Fang’s work as an attempt to do philosophical justice to more than two thousand years of extraordinary thought. It presents Western scholars with a unique opportunity to observe a cosmopolitan Chinese mind in the very process of examining, interpreting, and critically [and at times comparatively] reviewing the rich resources of Chinese philosophy. Professor Fang adroitly transposes centuries of philosophizing to the eternal present of intellectual life; thus, the stirring concerns of past Chinese thinkers are made meaningful in a modern-day context of scholarship, rather than being left to wallow in the forgettable footnotes of cultural history. We are led to experience the urgency of these issues—both for a sixth-century B.C. Laotzu, for example, and for ourselves.

The text is based on lectures delivered by Professor Fang to both Chinese and English speaking audiences over his many years teaching at campuses in Taiwan and the United States. Its content spans centuries of seminal philosophical systematizing, while simultaneously delving the depths of selected schools of thought. Viewed in its entirety, one cannot help but be impressed by Fang’s intellectual vision and courage in undertaking a project of this scope. Nor is it surprising that his many students, both in the United States and abroad, have remained steadfast in their loyalty [or admiration] to his memory and his philosophical legacy. Although specific points in Fang’s interpretations are open to dispute from others in the field, one cannot ignore the manifest scholarship and expertise displayed in the volume.

Fang has chosen to focus his discussion on the area of metaphysics. Thus, in the 523 pages of text he makes only passing references to other philosophical concerns. Mohism is intentionally excluded from consideration as possessed of "too inflexible a subject-matter in which the free inquiry of mind has but a little part." This decision, and Fang’s explanatory remark regarding it, sets the pace of the text—it is intended to be a rigorous, open-ended critique of Chinese metaphysical doctrines.

In the "Introduction", a characterization of the three major traditions under investigation is provided as a means of giving an organizational context to the ensuing discussions. The Taoist is designated as poet, with a spatial emphasis, while the Confucian sage is seen as temporally-oriented and the prophetic Buddhist as "a Space-Time man with an alternative sense of forgetting." Finally, the Neo-Confucian is typified as "a concurrent Space-Time man." The heritage common to all of these schools of thought Fang deems to be threefold: (1) "pervasive unity." (2) Tao, and (3) exaltation of the human individual into ever higher realms."

Fang begins his discussion with what he terms "Primordial Confucianism," tracing its dual roots in the Great Center concept (as embodied in the conservative tradition of the Book of Ancient History) and the Supreme Ultimate (arising out of the progressive dynamism of the I Ching’s creativity emphasis). A philosophical shift, he argues, accounts for China’s transition from a theocracy based on mystical religion to an ethiocracy made possible by rational philosophy. Insightful comparisons with historical developments in Western culture (Judaism in particular) also are included here. The philosophical system underlying the I Ching hexagrams is then considered from various points of view.

The least satisfying segment of this ambitious volume follows in a brief examination of Taoist philosophy (less than thirty pages, as compared with nearly one hundred for Confucianism and almost two hundred each for Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism). The rationale for this strategy apparently is to be found in the title of this section: "Taoism and its impact upon the early Development of Chinese Mah~ y~ na Buddhism." The clear implications is that Toaism is best approached as a means to the end of Chinese Buddhism. Accordingly, Fang’s consideration of both Lao Tzu and, most especially, Chuang Tzu is distinctly colored by Buddhist preconceptions. Although useful outlines are provided the thought of both Taoists, there is a lingering sense that more attention is due to this influential school. Neo-Taoism merits no discussion in Fang’s eyes, and subsequent developments are treated largely as nonphilosophical incursions of "Taoism" (that is, perversions of Taoisoism proper).

In the realm of Chinese Buddhism (Mah~ y~ na Buddhism, to be more precise) a select group of schools is dealt with—San-Lun, T’ien T’ai, Fa-Hsiang, and Wei-Shih, and Hwa-Yen. A separate chapter is given over to Taoist influences on the concept of prajñ~ . Of particular note in this section of the text are the bold excursions into such contemporary issues as linguistic analysis, reductionism, and phenomenology vis-á-vis Buddhist doctrines. Useful contrasts are drawn between the approaches of Indian and Chinese Buddhists, with the distinctive contributions of the latter group being highlighted.

The broad range of Neo-Confucian thought comprises the concluding segment of the volume. A threefold division is made here, with a few subdivisions. Under Realism, Fang includes three additional types represented by (a) Chou Tun-i, Shao Yung, and Chang Tsai; (b) the Ch’eng brothers; and (c) Chu Hsi. Idealism is exemplified by Lu Hsiang-shan on the one hand, and Wang Yang-ming on the other. Finally, Naturalism is discussed through the thought of Wang Ting-hsiang, the Tung-ling Academicians, Wang Fu-chih, Yen Yuan, Li Kong, and Tai Chen—all of whom were reacting against Sung dynasty Neo-Confucianism. In addition to their internecine disputes as to who was the "true" heir to Confucius, Fang faults the Neo-Confucians for having "only a slight notion of logical distinction, the negligence of which constitutes the weakest point in this type of philosophy."

In comparing Fang’s text to other, similar attempts at a synoptic overview of Chinese philosophy, several important distinctions emerge. I have in mind here the rightly renowned works authored by two other Chinese scholars—Wing-tsit Chan’s A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy and Fung Yu-lan’s A Short History of Chinese Philosophy—along with H. G. Creel’s Chinese Thought from Confucius to Mao Tsê-tung. In the case of each of these three texts the primary orientation is a descriptive one: Chan’s is a rich compendium of primary resources, Fung’s a tersely competent historical outline, and Creel’s a useful survey of thought. Thus, they are well-suited for the general academic reader as well as for the entry-level student.

Each of the four books also attempts to cover the same general range of topics. While Fang’s book is undoubtedly less comprehensive than the others, omitting schools he finds lacking in significance to the problem of metaphysics, nonetheless it is also far more provocative for a philosophical reader. Fang’s multileveled discussions can engage the interest (and occasionally the ire) of a professional philosopher, because his critique of the Chinese philosophers is undertaken as if he were confronting a modern day colleague. He utilizes the texts of the Chinese thinkers to vindicate—or convict—them on their own, purely philosophical, grounds. Moreover, Fang does not hesitate to interject his own carefully considered opinions qua philosopher; for example, responding to the limitations he has uncovered in earlier investigations of the I Ching, he advances his own scheme of the logical construction of the hexagrams. Although Fang deals successfully with both dimensions of Chinese philosophy, it is clear that for him its spirit takes priority over its development, its systems over its history.

In sum, Fang’s volume would be a worthy addition to any philosophical library for purposes of general reference as well as professional enrichment. The knowledge of philosophy which it assumes on the part of the reader makes it less accessible to undergraduate students. However this fact serves to reinforce its claim to the attention of graduate students, who should find it both challenging and fruitful, even if they lack any previous acquaintance with Chinese thought.

Appended to the text is an outline for an unfinished project (or, as Professor George Sun calls it, an Unfinished Thought Symphony) of Professor Fang’s: Ideals of Life and Patterns of Culture: Prolegomena to a Comparative Philosophy of Life: A perusal of its contents is enlightening in terms of understanding the broad scope of Fang’s scholarly endeavors. At the same time, it inspires regrets concerning his untimely death, which thus has deprived us of the opportunity to hear more of the much needed cosmopolitan wisdom of this Chinese philosopher-poet-prophet.