Spiritual Humanism: Its Meaning and Expansion

Yang Guorong

Abstract： Spiritual humanism defines “humanism” as “spiritual，” in that it both emphasizes the spiritual dimensions of humanism， and manifests an integrated conceptual system， the latter of which can be expanded into four aspects： self， community， nature， and the dao of Heaven. Specifically， “spiritual” refers primarily to the pursuit of transcendence， and thus in this dimension， spiritual humanism implies religiosity. At the same time however， spiritual humanism also includes the connotation of “humanism.” Thus， on the one hand， it differs from dissolving the self and going into reclusion， while on the other， it avoids the dualism caused by conflicts between the reality of this world and the transcendence of another world. Furthermore， as a combination of “humanism” and “spirit，” spiritual humanism limits the spiritual orientation with humanistic concern and thus avoids the transcendent path， as well as directing the humanistic orientation by spiritual pursuit and avoiding secularism degenerating into utilitarianism and the materialization of humanity. As for the development of spiritual humanism， what matters most is to introduce the vision of “affairs.” There is an intrinsic correlation between the pursuit of spiritual humanism and the expansion of the “affairs” of reality. To view the world from the perspective of “affairs” is not only the prerequisite for extending the meaning of spiritual humanism， but also provides a potential space for deepening its meaning.

Keywords： spirit， humanism， viewing the world through affairs

The Concept of Spiritual Humanism [Refer to page 4 for Chinese. Similarly hereinafter]“Spiritual humanism” is a concept put forward by Tu Wei-ming 杜維明 in recent years. From a historical point of view， the concepts of “spirit” and “humanism” are both pre-existing， but combining the two means a new concept has been created. According to the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze （1925–1995）， “philosophy is the discipline that involves creating concepts.” In fact， it is indeed difficult to carry out philosophical activities without the process of concept creation. To propose a new concept is not only a change in terminology， but in a more substantive sense， it often manifests as the construction of a new thought.

Although in form， spiritual humanism mainly defines “humanism” as “spiritual，” or focuses mainly on its spiritual dimension， its connotation is not pure and single， but manifests as a comprehensive conceptual system. According to Tu Wei-mings explanation， it contains four aspects or dimensions， namely， self， community， nature， and the dao of Heaven.

“Self” is undoubtedly an important concept. In reference to Tu Wei-mings understanding of self， it can be seen that the self is not only a purely spiritual form， nor does it manifest as a kind of emotional existence， but that it is rather a unity of body and mind， which thus reflects the affirmation of the individual concrete existent form. The self also differs from roles， which appear in certain specific social relationships. Its characteristics are more reflected in a certain function of human relationships. In connection with this， the reduction of self to certain specific roles can easily lead logically to dissolving the self into its external relationships and roles. Elevating the self to an important position and affirming it to have the meaning of subject as distinct from roles implies avoiding the above tendency.

What is related to the self is community， which manifests as a certain specific social community. The self originally exists in a certain social community. It is in the social community that humans co-exist and interact with others， which endows the self with a concrete character. To focus on the self and ignore the community where the self exists can easily lead to egocentrism. In contrast， to affirm the meaning of community means to pay attention to the relationships between the self and others， and its internal orientation is to set out from the closed individual and realize the self （to achieve selfhood） and realize things （to achieve the world） in the mutual co-existence between people. It can be seen from this that spiritual humanism does not regard the self as a closed and isolated individual， but focuses on the world outside the self， pays attention to the communication between the individual and society， and is concerned about the relation between humans and the world and the interaction between them.

Expanding the relationship between people and the self to the relationship between Heaven and humanity， between things and the self， involves the traditional sense of Heaven or nature and the relationship between these. Humans are not only born from nature and part of nature， but also grow out of nature， and in opposition to nature， become “others” of nature; thus issues about the relationship between nature and humanity arise. How to frame the relationship between humanity and nature is an unavoidable problem in the process of human existence. Historically， Chinese philosophy has long put forward the concept of “being lovingly disposed to people generally， and kind to creatures，” in which “being kind to creatures” means that the concept of benevolence is further applied to nature， and can be regarded as a general principle of dealing with nature. The Doctrine of the Mean proposed that “all things grow together without harming each other，” which displays a corresponding understanding of nature more concretely. From the perspective of dealing with natural objects， every individual and object in nature has its own reason for existence， they can exist together， and they are compatible with each other rather than mutually exclusive. From the perspective of the relationship between humanity and nature， as objects related to humanity， the existence of nature also has its significance. These two views embody the value orientation of understanding and dealing with nature from different aspects.

From the general tendency of its way of thinking， spiritual humanism inherits the tradition of Chinese philosophy and emphasizes the consistency between humanity and nature， and between Heaven and humanity. While affirming the creative power of human beings， Tu Wei-ming specially mentions that human beings are “co-creators” in the process of the universe：

Human beings are not only created， but also co-creators in the process of the universe. They actively participate in its great transformation （大化）. Once we understand that Heaven is a symbol of creative power， an internal part of imagination we create by ourselves， we must take the obligation for the mutual influence between Heaven and humanity. As is stated in the Book of Changes， the universe is never a static structure but rather a dynamic process. It produces new realities in its constant development， and it creatively transforms the existing order full of contradictions into an adequate process of constant innovations. Humanity imitates the creative power of Heaven by enterprise， self-cultivation， and some kind of spiritual practice. The creative power of Heaven is realized in humanity as well as in Heaven itself. It is open， dynamic， transformative， and constant. It is also internal to humanity.

Here， human creativity and natures （Heavens） creativity appear as two interrelated aspects. As the “co-creators” of the universe， humans not only act on nature （Heaven） in its external form. How to avoid tensions and confrontations between Heaven and humanity and guide them to a state of harmony and co-existence are central concerns.

Compared with nature， the dao of Heaven involves more metaphysics. Human beings always have metaphysical concerns. In Chinese philosophy， the dao of Heaven is not only the principle of existence， but also the ultimate object of concern. However， in terms of Chinese philosophy， the ultimate concern in metaphysics and daily routines in the world of life are not separate from one another. The Doctrine of the Mean puts forward the idea， “to raise it to its greatest height and brilliancy， so as to pursue the course of the Mean，” which confirms the relation between the two. Spiritual humanism also pays attention to the communication between the metaphysical dao of Heaven and human existence. From the perspective of ultimate concern， the existence of human beings is primarily related to the human mind. Accordingly， in spiritual humanism， the relationship between the dao of Heaven and the existence of human beings is also concretized as how the human mind and the dao of Heaven complement each other. In short， for spiritual humanism， the relationship between the existence of human beings in the world of daily life and their metaphysical concerns is based on the unity of the human mind and the dao of Heaven.

The Meaning of Spiritual Humanism [6]

As shown above， spiritual humanism is different from any one-way dependence on a certain aspect， and its content expands in multiple dimensions.

In terms of its specific content， the above-mentioned form of spiritual humanism involves the relationship between humanity and a transcendent object， between reality and transcendence. “Spirit” primarily points to the pursuit of transcendence. In the pursuit of transcendence， spiritual humanism also implies religiosity. But at the same time， spiritual humanism also contains two meanings of “humanism”： first， adhere to a people-centered position， rather than letting humans serve a transcendent object such as a divinity or God. As far as humanism is concerned， humans are always the aim， and human nature and the value of humanity should be stressed and confirmed. Modern humanism pursues individual emancipation， freedom and equality， and gives a double affirmation to humanitys sensory existence and rational essence， which embodies the above value orientation from different aspects. According to humanism， human beings cannot dissolve their own existence and only belong unilaterally to a transcendent object. Spiritual humanism also embodies this general tendency of humanist thought. In this sense， humanism is different from transcendent forms of religion. Second， the emphasis of humanism is primarily directed to reality or this world. From the perspective of the evolution of modern Western humanism， humanism from its very beginnings contained a tendency to become alienated from the kingdom of Heaven. In the traditional Chinese conception of benevolence， the concern for benevolence， the concern for human existence itself， and the affinity for everyday conduct in the world of life are often different from the one-way respect for the existence of a transcendent Heaven or other world， as is shown in the ancient statements： “while you are not able to serve men， how can you serve their spirits？” and “while respecting spiritual beings earnestly， keep aloof from them” （Analects， 6：22）. In this respect， spiritual humanism also differs from the transcendent concept of caring about the existence of another world. To affirm the above views of humanism has the following significance in theory： on the one hand， to avoid using the pursuit of transcending objects to dissolve oneself or go into reclusion; on the other hand， to avoid the duality of the world caused by the confrontation between this world and another world， between transcendence and reality. From the perspective of philosophy， this means avoiding the mystification and abstraction of existence.

Certainly， the concern of humanism differs from that of transcendence on a purely spiritual level， which also helps to avoid the possible negative consequences of ultimate concern in the above vision. However， logically speaking， adhering solely to the position of humanism can also lead to a narrow sense of anthropocentrism. In view of this， when talking about the characteristics of Confucianism， Tu Wei-ming raises the question of transcending anthropocentrism：

Confucian thought is characterized by how the highest humanistic ideas should be embodied in the most ordinary daily life， and hence it is insufficient to understand the integrity of humanism only from the perspective of “the secular.” Therefore， we propose that the understanding of “humanity as human” should surpass not only anthropocentrism， but also the understanding of humanity in the anthropological sense， and humanity should become “completely human.”

In fact， spiritual humanism， as a combination of spirit and humanism， contains a sublation of the above tendency， and thus in an extended sense， it insists on regarding humanity as an end and standard in itself， refusing to return to a transcendent object of and reflecting a human perspective， hence the latter can be regarded as “viewing the world in human terms.” Here we need to distinguish between a narrow sense of anthropocentrism and a broad sense of anthropocentrism. “Viewing the world in human terms” is， in a broad sense， also an anthropocentric vision. In fact， anthropocentrism in this sense is something that people cannot cast off： human beings always understand and grasp the world from their own perspective; even if we affirm the unity of Heaven and humanity， or harmony between nature and humanity， this still reflects the horizon of human beings. In contrast， the narrow sense of anthropocentrism is mainly limited to the interests of a certain community and a certain historical period， which leads to a narrow， utilitarian position toward objects other than human beings， and one-way conquest and domination of nature. As a result， it often sacrifices the interests of humanity as a whole， including people of different generations. This narrow sense of anthropocentrism undoubtedly needs to be sublated. In this way， on the one hand， we need to adhere to the humanistic concept of “viewing the world in human terms” from the perspective of humanism， move from God to humanity， and always make human beings the center of our focus， so as to discard the dissolution of humanity implied in the conversion to transcendent existence; on the other hand， we should also avoid the narrow orientation of anthropocentrism.

Furthermore， spiritual humanism involves how to transcend or avoid the materialization of humanity. In modernitys process of evolution， humanism has been gradually combined with a trend of secularization. In fact， in a certain sense， a process of modernization is always accompanied by a process of secularization， and refusing the pursuit of transcendence is often associated with secularization. However， in following its own internal logic， secularization tends toward utilitarianism， and the latter may further lead to the materialization of humanity. In the “Age of Reason” initiated by the Enlightenment， it is not difficult to see this trend. Based on the above background， Tu Wei-ming said：

We are all products of the thought of the Enlightenment， and we have obtained great benefits from the institutions and values generated by the Enlightenment movement. However， on the other hand， it is necessary to pay close attention to its unexpected negative effects. If we say that there are very important physical， psychological， and spiritual elements in the heritage of this “Age of Reason，” which have led to the most powerful ideologies in modern society， such as secularism， materialism， utilitarianism， positivism， and scientific omnipotence， then we are concerned about how to change the closed situation of modern society and gather together the spiritual resources of these world religions.

Secularization， utilitarianism， and materialization are interrelated， and may lead to some negative consequences of humanism. Relatively speaking， “spirit” is primarily different from the existence of matter or sensation， and paying attention to spirit also implies transcending the materialization of humanity. In this regard， as a combination of humanism and spirit， spiritual humanism on the one hand restricts spiritualization by humanistic concerns so as to avoid the route of abstract transcendence， while on the other hand it guides the trend of humanism by spiritual pursuit so as to avoid the further shift from secularization to utilitarianism and the materialization of humanity.

At the same time， spiritual humanism pays attention to the dialogue between different civilizations. Tu Wei-ming stresses that spiritual humanism is open and pluralistic， and is oriented toward the different forms of civilization in the world， and thus further develops the dialogue between different civilizations. In this process， different civilizations can gradually understand and communicate with each other， accepting and absorbing one anothers achievements in development. It embodies an open mind， which differs not only from maintaining a certain tradition in a closed and arbitrary position， but also from unconditionally accepting the ideas of other civilizations， including values and principles. This kind of dialogue is also manifested as “l(fā)istening” to other civilizations. Through this kind of “l(fā)istening，” we can form the ability to understand different civilizations and promote peoples own achievements in a broader sense： “The so-called way of dialogue is not simply to seek identity and equality. Its a diverse and effective way to become human. We should practice the technique of ‘listening and cultivate the ethics of caring for others and the ability of self-discovery through contact with different lifestyles.” This kind of dialogue， at the same time， is preconditioned by concrete people： “The real dialogue of civilizations must be based on the dialogue between concrete and living people. In this regard， Confucianism can develop a dialogue through its language of citizens of the world， and create a dialogue between civilizations through tolerance and various mechanisms.” This involves not only understanding the real self （actual people） mentioned above， but also mutual respect between different civilizations.

At the end of the twentieth century， Feng Qi 馮契 （1915–1995） noted that Chinese philosophy and culture should not only understand and know Western philosophy， but also take part in the worldwide contention of a hundred schools of thought with a positive attitude. According to its real quality， the dialogue of civilizations can also be regarded as participating in the worldwide contention of a hundred schools of thought： in fact， there is an internal correlation and unity between the dialogue of civilizations and the worldwide contention of a hundred schools of thought. This dialogue and contention are not limited to simultaneously interpreting the theoretical connotations and cultural spirit of different civilizations and traditions， but also point to the construction of a contemporary culture with a worldwide significance at a more intrinsic level. As the contemporary form of cultural development， the culture of worldwide significance formed in this dialogue and contention will reflect the common concerns of humanity， integrate the cultural achievements accumulated in the development process of different civilizations， and at the same time， based on the historical needs and background of contemporary development， contain various theoretical connotations. Through the dialogue of civilizations and participation in the worldwide contention of a hundred schools of thought， spiritual humanism finally points to such a contemporary form of culture with worldwide significance.

The Expansion of Spiritual Humanism [8]

As for the expansion of spiritual humanism， it is important to introduce the vision of “affairs” （shi 事）. The pursuit of spiritual humanism is intrinsically related to the unfolding process of “affairs” in reality. Generally speaking， explaining and grasping the world always involves different angles and perspectives. Historically， we can pay attention to the following routes.

First， it is based on the view of “things” （wu 物）. In this perspective， the world mainly presents an objective form of being. Affirming that the world is based on things undoubtedly confirms the reality of the world， but in the form of things， the world is more represented as an original form of being， and takes objectivity as its internal characteristic： “things” as original being mainly manifest as the objects of observation， viewing the world in terms of “things，” focusing on the observation and explanation of the world， rather than changing the world.

Compared with viewing the world in terms of things， viewing the world in terms of the “mind” （xin 心） is characterized by taking its starting point as human ideas. The mind here generally refers to a broad sense of consciousness or spirit， including the senses， reason， emotion， and intuition; viewing the world in terms of the mind is expressed as a reduction of the world to the senses， reason， emotion， and intuition， or in the form of constructing a speculative image of the world. In a broad sense， the concept of mind seems to involve not only the understanding and explanation of the world， but also changing the world. However， in the form of speculation， this approach not only tends to dissolve the reality of the world， but also endows the process of changing the world with speculation and abstraction.

With the linguistic turn in philosophy， it has become another trend to understand the world from the perspective of language， or to view the world in terms of “speech” （yan 言）. On the one hand， viewing the world in terms of speech involves the objective world， while on the other hand it takes description and logical analysis at the level of language as the main way to grasp the world. In this context， what people attain is often only language， not the world itself.

According to its essential content， spiritual humanism is more closely related to viewing the world in terms of the mind. In a sense， it can in fact be regarded as a unique form of viewing the world in terms of the mind. As a concrete form of viewing the world in terms of the mind， spiritual humanism differs both from the static observation of objectivity and also from the approach of seeking in language， but still understands the existential meaning of the world and humanity itself at the level of the mind. Limited to this level， it is easy to slip into the approach of thinking and abstraction. From the perspective of the evolution of Chinese philosophy， since the Song and Ming dynasties， its mainstream trend has always been to understand and observe the world from the perspective of the mind. In terms of focusing on spirit， ideas， and consciousness， spiritual humanism obviously has more correspondence and hereditary connection with the above approach. As is well known， the traditional learning of the mind includes internal abstraction and speculation， and spiritual humanism takes spirit as the main concern， displaying a similar trend.

From a broader perspective， in addition to viewing the world in terms of things， the mind， and speech， we can have a deeper mode of understanding of the world， one that is concretely expressed as “viewing the world in terms of affairs.” According to the understanding of traditional Chinese philosophy， “affairs” here refers to the actions or conduct of people in a broad sense. Affairs not only take peoples activities in grasping and changing the world as their content， but also take human interaction and communication as their form. In terms of the relationship between things， the mind， speech， and affairs， only through engaging in affairs can things enter peoples field of vision and become objects for them. Only through this process can the mind and speech gradually generate and obtain their various contents. Without the affairs that people engage in， things only present their self-contained and original form; outside of the various affairs that people engage in， it is hard for the mind to cast off abstraction and speculation; similarly， outside of affairs in a broad sense， speech and its meanings have no way to obtain a substantial character.

Different from the speculative deduction and construction of viewing the world in terms of the mind， affairs are based on reality and point to reality. Characterized by activities applied to objects， affairs not only unfold as an actual interactive process between people and the world， but also involve the improvement of human abilities， the externalization or objectification of the human essence in objects. From the perspective of subjects engaged in affairs， this also concerns the body， the mind， and the interrelations between them. Although the process of engaging in various activities is indeed based on the body， it cannot be separated from the mind： objective activities in the form of affairs are always carried out as a process of blending body and mind. Spiritual humanism indeed affirms that the self is a unity of body and mind， but it fails both to understand the self in this sense as a subject of affairs， and also to connect objective activities with the self as described above.

In terms of the relationship between affairs and the world as well as the existence of human beings themselves， the real world is based on affairs that human beings engage in. Here we need to distinguish the real world and the original world： the original world refers to the existence that has not yet entered the field of human knowledge and action， and this kind of existence has not yet developed a substantive connection with human beings; the primordial world before the emergence of human beings and Kants thing-in-itself， in a certain sense， belong to the original world in this sense. In contrast， the real world refers to the existence that has entered the field of human knowledge and action， has been affected by human beings， and bears the imprint of human beings. This kind of existence is the world in which people live. It does not emerge from nothing， nor exist in an original form， but is rather constructed through the affairs that people engage in. In essence， what Chinese philosophy calls “assisting the transforming and nourishing powers of Heaven and Earth” （Doctrine of the Mean） and “regulating what Heaven has mandated and using it” is such a general process of engaging in affairs. It is in the process of developing things that the real world is generated. In this sense， the generation of the real world cannot be separated from the affairs that people engage in.

From the perspective of human beings themselves， their existence cannot be separated from affairs. From the various activities carried out by our ancestors with implements such as stone tools to the richer human activities under the condition of modern information technology， humanity has gradually stepped out of nature and become an other of nature， and then interacted with nature. In this process， humanitys abilities are constantly improving， and its world of ideas and spiritual consciousness are gradually gaining specific content. Without these various processes of engaging in affairs， there would be no real human beings， and it would be difficult for them to form a world of ideas. In this regard， not only is the real world based on the affairs human beings engage in， but human beings themselves also exist because of affairs： it is in the process of participating in various affairs that human beings shape themselves， improve themselves， and obtain real definition. The Chinese philosophy of “completing oneself” and “completing things” also involves the above aspects： “completing oneself” focuses on the achievements of human beings， while “completing things” refers to the generation of the real world， both of which are unfolded in the affairs that human beings engage in. From the perspective of the relationship between human beings and the real world， affairs with their comprehensive significance present a more primordial quality than things， the mind， or speech taken individually. Viewing the world in terms of affairs also means understanding the world and completing the world at a more primordial level， understanding human beings themselves and completing human beings themselves.

Broadly speaking， the “action” of human beings primarily includes the practical ideas put forward by Aristotle and Kant since ancient Greece and further enriched and developed by Marx. Historically， in the Western philosophical tradition， the understanding of practice has gone through a process of transformation from ethics and politics to science and technology， labor and other fields. Activities in politics and ethics take communication between people as their content， while labor involves not only the relationship between people （relationships of production）， but also the interaction between people and things. Practice in this sense is primarily manifested in social and group activities. By contrast， the everyday routine in the world of life and the individual dimension of everyday routine seem to fail to enter the above vision of practice. From the perspective of Chinese philosophy， human “action” covers the “conduct” which was emphasized in the Chinese philosophical tradition. Conduct in the Chinese philosophical tradition was not only focused on ethical behavior， but also connected with individual behavior in everyday functional actions. However， regardless of whether it referred to ethical behavior or everyday functional actions， it was mainly limited to the interaction between people， and lacked real content concerning the interaction between people and things. As broad activities involving not only practice in the Western philosophical tradition， but also conduct in the Chinese philosophical tradition， affairs have a wider coverage. In terms of content， affairs not only involve human intellectual activities， including scientific exploration， artistic creation， and theoretical construction， but also concern human perceptual and objective activities， so they are related to various human actions and deeds in the process of existence.

Setting out from the above premise， we can find that the combination of spirit and humanism embodies a unique pursuit of meaning， but judging from the specific process of completing oneself and completing things， we should pay more attention to how to integrate with the affairs engaged in by humans in the real dimension. On the one hand， spiritual humanism tends to be abstract and speculative if it is separated from the real affairs that people engage in; on the other hand， these real affairs also need to be guided and regulated by spiritual humanism in terms of values in order to avoid the tendencies of secularism， utilitarianism， and human materialization. In other words， in the process of human existence， we should not only guide the affairs of people with the value orientation of restraining transcendentalism and utilitarianism contained in spiritual humanism， but also endow spiritual humanism with a real and concrete character through the actual affairs that people engage in. In this sense， the introduction of affairs can not only be regarded as a precondition for the expansion of the meaning of spiritual humanism， but also provide a possible space for the deeper development of spiritual humanism.

Bibliography of Cited Translations

Knoblock， John， trans. Xunzi [荀子]. Library of Chinese Classics [大中華文庫(kù)]. Changsha： Hunan Peoples Publishing House， 1999.

Legge， James， trans. Confucian Analects. Vol. 1 of The Chinese Classics. Taipei： SMC Publishing Inc.， 1991.

——. The Doctrine of the Mean. Vol. 1 of The Chinese Classics. Taipei： SMC Publishing Inc.， 1991.

——. The Works of Mencius. Vol. 2 of The Chinese Classics. Taipei： SMC Publishing Inc.， 1991.

Translated by Zhu Yuan