A translation of Hu Shih’s 1926 essay, “Our Attitude toward Modern Civilization”
Hu Shih (胡適) was an influential Chinese essayist who was known for, among other achievements, his harsh criticisms of traditional Chinese culture and proposals to adopt valorous aspects of modern Western culture.
He was a promoter of the use of the vernacular language an ardent critic of filial piety; all-in-all, he was a highly controversial but influential figure whose writings served as the basis of China’s New Culture Movement (新文化運動) in the 1920s.
What follows below is a translation of Hu Shih’s 1926 essay, Our Attitude toward Modern Western Civilization (我們對於西洋近代文明的態度), as it appears in The Hu Shi Reader published by Yale University’s Far Eastern Publications. This essay’s foreign perspective on Western and American culture in the early 20th century, as well as its contrasting illumination of classical Chinese thought, should prove interesting to any person curious about the course of radical transformation that Chinese society underwent throughout the 1900s.
Other translations exist, and I make no guarantee of the correctness of the text below. The original text is available at WikiSource. Note that I have only been studying Mandarin for about a year and a half.
Our Attitude toward Modern Western Civilization
Today, the most groundless and harmful superstition is the ridicule of Western civilization as materialistic while worshiping Eastern civilization as spiritual. This is a very old idea, but in recent days has experienced a resurgence of interest. For a while, the people of the East have suffered under the oppression of the West, eventually coming to use this position as a way to divert scorn and criticism and engage in self-consolation. In the past several years especially, the effects of the Great War have even caused some Westerners to lament the development of a scientific civilization, and so we occasionally hear claims that the philosophy of Western scholars reveres the spiritual civilization of the East. These arguments are nothing more than a temporary affliction of the mind, which conveniently suits a type of Oriental megalomania, and from which adherents to classical Chinese philosophy have derived an arrogant and haughty demeanor.
We should not countenance the simple, anachronistic attitudes of today’s youth, and instead debate these viewpoints with thorough understanding and and precision.
Currently, people who talk about “spiritual civilizations” and “materialistic civilizations” often lack a common philosophical foundation; as a result, they can only argue about superficial or semantic differences, and cannot achieve fundamental understanding. I would like to propose several points to serve as the basis of our discussion:
- Civilization consists of the fruits of humanity’s labors in adapting and responding to the natural environment.
- Culture consists of the manner in which people of a specific civilization conduct their lives.
- When talking about the accomplishments of a civilization, we may divide them into two factors: first, the material, encompassing those aspects derived from natural phenomena or resources, and second, the spiritual, encompassing a people’s intellect, emotions, and capacity for logical reasoning. All civilizations are produced from the use of human intellect to harness natural resources and sources of power; as such, there is no such thing as a civilization which is exclusively spiritual or materialistic.
I will not discuss these three points in greater detail, as anyone who pursues this topic of discussion in depth should readily accept them. A clay pot or a large cast iron steam oven, a sampan boat and a large steamboat, a small, single-wheeled car and an electric streetcar; all of these are the products of humanity’s intellect applied to the resources of the natural world, altogether constituting civilization. These creations have a material basis, but they are also the product of mankind’s intelligence, and they differ only in their degree of refinement rather than in any fundamental characteristic. The cast iron steam oven does not laugh at the primitive nature of the clay pot; similarly, a man riding atop single-wheeled car cannot brag about the spiritual sophistication of his civilization or look down upon a man riding an electric streetcar as emblematic of a materialistic civilization.
As all civilizations have innumerable material manifestations, we ought not to use the term “material civilization” as a pejorative. We may say that a motorcycle is an aspect of a materialistic civilization, but we cannot only note its physical form; indeed, a motorcycle is also representative of humanity’s wisdom, and does not fall short of the wisdom embodied in, say, a poem. As such, we cannot compare a “material civilization” to a “spiritual civilization” in a negative light; we need not discuss this topic further.
What we must discuss now is:
- What is a “materialistic civilization?”
- Is the modern West a materialistic civilization?
People who revere the so-called spiritual civilization of the East claim that the modern West overemphasizes the appreciation of the material and the carnal while ignoring man’s spiritual needs, and hence name the West a materialistic civilization.
We ought to first note that this argument assumes that the flesh and the spirit stand in contention, which we believe to be mistaken. I deeply believe that a spiritual civilization must be built upon a material foundation. Improving mankind’s material comforts, convenience, and safety allows those who would otherwise be unable to contemplate spiritual matters in their limited lifespan to have the capacity to satisfy the needs of their soul. Eastern philosophers have said:
When people are fed and clothed, they can then know honor and shame; when the granaries are full, they can then know etiquette. (衣食足而後知榮辱，倉廩實而後知禮節)
This is not a foreign view on economic history but instead mere common sense. The world of man contains many tragic tales, in which countless people strive with unceasing fortitude and strength, and yet cannot achieve even the very lowest level of human happiness or avoid coldness and starvation. However, an even greater tragedy is that while there are people with great foresight, who know that people are dying of exposure or starvation, they have not been able to put in place measures to afford these sufferers even a modicum of happiness. Instead, they tell people to be content with their lot in life (樂天，安命，知足，安貧), as though giving people hypnotics to delude and console themselves with.
There is a classic Western proverb about a fox who wants to eat grapes: the grapes are too high up for the fox to reach, so he eventually says, “I never liked sour grapes to begin with!” The fox, who cannot reach the sweet grapes, eventually claims the grapes are sour; people who cannot enjoy the happiness of material comforts similarly claim that material comforts are not worth envying, and that destitution is a laudable quality. This sort of self-deluding, self-consoling thought eventually leads way to laziness, rather than being a particularly special or remarkable type of philosophy. These lunatics go even further than this; they mutilate their bodies, chop off their arms, refuse to eat, and immolate themselves, all in pursuit of this delusional concept of spiritual comfort. Their philosophy, which proceeds from self-delusion to self-harm, is not a philosophy of life but a philosophy of death, originates from following a path which disregards the basic needs of man. Following along this path fundamentally goes against human nature and eventually results in the creation of a slothful society, in which people refuse to work hard to satisfy their material needs while also refusing to engage in spiritual development.
The special quality of modern Western civilization is that it fully recognizes the importance of material comforts. In my own opinion, Western civilization is built upon these three precepts:
- The goal of human life is happiness.
- Therefore, poverty is a great evil.
- Therefore, sickness is a great evil.
To use an ancient Chinese proverb, this is a civilization embodied by the idea of 利用厚生 (lit: to enrich the lives of the people). Poverty is a great evil, so they develop natural resources, encourage manufacturing and production, improve the creations of their civilization, and expand the reach of their commerce. Sickness is a great evil, so they research new medicines, promote the hygeine of the people, pay close attention to physical fitness, stop the transmission of contagious diseases, and improve the hereditary lot of mankind. The goal of human life is happiness, so they maintain pleasant living conditions, improve transportation, keep their cities clean, promote the fine arts, create a safe society, and form a transparent and just political order. When we examine the totality of recent Western technological, scientific, and political development, it is true that many new methods of slaughter and aggression have been developed, but we cannot deny that this development has been undertaken with the core principle of improving the people’s standard of living.
Can this civilization, which focuses on improving the lot of the common man, really be said to ignore humanity’s spiritual needs? Is this an example of a “materialistic civilization?”
We confidently assert the following: modern Western civilization absolutely does not ignore mankind’s spiritual needs. We can even go further and say that the degree to which Western civilization manages to satisfy humanity’s spiritual needs is so great that it would be unimaginable by our ancient ancestors in West and East alike. From this perspective, modern Western civilization is absolutely not materialistic. Instead, it is one which is both idealistic and spiritual.
Let us first discuss the aspect of rationality.
In terms of the spiritual side of modern Western civilization, its most unique and special characteristic is that of science. The fundamental spiritual nature of science lies in its search for the truth. Human life is subject to the forces of the natural world, controlled by tradition, and bound by the forces of superstition and prejudice. Only truth can give you freedom, strength, and wisdom; only truth can give you the power to break free of the restraints of your environment, pierce the heavens, conquer the world’s lands, escape fear of the natural world, and become a valorous and dignified man.
Seeking out truth is mankind’s greatest spiritual desire. The ancient civilizations of the East did not merely refuse to satisfy this desire, but often sought to restrain or prohibit it. The sages of the East advised people to “know nothing” (無知), “reject sage wisdom and discard knowledge” (絕聖棄智), and “be free of knowledge and intellect and obediently follow the heavenly laws” (不識不知，順帝之則). This is cowardice and laziness. In such a civilization, can people really boast that the spiritual needs of the people are fulfilled?
The slothful sages of the East say, “life is limited, while knowledge is boundless; pursuit of the infinite with the finite is futile” (吾生也有涯，而知也無涯，以有涯逐無涯). For this reason, they advise that people sit in meditation and clear their minds, without thought or contemplation, and merely respond to events as they occur. This is a form of megalomaniac lunacy which deludes both themselves and others. Truth resides deep within the natural world; if you do not assiduously seek it out, it will not reveal itself to you. A scientific civilization trains us to exercise our intellect and reasoning as we seek out the truth bit by bit, each time allowing less to fall from our grasp as we accumulate more knowledge. Nature is a cunning trickster, and only through force and coercion can we compel it to reveal its true nature. Slothful men and women who reject intellectual thought will eternally remain ignorant, never able to pass through the gates of truth.
The sloths of the East also say: “truth is boundless, so how can man’s desires ever be fulfilled?” (真理是無窮的，人的求知的欲望如何能滿足呢？) Indeed, we will never fully uncover the totality of natural truth. However, scientists do not use this as a reason to shirk away. Scientists know that natural truth and wisdom are infinite in scope, but they nevertheless derive satisfaction: progressing forward one cun (one tenth foot) yields one cun’s worth of happiness, and progressing one chi (slightly longer than one foot) yields one chi’s worth of satisfaction. Over two thousand years ago, a Greek philosopher was grappling with a difficult problem, for which he could not produce a suitable theory; one day, as he entered the bath, he noticed the rising of the water level and suddenly came to a flash of understanding. With overwhelming joy, he ran out naked into the street and, causing a great commotion, exclaimed “Eureka! Eureka!” This is the satisfaction of a scientist. Newton, Pasteur, and Edison all experienced similar flashes of exuberation. Even if only step by step, progress is made, and each step forward brings its own satisfaction. This sort of spiritual joy cannot be dreamed of by the lazy sages of the East.
This is a fundamental difference between the civilizations of the East and the West. One side gives itself over to self-abandonment and the rejection of intellectual thought, while one side continues with its unceasing search for natural truth.
My friends, in the end, which culture satisfies your spiritual needs?
Next, we will consider the emotional and imaginative needs of mankind.
With regard to literature and fine art, we need not discuss these, as the people of the East are generally able to open their eyes to the world and see that, at the very least, Westerners have never scorned the importance of these two aspects.
Let us discuss morals and religion.
Modern civilization has, from a superficial standpoint, never cut ties with the religions of the past, and so modern culture has never clearly erected its own system of new religion or new morals. However, those of us who study history cannot help but point out that modern civilization does have its own novel religious and ethical beliefs. Scientific advancement has elevated humanity’s knowledge, allowing people to seek out knowledge with greater precision, and our powers of discernment have grown stronger, causing the superstitions of old religions to gradually be washed away to the minimum level and introducing doubts into the most basic religious precepts—the existence of the Supreme Deity (上帝) and the immutability of the human soul. As such, the first notable characteristic of the modern world’s new religion is the introduction of rational thought. Modern civilization has depended on the weapon of scientific thought to open up new worlds, discover innumerable new truths, conquer the innumerable forces of the natural world, call upon electricity to move vehicles, send messages through the luminiferous aether, and produce all types of heaven-shaking accomplishments. The development of humanity’s capabilities has progressively increased man’s faith in himself, transforming the religious beliefs of the past which advised contentment with one’s lot into a belief in humanity’s own ability. Consequently, the second notable characteristic of this new religion is its “humanization” or “secularization.” The progression of human wisdom has not only increased mankind’s powers but has also broadened our vision, expanded our ambitions, increased our imaginative abilities, and deepened our empathy for others. At the same time, greater satisfaction of our material needs has also afforded us the spare capacity to ameliorate the basic desires and suffering of others. An expansion in humanity’s empathy combined with an expansion in humanity’s capabilities has brought forth an unprecedented “socialization” in our ethics. The third notable characteristic of this new religion is therefore the “socialization” of its ethical code.
In the ancient past, humanity freely disregarded its intellectual needs in order to attain emotional solace, relying on faith and ignoring evidence, leading to belief in ghosts and demons, gods, the Supreme Deity, heaven, the Pure Land of Buddhism, and hell. Modern science cannot rely on faith in such a way. In fact, science does not denigrate man’s need for emotional contentment; science only requires that all of our beliefs stand up to logical criticism and be completely supported by data. All of those faiths which lack a thorough base of evidence can only be doubted, and cannot become a part of our beliefs. Huxley said it best:
If the condition of my success in unraveling some little difficulty of anatomy or physiology is that I shall rigorously refuse to put faith in that which does not rest on sufficient evidence, I cannot believe that the great mysteries of existence will be laid open to me on other terms. (Letter of reply to Charles Kingsley, 1860)
This is truly the complete fulfillment of humanity’s spiritual needs. If we buy one plot of land and sell two cottages on it, we still need a deed; in regard to a basis for humanity’s greatest hopes and desires, how can we recklessly hold beliefs that are unsupported by evidence?
This attitude of “show me the evidence” can be called the “rationalization” aspect of the modern world’s religion.
In the past, humanity was subject to the natural world’s domination, unable to discover the secrets of nature, and lacked the force to resist the cruelty of natural forces, resulting in the development of a perpetually fearful attitude toward nature; worship of objects and animals, fear of demons, reverence of gods, and admonitions to obey the natural order (小心翼翼，昭事上帝) are all due to humanity’s inability to trust in its own capabilities and inability to refuse reliance on supernatural forces. People of the modern world are much different. Humanity’s intellect has allowed us to conquer the infinite forces of the natural world: above us, flying freely in the air; below us, exploring the depths of the ocean; far away, gazing at the stars; close by, observing the microscopic. These two hands and one brain—mankind—have become lords of the natural world, which cannot help but respect itself. A young revolutionary poet once sang:
I fight alone and, win or sink，
I need no one to make me free，
I want no Jesus Christ to think
That he could ever die for me.
(The Thorough Bohemian by James Murgeon Flagg)
This is the “humanized” religion of the modern age. Trust in the heavens is worse than trust in man, and reliance on the Supreme Deity is worse than reliance on oneself. We now do not hope to enter heaven or paradise, but instead build humanity’s own paradise in this world. We now do not hope to become Daoist immortals, but instead seek to make mankind itself vigorous and healthy. We now do not hope to master the four meditation styles (四禪定) or the six forms of higher knowledge (六神通), but instead seek to improve humanity’s knowledge so that mankind may pierce the heavens and rule the lands. We may perhaps even cease to casually believe in the omnipotence of the Supreme Deity, instead believing in the omnipotence of the methods of science and the infinite potential of mankind’s future. We may perhaps even cease to believe in the immutability of the human soul, instead believing that mankind itself and human rights are sacred.
This is the “humanization” aspect of the modern world’s religion.
However, the most important point is the “socialization” of modern religion’s ethics.
Ancient religions generally focused on the salvation of man; ancient ethics, similarly, generally focused on the cultivation of man. Although there were religions which considered themselves to be paths to universal salvation, and there were ethical systems which considered themselves to benefit all of creation, they were, in the bitter end, lacking in any ability to set hand to the problems at fore and powerless to implement any practical change, ultimately remaining as they were in the past and returning to the introspective notion of self-cultivation of body and mind. The more introspective self-cultivation you do, the more you are unable to perceive reality; the more you play tricks and games with the intangibility of the human mind, the more powerless you are to respond to the practical problems of the real world. For example, the Neo-Confucian school of thought in the 9th century remarkably failed to perceive the cruel immortality of binding the feet of two hundred million women! Sitting in meditation to clear one’s mind and realize the Buddha-nature of all beings (明心見性), how helpful was that toward clarifying their ethical understanding of human suffering and poverty! Sitting in meditation and devout reverence only creates useless animals that don’t move their limbs and can’t distinguish between the five grains (四體不勤，五穀不分, lacking in practical knowledge)!
Modern civilization did not begin with religion, yet ended up creating a new religion; it did not begin with a code of ethics, yet ended up creating a new ethical system. The European countries of the 15th and 16th centuries were little more than bands of naval bandits, such as Columbus, Magellan, and Drake, all of whom were more pirates than explorers. Their goal was simply to search for gold, silver, spices, ivory, and African slaves. Even so, this group of bandits and the merchants they brought along opened up innumerable new lands, expanded the breadth of mankind’s vision, and elevated the power of human imagination, all while increasing Europe’s wealth. The Industrial Revolution soon followed, methods of manufacturing were fundamentally altered, and the power of industrial production continually improved. Within those two or three hundred years, humanity’s material wealth continually increased, and with it so did the scope of human empathy. This expansion of human empathy was the foundation of a new religion. The quest for individual freedom began to incorporate considerations for other people’s freedoms, not only becoming limited by the scope of others’ freedoms but also transforming into a quest for the freedom of most of humanity itself. The pursuit of one’s own happiness while being considerate of the happiness of others resulted in the development of the “utilitarian” philosophical principle, “the greatest amount of the greatest happiness” as a standard to serve as the goal of human society. This is the trend of “socialization.”
The creeds of the new religion of the 18th century were “liberté, égalité, fraternité.” The new religion of the mid-19th century and after is “socialism.” This is the spiritual civilization of the modern West, a civilization that the people of the East have never experienced before.
It is true that in the East, we have had religions that promoted universal brotherhood, as well as the notion of equal division of land and property. However, these never went past the level of written essays, never truly changed the important aspects of daily life in society, never altered the scope of human life, and never greatly affected the culture of the East, much unlike in the West. “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” became the slogan of the revolutions of the 18th century. The American Revolution, the French Revolution, the revolutions across all of Europe in 1848, and the American Civil War of 1862 were all conducted under the banner of these three great principles. The constitution of America, the constitution of France, and even the constitutions of the nations of South America were greatly influenced by these three great principles. The dismantling of old social class structures, the overthrow of autocratic rule, the universal application of the principle that every man is equal under the rule of law, real protection of the freedoms of religion, thought, speech, and publishing, the implementation of mass education, the liberation of women, the fight for women’s rights, the participation of women in the political sphere… All of these are the real manifestations of this new religion and new ethical code. These are not merely empty words written by three or five philosophers in their tracts; these are important elements of the political systems of the modern West, which have become great forces that delineate the scope of human life and have practical, day-to-day effects.
After the 19th century, the world gradually became more conscious of the harmful qualities of individualism, and the suffering that people endured under capitalism gradually became clearer. People who were wise and farsighted knew that a system of free economic competition could not accomplish the goals of “liberté, égalité, fraternité.” Requesting fair treatment from capitalists was like “asking a tiger for its own pelt” (與虎謀皮, asking an evil person to go against their own interests). There were only two courses of relief: first, for a country to use its legal powers to limit capitalists and protect the oppressed classes; second, for the oppressed classes to band together and directly resist the subjugation and abuse of the capitalist class. As a result, various theories of socialism and revolution continuously arose. Modern Western civilization was built upon a foundation of individual pursuit of happiness, so up to that point property rights were considered to be the foremost and greatest of the sacred rights of man. However, after the mid-19th century, this view was fundamentally shaken, with some people saying remarkable things like “property is theft” or “property is robbery.” At present, a system of individual property ownership continues to exist, but countries can impose heavy income or inheritance taxes, so wholly private ownership has not been allowed for a long time. Until now, laborers have been looked down upon; however, capitalist systems made it possible for large numbers of laborers to band together, while the spread of socialist thought and class consciousness made laborers aware of the necessity of solidarity, such that in the span of several decades, the organization of the proletarian class made the most powerful force in society. Ten years later, the leaders of the workers’ parties are able to demand recognition and rights from the world’s strongest countries, general labor strikes can overcome the most powerful governments, and in Russia, the peasant class formed a dictatorship that rules their entire country. This is an era in which socialist revolutions are still being carried out. However, their accomplishments have already been very impressive. In various countries, we have seen the development of social legislation (社會立法), establishment of factory inspections, improvement in workers’ hygienic conditions, relief for female and child workers, implementation of profit-sharing systems, reduction of working hours, creation of workers’ insurance, development of workers’ cooperatives, movements to establish a minimum wage (最低工資), assistance to the unemployed, implementation of a progressive (級進制的) system of income and inheritance tax… All of these are successes that the great revolutions have already attained. These are not mere sentences on paper, but rather important elements of modern civilization.
This is the new religion and new ethics of the “socialization” aspect.
The old schools of thought of the East might say: “this is merely a rabid struggle for power and wealth (爭權奪利), rather than religion or ethics.” This, here, is a true difference between the cultures of East and West. One side preaches contentment with one’s lot and graceful acceptance of suffering; the other, a refusal to be satisfied with the world as it is and continually struggling with great effort to improve one’s circumstances. When people of the East see a rich man, they say that he cultivated his soul well in his past life; when they see a poor man, they say that he neglected spiritual cultivation in his past life or that “this is just how life is” (命該如此). People of the West are different; they say, “inequality between the rich and the poor and differences in how much people suffer are all results of a flawed system, and the system itself can be reformed.” They are not scrambling to seize power and wealth, but instead fighting for freedom, equality, and fairness; the fruits of their struggle are not merely trivial benefits to the individual, but instead the prosperity of the better part of mankind. The greatest amount of prosperity for the greatest number of people is not something that can be accomplished by sitting in meditation and chanting the name of the Buddha, but instead requires great struggle and effort.
Friends, in the end, which culture is capable of satisfying your soul’s spiritual needs?
We may now make a complete appraisal of modern Western civilization. It is a civilization built upon the foundational principle of “the pursuit of human happiness,” which has increased the material comforts of mankind; even so, it has also managed to fulfill humanity’s spiritual needs. In the field of rational inquiry, it has used precise methods to continually seek out truth and explore the infinite mysteries of the natural world. In the field of ethics, superstitious creeds have been dispelled and a rational system of beliefs has been established; the divine right of kings has been abolished, and a new, “humanized” religion has been created; irrational concepts like heaven or the Pure Land of Buddhism have been abandoned, instead preferring to work hard to build an “earthly paradise;” the so-called transcendence of the human soul has been discarded, and instead no efforts are spared in the usage of mankind’s new imaginative abilities and freshly won knowledge to bring about a fully “socialized” religion and set of ethics as well as to bring the greatest amount of happiness possible to the greatest number of people.
The most special characteristic of the Eastern civilization is an attitude of contentment. Modern Western civilization’s most special characteristic is an attitude of discontent.
The people of the East are content with a primitive lifestyle, so they elevate the importance of not desiring material comfort; they are content with ignorance and the religious principle of “being free of knowledge and intellect” (不識不知), which results in neglect of the discovery of natural truth and the invention of new creations; they are content with the current state of the world and the natural trajectories of their lives, so they do not think to conquer nature, only seeking acceptance of their present situations (樂天安命, 安分守己) and acting as obedient citizens rather than considering systemic reform or revolution.
This sort of acceptance of their material environment’s restrictions and oppression, an acceptance which cannot be escaped, which cannot awaken the hearts or intellect of man to change their environment or improve the current state of civilization, is the civilization of a people who are lazy and ineffectual, a truly “materialistic” civilization. Such a civilization can only suppress and never satisfy mankind’s spiritual needs.
The people of the West are largely different, and say that “dissatisfaction is sacred” (Maxwell’s divine discontent). Upon the foundation of material dissatisfaction was built the world of steel and iron, steam, and electricity of the modern day. Upon the foundation of intellectual discontent was built the modern scientific world. Upon the foundation of social and political discontent was built today’s world of human rights, liberal government, equality between man and woman, the sacred cry of labor, and socialist revolution. “Divine discontent” is a completely revolutionary and progressive force.
This sort of complete utilization of the intelligence of man to seek out natural truth and liberate humanity’s spirit, to subjugate the workings of the heavens for the benefit of man, to change and reform the material world, to revolutionize the social and political order, to seek out the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people—this kind of civilization should be able to satisfy mankind’s spiritual needs; this kind of civilization is a spiritual civilization, is surely an idealistic (理想主義) civilization, and is absolutely not a materialistic civilization.
Certainly, truth is without bound, material pleasures are infinite, the invention of new machines has no end, and the improvement of the social order is an unceasing task. However, each new material possession brings with it its own pleasure, each new innovation brings with it its own satisfaction, and each stage of systemic reform brings with it its own sense of fulfillment. If we cannot succeed today, we can succeed next month or next year; if those before us failed, those after us can carry on their work. Every small expenditure of effort brings with it its own satisfaction; every step in this infinite progression grants fulfilling happiness to those who labor. As such, the great poet Tennyson borrowed the voice of the ancient hero Ulysses to sing:
Yet all experience is an arch wherethro’
Gleams that untravell’d world whose margin fades
For ever and forever when I move.
How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnish’d, not to shine in use!
As tho’ to breathe were life!…………
Come, my friends,
‘T is not too late to seek a newer world.…………
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
1926, 6, 6
(Originally published in Xiandai Pinglun [Modern Review], Vol. 4, No. 83, July 10, 1926; also in Shenghuo Zhoukan [Life Weekly], Nos. 4-6, November 27, December 4 and December 11, 1927)
For completeness of reference, the original text is reproduced below:
我們對於西洋近代文明的態度
今日最沒有根據而又最有毒害的妖言是譏貶西洋文明為唯物的（Materialistic），而尊崇東方文明為精神的（Spiritual）。這本是很老的見解，在今日卻有新興的氣象。從前東方民族受了西洋民族的壓迫，往往用這種見解來解嘲，來安慰自己。近幾年來，歐洲大戰的影響使一部分的西洋人對於近世科學的文化起一種厭倦的反感，所以我們時時聽見西洋學者有崇拜東方的精神文明的議論。這種議論，本來只是一時的病態的心理，卻正投合東方民族的誇大狂；東方的舊勢力就因此增加了不少的氣焰。
我們不願“開倒車”的少年人，對於這個問題不能沒有一種徹底的見解，不能沒有一種鮮明的表示。
現在高談“精神文明”、“物質文明”的人，往往沒有共同的標準做討論的基礎，故只能作文字上或表面上的爭論，而不能有根本的瞭解。我想提出幾個基本觀念來做討論的標準。
第一，文明（Civilization）是一個民族應付他的環境的總成績。
第二，文化（Culture）是一種文明所形成的生活的方式。
第三，凡一種文明的造成，必有兩個因數：一是物質的（Material），包括種種自然界的勢力與質料；一是精神的（Spiritual），包括一個民族的聰明才智、感情和理想。凡文明都是人的心思智力運用自然界的質與力的作品；沒有一種文明是精神的，也沒有一種文明單是物質的。
我想這三個觀念是不須詳細說明的，是研究這個問題的人都可以承認的。一隻瓦盆和一隻鐵鑄的大蒸汽爐，一隻舢板船和一隻大汽船，一部單輪小車和一輛電力街車，都是人的智慧利用自然界的質力製造出來的文明，同有物質的基礎，同有人類的心思才智。這裡面只有個精粗巧拙的程度上的差異，卻沒有根本上的不同。蒸汽鐵爐固然不必笑瓦盆的幼稚，單輪小車上的人也更不配自誇他的精神的文明，而輕視電車上人的物質的文明。
因為一切文明都少不了物質的表現，所以“物質的文明”（Material Civilization）一個名詞不應該有什麼譏貶的涵義。我們說一部摩托車是一種物質的文明，不過單指他的物質的形體；其實一部摩托車所代表的人類的心思智慧決不亞於一首詩所代表的心思智慧。所以“物質的文明”不是和“精神的文明”反對的一個貶詞，我們可以不討論。
我們現在要討論的是（1）什麼叫做“唯物的文明”（Materialistic Civilization），（2）西洋現代文明是不是唯物的文明。
崇拜所謂東方精神文明的人說，西洋近代文明偏重物質上和肉體上的享受，而略視心靈上與精神上的要求，所以是唯物的文明。
我們先要指出這種議論含有靈肉衝突的成見，我們認為錯誤的成見。我們深信，精神的文明必須建築在物質的基礎之上。提高人類物質上的享受，增加人類物質上的便利與安逸，這都是朝著解放人類的能力的方向走，使人們不至於把精力心思全拋在僅僅生存之上，使他們可以有餘力去滿足他們的精神上的要求。東方的哲人曾說：
衣食足而後知榮辱，倉廩實而後知禮節。
這不是什麼舶來的“經濟史觀”，這是平恕的常識。人世的大悲劇是無數的人們終身做血汗的生活，而不能得著最低限度的人生幸福，不能避免凍與餓。人世的更大悲劇是人類的先知先覺者眼看無數人們的凍餓，不能設法增進他們的幸福，卻把“樂天”、“安命”、“知足”、“安貧”種種催眠藥給他們吃，叫他們自己欺騙自己，安慰自己。西方古代有一則寓言說，狐狸想吃葡萄，葡萄太高了，他吃不著，只好說“我本不愛吃這酸葡萄！”狐狸吃不著甜葡萄，只好說葡萄是酸的；人們享不著物質上的快樂，只好說物質上的享受是不足羡慕的，而貧賤是可以驕人的。這樣自欺自慰成了懶惰的風氣，又不足為奇了。於是有狂病的人又進一步，索性回過頭去，戕賊身體，斷臂，絕食，焚身，以求那幻想的精神的安慰。從自欺自慰以至於自殘自殺，人生觀變成了人死觀，都是從一條路上來的：這條路就是輕蔑人類的基本的欲望。朝這條路上走，逆天而拂性，必至於養成懶惰的社會，多數人不肯努力以求人生基本欲望的滿足，也就不肯進一步以求心靈上與精神上的發展了。
西洋近代文明的特色便是充分承認這個物質的享受的重要。西洋近代文明，依我的鄙見看來，是建築在三個基本觀念之上：
第一，人生的目的是求幸福。
第二，所以貧窮是一樁罪惡。
第三，所以衰病是一樁罪惡。
借用一句東方古話，這就是一種“利用厚生”的文明。因為貧窮是一樁罪惡，所以要開發富源，獎勵生產，改良製造，擴張商業。因為衰病是一樁罪惡，所以要研究醫藥，提倡衛生，講求體育，防止傳染的疾病，改善人種的遺傳。因為人生的目的是求幸福，所以要經營安適的起居，便利的交通，潔淨的城市，優美的藝術，安全的社會，清明的政治。縱觀西洋近代的一切工藝，科學，法制，固然其中也不少殺人的利器與侵略掠奪的制度，我們終不能不承認那利用厚生的基本精神。
這個利用厚生的文明，當真忽略了人類心靈上與精神上的要求嗎？當真是一種唯物的文明嗎？
我們可以大膽地宣言：西洋近代文明絕不輕視人類的精神上的要求。我們還可以大膽地進一步說：西洋近代文明能夠滿足人類心靈上的要求的程度，遠非東洋舊文明所能夢見。在這一方面看來，西洋近代文明絕非唯物的，乃是理想主義的（Idealistic），乃是精神的（Spiritual）。
我們先從理智的方面說起。
西洋近代文明的精神方面的第一特色是科學。科學的根本精神在於求真理。人生世間，受環境的逼迫，受習慣的支配，受迷信與成見的拘束。只有真理可以使你自由，使你強有力，使你聰明聖智；只有真理可以使你打破你的環境裡的一切束縛，使你戡天，使你縮地，使你天不怕，地不怕，堂堂地做一個人。
求知是人類天生的一種精神上的最大要求。東方的舊文明對於這個要求，不但不想滿足他，並且常想裁制他，斷絕他。所以東方古聖人勸人要“無知”，要“絕聖棄智”，要“斷思惟”，要“不識不知，順帝之則”。這是畏難，這是懶惰。這種文明，還能自誇可以滿足心靈上的要求嗎？
東方的懶惰聖人說，“吾生也有涯，而知也無涯，以有涯逐無涯，殆已”。所以他們要人靜坐澄心，不思不慮，而物來順應。這是自欺欺人的誑語，這是人類的誇大狂。真理是深藏在事物之中的；你不去尋求探討，他決不會露面。科學的文明教人訓練我們的官能智慧，一點一滴地去尋求真理，一絲一毫不放過，一銖一兩地積起來。這是求真理的唯一法門。自然（Nature）是一個最狡滑的妖魔，只有敲打逼拶可以逼她吐露真情。不思不慮的懶人只好永永作愚昧的人，永永走不進真理之門。
東方的懶人又說：“真理是無窮盡的，人的求知的欲望如何能滿足呢？”誠然，真理是發現不完的。但科學決不因此而退縮。科學家明知真理無窮，知識無窮，但他們仍然有他們的滿足：進一寸有一寸的愉快，進一尺有一尺的滿足。三千多年前，一個希臘哲人思索一個難題，想不出道理來；有一天，他跳進浴盆去洗噪，水漲起來，他忽然明白了，他高興極了，赤裸裸地跑出門去，在街上亂嚷道，“我尋著了！我尋著了！”（Eureka！Eureka！）這是科學家的滿足。Newton，Pasteur以至於Edison時時有這樣的愉快。一點一滴都是進步，一步一步都可以躊躇滿志。這種心靈上的快樂是東方的懶聖人所夢想不到的。
這裡正是東西文化的一個根本不同之點。一邊是自暴自棄的不思不慮，一邊是繼續不斷的尋求真理。
朋友們，究竟是那一種文化能滿足你們的心靈上的要求呢？
其次，我們且看看人類的情感與想像力上的要求。
文藝，美術，我們可以不談，因為東方的人，凡是能睜開眼睛看世界的，至少還都能承認西洋人並不曾輕蔑了這兩個重要的方面。
我們來談談道德與宗教罷。
近世文明在表面上還不曾和舊宗教脫離關係，所以近世文化還不曾明白建立他的新宗教新道德。但我們研究歷史的人不能不指出近世文明自有他的新宗教與新道德。科學的發達提高了人類的知識，使人們求知的方法更精密了，評判的能力也更進步了，所以舊宗教的迷信部分漸漸被淘汰到最低限度，漸漸地連那最低限度的信仰——上帝的存在與靈魂的不滅——也發生疑問了。所以這個新宗教的第一特色是他的理智化。近世文明仗著科學的武器，開闢了許多新世界，發現了無數新真理，征服了自然界的無數勢力，叫電氣趕車，叫“乙太”送信，真個作出種種動地掀天的大事業來。人類的能力的發展使他漸漸增加對於自己的信仰心，漸漸把向來信天安命的心理變成信任人類自己的心理。所以這個新宗教的第二特色是他的人化。智識的發達不但抬高了人的能力，並且擴大了他的眼界，使他胸襟闊大，想像力高遠，同情心濃摯。同時，物質享受的增加使人有餘力可以顧到別人的需要與痛苦。擴大了的同情心加上擴大了的能力，遂產生了一個空前的社會化的新道德，所以這個新宗教的第三特色就是他的社會化的道德。
古代的人因為想求得感情上的安慰，不惜犧牲理智上的要求，專靠信心（Faith），不問證據，於是信鬼，信神，信上帝，信天堂，信淨土，信地獄。近世科學便不能這樣專靠信心了。科學並不菲薄感情上的安慰；科學只要求一切信仰須要禁得起理智的評判，須要有充分的證據。凡沒有充分證據的，只可存疑，不足信仰。赫胥黎（Huxley）說的最好：
如果我對於解剖學上或生理學上的一個小小困難，必須要嚴格的不信任一切沒有充分證據的東西，方才可望有成績，那麼，我對於人生的奇秘的解決，難道就可以不用這樣嚴格的條件嗎？
這正是十分尊重我們的精神上的要求。我們買一畝田，賣三間屋，尚且要一張契據；關於人生的最高希望的根據，豈可沒有證據就胡亂信仰嗎？
這種“拿證據來”的態度，可以稱為近世宗教的“理智化”。
從前人類受自然的支配，不能探討自然界的秘密，沒有能力抵抗自然的殘酷，所以對於自然常懷著畏懼之心，拜物，拜畜生，怕鬼，敬神，“小心翼翼，昭事上帝”，都是因為人類不信任自己的能力，不能不倚靠一種超自然的勢力。現代的人便不同了。人的智力居然征服了自然界的無數質力，上可以飛行無礙，下可以潛行海底，遠可以窺算星辰，近可以觀察極微。這個兩隻手一個大腦的動物——人——已成了世界的主人翁，他不能不尊重自己了。一個少年的革命詩人曾這樣的歌唱：
我獨自奮鬥，勝敗我獨自承當，
我用不著誰來放我自由，
我用不著什麼耶穌基督
妄想他能替我贖罪替我死。
I fight alone and， win or sink，
I need no one to make me free，
I want no Jesus Christ to think
That he could ever die for me。
這是現代人化的宗教。信任天不如信任人，靠上帝不如靠自己。我們現在不妄想什麼天堂天國了，我們要在這個世界上建造“人的樂國”。我們不妄想做不死的神仙了，我們要在這個世界上做個活潑健全的人。我們不妄想什麼四禪定六神通了，我們要在這個世界上做個有聰明智慧可以戡天縮地的人。我們也許不輕易信仰上帝的萬能了，我們卻信仰科學的方法是萬能的，人的將來是不可限量的。我們也許不信靈魂的不滅了，我們卻信人格是神聖的，人權是神聖的。
這是近世宗教的“人化”。
但最重要的要算近世道德宗教的“社會化”。
古代的宗教大抵注重個人的拯救；古代的道德也大抵注重個人的修養。雖然也有自命普渡眾生的宗教，雖然也有自命兼濟天下的道德，然而終苦於無法下手，無力實行，只好仍舊回到個人的身心上用工夫，做那向內的修養。越向內做工夫，越看不見外面的現實世界；越在那不可捉摸的心性上玩把戲，越沒有能力應付外面的實際問題。即如中國八百年的理學工夫居然看不見二萬萬婦女纏足的慘無人道！明心見性，何補於人道的苦痛困窮！坐禪主敬，不過造成許多“四體不勤，五穀不分”的廢物！
近世文明不從宗教下手，而結果自成一個新宗教；不從道德入門，而結果自成一派新道德。十五十六世紀的歐洲國家簡直都是幾個海盜的國家，哥侖布（Columbus）、馬汲倫（Magellan）、都芮克（Drake）一班探險家都只是一些大海盜。他們的目的只是尋求黃金，白銀，香料，象牙，黑奴。然而這班海盜和海盜帶來的商人開闢了無數新地，開拓了人的眼界，抬高了人的想像力，同時又增加了歐洲的富力。工業革命接著起來，生產的方法根本改變了，生產的能力更發達了。二三百年間，物質上的享受逐漸增加，人類的同情心也逐漸擴大。這種擴大的同情心便是新宗教新道德的基礎。自己要爭自由，同時便想到別人的自由，所以不但自由須以不侵犯他人的自由為界限，並且還進一步要要求絕大多數人的自由。自己要享受幸福，同時便想到人的幸福，所以樂利主義（Utilitarianism）的哲學家便提出“最大多數的最大幸福”的標準來做人類社會的目的。這都是“社會化”的趨勢。
十八世紀的新宗教信條是自由，平等，博愛。十九世紀中葉以後的新宗教信條是社會主義。這是西洋近代的精神文明，這是東方民族不曾有過的精神文明。
固然東方也曾有主張博愛的宗教，也曾有公田均產的思想。但這些不過是紙上的文章，不曾實地變成社會生活的重要部分，不曾變成範圍人生的勢力，不曾在東方文化上發生多大的影響，在西方便不然了。“自由，平等，博愛”成了十八世紀的革命口號。美國的革命，法國的革命，1848年全歐洲的革命運動，1862年的南北美戰爭，都是在這三大主義的旗幟之下的大革命。美國的憲法，法國的憲法，以至於南美洲諸國的憲法，都是受了這三大主義的絕大影響的。舊階級的打倒，專制政體的推翻，法律之下人人平等的觀念的普遍，“信仰，思想，言論，出版”幾大自由的保障的實行，普及教育的實施，婦女的解放，女權的運動，婦女參政的實現，……都是這個新宗教新道德的實際的表現。這不僅僅是三五個哲學家書本子裡的空談；這都是西洋近代社會政治制度的重要部分，這都已成了範圍人生，影響實際生活的絕大勢力。
十九世紀以來，個人主義的趨勢的流弊漸漸暴白於世了，資本主義之下的苦痛也漸漸明瞭了。遠識的人知道自由競爭的經濟制度不能達到真正“自由，平等，博愛”的目的。向資本家手裡要求公道的待遇，等於“與虎謀皮”。救濟的方法只有兩條大路：一是國家利用其權力，實行裁制資本家，保障被壓迫的階級；一是被壓迫的階級團結起來，直接抵抗資本階級的壓迫與掠奪。於是各種社會主義的理論與運動不斷地發生。西洋近代文明本建築在個人求幸福的基礎之上，所以向來承認“財產”為神聖的人權之一。但十九世紀中葉以後，這個觀念根本動搖了，有的人竟說“財產是賊髒”，有的人竟說“財產是掠奪”。現在私有財產制雖然還存在，然而國家可以徵收極重的所得稅和遺產稅，財產久已不許完全私有了。勞動是向來受賤視的；但資本集中的制度使勞工有大組織的可能，社會主義的宣傳與階級的自覺又使勞工覺悟團結的必要，於是幾十年之中，有組織的勞動階級遂成了社會上最有勢力的分子。十年以來，工党領袖可以執掌世界強國的政權，同盟總罷工可以屈伏最有勢力的政府，俄國的勞農階級竟做了全國的專政階級。這個社會主義的大運動現在還正在進行的時期。但他的成績已很可觀了。各國的“社會立法”（Social Legislation）的發達，工廠的視察，工廠衛生的改良，兒童工作與婦女工作的救濟，紅利分配制度的推行，縮短工作時間的實行，工人的保險，合作制之推行，最低工資（Minimum Wage）的運動，失業的救濟，級進制的（Progressive）所得稅與遺產稅的實行，……這都是這個大運動已經做到的成績。這也不僅僅是紙上的文章，這也都已成了近代文明的重要部分。
這是“社會化”的新宗教與新道德。
東方的舊腦筋也許要說：“這是爭權奪利，算不得宗教與道德。”這裡又正是東西文化的一個根本不同之點。一邊是安分，安命，安貧，樂天，不爭，認吃虧；一邊是不安分，不安貧，不肯吃虧，努力奮鬥，繼續改善現成的境地。東方人見人富貴，說他是“前世修來的”；自己貧，也說是“前世不曾修”，說是“命該如此”。西方人便不然；他說，“貧富的不平等，痛苦的待遇，都是制度的不良的結果，制度是可以改良的”。他們不是爭權奪利，他們是爭自由，爭平等，爭公道；他們爭的不僅僅是個人的私利，他們奮鬥的結果是人類絕大多數人的福利。最大多數人的最大幸福，不是袖手念佛號可以得來的，是必須奮鬥力爭的。
朋友們，究竟是那一種文化能滿足你們的心靈上的要求呢？
我們現在可綜合評判西洋近代的文明了。這一系的文明建築在“求人生幸福”的基礎之上，確然替人類增進了不少的物質上的享受；然而他也確然很能滿足人類的精神上的要求。他在理智的方面，用精密的方法，繼續不斷地尋求真理，探索自然界無窮的秘密。他在宗教道德的方面，推翻了迷信的宗教，建立合理的信仰；打倒了神權，建立人化的宗教；拋棄了那不可知的天堂淨土，努力建設“人的樂國”、“人世的天堂”；丟開了那自稱的個人靈魂的超拔，儘量用人的新想像力和新智力去推行那充分社會化了的新宗教與新道德，努力謀人類最大多數的最大幸福。
東方的文明的最大特色是知足。西洋的近代文明的最大特色是不知足。
知足的東方人自安於簡陋的生活，故不求物質享受的提高；自安于愚昧，自安於“不識不知”，故不注意真理的發現與技藝器械的發明；自安于現成的環境與命運，故不想征服自然，只求樂天安命，不想改革制度，只圖安分守己，不想革命，只做順民。
這樣受物質環境的拘束與支配，不能跳出來，不能運用人的心思智力來改造環境改良現狀的文明，是懶惰不長進的民族的文明，是真正唯物的文明。這種文明只可以遏抑而決不能滿足人類精神上的要求。
西方人大不然，他們說“不知足是神聖的”（Divine Discontent）。物質上的不知足產生了今日鋼鐵世界，汽機世界，電力世界。理智上的不知足產生了今日的科學世界。社會政治制度上的不知足產生了今日的民權世界，自由政體，男女平權的社會，勞工神聖的喊聲，社會主義的運動。神聖的不知足是一切革新一切進化的動力。
這樣充分運用人的聰明智慧來尋求真理以解放人的心靈，來制服天行以供人用，來改造物質的環境，來改革社會政治的制度，來謀人類最大多數的最大幸福，——這樣的文明應該能滿足人類精神上的要求；這樣的文明是精神的文明，是真正理想主義的（Idealistic）文明，決不是唯物的文明。
固然，真理是無窮的，物質上的享受是無窮的，新器械的發明是無窮的，社會制度的改善是無窮的。但格一物有一物的愉快，革新一器有一器的滿足，改良一種制度有一種制度的滿意。今日不能成功的，明日明年可以成功；前人失敗的，後人可以繼續助成。盡一分力便有一分的滿意；無窮的進境上，步步都可以給努力的人充分的愉快。所以大詩人鄧內孫（Tennyson）借古英雄Ulysses的口氣歌唱道：
然而人的閱歷就像一座穹門，
從那裡露出那不曾走過的世界，
越走越遠永永望不到他的盡頭。
半路上不幹了，多麼沉悶呵！
明晃晃的快刀為什麼甘心上鏽！
難道留得一口氣就算得生活了？
…………
朋友，來罷！
去尋一個更新的世界是不會太晚的。
…………
用掉的精力固然不回來了，剩下的還不少呢。
現在雖然不是從前那樣掀天動地的身手了，
然而我們畢竟還是我們，——
光陰與命運頹唐了幾分壯志！
終止不住那不老的雄心，
去努力，去探尋，去發現，
永不退讓，不屈伏。
1926，6，6
（原載1926年7月10日《現代評論》第4卷第83期，又載1927年11月27日、12月4日、12月11日《生活週刊》第4至6期）