【白彤東】誰之全國？ ——對趙汀陽全國體一包養網系的評估

In the modernization level of the system, a very important thing is to make China a dominant country and a nationality country – this is regarded as the necessary path for modernization, and then integrateEntering thousands of national systems. However, this kind of Ouhua route is increasingly being challenged. Europe itself began to depart from the national route of the nation and move towards cosmopolitanism (even though there has been a resurgence of the nationalist countries with left-wing nationalism in recent years). European writers who have advanced with the times also hope that China will follow the trend, transcend the ethnic nation and move towards an unrestrained world-dominantism.

Different from the European faction, some scholars tried to criticize the form of ethnic minority countries from the East, such as the domineering politics spoken by Gan Chunsong (Gan Chunsong 2012), and the new nationalism spoken by Xu Bianlin [2]. In the mission of criticizing the national system of nationalism with domineering politics, Huanchen, one of the main figures in the Confucianism of the mainland, has proposed (Huangchen 2011). But what he gave was only general criticism. And more importantly, the Confucianism he understood was the special civilization ambition of the Chinese. In contrast to this, Gan Chunsong especially regards Confucianism as a set of universal values. Due to the theme and space limitations of this article, I cannot provide detailed and fair comments on the tasks involved and may be discussed. My overall feeling is that although they use a lot of Confucian language, their content is still unrestricted, especially the global order of world-oriented. Especially Xu Binglin’s mission seems to be to express the latter theory in traditional Chinese language to allow Chinese people to accept this system. This attitude is much better than the anti-traditional unrestrained faction. But the question is, first, can they ignore the difference between Confucianism and this world-dominant standpoint? Second, if there is no difference, where is the Confucianism’s own unique contribution? If this kind of contribution is not available, it can only be said that Confucianism is not worthy of attention in terms of the issue of national agreement and international order. This also means that, thirdly, their discussions can be more about how to change the international language of contemporary China. This task is also very important, but it lacks a broader and more standardized meaning.

Ye Qiu opened his eyes, rubbed his sun acupoint, and watched several people chatting on the stage.

The differences in the mission of Gan Chunsong and Xu Binlin in the same era. Some new world order proposers are to use Sino-Shengxi. However, there are differences in the “middle” here. One is what the right hopes for, hoping that New China will propose a form of disagreement for the world. The rightists here are not only within China, but also outside China. For example, Yuzumi Hiraguchi’s famous “China as a Way” represents this thought [3]. Of course, the “China” here is not traditional China. The source of his thinking is also the East, but it is just a little bit east. In fact, the price of the predecessor has been fully demonstrated in the 20th century. Although the pain caused by the crisis of the turbulent Oriental system and the practical experience of the Eastern Oriental Oriental system have become far away, this route has a trend of resurgence.

In terms of disagreement with the above, the national system proposed by Zhao Tingyang is based onTraditional resources, and the idea is that there are unique contributions in the theoretical discussion. He pointed out that China wants to become “a new type of country, a country that is responsible for the world” to create “new world concepts and world system” (Zhaotingyang 2005, 3)[4]. He imperiously criticized the anti-traditional Chinese scholars represented by Lu Xun. He noted that their criticism was “incorrect, not right” [5]. This will form

The method of cutting off the fire from the pot will destroy the people’s self-responsibility towards the country, society and civilization, thereby helping the collective collapse, collective corruption and collective moral integrity of society. This can be considered as irresponsible for the collective nature of the country, society and civilization. (Zhao Tingyang 2005, 5)

With this review of China’s history and social criticism, Zhao Tingyang pointed out that he himself wants to <a What the message boards in mind is to rethink China and to emphasize China (Zhao Ting Yang 2005, 6-12), or perhaps it is not bound by its modern meaning, but to make some progress on the basis of the philosophical analysis of Chinese ideas; this progress is not casual, but rather “the ability that Chinese thinking encompasses” (Zhao Ting Yang 2005, 16). Or maybe the author said that what Zhao Tingyang needs to do is to seek development from traditional Chinese resources and construct a theoretical theory through philosophy. Moreover, this theory not only needs to solve China's problems, but also needs to solve the problems faced by the world, especially the East, which has always been regarded as a modern list, that is, to transform the West by transforming China and solving the West by borrowing China.

2. The national system of Zhaotingyang[6]

Since we are going to respond to problems from the East and even the world, we must first understand what the problem is referred to here. Zhao Tingyang pointed out that “the agenda characteristic of modern politics is the ‘border’”, and “the most influential border among them is personal rights and countries: personal rights define the borders of individuals; dominance defines the borders of the country” (Zhao Tingyang 2015, 13; 2016, 237-238). This kind of border, combined with the various exclusive thinking of the East pointed out by Zhao Tingyang, means that a dominant country cannot comply with the legal regulations, and there are no longer any legal and useful political entities that comply with the legal regulations to predict them, which “leads to the international unintentional state and various unwarranted conflicts in the international sphere” (Zhao Tingyang 2005, 136-137). Such a world lacking world-class useful political entity is called “ineffective world” or “destroyed world” [7]. In this meaning, “What we call the ‘world’ is still a non-world now” (Zhao Tingyang 2005, 110).

Someone can respond immediately, we now have an international organization like the United Nations. But the sources of legality and usefulness of these organizations are the above-mentioned authorities. This is a dilemma that actually allows the dominant state to supervise itself. In the words of Zhaotingyang, this is to think about the world from the dominant state, rather than from the world to think