The Civilizational Logic of Building a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind and Its Philosophical Reflection

At present, the world’s once-in-a-century changes are accelerating, multiple risks and challenges are叠加 [n1], and the world has entered a new period of turbulence and transformation. “Human society once again stands at a historical crossroads of where to go,” and “humanity once again faces the choice between peace and war, dialogue and confrontation, win-win and zero-sum.” The choice made by the Chinese people is to build a community with a shared future for mankind. This choice is not an expedient measure to cope with the international crisis, but a long-term civilizational strategy based on a profound understanding of the essence and laws of development of human civilization. We deeply recognize that human beings are civilizational beings, history is the carrier of civilization, civilization is the meaningful core of history, and the choice of humanity’s destiny concerns not only the survival and development of human civilization but is also a self-examination and self-validation of human civilization; the deep layer of changes in the world, changes in the times, and changes in history is the change in civilizational forms; “human society once again stands at a historical crossroads of where to go” points to the human existential condition of “human civilization standing at a crossroads of where to go.” Therefore, building a community with a shared future for mankind has a profound civilizational logic. Understanding the essence and laws of development of human civilization, basing oneself on the current state of human civilization, focusing on the future of human civilization, always standing on the side of historical correctness and the progress of human civilization, using the progress of human civilization to stimulate the historical initiative of various actual civilizations, and letting the essence of all civilizations benefit humanity—these are the inevitable requirements for building a community with a shared future for mankind, and also the only correct choice in today’s world.

当前，世界百年变局加速演进，多重风险挑战叠加，进入新的动荡变革期，“人类社会再次面临何去何从的历史当口”,“人类又面临和平还是战争、对话还是对抗、共赢还是零和的抉择”。中国人民作出的抉择是构建人类命运共同体。这一抉择并非应对国际危机的权宜之计，而是基于对人类文明本质和发展规律深刻认知的长远文明战略。我们深刻认识到，人类是文明的存在物，历史是文明的载体，文明是历史的意义内核，人类命运的抉择不仅攸关人类文明的存续和发展，更是人类文明的自我检验与证成；世界之变、时代之变、历史之变的深层是文明形态之变；“人类社会再次面临何去何从的历史当口”指向的是“人类文明站在何去何从的十字路口”的人类生存境遇。因此，构建人类命运共同体有着深刻的文明逻辑。理解人类文明的本质和发展规律，立足当下人类文明状况，着眼人类文明未来，始终站在历史正确和人类文明进步一边，以人类文明进步激发现实诸文明的历史主动性，让一切文明的精华造福人类，是构建人类命运共同体的必然要求，也是当今世界唯一正确的选择。

I. Today’s Humanity Urgently Needs to Form a New Civilizational Form

一、当今人类亟须形成新的文明形态

In its broadest sense, civilization is the holistic creation of humanity through subjective practice in transforming nature, constructing society, and shaping the spiritual world. It is the sum total of material, institutional, and spiritual achievements, and it characterizes the progressive state of human society. Since “man parted ways with the ape” [n2], humanity has continuously generated its own essential defining characteristics as human beings through its production and life practices, gradually forming cultures as ways of life and habitus, and ultimately historically accumulating into diverse civilizational forms. Etymologically, whether in the East or the West, the term “civilization” (文明) has had a dual spiritual gene since its birth—a “consciousness of boundaries” that distinguishes the other and a “value appeal” of self-transcendence. Therefore, civilization is not only an identification of a given attribute (such as agricultural civilization, industrial civilization) but also a cultural imagination and construction with reflexive characteristics, embodying “a unique order and sentiment” (such as “all-under-heaven civilization” [n3]). In other words, civilization always contains a transcendent ideal; it is essentially a historical process of generation that continuously injects a self-understood “ought-to-be” value into an “actual” existence. This self-understanding is rooted in the worldview and meaning system formed under specific historical conditions, and changes in historical conditions are dialectically reflected through practice into people’s paradigm for understanding civilization. Every civilization contains its own view of civilization, which is determined by the social existence of that civilization and, through symbolic systems and institutional design, reacts back upon the civilizational entity, together forming a dynamic civilizational form. In this sense, civilization is always a flowing network of meaning; it is both a field for continuous dialogue and contestation among different worldviews (including views of civilization) and often directly expressed as the worldview itself that is in dispute and dialogue. In today’s world, through the complex and diverse discourses on civilization, a critical examination of the current state of human civilization inevitably leads us to a profound realization: humanity urgently needs to make a choice about where civilization is going and to form a new civilizational form, and the core direction of this choice is precisely to build a community with a shared future for mankind.

在最广含义上，文明是人类通过主体性实践改造自然、建构社会与形塑精神世界的整体性创造，是物质、制度与精神成果的总和，表征人类社会的进步状态。自“人猿相揖别”,人类就在其生产生活实践中不断生成自己之为人类的本质规定性，并逐渐形成作为生活样式和惯习(habitus)的文化，最终历史地积淀为多元文明形态。从词源学考察，无论是在东方还是西方，“文明”(civilization)一词自其诞生之初便有着双重精神基因——区分他者的“界域意识”和自我超越的“价值诉求”。因此，文明不仅是对某种既定属性的指认(如农耕文明、工业文明),更是具有反思性特质的文化想象与建构，体现着“一种独特的秩序和情怀”(如“天下文明”)。换言之，文明始终蕴含着超越性理想，本质上是不断将自我理解的“应然”价值注入“实然”存在的历史性生成过程。这种自我理解根植于特定历史条件下形成的世界观与意义系统，而历史条件的改变又经由实践辩证地反映到人们对文明的理解范式之中。任何一种文明都内蕴自己的文明观，它由文明的社会存在所决定，又通过象征系统与制度设计反作用于文明实体，并与之一起构成动态的文明形态。在此意义上，文明始终是流动的意义网络，既是不同世界观(包括文明观)持续对话与博弈的场域，也常常直接表达为处于争议与对话中的世界观本身。当今世界，透过纷繁复杂的文明话语，对当前人类文明状况进行批判性审视，我们必然深刻认识到：人类亟须作出文明何去何从的抉择，形成新的文明形态，而这一抉择的核心指向正是构建人类命运共同体。

Initially, humans were scattered across the ends of the earth in tribal modes of existence, forming diverse cultural genes and accumulating heterogeneous civilizational types. Over a long process of development, this “stars scattered across the sky” [n4] type of culture and civilization gradually integrated into dominant regional civilizations, each creating brilliant achievements in relatively closed spatiotemporal units. Taking the opening of new sea routes in the 15th–16th centuries as a historical turning point, practical interactions among the various civilizational units of humanity continuously deepened, ultimately bringing about the transformation of history into world history as identified by Marx. “The world-historical existence of individuals, i.e., the existence of individuals which is directly linked to world history” [n5] has increasingly become a basic experience, most evident today. In the current life-world, we can intuitively perceive this unprecedented and continuously intensifying state of existence: members of different nations, countries, and civilizations enjoy the same fast food, watch the same movies, use the same software, engage in various forms of “cross-checking” [n6], comment on the same events, jointly form world-level focal points of attention, weave an increasingly tight network of meaning in ways that transcend traditional civilizational boundaries, and jointly build and share “one world.” Based on the dual revolution of the digitalization of production methods and the virtualization of modes of interaction, humanity has for the first time achieved a triple-layered existence that superimposes physical space, real society, and digital space. Some Western scholars understand “society” as “civilization” and take civilization as a unit of historical research, mainly focusing on historical research from the pre-globalization era, implicitly locking the understanding of civilization within “a certain group of humans,” without foreseeing the civilizational state of existence brought about by digital intelligent technology—the ternary fusion of “human-machine-things,” where the intelligent interconnection of all things has already reconstructed the overall foundation of civilization. Despite the existence of various so-called “anti-globalization” phenomena, they have not changed the overall trend of the increasingly deep interconnection of the global civilizational network. Today, world history and the development of human society have irreversibly taken on the characteristics of globalization, and this is precisely the objective and realistic foundation for building a community with a shared future for mankind.

最初人类以部落化生存方式散布于地球各端，形成多元文化基因，积淀出异质性文明类型。在漫长的发展过程中，这种“满天星斗”式的文化、文明逐渐整合为主导性地域文明，各自在相对封闭的时空单元中创造辉煌成就。以15—16世纪新航路开辟为历史转折点，人类各文明单元间的实践交往不断加深，最终促成了马克思所指认的历史向世界历史的转变，“各个人的世界历史性的存在，也就是与世界历史直接相联系的各个人的存在”日渐成为基本经验，于今最为明显。在当今生活世界中，我们可直观感知到这种前所未有且持续强化的存在状况：不同民族、国家和文明的成员享用同样的快餐，观看同样的电影，使用同一款软件，进行各种“对账”,就同一个事件发表评论，共同形成世界级的关注热点，以超越传统文明界域的方式共同编织日益紧致的意义网络，共建、共享着“同一个世界”。基于生产方式数字化与交往方式虚拟化的双重革命，人类首次实现物理空间、现实社会与数字空间的三重叠加生存。一些西方学者将“社会”理解为“文明”,将文明作为历史研究单元，主要着眼于前全球化时代的历史研究，潜在地将对文明的理解锁闭于“某一群人类”,没有预见数字智能技术催生的文明存在状况——“人—机—物”三元融合的万物智能互联已经重构文明的总体性基础。尽管存在种种所谓“逆全球化”现象，但并未改变全球文明网络日益深度互联的总体趋势。今天，世界历史与人类社会发展已经不可逆转地呈现出全球化特征，这正是构建人类命运共同体的客观现实基础。

However, the globalized character of this human society reflexively highlights the holistic crisis facing humanity. In the most general sense, the authentic logic of human civilizational development consists of continuously optimizing the triple relationship between humanity and nature, between human beings, and between humanity and itself, by means of technical adaptation to nature, institutional arrangements for social relations, and meaningful construction of the spiritual world, with survival security as the foundation and a better life as the goal. Yet when modern civilization reaches the peak of material accumulation under the domination of the logic of capital and the expansion of instrumental rationality, it encounters a systemic crisis. For example, in the economic sphere, polarization between rich and poor, exhaustion of development momentum, unsustainability of traditional development models, and the restructuring of the productive forces system by the technological revolution while simultaneously making the global economy more unbalanced; in the political sphere, the normalization of geopolitical conflicts, a sharp increase in unconventional security risks, the failure of global governance systems, revolutionary changes in the power structure of international society, and systemic fractures in order; in the social sphere, a pronounced tendency toward solidification of social differentiation, drastic changes in employment structure and social ethical challenges brought by technological change represented by artificial intelligence; in the cultural sphere, intensified value conflicts and civilizational games, consumerism and virtual space exacerbating spiritual desertification, and humanity falling into the danger of losing common cultural coordinates; in the ecological sphere, resource depletion, environmental degradation, severe climate change, and humanity facing a direct threat to survival. In particular, in today’s world, “hegemonic, bullying, and domineering acts such as the strong bullying the weak, taking by force, and zero-sum games are deeply harmful; the deficits in peace, development, security, and governance are worsening; and human society faces unprecedented challenges.” These crises and challenges can all be traced back to a fundamental distortion of the triple relationship — among which the alienation of human-to-human relations constitutes the pivotal contradiction. Narrow relations between humanity and nature, and between humanity and itself, are both determined by narrow relations between human beings. In the context of globalization, this narrow relationship is most sharply manifested in inter-civilizational relations: the self-centeredness of traditional civilizations based on the boundaries of nations and states forms a profound paradox with the global governance rationality demanded by risk society. In a civilizational ecology akin to quantum entanglement, actual civilizations in the strict sense increasingly have no so-called “externalities.” Faced with a holistic crisis of humanity, no single nation, state, or civilization can reverse the situation alone, nor can it remain immune, and “global mutual assistance” is required. Therefore, humanity must form certain universal norms from the height of civilization as a whole, reconstruct inter-civilizational relations so that actual civilizations can coordinate their actions, and ensure through rational choices that human civilization survives the crisis and continues to develop and thrive — the community with a shared future for mankind is precisely the institutionalized and conceptualized expression of this “global mutual assistance.”

然而，这种人类社会的全球化特征却反身性地凸显了人类面临的整体性危机。在最一般的意义上，以生存保障为基础，以美好生活为目标，通过对自然的技术性调适、对社会关系的制度性安排、对精神世界的意义性建构，持续优化人与自然、人与人、人与自身的三重关系，构成人类文明发展的本真逻辑。但当现代文明在资本逻辑宰制与工具理性膨胀中抵达物质积累巅峰时，却遭遇了系统性危机。例如，经济领域中贫富两极分化、发展动能衰竭，传统发展模式不可持续，科技革命重构生产力体系的同时却使得全球经济更加失衡；政治领域中地缘冲突常态化，非常态安全风险剧增，全球治理体系失效，国际社会权力结构发生革命性变迁，出现系统性秩序断裂；社会领域中社会分化固化倾向严重，以人工智能为代表的科技变革带来就业结构剧变和社会伦理挑战；文化领域中价值观冲突与文明博弈加剧，消费主义与虚拟空间加剧精神荒漠化，人类陷入失去共同文化坐标的危险；生态领域中资源枯竭，环境恶化，气候变化形势严峻，人类面临直接的生存威胁。特别地，当今世界“恃强凌弱、巧取豪夺、零和博弈等霸权霸道霸凌行径危害深重，和平赤字、发展赤字、安全赤字、治理赤字加重，人类社会面临前所未有的挑战”。这些危机、挑战均可溯源至三重关系的根本性扭曲——其中，人与人的关系异化构成枢纽性矛盾。狭隘的人与自然关系、人与自身关系都是由狭隘的人与人关系所决定的。在全球化语境下，这种狭隘关系最尖锐地表现在文明间关系上：传统文明基于民族、国家界域的自我中心主义，与风险社会要求的全球治理理性形成深刻悖论。在量子纠缠般的文明生态中，现实诸文明在严格意义上已经日益无所谓“外部性”。面对人类整体性危机，各民族、国家、文明无一能独自扭转乾坤，也无法独善其身，而需要“全球共济”。因此，人类必须从文明整体的高度形成一定的普遍性规范，重构文明间关系，使现实诸文明能够协调行动，以理性抉择确保人类文明度过危机、更好存续与发展——人类命运共同体正是这种“全球共济”的制度化、理念化表达。

Objectively speaking, actual civilizations are inherently part of the overall human civilization. The “consciousness of boundaries” that emerges from distinguishing oneself from others indicates that civilization always constructs “us” in the process of differentiating from various “thems.” But these “boundaries” themselves have different levels. From the most macroscopic cosmic scale, the entire human civilization is merely a community: it is located in the solar system on the Orion Arm of the Milky Way galaxy, and its scope to date is limited to Earth and a few other celestial bodies, such as the Moon and Mars. Civilizations arising in various parts of the Earth are all components of human civilization, belonging to many sub-civilizations within this grand set. Many thinkers believe that different cultures and civilizations share a common “common denominator” or “cultural constant.” Vico was the first to point out that although various peoples did not know each other at their origins, they had already constituted a common world and possessed a common “mental dictionary” before interacting with each other; his so-called “new science” was dedicated to studying “the common nature of the gentile nations.” This also confirms the ancient wisdom of Xunzi: “The same quest but different paths; the same desires but different knowledge.” [7]7 Xunzi (c. 310 – c. 235 BCE) was a Confucian philosopher from the Warring States period. The quoted phrase appears in his work *Jiebi* (Dispelling Blindness). If in the past the “us” expressing the “consciousness of boundaries” of civilization was more relative to other civilizations, today we need to make different civilizations consciously internalize themselves into the largest “us” at the level of humanity — regardless of whether the various “thems” are nature, so-called gods, extraterrestrial intelligent beings, or the soon-to-emerge super artificial intelligence entities. One of the core goals of the community with a shared future for mankind is to promote “humanity” as a common identity that transcends the boundaries of nations, states, and civilizations.

客观地说，现实诸文明本就属于整体的人类文明。从他者中超拔出来的“界域意识”表明，文明总是在区别于各种“他们”的过程中构建“我们”。但这种“界域”本身又有着不同层次。从最宏观的宇宙尺度看，整个人类文明体不过是这样一个群落：它坐落在银河星系内猎户臂的太阳系，至今所涉及的范围仅限于地球及其他少数天体，如月球和火星。地球各端兴起的文明都是人类文明的组成部分，属于这一宏大集合中的诸多亚文明。很多思想家都认为，不同文化、文明存在着共同的“公分母”或“文化常数”。维柯最早指出，虽然各民族在起源时互不相识，但在彼此发生互动关系之前就已经构成共同的世界，拥有共同的“心头词典”,其所谓“新科学”就是致力于研究“各异教民族的共同本性”。这也印证了荀子“同求而异道，同欲而异知”的古老智慧。如果说以往表现文明“界域意识”的“我们”更多是相对于其他文明而言，那么今天我们更需要使不同文明自觉地内化到人类高度的最大的“我们”之中——无论各种“他们”是自然界，还是所谓的神灵、外星智慧生物，抑或即将出现的超级人工智能体。人类命运共同体的核心目标之一，就是要推动“人类”成为超越民族、国家、文明界域的共同身份认同。

In fact, any linguistic expression and conceptual application inherently contains a certain universalizing impulse, and civilizational discourse is especially so. Historically, each civilization has a cognitive inertia of elevating local experience into universal principles, or a so-called “illusion of immortality”; this civilizational centrism reaches its extreme in Western modernity narratives. Etymological research shows that the Western concept of “civilization” has always formed a discursive symbiosis with “barbarism,” and its modern transformation coincided precisely with colonial expansion: by constructing a hierarchy of civilizations, spatial differences were converted into a temporal sequence from savagery to civilization. According to research, no later than the early 19th century, classifications such as the savage state, the barbarous state, the half-civilized state, and the civilized state had already entered Western textbooks, becoming deeply ingrained common sense among Western citizens, and ultimately solidified into the colonial epistemology of Western society — this is an important basis for postcolonial theory’s questioning of “civilization” as an imperial rhetoric. For a considerable period, the word “civilization” in the West was used in the singular; that is, the West long tacitly assumed that there was only one form of civilization, namely Western civilization, while non-Western civilizations were tested and graded according to Western civilizational standards — “the foundation of European civilizational standards is race, ethnic ties, and religious belief.” [8]8 This quotation is from the German historian Jürgen Osterhammel, as cited in the original Chinese text. It was roughly not until the 19th century that the West grammatically accepted the plurality of civilization. After multiple civilizations were recognized, human (global) society composed of multiple civilizational units highlighted the relations between civilizations. Thus, civilization as a reflexive concept not only stands in opposition to the barbaric and savage other, but also raises the issue of the relationship between the civilizational self and the civilizational other. Accompanying the advance of world history and globalization is a continuously structured power. In dealing with the relationship with the civilizational other, the West remains deeply mired in the legacy of colonial epistemology: its adherence to the clash of civilizations thesis and the superiority-inferiority theory can be said to be a contemporary variant of civilizational Darwinism, containing an operational logic of disciplining the other — it is worth emphasizing that the view of civilization itself is an important manifestation of civilization, and how to view and handle relations between different civilizations is the core content of that view. This Western-centric view of civilization is precisely one of the core obstacles that the community with a shared future for mankind must overcome.

其实，任何语言表达和概念运用都内蕴某种普遍化冲动，文明话语尤其如此。历史地看，各文明体均存在将本土经验升格为普遍法则的认知惯性，或所谓“不朽的幻想”,这种文明中心主义在西方现代性叙事中达到极致。词源学考据表明，西方“文明”概念始终与“野蛮”构成话语共生体，其现代转型恰与殖民扩张同步：通过建构文明等级，将空间差异转换为从蒙昧到文明的时间序列。据研究，最晚在19世纪初，类似蒙昧国家(the savage state)、野蛮国家(the barbarous state)、半文明国家(the half-civilized state)和文明国家(the civilized state)的划分已经进入西方教科书，成为西方根深蒂固的国民常识，最终固化为西方社会的殖民认识论——这正是后殖民理论质疑“文明”实为帝国修辞术的重要依据。在相当长的时间内，“文明”一词在西方都是单数形式，也就是说，西方曾长期默认人类只存在一种文明样式即西方文明，而非西方则依照西方文明标准——“欧洲文明标准的根基是种族、民族纽带以及宗教信仰”——来进行检验和划分等级。西方大致到19世纪才在语法层面接纳文明复数性。多元文明被确认后，由多个文明单元组成的人类(全球)社会凸显了文明之间的关系。于是，作为反思性概念的文明不仅与野蛮、蒙昧的他者相对，而且出现了文明自我与文明他者的关系问题。与世界历史推进、全球化发展相伴随的是一种不断结构化的权力。在处理与文明他者的关系时，西方至今仍深陷殖民认识论遗产：其秉持的文明冲突论与优劣论，可以说仍是文明达尔文主义的当代变体，蕴含规训他者的运作逻辑——值得强调的是，文明观本身就是文明的重要体现，而如何看待和处理不同文明之间的关系又是文明观的核心内容所在。这种以西方为中心的文明观正是人类命运共同体要破解的核心障碍之一。

The Western view of civilization contains the claim of a universal civilization (universal civilization), but it is not only not the answer to where human civilization is heading, but transcending it is precisely an important goal of today’s rational human choice. In the course of its development, Western civilization has formed a unique messianic complex. This civilizational savior mentality is deeply embedded in the European cognitive structure, manifesting as an epistemological arrogance toward its own civilizational paradigm—a firm belief that “Europe has created the economic, political, and cultural conditions capable of releasing humanity’s extraordinary creative power, enabling civilization to develop into its highest form, providing solutions to the most complex problems of human society… it is a beacon guiding humanity” and “the pillar supporting global civilization.” Undoubtedly, this belief in universal civilization is precisely the foundation of the Western “end of history” thesis. Bowden once pointed out sharply that the so-called universal civilization of the West is not an inevitable path but a carefully orchestrated history, an expansion of the “empire of civilization,” and “such expansion is driven less by universal values and ways of life than by a series of Western values, fantasies, and institutions.” In fact, since the so-called Age of Discovery, the West has been packaging its imperial actions with the discourse of progress, and most of its international policies have degenerated into tools for the globalization of Western institutions. Braudel pointed out that industrial civilization, a key argument for Western universal civilization, “is only one characteristic of the entire Western civilization,” and moreover, it “is in the process of synthesizing a common civilization capable of accommodating the world as a whole”; the world’s acceptance of it does not mean accepting Western civilization in its entirety. However, Western universalism dogmatically asserts that its civilization is the highest, most progressive, and most excellent form of human civilization, determining and even compelling all peoples of the world to embrace it. Looking at reality, it is not difficult to see that this narrow view of civilization based on the epistemological hegemony of Western-centrism, and its practice, is precisely the main source of the overall crisis facing humanity today and a key obstacle to be overcome in the process of building a community with a shared future for mankind.

西方文明观内蕴普世文明(universal civilization)主张，但它不仅不是人类文明何去何从的答案所在，而且对其进行超越恰恰是当今人类理性抉择的重要鹄的。西方文明在发展中形成特有的弥赛亚情结，这种文明救世主心态深植欧洲认知结构，表现为对自身文明范式的认识论自负——坚信“欧洲创造了能够释放人类非凡创造力的经济、政治和文化条件，使文明发展到最高形式，为人类社会最复杂的问题提供了解决方案……是指引人类的一盏明灯”,是“支撑全球文明的柱石”。无疑，这种普世文明信念正是西方“历史终结论”的基础。鲍登曾一针见血地指出，西方所谓的普遍性文明不是必经之路，而是精心筹划的历史，是“文明的帝国”的扩张，“此类扩张与其说是基于普遍性的价值观和生活方式，倒不如说是受到一系列西方价值观、空想和制度的驱使”。事实上，西方自所谓地理大发现以来，一直用进步话语包装其帝国行径，其大多数国际政策沦为西方制度全球化的工具。布罗代尔指出，作为西方普世文明重要论据的工业文明“仅是整个西方文明的特征之一而已”,而且它“正处于合成一个能够容纳世界整体的共同文明的过程之中”,世界接受它并非就是接受西方文明之整体。但是，西方普世主义独断地认为，他们的文明是人类最高级、最进步、最优秀的文明，断定甚至强制全世界人民都应当信奉他们的文明。观乎现实不难看出，西方所谓普世文明这种基于西方中心主义认识论霸权的狭隘文明观及其实践，恰恰是造成当今人类整体性危机的主要根源，也是构建人类命运共同体过程中需要克服的关键阻力。

Capital undoubtedly has a “great civilizing effect.” Western capitalism first created industrial civilization and, with it, for the first time created world history. However, “capitalist civilization is built on the foundation of the capitalist system of exploitation; it cannot overcome or eliminate the barbaric nature hidden beneath civilization.” The development of modern Western civilization has always been intertwined with colonial violence, capitalist exploitation, value hegemony, civilizational conflict, and so on. As history reaches the 21st century, the inherent defects of Western development models of civilization—economic models, political models, value models, and other forms—have increasingly evolved into crises that cannot be suppressed. If Western civilization is extended to the world in a universalist manner, it effectively turns this crisis into a crisis for all humanity. If Western universal civilization, together with the Western civilization from which it was born, itself belongs to human civilization, then today it must, after reflecting on its crisis of legitimacy, return to its proper rational position. Now, amid the changes unseen in a century, the national rejuvenation movement that originated in anti-colonial movements is once again prominent. The involution, sense of insecurity, and sense of loss within global society make all countries urgently hope to build a better world. This provides an opportunity and impetus for us to transcend the Western form of civilization and dissolve the discursive hegemony of Western universal civilization; it is also an important background for the proposal of a community with a shared future for mankind. Elias’s famous work *The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations* ends with the words “civilization is not yet finished; it is still in the process of formation,” a profound implication. Today, we can say that human civilization faces an urgent choice of where to go, and it urgently needs to form a new form of civilization and its global discourse—a community with a shared future for mankind is precisely a global practice based on this new form of civilization.

资本无疑具有“伟大的文明作用”,西方资本主义首先开创了工业文明并以之首次开创了世界历史。但是，“资本主义文明是建立在资本主义剥削制度基础上的，它无法克服和消除文明下的野蛮本性”。西方现代文明发展始终与殖民暴力、资本剥削、价值霸权、文明冲突等一体交织。当历史发展到21世纪的今天，西方经济模式、政治模式、价值模式等文明形态发展模式的内在缺陷已日益演变为无法抑制的危机，若将西方文明以普世主义方式推及世界，其实也就是把这种危机变成整个人类的危机。如果说西方普世文明观连同其得以诞生的西方文明本身就从属于人类文明，那么它今天必须在反思其合法性危机后回归其应有的合理性位置。如今，在百年未有之大变局中，起于反殖民运动的民族复兴运动再次凸显，全球社会中的内卷、不安全感、失去感，使得各国都迫切期盼构建一个更加美好的世界。这为我们超越西方文明形态、消解西方普世文明话语霸权提供了契机和动力，也是人类命运共同体提出的重要背景。埃利亚斯的名著《文明的进程：文明的社会起源和心理起源的研究》以“文明尚未结束，它还在形成之中”结尾，意涵深刻。今天，我们可以说，人类文明面临急迫的何去何从的抉择，亟须形成新的文明形态及其世界性话语——人类命运共同体正是基于这一新的文明形态的全球实践。

II. The Philosophical Foundation for the Transformation of the Form of Human Civilization

二、人类文明形态变革的哲学奠基

In the deep structure of civilizational forms, the view of civilization is most intrinsically embodied as a philosophical view, profoundly influencing people’s understanding of civilization, their views on the relationships between different civilizations, and their predictions about the future direction of human civilization. True philosophy is the essence of the spirit of the times and the living soul of civilization. Making correct choices at the crossroads of human civilization’s development requires a conscious philosophical foundation. Only by penetrating the surface structure of empirical facts and constructing a cognitive framework with historical depth at the philosophical level can we break through “civilizational prejudice” and arrive at a truthful understanding of the essence and future of human civilization. Reflection on the dilemmas of contemporary civilization can only grasp the core issues when it reaches the philosophical level. In the practice of advancing human civilization, the dialectical grasp of a series of major relationships—such as self and other, inheritance and innovation, diversity and commonality, and especially human civilization and actual civilizations—all depends on philosophical wisdom. At the historical juncture of the transformation of the form of human civilization, we urgently need to use the “historical telescope” and philosophical abstraction to construct a new theory of civilization based on the facts of human civilization. This theory of civilization is essentially a cognitive revolution in civilization—the civilizational predicament humanity encounters in the 21st century stems precisely from the poverty of historical cognition. Thoroughly understanding “historical correctness” is the prerequisite for ensuring “the progress of human civilization.” Philosophy, based on the historicity of existence, manifests humanity’s sense of meaning, sense of position, and especially sense of ontology. It is the meta-theoretical tool for analyzing the transformation of the form of human civilization—a systemic change involving the core values, institutional systems, and practical paradigms of human civilization as a whole. The current common historical destiny of humanity calls for a new common narrative of human civilization, and fundamentally calls for a philosophy with the attributes of a world philosophy, as the true essence of the spirit of the times and the living soul of all human civilization, thereby also providing philosophical support for a community with a shared future for mankind.

在文明形态的深层结构中，文明观最内在地体现为一种哲学观，从根本处深刻影响人们对文明的理解、对不同文明之间关系的看法以及对人类文明何去何从的预判。真正的哲学是时代精神的精华和文明活的灵魂，在人类文明发展的十字路口作出正确抉择需要自觉的哲学奠基。唯有穿透经验事实的表层结构，在哲学层面构建具有历史纵深的认知框架，才能突破“文明偏见”,抵达对人类文明本质与未来的真理性认识。对当代文明困境的思考，也只有抵达哲学才能真正抓住核心问题。在推进人类文明进步的实践中，自我与他者、传承与创新、多元与公共，特别是人类文明与现实诸文明等一系列重大关系的辩证把握都端赖于哲学智慧。处于人类文明形态之变的历史当口，我们迫切需要运用“历史望远镜”和哲学抽象力，构建基于人类文明事实的全新的文明理论。这种文明理论本质上是一种文明认知革命——人类在21世纪遭遇的文明困境，正源于历史认知的贫困。勘透“历史正确”是确保“人类文明进步”的前提。基于存在历史性思考的哲学，彰显人类的意义意识、位置意识尤其是本体意识，是分析人类文明形态变革——人类文明的核心价值、制度体系、实践范式等涉及人类文明整体演进的系统性变革——的元理论工具。当前人类共同的历史命运呼唤一种全新的人类文明的共同叙事，从根本上呼唤一种作为真正时代精神精华的、具有世界哲学属性的哲学，以作为整个人类文明活的灵魂，也为人类命运共同体提供哲学支撑。

In 1828, the French thinker François Guizot raised what Bowden later refined into the paradigmatic “Guizot’s Problem”: “Can humanity gradually form a history of universal significance concerning its own civilization and destiny?” When Guizot answered affirmatively with “For my part, I am convinced that in reality there exists a universal human destiny, a transmission of the aggregate of civilizations, and therefore a universal history of civilization waiting to be written,” as Bowden pointed out, he and those who shared his view failed to break through the inherent Eurocentric cognitive limitations of the 19th century—they instinctively believed that world history was Western history. This intellectual impasse confirms Jaspers’ insight: “Whoever focuses on history will unconsciously complete those universal intuitions (Anschauung) that lead the whole of history toward unity. These intuitions may remain uncriticized, and even, because they are not consciously recognized, unquestioned. In the mode of thinking of history, they often become self-evident premises.” The modern predicament of historical research lies precisely in the fact that people have long failed to truly reach “historical correctness” to transcend narrow instincts, transforming this “unconscious” “intuition” into a rigorous and systematic philosophical methodology.

1828年，法国思想家弗朗索瓦·基佐提出了后来经鲍登提炼为具有范式意义的“基佐难题”:“人类能否逐渐形成一部关乎自身文明及命运的具有普遍意义的历史?”当基佐以“就我而论，我深信，在现实中存在着一种普遍的人类命运，一种文明集合体的传递，因而存在着一种有待于撰写的、全世界普遍的文明史”作出肯定回答时，正如鲍登指出的，他和抱有同样主张的人都未能突破19世纪固有的欧洲中心主义认知局限——他们本能地认为世界历史就是西方历史。这种思想困局倒是印证了雅斯贝斯的洞见：“无论谁专注于历史，都会不自觉地去完成那些普遍的、将历史整体引向统一的直观(Anschauung)。这些直观可能会一直无人批判，甚至因未被意识到，而不被质疑。在历史的思维方式中，它们常常理所当然地成为前提条件。”历史研究的现代性困境恰恰在于，人们长期未能真正抵达“历史正确”以超越狭隘本能，将这种“不自觉”的“直观”转化为严格而系统的哲学方法论。

As early as the Enlightenment era when modern Western civilization first emerged, Montesquieu was keen to discover and respect the diversity of humanity, aware that “Western civilization itself is also a historical individual, with no coercive power over other peoples.” Yet, as Voegelin pointed out, “he lacked both the inner freedom to acknowledge this fact and the intellectual strength to construct a historical philosophy capable of dealing with this problem.” In fact, the problem Voegelin criticized is widespread in modern Western intellectual history. Hegel, who came after Montesquieu, on the one hand for the first time “logically” incorporated all the world’s major civilizations into the course of his world history, granting each its “rational” place, and took freedom as the goal of that course, largely completing the work of constructing a historical philosophy with “intellectual strength” to handle civilizational diversity. On the other hand, however, its fundamental flaw lay in the fact that his historical philosophy was metaphysical, speculative, dogmatic, and Western-centric; its “inner freedom” was confined to achieving the self through acknowledging the other. The development from the freedom of one person to the freedom of all persons was set as a dialectical sublation process moving from the East to the West, finally realized in the Germanic peoples. Hegel can be said to be the philosophical founder of Western-centrism and the end of history [10]10 The “end of history” thesis, famously advanced by Francis Fukuyama in 1989, argues that the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution is the universalization of Western liberal democracy. The text here refers to Hegel as its philosophical founder, as Fukuyama’s argument draws heavily on Hegel’s conception of history culminating in the realization of freedom. — both of which are passive forces that need to be transcended today — reflecting the arrogance of Europe in its rising period. Yet the two world wars somewhat awakened the Western intellectual world from its dream, and speculative historical philosophy concerning civilization took on a pessimistic tendency. The subsequent rise of critical or analytical historical philosophy focused on the critical reflection of historical cognition, highlighting the subjective understanding of history, while postmodern historical philosophy turned toward the literary narrative of language. While promoting the diversification of historical cognition, these reflections also encountered the predicament of relativism. Today, as Paul Ricoeur acknowledged, “We (i.e., the West — author’s note) are in a dark period, we are in a period of the decline of dogmatism, we are at the beginning of true dialogue. All historical philosophies are within the scope of one civilization; that is why we still cannot imagine the coexistence of these diversities, and we have no historical philosophy that can solve the problem of coexistence.” This theoretical predicament stands in stark contrast to the practical needs of human civilization. Based on the progressive direction of human civilization, what we need is not only a long-term, grand historical perspective but also a genuine historical understanding of the common destiny of humanity, transcending Western-centrism, transcending the boundaries of nation-states, and transcending the opposition between metaphysics and empiricism, absolutism and relativism.

早在现代西方文明发轫的启蒙时代，孟德斯鸠就曾热心发现和努力尊重人类的多样性，他意识到“西方文明本身也是一个历史性的个体，对于其他民族来说没有强制性”,但正如沃格林指出的，“他既没有一种内在自由(inner freedom)以承认这个事实，也缺乏智识力量来建构一套可以处理这个问题的历史哲学”。其实，沃格林所批评的问题在西方近现代思想史上具有普遍性。孟德斯鸠之后的黑格尔一方面首次把世界各主要文明都“逻辑”地纳入其世界历史的行程中，给予各自“合理”地位，并以自由作为行程的目的，在很大程度上完成了以“智识力量”构建一套历史哲学以处理文明多样性的工作；不过，另一方面，其根本缺陷在于其历史哲学是形而上学、思辨、独断的，以西方为中心的，其“内在自由”局限于以承认他者来成就自我。从一个人的自由到全体人的自由的发展，被设定为从东方到西方的辩证扬弃进程，最终在日耳曼民族得以实现。黑格尔可以说是西方中心论和历史终结论——在今天都是需要超越的被动力量——的哲学奠基人，反映了欧洲处于上升时期的自负。然而，两次世界大战多少惊醒了西方知识界的迷梦，有关文明的思辨的历史哲学出现了悲观主义倾向。随后兴起的批判或分析的历史哲学则聚焦于历史认知的批判性反思，突出历史的主体理解，后现代历史哲学则转向语言的文学性叙事。这些思考在促进历史认知多元化的同时也遭遇了相对主义困境。时至今日，正如保罗·利科指认的，“我们(即西方——引者注)处在黑暗时期，我们处在独断论的衰落时期，我们处在真正对话的开端。所有的历史哲学都处在文明的一个范围内；这就是为什么我们还不能想象这些多样性的共存，我们并没有可以解决共存问题的历史哲学”。这种理论困境与人类文明的现实需要形成强烈反差。立足于人类文明的进步方向，我们需要的不仅是长时段的大历史观，而且必须真正基于对人类共同命运的历史性领悟，超越西方中心主义，超越民族国家界域，超越形而上学与经验主义、绝对主义与相对主义的对立。

In fact, the historical philosophy that Voegelin and Ricoeur anticipated is also a philosophy that provides essential inspiration for the transformation of the current form of human civilization. It has long since emerged, though the thinker who contributed this philosophical reflection might not himself identify his thought as belonging to historical philosophy. A very important reason why the historical philosophy they anticipated has long failed to appear in the West is that these historical philosophies have not consciously developed along the philosophical path opened up by this thinker. This thinker is Karl Marx. In his early years, Marx fiercely criticized the narrowness of contemporary philosophy, emphasizing that “true philosophy” is one that “appears in the world as a world citizen,” and predicted: “There will inevitably come an era... when philosophy is no longer a specific system opposed to other specific systems, but becomes the general philosophy of the world, the philosophy of the contemporary world.” Although Marx’s philosophical thought continued to develop later, this底色 and attribute of world philosophy never changed. In *The German Ideology*, the work marking the formation of historical materialism, Marx and Engels explicitly declared: “We know only one single science, the science of history.” In Marx’s view, history is a total category, divided into natural history and human history, which mutually condition each other; what he emphasized for in-depth study is human history. The science of history, as a total science, provides the presuppositional principles and methods for studying human history. Historical materialism is precisely the concrete application of the science of history within human history, “the science of real people and their historical development,” and also the core content of the science of history. The science of history and historical materialism emerged in the process of criticizing German speculative philosophy — including speculative philosophy of history. Speculative philosophy of history is a metaphysics consistent with the false German ideology; it boldly imagines and “reveals” the so-called essence and laws of history in the speculative mind, from Kant to Hegel. Therefore, Marx was very averse to people turning “his historical outline of the origin of capitalism in Western Europe into a general historical-philosophical theory of the path of development for all peoples,” believing that “the greatest merit of this historical-philosophical theory is that it is supra-historical.” Marx’s rejection of this kind of historical philosophy precisely reflects his conscious departure from Western (Western European) centrism and his pursuit of a truly universal (rather than “supra-historical”) philosophy. Unlike supra-historical, speculative philosophy of history, Marx’s science of history and historical materialism are truly empirical, positive sciences based on human practice. From the perspective of intellectual history, this is a philosophical reflection truly based on real history and possessing the attributes of world philosophy. It is also the best answer to the Guizot problem [11]11 The “Guizot problem” refers to the challenge posed by the French historian François Guizot (1787–1874) in his *History of Civilization in Europe*: how to account for the diversity of civilizations while also recognizing a common, universal direction of human progress. The text implies that Marx’s historical materialism offers a resolution to this problem that Guizot himself could not fully achieve. and the historical-philosophical expectations of Voegelin and Ricoeur, providing the most appropriate methodological guidance for the coexistence of human civilizational diversity today and even for achieving a “truly universal civilization.”

其实，沃格林和利科所期待的历史哲学，也是对当下人类文明形态变革有着本质性启发的哲学，它早已出现，只不过贡献这一哲学思考的思想家本人或许并不认同其思想属于历史哲学。他们期待的历史哲学之所以在西方长期未曾出现，非常重要的一个原因就在于这些历史哲学未能自觉沿着这位思想家所开辟的哲学路径发展。这位思想家便是卡尔·马克思。马克思早年激烈批判当时哲学的狭隘性，强调“真正的哲学”是“以世界公民的姿态出现在世界上”的，并预言：“必然会出现这样的时代……那时，哲学不再是同其他各特定体系相对的特定体系，而变成面对世界的一般哲学，变成当代世界的哲学。”尽管后来马克思的哲学思想不断发展，但这种世界哲学的底色与属性始终未变。在标志唯物史观形成的著作《德意志意识形态》中，马克思恩格斯明确宣布：“我们仅仅知道一门唯一的科学，即历史科学”(Wissenschaft der Geschichte)。在马克思看来，历史是总体性范畴，分为自然史和人类史，两者彼此相互制约，他所强调深入研究的是人类史。历史科学作为总体性科学为研究人类史提供了前提性的原则和方法，唯物史观正是历史科学在人类史中的具体化应用，是“关于现实的人及其历史发展的科学”,也是历史科学的核心内容。历史科学以及唯物史观是在批判德国思辨哲学——包括思辨的历史哲学——过程中出场的。思辨的历史哲学是与德意志虚假的意识形态本质一致的形而上学，它在思辨的头脑中大胆想象、“揭示”所谓历史的本质与规律，从康德到黑格尔莫不如此。因此，马克思十分反感人们将他“关于西欧资本主义起源的历史概述彻底变成一般发展道路的历史哲学理论”,认为“这种历史哲学理论的最大长处就在于它是超历史的”。马克思对这种历史哲学的拒斥，恰恰体现了他走出西方(西欧)中心主义的自觉和对真正(而非“超历史的”)普遍哲学的诉求。与超历史的思辨的历史哲学不同，马克思的历史科学以及唯物史观是基于人类实践的真正经验、实证的科学。从思想史的高度看，这是真正基于现实历史的、具有世界哲学属性的哲学思考，也是对基佐难题、沃格林和利科的历史哲学期待的最好回答，为今天人类文明多样性共存乃至达至“真正的普遍的文明”提供了最适当的方法论导引。

First, Marx’s philosophical reflection on history in fact clarifies the premise and standpoint for the coexistence of human civilizational diversity. The “first premise of all human history” that Marx emphasizes, namely “the existence of living human individuals,” is also the premise of all human civilization. However, it should be pointed out that in the German original, the “individuals” here are in the plural form (Individuen), and the accurate translation should be “individuals.” The “existence of living individuals” as the premise of all human history and civilization means that humans are inherently co-existent; human existence is co-existence. This is precisely the anthropological basis for the co-existence of civilizational diversity. Voegelin’s claim that Western thinkers lack an inner freedom to acknowledge the particularity of Western civilization, and Ricoeur’s claim that Western historical philosophies are all within the scope of one civilization and thus cannot imagine diversity coexisting — in Marx’s view, these stem precisely from the inevitable cognitive confinement resulting from taking “civil society” as the standpoint. Marx’s standpoint, on the other hand, lies in “human society or socialized humanity.” It is precisely based on this grand vision and principle-method of totality (human society) and totalization (socialized humanity) that transcending nations and states becomes a distinctive trait of Marx’s philosophy. From a civilizational perspective, with the universalization of world intercourse, “a world literature is formed from many national and local literatures.” The “general philosophy of the world,” which faces the world as the living soul of all human civilization, is precisely such a “world literature,” and a community with a shared future for mankind can be said to be the contemporary practical form of this “world literature.”

其一，马克思关于历史的哲学思考事实上明确了人类文明多样性共存的前提与立脚点。马克思所强调的“全部人类历史的第一个前提”即“有生命的个人的存在”,同样也是全部人类文明的前提。不过需要指出的是，在德文原文中，这里所说的“个人”是复数形式(Individuen),准确的翻译应该是“诸个体”。作为全部人类历史及文明的前提的“有生命的诸个体的存在”就意味着，人本就是共在的，人的存在即共在。这正是文明多样性共在的人本学基础。沃格林所谓西方思想家缺少一种内在的自由来承认西方文明的特殊性，利科所谓西方历史哲学都处在一个文明范围内而难以想象多样性共存，在马克思看来，恰恰源于以“‘市民’社会”为立脚点所导致的必然认知禁锢。马克思的立脚点则在于“人类社会或社会化的人类”。正是基于这一总体性(人类社会)和总体化(社会化的人类)的宏大视野和原则方法，超越民族、国家成为马克思哲学的鲜明特质。从文明角度看，随着世界交往的普遍化，“由许多种民族的和地方的文学形成了一种世界的文学”。作为整个人类文明的活的灵魂的、“面对世界的一般哲学”便是这样的“世界的文学”,而人类命运共同体可以说是这一“世界的文学”的当代实践形态。

Second, Marx emphasizes practice as the foundation of history and civilization. Unlike speculative (and essentially idealist) philosophies of history, Marx’s science of history is practical (and first of all materialist); “human society or socialized humanity” is a highly structured state resulting from people’s active practice. To draw a clear line of demarcation from the “supra-historical” speculative metaphysics of his time, Marx deliberately stressed the empirical, positive character of his science of history, but more fundamentally he understood history as the practical activity of real human beings. In the view of Marx and Engels, “civilization is a practical matter.”[n] This practice includes both material production and its intercourse, as well as spiritual production and its intercourse; it marks civilization by productive forces, but also understands civilization as a comprehensive “social quality.” More importantly, Marx’s philosophical theory always takes the standpoint of changing the world through practice, treating both existing reality and existing theory with a “double-edged” approach, forging genuine scientificity through thoroughgoing critique; it is “a revolutionary science” that “arises from the historical movement and participates fully and consciously in it,”[n] truly achieving a dual transcendence of metaphysics and empiricism. At the same time, it contains a profound practical hermeneutics: people create history through practice, understand and interpret history in practice, and change the world through understanding and interpreting practice. “All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.”[n] The historical narrative constructed through this understanding of history and meaning also resolves the contradiction between absolutism and relativism to the greatest extent. Today’s community with a shared future for mankind is not an abstract conceptual construction but a real movement rooted in the practical civilization of humanity.

其二，马克思强调以实践作为历史、文明的根本。与思辨的(本质上也是唯心的)历史哲学不同，马克思的历史科学是实践的(首先也是唯物的),“人类社会或社会化的人类”是因人们的积极实践而被高度结构化的状态。为了与当时“超历史”的思辨形而上学划清界限，马克思着意强调了其历史科学的经验、实证性质，更根本之处则在于其将历史理解为现实的人的实践活动。在马克思恩格斯视野中，“文明是实践的事情”。这种实践既包括物质生产及其交往，也涵盖精神生产及其交往；既以生产力标识文明，也把文明理解为综合的“社会的素质”。更为重要的是，马克思的哲学理论总是基于以实践改变世界的立场，“双刃”地对待现成的现实和理论，以彻底的批判性铸就真正的科学性，是“由历史运动产生并且充分自觉地参与历史运动的”“革命的科学”,真正实现了对形而上学与经验主义的双重超越。同时，其中还蕴含着深刻的实践诠释学：人们以实践创造历史，也在实践中理解和诠释历史，更在对实践的理解和诠释中改变世界。“凡是把理论引向神秘主义的神秘东西，都能在人的实践中以及对这种实践的理解中得到合理的解决。”这种历史理解与意义构建下的历史叙事也最大限度地解决了绝对主义与相对主义的矛盾。今天的人类命运共同体并非抽象的理念构建，而是根植于人类文明实践的现实运动。

Third, Marx takes the realization of practice at a principled height as the core pursuit. Marx pioneered the proposition of “realizing practice at a principled height,”[n] pointing out not only the need for a world-historical or all-human perspective but also emphasizing the realization of a “revolution at the height of humanity.” Ultimately, Marx concretized this “height of humanity” into the free and comprehensive development of the individual, based on the standpoint of “human society or socialized humanity.” Surveying Marx’s writings, his “history” emphasizes the historicity of human existence; in an increasingly totalizing history and practice, humanity consciously answers the “riddle of history” centered on the contradiction between man and nature and between man and man, ultimately achieving human liberation. His science of history ultimately rests on “the science of real human beings and their historical development.”[n] The starting point of history as Marx understood it is living individuals, who through material production and the practice of social intercourse drive history forward, while the goal of history is the free and comprehensive development of the individual. Although this goal is concealed within the process of historical development and civilizational progress, it constitutes the deep driving force and fundamental meaning of that process. Today, the ultimate goal of building a community with a shared future for mankind is to create the conditions for the free and comprehensive development of the individual.

其三，马克思以实现有原则高度的文明实践为核心追求。马克思开创性地提出“实现有原则高度的实践”这一思想命题，不仅指出要有一种世界历史或全人类的视野，更是强调要实现“人的高度的革命”。最终，马克思把这一“人的高度”落实到以“人类社会或社会化的人类”为立脚点的人的自由全面发展。综观马克思的论述，其“历史”着重于凸显人存在的历史性，人在日益总体化的历史与实践中自觉解答以人与自然、人与人关系矛盾为核心的“历史之谜”,最终获得人的解放；其历史科学归根结底落脚于“关于现实的人及其历史发展的科学”。马克思所理解的历史起点是有生命的诸个体，这些个体通过物质生产和社会交往实践，推动历史不断演进，历史的目标则是人的自由全面发展。这一目标虽隐匿于历史发展和文明进程之中，却构成其深层动力和根本意义。今天，构建人类命运共同体的最终目标就是为人的自由全面发展创造条件。

Fourth, Marx regards the transformation of the form of human civilization as a unified process of changes in the mode of production and the realization of the goal of human liberation. In Marx’s view, the dialectical movement of productive forces and relations of production is the fundamental driving force of historical development and civilizational evolution, while building a “true community,” that is, “an association of free individuals,” to achieve human liberation is the highest goal. Whether it is the most macroscopic evolution of civilizational forms—such as the three-stage development of “relations of personal dependence,” “personal independence founded on objective dependence,” and “free individuality”[n]—or the key choices affecting the overall direction of civilization in the course of history and civilization, the basis of “historical correctness” lies in the inner unity of the liberation of productive forces, the transformation of social relations, and human development. Following this line, Marx subjected capitalist civilization to the most scientific and thorough critique by revealing the civilizational predicament of alienated labor and the civilizational paradox of the logic of capital, and appealed to the real movement of communism. From the practical logic of the transformation of the form of human civilization, its purpose is to defend and preserve all the fruits of human civilization, so as to create the social and historical conditions for the free and comprehensive development of the individual: “In order not to lose the results already achieved, in order not to lose the fruits of civilization, people are compelled to change all the social forms they have inherited as soon as their mode of intercourse no longer corresponds to the productive forces they have acquired.”[n] The community with a shared future for mankind is the contemporary embryonic form of the “true community” that Marx called for; its genuine realization depends on a global transformation of the mode of production and a worldwide reconstruction of social relations.

其四，马克思将人类文明形态变革视为生产方式变革与人类解放目标实现的统一过程。在马克思看来，生产力和生产关系的辩证运动是历史发展和文明演进的根本动力，而构建“真正的共同体”即“自由人的联合体”以实现人类解放则是最高目标。无论是最宏观的文明形态演进，如“人的依赖关系”“以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性”“自由个性”的三形态发展，还是历史与文明进程中涉及整体文明走向的关键抉择，其“历史正确”的根据都在于生产力解放、社会关系变革和人的发展的内在统一。循此，马克思通过揭示异化劳动的文明困境、资本逻辑的文明悖论对资本主义文明进行了最科学、彻底的批判，并诉诸共产主义的现实运动。从人类文明形态变革的实践逻辑看，其目的就在于捍卫和保存全部人类文明成果，以创造人自由全面发展的社会历史条件：“为了不致丧失已经取得的成果，为了不致失掉文明的果实，人们在他们的交往\[commerce\]方式不再适合于既得的生产力时，就不得不改变他们继承下来的一切社会形式。”人类命运共同体是马克思所吁求的“真正的共同体”的当代雏形，其真正实现有赖于生产方式的全球性变革、社会关系的世界性重构。

If the early Marx focused more on revealing the universal laws of social history and civilization, then in his later years, his exploration of the Eastern path and his research in historical anthropology paid greater attention to the diversity of social and civilizational forms from the perspective of “human society or socialized humanity.” However, due to the limitations of his era, Marx did not have the opportunity to encounter the full historical conditions that would make philosophy “become the philosophy of the contemporary world.”[n] His “true empirical” and “realistic description,” as he himself acknowledged, were more based on the historical experience of “Western European capitalism.” Nevertheless, the human perspective, basic principles, and method of thought he inaugurated have immortal significance, transcending speculative philosophy of history, critical or analytical philosophy of history, and postmodern philosophy of history both logically and in fact, becoming the “only” “science of history,” enabling us to understand at a philosophical height what “historical correctness” means. Marx’s philosophical reflections provide theoretical guidance and a philosophical foundation for resolving the contemporary predicament of human civilization and correctly answering the question of where human civilization is headed.

如果说马克思早期侧重于对社会历史、文明中普遍性规律的揭示，那么其晚年进行东方道路探索与历史人类学研究，则更加关注基于“人类社会或社会化的人类”视野的社会、文明形态多样性。但由于时代的局限，马克思没有机会遇到使哲学“变成当代世界的哲学”的充分历史条件，其“真正的实证”“现实的描述”确实如他自道的一样，更多是基于“西欧资本主义”的历史经验。不过，他所开启的人类视野、基本原理和思想方法具有不朽的意义，在逻辑和事实上超越了思辨的历史哲学、批判或分析的历史哲学以及后现代历史哲学，成为“唯一的”“历史科学”,使我们在哲学高度明了何为“历史正确”。马克思的哲学思考为破解当今人类文明困境、正确解答人类文明何去何从问题提供了理论指引和哲学根基。

III. Leading the Transformation of the Form of Contemporary Human Civilization

三、引领当代人类文明形态变革

Over more than five thousand years of self-development, Chinese civilization has continuously responded to challenges and opened up new horizons, possessing a strong cultural subjectivity and vigorous vitality. In modern times, China encountered “a change unseen in three thousand years,”[n] with the nation humiliated, the people suffering, and civilization sullied. The crisis of civilizational survival intertwined with the process of modernization, giving the Chinese a special sensitivity and unique theoretical self-awareness regarding the direction of civilizational development. Even during the difficult period of national salvation from subjugation, progressive intellectuals who cherished a concern for the whole world were committed not only to exploring the path of Chinese civilization’s continuation and rejuvenation but also to reflecting on the overall fate of human civilization. As early as 1918, Li Dazhao passionately argued: “The illness of Chinese civilization has reached its highest fever; the fate of the Chinese nation has reached the point of near death,” but “we deeply believe that our nation can be revived and can make a second great contribution to world civilization,” in order to “save the world from its crisis.”[n] Since its founding, the Communist Party of China has established Marxism as its guiding ideology, consciously applied historical materialism, and made a historical response to the evolution of civilizational forms from the height of the laws of human social development. Its original aspiration and founding mission not only includes the dual dimensions of “seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation,” but also embodies the civilizational responsibility of “seeking progress for humanity and harmony for the world.” This theoretical self-awareness runs through the entire practical process of China’s revolution, construction, and reform, systematically constituting a Chinese plan for exploring a new form of human civilization.

中华文明在五千多年的自我发展中不断回应挑战、开创新局，拥有强大的文化主体性和旺盛的生命力。近代中国遭遇“三千年未有之大变局”,国家蒙辱、人民蒙难、文明蒙尘，文明存续危机和现代化进程交织，使得中国人对文明发展方向问题有着特殊的敏感性和独特的理论自觉。即便在民族救亡图存的艰难时期，秉持天下情怀的先进知识分子仍然既致力于探寻中华文明赓续与复兴之路，亦思考人类文明的整体命运。李大钊1918年就曾慷慨论道：“中国文明之疾病，已达炎热最高之度，中国民族之运命，已臻奄奄垂死之期”,但“吾人深信吾民族可以复活，可以于世界文明为第二次之大贡献”,以“救世界之危机”。中国共产党自成立之日起就将马克思主义确立为指导思想，自觉运用唯物史观，从人类社会发展规律的高度对文明形态演进作出了历史性回答。其初心使命不仅包含“为中国人民谋幸福、为中华民族谋复兴”的双重维度，更蕴含“为人类谋进步、为世界谋大同”的文明担当。这种理论自觉贯穿中国革命、建设、改革的实践全过程，系统构成探索新的人类文明形态的中国方案。

As humanity enters the 21st century, the modernity paradigm dominated by Western civilization has fallen into an unprecedented systemic crisis. Against this backdrop, the vast majority of countries and political parties are either mired in value confusion or remain at the level of technical responses. The Communist Party of China, however, adheres to the Two Integrations [22]22 The Two Integrations (两个结合) refers to the combination of the basic tenets of Marxism with China's specific realities and with the best of China's traditional culture. It is a key theoretical formulation of Xi Jinping Thought., with a high degree of historical initiative, precisely grasps and distills the "questions of the world," systematically reveals "changes in the world, changes in the times, and changes in history," and ultimately subsumes different narrative subjects such as "the world," "humanity," "history," "human society," "the international community," "human development," and "the development of human society" under the interpretation of the overall concept of "human civilization." It emphasizes that the "changes" are unprecedentedly intense and the situation is extremely grave, unfolding "in ways never seen before," and that humanity already "stands at the crossroads of history," facing a choice of which direction to take. Based on the judgment that "the future of humanity hinges on the choices of the people of all countries," it puts forward the practical call to "actively be doers, not onlookers, and work together to take the destiny of humanity into our own hands." More importantly, the Communist Party of China leads the Chinese people to take the overall strategy of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the changes unseen in a century as an integrated coordinate system of civilizational evolution. Through the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan [23]23 The Five-Sphere Integrated Plan (五位一体) is China's overall plan for building socialism with Chinese characteristics, covering economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological-ethical progress., it creates an entirely new form of human civilization through Chinese-path modernization, making a choice that unifies theory and practice on the question of where human civilization is headed.

当人类迈入21世纪，西方文明主导的现代性范式陷入前所未有的系统性危机。在此背景下，绝大多数国家与政党或陷入价值迷茫，或停留于技术性应对，而中国共产党坚持“两个结合”,以高度的历史主动精神，精准把握和凝练“世界之问”,系统揭示“世界之变、时代之变、历史之变”, 将“世界”“人类”“历史”“人类社会”“国际社会”“人类发展”“人类社会发展”等不同叙述主语最终统摄于“人类文明”整体概念的阐释；强调“变”之空前剧烈、形势极其严峻，认为其“以前所未有的方式展开”,人类已“站在历史的十字路口”,面临何去何从的抉择；基于“人类前途系于各国人民的抉择”的判断，提出“积极做行动派、不做观望者，共同努力把人类前途命运掌握在自己手中”的实践号召。更为重要的是，中国共产党带领中国人民将中华民族伟大复兴战略全局和世界百年未有之大变局作为一体的文明演进坐标系，通过“五位一体”总体布局，以中国式现代化创造全新的人类文明形态，对人类文明何去何从问题作出了理论与实践相统一的抉择。

First, taking harmonious coexistence of civilizations as the fundamental way out. The theory of the new form of human civilization clearly states that, in the face of the common challenge of where to go, "humanity has only the one way out of working together in solidarity and pursuing harmonious coexistence," and explicitly advocates "harmonious coexistence of civilizations." This first affirms the objective fact of the diversity of civilizations. Mencius's ancient insight that "things are not all the same; that is the nature of things" [24]24 From Mencius, an ancient Confucian philosopher. The full passage discusses the natural diversity of things. is given a modern升华: "Differences in history, culture, and social systems among countries have existed since ancient times and are an inherent attribute of human civilization. Without diversity, there would be no human civilization." This pattern of difference also resembles the civilizational self-organizing law revealed by Mozi's saying that "those above use it as governance, those below use it as custom" [25]25 From Mozi, an ancient Chinese philosopher. The phrase refers to how customs and governance shape each other from top to bottom. — it is both an inevitable choice of political wisdom and a natural result of customary evolution. Second, it takes ensuring the differentiated development of various civilizations as an important goal. The new form of human civilization advocates not only "being different yet harmonious" but also pursues "harmony in diversity," emphasizing "understanding with a broad mind the different understandings of the connotation of values by different civilizations, and respecting the exploration of their own development paths by the people of different countries." Finally, this diversity pursued as a goal is not a self-existing, passive diversity, but one that contains a certain transcendence of original differences, seeking consensus within differences to achieve a more ideal state of diversity, namely the ideal state where "all things are nurtured together without harming one another, and the ways run parallel without interfering with one another" [26]26 A classical ideal from the Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong), describing a state of harmonious coexistence without conflict.. In this sense, human civilization is not a simple sum of existing civilizations, but a human civilization continuously optimized through harmonious coexistence, displaying the inclusiveness of "all under heaven is without exterior" and the practical character of "all under heaven is for the common good." What makes "harmonious coexistence of civilizations" possible is not the various "ways" that "run parallel without interfering with one another," but the "great way of all under heaven" that enables these "ways" to run parallel, that is, the common good. This great way, this common good, is the authentic way of getting along among civilizations. Building a community with a shared future for mankind is precisely to practice this way of getting along among civilizations, to clarify its civilizational底色 of harmonious coexistence, and to enable diverse civilizations to achieve coordinated development.

一是以文明和合共生为根本出路。人类文明新形态理论旗帜鲜明地认为，面对何去何从的共同挑战，“人类只有和衷共济、和合共生这一条出路”,明确倡导“文明和合共生”。这首先肯认了文明多样性存在的客观事实。孟子“物之不齐，物之情也”的古老洞见得以现代升华：“各国历史文化和社会制度差异自古就存在，是人类文明的内在属性。没有多样性，就没有人类文明。”这种差异格局也恰如墨子“上以为政，下以为俗”所揭示的文明自组织规律——它既是政治智慧的必然选择，更是习俗演化的自然结果。其次以保障诸文明的差异性发展为重要目的。人类文明新形态既主张“不同而和”,更追求“和而不同”,强调“以宽广胸怀理解不同文明对价值内涵的认识，尊重不同国家人民对自身发展道路的探索”。最后，这种作为目的追求的多样性并非自在、消极的多样性，而是蕴含着对原初差异的某种超越，在差异中寻求共识，达至一种更理想的多样性状态，即“万物并育而不相害，道并行而不相悖”的理想状态。在此意义上，人类文明不是现实诸文明的简单相加，而是通过和合共生而不断优化的人类文明，呈现出“天下无外”的包容性与“天下为公”的实践品格。使“文明和合共生”成为可能的不是“道并行而不相悖”中的“并行”之诸“道”,而是使诸“道”得以并行的“天下之大道”,即公道。这一大道、公道才是本真性的文明相处之道。构建人类命运共同体，正是要践行这一文明相处之道，澄明其和合共生的文明底色，让多元文明实现协同发展。

Second, taking inter-civilizational exchanges and mutual learning as the basic method. The theory of the new form of human civilization reveals the law that "civilizations become richer through exchange, learn from each other through mutual learning, and develop through mutual learning," and provides the core methodology for solving the epochal question of where human civilization is headed: "Uphold equality, mutual learning, dialogue, and inclusiveness among civilizations, and replace estrangement with exchange, clashes with mutual learning, and superiority with inclusiveness." First, equality among civilizations is the prerequisite for exchange and mutual learning. From the perspective of the new form of human civilization, different civilizations have no distinction between high and low, superior and inferior, only differences in style and type; they are all equal in value. This also means that there is no perfect civilization in the world, and it is impossible for any one of the existing civilizations to universalize itself and directly deduce an ideal human civilization. Second, inclusiveness among civilizations is the driving force for exchange and mutual learning. In dealing with different civilizations, we need a broader mind than the sky. Human history, the history of Chinese civilization, and the practice of the new form of human civilization all show that "openness and inclusiveness have always been the source of vitality for civilizations," and that "as long as we uphold the spirit of inclusiveness, there will be no 'clash of civilizations,' and we can achieve harmony among civilizations." Third, dialogue among civilizations is the key to exchange and mutual learning. Inter-civilizational exchange and mutual learning means replacing confrontation with dialogue, "seeking wisdom and drawing nourishment from different civilizations, providing people with spiritual support and solace, and joining hands to solve the various challenges facing humanity." From a philosophical perspective, various civilizations have in fact formed a functionally complementary relationship in the field of globalization. Liang Shuming once pointed out that Western civilization, Chinese civilization, and Indian civilization respectively focus on solving the contradictions between humans and things, between humans and humans, and between humans and themselves [27]27 Liang Shuming (1893–1988) was a Chinese philosopher and thinker who compared the three civilizational paths in his 1921 work *Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies*.. This statement may not be entirely accurate, but it vividly illustrates that each civilization has its strengths. Through mutual learning, civilizations can complement each other's strengths and weaknesses, obtain more comprehensive wisdom, and optimize the civilizational system. Building a community with a shared future for mankind is precisely to promote understanding, build consensus, and inspire each other among countries through inter-civilizational exchanges and mutual learning, achieving mutual benefit and win-win outcomes in jointly addressing global challenges.

二是以文明交流互鉴为基本方法。人类文明新形态理论揭示了“文明因多样而交流，因交流而互鉴，因互鉴而发展”的规律，并为破解人类文明何去何从的时代课题提供了核心方法论：“坚持文明平等、互鉴、对话、包容，以文明交流超越文明隔阂、文明互鉴超越文明冲突、文明包容超越文明优越。”其一，文明平等是交流互鉴的前提。在人类文明新形态视野中，不同文明没有高低、优劣之分，只有风格、类型之别，在价值上都是平等的。这也意味着，世界上不存在十全十美的文明，不可能由现有诸文明中的任意一个文明将自我普遍化，直接推演出理想的人类文明。其二，文明包容是交流互鉴的动力。对待不同文明，我们需要比天空更宽阔的胸怀。人类历史、中华文明史以及人类文明新形态的实践都表明，“开放包容始终是文明发展的活力来源”,“只要秉持包容精神，就不存在什么‘文明冲突’,就可以实现文明和谐”。其三，文明对话是交流互鉴的关键。文明交流互鉴就是要以对话代替对抗，“从不同文明中寻求智慧、汲取营养，为人们提供精神支撑和心灵慰藉，携手解决人类共同面临的各种挑战”。从哲学角度看，诸文明在全球化场域中事实上形成了功能互补的关系。梁漱溟就曾指出，西方文明、中华文明、印度文明分别侧重解决人与物、人与人、人与自身的矛盾问题。此说未必准确，但形象地说明了文明各有所长。文明通过互鉴就能取长补短，获得更加整全的智慧，实现文明系统的优化。构建人类命运共同体，正是要推动各国在文明交流互鉴中增进理解、凝聚共识、互相启发，在共同应对全球挑战中实现互利共赢。

Third, taking upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground in civilization as the endogenous driving force. The theory of the new form of human civilization explicitly opposes the theory of civilizational rupture, resists historical nihilism, and reveals and emphasizes the dialectical law that "only by upholding fundamental principles can we avoid losing our direction and making subversive mistakes; only by breaking new ground can we grasp the times and lead the times." On the one hand, it not only promotes the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture on the basis of the outstanding continuity and innovativeness of Chinese civilization, achieving an organic connection between tradition and modernity, but also puts forward the major innovative theory of the Second Integration [28]28 The Second Integration (第二个结合) refers specifically to the combination of Marxism with China's fine traditional culture, as distinct from the first integration with China's practical conditions., which is an ideological emancipation. In the combination of the basic principles of Marxism with China's fine traditional culture, it creates a new cultural life form of organic unity — this itself is a model of civilizational mutual learning, realizing the self-renewal of Chinese civilization. On the other hand, it elevates upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground to the universal logic of the evolution of human civilization, calling on all countries to "jointly advocate attaching importance to civilizational inheritance and innovation, fully tap the contemporary value of each country's history and culture, and promote the creative transformation and innovative development of each country's fine traditional culture in the process of modernization." "Although Zhou was an ancient state, its mandate was renewed" [29]29 A line from the *Book of Songs* (Shijing), often cited to express the idea of cultural renewal and continuity despite political change.; the new form of human civilization precisely grasps the universal phenomenon of returning to the roots to open up the new in civilizational development, and elevates it to an important method of human civilizational progress, especially emphasizing the inheritance and innovation of classical civilizations. Classical human civilizations have made foundational contributions to the evolution of human civilization; they are the wellspring of human wisdom, continuously nourishing and enlightening later generations, and contain important insights into where human civilization is headed. For example, Chinese-path modernization is deeply rooted in fine traditional Chinese culture; it is the new mandate of the ancient state of the Chinese nation. From the perspective of today's human civilizational choices and progress, all classical civilizations should become the common wealth of humanity. If in past eras "returning to the roots" opened up more of the "new" of a particular nation or civilization, then today there is a greater need to consciously base ourselves on the progress of all human civilization, "return" to the "roots" of all civilizations, and open up the "new" of all humanity. This is precisely the new mandate of the ancient state based on human civilizational choices today. Building a community with a shared future for mankind requires all countries to actively promote civilizational innovation while adhering to the foundations of civilization and inheriting the essence of civilization, providing momentum for the sustainable development of the community.

三是以文明守正创新为内生动力。人类文明新形态理论明确反对文明断裂论，抵制历史虚无主义，揭示和强调“守正才能不迷失方向、不犯颠覆性错误，创新才能把握时代、引领时代”的辩证规律。一方面，不仅在中华文明突出的连续性与创新性的基础上推动中华优秀传统文化创造性转化、创新性发展，实现传统与现代的有机衔接，而且提出“第二个结合”这一解放思想的重大创新理论，在马克思主义基本原理与中华优秀传统文化相结合中造就有机统一的新的文化生命体——这本身就是文明互鉴的典范，实现了中华文明的自我更新。另一方面，将守正创新提升为人类文明演化的普遍逻辑，呼吁世界各国“共同倡导重视文明传承和创新，充分挖掘各国历史文化的时代价值，推动各国优秀传统文化在现代化进程中实现创造性转化、创新性发展”。“周虽旧邦，其命维新”,人类文明新形态精准把握返本开新这一文明发展中的普遍现象，并将之提升为人类文明进步的重要方法，尤其强调对古典文明的传承创新。人类古典文明为人类文明演进作出了奠基性贡献，是人类智慧的渊薮，不断滋养和启迪后世，其中就蕴藏着关于人类文明何去何从的重要启示。例如，中国式现代化深深植根于中华优秀传统文化，就是中华民族的旧邦新命。从今天人类文明抉择与进步角度看，一切古典文明都应当成为人类共有的财富。如果说过往时代“返本”开出的更多是某一个民族、文明的“新”的话，那么今天更需要自觉立足整个人类文明进步，“返”诸文明之“本”,开全人类之“新”,这正是今天人类基于文明抉择的旧邦新命。构建人类命运共同体，需要各国在坚守文明根基、传承文明精髓的同时，积极推动文明创新，为共同体的持续发展提供动力。

Fourth, taking the common values of all mankind as the core norm. The essential core of civilization lies in the establishment and evolution of value systems; the process of civilizational progress is essentially a reflection of the continuous condensation and sublimation of human value pursuits. An important reason for and manifestation of the predicament in which human civilization finds itself today is both the lack of value consensus and the hegemony of Western “universal values.” The key to escaping the predicament of human civilization lies in finding and adhering to the great way, the way of fairness, and the way of harmony that transcend Western “universal values.” General Secretary Xi Jinping has clearly pointed out, “A just cause should be pursued for the common good. Peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom are the common values of all mankind.” [30]30 Xi Jinping, “Working Together to Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind,” speech at the United Nations Office at Geneva, January 18, 2017. The opening phrase “A just cause should be pursued for the common good” (大道之行也，天下为公) is a classical allusion from the Confucian classic *Book of Rites* (*Liji*), describing an ideal age of Great Harmony. The common values of all mankind construct a three-tiered system of human values. The first is the foundational values based on the common attributes of humanity, i.e., the common value aspirations that different peoples and civilizations, as members of the human race, inherently share, “desiring the same things” and “seeking the same things.” This type of value is like a mineral vein buried deep underground, requiring continuous unveiling and clarification through civilizational dialogue and philosophical reflection. The second is the bottom-line values for sustaining the coexistence of civilizations. In the contemporary context where humanity faces an overall existential crisis, different civilizations must jointly abide by the rules of coexistence and ethical bottom lines. This has become a categorical imperative that transcends actual cultural and civilizational differences. The third is the constructive values that are continuously generated in the course of historical evolution. These consensual value norms, gradually formed through equal civilizational dialogue and practical testing, both carry traditional wisdom and remain open to the future, possessing a distinct public and practical character. Human civilization as a whole undergoes a process of evolution from “thin” to “thick,” and its value dimension continuously enriches and expands with the depth of civilizational interaction. The common values of all mankind proposed by China both inherit the purposes of the UN Charter and transcend the metaphysical essence of Western “universal values,” emphasizing the practical orientation and diversity of realization paths of values. They are the value expression of contemporary human civilization, reflecting the thickness that human civilization ought to possess. Building a community with a shared future for mankind precisely takes the common values of all mankind as its guide, consolidates the value foundation of global governance, and enables all countries to work together under the guidance of common values to build a better world.

四是以全人类共同价值为核心规范。文明的本质核心在于价值体系的确立与演进，文明进步的历程本质上是人类价值追求不断凝结与升华的反映。当今人类文明陷入困境的一个重要原因和表现就是既缺乏价值共识又存在西方“普世价值”霸权，走出人类文明困境的关键在于找到和坚守超越西方“普世价值”的人类大道、公道、和合之道。习近平总书记明确指出，“‘大道之行也，天下为公。’和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由，是全人类的共同价值”。全人类共同价值构建了三个层面的人类价值体系。首先是基于人类共同属性的基础价值，即不同民族、文明作为人类成员与生俱来的、“同欲”“同求”的共通价值诉求。这类价值犹如深埋地下的矿脉，需要通过文明对话与哲学反思持续进行去蔽、澄明。其次是维系文明共生的底线价值，在人类面临整体性生存危机的当代语境下，不同文明必须共同恪守共存法则与伦理底线。这已成为超越现实文化、文明差异的绝对律令。最后是历史演进中不断生成的建构性价值。这种通过平等的文明对话与实践检验逐步形成的共识性价值准则，既承载着传统智慧又面向未来开放，具有鲜明的公共性与实践性。作为整体的人类文明本身经历着由“薄”向“厚”的演进过程，其价值维度也随着文明互动的深度而不断丰富拓展。中国提出的全人类共同价值既继承《联合国宪章》宗旨，更超越西方“普世价值”的形而上学本质，强调价值观的实践导向性与实现路径多样性，是当代人类文明的价值表达，体现了人类文明应有的厚度。构建人类命运共同体，正是要以全人类共同价值为遵循，夯实全球治理的价值基础，让各国在共同价值指引下携手共建更加美好的世界。

Fifth, taking the building of a community with a shared future for mankind as the ultimate destination. Jointly building a community with a shared future for mankind is a grand and simple general answer to the question “What is wrong with the world and what should we do about it?” based on the grand historical reflection of “Where we come from, where we are now, and where we are going.” “A community with a shared future for mankind” is first of all an objective description, expressing the actual state of the integrated development of human society. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out, “In this world, countries are increasingly interconnected and interdependent. We live in a global village and in the same time and space where history and reality meet. We are increasingly becoming a community with a shared future in which each other’s interests are intertwined.” [31]31 Xi Jinping, “Working Together to Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind,” 2017. Secondly, as a concept rooted in Marxist theory and the ideal of “Great Harmony under Heaven” (天下大同) in Chinese civilization, “a community with a shared future for mankind” is more of an ideal state that needs to be actively constructed. General Secretary Xi Jinping has proposed an action plan for jointly building a community with a shared future for mankind in terms of international relations, security architecture, economic development, cultural exchange, and ecological construction, calling on the people of all countries to work together to “build an open, inclusive, clean, and beautiful world that enjoys lasting peace, universal security, and common prosperity.” Undoubtedly, building a community with a shared future for mankind inherently contains the common norms of human civilization — a community with a shared future for mankind is also a community of human civilization. Its fundamental characteristic lies in “sharing” (共); it is a “community” built through “extensive consultation” (共商) and “joint contribution” (共建) to achieve “shared benefits” (共赢共享), highlighting the public nature of “a just cause should be pursued for the common good” (天下为公) and the equality among subjects. This holistic cognition of viewing all humanity as “sharing a common destiny” transcends the narrow perspectives of nation-states, “my country first,” and Western civilizational centrism. Based on the laws of human civilizational development, it provides a new model for the harmonious coexistence of civilizations. Moreover, China has proposed and implemented the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, the Global Civilization Initiative, the Global Governance Initiative, and the Belt and Road Initiative, transforming civilizational consensus into concrete actions, promoting the reform of the global governance system, and providing an ongoing realistic path towards the harmonious coexistence of civilizations. The new form of human civilization, focusing on new paths, new patterns of civilizational development in the process of modernization, and the revolutionary transformation of civilizational forms, is the civilizational foundation and value core for building a community with a shared future for mankind. Building a community with a shared future for mankind is the concrete manifestation and practical destination of the new form of human civilization in the global arena. The two are unified in the historical process of promoting the progress of human civilization and realizing the common well-being of mankind.

五是以构建人类命运共同体为最终归宿。共同构建人类命运共同体，是基于“我们从哪里来、现在在哪里、将到哪里去”的大历史思考，对“世界怎么了、我们怎么办”大道至简的总回答。“人类命运共同体”首先是一种客观描述，其表达的正是人类社会融合发展的实然状态。习近平总书记指出，“这个世界，各国相互联系、相互依存的程度空前加深，人类生活在同一个地球村里，生活在历史和现实交汇的同一个时空里，越来越成为你中有我、我中有你的命运共同体”。其次，作为根植于马克思主义理论和中华文明“天下大同”理想的理念，“人类命运共同体”更是一种需要积极构建的理想状况。习近平总书记从国际关系、安全格局、经济发展、文明交流、生态建设等方面提出了共同构建人类命运共同体的行动方案，呼吁各国人民一道“建设持久和平、普遍安全、共同繁荣、开放包容、清洁美丽的世界”。无疑，构建人类命运共同体内蕴人类文明的共同规范——人类命运共同体也是人类文明共同体，其根本特征在于“共”,是“共商”“共建”一个“共赢共享”的“共同体”,凸显了“天下为公”的公共性和主体间的平等性。这种视全人类“命运与共”的整体性认知，超越了民族国家、“本国优先”、西方文明中心的狭隘视域，基于人类文明发展规律为人类文明和合共生提供了全新模型。而且，中国提出并践行全球发展倡议、全球安全倡议、全球文明倡议、全球治理倡议和共建“一带一路”倡议，将文明共识转化为具体行动，推动全球治理体系变革，为走向人类文明和合共生提供了正在进行的现实路径。人类文明新形态聚焦于现代化进程中文明发展的新路径、新样式和文明形态的革命性变革，是构建人类命运共同体的文明基础与价值内核；构建人类命运共同体是人类文明新形态在全球场域中的具体体现和实践归宿，二者统一于推动人类文明进步、实现人类共同福祉的历史进程。

Real-world civilizations are equal, but not only do they have different historical experiences due to objective reasons, there are also differences in whether their civilizational characteristics and strengths fit the needs of the present era and are appropriate for the times. Therefore, at a specific historical stage, the progress of human civilization not only depends on the joint efforts of all nations and civilizations, but indeed first relies on one or several world-historical nations to be proactive, contribute wisdom, advance agendas, coordinate actions, and provide exemplary leadership. Chinese-path modernization, as the practical carrier of the new form of human civilization, transforms “human civilization standing at a crossroads of where to go” into a series of modernization questions posed by “human social modernization once again arriving at a historical crossroads”: “Polarization or common prosperity? Materialism or coordinated material and cultural-ethical progress? Draining the pond to catch the fish or harmony between humanity and nature? Zero-sum game or win-win cooperation? Copying other countries’ models or independent development based on our own national conditions? What kind of modernization do we actually need? How can we achieve modernization?” The answers provided by Chinese-path modernization are: highlighting the people-centered nature of the modernization direction, exploring the diversity of modernization paths, maintaining the sustainability of the modernization process, enhancing the inclusiveness of modernization achievements, and ensuring the steadfastness of modernization leadership; taking a huge population, common prosperity for all, coordinated material and cultural-ethical progress, harmony between humanity and nature, and peaceful development as both its distinctive features and its practical requirements. Chinese-path modernization “is based on our own national conditions and draws on the experience of other countries; it inherits historical culture and integrates modern civilization; it benefits the Chinese people and promotes common development in the world. It is the broad path for building a strong country and achieving national rejuvenation, and it is also the inevitable path for China to seek human progress and world harmony.” [32]32 Xi Jinping, speech at the opening ceremony of the CPC in Dialogue with World Political Parties High-Level Meeting, March 15, 2023. With the successful practice of 1.4 billion people, Chinese-path modernization has rewritten the inherent perception that “modernization equals Westernization” in a concrete and universal way, presenting a new picture different from the Western modernization model, providing a completely new modernization model for the world, offering a new choice for developing countries to independently move towards modernization, providing a vivid demonstration for the correct choice of where human civilization should go, and offering practical experience and a civilizational sample that can be referenced for building a community with a shared future for mankind.

现实诸文明是平等的，但其不仅因客观原因导致历史经验不同，而且存在着文明特性、特长是否契合当今需要、合乎时宜的差异。因此，在特定历史阶段，人类文明进步不仅必须依靠各民族、各文明的共同努力，也确实首先有赖于某个或几个世界历史民族积极有为，贡献智慧、推进议题、协调行动、示范引领。中国式现代化作为人类文明新形态的实践载体，将“人类文明站在何去何从的十字路口”转化为“人类社会现代化进程又一次来到历史的十字路口”的一系列现代化之问：“两极分化还是共同富裕?物质至上还是物质精神协调发展?竭泽而渔还是人与自然和谐共生?零和博弈还是合作共赢?照抄照搬别国模式还是立足自身国情自主发展?我们究竟需要什么样的现代化?怎样才能实现现代化?”中国式现代化作出的回答是：突出现代化方向的人民性，探索现代化道路的多样性，保持现代化进程的持续性，增强现代化成果的普惠性，确保现代化领导的坚定性；把人口规模巨大、全体人民共同富裕、物质文明和精神文明相协调、人与自然和谐共生、走和平发展道路既作为其鲜明特色又作为其实践要求。中国式现代化“既基于自身国情、又借鉴各国经验，既传承历史文化、又融合现代文明，既造福中国人民、又促进世界共同发展，是我们强国建设、民族复兴的康庄大道，也是中国谋求人类进步、世界大同的必由之路”。中国式现代化以14亿人的成功实践、以具体的普遍性的方式改写了“现代化=西方化”的固有认知，展现了不同于西方现代化模式的新图景，为全球提供了全新的现代化模式，为广大发展中国家独立自主迈向现代化提供了全新选择，也为人类文明何去何从的正确抉择提供了生动示范，为构建人类命运共同体提供了可借鉴的实践经验和文明样本。

The new form of human civilization created by China runs through the overall logic of harmonious coexistence. Through the methodology of exchange and mutual learning, the driving mechanism of upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground, the normative system of common values, the ideal goal of a community with a shared future for mankind, and the practical demonstration of Chinese-path modernization, it constructs a new model of civilizational evolution, systematically and scientifically answering the question of where human civilization should go. Compared with the Western civilizational form, which has long been dominant and is also the main cause of the current predicament of human civilization, the theory and practice of the new form of human civilization have achieved: a transformation of the development concept from capital-centered to people-centered; an integration of civilizational structure from systemic imbalance to coordinated development of civilization; a reshaping of the civilizational foundation from civilizational rupture to civilizational inheritance and innovation; a reconstruction of civilizational relations from confrontational competition to win-win cooperation; and a sublimation of the civilizational mission from expansion and plunder to harmonious coexistence. It has marked a new historical coordinate for the development of human civilization in the 21st century and represents the direction of the progress of human civilization — this is precisely the civilizational logic and foundation for building a community with a shared future for mankind.

中国创造的人类文明新形态贯穿和合共生的总体逻辑，通过交流互鉴的方法论、守正创新的动力机制、共同价值的规范体系、命运共同体的理想目标、中国式现代化的实践示范，构建起全新的文明演进模型，系统而科学地回答了人类文明何去何从的问题。相较于长期占主导地位也是造成当今人类文明困境主要原因的西方文明形态，人类文明新形态的理论与实践，实现了从以资本为中心到以人民为中心的发展理念转换，从文明系统失衡到文明协调发展的文明结构整合，从文明断裂到文明传承创新的文明根基重塑，从对抗竞争到合作共赢的文明关系重构，从扩张掠夺到和合共生的文明使命升华，为21世纪人类文明发展标注了新的历史坐标，代表着人类文明进步的发展方向——这正是构建人类命运共同体的文明逻辑与基础。

The reason China has been able to create a new form of human civilization and make the correct choice when human civilization is at a crossroads is, in the final analysis, because it possesses the guidance of Marxist scientific theory and can always stand on the correct side of history. At the same time, the theory of a new form of human civilization has greatly enriched and developed Marxist philosophy under new historical conditions, especially by truly solving the problem of the coexistence of diverse civilizations. In today’s world, the most core and most urgent issue that needs to be addressed in answering the question of where human civilization is heading and in building a community with a shared future for mankind is the problem of the coexistence of diversity. This is the re-emergence of the ancient philosophical problem of the “one” and the “many” in the context of contemporary civilization. Guided by historical materialism, the new form of human civilization integrates the wisdom of Marxist philosophy and fine traditional Chinese culture, breaks the traditional metaphysical either-or binary oppositional mode of thinking, incorporates dialectical thinking into the very concept of civilization, optimizes the civilizational system on the basis of acknowledging differences, and proposes and demonstrates through practice the only correct path of “harmonious coexistence of civilizations.” On the one hand, as discussed above, harmonious coexistence of civilizations and the common values of all mankind and the community with a shared future for mankind that it logically encompasses all inherently contain the great Way and public justice at the height of human civilization, thus possessing a universal normative significance for actual civilizations. On the other hand, its primary significance lies precisely in liberating rather than suppressing the subjectivity of various civilizations: it opposes the hegemonic logic of universalizing a particular civilization (such as Western civilization) and is committed to constructing a space for interaction where all civilizational traditions can be equally present and fully display their creativity. With a vision of embracing the world, based on the fact of civilizational diversity, it rejects universalism, seeks commonality, and both sublates relativism and transcends absolutism. The theory of a new form of human civilization has found the best path for the benign interaction of actual civilizations and the optimal development of the whole of human civilization, and has also opened up broad horizons for the development of contemporary Chinese Marxism and Marxism in the 21st century.

中国之所以能创造人类文明新形态，在人类文明处于十字路口时作出正确抉择，归根到底是因为拥有马克思主义科学理论指导，能始终站在历史正确一边。同时，人类文明新形态理论也在新的历史条件下极大丰富和发展了马克思主义哲学，特别是真正破解了文明多样性共存的难题。当今世界，解答人类文明何去何从问题以及构建人类命运共同体需要处理的最核心也是最紧迫的问题是多样性共存的问题。这是哲学史上“一”与“多”的古老问题在当今文明语境下的重新显现。人类文明新形态以唯物史观为指导，融通马克思主义哲学和中华优秀传统文化智慧，打破了传统形而上学非此即彼的二元对立思维模式，将辩证思维纳入文明概念本身，在承认差异的基础上优化文明系统，提出和示范践行“文明和合共生”这一唯一正确道路。一方面，一如前述，文明和合共生及其逻辑统摄下的全人类共同价值、人类命运共同体，都内蕴人类文明高度的大道、公道，因而对现实诸文明具有公共性的普遍规范意义；另一方面，其首要意义恰恰在于解放而非压制诸文明的主体性：反对将特定文明(如西方文明)普世化的霸权逻辑，致力于构建一个使各文明传统都能平等在场、充分展现其创造力的交往空间。以胸怀天下的视野，基于文明多样性的事实，弃绝普世主义，寻求公共性，既扬弃相对主义也超越绝对主义。人类文明新形态理论找到了现实诸文明良性互动、整个人类文明优化发展的最佳路径，也为发展当代中国马克思主义、21世纪马克思主义开辟了广阔视野。

Conclusion

结语

In the current era, the trend of economic globalization is unstoppable, and the technological revolution marked by the internet and artificial intelligence is changing with each passing day. Humanity has never been so interconnected, providing unprecedented practical conditions for resolving the civilizational tension between “ancient and modern, Chinese and Western.” The future that Marx foresaw as “such an era” has arrived. It is precisely in the process of adhering to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the fine traditional Chinese culture that Marxism has been continuously adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of the times in China, consolidating a de-Western-centric stance and gaining a more vigorous cultural life from Chinese civilization. Today, it has not only made itself the essence of the times of Chinese culture and Chinese spirit, but also adheres to embracing the world, integrating with the specific realities of various countries and all of humanity’s spiritual wealth, drawing on the strengths of others, and integrating innovations, gradually displaying the grand vision of a “general philosophy of the world,” that is, a “contemporary philosophy of the world.” The world history initiated and dominated by the West in modern times is moving toward a world history jointly created by all of humanity. World philosophy has begun to slowly step out of the West, presenting the light of a true world philosophy. The practical form of this philosophical transformation is concentrated in China’s shift from a Western-centric narrative to a truly common human narrative, innovating and developing on the basis of Marx’s meta-theoretical critique of civilizational forms, and creating and developing a new form of human civilization. Creating and advancing Chinese-path modernization, upholding and promoting the common values of all mankind, and promoting the building of a community with a shared future for mankind are, in essence, practices that stand on the side of human civilizational progress and are based on the principled heights of human civilization. Conversely, all these theories and actions can only be accurately grasped in their essence and quintessence when elevated to the height of human civilization; only when elevated to the height of contemporary Chinese Marxism and Marxism in the 21st century can one truly understand their world-historical significance in leading the progress of human civilization.

当今时代，经济全球化潮流势不可挡，以互联网和人工智能为标志的科技革命日新月异，人类从未如此联为一体，为破解“古今中西”的文明张力提供了前所未有的现实条件，马克思当年所预见“这样的时代”的未来已来。正是在坚持把马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合、同中华优秀传统文化相结合的过程中，马克思主义在中国不断中国化时代化，巩固了去西方中心主义立场，并从中华文明中获得了更为蓬勃的文化生命。如今，它不仅使自己成为中华文化和中国精神的时代精华，而且坚持胸怀天下，结合世界各国的具体实际，结合人类全部的精神财富，博采众长，融汇创新，日渐展现出“面对世界的一般哲学”即“当代世界的哲学”的大气象。近代由西方开创和主导的世界历史正在走向人类共同创造的世界历史，人类哲学已经开始缓缓走出西方，呈现出真正的世界哲学之光。这种哲学变革的实践形态，集中体现为中国将西方中心叙事转向真正的人类共同叙事，在马克思文明形态元理论批判的基础上进行创新发展，创造和发展了人类文明新形态。创造和推进中国式现代化，坚守和弘扬全人类共同价值，推动构建人类命运共同体，这些本质上都是站在人类文明进步一边、基于人类文明有原则高度的实践。反过来说，所有这些理论和行动，只有上升到人类文明的高度，才能准确把握它们的本质和精髓；只有上升到当代中国马克思主义、21世纪马克思主义的高度，才能真正知晓其引领人类文明进步的世界历史意义。

Philosophical reflection based on the height of human civilization requires both transcending regional modes of thinking and testing its universality through practical reality. Indeed, “whatever a nation does as a nation, it does for human society.” [33]33 Karl Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction,” in Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 207. The original German phrase is “Was das Volk als Volk tut, das tut es für die menschliche Gesellschaft.” However, in the current era when humanity faces an urgent choice about where civilization is heading, actual civilizations must demonstrate more conscious initiative, activity, and creativity: they must both base themselves on their own civilizational traditions and political structures and adopt an open attitude to integrate the essence of other civilizations, thereby giving rise to a “world philosophy” that bears the imprint of national spirit yet is relatively self-transcending, or at least contribute national wisdom to such a world philosophy. Only in this way can world philosophy, as the worldly wisdom of humanity, integrate the wisdom of different civilizations, ultimately forming a public wisdom or great harmony wisdom at the height of all humanity, enabling different civilizations to truly coexist harmoniously and ensuring the sustainable development of the whole of human civilization. In this process, possessing a Marxist philosophy integrated with fine traditional Chinese culture is our enormous advantage. Contemporary Chinese Marxism must more consciously shoulder the responsibility of laying a philosophical foundation for the progress of human civilization, providing deeper theoretical support for building a community with a shared future for mankind, and promoting human civilization toward a better future.

基于人类文明高度的哲学思考既需要超越地域性思维定式，又需要通过现实实践检验其普遍性。的确，“凡是民族作为民族所做的事情，都是他们为人类社会而做的事情”。但是，在面临人类文明何去何从之急迫抉择的当今时代，现实诸文明必须有更加自觉的主动性、积极性和创造性：既要立足自身文明传统与政治结构，又要以开放的姿态融贯他者文明的精髓，从而生长出既带有民族精神烙印又相对超越自身的“世界哲学”,或为这种世界哲学竭诚贡献民族性智慧。只有这样，作为人类现世智慧的世界哲学才能融汇不同文明的智慧，最终形成全人类高度的公共智慧或曰大同智慧，让不同文明真正和合共生，使整个人类文明得以永续发展。在此进程中，拥有同中华优秀传统文化相结合的马克思主义哲学，是我们的巨大优势，当代中国马克思主义必须更加自觉地肩负起为人类文明进步进行哲学奠基的责任，为构建人类命运共同体提供更为深刻的理论支撑，推动人类文明迈向更加美好的未来。

About the author: Shen Xiangping, Professor at the School of Philosophy, Renmin University of China.

作者简介：沈湘平，中国人民大学哲学院教授。