The Theory of Cultural “Comprehensive Innovation” and “the Second Integration”

In the Northern Song dynasty (11th century), China produced the famous philosophers Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi, two brothers. They were the actual founders of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism (Zhou Dunyi initiated it, and Zhu Xi completed it), making major contributions to the development of Chinese philosophy, and held a prominent position among the “Five Masters of the Northern Song.”[1]1 The “Five Masters of the Northern Song” refers to the five major Neo-Confucian philosophers of the Northern Song dynasty: Zhou Dunyi, Shao Yong, Zhang Zai, Cheng Hao, and Cheng Yi. The British scholar Angus Charles Graham (1919–1991) once wrote a book titled *Two Chinese Philosophers: The Neo-Confucianism of the Cheng Brothers*, for which Mr. Ren Jiyu wrote a preface to the Chinese translation. In the 20th century, China produced another pair of philosopher brothers, namely Messrs. Zhang Shenfu and Zhang Dainian. Can their theoretical contributions and academic status be compared with those of the Cheng brothers? On this point, Mr. Fang Keli pointed out: this is a line of inquiry worth attempting. The era in which Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi lived bears similarities to that of Zhang Shenfu and Zhang Dainian; both were periods of major transition for Chinese culture. The Cheng brothers absorbed the intellectual resources of Buddhism and Daoism and integrated them with traditional Confucianism, achieving the first comprehensive innovation in the history of Chinese philosophical development and creating a new Confucianism embodying the “unity of the three teachings.”[2]2 The “unity of the three teachings” (三教合一) refers to the synthesis of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism that became a dominant trend in Chinese thought from the Song dynasty onward. Mr. Fang believes that in the era of the two Zhangs, the three teachings of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism were already in decline and were being replaced by the three cultures of Marxism, conservatism, and liberalism. These three cultural systems — Marxism, conservatism, and liberalism — and the three major cultural currents both opposed and interacted with one another, colliding, grinding together, and learning from each other. After several rounds of debate, just when everyone was troubled by the mutual opposition among the three currents and thought that “those who follow different paths cannot take counsel together,”[3]3 “Those who follow different paths cannot take counsel together” (道不同不相为谋) is a classical Chinese saying from the *Analects* of Confucius. “the two Zhangs saw the possibility of ‘synthesizing the essences of the three into one.’ In the 1930s, they put forward the idea of the ‘confluence of the three currents’ — Chinese, Western, and Marxist — and by the 1980s, this had developed into the systematic cultural view of ‘comprehensive innovation.’” In his later years, Mr. Fang Keli further built on this foundation to propose the theory of “Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function,”[4]4 “Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function” (马魂中体西用) is a formulation proposed by Fang Keli to specify the relationship among Marxism, Chinese culture, and Western culture within the comprehensive innovation framework. pushing the “comprehensive innovation” view to a new stage. It is not difficult to see that from “comprehensive innovation in culture” to “Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function,” the cultural view contained therein runs through a thread that connects the beginning and the end. This thread is in fact the main line of thought, which is well worth our serious explication and careful sorting out.

中国在北宋时期（11世纪）出现了著名哲学家程颢、程颐二兄弟，他们是宋明理学实际上的开创者（周敦颐发其端，朱熹殿其后），对中国哲学的发展作出了重大贡献，在“北宋五子”中地位显赫。英国人葛瑞汉（Angus Charles Graham，1919—1991）曾写过一本书，名为《中国的两位哲学家——二程兄弟的新儒学》，任继愈先生为中译本作序。至20世纪，中国又出了一对兄弟哲学家，即张申府与张岱年二先生，他们的理论贡献和学术地位，是否可与二程作一比较呢？对此，方克立先生指出：这是一个可以尝试的思路。程颢、程颐生活的时代与张申府和张岱年生活的时代有相似之处，都是中国文化的大转折时期。二程吸收了佛道思想资源并与中国传统儒学相结合，实现了中国哲学发展史上第一次综合创新，创造了体现“三教合一”的新儒学。方先生认为，二张生活的时代，儒释道三教已成颓势，且正在被“马中西”三种文化所取代。这三种文化系统即马克思主义、保守主义和自由主义，三大文化思潮既对立互动，又碰撞磨合和相互借鉴，其间经过若干回合论战，正当大家都被三大思潮彼此间的对立所困扰以为“道不同不相为谋”时，“二张先生却看到了将三者之精华‘综合于一’的可能性，在上个世纪30年代就提出了中、西、马‘三流合一’的思想，到80年代更形成为系统的‘综合创新’文化观”。方克立先生晚年又在这一基础上提出了“马魂中体西用”论，将“综合创新”论推向了一个新阶段。不难发现，从“文化的综合创新”到“马魂中体西用”，其中所蕴含的文化观贯穿着一条首尾贯之的伏线，这条伏线实际就是思想主线，非常值得我们认真开显和细致梳理。

I. The Intellectual Origins of the Theory of “Comprehensive Innovation”

一、“综合创新”论的思想渊源

From the day Chinese and Western cultures first encountered each other to the present, we can roughly frame this long historical period within about four hundred years, from 1600 to 2000. During this time, Chinese culture, caught in a deepening crisis, was buffeted by wind and rain. Where was Chinese culture headed? This question, accompanying the invasion of Western capitalist powers that led to the disintegration of traditional Chinese society, became a major issue spanning dynasties and eras. Against this historical and cultural background, the germ of the “comprehensive innovation” cultural view did not arise at a single moment. It originated from the sense of anxiety among a portion of advanced Chinese intellectuals over the survival and continuation of their national culture during its period of decline. They believed that only by absorbing Western culture could it be reborn from the ashes. Consciously or unconsciously, they realized and expressed this aspiration in different ways and languages: they must strive and search high and low, pinning their hopes on the return to the roots and opening up of the new of their inherent national culture.

自中西文化邂逅之日至今，我们可以把这一漫长的历史阶段大致框定在 1600至2000年约四百年的时期内，中国文化在日益陷入的危机中风雨飘摇。中国文化向何处去？这一问题伴随着西方资本主义列强的入侵终致中国传统社会开始解体，成为一个跨朝代、跨时代的重大课题。鉴于此种历史文化背景，“综合创新”文化观的萌芽非起于一时之间，其源于一部分先进的中国知识分子在中华传统文化的跌落期出于对民族文化兴亡存续的忧患意识，认为只有通过吸收西方文化才能涅槃重生。他们自觉或不自觉地意识到并且用不同方式和语言来表达这一志向——必须上下努力求索，寄希望于民族固有文化的返本开新。

It should be pointed out that the two Zhangs were contemporaries of Mao Zedong, and their ideas of the “confluence of the three currents” and “comprehensive innovation” were basically consistent with Mao Zedong’s view of Chinese and Western cultures. Mao Zedong once proposed that Chinese culture should “create something new and uniquely Chinese.” How was this new thing to be created? Only through the integration or synthesis of Chinese and Western cultures, and through innovation.

需要指出的是，二张与毛泽东是同时代人，他们的“三流合一”与“综合创新”的思想同毛泽东的中西文化观基本一致。毛泽东曾提出中国文化应该“创造中国独特的新东西”，这个新东西如何创造而来？只有从中西文化的相互结合或综合中通过创新而来。

In fact, the germ of the idea of “comprehensive innovation” can be traced back to the first collision and convergence of Chinese and Western European cultures at the end of the Ming dynasty and the beginning of the Qing dynasty. For example, Xu Guangqi of the Ming dynasty, in his contact with Western Jesuit missionaries in China, was the first to propose: “To seek to surpass, one must first achieve thorough mastery; before thorough mastery, one must translate… examine and determine, melt the materials of that side into the mold of the Grand Unification.”[5]5 “The Grand Unification” (大统) here refers to the Chinese calendrical system, the Datong li, which Xu Guangqi sought to reform using Western astronomical knowledge. “The materials of that side” refers to “Western materials,” abbreviated as “Western materials”; “the mold of the Grand Unification” refers to “the Chinese system,” abbreviated as “Chinese mold.” Together, this is called “Chinese mold, Western materials.” It should be said that Xu Guangqi’s “Chinese mold, Western materials” was the origin or original version of the “Chinese substance, Western function” theory; Xu Guangqi was in fact the founding father of the “Chinese substance, Western function” theory. However, it must be pointed out that Xu Guangqi’s theory of “Chinese mold, Western materials” was ultimately not for the purpose of “thoroughly mastering” the West, but for “surpassing” the West. “Thorough mastery” was the path and the means; “surpassing” was the direction and the goal. To have seen through this at the very beginning of the encounter between Chinese and Western cultures is a manifestation of cultural confidence, and is truly commendable.

其实“综合创新”的思想萌芽可上溯至明末清初中国文化与西欧文化的初次碰撞与交汇之际。例如，明代徐光启在与西方来华耶稣会士的接触中，最早提出“欲求超胜，必须会通，会通之前，必须翻译……参详考定，鎔彼方之材质，入大统之型模”。“彼方之材质”，即“西方之材质”，简称“西材”；“大统之型模”即指“中国之体制”，简称“中模”，合之谓“中模西材”。应该说，徐光启的“中模西材”就是“中体西用”论的滥觞或原版，徐光启实为“中体西用”论的开山鼻祖。但必须指出，徐光启“中模西材”论终究不是为了“会通”西方，而是为了“超胜”西方。“会通”是路径和手段，“超胜”才是方向和目的。在中西文化相遇之初就参透了这一点，是文化自信的表现，难能可贵。

From “Chinese mold, Western materials” to “Chinese root, Western technique,” then to “Chinese root, Western branch,” and then to “Chinese substance, Western function,” this was a process of gradual abstraction from the concrete to the formal. Although the wording differs slightly, it is essentially the same. The theory of “Chinese substance, Western function” inevitably triggered a debate on “substance and function” regarding Chinese and Western cultures. For instance, Yan Fu criticized: “If there is the substance of an ox, then there is the function of carrying a load; if there is the substance of a horse, then there is the function of traveling far. It has never been heard of taking the ox as substance and the horse as function… Therefore, Chinese learning has the substance and function of Chinese learning; Western learning has the substance and function of Western learning. If separated, they stand side by side; if combined, both perish.”[6]6 Yan Fu’s critique is from his essay “On the Relationship between Chinese and Western Learning” (《与〈外交报〉主人书》). Liang Qichao denounced Zhang Zhidong’s book *Exhortation to Learning* as “not only useless for the times, but also a great burden on the world,” and that “in less than ten years it will turn to ashes and dust. When its ashes and dust are occasionally raised by the wind, those who smell it will still cover their noses and pass by.”[7]7 Liang Qichao’s criticism is from his essay “On the Harm of Exhortation to Learning” (《〈劝学篇〉书后》). He Qi and Hu Liyuan denounced the harm of *Exhortation to Learning* as “preserving one official while ruining a nation,” and “overturning the whole world for the sake of one family.”[8]8 He Qi and Hu Liyuan’s criticism is from their work *The True Interpretation of the Reform* (《新政真诠》). Even after the Xinhai Revolution, Lu Xun still criticized the essence of the “Chinese substance, Western function” theory as “learning foreign skills while preserving Chinese old habits. The skills must be new, the thinking must be old. New figures with new skills and old thinking, carrying old figures with old skills and old thinking, ask them to display their many years of experience and old skills. In a word: a few years ago it was called ‘Chinese learning as substance, Western learning for function’; in recent years it has been called ‘adapting to the times, striking a proper balance.’”[9]9 Lu Xun’s remark is from his essay “Random Thoughts No. 48” (《随感录四十八》). Although the “Chinese substance, Western function” theory was flogged by reformists, revolutionaries, and progressive figures, among the practical strategies and formal propositions for adjusting the collision and conflict between Chinese and Western cultures so as not to lean to one extreme, there has never been a more appropriate paradigm than this.

从“中模西材”到“中本西术”，再到“中本西末”和“中体西用”，这是一个逐渐由形下到形上的抽象过程，虽然语词略异，其实一也。“中体西用”论不可避免地引发了关于中西文化的“体用之辩”，如严复就批评道：“有牛之体，则有负重之用；有马之体，则有致远之用。未闻以牛为体，以马为用者……故中学有中学之体用，西学有西学之体用，分之则并立，合之则两亡。”梁启超则指责张之洞的《劝学篇》一书“不特无益于时，而且大累于世”，“不十年将化为灰烬，为尘埃。其灰其尘，偶因风扬起，闻者犹将掩鼻而过之”；何启、胡礼垣斥责《劝学篇》之危害乃“保一官而亡一国”，“倾天下以顾一家”。直至辛亥革命后，鲁迅仍然针砭“中体西用”论的实质是“学了外国本领，保存中国旧习。本领要新，思想要旧。要新本领旧思想的新人物，驼了旧本领旧思想的旧人物，请他发挥多年经验的老本领。一言以蔽之：前几年谓之‘中学为体，西学为用’，这几年谓之‘因时制宜，折衷至当’”。尽管“中体西用”论受到改良派与革命派以及进步人士的鞭挞，然而在如何调适中西文化之间的碰撞与冲突不致偏于一执的实用方略和形上命题中，再也没有比这更恰当的范式了。

A century of history shows that the “Chinese substance, Western function” theory did not turn to ashes and dust as Liang Qichao said, nor did it become so foul that people “cover their noses and pass by.” On the contrary, the debate on the substance and function of Chinese and Western cultures shows signs of burgeoning vigor, and even today, we still must “illuminate the substance and realize the function.”[10]10 “Illuminating the substance and realizing the function” (明体达用) is a classical Confucian phrase, originally associated with the Song-dynasty thinker Hu Yuan, emphasizing the unity of moral principle and practical application. “Illuminating the substance and realizing the function” is precisely “upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground” — “fundamental principles” is the “substance,” and “breaking new ground” is “realizing the function.” Thus it can be seen that the categories of “substance” and “function,” as the most core categories of Chinese philosophy and ancient wisdom, are an irreplaceable tool for reasoning. They cannot be discarded; they are only used flexibly according to time and place. The “Chinese substance, Western function” theory can both accommodate the functions of Chinese and Western cultures and adapt to China’s national conditions, and can play a practical role in distinguishing between China and foreign countries, positioning one’s own identity, and weighing advantages and disadvantages. What is called “old learning as substance, new learning for function” — under the premise that “Chinese learning” occupies an absolutely mainstream and orthodox supreme position, it leaves a place and space for development for “Western learning” or “new learning.” This objectively helps to breach the dike of “Chinese learning” stubbornly defended by cultural conservatives, and can thereby also supplement what “Chinese learning” lacks. It is not without merit as a technique for preserving the teaching and enriching the nation.

百年历史表明，“中体西用”论并没有像梁启超所说的那样化为灰烬、尘埃，也没有臭不可闻，让人“掩鼻而过”。相反，中西文化体用之争尚有方兴未艾之势，至今，我们仍要“明体达用”。“明体达用”也就是“守正创新”——“正”就是“体”，“创新”就是“达用”。可见，“体”“用”范畴作为中国哲学最核心的范畴和古老的智慧，是一对无法取代的说理工具，是不可能弃之不用的，只是因时因地变通使用而已。“中体西用”论既可兼容中西文化功能，又可适应中国国情，且能发挥分殊中外、定位本分、取舍利弊的实际作用。所谓“旧学为体，新学为用”——当“中学”居于绝对主流和正统的至尊地位的前提下，给“西学”或“新学”留有一容身之地和发展空间，这在客观上有利于破解文化守旧派所固守的“中学”堤防，进而也能补“中学”之所缺，不失为一种保教富强之术。

Accompanying the debate on “Chinese substance and Western function” there also arose debates on “Chinese and Western origins” and “Chinese and Western superiority and inferiority.” The debate on “Chinese and Western origins” also originated in the Ming-Qing period when Chinese and Western learning first encountered each other. Generally speaking, Western missionaries, proceeding from a Eurocentric perspective, held the view that “Chinese learning originated in the West,” while those who held the view that “Western learning originated in China” were basically enlightened Chinese scholar-officials and Confucian literati, who were often enthusiastic about Western learning, adopted an open attitude toward the spread of “Western learning” in China, and all advocated the integration of Chinese and Western learning. Therefore, the theory that “Western learning originated in China” and the doctrine of “Chinese substance and Western function” were both intellectual precursors of the theory of “comprehensive innovation,” because their essence lay in “integrating” Chinese and Western learning and ultimately “surpassing” the original Chinese and Western poles. If we trace the thread over more than four hundred years, from Xu Guangqi’s proposal of “integrating Chinese and Western learning” down to the May Fourth Movement period, the advocacy of Chinese-Western integration and fusion formed a continuous intellectual stream. After Xu Guangqi, Wang Xichan sought to find “the art of linking Chinese and Western methods” so as to “take their essence and discard their dross”; Mei Wending advocated that in Chinese and Western learning, “where a method is adoptable, what matter East or West; where a principle ought to be clear, what distinction new or old,” and “do not cling to names and forms, but take their quintessence”; Ruan Yuan advocated “fusing Chinese and Western learning into one unity”; Cai Yuanpei advocated “absorbing and digesting foreign thought, discourse, and scholarship, making them entirely a part of the ‘self’”; and so on. As for the debate on “Chinese and Western superiority and inferiority”—that is, the question of whether Chinese culture or Western culture is superior—this too is an old question that has been contested ever since the encounter between Chinese and Western cultures down to the present day. During the May Fourth Movement period, the debates between Li Dazhao, Chen Duxiu, Hu Shi and others on one side and Liang Shuming, Du Yaquan, Liang Qichao and others on the other gave it its first clear expression, while the theories of “wholesale Westernization” and “revival of Confucianism” were the two extremes in this contention. It can be said that the debates on “Chinese substance and Western function,” “Chinese and Western origins,” and “Chinese and Western superiority and inferiority” appear to be three questions but are in fact one question: namely, in the interaction and fusion of Chinese and Western cultures, which is substance and which is function—that is, how to position the two and thereby adjust their relationship.

跟“中西体用”之辩相伴而起的还有“中西源流”之辩、“中西优劣”之辩等。“中西源流”之辩也起源于中、西学初次相识的明清之际。一般而言，西方传教士从西方中心论的角度出发持“中学西源”说，而持“西学中源”说的基本上都是中国开明的士大夫和儒士，他们往往都热心西学，对“西学”在中国的传播持开放态度，皆主张会通中西。因此，“西学中源”说与“中体西用”论同是“综合创新”论的思想先驱，因其实质在于“会通”中西最后“超胜”原点的中西。如果我们梳理一下四百多年来，从徐光启提出“会通中西”始，直至五四运动时期，中西会通与融合的主张汇成了一条延绵不断的思想溪流。继徐光启之后，王锡阐试图寻找“贯通中西之术”，以便“取其精华，去其糟粕”；梅文鼎主张中西学“法有可采何论东西，理所当明何分新旧”“毋拘名相，而取其精粹”；阮元则主张“融会中西，归于一是”；蔡元培主张“所得于外国之思想、言论、学术，吸收而消化之，尽为‘我’之一部”；等等。至于“中西优劣”之辩，即中国文化与西方文化孰优孰劣的问题，也是一个自中西文化邂逅之日至今仍争执不下的老问题。五四运动时期李大钊、陈独秀、胡适等人与梁漱溟、杜亚泉、梁启超等人的辩论中初显端倪，而“全盘西化”论与“复兴儒学”论则是这一争辩中的两个极端。可以说，“中西体用”之辩、“中西源流”之辩、“中西优劣”之辩看似三个问题，实则一个问题，那就是在中西文化互动与融会中孰体孰用，即如何给二者定位进而调适二者的关系。

Originally, the Chinese nation, with its several thousand years of civilization, had always looked down on the surrounding barbarians with a sense of cultural superiority, dividing the civilized from the savage by means of the “distinction between Hua and Yi.” As Liang Qichao said, in the several thousand years of China’s contacts—apart from Indian culture—the Chinese considered themselves the only civilized nation of ritual and dress, while all others were barbarous Yi and Di tribes, and therefore felt that culture was unique to China. But after encountering Western civilization, marked by Christian civilization, we came to realize that on the other side of the globe there also existed a group of human beings with a highly developed civilization. Hence, there first appeared Xu Guangqi’s exposition of the theory of “Chinese model and Western material,” followed by Feng Guifen’s proposal of the theory of “Chinese foundation and Western technique,” then Zheng Guanying’s advocacy of the theory of “Chinese root and Western branch,” then Shen Yugui and others’ promotion of the theory of “Chinese substance and Western function,” and finally Mao Zedong’s proposal of the “method of the ancient and the modern, the Chinese and the foreign.” All of these, in various ways, paved the way and provided intellectual materials for the theory of “comprehensive innovation” in the 20th century. In the four-hundred-year collision and interaction between Chinese and Western cultures, traditional mainstream Chinese culture, marked by Confucianism, faced a major transformation, and the transformation of culture and ideology was precisely the precursor of social transformation. This transformation heralded the rebirth of ancient traditional Chinese culture from the ashes and marked that the closed and semi-closed Chinese society was on the eve of integrating into open modern civilization.

本来，具有数千年文明史的中华民族一直以文化优越感而傲视四夷，以“夷夏之辩”分割文野，正如梁启超所说，原来中国几千年所接触者——除印度文化外，自认为华夏民族才是文明的衣冠民族，其余都是野蛮的夷狄之邦，因此觉得文化为中国所独有。但自从结识以基督教文明为标志的西方文明之后，我们才意识到在地球的另一方，还有一群具有高度文明的人类的存在。于是，始有徐光启首阐“中模西材”论，继有冯桂芬提出“中本西术”论，再有郑观应主张“中本西末”论，又有沈毓桂等人倡导“中体西用”论，终有毛泽东提出“古今中外法”，凡此种种，都为20世纪的“综合创新”论铺垫了前道，提供了思想资料。在长达四百年的中西文化碰撞与交往中，以儒学为标志的中国传统主流文化面临着重大转型，而文化和意识形态的转型正是社会转型的前导。这一转型预示着古老的中华传统文化的浴火重生，标志着封闭半封闭的中国社会正处于融入开放的近代文明的前夜。

For four hundred years, in their efforts to resolve the crisis of the increasingly powerful invasion of Western culture and the growing decline of Chinese culture, the Chinese people have never been able to escape the dualistic predicament of “substance” and “function” thinking. After the May Fourth Movement, a tripartite pattern of thought and culture—Marxism, Chinese learning, and Western learning—took shape. Neither “Chinese substance and Western function” nor “Western substance and Chinese function” sufficed to explain this situation of three teachings standing in rivalry. Although in a broad sense Marxism was also imported from the West, the reality is that the Marxism that now occupies the guiding position in China’s ideological sphere is a Sinicized Marxism, or what may be called “Chinese Marxism.” Marxism was created by absorbing the cultural essence of all humanity and should not be confined within the scope of Western learning; by the same token, “Chinese Marxism” cannot be confined only within the scope of “Chinese learning.” After all, Marxism is the mainstream of contemporary Chinese ideology. How to adjust the relationship between Marxism, on the one hand, and the inherent national culture (Chinese learning) and Western culture (Western learning), on the other, has become a very thorny practical and logical paradox. In this situation, philosophical and theoretical circles look forward to a deeper elaboration of the theory of “comprehensive innovation,” so that it can be transformed into more operable and implementable strategies and policies. That is to say, how to turn learning into insight and insight into wisdom has become the focus of attention from the perspective of the Sinicization of Marxist philosophy.

四百年来，中国人在如何解决西方文化日益强势入侵而中国文化日趋衰落的危机，始终走不出“体”“用”思维的二元困境。五四运动之后又形成了“马中西”三分天下的思想文化格局，无论是“中体西用”还是“西体中用”，都不足以阐释这三学鼎立的情势。虽然从广义上说马克思主义也是从西方输入的，但实情是如今居于中国意识形态领域指导地位的马克思主义是中国化了的马克思主义，或称“中国马克思主义”。马克思主义由于吸收了全人类的文化精华而创生，其不应框定在西学范围内，同理，“中国马克思主义”也不能只框定在“中学”范围内。马克思主义毕竟是当代中国意识形态的主流，如何调适马克思主义与固有民族文化（中学）和西方文化（西学）之间的关系，就成为一个十分棘手的现实和逻辑上的悖论。在这种情况下，哲学和理论界期待着对“综合创新”论作更深入的阐释，以使其向更具有可操作性、可实施性的方略与政策转化。也就是说，如何化学为识、转识成智，这成为在马克思主义哲学中国化视域下众所关注的焦点。

II. The Academic Contributions of the Two Zhangs

二、二张先生的学术贡献

The philosophers who first conceived of no longer using the category of “substance and function” but instead combining the three schools of thought—Marxism, Chinese learning, and Western learning—while enabling Chinese culture to achieve creative transformation and innovative development were the Two Zhangs, who were the actual founders of the doctrine and school of “comprehensive innovation.” As early as 1932, Zhang Shenfu put forward the view of the “confluence of three streams” of the three schools of philosophy—Marxism, Chinese learning, and Western learning—saying, for example: “Russell, Ilyich (I once translated it as Ilich), Confucius—the confluence of three streams.” Here “Russell” represented the highest level of Western philosophy at the time; “Ilyich” (Lenin) represented the latest form of Marxist philosophy; and “Confucius” represented the ancient philosophy of the Chinese nation. In this way, the combination of the three schools of philosophy—Marxism, Chinese learning, and Western learning—into a new mainstream cultural thought was proposed. Zhang Shenfu’s thinking influenced his younger brother Zhang Dainian, who was 16 years his junior. On April 27, 1933, Zhang Dainian wrote the article “On New Materialism,” published in the Ta Kung Pao, in which he reaffirmed Zhang Shenfu’s view of the “confluence of three streams” and held that the composition of China’s future new philosophy must take “the method of logical analysis and Lenin’s materialist dialectics” and “Confucian philosophy” as its main elements, forming a philosophy that is “analytical, quantitative, dialectical, and broadly objective.” This was clear evidence of Zhang Dainian’s firm identification with and strong support for Zhang Shenfu’s view of the “confluence of three streams,” and in his subsequent philosophical career he continued to elaborate on this originally brief philosophical proposition, developing it into his later theory of “comprehensive innovation.” This was the common contribution of the Two Zhangs to modern Chinese philosophical thought. The fact that the two Zhang brothers successively expressed and voiced their support for the same cultural proposition in the same newspaper is also a much-told tale in the history of modern Chinese philosophy and intellectual-cultural development.

最初设想不再用“体用”范畴而把“马中西”三派思想结合起来且又能使中国文化实现创造性转化和创新性发展的哲学家是二张先生，二张先生是“综合创新”学说暨学派的实际开创者。张申府先生于1932年就提出了“马中西”三派哲学“三流合一”的见解，如说：“百提，伊里奇（我本曾译伊里赤），仲尼，三流合一。”这里的“百提”即罗素，代表着当时西方哲学的最高水平；“伊里奇”即列宁，代表马克思主义哲学的最新形态；“仲尼”即孔子，代表着古老的中华民族哲学。这样，“马中西”三派哲学相结合而汇成新的主流文化思想就被提了出来。张申府的思想影响了比他小16岁的弟弟张岱年，1933年4月27日张岱年撰写了《关于新唯物论》一文发表在《大公报》上，重申了张申府“三流合一”的观点，并认为中国将来之新哲学构成，必以“逻辑解析方法与列宁之唯物辩证法” 和“儒家哲学”为主，形成“解析的、数量的、辩证的、大客观的”哲学。这是张岱年对张申府“三流合一”观点的坚决认同和坚定支持的明证，并在此后的哲学生涯中，继续对这种原为简述的哲学命题进行阐发进而发展为其晚年的“综合创新”论，这是二张在现代中国哲学思想上的共同贡献。二张兄弟在同一家报纸上先后就同一文化主张表态和发声，也是现代中国哲学和思想文化发展史上的一段佳话。

From 1941 to 1942, Zhang Shenfu once again reaffirmed the proposition that “the new system that unites Confucius, Russell, and Lenin into one will surely be the new indicator and new symbol of the new China in the new world,” and further elaborated on the “confluence of three streams.” He pointed out: “I have always believed that Confucius, Lenin, and Russell can be united into one. I have also always hoped to unite Confucius, Lenin, and Russell into one. In this way, we can not only obtain a new Chinese philosophy, but also a new world system of learning.” Zhang Shenfu held that Confucius represented the “best tradition” in ancient Chinese philosophy; Russell represented the “best tradition” in contemporary Western philosophy; and Lenin, as a Marxist, represented the “best tradition” of dialectical materialism. The combination of these three “best traditions” could, of course, only be the best. Zhang Shenfu placed great importance on Russell because he believed that logic and science represented the most advanced achievements of Western thought at the time, especially mathematical logic and logical analysis, which were the newest scientific philosophy and scientific method. Lenin’s materialist dialectics and dialectical materialism, on the other hand, indicated that the “most excellent” elements in the history of the development of human thought throughout the world had been gathered into one, forming the most general method. This most general method meant that people in any “corner” of the world could use it to practice the highest ideal of life; therefore, it was a social science. It was precisely through the mutual combination and “mutual supplementation” of Marxism, Chinese learning, and Western learning that they could be “synthesized” and “analyzed”; “analysis” meant analysis, and “synthesis” meant “comprehensive.”

1941年至1942年，张申府又一次重申“合孔子、罗素、列宁而一之的新体系定是新世界中的新中国的新指标、新象征”的主张，并进一步对“三流合一”作了阐释。他指出：“我始终相信，孔子、列宁、罗素是可合而为一之的。我也始终希望，合孔子、列宁、罗素而一之。如此不但可得新中国哲学，如此而且可得新世界学统。”张申府认为孔子代表着中国古代哲学中一种“最好的传统”；罗素是当代西方哲学的“最好的传统”；作为马克思主义者的列宁，是辩证唯物主义的“最好的传统”。这三种“最好的传统”结合为一，当然也只能是最好的了。张申府对罗素十分看重，因为他认为逻辑与科学标志着当时西方思维最进步的成就，尤其是数理逻辑和逻辑解析，是最新的科学哲学和科学方法。列宁的唯物辩证法与辩证唯物论则表示以往把全世界人类思想发展史上“最优良”的成分集为一体，形成最一般的方法，这种最一般的方法即意味着世界上任何“一个角落”的人都能用它来实践最高的人生理想，因而，它是一种社会科学。正是“马中西”三者之间相互结合和“相补相充”，可以“综核”，可以“解析”；“解析”即分析，“综核”即“综合”。

Here, Zhang Shenfu expressed his idea of the “confluence of three currents” more clearly than before. This once again confirms that the “confluence of three currents”—the “merging into one” and “developing into one” of “Marxism, Chinese thought, and Western thought”—was his long-considered established position. In that era when the three schools were locked in confrontation, debate, and incessant wrangling, especially in the intellectual circles that had just weathered the whirlwind of the May Fourth Movement, Zhang Shenfu’s proposal of “the ideal of benevolence, loyalty, forbearance, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, trustworthiness, respect, incorruptibility, shame, courage, warmth, yielding, frugality, centrality, and attainment” [15]15 This is a list of traditional Confucian virtues and ethical concepts, drawn from classical Chinese thought. fully demonstrates his courage and forthrightness, quite possessing the ancient Confucian spirit that “the will of even a common man cannot be taken from him.” [16]16 A classical allusion to the Analects of Confucius (Zihan 9:26): “The three armies can be deprived of their commander, but the will of even a common man cannot be taken from him.” Zhang Shenfu’s claim that the three currents of “Marxism, Chinese thought, and Western thought” have “no hostile conflict” seems to erase the principle of Party spirit in Marxist philosophy. Yet the emphasis of his words lies in the phrase “they are precisely awaiting mutual supplementation.” Since they are “mutually supplementary,” this indicates that the three currents originally had points of difference; “difference” is contradiction, and where there is contradiction there is conflict. However, this kind of “conflict” is not a “hostile conflict” that cannot interact and coexist, but rather opposing sides that, after undergoing “sublation” (扬扔, i.e., Aufhebung, or dialectical negation), can be “united.” Both in fact and in logic, they can entirely be “comprehensively synthesized and developed into one.” Therefore, his original intention was not a “mixture” without a primary and secondary order. Furthermore, “Lenin represents the tradition of the world’s new direction beginning”—the “new tradition” always replaces the “old tradition”—and the idea of taking Marxist philosophy as the “new tradition” and mainstream was already implicit in Zhang Shenfu’s expression. “Lenin represents the general method of gathering the finest achievements of past world traditions, namely materialist dialectics and dialectical materialism, as well as the social science that practices the highest ideal of human life from a concrete corner”—this is the most crucial core sentence, capable of reflecting the profound meaning he intended to convey. Moreover, more than ten years earlier, Zhang Shenfu had already pointed out: “Ideally, the future world philosophy should be an analytic dialectical materialism.”

这里，张申府把他的“三流合一”的思想表述得比之前更加清晰了。这再一次确证了“三流合一”即“马中西”三者的“合而为一”“发展为一”是其长期思考的既定主张。在三派形同势敌、论战和争吵不休的那个年代，尤其在刚经历五四运动狂飙席卷的思想界，张申府提出“仁、忠、恕、义、礼、智、信、敬、廉、耻、勇、温、让、俭、中以达的理想”，足见其勇敢和率直，颇有古儒“匹夫不可夺志”的气概。张申府说“马中西”三者“无敌对冲突”，似乎也有抹杀马克思主义哲学的党性原则之嫌。但其言重点在于三者之间“正待相补相充”一句。既然是“相补相充”，那就说明三者本有差异之处，“差异”就是矛盾，有矛盾就有冲突。然而这种“冲突”并非不可互动共存的“敌对冲突”，乃是经过“扬扔”（扬弃，即辩证的否定）之后可“合”的对立的双方，无论从事实还是逻辑上，都完全可以“综核，发展为一”。因此，他的本意并非无主次的“混合”。再者，“列宁代表世界新的方在开始的传统”——“新统”总是要取代“旧统”的，以马克思主义哲学为“新统”、主流，这种思想已经潜含在张申府的表述中了。“列宁表示集过去世界传统最优良成分大成的一般方法，即唯物辩证法与辩证唯物论，以及从一个实落角落来实践最高的人生理想的社会科学”，这是最关键的核心句，能够反映其所要表达的深意，而且早在十多年前，张申府就已指出：“在理想上，将来的世界哲学应是一种解析的辩证唯物论。”

In 1936, the 27-year-old Zhang Dainian put forward the initial conception of “comprehensive innovation.” He said: “A new path for future philosophy should be to synthesize materialism, idealism [17]17 In this context, “ideal” (理想) refers to the ethical and metaphysical idealism of Confucian philosophy, not philosophical idealism in the Western sense., and analysis into one.” According to Zhang Dainian’s view, so-called “synthesis” is not a “hodgepodge” nor a “mixture”; every synthesis must have an important axis serving as its backbone. For example, Kant synthesized continental European rationalist philosophy and British empiricist philosophy; Kant relied on continental rationalism, which was in fact an idealist synthesis. The synthesis Zhang Dainian spoke of was actually an organic mutual integration; the backbone or basic theory he relied on was Marxist dialectical materialism, a materialist synthesis. This synthesis, in reality, takes materialism as its foundation and absorbs Confucian philosophy as “idealism” and Western philosophy as “analysis,” “in order to establish a broad, profound, and subtle materialism.” He clearly pointed out that this idea originated from the founders of Marxism; it was Marx and Engels who indicated the necessary path for the development of new materialism. Zhang Dainian further pointed out: “The synthesis of materialism and idealism can be said to have actually begun with the new materialism of Marx and Engels. Everyone knows that new materialism is a synthesis of materialism and the theory of opposites [18]18 “Theory of opposites” (对理法) is Zhang Dainian’s term for dialectics, specifically materialist dialectics.; and because it incorporates the theory of opposites, using the theory of opposites as a method to handle problems, it naturally synthesizes idealism… Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to say that the synthesis of materialism, idealism, and analysis spoken of here originates with the creators of new materialism. The synthesis of materialism, idealism, and analysis is in fact the inevitable path for the development of new materialism.” “New materialism” (新唯物论) is Marx’s own term for his philosophy; “the theory of opposites” (对理法) refers to Marx’s materialist dialectics. Marxist philosophy takes materialism as its ontology and absorbs Hegel’s “theory of opposites”; it is both materialist and dialectical. Therefore, Marxist philosophy seeks to transform nature and the social environment, embodying its analytical character; at the same time, it must emphasize human power and accommodate human ideals, embodying its synthetic character. Being both analytical and synthetic, this aligns with the idea that materialism, idealism, and analysis can be organically combined, implicitly containing the dimension of the “confluence of three currents” of Marxist philosophy, Chinese philosophy, and Western philosophy, which can also be called the “convergence of three learnings.”

1936年，27岁的张岱年提出了“综合创新”的最初设想。他说：“今后哲学之一个新路，当是将唯物、理想、解析，综合于一。”根据张岱年的看法，所谓“综合”不是“杂绊”，也不是“混合”，凡综合都必须有一个重要的轴心起骨干作用。如康德就综合了欧洲大陆唯理论哲学和英国经验主义哲学，康德以欧陆的唯理论为倚重，其实是一种唯心论综合；张岱年所说的综合实际上是一种有机的相互结合，他所倚重的骨干或基本理论就是马克思主义的辩证唯物论，是一种唯物论综合。这种综合，实际上乃是以唯物论为基础而吸收作为“理想”的儒家哲学与“解析”的西方哲学，“以建立一种广大深微的唯物论”。他明确指出，这一思想来源于马克思主义的创始人，是马克思和恩格斯指出了新唯物论发展的必由途径。张岱年进一步指出：“唯物与理想之综合，可以说实开始于马克思、恩格斯的新唯物论。人们都知道新唯物论是综合唯物论与对理法而成的，而因其容纳了对理法，以对理为方法来处理问题。乃自然综合了理想……所以如谓今所说唯物、理想、解析之综合，乃发端于新唯物论的创造者，亦不为过。唯物、理想、解析之综合，实乃新唯物论发展之必然的途径。”“新唯物论”即“新唯物主义”，这是马克思对自己哲学的称谓；“对理法”指马克思的唯物辩证法。马克思主义哲学就是以唯物论为本体论吸收了黑格尔的“对理法”，它是既唯物又辩证的，因此马克思主义哲学是要变革自然和社会环境，体现了其分析性；同时又要注重人的力量，容纳人的理想，体现了其综合性。既分析又综合，这就契合了唯物、理想、解析三者可以有机结合的思想，潜含着马哲、中哲、西哲“三流合一”，也可以称为“三学合一”的向度。

Regarding the insight of the “confluence of three currents” (“convergence of three learnings”) proposed by the two Zhangs, in the view of some orthodox Marxist philosophers, the philosophy of “analytic dialectical materialism” was not authentic and pure Marxism; the philosophy of the two Zhangs was merely a philosophy of the study, of no benefit to China’s democratic revolution. The orthodox philosophers looked down on the philosophy of the two Zhangs, adopting an attitude of rejection toward it and publicly criticizing it as “a reprint of idealism.” In the view of these orthodox philosophers, the idea of the “confluence of three currents” of “Marxism, Chinese thought, and Western thought” “unites” Russell’s method of logical analysis with Marxist philosophy—does this not amount to eclecticism and compromise between Marxist philosophy and idealist philosophy, or even a concession to idealism? In fact, the critics were unaware that Russell, in his early years, was influenced by neo-Hegelianism and was once an idealist. However, after founding the system of analytic philosophy, he tended toward neo-realism in ontology; he was a famous atheist in Western intellectual circles at the time, and in his later years he specifically criticized idealism. Therefore, it is incoherent to say that Russell was an idealist. If we base ourselves on the long scroll of historical development and consider the future of Chinese culture, the insight of the two Zhangs is a philosophical wisdom with foresight. Most importantly, they stood on the ground of Marxist philosophy and openly “relied on” Marxism to put forward their propositions and insights for constructing a new mainstream culture in China.

对于二张先生提出的“三流合一”（“三学合一”）的见解，在一些正统马克思主义哲学家看来， “解析的辩证唯物论”哲学并不是正宗的和纯粹的马克思主义，二张的哲学只不过是一种书斋里的哲学，无益于中国的民主革命。正统派哲学家们看不上二张的哲学，就对这种哲学采取排斥态度，公开批判它是“唯心主义的翻版”。在这些正统派哲学家看来，“马中西”“三流合一”的观点把罗素的逻辑分析方法与马克思主义哲学进行“合一”，这岂不是在马克思主义哲学和唯心主义哲学之间搞折中调和，甚至是在向唯心主义妥协？其实，批评者们有所不知，罗素早年受新黑格尔主义影响，一度是唯心主义者。但他自创立分析哲学体系后，便在本体论上趋向新实在论，是当时西方思想界著名的无神论者，晚年专门批判唯心论。因此，说罗素就是一位唯心主义者，那是不通的。如果我们立足于历史发展的长卷和为中国文化的前途着想，二张的见解是一种具有远见的哲学睿识。最重要的，他们是站在马克思主义哲学的立场上，公开以“倚重”马克思主义而提出其构建中国新主流文化的主张和见解。

Although Mr. Zhang Dainian was influenced by his elder brother in his philosophical stance, because his academic background was not entirely the same, there were also slight differences in degree. When Zhang Shenfu studied at Peking University, he first enrolled in the Department of Philosophy and later transferred to the Department of Mathematics, thus having a dual academic background in philosophy and mathematics. Therefore, in philosophy he relied on both Marx’s dialectical materialism and Russell’s mathematical logic. To elaborate, he adhered to a Marxist philosophical position in philosophical ontology, while in methodology he more highly esteemed Russell’s mathematical logic, as seen in his phrases such as “quantitative, grandly objective” and his proposal of “mutual supplementation and mutual complementation,” and so forth, which show his appreciation for the “scientificity” of Russell’s quantification, symbolization, and mathematical formalization. Mr. Zhang Dainian, however, specialized in philosophy; his understanding of Russell was mainly influenced by his elder brother, and his study of Russell also focused primarily on Russell’s analytic philosophy, while he may not have delved deeply into his mathematics and logic. His greater interest lay in studying Marxist “new materialism.” This is not to say that the two Zhangs differed in their Marxist philosophical stance, but rather that in terms of effort and depth of understanding of Russell’s theory, Zhang Dainian may have been inferior to Zhang Shenfu. According to Mr. Zhang Dainian’s recollections, when he was young he read Chinese translations of Engels’s *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* and *Anti-Dühring*, and Lenin’s *Materialism and Empirio-Criticism*. He said of these books, “Although the translations were not very lucid, one could grasp the general idea.” “I was convinced by the basic viewpoints of dialectical materialism (including historical materialism). I compared dialectical materialism with modern Western neo-realism, pragmatism, philosophy of life, emergent evolutionism, neo-Hegelianism, and the philosophy of the superman, and concluded that dialectical materialism, being both profound and comprehensive and also practical, was truly the most valuable philosophy. In the 1930s, some people promoted materialist dialectics while opposing formal logic; others used formal logic to attack dialectics. At that time, my elder brother Shenfu both promoted materialist dialectics and valued formal logic, believing both were important and not contradictory to each other. Shenfu advocated combining materialist dialectics with Russell’s method of logical analysis, and repeatedly promoted ‘the confluence of Lenin, Russell, and Confucius into one,’ that is, combining Confucius’s ‘benevolence’ with Lenin’s materialist dialectics and Russell’s analytical method. (Unfortunately, he had the ambition but did not complete it, failing to produce a systematic work.) At the time, I roughly held the same view as his.” Shortly after the sensational “Manifesto of Ten Professors” [19]19 The “Manifesto of Ten Professors” refers to the “Manifesto on the Construction of Chinese-Based Culture” published in January 1935 by ten prominent Chinese intellectuals, including Tao Xisheng and He Bingsong, advocating a cultural construction centered on Chinese national characteristics. was published in January 1935, Zhang Dainian responded with a long article titled “On the Construction of a Chinese-Based Culture,” in which he first proposed the theory of “creative synthesis.” It can be said that the origin of the idea of “creative transformation” should be traced back to Mr. Zhang Dainian.

张岱年先生在哲学立场上虽受其兄的影响，但因其学术背景不尽全同，故在程度上也略有差异。张申府在北大读书时曾先在哲学系，后转数学系，有着哲学与数学两个学科背景。因此，他在哲学上既倚重马克思的辩证唯物论，又倚重罗素的数理逻辑。进一步来说，他在哲学本体论上持马克思主义哲学立场，而在方法论上更推崇罗素的数理逻辑学，如他所说“数量的、大客观的”，以及提出“互补互充”，等等，可见他对罗素定量化、符号化、数理公式化的“科学性”比较赞赏。而张岱年先生是专攻哲学的，他对罗素的了解主要受其兄的影响，对罗素的研究也主要偏重于罗素的分析哲学，而对其数学和逻辑也未必深究，他更大的兴趣在于钻研马克思主义“新唯物论”。这不是说二张在马克思主义哲学立场上有什么不同，而是说在对罗素学说的用功和了解程度上，张岱年可能要逊于张申府。据张岱年先生回忆，他在年轻时就阅读过恩格斯的《费尔巴哈论》《反杜林论》和列宁《唯物论与经验批判论》的中译本，他说，这些书“虽然译笔不甚明畅，但能窥见大意”。“我对辩证唯物论（包括历史唯物论）的基本观点心悦诚服。我把辩证唯物论与现代西方的新实在论、实用主义、生命哲学、突创进化论、新黑格尔主义以及超人哲学等，作了比较，认为还是辩证唯物论既博大精深又切合实际，实为最有价值的哲学。20世纪30年代，有人宣扬唯物辩证法，而反对形式逻辑；也有人依据形式逻辑来攻击辩证法。当时吾兄申府既宣扬唯物辩证法，又重视形式逻辑，认为二者都是重要的，彼此并无矛盾。申府主张将唯物辩证法与罗素的逻辑分析方法结合起来，并多次宣扬‘列宁、罗素与孔子三流合一’，也就是说，要将孔子的‘仁’与列宁的唯物辩证法和罗素的分析方法三者结合起来。（惜乎有志未成，没有写出系统的著作。）我当时大致也持和他相同的观点。”1935年1月轰动一时的“十教授一十宣言”发表后不久，张岱年就回应了一篇《关于中国本位的文化建设》的长文，首先提出了“创造的综合”论。可以说，“创造性转化”的思想滥觞应该追溯至张岱年先生这里。

During the “culture fever” of early 1987, Mr. Zhang Dainian pointed out that to build a new socialist culture in China, “we must certainly inherit and develop our own fine cultural traditions, while simultaneously absorbing the advanced contributions of the West in culture, gradually forming a new cultural system. This new cultural system, under the guidance of the principles of Marxism-Leninism, synthesizes the strengths of Chinese and Western cultures with socialist values to innovate Chinese culture. It is both a continuation of traditional culture and superior to existing cultures. This is China’s new socialist culture.” He emphasized: “Innovation is by no means a ‘rupture’ with traditional culture, but a continuation and development of fine traditions. Synthesizing the strengths of China and the West, merging the excellent cultures of China and the West into one, that is true innovation.” The formulation that the new socialist culture has three components—Chinese, Western, and Marxist—with “Marxism-Leninism as the guide” not only continued the thread of Zhang Shenfu’s idea of “the confluence of three into one” but also clarified the dominant and mainstream position of Marxist philosophy, thereby avoiding some people distorting “the confluence of three into one” into an eclecticism of “reconciliation” or “mixing.” Zhang Dainian’s theory of “comprehensive innovation” was systematically expressed in the book *Chinese Culture and Cultural Debates*, co-authored with Cheng Yishan.

1987年初的“文化热”中，张岱年先生指出，中国建设社会主义的新文化，“一定要继承和发扬自己的优良文化传统，同时汲取西方在文化上的先进贡献，逐步形成一个新的文化体系。这个新的文化体系，是在马克思列宁主义原则的指导下，以社会主义的价值观来综合中西文化之所长而创新中国文化。它既是传统文化的继续，又高于已有的文化。这就是中国的、社会主义的新文化”。他强调指出：“创新决不是传统文化的‘断裂’，而是优良传统的继续和发展。综合中西之所长，融会中西优秀文化为一体，这才是真正的创新。”社会主义新文化中有三个组成部分——中、 西、马，三者中以“马克思列宁主义为指导”的提法，不仅延续了张申府提出的“三流合一”的思路脉络，而且明确了马克思主义哲学的主导和主流地位，从而避免了有人把“三流合一”歪曲为“调和” “混合”的折中主义。张岱年的“综合创新”论在他与程宜山合著的《中国文化与文化论争》一书中有系统的表述。

If the philosophical contributions of the “Two Chengs” [20]20 The “Two Chengs” refers to the brothers Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi, leading Neo-Confucian philosophers of the Northern Song Dynasty. of the Northern Song Dynasty were summarized by Cheng Yi, then the philosophical contributions of the “Two Zhangs” can be said to have been summarized by Zhang Dainian. This historical coincidence is truly remarkable!

如果说北宋“二程”的哲学贡献以程颐作其总结，那么，二张的哲学贡献可以说以张岱年作其总结。这种历史的机缘巧合令人称奇！

III. From the Theory of “Comprehensive Innovation” to the Theory of “Marxist Soul, Chinese Substance, Western Function”

三、从“综合创新”论到“马魂中体西用”论

“Synthesis” is by no means an indiscriminate “mixing,” nor is “innovation” a groundless pursuit of novelty for its own sake. Following Mr. Zhang Dainian’s theory of “comprehensive innovation,” Mr. Fang Keli first proposed the four phrases “make the past serve the present, make foreign things serve China, critically inherit, comprehensively innovate,” i.e., the “sixteen-character formula,” to enrich the content of the “comprehensive innovation” theory. However, this summary also had shortcomings; it only addressed the issue of the ancient and the modern, China and the West, but did not answer the central theme of Chinese cultural debates after the October Revolution in Russia and the May Fourth Movement—the relationship among Chinese, Western, and Marxist elements. Therefore, after entering the 21st century, he made a new summary: “Marxist learning as the soul, Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function, the confluence of three into one, comprehensive innovation,” also known as the “new sixteen-character formula.”

“综合”绝非不分主次的“混合”，“创新”也不是无所凭依的标新立异。方克立先生继张岱年先生的“综合创新”论之后，先是提出了“古为今用，洋为中用，批判继承，综合创新”四句话即“十六字诀”来丰富“综合创新”论的内容。然而这一概括也有缺陷，它只是回答了古今中西问题，而没有对俄国十月革命和五四运动后中国文化论争的中心主题——中、西、马的关系问题给予回答。因此进入21世纪后，他又作出了“马学为魂，中学为体，西学为用，三流合一，综合创新”的新概括，或称为“新十六字诀”。

Mr. Fang’s new summary underwent a painstaking process of deliberation and refinement. He pointed out: “How does the Chinese Marxist school achieve comprehensive innovation in culture? In my view, its most essential characteristic is to follow the ‘concurrent harmony’ approach of ‘encompassing all differences and achieving their balance,’ scientifically and rationally integrating the three ‘learnings’ of Chinese, Western, and Marxist culture as resources. Essentially, this organically combines and dialectically unifies the guiding role of Marxism, the subjectivity of Chinese culture, and the role of Western culture (foreign culture) as ‘a stone from another mountain that can polish jade,’ [21]21 “A stone from another mountain can polish jade” is a classical Chinese idiom meaning that advice or criticism from others can help one improve oneself. ‘sitting together the wisdom of a thousand ages,’ to create a new socialist culture with a broad vision and Chinese characteristics. I believe this view of ‘Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function,’ the integration of three learnings and comprehensive innovation, conforms to the spiritual essence of Zhang Dainian’s ‘theory of cultural comprehensive innovation,’ and also conforms to the spiritual essence of Li Dazhao’s theory of ‘a third new civilization’ and Mao Zedong’s ‘method of the ancient and modern, Chinese and foreign.’” This cultural intellectual journey, with the formation and gradual perfection of the theory of “Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function,” clarified the dialectical relationship between cultural “substance” and “function.” The so-called “integration of three learnings” is the “integration” of “Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function.” On the basis of “comprehensive innovation,” “Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function” incorporates all reasonable factors, endowing Chinese culture with a cultural character that various schools can both accept and that reflects the guiding position of Marxism and the spirit of the times. If “Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function” is not adhered to, the path will either be one of “rigid” dogmatism deviating from the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, or a path of “Westernization” or “Confucianization,” which clearly does not conform to the basic national conditions of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Therefore, the most important characteristics of “Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function” are three adherences: adhering to the guidance of Marxism, adhering to the subjectivity of national culture, and adhering to absorbing the cultures of all nations of the world as nourishment.

方先生这一新概括经历了一个苦心孤诣的揣摩、推敲过程。他指出：“中国马克思主义派怎样实现文化上的综合创新呢？在我看来，其最本质的特征就是要按照‘兼赅众异而得其平衡’的‘兼和’的思路，把作为文化资源的中、西、马三‘学’科学合理地整合起来，实质上是把马克思主义的指导思想地位、中国文化的主体地位和西方文化（外来文化）的‘他山之石’地位三者有机结合起来，辩证统一起来，‘坐集千古之智’，创造具有博大气象又有中国特色的社会主义新文化。我认为这种‘马魂中体西用’三学合一、综合创新的观点，是符合张岱年‘文化综合创新论’之精神实质的，也是符合李大钊‘第三新文明’论和毛泽东‘古今中外法’之精神实质的。”这一文化心路随着“马魂中体西用”论的形成和日臻完善，明确了文化的“体”与“用”之间的辩证关系。所谓“三学合一”，乃是“马魂中体西用”的“合一”，“马魂中体西用”在“综合创新”的基础上，兼收一切合理的因素，使中国文化具有了一种各家各派既能接受又能体现出马克思主义指导地位和时代精神的文化特质。假若不坚持“马魂中体西用”，要么是偏离中国特色社会主义道路的“僵化”的教条主义之路，要么是“西化”“儒化”之路，显然不符合中国特色社会主义的基本国情。所以，“马魂中体西用”最重要的表征就是三个坚持：坚持以马克思主义为指导，坚持民族文化的主体性，坚持吸收世界各民族文化作为营养。

Mr. Fang holds that “Marxism as the soul, Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function” should become the dominant academic paradigm for contemporary Chinese philosophy and social sciences. In his view, an academic paradigm is the embodiment of norms—beliefs, values, methods, and discursive expressions—that are commonly recognized and observed by all members of a specific academic community, formed through long-term joint exploration and磨合. [22]22 磨合 (móhé): literally “grinding and fitting together,” a common Chinese term for the process of磨合, adaptation, and mutual adjustment between different elements or parties. Academic groups with different academic positions, value orientations, research methods, and attitudes often have different academic paradigms, and the divergences and oppositions among them profoundly reflect the complex conditions of the intellectual world of that era. Under the new historical conditions, on the one hand, Marxism is the mainstream ideology of the state and the soul-vein of the nation; on the other hand, as the Marxist discipline itself within the academic sphere and Marxist schools within other humanities and social sciences, their roles and circumstances in various disciplines should establish a normative mechanism to handle relations with liberalism and cultural conservatism. At the same time, it is still necessary to promote the benign interaction among “Marxist learning,” “Chinese learning,” and “Western learning,” enabling them to continue organic integration so as to constantly enrich the body of China’s new culture. Compared with the paradigms of “wholesale Westernization,” “reviving Confucianism,” as well as “Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function” and “Western learning as the substance, Chinese learning as the function,” the paradigm of “Marxism as the soul, Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function” undoubtedly possesses advantages that other paradigms lack.

方先生认为，“马魂中体西用”应成为当代中国哲学社会科学的主导学术范式。在他看来，学术范式是一个特定学术共同体所有成员都共同认可和遵守的信念、价值、方法、话语表达等规范的体现，它是长期共同探索、磨合而形成的。具有不同学术立场、价值取向、研究方法和态度的学术群体，往往会有不同的学术范式，它们之间的分歧和对立，深刻地反映着那个时代思想界的复杂情况。在新的历史条件下，马克思主义一方面是国家的主流意识形态，是国家之魂脉；另一方面，作为学术领域中的马克思主义学科自身和其他人文社会科学中的马克思主义学派，他们在各个学科中的作用和境遇，都应该建立一种规范机制来处理与自由主义和文化保守主义之间的关系。同时，仍然要促进“马学”“中学”“西学”三者之间的良性互动，使其能够继续有机融合以不断丰富中国新文化的机体。相对于“全盘西化”“复兴儒学”，以及“中体西用”与“西体中用”范式，“马魂中体西用”的范式无疑具有其他范式所不具备的优越性。

After the theory of “Marxism as the soul, Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function” was proposed, it produced broad and far-reaching influence in academic circles. Apart from basically positive affirmation, approval, and support, there were inevitably some voices of criticism and questioning. As for the critical and questioning views, they mainly focused on the following two aspects: first, questioning, or even sharp criticism, of “Marxist learning as the soul”; second, criticism of the “substance-function” mode of thinking, arguing that it follows the traditional mode of thinking and calling for an end to the “debate on substance and function.” Some also argued that the “Marxism as the soul, Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function” theory, by replacing the binary “substance-function” model with a ternary “soul, substance, function” model, is “piling beds upon beds and roofs upon roofs,” [23]23 “Piling beds upon beds and roofs upon roofs” (叠床架屋): a Chinese idiom meaning unnecessary duplication or redundancy. a “miscellaneous patchwork,” or even “schizophrenic.” In response, Mr. Fang gave his reply. He pointed out that “Marxism as the soul, Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function” is fundamentally different from the old “Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function”; these are two different meanings of “function.” “Western learning as the function” is the positioning of “Western learning” in the comprehensive innovation of contemporary Chinese culture; it does not mean that “Marxism as the soul” and “Chinese learning as the substance” have no “function” of their own. The “function” of “Marxism as the soul” lies in playing its role as the guiding ideology; the “function” of “Chinese learning as the substance” lies in its “function” as the “living subject, creative subject, and receptive subject”; and the “function” of “Western learning” lies in its being “practical techniques for handling affairs” or “stones from other hills.” [24]24 “Stones from other hills” (他山之石): a classical Chinese allusion from the *Book of Songs* (《诗经》): “Stones from other hills may serve to polish the jade of this one” (他山之石，可以攻玉), meaning that advice or help from others can be used to improve oneself.

“马魂中体西用”论提出之后，在学界产生了广泛深远的影响，除基本上持正面肯定、赞同、支持的态度之外，也不免有一些批评和质疑的声音。仅就批评、质疑的观点来讲，主要集中在如下两个方面：一是对“马学为魂”的质疑，甚至是激烈的批评；二是对“体用”思维模式的批评，认为它沿袭了传统的思维模式，呼吁应该终结“体用之辩”。还有人认为，“马魂中体西用”论用“魂、体、用”三元模式取代“体、用”二元模式是“叠床架屋”，是“杂凑式的拼盘”，甚至是“精神分裂”。对此，方先生给予了回应。他指出，“马魂中体西用”与旧式的“中学为体西学为用”有着本质区别，这是两种意义上的“用”。“西学为用”是在当代中国文化的综合创新中对“西学”的定位，并不是说“马魂”与“中体”就没有各自的“用”了。“马魂”之“用”就在于发挥其指导思想的作用，“中体”之“用”在于它具备的“生命主体、创造主体和接受主体”之“用”，而“西学”之“用”在于它是“应事方术”或“他山之石”。

The theory of “Marxism as the soul, Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function” uses categories inherent in Chinese philosophy to synthesize various schools of thought, drawing on, summarizing, and criticizing various debates on “Chinese and Western substance and function” since modern times. Mr. Fang has merely opened up a new perspective within the modern popular cultural view of “Chinese and Western substance and function” for the cultural structural-functional theory of “Marxism as the soul, Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function,” aiming to endow the theory of “comprehensive innovation” with richer connotations. The theory of “Marxism as the soul, Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function” combines the cultural policies of the Communist Party of China, including Mao Zedong’s various insights and propositions on Chinese and Western culture over the years, with Mr. Zhang Dainian’s theory of “comprehensive innovation,” opening up a new artistic conception. The theory of “Marxism as the soul, Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function” shares a common value pursuit with the theory of “comprehensive innovation,” namely, inheriting excellent cultural traditions, combining the strengths of Chinese and Western cultures, and creating a “new socialist culture with Chinese characteristics.” If “the convergence of three currents” [25]25 “The convergence of three currents” (三流合一): a reference to the idea, associated with Zhang Dainian, that the three main intellectual currents—Marxism, traditional Chinese learning, and Western learning—should converge in the creation of a new Chinese culture. and “comprehensive innovation” are synthetic propositions, then “Marxism as the soul, Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function” is an analytic proposition; for “innovation,” both analysis and synthesis are necessary.

“马魂中体西用”论是运用中国哲学中所固有的范畴综合各家各派之说，对近代以来各种关于“中西体用”之辩的借鉴、总结和批判，方先生只不过使“马魂、中体、西用”的文化结构功能论在近代流行的“中西体用”的文化观中重新开辟了一个新的视角，旨在为“综合创新”论赋注更丰富的内涵。“马魂中体西用”论把中国共产党的文化方针包括毛泽东历来对中西文化发表的一些见解、提出的一些主张同张岱年先生的“综合创新”论结合起来开显出新的意境；“马魂中体西用”论与“综合创新”论有着共同的价值追求，那就是继承优秀文化传统、兼和中西文化之优长，创造出“中国特色社会主义新文化”。如果说，“三流合一”“综合创新”是综合命题，“马魂中体西用”则是分析命题，而对“创新”来说，分析与综合都是必要的。

IV. “The Second Integration”—The Main Thread of Thought in “Comprehensive Innovation”

四、“第二个结合”——“综合创新”的思想主线

Mr. Fang Keli was the leading figure who wholeheartedly advocated the theory of cultural “comprehensive innovation” after Mr. Zhang Dainian. The theory of “Marxism as the soul, Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function” he proposed both enriches and develops the theory of cultural “comprehensive innovation.” Just as Mr. Zhang’s cultural view of “comprehensive innovation” underwent a process of deliberation spanning half a century, Mr. Fang’s cultural view in his later years did not emerge by chance either; it was an insight formed through decades of philosophical research and teaching work, transforming knowledge into wisdom. There is a red thread of thought running through the entire academic careers of Mr. Fang Keli and even Mr. Zhang Dainian: that the basic principles of Marxism should be integrated with China’s excellent traditional culture.

方克立先生是继张岱年先生之后全力倡导文化“综合创新”论的领头人，他提出的“马魂中体西用”论既是对文化“综合创新”论的充实，也是对“综合创新”论的发展。正像张先生的“综合创新”的文化观有长达半个世纪的运思过程一样，方先生晚年的文化观也不是偶然出现的，而是在长达数十年哲学研究和教学工作中转识成智的见解。有一条思想红线贯穿于方克立先生甚至包括张岱年先生学术生涯的始终，那就是马克思主义基本原理应同中国优秀传统文化相结合。

First, Mr. Fang held that for foreign cultures to play a role in the soil of Chinese culture, they must achieve Sinicization; whether Western philosophy or Marxist philosophy, neither can escape this law. The essence of what is called the Sinicization of Marxism is in fact “the Two Integrations.” [26]26 “The Two Integrations” (两个结合): the official formulation that the basic principles of Marxism must be integrated with China’s concrete reality and with China’s excellent traditional culture. This was later expanded to “the Second Integration” (第二个结合), referring specifically to the integration with traditional culture. When the “Cultural Revolution” ended, Mr. Fang was at the age of forty, when one is no longer perplexed. [27]27 “At the age of forty, when one is no longer perplexed” (不惑之年): a classical allusion to Confucius’s *Analects* (《论语·为政》): “At forty, I was no longer perplexed” (四十而不惑). Together with his colleagues, he initiated a wave of research on the “category of Chinese philosophy” and took the lead in conducting in-depth and systematic research on the category of “knowing and acting,” writing *The Theory of Knowing and Acting in the History of Chinese Philosophy*. In this book, he argued that for studying the history of Chinese philosophy and the history of Chinese philosophical categories, Mao Zedong’s *On Practice* and *On Contradiction* (abbreviated as the “Two Essays”) should serve as models, because the “Two Essays” continue the discussion of the problems of knowing and acting and the theory of yin-yang contradiction in traditional Chinese philosophy. Through these two works, Mao Zedong systematically summarized the practical experience of the Chinese revolution and pointed out a path for integrating the universal principles of Marxism with the concrete reality of the Chinese revolution. At the same time, Mao Zedong’s “view of knowing and acting” embodied the spirit of integrating Chinese philosophy with the basic principles of Marxist philosophy. “In the process of integrating Marxism with traditional Chinese philosophy, critically transforming it, and creatively converting it, Mao Zedong’s *On Practice* and *On Contradiction* have so far been the most successful and outstanding.” He believed that the “creative conversion” of traditional Chinese culture cannot be separated from the “critical transformation” of Marxism; only by integrating with China’s concrete reality and with China’s excellent traditional thought and culture can Marxism become Marxism in China. As early as 1984, he clearly stated: “The Sinicization of Marxism includes integration with the concrete reality of the Chinese revolution and integration with the excellent achievements of traditional Chinese thought and culture. Marxist philosophy developed in China indeed also has the problem of adopting appropriate national forms that are loved and enjoyed by the masses.” [28]28 This quotation is from Fang Keli’s 1984 work, as cited by the author. This is currently the earliest source we can find in academic circles after the end of the “Cultural Revolution” that summarizes the Sinicization of Marxism as “the Two Integrations.”

首先，方先生认为，外来文化要在中国文化土壤中发挥作用，必须实现中国化，无论西方哲学还是马克思主义哲学，都脱不开这一规律。所谓马克思主义中国化，其实质就是“两个结合”。“文化大革命”结束时，方先生正值不惑之年。他与同人们共同掀起了“中国哲学范畴”的研究热潮，并率先对“知行”范畴进行深入系统的研究，撰写《中国哲学史的知行观》。他在这本书中认为，研究中国哲学史和中国哲学范畴史，毛泽东的《实践论》《矛盾论》（简称“两论”）应为典范，因为“两论”是接着中国传统哲学中的知行问题和阴阳矛盾学说讲的。毛泽东通过这两部著作系统地总结了中国革命的实践经验，指出了一条马克思主义普遍原理与中国革命具体实际相结合的道路，同时，毛泽东的“知行观”则体现了把中国哲学同马克思主义哲学基本原理相结合的精神，“马克思主义在与中国传统哲学相结合，对其进行批判改造、创造性转换的过程中，至今还是以毛泽东的《实践论》和《矛盾论》做得最成功、最出色”。他认为中国传统文化的“创造性转换”离不开马克思主义的“批判改造”，马克思主义只有同中国具体实际相结合、同中国优秀的传统思想文化相结合，才能成为中国的马克思主义。早在1984年，他就明确说道：“马克思主义中国化包括与中国革命的具体实际相结合以及与中国传统思想文化的优秀成果相结合。在中国发展起来的马克思主义哲学也确有一个采取适当的民族形式，为人民群众所喜闻乐见的问题。”这是目前我们所能看到的“文化大革命”结束后学界把马克思主义中国化概括为“两个结合”比较早的出处。

In 1986, Mr. Fang undertook the key project of the National Social Science Planning “Research on Modern New Confucianism.” The basic basis for this research project was his theory, proposed during the “cultural fever,” of the interaction among three cultural currents: “the Chinese Marxist school, the liberal Westernization school, and the cultural conservative school mainly represented by modern New Confucianism.” Mr. Fang pointed out that modern New Confucianism must be approached and studied from the Marxist standpoint, viewpoint, and method, and that the explorations and contributions of modern New Confucianism in modernizing traditional philosophy and sinicizing Western philosophy should be fully affirmed. In sinicizing Western philosophy—that is, combining Western philosophy with traditional Chinese philosophy—they transcended tradition without departing from it. Inspired by this, Mr. Fang proposed: “Marxist philosophy also has a problem of sinicization; it must be combined with the concrete practice of China’s revolution and construction, and also with the fine traditions of Chinese philosophy, so that in both content and form it becomes a truly sinicized Marxism.” He further pointed out that these “two integrations” are the necessary path for the sinicization of Marxism: “As an imported ideological doctrine, if Marxist philosophy is to spread, develop, and take root in China, it must be combined with the concrete reality of China’s revolution and construction, and with China’s inherent thought and culture, including the fine traditions of Chinese philosophy. These two ‘integrations’ are the inevitable path for the sinicization of Marxist philosophy.” In particular, “the Second Integration”—the integration of Marxism with the fine traditions of Chinese culture—is an understanding of the laws governing the sinicization of foreign cultures and a summary of the historical experience of the Chinese Communists. He said: “Marxism is not hostile or opposed to the fine traditions of Chinese culture; on the contrary, it strives to integrate with them; otherwise, it could not take root in China. From Chinese Marxists such as Li Dazhao, Qu Qiubai, Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi, and Deng Xiaoping, we can all see the effort to combine Marxism with Chinese traditions.”

1986年，方先生承担了国家社会科学规划重点项目“现代新儒学研究”，这一研究项目的基本依据是他于“文化热”中提出的“中国马克思主义派、自由主义的西化派和以现代新儒家为主要代表的文化保守主义派”三派文化思潮互动的理论。方先生指出，必须用马克思主义立场、观点、方法对待和研究现代新儒学，要充分肯定现代新儒家在传统哲学现代化和西方哲学中国化方面所作的探索和贡献，他们在把西方哲学中国化即把西方哲学与中国传统哲学相结合中超越了传统，但又不离传统。受此启发，方先生提出：“马克思主义哲学也有一个中国化的问题，它要和中国革命与建设的具体实践相结合，也要和中国哲学优良传统相结合，在内容和形式上都成为真正是中国化的马克思主义。”他进而指出，这“两个结合”是马克思主义中国化的必由之路，“马克思主义哲学作为一种外来的思想学说它要在中国传播、发展并扎下根来，必须与中国革命和建设的具体实际相结合，与中国固有的思想文化包括中国哲学的优良传统相结合。这两个‘结合’是马克思主义哲学中国化的必然途径”。尤其“第二个结合”即马克思主义与中国文化优良传统的结合，是对外来文化中国化的规律性的认识，也是对中国共产党人的历史经验的总结，他说：“马克思主义对于中国文化的优良传统，不但不是敌视和对立的，而且力求和它相结合，否则它就不能在中国生根。我们从李大钊、瞿秋白、毛泽东、周恩来、刘少奇、邓小平这些中国的马克思主义者身上都可以看到将马克思主义和中国传统相结合的努力。”

Secondly, Mr. Fang believed that the ideological core of the theory of “comprehensive innovation” is “the Second Integration.” He pointed out that Mr. Zhang Dainian had believed in Marxist dialectical materialism from an early age. Together with his elder brother Zhang Shenfu, in the 1930s he proposed a new philosophy of “the confluence of three currents” and “integration into one,” advocating that to develop a new materialist philosophy in China, it must be combined with China’s inherent materialist and dialectical thought traditions. During the “cultural fever” of the 1980s, while clearly proposing the theory of cultural “comprehensive innovation,” Mr. Zhang emphasized that “the core of cultural comprehensive innovation is the integration of Marxism with the fine traditions of Chinese culture.” Mr. Fang highly praised this cultural proposition of Mr. Zhang. He pointed out that although Mr. Zhang Dainian was an intellectual lacking revolutionary practical experience, he was an expert in Chinese philosophy with a fervent desire and clear self-awareness to sinicize Marxist philosophy. “Therefore, his explorations were mainly focused on the integration of Marxist philosophy with the fine traditions of Chinese philosophy.” “Mr. Zhang Dainian was one of the most thoughtful and far-sighted philosophers of 20th-century China. In his youth, he was convinced that dialectical materialism was ‘the greatest philosophy of the contemporary era.’ He always firmly grasped this essence of the spirit of the times and the forward direction of advanced culture, organically combining it with the essence of the national spirit and the fine traditions of Chinese culture. He made a series of pioneering contributions in philosophical research, cultural research, and national studies (especially Chinese philosophical research), effectively promoting the development of contemporary Chinese philosophy and culture.”

其次，方先生认为“综合创新”论的思想核心是“第二个结合”。他指出，张岱年先生早年就信仰马克思主义的辩证唯物论，他和其兄张申府于20世纪30年代提出“三流合一”“综合于一”的新哲学，主张要在中国发展新唯物论哲学，就必须与中国固有的唯物论和辩证法思想传统相结合。在80年代“文化热”中，张先生在明确提出文化“综合创新”论的同时，强调其“文化的综合创新的核心是马克思主义与中国文化的优秀传统的结合”，方先生高度评价张先生这一文化主张。他指出，张岱年先生虽然是一个缺少革命实践经验的知识分子，但却是中国哲学方面的专家，他有一种将马克思主义哲学中国化的热烈愿望和明确的自觉意识，“因此他的探索就主要是在马克思主义哲学与中国哲学优秀传统相结合方面”。“张岱年先生是20世纪中国好学深思、最有远见的哲学家之一。他在青年时代就确信辩证唯物论是‘当代最伟大的哲学’，始终牢牢把握这一时代精神的精华和先进文化的前进方向，把它与民族精神的精华和中国文化的优良传统有机地结合起来，在哲学研究、文化研究、国学研究（特别是其中的中国哲学研究）等方面做出了一系列开创性的贡献，有力地推动了当代中国哲学和文化的发展。”

Because Mr. Zhang Dainian and Mr. Fang Keli had a high degree of tacit understanding and consensus on cultural views, Mr. Fang not only co-edited *An Introduction to Chinese Culture* with Mr. Zhang but also more comprehensively elaborated the inner thought of the “comprehensive innovation” theory. In his later years, Mr. Fang repeatedly emphasized that his theory of “Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function” was merely combining it with the “confluence of three currents” and “comprehensive innovation” thought of the two Zhangs (Shenfu and Dainian) to form a relatively complete contemporary Chinese Marxist cultural theory. Following this intellectual path, he wrote: “The construction of new contemporary Chinese culture must be guided by Marxism, and it must also uphold the subjectivity of national culture. How to organically combine the two? I very much agree with Mr. Zhang Dainian’s approach, which is to place them in the model of ‘Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function’—the confluence of three currents—and to innovate Chinese culture by synthesizing the strengths of Chinese and Western cultures with socialist values. The integration of Marxism with the fine traditions of Chinese culture should be the main direction of China’s cultural development.”

由于张岱年、方克立二位先生在文化观上有着高度默契和共识，方先生不仅与张先生合作主编了《中国文化概论》，而且更全面地阐述“综合创新”论的内在思想。方先生晚年一再强调他的“马魂中体西用”论不过是把它与二张（申府、岱年）先生的“三流合一”“综合创新”思想结合起来，形成为一种比较完整的当代中国马克思主义文化理论。本着这一心路，他写道：“当代中国新文化建设要以马克思主义为指导，又要挺立民族文化的主体性，怎样把二者有机地结合起来，我很赞成张岱年先生的思路，就是把它们放到‘马魂、中体、西用’三流合一的模式中去，以社会主义价值观来综合中西文化之所长而创新中国文化。马克思主义与中国文化优秀传统相结合应是中国文化发展的主要方向。”

People often cite Yan Fu’s critique of the “Chinese substance, Western function” cultural debate, arguing that the categories of “substance” and “function” do not conform to formal logic. However, Mr. Fang’s purpose in elaborating the theory of “Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function” was not to solve the formal structural problem of the proposition, but to address the issue of constructing subjectivity in real-world cultural debates. The complexity of this issue in content cannot be captured by formal logic. Just as the “Chinese substance, Western function” theory, popular since the late Qing dynasty, spread widely for over a hundred years despite its logical problems, the “Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function” theory is no less a correct strategy for handling the cultural relations among the “Marxist, Chinese, and Western” currents in the present and future. Both the “Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function” theory and the “comprehensive innovation” theory are permeated by the ideological theme of integrating the basic principles of Marxism with China’s fine traditional culture—that is, “the Second Integration”—and both aim to seek the generation of a new subject for China’s new mainstream culture. In Mr. Fang’s view, only when “soul,” “substance,” and “function” are all present can there be a complete organic living body. The “Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function” theory transcends the traditional binary “substance-function debate.” This is not only a supplement to and deepening of Mr. Zhang Dainian’s “comprehensive innovation” cultural view but also an innovative application of the categories of traditional Chinese philosophy.

人们通常引用严复对“中西体用”文化之辩的批判，认为“体用”范畴不合形式逻辑。但方先生阐发“马魂中体西用”论的目的并非为了解决命题的形式结构问题，而是要解决现实中文化论争的主体性建构问题，这一问题在内容上的复杂性不是形式逻辑所能套用的。正像清末以来流行的“中体西用”论不因逻辑问题而广为流传了一百多年一样，“马魂中体西用”论也不失为当下和未来处理“马中西”三派文化关系的正确方略。“马魂中体西用”论与“综合创新”论都贯穿着马克思主义基本原理同中国优秀传统文化相结合即“第二个结合”的思想主题，都旨在寻求中国新型主流文化新主体的生成。在方先生看来，只有“魂”“体”“用”三者齐备，才是一个完整的有机生命体。“马魂中体西用”论超越了传统二元结合的“体用之辩”，这不仅是对张岱年先生“综合创新”文化观的一种补充和深化，而且是对中国传统哲学范畴的一次创新性运用。

It is noteworthy that Mr. Fang repeatedly used “the Second Integration” to express his aspirations, emphasizing that “the Second Integration” was his “lifelong commitment.” Mr. Fang mentioned many times that the reason he admired Mr. Zhang Dainian’s cultural propositions was that the ideological core and main direction of the “comprehensive innovation” theory lay in integrating the basic principles of Marxism with China’s fine traditional culture. For the same reason, he also admired Mr. Feng Qi. For example, he said: “I value Zhang and Feng more. Both are sincere Marxists, both are proficient in Chinese philosophy, and both strive to combine the two to create a sinicized Marxist philosophical system. They are worthy predecessors.” “Mr. Feng Qi’s theory of wisdom combines Marxist philosophy with traditional Chinese philosophy, striving to solve the problems of how knowledge develops into wisdom, how to realize the ideal of the unity of truth, goodness, and beauty, and how to realize the all-round development of human essential forces. That is to say, it strives to overcome the disconnection between science and life, between knowledge and wisdom, and to overcome the contradiction between scientism and humanism.” From the two predecessors, Zhang and Feng, he accepted and inherited the true spirit of “integrating Marxist philosophy with traditional Chinese philosophy.” This spirit converged into the fine tradition of the Marxist school in the field of Chinese philosophical history. Mr. Fang devoted his later years to advancing this tradition in depth. Mr. Fang once publicly stated: “In my youth, I received education in the Marxist philosophical worldview and methodology, and I deeply admired it. Later, I engaged in teaching and research work in Chinese philosophy and culture. It can be said that how to combine the revolutionary and scientific spirit of Marxism with the spirit of Chinese philosophy and culture has been my lifelong commitment.” In a letter, he again stated: “I proposed the theory of ‘Marxist soul, Chinese substance, Western function’ and elaborated my views on Chinese philosophy and culture in relevant works… expressing my views on the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture (including Confucianism), and expressing that ‘taking the integration of Marxism with the essence of Chinese culture as my lifelong commitment’… It can be said that I have been very consciously ‘writing theories for the Party and the people.’ The meaning of all my hard work in this life lies herein, and the attacks and dissatisfaction I have received also stem from this.” These are his heartfelt words of self-declaration.

值得关注的是，方先生一再用“第二个结合”以明志，强调“第二个结合”是其“终生职志”。方先生多次提到他之所以服膺张岱年先生的文化主张，乃是因为“综合创新”论的思想内核和主要方向就在于把马克思主义基本原理同中国优秀传统文化相结合。基于同种原因，他也敬佩冯契先生。如说：“我比较看重张、冯二位。二位都是真诚的马克思主义者，都精通中国哲学，都力图将二者结合起来创造中国化马克思主义哲学体系，是值得尊敬的先行者。”“冯契先生的智慧学说，将马克思主义哲学和中国传统哲学相结合，力图解决知识如何发展成为智慧，如何实现真、善、美统一的理想，如何实现人的本质力量全面发展的问题，也就是说，力图克服科学与人生、知识与智慧的脱节，克服科学主义和人文主义的矛盾。”他从张、冯二位前辈那里接受和传承了“马克思主义哲学与中国传统哲学相结合”的真精神，这种精神汇成了中国哲学史界马克思主义学派的优良传统，方先生晚年致力于把这一传统向纵深推进。方先生曾公开表明：“我在青年时代就接受了马克思主义哲学世界观和方法论的教育，深为服膺，以后从事的又是中国哲学和文化方面的教学研究工作，可以说，如何把马克思主义的革命和科学精神与中国哲学和文化精神相结合是我的终生职志。”他在一封书信中再次表明：“我提出‘马魂、中体、西用’论，在有关论著中阐述自己对中国哲学和文化的看法……对马克思主义与中国传统文化（包括儒学）关系的看法，表达‘以马克思主义与中华文化精华相结合为终身职志……可以说都是非常自觉地‘为党和人民述学立论’，这一辈子辛苦工作意义尽在于此，我受人攻击不满也由于此。”这是他发自肺腑的自我明志之言。

“To establish scholarship and set forth theories for the Party and the people” — this phrase fully embodies the life and academic pursuit of a Marxist scholar. We can say with complete confidence: the school of thought and culture represented by scholars such as the two Zhangs [n31], Mr. Feng Qi [n32], and Mr. Fang Keli [n33], which takes as its “lifelong commitment” the integration of the basic principles of Marxism with China’s fine traditional culture, can rightly be called the “Comprehensive Innovation School” or the “Second Integration School” within China’s academic circles. This is precisely the Marxist school in the contemporary realm of thought and culture, especially in the field of Chinese philosophical research.

“为党和人民述学立论”——这句话充分体现了一位马克思主义学者的生命和学术追求。我们完全可以说：以二张先生、冯契先生、方克立先生等学者为代表的思想文化学派，主张把马克思主义基本原理与中国优秀传统文化相结合为其“终生职志”，这一学术流派完全可以称得上是我国学界的“综合创新派”或“第二个结合派”，这即是当代思想文化领域尤其是中国哲学研究领域中的马克思主义学派。

Mr. Fang Keli not only made “the Second Integration” the pursuit of his life and the goal of his scholarship, but also hoped that his students would carry forward the fine tradition and never depart from the main thread of thought. Mr. Fang once said, “I mainly position myself as a teacher.” Having taught for sixty years, he instructed his students to “achieve excellence in both virtue and scholarship, and to advance in learning and conduct alike,” consistently taking the integration of Marxism with China’s fine traditional culture as the main thread of thought in imparting knowledge and resolving doubts. For example, in a preface he wrote for a monograph, he stated: “The author of this book holds that the main driving force and mechanism of the Sinicization of Marxism are the demands of China’s revolutionary practice for theory, and the integration of the basic principles of Marxism with China’s concrete realities; at a deeper level, it is the integration of Marxism with China’s fine traditional culture. The reason Marxism was able to achieve Sinicization is not only because it responded to the historical demands of China’s social transformation and revolutionary practice, but also because of another fundamental reason: it was the result of a historical choice made through four hundred years of long-term, two-way, interactive exchange between Chinese and Western philosophy and culture. This is the main thread of thought running through the entire book.” To delve deeply into the essential meaning of “Marxism, Chinese culture, and Western learning,” to pioneer a new socialist school, and to fully manifest the new ethos of Chinese culture — this was not only Mr. Fang’s long-cherished wish, but also the common aspiration of Marxist scholars in China today.

方克立先生不仅把“第二个结合”作为自己生命的追求、学术的鹄的，而且希望他的学生们能够赓续优良传统，不离思想主线。方先生曾说，“我把自己主要定位为一名教师”。他从教六十年，教导学生须“德业双馨，学行并进”，始终把马克思主义与中国优秀传统文化相结合作为授业解惑的思想主线。例如，他在为一本专著所作的序言中写道：“本书作者认为，马克思主义中国化的主要动因和机制是中国革命实践对理论的需求，以及马克思主义基本原理与中国具体实际相结合，而在更深的层次上，则是马克思主义与中国优秀传统文化的结合。马克思主义之所以能够实现中国化，除了因应中国社会变革、中国革命实践的历史性需求之外，另一个根本性的原因，就是四百年来中西哲学与文化长期双向交流互动的历史性选择的结果。这是贯穿于全书的一条思想主线。”深究“马中西”之精义，开创社会主义新学派，尽显中华文化新气象，这不仅是方先生的夙愿，也是当今中国马克思主义学者们的共同志向。

The ancients said: “In learning, it is precious to have a teacher; it is also precious to have friends.” [n34] That the Chinese philosophical community has had such outstanding teachers as the two Zhangs, Mr. Feng Qi, and Mr. Fang Keli, who have left behind a rich spiritual legacy, is most precious. What is gratifying is that the theory of “comprehensive innovation” and the thesis of “Marxism as the soul, Chinese culture as the substance, and Western learning as the function” [n35] have been increasingly recognized and accepted by more and more scholars. In particular, General Secretary Xi Jinping’s elucidation of “the Two Integrations,” especially “the Second Integration,” at a new theoretical height — statements such as “Marxism is the soul,” “China’s fine traditional culture is the root,” and “promote the localization of foreign cultures” — clearly contain some elements of the thesis of “Marxism as the soul, Chinese culture as the substance, and Western learning as the function.” Reviewing today the intellectual journey of “the Second Integration” as it runs from the theory of cultural “comprehensive innovation” to the thesis of “Marxism as the soul, Chinese culture as the substance, and Western learning as the function” will certainly be helpful for deeply understanding and interpreting the important thought of “the Second Integration” at the theoretical level.

古人云：“学贵得师，亦贵得友。”中国哲学界能有二张先生、冯契先生、方克立先生这样优秀的人师留下丰厚的精神遗产，是最可珍贵的。令人欣慰的是，“综合创新”论和“马魂中体西用”论已经被越来越多的学者们认同和接受。尤其是习近平总书记对“两个结合”特别是对“第二个结合”在新的理论高度上的阐发，“马克思主义是魂脉”“中华优秀传统文化是根脉”“促进外来文化本土化”等论断，从中不难看出“马魂中体西用”论的一些元素。今日重温贯穿在从文化“综合创新”论到“马魂中体西用”论中的“第二个结合”的心路，对于在学理层面深入领会和阐释“第二个结合”的重要思想定有助益。

Source: *Marxist Theoretical Teaching and Research*, Issue 2, 2024

文章来源：《马克思主义理论教学与研究》2024年第2期

Online editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆