Actively Constructing China’s Autonomous Knowledge Classification System

Human society has developed to the point where understanding among civilizations is especially necessary. As is well known, geographical space has long ceased to be a barrier to human communication, and even institutional environments are no longer an obstacle to human cooperation. However, communication and understanding among civilizations remain a difficult problem for the development of human society. At a deeper level, understanding among civilizations especially requires a docking of modes of thought, and this docking of modes of thought is concretely and minutely reflected in the knowledge systems nurtured by different civilizations. Therefore, exploring new paths for the construction of human civilization from the perspective of knowledge systems is the general trend of the future. To date, Chinese academia has already produced numerous theoretical achievements with innovative significance in constructing an autonomous knowledge system. [1]1 “百尺竿头，更进一步” (bǎi chǐ gān tóu, gèng jìn yī bù): A Chinese idiom meaning “to make still further progress” or “to strive for even greater achievements,” literally “at the top of a hundred-foot pole, go one step further.” To make further progress, the construction of an autonomous knowledge system in the true sense should also proceed from the underlying logic to explore an autonomous knowledge classification system, and even a public theoretical framework.

人类社会发展到今天，尤其需要文明间的理解。众所周知，地理空间早就不是人类交流的隔阂，甚至制度环境也不再是人类合作的障碍。但是，文明之间的沟通理解仍然是人类社会发展的难题。深入地讲，文明间的理解尤其需要思维上的对接，而思维上的对接具体而微地反映在不同文明所孕育的知识体系上。因此，从知识体系出发探寻人类文明建设的新路径是未来的大势所趋。迄今为止，中国学界在构建自主知识体系上业已涌现出众多具有创新意义的理论成果。百尺竿头，更进一步。真正意义上的自主知识体系构建还应该从底层逻辑出发探讨自主知识分类体系，乃至公共学理框架。

The construction of an autonomous knowledge system cannot be separated from the exploration of an autonomous knowledge classification system. As the underlying logic of knowledge production, the autonomous knowledge classification system is like the “chip” of knowledge production, capable of organically optimizing and combining the “sum total of human knowledge.” Here, it is first necessary to point out that the autonomous knowledge system and the autonomous knowledge classification system are both different and closely connected. The construction of an autonomous knowledge system can be carried out in a categorized manner. However, the autonomous knowledge classification system should, in its architecture, have an overall grasp and a completely new sorting of the existing disciplinary ecology and even all past disciplinary classification systems. In this process, all the achievements of human civilization will achieve unprecedented mutual learning and complementarity, coexistence and co-prosperity, and may even form a public theoretical framework with universally applicable value. The so-called autonomous knowledge classification system and public theoretical framework, borrowing Yan Fu’s understanding of logic, are similar to “the law of all laws, the learning of all learnings.” [2]2 Yan Fu (1854–1921): A Chinese scholar and translator who introduced Western social, philosophical, and scientific ideas to China in the late Qing dynasty, including translating works by Thomas Huxley, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer. “名学” (míng xué) is his term for logic. Specifically, the autonomous knowledge classification system is a classification framework for knowledge systems. Therefore, the construction of the autonomous knowledge classification system is dedicated to finding the underlying logic behind knowledge systems. The public theoretical framework refers to the universal principle system and rule system on which the construction of the autonomous knowledge system is based. Therefore, the public theoretical framework places greater emphasis on the meta-foundation and basic structure that justify the knowledge classification system. It can be seen that the autonomous knowledge classification system and the public theoretical framework are not entirely different entities; the realization of the autonomous knowledge classification system is also the completion of the public theoretical framework.

自主知识体系的构建离不开自主知识分类体系的探索。作为知识生产的底层逻辑，自主知识分类体系犹如知识生产的“芯片”，能够对“人类知识的总和”进行有机的优化组合。在此，有必要首先指出，自主知识体系与自主知识分类体系，二者既有所不同又紧密联系。自主知识体系的构建可以按照分门别类的方式进行。但是自主知识分类体系在架构上应该对现有学科生态乃至过去所有学科分类体系有整体的把握和全新的梳理。在这个过程中，人类的一切文明成果将获得前所未有的互鉴互补、共荣共生，甚至形成具有普遍适用价值的公共学理框架。所谓自主知识分类体系以及公共学理框架，借用严复对于名学的理解，类似“一切法之法，一切学之学”。具体地讲，自主知识分类体系是有关知识体系的分类框架。因此，自主知识分类体系的建设致力于寻找知识体系背后的底层逻辑。公共学理框架是指自主知识体系建设过程中依据的普适性原理体系、法则系统。因此，公共学理框架更为强调知识分类体系证成的后设根据和基础结构。由此可见，自主知识分类体系与公共学理框架不是完全相异的存在，自主知识分类体系的实现，也就是公共学理框架的完成。

Under current circumstances, actively constructing an autonomous knowledge classification system and consciously exploring a public theoretical framework should proceed from at least the following three dimensions. First, we should break through the customary practice of exclusively discussing the construction of knowledge systems within a single discipline, fully absorb the knowledge systems of different civilizations, and have a new construction plan for the underlying logic of disciplinary differentiation and integration. Constructing an autonomous knowledge system for a single discipline plays an important supporting role in further exploring the autonomous knowledge classification system. However, if we remain at the level of constructing autonomous knowledge systems in a categorized manner, the barrier problems caused by past disciplinary divisions may be exacerbated. To date, the existing human knowledge system has been mainly established on the basis of the Western disciplinary framework. However, different civilizations have different knowledge classification systems, and various knowledge classification systems should be able to be compatible or even complementary, so as to form a more innovative integrated knowledge classification system. According to common accounts, there are over two hundred countries and regions in the world today. Just imagine how rich and diverse the understandings of the world from these different civilizations would be. It is necessary to point out in passing that the social sciences and even the humanities, in many cases, do not have an optimal solution or a single solution. Therefore, upholding an open and pluralistic view of civilization is particularly important in the process of constructing an autonomous knowledge classification system and building a public theoretical framework. We should have a comprehensive consideration of the different knowledge classification systems of human civilization and an overall grasp of the Western disciplinary framework. Moreover, the development of the times requires exploring a new knowledge classification system from the underlying logic of disciplinary differentiation and integration. A new knowledge classification system, like a new knowledge operating system, has a completely new adjustment and even reform effect on the layout of the existing disciplinary ecology.

在当前情况下，积极构建自主知识分类体系，自觉探索公共学理框架，至少应该从以下三个维度进行。其一，应突破过去专门探讨某一学科内部知识体系建设的习惯性做法，充分吸收不同文明的知识体系，对于学科分化组合的底层逻辑有新的构建方案。构建某一学科的自主知识体系，对于进一步探索自主知识分类体系具有重要的支撑作用。但是，如果一直停留于分门别类式的自主知识体系构建层次，那么过去学科分类导致的壁垒问题有可能因此加重。迄今为止，现有人类知识体系主要是依赖西方学科框架建立起来的。但是，不同文明有不同的知识分类体系，各种知识分类体系之间应该能够兼容甚至互补，以形成更具创新意义的整合性知识分类体系。根据常见的说法，当今世界有两百多个国家和地区。试想这些不同文明对于世界的理解会是多么丰富多彩。有必要附带指出的是，社会科学乃至人文学科，在不少情况下并没有最优解、唯一解，因此秉持开放多元的文明观在构建自主知识分类体系、搭建公共学理框架的过程中显得尤为重要。应该对人类文明的不同知识分类体系有通盘考虑，对西方学科框架有整体把握。更何况，时代的发展要求从学科分化组合的底层逻辑出发探索新的知识分类体系。新的知识分类体系，犹如新的知识操作系统，对于现有学科生态布局有着全新的调整乃至改革作用。

Second, we should overcome the limitations and even drawbacks of the current excessive separation between the humanities and sciences, readjust the human cognitive mode, and propose a new integration plan. The separation of the humanities and sciences is the main architecture of the current disciplinary ecology. This separation has a certain positive effect on knowledge innovation and value renewal. However, if the humanities and sciences are excessively separated, or if there is a lack of intrinsic organic connection between them, it will bring many limitations and even drawbacks. In the mid-20th century, Snow’s debate on the “two cultures” (humanistic culture and scientific culture) reflected the social problems caused by disciplinary barriers, especially the broad division between the humanities and sciences. [3]3 C. P. Snow (1905–1980): A British novelist and physical chemist who delivered the 1959 Rede Lecture “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution,” arguing that the breakdown of communication between the sciences and the humanities was a major hindrance to solving the world’s problems. Overall, prioritizing the sciences over the humanities, or prioritizing technology over the humanities, has constituted the mainstream trend of cultural construction since the 20th century. While technology provides convenience in life, it also increases the risk of life’s alienation. The disenchantment of the world, while bringing clarity to existence, has also to a certain extent led to the nihilism of life. To be honest, the problems caused by the separation of the humanities and sciences in knowledge are even more serious than the tensions presented by East-West and ancient-modern divides. There is no doubt that the humanities and sciences are not fundamentally distinct, let alone inherently conflicting. As Marx predicted: “Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science… The social reality of nature, and human natural science, or the natural science about man, are identical terms.” [4]4 This quotation is from Karl Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (the section on “Private Property and Communism”). The world is an interconnected whole; material civilization and cultural-ethical progress are equally important. Whether it is the relationship between heaven and man, or the relationship between mind and matter, there should be proper arrangements. Whether it is the knowledge system or the disciplinary framework, both should help people better understand the world and even transform it. As the saying goes, “the great system is not cut apart”; [5]5 “大制不割” (dà zhì bù gē): A phrase from the *Dao De Jing* (Chapter 28), meaning that the great system or great governance is not fragmented or cut apart; it implies holistic, non-dichotomous thinking. the mechanized cognition of humanity leads to the fragmentation of the world image, which is certainly not a blessing for the development of human society.

其二，应该克服当前文理学科过度分立的局限乃至流弊，重新调整人类认知方式，提出新的结合方案。文理分立是当前学科生态的主体架构。文理分立对于知识的创新、价值的更新具有一定程度上的积极作用。但是，如果文理过度分立，或者文理之间缺乏内在的有机联系，那么将会带来诸多的局限乃至流弊。在20世纪中叶，斯诺提出的“两种文化”（人文文化与科学文化）之争就反映了学科壁垒尤其是广义的文理分科所导致的社会问题。整体来讲，重理轻文或者说重科技轻人文，构成20世纪以来文化建设的主流趋势。科技在提供生活便利的同时，也增加了生命异化的风险。世界的祛魅固然带来存在的澄明，也在一定程度上导致生活的虚无。克实而言，文理在知识上分立所导致的问题，甚至比东西、古今所呈现的张力还要严重。毫无疑问，文理之间在根本上不是截然分明的，更不是内在冲突的。正如马克思所预言的：“自然科学往后将包括关于人的科学，正像关于人的科学包括自然科学一样：这将是一门科学……自然界的社会的现实和人的自然科学或关于人的自然科学，是同一个说法。”世界是一个普遍联系的整体，物质文明与精神文明同样重要。无论是天人关系，还是心物关系，都应该有妥善的安排。无论是知识体系，还是学科框架，都应该有助于人们更好地理解世界乃至改造世界。有道是“大制不割”，人类的机械化认知导致世界图像的支离破碎，当然不是人类社会发展的福音。

The problems caused by the excessive separation of the humanities and sciences cannot be solved merely by adjusting the ratio between them. Therefore, those interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary plans for optimizing the combination of the humanities and sciences fundamentally cannot meet the development trend of the times in constructing an autonomous knowledge classification system. The construction of a knowledge classification system in the New Era needs to further seek creative integration at the level of public theory. Among these, it is especially necessary to re-understand science and re-arrange science. Science, as a method of knowledge innovation, can serve as one of the main tools for humanity to understand and even transform the world, but this does not mean that “science” can become the self-evident consensual foundation for the development of human society. Science is, in the final analysis, “technique”; science cannot be absolutized. The public foundation of human society should be a kind of “Way” in a certain sense. This “Way,” as a holistic mode of cognition, can ensure that the process and even the results are reasonable, rational, and lawful. Therefore, the autonomous knowledge classification system will solve the problem of arranging the relationship between the humanities and sciences in the future by forming a universal public theoretical framework. From the perspective of knowledge classification, the humanities and sciences can and should be integrated. Especially with the emergence of artificial intelligence, conditions are more favorable for eliminating the opposition between the humanities and sciences. In the process of applying technology, the issue of value alignment is particularly core and fundamental. Under such circumstances, the guiding role of the humanities has broad space to play a practical role. As inspired by Marx’s brilliant proposition — “man also builds according to the laws of beauty” — [6]6 This quotation is from Karl Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (the section on “Estranged Labour”). understanding and even transforming the world should seek a realm where truth, goodness, and beauty are unified. This actually proposes the direction and even the path for deep integration between the humanities and sciences.

文理过度分立导致的问题，不能仅仅通过调整文理比例的方式来解决。因此，那些文理优化组合的跨学科、多学科方案等，在根本上不能满足构建自主知识分类体系的时代发展趋势。新时代知识分类体系的构建需要进一步寻找公共学理层次上的创造性结合。其中，尤其需要重新理解科学、安排科学。科学作为知识创新的方法，可以作为人类认识世界乃至改造世界的主要工具之一，但是这不意味着“科学”可以成为人类社会发展理所当然的共识性基础。科学归根结底是“术”，不能把科学绝对化。人类社会的公共性基础应该是某种意义上的“道”。这种“道”，作为整全性的认知方式，可以保证过程乃至结果的合情合理合法。因此，自主知识分类体系将通过形成一种普遍的公共学理框架的方式来解决未来文理关系的安置问题。从知识分类的角度讲，文理之间是能够结合的，也是应该结合的。尤其是在人工智能出现的情况下，更有条件消除文理之间的对立。在科技应用过程中，价值对齐问题是尤其核心且根本的。在这样的情况下，人文的导向作用有了发挥实际作用的广阔空间。正如马克思提出的光辉命题——“人也按照美的规律来建造”所启示的那样，认识世界乃至改造世界应该寻求真善美统一的境界。这其实提出了文理之间深度结合的方向乃至路径。

Third, we should fully absorb and utilize the spiritual resources and practical wisdom inherent in Chinese civilization, transforming the conflict between the ancient and the modern, China and the West into a synthesis of the ancient and the modern, China and the West, and propose new integrative and creative solutions. As is well known, in the process of the modern Western learning spreading eastward, the inherent academic forms of Chinese civilization suffered an unprecedented impact. In this transformation unseen in a millennium [7]7 A reference to the phrase "changes unseen in a century" (百年未有之大变局), a key concept in contemporary Chinese political discourse describing the current era of global transformation. Here the author adapts it to refer to the historical impact of Western learning on Chinese civilization., the voice that China has no science gradually ascended the stage of history. Why did such a voice emerge? This is, of course, caused by misunderstandings between civilizations. Western disciplinary concepts are not always appropriate or fitting when grasping the spiritual wealth of Chinese civilization. The differences in human thinking represented by the modern disciplinary system have already become one of the main shackles of civilizational dialogue. According to certain narrow definitions of existing natural sciences, social sciences, and even humanities, the voice that China has no science is not without reason. However, the real question is: how to understand the achievements in material civilization, institutional civilization, and even cultural-ethical progress that Chinese civilization has made over its long historical river? Human society has developed to the present day, and there has never been a greater need for understanding. Starting from the expectation of constructing a public theoretical framework, existing concepts such as science, logic, knowledge, and value all require reflection and even innovation. We should consciously seek a compatible method that can fully align with the respective strengths and advantages of Eastern and Western cultures. On this basis, we should attempt to construct a knowledge classification system and even a public theoretical framework that can adapt to the overall development of future human civilization.

其三，应该充分汲取并利用中华文明固有的精神资源、实践智慧，化古今中西之争为古今中西之合，提出新的融创方案。众所周知，在近现代西学东渐的过程中，中华文明固有的学术形态遭受前所未有的冲击。在这场千年未有之大变局中，中国无科学的声音逐渐登上历史的舞台。为什么会出现这样的声音？这当然是由文明间的误解导致的。西方的学科观念在把握中华文明的精神财富时不总是恰当妥帖。由现代学科体系所表征的人类思维差异，业已构成文明对话的主要桎梏之一。按照某些现有自然科学、社会科学乃至人文科学的狭隘性定义，中国无科学的声音可谓事出有因。但是，真正的问题在于，如何理解中华文明在漫长历史长河中取得的物质文明、制度文明乃至精神文明成就？人类社会发展到今天，前所未有地需要理解。从构建公共学理框架的期待出发，现有的科学、逻辑、知识、价值等概念都有反思乃至革新的必要。应该自觉寻找能够充分契合东西方文化各自特长、优点的兼容方式。在此基础上，尝试构建能够适应人类未来文明整体发展的知识分类体系乃至公共学理框架。

Regarding the characteristics of Chinese civilization, there have long been many classic discussions. From the perspective of knowledge classification and even public theory, it can be found that Chinese civilization historically placed more emphasis on scholarship (learning), thus forming a characteristic that emphasizes method. This, to a certain extent, explains why Chinese culture has the nature of comprehensive learning. Discipline construction focuses on the organization of known information, while academic research focuses on the resolution of practical problems. To solve complex practical problems, Chinese culture formed a methodological characteristic adept at synthesizing diverse elements and nurtured a wisdom advantage skilled at resolving partiality and bias. There is no doubt that constructing an independent knowledge classification system and even a public theoretical framework requires the symbiotic complementarity of Eastern and Western cultures. We should fundamentally eliminate a series of misunderstandings and prejudices such as the claim that China has no science, and provide a more compatible basic operating system for the future new civilization of humanity. This is the fundamental concern of constructing an independent knowledge classification system and even a public theoretical framework. In the process of exchange and mutual learning between Eastern and Western cultures, the existing disciplinary ecology will become a true field for academic contention and civilizational dialogue. A public theoretical framework with the significance of principles and laws should be able to attempt to resolve the barriers and even oppositions in thinking between different cultures. The characteristics and advantages of Chinese culture can play a unique function in this process.

有关中华文明的特点，早就有不少经典论述了。从知识分类乃至公共学理的角度出发可以发现，中华文明在历史上更为注重学术（学问），因此形成了强调方法的特点。这在一定程度上解释了中国文化具有通学性质的原因。学科建设注重已知信息的整理，学术研究则注重现实问题的解决。为了解决复杂的现实问题，中国文化形成了善于集大成的方法特色，孕育了长于解偏蔽的智慧优势。毫无疑问，构建自主知识分类体系乃至公共学理框架需要东西方文化共生互补。应该从根本上消除中国无科学等一系列误解与偏见，为人类未来新文明提供一个更具兼容性的基础操作系统，这是构建自主知识分类体系乃至公共学理框架的基本关怀。在东西文化交流互鉴的过程中，现有的学科生态将成为学术争鸣、文明对话的真正场域。具有原理、法则意义的公共学理框架，应该能够尝试解决不同文化在思维上的隔阂乃至对立问题。中国文化的特色和优势，可以在此过程中发挥独特功能。

In summary, the formation of a new form of human civilization is inseparable from the construction of an independent knowledge system. Given the current state of research in the academic community, exploring a knowledge classification system and even a public theoretical framework is an important breakthrough point for reform. In this process, the independent knowledge classification system should not be turned into a fixed standard in some sense, but should become a living cognitive scheme, an open system that can be adjusted as needed in the process of all humanity understanding and transforming the world. Such an independent knowledge classification system and even public theoretical framework are of great significance for the internal reconciliation of human civilization and for the new arrangement of the "sum total of human knowledge."

总之，人类文明新形态的形成离不开自主知识体系的构建。鉴于当前学界的研究程度，探索知识分类体系乃至公共学理框架，是改革的重要突破口。在此过程中，不应把自主知识分类体系变成某种意义上的固定标准，而应该变成一个活的认知方案，一个在全人类认识并改造世界的过程中可以随机调整的开放系统。这样的自主知识分类体系乃至公共学理框架，对于人类文明的内在和解，对于“人类知识的总和”的全新安置有着重要意义。

(The author is an associate professor at the School of Humanities, China University of Political Science and Law)

（作者系中国政法大学人文学院副教授）

Online editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧