《The Way and the Word》经典读后感有感

《The Way and the Word》是一本由Geoffrey Lloyd / Nathan Sivin著作，Yale University Press出版的Paperback图书，本书定价：USD 37.00，页数：368，特精心收集的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。

《The Way and the Word》读后感(一)：对西方评价的还比较客观，而对中国的思想理念和教育方式评价的具有主观性

当时看到这个书还很兴奋，因为自己是学古希腊文字和哲学的。但是看完了以后觉得中国的文化哲学都被以偏概全的评价了。虽然说书里对于中方的描述也没有使用负面语言，但是觉得作家对于很多事情抱有自己的看法。我的古典学教授在剑桥上学时听过这两个作者其中一个人的课，他说作者本人并不认识或者精通英文，所以我觉得看这本书应该带着批判性去看。至少不要觉得他说的都是对的。

这样比较中西同异的书再多一些就好了

《The Way and the Word》读后感(二)：门槛略高

The Way and the Word：Science and Medicine in Early China and Greece，Geoffrey LLoyd and Nathan Sivin，2002

在药膳那期播客的末尾留了个问题，为什么古代中国和古代西方形成了看起来相似但又完全不同风格的宇宙观。直觉还是要在英文领域中找答案。最后翻到了剑桥大学古代哲学和科学名誉教授Geoffrey LLoyd和宾夕法尼亚大学中国文化和科学史教授Nathan Sivin的这本作品。过去的几天基本都泡在这本书里。

标题中的the Way，指的是中国的”道“，而the Word，古希腊语是λόγος，二者其实都有“表示支配世界万物的规律性或原理”的意思，这两个词并在一起做书名，信息已然明确。

这本书的研究时间段定在公元前 400 年至公元 200 年这个区间（两个文明的早期宇宙观也都恰好都成形于这个时代），研究目标是以对比的视角，研究古代中国和古代希腊的科学和医学发展。两位作者分别介绍了中国和希腊的社会状态制度框架（即古代科学发展的社会背景，比如古代的思想家为什么要研究宇宙，又为什么研究人体，这些思想家为谁工作，以什么谋生等等，这些背景，都是塑造一个文明科学形成的重要影响因素）以及古代科学形成过程（双方对于宇宙环境的不同的认知，如何发展和形成体系。

最后一章，则是围绕8个关键词（宇宙学概念，思想家营生方式，宇宙学的应用，以及对于多元观点的处理方式，公共领域和私人领域的工作范畴，有哪些共识与分歧，求同方式的差异，以及社会制度的pros and cons）对古中国与古希腊的科学发展过程做了一系列异同比较。除此之外，附录也相当有参考价值：中国宇宙论形成的三个阶段。何时萌芽，何时趋同，何时形成整体，做了一个相对完整的线索梳理。

对于“医食同源”这个知识体系而言，宇宙学是一块应该要有的拼图，它的确可以解答很多困惑（而且这种哲学思维还可以用于解释更多中西比较的话题）。但就这本书而言，要把如此复杂的知识体系在几万字内表述清楚，好多术语和背景知识要查，其阅读门槛还是略高了些。只推荐给对古代哲学研究有兴趣的朋友叭。

好在已经定位了可以再继续琢磨的段落，与食物关系不大的部分，就未来有缘再见了。

《The Way and the Word》读后感(三)：不同政治环境对科学发展的影响（由于是作业，所以是英文的~~~）

The book the way and the word impressed me largely on its reveal about the different between ancient Greece and China, the ancient civilizations where people present the basic question about the world and attempt to answer it using systematic investigation, in their development of science and medicine. Among all the differences, the power, individual or authority, which push to do their study impress on me most, which, as far as I am concerned, decide the way that how this two civilizations developed. Chinese scientists focus on the self-cultivating, which will avoid offending to the ruler, and, Greece, debating and arguing to search for truth and spread their idea. This variety brings up very different result. In this report, I try to give a brief talk about what I get from the way and the word, and mainly focus on the circumstance, which kind of power push them to develop that exist in this two different ancient civilizations. First I am going to discuss the method, and then the comparison of four aspects mentioned in the book, at last, with my humble opinion on the fundamental difference between this two science systems, I attempt to answer the mystery of the Joseph Needham superficially by no, there are science exist in ancient China but different from the western science.

Using the proper method to study our ancestor is our first as well as indispensible work. So Geoffrey Lloyd and Nathan Sivin claimed in the first chapter, aims and methods, that “people tend to think of those investigations as belonging to science and as contributing to its early development, but such judgments can be misleading.” So in order to accomplish their main goal, they set out to study the subjects by comparing this two ancient civilization in some fundamental questions that connect closely to the way they developed. For example, how the ancient scientists make a living, which largely lead to their research, the relationship to the structure of authority, the greatest different between Greece and China as well as the most important cause concern with future in my perspective, and I will discuss it later in this report, the connection with those who do the same work and how they communicate their understanding, what accept and assumption they used. By answering those questions, we can almost reconstruct their daily life, it helps us get into their thought and find out how they think and why they think in this way. There is one more key notion is that the intellectual social dimension of every problem are part of one whole. So follow the role they obey, I tried to connect those particles with a clue by comparison. But they said in page 7 that “what did they do in return for such support” may also be the modern idea as we do something for getting something. Similarity, the idea Lloyd and Sivin followed also basis on modern idea. But in other word, without the modern idea, we cannot study anything from ancient civilization, so let`s purpose the way we used is a suitable way, and conclude something from them.

So start my paper with putting forward the four aspects I am going to discuss, ①the goal they want to achieve, ②their patronages, ③how to become a science and ④what they need to do as a scientist, by comparing this two ancient civilization. And here is my major foothold, although all the basis of progress are the demand of people, that the public drive Greek science develop and, on the contrary, the science developing in China mainly depend on the dominance hierarchy. In other word, the impact from the public is far more than the dominance hierarchy in Greece, which is totally contradict to China. But aspire for survival and make a better living are the common basic purpose in both civilizations at first.

First, the goal for them to be a “shih” in China and a philosopher in Greece is quite different. As Lloyd says that “part by political aims but diversity in the interest and view argue, win the discussion”, and in page 102, he reiterate that “Greek intellectuals were far more often isolated from the seats of political power.” It’s obvious that since the judicial power in ancient Greece were hold in the citizens’ hand through voting, so that the key way to spread your thought, to help the proposals, which you can get greatest interest from it or simply think it’s the best to their city, to pass, is to persuade other citizens into voting that one. But all people want to maximum their own interest, so a discussion will be put forward to decide which one is the “best”. After discussing, the one who is the cleverest, or most skillful in debating, will win and maximum his interest. Everyone want to become the winner, so the try their best to find the way in order to win in the discussion. As a consequence, not only the skill improve, but also the knowledge has been extent, the questions were raised such as who am I, where am I from, where am I going. Thus, maybe this is the way how philosophy came in to being. Although Socrates once said “To care for wisdom and truth and improvement of the soul is far better than to seek money and honor and reputation”, which show his noble character, it doesn’t against my idea since what I suggest is the initial condition that happened long before the birth of Socrates, when Socrates joined in discussion, it has been a tradition for them to follow it. In this part, discussion plays a key role in it. Discussion propagate their variety ideas to other citizens, and the collision of the thinking give birth to a more variety, more self-consistent idea and eventually, they developed different factions, the Epicureans, Pythagorean, Platonism, Cynics and so on.

The influence of discussion is far more important than what I have just mention above, but let`s stop here and see what happened in China. This phenomenon also been observed in China during the Warring State, the contention of a hundred schools of thought, but die away after the Dong Zhongshu advocated suppressing the "Hundred Schools of Thought and making Confucianism the state ideology”. This is an inevitable developed in China, as a centralization country, which can manage their country that large. I agree with Lloyd idea that “Han did not give philosophy a place…The unification of China change all that, on room was left for the old diversity.” Why？ Who the “shih” served is the ruler, the one who can take away their life in one word, regardless of the command make sense or not, contradict to the voting in Greece. So the most important work for them is to follow the order from the ruler or their high authority. As an old saying goes, to be in the king’s company is tantamount to living with tiger, it means that you need to be very careful to work for the ruler, you would fall in great dangerous if you obey the king’s order or say something that the ruler doesn’t like, just as the Sacha Baron Cohen acted in the dictator. So the “shih” during that period acted very careful and can hardly have neodoxy, what may bring them into trouble. What they needed is only the orthodoxy, the deeper understanding from the sagely origin that defined by authority, the safest idea that helps them get good reputation and living. So is there any discussion, which effected Greece development mostly, take place in ancient China？ The answer is yes, but the substance of those discussion can hardly escaped from the orthodox, since this discussion is often the battle for getting the support from their ruler, even in the Warring State, for their patronage.

In a word, in Greece, as Lloyd said, they served the ambition of their own members more than rulers, in page 186, he explained that “The classical Greeks had no emperors to persuade; they had no sense of working towards an orthodox worldview that would at once legitimate and limit the emperor’s authority.”; in China, the ruler is the highest exist in their world. The reason why this distinguishes come into being has largely depended on their different patronages, as our second topic. The ruler, or the authority was obviously the patronage to the “shih”, even in Warring State, the k’o were supported by the person with great power and much money. The ordinary people cannot support them too much since the substantial individual support without employment and had no statutory standing. Thus, their patronages cannot only be the powerful man, want no basic research such as the three philosophical questions or much innovation but the rational solution to problem of policy and administration. In the long run, it has no essential difference between the ruler and the power men during Warring State. Other than China, the philosophers in ancient Greece were supported by the citizens, not a certain person or a group. This kind of patronage free them from orthodox, even more, they need heterodoxy that contradict to their teacher, which will make them famous since the heterodoxy always intrigue people. What’s more, they need their rival, which can better define their own position by contrast with others. There is no doubt that the patronage, the government or the public, had acted so relative to the later path.

How to become a “shih” and philosopher is our third question. In China, birth often a quite important factor for being a “shih”, since the well-born can often get better education and the resource of other outstanding people. In this book the way and the word, Lloyd also mentioned that some period in China, one cannot be a “shih” if he is not born in an official family. On the contrary, even salve can be a philosopher in Greece. This comparison reflect how serious the bureaucracy China is and how free Greece is. But the phenomenon that only the well-born can be “shih” was displace by civil-service examination system, which examination the student how well their understand the classic idea and the current situation. As a consequence, schools come into being in China for “getting in administration, so what they taught is still the old and orthodox idea. Memorization of the exact text and meticulous copy of manuｓｃｒｉｐｔs all the more important.” Lloyd said. I agree with him about the truth that all they learn and recite is the old idea, it do little good to invent something new, but this idea is still treasure today, this is latter, not for this paper. On the other side, Greece set up their school for different purpose, for instance, as mentioned in the book The Republic, Plato thought that the state’s leader should be a philosopher who can best keep state in order, so the Academy was aim for producing the future leaders in some extent, not to serve the ruler, but to be a ruler. Thus, the reputation for them was so important and they need to gain them in the public discussion, which develop the discussion in return. Certainly, the debating skill and also their ways of thinking will be taught in school. You may attend to the lectures held by different philosophers occasionally or go to school regularly as a student, you can even follow more than one teachers during that time, which can hardly been seen in China.

The last but least topic I am going to talk about is what they did as a “shih” and philosopher. But this theme is far too big to discuss, so what I need to do is find a point of penetration. And here is my entry point, the fundamental concept and issue in Greece and China, four elements and yinyang, five phases (hsing). In page 158, Lloyd said “not that there is a polar contrast between a Chinese interest in correlative thinking and a Greek interest in causation. On both sides that contrast would be flawed.” I approve that there are flaws in the former absolute judgment, but what I want to put forward is that Chinese pay their attention more in correlative thinking than causation, inverse to Greece. The five phases are not mutual independence, they will interact to each other, for example, water restricts fire, metal generating water etc. Not only five phases, but also yin-yang is the obvious evidence to purport my view. As it is revealed in the Book of Change “promise of tai chi, tai chi health unveiled four images, unveiled the student, four images health nosy gossip of thing” reflect our correlative thinking. Our ancestor concern about the cause as well, but just attribute it to a supernatural reason, “Keep an important secret in” is the most popular reason use for deterring others to offend the god, the even higher dominance above the ruler, by searching the cause, which is beyond their intelligence, as the Book of the King of Huai-nan puts “What the intellect knows is limited”, mentioned in page 192. Thus though our ancestor study nature phenomenon , they would only get another phenomenon, fire generating earth, but cannot generating the god, even interact with more other phases, that’s why we focus more on correlation, not the cause. The interaction also relate in our traditional Chinese medicine, which hold the view that we get sick since the five phases get out of balance. Phenomenon to phenomenon, this is what they contributed to the modern world. This concept is totally different with the western science those educated in modern science.

On the contrary, the Greek searched for “element”, the material cause, why the universe came into being in this way. The elements are separate; otherwise, they will summarize them into one single element. As I mention above, fire generating earth, that the ancient Greek will surmise that the fire is more fundamental than earth. In a word, the judgment that Greek focus more on the cause than the correlation is rational.

So how could this relate to the individual and authority as my major clue in this paper？ Apparently, since there is a higher authority, the ruler, the god or secrete of the nature, that the ancient Chinese could not offend, so they focus on the interaction between phenomenons, not the cause. But in Greece, they had no absolute authority, the power which decides their destiny is the individual, who aspire to know about the world, the universe, can be fulfilled with the answer, the material cause presented by their philosophers. It’s still the reflection on the individual and authority.

Someone may hold the opinion that the Greek is better, from which the modern science began. It also seems true after writing this report. But after comparing the fundamental issues between the two civilizations, I can tell that this is the key to answer the mystery of the Joseph Needham that we have science, which is not base on elements but correlation. This idea was raised by the book called 中国象科学观, written by Liu Changlin. There is someone else view that it this just the different side of the coin, since there are many accomplishment achieved by the ancient Chinese which the modern science cannot do, such as predicting the earthquake, and the mystery about the Book of Change. I hope to learn more about the science that ancient China developed and what will happen if the science that base on correlation, not element, become systematic, can it answer the question that modern science cannot interpretation, like the problem in quantum mechanics. I hope that after learning in this course and reading more works can I figure out how that view work and present it in latter report.

At last, as Lloyd said in page 239 “We should repeat two caveats before we proceed to some positive conclusion. First…the traits that we propose are widespread, not universal, one…Second, our method does not assume that any one-way casual account is possible, from one part of our data to other parts.” So do I, in this report, I only simply use one single clue to line things up. It’s impossible to come to a complete explanation, but I think it can partly explain something. So I am so eager to discuss to complete my opinion as the ancient Greek did.