Using Comparative Philosophy to Explore New Paths for Mutual Learning Between Chinese and Western Culture—Reflections and Practice of Roger T. Ames

The globalization of economy and technology has increased the frequency of contact and exchange among people of different countries, making cultural exchange and mutual learning essential topics of our era. In the history of “East-to-West cultural diffusion” (dongxue xijian 东学西渐), the translation and introduction of Chinese classics, primarily by missionaries, played a significant role in helping Europe and the rest of the world understand China. However, due to differences in cosmology and ways of thinking, resulting misinterpretations are evident. Roger T. Ames, an internationally renowned sinologist and philosopher, is dedicated to fostering mutual understanding between China and the West. His critical reflection on these misinterpretations has led him to establish a theoretical and methodological framework for translating Chinese cultural classics into Western languages through comparative philosophy. Through this approach, Ames has pioneered new pathways for mutual learning between Chinese and Western civilizations.

Photo of Roger T. Ames

Ames is a philosopher from the Western world. He began studying and researching Chinese philosophy in 1966. Throughout his academic career of more than fifty years, he has developed a profound understanding of and sincere respect for the vastness, depth, and sublime value of Chinese philosophy and culture. He leads by example, making it his lifelong mission to promote Chinese culture globally. His familiarity with the strengths of both cultures has given him a clear awareness of the barriers and misunderstandings that exist when translating and introducing Chinese and Western cultures. This awareness has enabled him to successfully develop a distinctive theory, methodology, and set of tools for Sino-Western comparative philosophy.

1. Major Obstacles in the Western Translation of Classical Chinese Culture

He believes the primary obstacles in translating classical Chinese culture for the West are:

1) Failure to distinguish cosmological differences. Western cosmology is an ontological one based on causal thinking. It presupposes a single, external, transcendent source for all things in the universe. This source presents a single order and fixed existence, valuing stasis over change. Chinese philosophy, on the other hand, operates under an analogical, correlative way of thinking with a correlative cosmology. It does not presuppose a beginning of the universe. Rather, it assumes that all things are closely interrelated and in “a constant state of change and unceasing vitality” (shengsheng buxi 生生不息).

2) Inappropriate methodology. There has been a lack of consciousness and interpretive methods within the cultural context of the source culture. In other words, the West has not understood Chinese culture on its own terms, but through the unconscious presuppositions of Western cosmology or the biases of Western centrism. Consequently, translations of Chinese classics by Western Jesuits in the 17th and 18th centuries incorporated many Christian terms, which distorted the original meaning of Chinese culture.

3) Differences in linguistic conceptual structures and cultural sedimentation. Over long periods of development, different civilizations develop distinct linguistic conceptual and cultural structures. The difficulty of finding direct, one-to-one equivalents for words between Eastern and Western languages makes literal translation an objective form of bias. Even more concerning is the lack of involvement from philosophers. Historically, they have rarely participated in translating and interpreting Chinese philosophy for Western audiences. Jesuits and sinologists have primarily undertaken this task. The severe shortage of philosophers capable of interpreting Chinese philosophy has hindered the West’s overall understanding of the world. As Ames has stated: “We have to admit that, at least from the perspective of the entire Western academic world, a philosophical dialogue between China and the West has not yet begun.”

2. The Perceived Reality of Chinese Philosophy (Culture) in the Western View

In his research, Ames analyzes the reasons for Western misunderstandings of China. Beyond mere motives of interest, deeper reasons stem from misreadings and misinterpretations of Chinese culture, resulting in persistent errors in the political understanding of China.

1) “Christianization” and “Orientalization” of Chinese culture. For centuries, the translation of classical Chinese texts into Western languages was saturated with an ideological Christian framework and a sensationalized “Orientalized” mystique, which was completely contrary to the rationality of Chinese philosophy. Rather than being explained within its own philosophical framework, Chinese philosophy was interpreted through presupposed Western philosophical concepts. Hegel’s prejudice of “Oriental despotism,” for example, deeply influenced Western philosophical circles and shaped the interpretation of Chinese history, politics, and philosophy as despotic—a view that persists today.

Launch ceremony for the “Translating China” initiative led by Roger T. Ames

at Confucius Research Institute

2) Marginalization of Chinese philosophy as a religion in the West. As the West has used Christianity and Orientalism to interpret Confucian vocabulary, Confucian studies in Western higher education have been relegated to religious studies departments and to regional studies institutes without gaining a place in philosophy curricula. In bookstores, Chinese philosophy is categorized under “Oriental Religions,” which are generally seen as non-mainstream and of low academic value. In Western academic classification, Chinese philosophy does not fall under the category of philosophy. Mainstream philosophy remains dominated by Anglo-European philosophy. Chinese philosophy, along with other Asian, African, and Native American philosophies, has been marginalized by Western philosophers. China’s genuine philosophical works have not yet received due attention from Western philosophers.

3. Constructing Theoretical, Methodological, and Practical Frameworks for Sino-Western Comparative Philosophy

The theoretical and methodological framework for Sino-Western comparative philosophy, as developed by Ames, should at least include the following aspects:

1) Acknowledging the different ways of thinking shaped by different cultures. The uniqueness of cultures comes from generations of sedimentation and accumulation. These accumulations result in differences in linguistic structures and content, forming an essential cultural common sense that is universally recognized within that culture — what we call “cosmology.” A key link in comparative cultural research is identifying a reasonable articulation of this cosmology. For instance, in the context of Greek and Christian culture, the West formed a metaphysical, transcendental worldview of idealized entities. Chinese culture, in the context of a correlative cosmology, formed a worldview of unceasing processes and vitality. Taking this fundamental issue as his starting point, Ames forms his theory and methodology for Sino-Western comparative philosophy.

2) Proposing that translating/introducing different intellectual cultures requires a deep understanding of the semantic context of the source culture. Barriers between different human groups are initially linguistic and then cultural. Ames repeatedly reminds people to recognize the difficulty of translation and to avoid cultural reductionism. He believes that the correct method of translation/introduction must be based on an understanding of the linguistic and cultural structures and cosmologies of both cultures. It must clearly articulate differences in thinking patterns and cosmology by establishing interpretive backgrounds, thereby building a coordinate transformation system between the two cultures. To this end, he advocates understanding and interpreting Chinese culture within its own cultural context.

3) Explicitly proposing that foreign translations of Chinese cultural classics follow the approach of “interpretation primary, translation secondary, a combination of both.” Ames argues that lexical disparities result from differences in linguistic and cultural structures formed by the historical sedimentation of different cultures. For example, we cannot find the concept of “li” 礼in English or German, nor can we find an exact equivalent for “God” in Chinese. The profound Confucian perspective on life, expressed through Confucian vocabulary, lacks corresponding terms in other languages. Relying solely on culturally biased dictionaries for translation deceives the reader twice over. However, through interpretive methods, the rich semantic systems of various cultures can achieve approximate understanding. Therefore, he advocates shifting the translation of Chinese classics from literal to interpretive. In translation, one must consciously cultivate an interpretive mindset and use interpretation to restore the original cultural context. This allows one to overcome the “objective bias” caused by literal translation and the presuppositions of Western cosmology attached to it. Ultimately, one can reveal the profound inner meaning of Chinese philosophical vocabulary.

To construct theoretical, methodological, and practical frameworks for Sino Western comparative philosophy, he has painstakingly undertaken two most foundational tasks:

1) Reconstruct a core terminology system in Chinese and English. Ames advocates a return to the source of Chinese classics, starting with the most foundational cosmological level of Sino-Western comparison and the most essential core vocabulary. Key English terms should be reconstructed with a full understanding of the Chinese cultural background and the nuances between terms, so that their original meaning is restored within the Chinese philosophical context. To this end, he compiled a glossary of philosophy as a foundational tool and “cornerstone” for correctly introducing Chinese culture.

2) Compile and interpret foundational texts. Ames has compiled and systematically interpreted nine “ foundational texts ” (yuandian 元典) of pre-Qin Chinese culture, and published A Sourcebook in Classical Confucian Philosophy. As an interpretive text, the book focuses on capturing the core ideas that have shaped the Chinese national spirit and the various schools of thought. Methodologically, it follows the principle of “interpretation primary, translation secondary.” The translation and interpretation of classical Confucian philosophy are carried out within the Chinese cultural context, while considering the conceptual framework and linguistic characteristics of the source text and target audience. In interpretation, it uses language that is understandable to contemporary Western readers. This systematic approach of organizing and constructing during the interpretive process enables the audience to grasp the core essence of Chinese culture holistically.

Roger T. Ames, A Sourcebook in Classical Confucian Philosophy

Throughout the early history of Sino-Western cultural exchange, Chinese people have rarely explained their culture and philosophy to other cultures in foreign languages. Even in modern times, they have rarely communicated their ideas through Western languages. Consequently, the transmission of Chinese thought has depended largely on Western scholars who have visited China. However, due to differing cognitive frameworks, misunderstandings continue to proliferate. Ames has a profound understanding of the historical context of Sino-Western exchange and of the misinterpretations caused by the absence of philosophical dialogue. He believes that the essence of traditional Chinese thought resides in philosophy and that a philosophical mindset should be embraced and applied in the translation and interpretation of Chinese and Western cultures. To this end, he and his team are actively involved with academic platforms in China and around the world, as part of their ongoing efforts.