From small matters of everyday life to big international affairs, “shishi 事实,” or “fact” in English, is an indispensable word for people to talk about issues. What, then, do we mean by “fact”—a word that people often fail to articulate in certain situations? This article will explore the term “fact” by distinguishing its different meanings in the context of mutual learning between Chinese and Western interpretive frameworks. This exploration will contribute to a more profound and nuanced understanding of the philosophical issue of “right and wrong,” or “shi 是 and fei 非.”
In contemporary Chinese, “shishi” refers to the actual situation of things, including all objects and phenomena that exist objectively. It is a comprehensive term that covers not only natural occurrences but also human behaviors and activities, as well as various events and conditions. This definition seems plausible and in line with the general understanding of “fact,” yet it falls short in incorporating the fundamental “shi” and “fei” judgment inherent in the concept of “fact.” Has a certain “fact” that has emerged of its own accord, which is “shi,” or has it been willingly manufactured, which is “fei”? That is to say, a “fact” is not necessarily a “shi” but much more possibly a “fei.” Words such as “real” and “objective,” when used as judgments, are not easily applied to define real-world situations. While they may serve as literal definitions, these terms cannot be directly applied to the judgment of actual affairs. In fact, it is frequently observed that variations in angles and positions often result in differences and conflicts regarding the “fact” of a certain situation.
The reason for this divergence is that different parties have their own standards for identifying a “fact” based upon their unique perspectives. This observation reminds us of the well-known allegory of “Blind Men Touching an Elephant” (Mangren mo xiang 盲人摸象). In this story, each of the four blind men believes that what he is touching represents the entirety of the “fact,” or the “elephant.” However, they are only experiencing a specific part of it. For each man, there is no doubt that what he has touched is a “fact.” Yet, while their perceptions hold truth in isolation, they do not encompass the entire reality, so it is not a “shi” but rather a “fei,” as all parts contribute to a larger whole—the elephant itself. Only the “elephant” can be regarded as a “fact” and a “shi” at the same time. Meanwhile, every part they have touched may certainly be seen as a “fact,” but it does not qualify as a “shi;” instead, it falls under “fei.” This idea resonates with Zhuangzi’s 庄子 (369-286 BCE) philosophical statement: “His ‘that’ has both a shi and a fei in it; his ‘this,’ too, has both a shi and a fei in it.” ( 彼亦一是非,此亦一是非, “Discussion on Making All Things Equal,” Zhuangzi)
The sculpture “Blind Men Touching an Elephant” in Wuhu Sculpture Park,
Wuhu City, Anhui Province
Let us consider a more straightforward question, such as “Is capitalism true?” On this issue, those with a vested interest in capitalism are likely to assert that it is certainly true and “right.” From the perspective of socialism or the proletariat oppressed under capitalism, while capitalism may be regarded as a “fact,” it is perceived not as a “shi” but rather as a “fei.” This gives rise to two different angles or positions on the same system. How can we gain a better understanding of capitalism in terms of “fact” and also as “fei”?
According to the definition of “fact,” capitalism is an objectively existing system, and therefore corresponds to what is defined as a “fact.” The point of affirming a “fact” is to enable people to make judgments and decisions based on that “fact.” If this is the case, what does affirming that “capitalism is a fact” provide? Could it be that the vested interests of capitalism would perceive its existence as reasonable, while those who are oppressed might deem such existence unreasonable, so that there are definitely social class contradictions? The reason for the contradictions can be concluded in an empirically abstract sense, as the judgment that “capitalism is a fact” provides a discourse that justifies capitalism for the vested interests of capitalism, while those who are oppressed by this system naturally have the opposite judgment. Therefore, the existing definition of “fact” alone cannot provide people with accurate judgments in real life. Indeed, under certain circumstances, this so-called objective judgment can lead to a misleading understanding of capitalism. Thus, in order to avoid a similar misunderstanding, should the word “fact” be further defined?
Statue of Zhuangzi in Mengcheng, Anhui Province
The prevailing definition of “fact” is “a real situation.” In our experience, the way we define and assess whether a particular situation is “true” or “real” can significantly influence our judgments and decisions based upon this definition of “fact.” Therefore, it becomes important to clarify what we mean by the terms “true” and “real.”
“Zhenshi 真实” (true, real, authentic) is elucidated in the Shenjian 申鉴 (or Reexaminations of Historical Experience) as follows: “The reason why the junziis able to move the heavens and the earth, respond to the spirits, rectify the myriad things, and ultimately become a caring ruler must be rooted in authenticity.” (君子之所以动天地, 应神明,正万物而成王治者,必本乎真实而已, “Zheng Ti,” Shenjian) This provides a clear contextual explanation. On bronzes, the character “zhen 真” initially meant “precious,” then its connotation expanded to include the meaning of “zhenshi.” In the “匕 Radical” section of theYu pian 玉篇, a classical lexicon of pictographic Chinese characters compiled by Gu Yewang 顾野王(519-581) during the Southern Liang dynasty, “zhen” is defined as “not false,” indicating that in ancient times, punishments should be dealt with according to the actual situation. As for the other character “shi 实,” it originally conveyed meanings such as “fushi 富实” (abundant and solid) or “fuzu 富足” (abundant and sufficient). Over time, its connotations have broadened to encompass meanings such as “chongshi 充实” (full and solid) and “manzu 满足” (full, sufficient, as well as satisfaction). The extended meaning of “manzu” suggests that one’s heart is full of sincerity, signifying a state of being “clearly authentic” (queshi zhenqie 确切真实). On the oracle bones, the character “shi 事” refers to the “administration of affairs” (zhishi 治事) or being “engaged in affairs” (congshi 从事); more broadly, it embraces notions such as a “cause” (shiye 事业) or “event” (shiqing 事情), a “job” (zhishi 职事), the act of “holding office” (renzhi 任职) , “service” (shifeng 侍奉), etc. It can also refer to a specific instance.
Portrait of Gu Yewang
On the other hand, “shishi” is translated into English as “fact” or “truth,” and “zhenshi” is rendered as “reality” or “truth.” In a Western etymological context, a “fact” is defined as “that which actually exists or is the case,” and it also refers to “reality” or “truth.” In turn, “reality” is interpreted etymologically as “a real thing or fact,” with additional philosophical implications: “something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.” The Western Semantic Dictionary defines “truth” as “conformity with fact or reality.” When the first letter of “truth” is capitalized, the concept suggests “ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience.” This differs structurally from the Chinese “shishi.” By comparing “zhenshi” and “shishi” with “reality” or “fact,” it is intuitive to see that both “reality” and “truth” contain meanings that are independent of any other thing or perceptual experience, which are quite different from the meanings of “zhenshi” and “shishi.”
In Chinese and Western comparative philosophical hermeneutics, mainstream Western culture is interpreted as being characterized by transcendence and dualism, or that it assumes that the world is created and ruled by an eternal, static, transcendent creator, and that all existing objects are unrelated, monadic individuals, so that the relationship between the creator and the monadic individuals is that of the dominator and the dominated, and the dominated entities are in a constant state of conflict with each other. In the interpretive context of transcendence and dualism, or “yiduoeryuan 一多二元” (the duality of the one and many), the cultural semantic of “reality” is understood as the source of all other things and as independent of everything else. This obviously pertains to ontology and transcendence. As the static source of everything, “reality” is the metaphor of the fire behind all the shadows in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave.” In this parable, the world visible to the naked eye is likened to shadows on the wall and called “false.” The presupposed ontological source, assumed to be static and permanent behind all things in the world, is likened to the fire and called “reality.” Similarly, “truth,” as an ideal detached from and transcending perceived experience, also carries the same metaphysical connotation as “reality.”
A sketch illustrating Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”
On the other hand, mainstream Chinese culture is claimed to be grounded in an interpretive context of “yiduobufen 一多不分 ,” or the “inseparability of one and many,” which means that the myriad things within the dynamic and unbounded context of tian 天 (heaven) and di 地 (earth) constitute an unsummed whole. While everything is dynamically and internally correlated or continuous with everything else, they are all uniquely different because all the forms of their internal relatedness are diversely constituted. Of course, no matter how diverse everything is, all exists in and as an inseparable holistic whole.
In this framework of the “inseparability of one and many,” the meanings of “zhen 真,” “shi 实,” and “shi 事” are extracted from experience rather than hypothetical conceptions; each word has a corresponding analog as concrete empirical images from which it derives its meaning. According to the Shenjian, “zhenshi” is crucial for a junzi 君子(exemplary person) in his ability to move tianand di, respond to the spirits, and rectify all of the myriad things, contributing to his transformation into a comprehensively caring ruler. In other words, “zhenshi” in this sense does not imply conquering and destroying others with mighty force, but rather that which conforms to the natural state of the world’s symbiotic living processes and satisfies the desire of humans to adhere to normal, peaceful, and healthy living. As is stated in the Yizhuan 易传, or Commentaries on the Book of Changes (also known as the Ten Wings 十翼): “In accordance with (the will of) Heaven, and in response to (the wishes of) men.” (顺乎天而应乎人, “Overall Judgment Part II,” Yizhuan) That is, to adopt what Confucianism would call “consummate governance” (renzheng 仁政).
“Zheng Ti,” Shenjian
By placing “reality” and/or “truth” and “zhenshi” in their respective “yiduoeryuan” or “yiduobufen” interpretive contexts, we find that these words, which are typically regarded as translatable into each other, indeed have strikingly different connotations. This has a profound impact on the misinterpretation of “fact” when it is equated with its counterpart, without taking into account the different categories and standards resulting from the interpretive contexts of the Chinese and English languages distinguished by their different linguistic structures.
Is the assumption that there is a static and eternal origin behind all things a “fact”? Or is the perspective that everything between tian and di as a grand life system of symbiosis considered a “fact”? Or, say, does only that which conforms to and optimizes the symbiosis with the ongoing symbiotic process qualify as a “fact”? It may be impossible to determine whether the assumption that there is an eternal, static, and unchanging source underlying all things is a “fact,” but it is a plain “fact” that there is a necessary and interrelatedness in and among everything between tian and di. Therefore, it should be concluded that regarding everything between tian and di as a holistic symbiotic system and facilitating the optimal life system of symbiosis is consistent with the “facts;” otherwise, denying and ignoring everything between tian and di as an entire symbiotic system and even harming this life system of symbiosis is running against the “facts.”
Based on this fundamental pursuit of “facts” in the interpretive contexts of the “duality of one and many” and the “inseparability of one and many,” we can return to the issue of capitalism and the meaning of its “fact.” We must first determine whether capitalism would take the whole world into consideration as a life system of symbiosis and facilitate the optimal life system of symbiosis as an ongoing healthy life process. In Karl Marx’s revelation and judgment of capitalism in his Capital, he points out, “Capital comes dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt.” (Marx, Capital, translated by Ben Fowkes, p. 926) In practice, this is clearly contrary to the “fact” of the life system of symbiosis. It can be judged that the exploitation of the working class and destruction of the world environment by capitalism show that capitalism has been denying, ignoring, and destroying everything between tian and di as a life system of symbiosis and life-sustaining processes.
On the basis of this judgment, capitalism and the meaning of its “fact” become evident. The “fact” that capitalism “exists or occurs” is precisely a phenomenon, contrary to the natural and empirical reality that everything between tian and di operates as a life system of symbiosis. This existence, occurrence, and phenomenon as “contrary to fact,” as it were, can also be described as an essential “non-fact.” Furthermore, it can be posited that capitalism arises out of a contrarian “non-factual” theory that does not align with the “fact” of life’s symbiosis. Consequently, the “factual” meaning of “capitalism” is, in itself, a negation of fact. When the “contrarian fact” in which capitalism “exists (occurs)” is changed into a “fact” that conforms to the symbiosis of life, and becomes oriented towards conformity with the “facts” and the processes of life’s continuation, then the logic follows that the “nonfact” of capitalism must be eliminated. The initial step in this process is to reveal the “non-factual” essence of capitalist “existence,” and then to proceed with the actual logic of eliminating capitalist “non-facts” on this basis. The judgment that this conforms to the “facts” is supported by the fact that life is a symbiotic system and a symbiotic process, and that it is a collective subject of mankind, not merely a segment of the human population with vested interests. In this way, the judgment of “facts” will not be blurred or reversed by different positions and viewpoints.
The Karl Marx House in Trier, Germany
To sum up, the present article contributes to the existing definition of “fact” as “the real situation of things” by incorporating a basic “shi and fei” judgment. This judgment regards everything between tian and di as a grand life system of symbiosis, and the optimization of this ongoing symbiosis ought to be judged as shi (factual). Conversely, to deny the existence of such a symbiotic system of tian and di, to ignore the inseparability and interconnectedness of all elements within this framework, or to merely promote the idea of a state of nature in which all individuals are constantly engaged in competitive conflict, would be to threaten the continuity of our living system and should therefore be considered fei (non-factual). Under such a “shi and fei” judgment, we can assess various perspectives through the conceptual framework of “shi” and “fei.” By distinguishing between different positions using these two notions, we can find a “fact” representing the sustaining existence of mankind as a symbiotic system. This understanding is essential for ensuring the continuation of life and fostering the construction of our world as a great society with a common future.
Shen Chenyu: Project Director, Institute for Cross-Cultural Discursive Studies of Confucianism, Nishan Birthplace of the Sage Academy
【本文刊载于《走进孔子（中英文）》。本刊出版版权所有，未经允许，不得转载本刊文字及图片。】
