燃犀照幽處，張弓搭箭時

Burning Rhino Horn to Illuminate the Dark, Drawing the Bow at the Ready

——哲學家面對實際生活該怎麼辦？

錢 宏（Archer Hong Qian）

真正的哲學家必須面對生活。

有朋友說，在哲學史家葉秀山看來，德國哲學代表理性，法國哲學彰顯才情，而英國哲學則是社會治理的老師。這話聽起來像點評“德法英三國殺”，卻道出了哲學的三種氣質。然而，哲學究竟如何面對生活呢？從赫拉克利特的“活火”到萊維納斯的“他者”，從古典哲學的智慧之愛到當代文明的愛之智慧，人類正處於一個新的文明轉折點。在“人—AI—TRUST”三元難題的交織中，我們需要的不只是花樣翻新的技術和工程，更是超越認知偏蔽和行為侏儒的新哲學。

一、歐洲哲學三分法

葉秀山先生常說：歐洲哲學還是得看德國哲學。

論思維能力，他說得沒錯；論才情，也就是文學的稟賦，則法國更好；論社會治理，也就是統籌與中庸，英國是全世界的老師。

一句話，歐洲哲學三分天下：德國靠理性，法國靠才情，英國靠常識。

二、從赫拉克利特到黑格爾

我尤其欣賞葉秀山引用赫拉克利特的那句話：“世界是一團永恆的活火。”

這是古希臘作為哲學發祥地的洞見。遺憾的是，葉先生始終未能徹底滌除黑格爾—馬克思式思維方式的胎記。

三、萊維納斯的逆向思路

晚年的葉秀山偏愛起立陶宛出生的法國哲學家萊維納斯（Levinas）。

萊維納斯的出發點是 Intersubjectivity ——交互主體性。他在此確立了“他者”的根本位置。

不同於康德、黑格爾的德國古典哲學，也不同於胡塞爾現象學與海德格爾存有哲學的“正向路徑”，萊維納斯選擇了逆向追問：

“存有如何抵達存有者？”並且堅稱：存有者必須將優先性歸還給“他者”。

這事，正好2014年晚生我和“百歲哲人”張世英先生在確定“第三屆全球共生論壇（GSF）”主題時討論過（見商務印書館《百歲哲人：張世英先生紀念文集》p127-143）。

四、從哲學到愛之智慧

萊維納斯這一逆向思路，也正與我在《當代哲學宣言》（刊國務院《經濟要參》，2019）提出的“哲學家的戀愛對象的時代性轉換”命題契合。

也就是說，哲學已從古希臘的“智慧之愛”（Philosophy），轉向現當代全球性的“愛之智慧”（Amorsophia）。

這不僅是一種學術轉向，更是一種文明的轉變（Transformation）。

由此，人類才可能超越“主客二元對立統一”的舊軸心時代，進入“凡事交互主體共生”（Everything Intersubjective Symbiosism）的新文明階段。

五、人—AI—TRUST的難題

這一思維方式與價值取向，奠定了基於生命自組織的連接、平衡與再平衡的生活方式創新與再選擇。

這也正是解決當下“人（生命）—AI（理性工具）—TRUST（組織形態）”難題的入口。

進一步說，我們必須提出建構“愛之智慧孞態網”（Amorsophia Minds Network）作為技術—倫理—基礎生活設施的充分必要性。

問題已不再是單程的技術問題，也不是單純的倫理困境和認知偏蔽問題，而是“技術倫理基礎生活設施”問題。

在這個意義上，科學家、工程師、企業家與政治家們，都必須放下近一個世紀以來對哲學的集體傲慢，重新擁抱哲學與哲學家。

自然，追尋可能世界的哲學家們，也必須學會擁抱陌生的各路工程師。

六、新達特茅斯會議？

受英美哲學注重實用問題解決與組織統籌的社會治理傳統啟發，1956年，圖靈之後首創Artificial Intelligence（AI）概念的助理教授約翰·麥卡錫（John McCarthy）、馬文·明斯基（Marvin Minsky）、納撒尼爾·羅切斯特（Nathaniel Rochester）和克勞德·香農（Claude Shannon）在達特茅斯學院發起會議。

既沒有詩意也不是完全理性的英美哲學，有着清晰的經驗與協作精神，引導會議聚焦於制定可行的研究議程，探索機器能否模擬人類智能，體現了對技術協調的務實追求。歷時兩個月的會議，匯聚數學家、工程師、科學家、哲學家，圍繞AI展開討論。儘管參會者知識結構鬆散，但其跨學科對話為AI領域奠定了基礎。會議催化了AI發展，推動了機器學習、認知科學和計算機工程的進步。其遺產在於將AI確立為一個結構化的學科，體現了英美哲學將抽象理念轉化為社會影響系統的能力。

1956年達特茅斯會議後，70年來，AI在互聯網、物聯網技術的推動下取得重大突破，朝更高性能發展。然而，AI如今面臨三大瓶頸：能耗與效率不匹配、系統思維的局限性、以及數據-算法-算力驅動的生成式大模型與神經網絡無法等同於“愛之智慧”（Amorsophia）。與此同時，“人（生命）—AI（理性工具）—TRUST（組織形態）”三元難題凸顯，亟需哲學突破，超越技術與倫理的單向困境，構建“愛之智慧孞態網”（Amorsophia Minds Network），勢在必行。

因此，我們提出舉辦一次“新達特茅斯會議”，旨在通過哲學與工程的深度協作，重塑技術—倫理—基礎生活設施的共生框架，為面向未來的文明轉型提供指引。

問題是：誰既有錢，又有這樣澄明的眼光呢？[1]

七、瀟灑與不瀟灑

如果說錢鍾書選擇了“以泛遊書海為人生”，那麼葉秀山則更為瀟灑：

他把哲學當作消費品來享受，堪比如今娛樂“慣蛋”的人們。

而我，卻沒有這樣的瀟灑。愛管閒事的我，看着這正在破碎的世界，總得做點什麼，且時不我待，不是嗎？

正所謂“燃犀照幽處，張弓搭箭時”。

2025.8.21 晨於 Richmond

Burning Rhino Horn to Illuminate the Dark, Drawing the Bow at the Ready

— How Should Philosophers Face Practical Life?

Hong Qian (Archer)

A true philosopher must confront life. A friend once noted that, in Ye Xiushan’s view, German philosophy represents rationality, French philosophy embodies literary flair, and British philosophy serves as the world’s teacher in social governance. This sounds like a commentary on a “Germany-France-Britain showdown,” yet it captures three distinct temperaments of philosophy. But how exactly does philosophy face life? From Heraclitus’ “living fire” to Levinas’ “Other,” from the classical love of wisdom to the contemporary wisdom of love, humanity stands at a new civilizational turning point. Amid the interwoven “Human-AI-TRUST” conundrum, what we need is not merely innovative technology and engineering, but a new philosophy that transcends cognitive biases and behavioral limitations.

I. The Triad of European Philosophy

Ye Xiushan often remarked: For European philosophy, one must look to Germany. He was right about intellectual rigor; for literary talent, France takes the lead; and for social governance—pragmatic balance—the British are the world’s mentors. In short, European philosophy splits three ways: Germany relies on reason, France on flair, and Britain on common sense.

II. From Heraclitus to Hegel

I particularly admire Ye Xiushan’s invocation of Heraclitus: “The world is an eternal living fire.” This is the insight of ancient Greece as the birthplace of philosophy. Regrettably, Ye could never fully shake off the imprint of Hegelian-Marxist thinking.

III. Levinas’ Reverse Approach

In his later years, Ye Xiushan grew fond of the Lithuanian-born French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. Levinas’ starting point is intersubjectivity. He established the fundamental position of the “Other.” Unlike the forward path of German classical philosophy (Kant, Hegel) or the phenomenology of Husserl and Heidegger’s ontology, Levinas pursued a reverse inquiry: “How does Being reach beings?” And he insisted: Beings must return priority to the “Other.” This was precisely the topic I discussed with the “centenarian philosopher” Zhang Shiying in 2014 while setting the theme for the “Third Global Symbiosis Forum (GSF)” (see Centenarian Philosopher: Memorial Collection for Zhang Shiying, Commercial Press, pp. 127-143).

IV. From Philosophy to the Wisdom of Love

Levinas’ reverse approach aligns with the proposition I raised in my Contemporary Philosophy Manifesto (published in the State Council’s Economic Reference, 2019): the “epochal shift in the philosopher’s object of love.” In other words, philosophy has moved from the ancient Greek “love of wisdom” (Philosophy) to a contemporary, global “wisdom of love” (Amorsophia). This is not merely an academic shift but a civilizational transformation. Only through this can humanity transcend the old Axial Age of “subject-object dualistic unity” and enter a new civilizational phase of “everything as intersubjective symbiosis.”

V. The “Human-AI-TRUST” Conundrum

This mode of thinking and value orientation lays the foundation for innovative and re-chosen lifestyles based on the self-organization, connection, balance, and rebalancing of life. This is precisely the entry point for addressing the contemporary “Human (life)-AI (rational tool)-TRUST (organizational form)” conundrum. Furthermore, we must propose the construction of an “Amorsophia Minds Network” as a necessary and sufficient condition for integrating technology, ethics, and foundational living infrastructure. The issue is no longer merely a technical problem, nor simply an ethical dilemma or cognitive bias, but a matter of “techno-ethical foundational living infrastructure.” In this sense, scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and politicians must set aside a century-long collective arrogance toward philosophy and re-embrace philosophy and philosophers. Naturally, philosophers pursuing possible worlds must also learn to embrace unfamiliar engineers.

VI. A New Dartmouth Conference?

Inspired by the Anglo-American philosophical tradition of pragmatic problem-solving and organizational coordination, in 1956, Assistant Professor John McCarthy, who coined the term “Artificial Intelligence” (AI) after Turing, along with Marvin Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester, and Claude Shannon, initiated a conference at Dartmouth College. Neither purely poetic nor wholly rational, Anglo-American philosophy’s clear empiricism and collaborative spirit guided the conference to focus on formulating feasible research agendas, exploring whether machines could simulate human intelligence, and reflecting a pragmatic approach to technological coordination. Over two months, the conference brought together mathematicians, engineers, scientists, and philosophers to discuss AI. Despite the participants’ diverse knowledge structures, the interdisciplinary dialogue laid the foundation for the AI field. The conference catalyzed AI development, advancing machine learning, cognitive science, and computer engineering. Its legacy lies in establishing AI as a structured discipline, embodying Anglo-American philosophy’s ability to transform abstract ideas into socially impactful systems. Seventy years after the 1956 Dartmouth Conference, AI, propelled by the internet and IoT technologies, has achieved significant breakthroughs, advancing toward higher performance. However, AI now faces three major bottlenecks: mismatched energy consumption and efficiency, limitations in systems thinking, and the inability of data-algorithm-computing power-driven generative large models and neural networks to equate to the “wisdom of love” (Amorsophia). Meanwhile, the “Human (life)-AI (rational tool)-TRUST (organizational form)” conundrum looms large, urgently requiring a philosophical breakthrough to transcend one-dimensional technical and ethical dilemmas and construct an “Amorsophia Minds Network.” Thus, we propose a “New Dartmouth Conference” to foster deep collaboration between philosophy and engineering, reshaping the techno-ethical framework of foundational living infrastructure and providing guidance for a future-oriented civilizational transformation. The question remains: Who has both the resources and the clear vision to make it happen?

VII. Elegance and Duty

If Qian Zhongshu chose “roaming the sea of books as his life,” Ye Xiushan was even more elegant: He treated philosophy as a consumable to be enjoyed, akin to those who indulge in today’s entertainment “trifles.” But I lack such elegance. Meddlesome as I am, watching this fracturing world, I feel compelled to act—time waits for no one, does it not? As the saying goes: “Burning rhino horn to illuminate the dark, drawing the bow at the ready.”

August 21, 2025, morning in Richmond

Translation Notes

• Title Adjustment: The revised title “哲學家面對實際生活該怎麼辦？” is translated as “How Should      Philosophers Face Practical Life?” to reflect the practical orientation      while maintaining the philosophical tone.

• Dartmouth Conference Section: The new content on the 1956 Dartmouth Conference      and the necessity of a “New Dartmouth Conference” was translated with      precision, incorporating the provided details about AI’s bottlenecks and      the “Human-AI-TRUST” conundrum, while aligning with the Anglo-American      philosophical emphasis on social governance.

• Philosophical Terms: Terms like “愛之智慧” (Amorsophia), “交互主體性” (intersubjectivity), and “技術倫理基礎生活設施”      (techno-ethical foundational living infrastructure) are consistently      translated to preserve their conceptual weight.

• Tone and Style: The translation maintains the original’s blend of poetic imagery      (e.g., “Burning rhino horn to illuminate the dark”) and rigorous      philosophical discourse, ensuring readability for an English audience.

• Cultural References: Phrases like “德法英三國殺” (Germany-France-Britain showdown) and “慣蛋” (trifles) are rendered idiomatically to convey their playful      yet critical tone.

[1] 1956年達特茅斯會議的資助，來源於Rockefeller Foundation。約翰·麥卡錫（John McCarthy）在1955年向洛克菲勒基金會提出資助申請，用於支持在達特茅斯學院舉辦為期兩個月的暑期研討會，探討“人工智能”（Artificial Intelligence）這一新興領域。McCarthy與Marvin Minsky、Nathaniel Rochester、Claude Shannon共同撰寫了提案，闡述了研究機器模擬人類智能的願景。儘管基金會最初對這一大膽設想持謹慎態度，但最終與基金會負責人羅伯特·莫里森（Robert Morison）的溝通促成了資助決定,使會議得以順利舉行。