Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Paradigm shift in the understanding of China is an inevitable result of intellectual and social changes. A history of the Western conception of China is a history of paradigm shift. As the driving force behind the European mainstream thought, Leibniz, Hegel and Jaspers, representatives of German philosophy, approached China with the spirit of the times, which one can still feel today. None of the three philosophers is a sinologist, but all of them brought China into their philosophical framework. The study of the paradigm shift in their understanding of China is valuable for our comprehension of the transformation of China image in the West. Obviously, these German thinkers studied China not out of the purely sinological interest, but the questions they raised when comparing Chinese thought and Western thought and their problem awareness in the face of Chinese thought still worth our attention today.

Abstract
Since the 17th century, works translated into European languages about China such as the Jesuit reports have given rise to a misleading impression that China has only Confucian tradition. To some extent, Confucianism defines the cultural identity of traditional China, but it does not mean that Confucianism steered traditional Chinese culture into monoculturalism. The tradition of unity in diversity is the fundamental reason why Chinese culture has withstood the test of time. Cultural pluralism not only existed in the history, but it still has a subtle impact on Chinese society and Chinese people today. From the Eastern Han Dynasty (25–220) to the modern age, Chinese culture has integrated elements of Buddhism, Christianity as well as Western science and social knowledge, which provided it with a potential of transformation and recreation. The author holds that it is this potential that empowers Chinese culture to meet the new challenges of Western modernity without cutting off its connection with the tradition.

Abstract
China studies in Germany has undergone great changes since the 1960s. Influenced by burgeoning area studies in the United States, German scholarship shifted from traditional philological studies focused on translating and interpreting Chinese classics to practical studies of modern Chinese politics, economy, law, etc. Hence, there was also a shift in research methodologies to those of the social sciences. However, this shift, significant as it is, can never replace traditional Sinological studies aimed at Chinese history and classics. This paper uses Chinese history as an example to explore the development of German academic Sinology. It points out that research in traditional Sinology, as well as in modern China studies, no longer focuses on a particular discipline, but rather follows the trend toward interdisciplinary, comprehensive research. Hence we can expect that China studies will become increasingly decentralized and interactive in the future development of the field.

Abstract
In this dialogue, Dr. Xuetao Li and Dr. Fabian Heubel approach the concepts of Hanxue (Sinology) and Guoxue (Traditional Chinese Studies) from the perspectives of history and intercultural philosophy. Their in-depth analysis suggest that one of the most important problems of Chinese culture lies in the transformation of traditional values in the contemporary context. The two scholars discuss the question how Chinese studies can transcends rigid, narrow-minded, and arbitrary ways of thinking and knowledge production.