Do you agree with Russell that philosophy brings the value of freedom and impartiality? Do you think philosophy is the only discipline of knowledge that brings these values?

To me, philosophy is about either suppressing human nature or letting it run wild. One example is Daoism in ancient China, particularly the concept of 无为而治—governing by non-interference. The idea is that the best governance is to let people live their own lives with minimal state control, and that harmony will emerge naturally. But this was rarely embraced in practice. Why? Because it contradicts human nature. Rulers want absolute control, and will suppress any thought they see as a threat to their authority.

A historical case is the civil service examination (科举). In the Song dynasty, the 策论 exams encouraged open debate and dissent among scholars. By the Qing dynasty, these had been replaced by the 八股文—rigid, formulaic essays praising the dynasty, with little room for critical thought. Over time, the exams became so detached from practical governance that top scores could be decided by coin tosses. China may have had some of the earliest seeds of democratic thinking, but these were never realized. Why? Because human nature—self-interest, factionalism, fear of losing power—has always stood in the way. And I believe that despite recognizing these flaws, philosophy can’t “fix” them.

Do you agree with Russsell that the three questions he mentioned cannot yet be answered by science (even though 100 years later), and is thus philosophical? Do you think we can ever answer these questions in a scientific way? 

I believe modern science could, in principle, provide answers to Russell’s questions. But interpretation is another matter. Even with data, people will disagree—not because the science is unclear, but because human beings prefer to fight over philosophical interpretations rather than unite over practical solutions. The barrier is not scientific capability; it’s human nature’s refusal to accept inconvenient truths.

Intuitively, what do you think is philosophy? Have you encountered any question or theory that you think is philosophical?

Philosophy can bring freedom of thought, yes. But impartiality? No. In the Northern Song dynasty, there was vibrant intellectual debate and reformist ideas—yet major reforms like the Qingli and Wang Anshi reforms collapsed under political infighting. Everyone knew what needed to be done, but factional loyalty outweighed reason. Leaders rejected each other’s policies outright, without fair debate, simply because they came from the “other” side. The same dynamic exists in modern U.S. politics: two entrenched camps, each unwilling to give the other credit, even when the ideas are sound. A thousand years later, we still repeat the same mistakes. Human nature hasn’t changed, and it never will.