論哲學家與美術家之天職
On the Calling of Philosophers and Artists
Wang Guowei 王國維 (1877–1927)
Qing · 1905

Cold Library · Open Stacks · S-003042 · https://coldlibrary.com/s/003042
Rights: First published in 1905; the author died in 1927. Public domain by age: the author died before 1956 and the text was published before 1931. Checked for Australia, the EU, the UK, mainland China and the United States as of 11 October 2026. Guidance, not legal advice.
Source: Wikisource, https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/論哲學家與美術家之天職 (retrieved 2026-10-11)
English translation: Claude (an AI), 2026 · CC0 1.0
Generated 2026-10-14 from https://coldlibrary.com/en/open-stacks/wang-guowei-the-calling-of-philosophers-and-artists

----

天下有最神聖、最尊貴而無與於當世之用者，哲學與美術是已。天下之人囂然謂之曰無用，無損于哲學、美術之價值也。至爲此學者自忘其神聖之位置，而求以合當世之用，於是二者之價值失。夫哲學與美術之所志者，真理也。真理者，天下萬世之真理，而非一時之真理也。其有發明此真理（哲學家），或以記號表之（美術）者，天下萬世之功績，而非一時之功績也。唯其爲天下萬世之真理，故不能盡與一時一國之利益合，且有時不能相容，此即其神聖之所存也。且夫世之所謂有用者，孰有過於政治家及實業家者乎？世人喜言功用，吾姑以其功用言之。夫人之所以異於禽獸者，豈不以其有純粹之知識與微妙之感情哉？至於生活之欲，人與禽獸無以或異。後者政治家及實業家之所供給；前者之慰藉滿足，非求諸哲學及美術不可。就其所貢獻於人之事業言之，其性質之貴賤，固以殊矣。至就其功效之所及言之，則哲學家與美術家之事業，雖千載以下，四海以外，苟其所發明之真理與其所表之之記號之尚存，則人類之知識感情由此而得其滿足慰藉者，曾無以異於昔；而政治家及實業家之事業，其及於五世十世者希矣。此又久暫之別也。然則人而無所貢獻於哲學、美術，斯亦已耳；苟爲真正之哲學家、美術家，又何慊乎政治家哉！

披我中國之哲學史，凡哲學家無不欲兼爲政治家者，斯可異已！孔子大政治家也，墨子大政治家也，孟、荀二子皆抱政治上之大志者也。漢之賈、董，宋之張、程、朱、陸，明之羅、王無不然。豈獨哲學家而已，詩人亦然。「自謂頗騰達，立登要路津。致君堯舜上，再使風俗淳。」非杜子美之抱負乎？「胡不上書自薦達，坐令四海如虞唐。」非韓退之之忠告乎？「寂寞已甘千古笑，馳驅猶望兩河平。」非陸務觀之悲憤乎？如此者，世謂之大詩人矣。至詩人之無此抱負者，與夫小說、戲曲、圖畫、音樂諸家，皆以侏儒倡優自處，世亦以侏儒倡優畜之。所謂「詩外尚有事在」、「一命爲文人，便無足觀」，我國人之金科玉律也。嗚呼！美術之無獨立之價值也久矣。此無怪歷代詩人，多託於忠君愛國、勸善懲惡之意以自解免，而純粹美術上之著述，徃徃受世之迫害，而無人爲之昭雪者也。此亦我國哲學美術不發達之一原因也。

夫然，故我國無純粹之哲學，其最完備者，唯道德哲學與政治哲學耳。至於周、秦、兩宋間之形而上學，不過欲固道德哲學之根柢，其對形而上學非有固有之興味也。其於形而上學且然，况乎美學、名學、知識論等冷淡不急之問題哉！更轉而觀詩歌之方面，則詠史、懷古、感事、贈人之題目彌滿充塞於詩界，而抒情敍事之作，什佰不能得一。其有美術上之價值者，僅其寫自然之美之一方面耳。甚至戲曲、小說之純文學，亦徃徃以懲勸爲恉，其有純粹美術上之目的者，世非惟不知貴，且加貶焉。於哲學則如彼，於美術則如此，豈獨世人不具眼之罪哉，抑亦哲學家、美術家自忘其神聖之位置與獨立之價值，而葸然以聽命於衆故也？

至我國哲學家及詩人所以多政治上之抱負者，抑又有說。夫勢力之欲，人之所生而即具者，聖賢豪傑之所不能免也。而知力愈優者，其勢力之欲亦愈盛。人之對哲學及美術而有興味者，必其知力之優者也，故其勢力之欲亦準之。今純粹之哲學與純粹之美術既不能得勢力于我國之思想界矣，則彼等勢力之欲，不於政治，將於何求其滿足之地乎？且政治上之勢力有形的也，及身的也；而哲學美術上之勢力，無形的也，身後的也。故非曠世之豪傑，鮮有不爲一時之勢力所誘惑者矣。雖然，無亦其對哲學、美術之趣味有未深，而於其價值有未自覺者乎？今夫人積年月之研究，而一旦豁然悟宇宙人生之真理，或以胸中惝恍不可捉摸之意境，一旦表諸文字、繪畫、彫刻之上，此固彼天賦之能力之發展，而此時之快樂，决非南面王之所能易者也。且此宇宙人生而尚如故，則其所發明所表示之宇宙人生之真理之勢力與價值，必仍如故。之二者所以酬哲學家、美術家者，固已多矣。若夫忘哲學、美術之神聖，而以爲道德、政治之手段者，正使其著作無價值者也。願今後之哲學、美術家，毋忘其天職而失其獨立之位置，則幸矣！

----

天下有最神圣、最尊贵而无与于当世之用者，哲学与美术是已。天下之人嚣然谓之曰无用，无损于哲学、美术之价值也。至为此学者自忘其神圣之位置，而求以合当世之用，于是二者之价值失。夫哲学与美术之所志者，真理也。真理者，天下万世之真理，而非一时之真理也。其有发明此真理（哲学家），或以记号表之（美术）者，天下万世之功绩，而非一时之功绩也。唯其为天下万世之真理，故不能尽与一时一国之利益合，且有时不能相容，此即其神圣之所存也。且夫世之所谓有用者，孰有过于政治家及实业家者乎？世人喜言功用，吾姑以其功用言之。夫人之所以异于禽兽者，岂不以其有纯粹之知识与微妙之感情哉？至于生活之欲，人与禽兽无以或异。后者政治家及实业家之所供给；前者之慰藉满足，非求诸哲学及美术不可。就其所贡献于人之事业言之，其性质之贵贱，固以殊矣。至就其功效之所及言之，则哲学家与美术家之事业，虽千载以下，四海以外，苟其所发明之真理与其所表之之记号之尚存，则人类之知识感情由此而得其满足慰藉者，曾无以异于昔；而政治家及实业家之事业，其及于五世十世者希矣。此又久暂之别也。然则人而无所贡献于哲学、美术，斯亦已耳；苟为真正之哲学家、美术家，又何慊乎政治家哉！

披我中国之哲学史，凡哲学家无不欲兼为政治家者，斯可异已！孔子大政治家也，墨子大政治家也，孟、荀二子皆抱政治上之大志者也。汉之贾、董，宋之张、程、朱、陆，明之罗、王无不然。岂独哲学家而已，诗人亦然。「自谓颇腾达，立登要路津。致君尧舜上，再使风俗淳。」非杜子美之抱负乎？「胡不上书自荐达，坐令四海如虞唐。」非韩退之之忠告乎？「寂寞已甘千古笑，驰驱犹望两河平。」非陆务观之悲愤乎？如此者，世谓之大诗人矣。至诗人之无此抱负者，与夫小说、戏曲、图画、音乐诸家，皆以侏儒倡优自处，世亦以侏儒倡优畜之。所谓「诗外尚有事在」、「一命为文人，便无足观」，我国人之金科玉律也。呜呼！美术之无独立之价值也久矣。此无怪历代诗人，多托于忠君爱国、劝善惩恶之意以自解免，而纯粹美术上之著述，往往受世之迫害，而无人为之昭雪者也。此亦我国哲学美术不发达之一原因也。

夫然，故我国无纯粹之哲学，其最完备者，唯道德哲学与政治哲学耳。至于周、秦、两宋间之形而上学，不过欲固道德哲学之根柢，其对形而上学非有固有之兴味也。其于形而上学且然，况乎美学、名学、知识论等冷淡不急之问题哉！更转而观诗歌之方面，则咏史、怀古、感事、赠人之题目弥满充塞于诗界，而抒情叙事之作，什佰不能得一。其有美术上之价值者，仅其写自然之美之一方面耳。甚至戏曲、小说之纯文学，亦往往以惩劝为旨，其有纯粹美术上之目的者，世非惟不知贵，且加贬焉。于哲学则如彼，于美术则如此，岂独世人不具眼之罪哉，抑亦哲学家、美术家自忘其神圣之位置与独立之价值，而葸然以听命于众故也？

至我国哲学家及诗人所以多政治上之抱负者，抑又有说。夫势力之欲，人之所生而即具者，圣贤豪杰之所不能免也。而知力愈优者，其势力之欲亦愈盛。人之对哲学及美术而有兴味者，必其知力之优者也，故其势力之欲亦准之。今纯粹之哲学与纯粹之美术既不能得势力于我国之思想界矣，则彼等势力之欲，不于政治，将于何求其满足之地乎？且政治上之势力有形的也，及身的也；而哲学美术上之势力，无形的也，身后的也。故非旷世之豪杰，鲜有不为一时之势力所诱惑者矣。虽然，无亦其对哲学、美术之趣味有未深，而于其价值有未自觉者乎？今夫人积年月之研究，而一旦豁然悟宇宙人生之真理，或以胸中惝恍不可捉摸之意境，一旦表诸文字、绘画、雕刻之上，此固彼天赋之能力之发展，而此时之快乐，决非南面王之所能易者也。且此宇宙人生而尚如故，则其所发明所表示之宇宙人生之真理之势力与价值，必仍如故。之二者所以酬哲学家、美术家者，固已多矣。若夫忘哲学、美术之神圣，而以为道德、政治之手段者，正使其著作无价值者也。愿今后之哲学、美术家，毋忘其天职而失其独立之位置，则幸矣！

----

English translation by Claude (an AI)

There are things in the world that are most sacred and most noble and yet of no use to their own age: philosophy and art are these. Let the whole world clamour that they are useless; it takes nothing from the worth of philosophy and art. But when those who pursue them forget their sacred place and try to make them serve the uses of the age, both lose their worth. What philosophy and art aim at is truth. Truth is the truth of all the world and of ten thousand ages, not the truth of a single time. Whoever discovers that truth (the philosopher) or expresses it in signs (the artist) has done a work for all the world and for ten thousand ages, not for a single time. Because it is the truth of all the world and of ten thousand ages, it cannot always agree with the interests of one time and one country, and sometimes it cannot even live with them; and in this lies its sacredness. Moreover, of those the world calls useful, who is more useful than the statesman and the man of industry? People like to speak of usefulness, so let me speak of it too. What makes human beings different from the birds and beasts, if not that they have pure knowledge and subtle feeling? In the desire to live, people and beasts are no different. The statesman and the man of industry supply that desire; but the comfort and satisfaction of knowledge and feeling must be sought in philosophy and art. Judged by the nature of what they give to people, the two kinds of work are plainly unequal in worth. Judged by how far their effects reach, the work of the philosopher and the artist, a thousand years later and beyond the four seas, so long as the truth they discovered and the signs that express it remain, will satisfy and console human knowledge and feeling no less than it did at first; while the work of statesmen and men of industry rarely reaches five or ten generations. This is the difference between the lasting and the brief. So if a person contributes nothing to philosophy and art, so be it; but if he is a true philosopher or artist, why should he envy the statesman?

When I open the history of our Chinese philosophy, I find that every philosopher wanted to be a statesman as well, which is strange. Confucius was a great statesman, Mozi was a great statesman, and Mencius and Xunzi both cherished great political ambitions. So did Jia Yi and Dong Zhongshu of the Han; Zhang Zai, the Cheng brothers, Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan of the Song; and Luo Qinshun and Wang Yangming of the Ming. And not only the philosophers: the poets too. "I thought I would rise at once and stand on the road to power, raise my lord above Yao and Shun, and make the customs pure again." Was this not the ambition of Du Fu? "Why not send up a memorial to recommend yourself, and make the four seas like the age of Yu and Tang?" Was this not the counsel of Han Yu? "Resigned to being laughed at for a thousand years in my loneliness, still I gallop on, hoping to see the lands by the two rivers made peaceful." Was this not the grief and anger of Lu You? Men like these are called great poets. As for poets without such ambitions, and writers of fiction and drama, painters and musicians, they all regard themselves as dwarfs and jesters, and the world keeps them as dwarfs and jesters. "There are more important things than poetry," and "Once a man is called a man of letters, there is nothing worth looking at in him": these are the golden rules of our countrymen. Alas, it has long been that art has no independent worth. No wonder that poets through the ages have so often excused themselves by pleading loyalty to the sovereign and love of the country, or the encouraging of good and punishing of evil, while writings of pure artistic purpose have often been persecuted by the world, with no one to clear their name. This is one of the reasons why philosophy and art have not flourished in our country.

So our country has no pure philosophy. The most complete it has are moral philosophy and political philosophy. The metaphysics of the Zhou and Qin and the two Song dynasties was only meant to strengthen the foundations of moral philosophy, and was not pursued out of any real interest in metaphysics for its own sake. If that was so even with metaphysics, how much more with aesthetics, logic, the theory of knowledge and such remote questions that nobody thinks urgent. Turning to poetry, we find the world of verse crammed with poems on history, on the past, on current events and on gifts to friends, while lyric and narrative works are not one in a hundred. What artistic worth it has lies in one side only: the portrayal of natural beauty. Even drama and fiction, which are pure literature, have often taken moral instruction as their aim, and those with a purely artistic purpose are not only unvalued by the world but even disparaged. In philosophy it is like this, in art like that. Is this only the fault of a world without discernment? Or is it also that philosophers and artists have forgotten their own sacred place and independent worth, and timidly submitted to the crowd?

There is another reason why our philosophers and poets have so often had political ambitions. The desire for power is something people are born with, and even sages and heroes cannot escape it. The greater a person's intellect, the stronger the desire. Those who are drawn to philosophy and art are always those of superior intellect, and so their desire for power is strong in proportion. Now that pure philosophy and pure art could gain no power in the thought of our country, where else could such people satisfy their desire for power but in politics? Besides, power in politics is visible and comes within one's own lifetime, while power in philosophy and art is invisible and comes after one is gone. So, unless one is a hero such as appears once in an age, few can resist the lure of power in their own time. And yet, is it not also that their love of philosophy and art was not deep enough, and they were not truly aware of their worth? When a person, after years and months of study, suddenly understands some truth of the universe and human life, or sets down in writing, painting or sculpture a vision once vague and impossible to grasp, this is the unfolding of the powers given him by nature, and the joy of that moment could never be exchanged for a throne. And so long as the universe and human life remain as they are, the power and worth of the truth he has discovered and expressed will remain as they are. These two things are reward enough for the philosopher and the artist. To forget the sacredness of philosophy and art and use them as tools of morality or politics is exactly what makes a work worthless. May the philosophers and artists to come never forget their calling, nor lose their independent place. That would be fortunate indeed.