关于真理唯一性与多元性问题的微信讨论记录

陈嘉映的一段视频讲述自己从真理唯一性转向多元性的思想历程，引起张军教授的反驳。我对他的反驳发表了一点自己的看法，结果一来一去就形成了如下对话。

张军：主张多元社会、多元认知都是必要的或者无可避免的，至少在现代社会。主张多元“真理”则是不折不扣的堕落而不是进步，无论对于哲学还是智识。存在多元真理=真理不存在！ 1+1=2，3，4，5？！如果放弃一元真理（无论它是什么、如何可知/不可知）预设，从此思想和哲学就只能沦为自娱自乐的游戏，而与真理无关。而且也必将败坏瓦解任何现存的或者本来有望可达的伦理价值体系。 你可以讲关于“我”（ego）存在的任何故事或者发明任何奇葩的逻辑，但是从此就自动取消了自己讲述关于“我们”（作为人类整体）的共同存在的故事和普遍逻辑的任何资格。

我：您应该先讲清楚多元真理的含义是什么，然后再去批判它。注意多元性不同于相对性。

张军：主张“多元真理”就是主张“相对主义”，by definition。不是吗？

我：通常语境下我们说的真理，其存在的前提是有相应的哲学框架。如果不相容的框架各自存在自洽的真理，那么这些不同的框架之间就具有多元性。注意这里说的不相容是一个关键特征，否则这些不同的框架就可以融合成一个更大的内部自洽的框架。这些各自属于不同框架内的所谓真理，它们之间不一定具有相对性。各自框架内的真理也可能具有其框架内的绝对性。基督教的绝对价值观和真理观会与现代文明的理性与科学存在根本性的冲突。我想这可能是您强烈反对所谓的多元真理，而且在情绪上有比较大的反应的原因。

张军：您讲的这些与“真理”没有一点关系。[呲牙] 我们这里谈的当然是大写的Truth。是关乎本体论，关乎终极存在和“第一因”。不是认识论和方法论。后者当然可以也必然多元。 陈嘉映自己讲得很清楚，古希腊的传统，与希伯来的一样，都是绝对真理观和价值观。它们都是现代文明的起点、根基、保障，哪里冲突了？即便中国人的传统也不是什么作为后现代的相对主义和虚无主义。这些才是现代文明的敌人。再说评价（现代）文明是另外的事情，真理不能作为工具被讨论。

张军接下来一条评论不是直接回复我本人的，而是面向所有的参与者。有些不是我的网友，所以我看不到微信朋友圈中其他的参与者：

张军：太多人分不清“认知”与“认知的对象”。人类认知有局限，必然多元。但 “认知的对象” 是一元还是多元，是实在还是虚空，这是一个根本性的信念，本身不是人类可达的，但是如何相信是决定性的。如同康德相信 “认知” 只能触及 “现象界”， 而不能达到（作为真理的）“本体界”。但是，（前）现代的思想家都会相信：1）作为认知对象的真理本体（或者叫做自然，或者叫做上帝）是存在的、实在的、唯一的、绝对的、理性的、规律的、稳定的（这里想起唯名论之争）；2）作为认知主体的人是有理性的、有认知能力的（这里还有先验论、白板论等重大争议，就我肤浅了解）；3）认知主体的理性（无论多么局限）与认知对象的理性（真理性）具有一致性（且不说特殊启示和普遍启示问题，而且现在还有宇宙与大脑关联的量子玄学），所以人的认知才能有效，所以人才能 “发现”（作为科学的）“自然律” 和（作为道德的）“自然法”。现代科学和现代文明就是这样才出现的。但后现代的思想就是试图“连根拔起”，几乎是完全否定第一条，不仅不要希伯来，而且不要希腊。所以才会有各种天下大乱和学术倒退。 既然你已经相信绝对真理不存在，那哪里还能有什么“追求真理” 的事情。那你还要大学和学术做什么，还要哲学做什么？各人随便吃喝玩耍不就好了？既然你宣称自己脑子里的东西与真理无关，那我还听你说话岂不是傻子？还不如听听脱口秀呢。所以，的确，我对这些后现代的东西有强烈的反感。

我：真理的唯一性和多元性问题，既涉及到本体论也涉及到认识论。说实话，微信不太适合做深入严肃的讨论，我们只能用最简单通俗的语言表达自己的基本看法，比如我一开始就强调了“在通常的语境下”，即便如此，什么叫通常语境，这也会产生很多不同的理解。就本体论而言，真理的唯一性和多元性说到底是信仰之争。但是这里说的信仰并不能简单地等同于某种具体的宗教信仰，而是指无法最终进行经验或逻辑上的决定性证明，最终只能一股脑的交给“信”。至于真理的多元性会不会引起天下大乱，这大可不杞人忧天。人类这点可怜的智力之所以能够存在，就是因为这种认知上的多元性一直存在。或者说真理的唯一性不能统一所有人的头脑，甚至不能统一同一个人的头脑。基督徒对这个世界的道德紊乱始终存在一种挥之不去的焦虑，遗憾的是这个世界始终都是紊乱的，比如真理的多元性，也就是我前面所说的不同框架之间的不相容性。顺便说一下，我非常佩服您的博学和严谨的治学态度。

张：难得你对这个问题这么有兴趣。 [微笑] 我本来的评论就是针对视频里陈嘉映的阐述，讲他思想历程的转变，讲他如何放弃对一元绝对终极真理存在的信念转向多元论。而且他的这个一元论本来是古希腊的，不是希伯来的。所以我拒绝跟你跑到“通常语境下”，因为那不是我的问题和关切。而我要主张的，就是这种放弃是错误的、有害的，而不仅仅是个人偏好问题。 所以，这个必须是个“本体”问题。 而且诚实的本体一元论必然导向认知多元论。而“本体一元+认知多元”与“本体多元+认知多元”有着天壤之别。所以你一旦模糊了这个界限就失去了全部讨论的意义。 所以我对认知多元从来没有意见。但我对本体多元的主张坚决抵制。 而且我的个人定位就是与这种多元论作斗争的思想战士。这不是什么杞人忧天，也不是什么思想专制主义。我切实地认为，人类过去、现在、未来的一切重大灾难，都是以此为根源的（尽管展开会相当复杂）。尽管我知道你不会同意。 [微笑]

A video segment of Chen Jiaying discussing his intellectual journey from believing in the uniqueness of truth to embracing pluralism sparked a rebuttal from Professor Zhang Jun. I responded to his critique with my thoughts, and this back-and-forth evolved into the following dialogue:

Zhang Jun: Advocating for a pluralistic society and diverse cognition is necessary—or at least inevitable—in modern society. But advocating for plural “truths” is pure degeneration, not progress, whether in philosophy or in intellectual pursuits. The existence of multiple truths = the non-existence of truth! 1+1=2, 3, 4, 5?! If we abandon the presupposition of a singular truth (whatever it is, whether knowable or not), then philosophy becomes a self-indulgent game, irrelevant to truth. It will also corrupt and dissolve any existing or potentially achievable ethical value system. You can make up any story about the ego or invent bizarre logics, but you then lose all qualification to speak about “us” (as a collective humanity) and our shared logic of existence.

Me: I think it’s necessary to clarify what “plural truth” actually means before criticizing it. Note that pluralism is different from relativism.

Zhang Jun: Advocating for “plural truths” is, by definition, advocating for relativism. Isn’t it?

Me: In general usage, when we talk about truth, its existence presupposes a corresponding philosophical framework. If mutually incompatible frameworks each hold internally consistent truths, then pluralism arises between those frameworks. Note that “incompatible” is key—otherwise, they could be merged into a larger internally coherent system. The so-called truths within each framework are not necessarily relative to one another. They might be absolute within their own frameworks. For example, the absolute value system and truth claims in Christianity fundamentally conflict with the rationality and science of modern civilization. That may be why you react so strongly and emotionally against so-called plural truths.

Zhang Jun: What you’re saying has nothing to do with “Truth.” 😄 What we’re discussing here is Truth with a capital “T.” It’s about ontology, ultimate existence, and the “First Cause.” Not epistemology or methodology. The latter can and must be plural. Chen Jiaying made this distinction very clear—both the Greek and Hebrew traditions are rooted in absolute truth and value. These are the foundations and guarantees of modern civilization—how are they in conflict? Even Chinese tradition is not postmodern relativism or nihilism. Those are the real enemies of modern civilization. Evaluating (modern) civilization is another matter; truth is not a tool to be used in debate.

Zhang Jun then posted a comment not directed solely at me but to all participants—some of whom weren’t my friends, so I couldn’t see the full WeChat thread:

Zhang Jun: Too many people can’t distinguish “cognition” from “the object of cognition.” Human cognition is limited, inevitably plural. But whether the object of cognition is one or many, real or void—that is a matter of fundamental belief. It’s not knowable by humans, but what one believes is decisive. Just like Kant believed cognition can only reach the phenomenal world, not the noumenal (Truth) world. However, (pre-)modern thinkers all believed:

That the object of cognition—Truth, Nature, God—is real, singular, absolute, rational, lawful, and stable (think of the debate on nominalism); That humans, as cognitive subjects, possess rationality and the capacity for cognition (though there are major debates here too—e.g., nativism vs. tabula rasa); That there’s a rational congruence between human cognition and the object of cognition (ignoring for now the issue of divine vs. general revelation, or modern quantum mysticism linking the universe and the brain).

Because of this, human cognition can be effective—hence the discovery of natural laws (science) and natural law (ethics). That’s how modern science and civilization emerged. Postmodern thought seeks to uproot this, especially denying the first point—not just rejecting Hebrew traditions, but also Greek ones. This leads to widespread chaos and academic regression.

If you already believe that absolute truth does not exist, how can you still speak of a “pursuit of truth”? Why have universities and philosophy at all? Why not just eat, drink, and have fun? If you claim your thoughts have nothing to do with truth, then why should I listen to you? I’d rather watch stand-up comedy. So yes, I strongly dislike postmodernism.

Me: The question of whether truth is singular or plural involves both ontology and epistemology. Frankly, WeChat isn’t suited for deep, serious discussions—we can only use simple, plain language to express our basic views. That’s why I began with “in general usage,” though even that phrase can be understood differently.

Ontologically, the question boils down to a matter of belief. But here, “belief” doesn’t mean religious faith—it refers to ideas that cannot be definitively proven through experience or logic, and must ultimately be entrusted to “faith.”

As for whether plural truths will lead to societal collapse—I think that’s an unnecessary worry. Humanity’s limited intelligence has survived precisely because of cognitive pluralism. The singularity of truth has never unified all minds—not even the mind of a single individual. Christians often harbor persistent anxiety over moral disorder in the world. Unfortunately, the world has always been disordered—plural truths, or rather, the incompatibility of different frameworks, is part of that.

By the way, I greatly admire your erudition and rigorous academic attitude.

Zhang Jun: It’s rare to see you so interested in this topic. 😊 My original comment was a response to the video in which Chen Jiaying explained his intellectual transformation—from believing in a singular, absolute, ultimate truth to adopting pluralism. And his original monism was Greek, not Hebrew. So I won’t follow you into “general usage,” because that’s not my concern.

What I assert is that this kind of abandonment (of monism) is mistaken and harmful—not just a matter of personal preference. So this must be an ontological issue. And an honest ontological monism necessarily leads to epistemological pluralism. But “ontological monism + epistemological pluralism” and “ontological pluralism + epistemological pluralism” are worlds apart. If you blur that line, the whole discussion loses meaning.

So I have no objection to cognitive pluralism. But I firmly oppose ontological pluralism. I personally see myself as a warrior fighting against this kind of pluralism. This is not alarmism or intellectual authoritarianism. I sincerely believe that all major disasters in human history—past, present, and future—stem from this (though unpacking that would be complex). I know you won’t agree. 😊

附部分截图如下：

（考拉是我的微信网名）

我没有再进一步地回复 实在不想在微信上这样没完没了地讨论下去，不仅没有效率，而且没有效果。其实我的“共识论”就可以彻底解决这些问题。张军的焦虑来自于共识论中的“共识不能”这一部分。

I didn’t respond any further—I really didn’t want to keep engaging in an endless discussion on WeChat. It’s not only inefficient but also ineffective. In fact, my “consensualism” could completely resolve these issues. Zhang Jun’s anxiety stems from what I call the “inability to reach consensus” within the framework of consensualism.