The “Siku Quanshu,” or the “Complete Library in the Four Branches of Literature,” concerning Chinese classics, history, philosophy and litrature, reflects the traditional classification of knowledge. Photo: TUCHONG
Human society today faces an urgent need for mutual understanding between civilizations. While geography and institutions are no longer barriers to communication and cooperation, genuine understanding across civilizations remains a major challenge for societal development. At a deeper level, such understanding requires the alignment of thought, which is concretely reflected in the knowledge systems nurtured by different civilizations. Exploring new pathways for human civilization through the lens of knowledge systems has thus become an inevitable trend.
To date, Chinese academia has achieved significant theoretical advances in constructing an independent knowledge system. Yet a truly autonomous system must be built from the ground up, beginning with the creation of an independent knowledge classification framework—from its foundational logic—and extending toward a universal theoretical foundation. As the underlying logic of knowledge production, such a classification framework serves as the intellectual “chip” of knowledge generation, enabling the organic optimization and integration of the “totality of human knowledge.” Here, it is necessary to clarify that the independent knowledge system and the knowledge classification system are distinct yet closely linked. The former can be developed by discipline, while the latter should restructure and reinterpret the broader disciplinary landscape, offering a new synthesis of global intellectual achievements. Through this process, humanity can achieve unprecedented mutual learning, complementarity, and shared growth, potentially forming a universally applicable public theoretical framework, borrowing Yan Fu’s understanding of logic “the method of all methods, the study of all studies.”
Underlying logic & general principles
The independent knowledge classification system provides the framework for organizing knowledge, while the public theoretical framework offers its foundational logic. The former is dedicated to uncovering the underlying logic behind knowledge systems, while the latter emphasizes the universal principles and structural underpinnings that justify systems of knowledge classification—in essence, its meta-foundations. The realization of the former signifies the completion of the latter. Given current circumstances, the construction of an independent knowledge classification system and exploring a public theoretical framework should proceed along three main dimensions.
First, it must move beyond the traditional practice of building discipline-specific knowledge systems and instead draw from the intellectual traditions of multiple civilizations, devising new models for understanding how disciplines diverge and integrate. Developing an independent knowledge system within a specific discipline can provide valuable support for advancing a broader knowledge classification system. Yet if such efforts remain confined to disciplinary silos, the very boundaries created by traditional classification may become even more entrenched, hindering intellectual integration and innovation.
To date, existing knowledge systems have largely been built upon Western disciplinary frameworks. However, each civilization has developed its own logic of classification, and these diverse systems should coexist and complement one another to form a more integrated, innovative structure. By common estimates, there are more than 200 countries and regions across the globe, each contributing its own rich perspective and worldview. In many fields of the social sciences and even humanities, there is no single or optimal solution. Therefore, openness and pluralism are crucial in designing a new system that synthesizes diverse classifactory approaches to different knowledge classification systems across human civilizations and embraces a holistic understanding of the Western academic tradition. Moreover, the demands of our era necessitate exploring new knowledge classification systems based on the underlying logic of disciplinary differentiation and integration. Like a new operating system, a restructured classification system can bring transformative reform to the existing disciplinary ecology.
Second, it is crucial to overcome the limitations of the excessive and deep-rooted division between the arts and sciences, reorient patterns of human cognition, and propose new, integrative solutions. The long-standing arts–sciences split has defined modern knowledge organization and has played a somewhat positive role in knowledge innovation and value renewal, but its excessive separation and lack of intrinsic organic interconnections now can lead to substantial limitations and drawbacks. As C.P. Snow highlighted in his celebrated mid-20th century debate on the “Two Cultures” (humanities culture vs. scientific culture), this divide has produced enduring intellectual and social barriers, particularly within the arts-sciences divide. Overall, the prioritization of STEM over the humanities, or the emphasis on technology at the expense of human culture, has become the dominant trend in cultural construction since the 20th century.
While technology brings convenience, it also heightens the risk of life’s mechanization and alienation. The “disenchantment” of the world may indeed clarify existence, but it can also render it hollow and lead to nihilism. In reality, the division between the humanities and sciences in knowledge has become more consequential than the tensions presented by the dichotomies of East and West and past and present. There is no doubt that the humanities and sciences are not fundamentally distinct, nor are they inherently conflicting. As Karl Marx predicted, “Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science.” The world is an interconnected whole in which material and cultural-ethical advancement are equally important. Whether it is the relationship between heaven and humanity or that between mind and matter, proper arrangements must be made. Both knowledge systems and disciplinary frameworks should serve to help humanity better understand and even transform the world. As the saying goes, “The great system is invisible.” The mechanistic nature of human thought has led to a fragmented image of the world, which is certainly not a blessing for the development of human society. The problems created by the excessive division between the humanities and sciences cannot be resolved merely by adjusting their proportions. Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches that simply optimize the combination of both elements thus fail to fundamentally address deeper issue. What is required is a new-era knowledge classification system that seeks genuine creative integration at the level of public theoretical foundations.
This requires, above all, a new interpretation and reorganization of science itself. As a method of knowledge innovation, science remains a vital tool for understanding and transforming the world, yet this does not mean that science should become the taken-for-granted consensus foundation for societal development. Science, at its root, is a technique—a means rather than an ultimate end—and should not be absolutized. The true public foundation of human civilization must rest on what might be called a form of “Dao,” or Way: a holistic cognitive approach capable of ensuring that both process and outcome remain rational, ethical, and just.
In this sense, an independent knowledge classification system offers a pathway to harmonize the relationship between the humanities and sciences by forming a universal public theoretical framework. With the emergence of artificial intelligence in particular, the conditions for overcoming this opposition have only improved. In applying technology, questions of value alignment become central and fundamental. In this context, the humanities have ample room to guide practice. As Marx’s illuminating insight—“human beings also build according to the laws of beauty”—reminds us, efforts to understand and transform the world should aim at the unity of truth, goodness, and beauty. This points toward both the direction and the pathway for a deep integration of the humanities and sciences.
Third, this endeavor must draw deeply from the spiritual heritage and practical wisdom of Chinese civilization, transforming long-standing East-West and past-present oppositions into a creative synthesis. During the modern eastward influx of Western learning, traditional Chinese scholarship suffered unprecedented challenges. In this once-in-a-millennium transformation, the misconception that “China lacks science” gradually gained narrative prominence. This misunderstanding arose primarily due to differences in civilizational concepts of knowledge and discipline—Western disciplinary concepts are often ill-equipped to confront the intellectual wealth of Chinese civilization. The cognitive differences in human thought, as characterized by modern disciplinary systems, have already become major barriers to genuine civilizational dialogue. When judged by the narrow definitions prevailing in certain branches of natural sciences, social sciences, and even the humanities, the assertion that “China lacks science” may appear superficially reasonable. Yet the deeper question is how to understand and appreciate the material, institutional, and intellectual achievements that Chinese civilization has accumulated over its long history. Today, human society faces an unprecedented need for mutual understanding across cultures. From the standpoint of constructing a public theoretical framework, our existing concepts of science, logic, knowledge, and value demand thorough reflection and creative renewal. We must deliberately pursue methods of synthesis that draw fully on the distinctive strengths of both Eastern and Western traditions. On this basis, attempts should be made to build a knowledge classification system and a public theoretical framework capable of adapting to the holistic development of future human civilization.
Theoretical & practical significance
When it comes to the defining characteristics of Chinese civilization, there has long been no shortage of classic discussions. From the standpoint of knowledge classification and theoretical foundations, it becomes evident that Chinese civilization has historically placed a stronger emphasis on scholarship and methodology. This tradition has fostered a methodological consciousness that, to a significant extent, explains why Chinese culture is inherently transdisciplinary. Discipline building in the Chinese context has focused on organizing existing knowledge, while scholarship has always prioritized solving real-world problems. To address complex, real-world issues, Chinese culture developed a methodological tendency to synthesize diverse strands of thought, cultivating an intellectual capacity for resolving contradictions and restoring balance.
The construction of an independent knowledge classification system and a public theoretical framework, therefore, must rest on the symbiotic complementarity of Eastern and Western cultures. It is essential to dispel misconceptions such as the notion that “China lacks science,” and instead build a more inclusive and compatible foundational operating system for the new civilization to come. This lies at the heart of constructing an independent knowledge classification system and a public theoretical framework.
As cultural exchange and mutual learning between East and West continue to deepen, the existing disciplinary ecosystem will naturally become the arena for true academic debate and civilizational dialogue. A public theoretical framework with the significance of principles and laws should attempt to bridge the cognitive gaps and resolve the oppositions between different cultures. Here, the distinctive strengths and enduring wisdom of Chinese culture can play a particularly constructive role.
In summary, the emergence of a new form of human civilization is inseparable from the creation of an independent knowledge system. Given the current state of academic research, the exploration of knowledge classification systems and public theoretical frameworks represents a vital breakthrough for reform. In this process, the independent knowledge classification system should not be treated as a rigid standard but as a living mode of cognition—one that continues to grow and operate within the shared intellectual horizon of all humankind.
Sun Guozhu is an associate professor from the School of Humanities at China University of Political Science and Law.
Edited by ZHAO YUAN