The progress of science has broken through regions, and China is no longer isolated "within the four seas". It is also industrializing, although much later than the Western world, but better late than never. It is not accurate to say that the West invades the East. In fact, it was the modern that invaded the Middle Ages. To survive in the modern world, China must modernize. One question remains to be raised: Since Chinese philosophy is so closely related to the economic conditions of the Chinese people, does what Chinese philosophy says only applies to those who live in such conditions? The answer is yes and no. There is always a part of the philosophy of any nation or of any age that has value only in relation to the economic conditions of that nation or age, but there is always another part of greater value than this. The part that is not relative has long-term value. I hesitate to say whether it is absolute truth or not, because to determine what absolute truth is, this task is too great for anyone to undertake, and it should be left to God alone, if there is really a God. Let us take an example from Greek philosophy. Aristotle's justification of slavery can only be seen as a theory relative to the economic conditions of Greek life. But this is not to say that there is nothing incompatible in Aristotle's social philosophy. The same is true of Chinese thought. Once China industrialized, the old family system was bound to be abolished, along with the Confucian theories that justified it. But this does not mean that there is nothing incompatible in Confucian social philosophy.

The truth is that the ancient Greek and ancient Chinese societies were different, but both belonged to the general category we call "society." All the theoretical explanations of Greek society or Chinese society are also partly “society in general” explanations. While some of them belong exclusively to Greek or Chinese society itself, there must be something more general that belongs to "society in general." It is the latter things that are not relative and have long-term value. Taoism is the same. The Taoist theory that human utopia is an ancient primitive society must be wrong. We modern people have the concept of progress and believe that the ideal state of human existence can only be created in the future and will not be lost in the past. But some modern ideals of human existence, such as anarchism, are not at all similar to what Taoism thinks.

Philosophy also gives us ideals in life. A part of the ideal given by the philosophy of a nation or an era must belong only to this kind of life formed by the social conditions of that nation or era. But there must be a part of it that belongs to the "general life", so it is not relative but has long-term value. This seems to be illustrated by the Confucian theory of ideal life. The ideal life, according to this theory, is one in which, despite a profound awareness of the universe, it remains within the boundaries of the five basic human relationships. The nature of these relationships can vary according to circumstances. But the ideal itself does not change. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that because some of the "five relationships" must be abolished, the Confucian ideals of life must also be abolished. Also, it would be wrong to say that because this ideal of life is desirable, all the "five relationships" must be preserved. A logical analysis is necessary in order to distinguish in the history of philosophy what is constant and what is variable, each philosophy has something constant, and all philosophies have something in common. This is the reason why various philosophies can be compared and translated with each other despite being different.

The progress of science has broken through regions, and China is no longer isolated "within the four seas". It is also industrializing, although much later than the Western world, but better late than never. It is not accurate to say that the West invades the East. In fact, it was the modern that invaded the Middle Ages. To survive in the modern world, China must modernize. One question remains to be raised: Since Chinese philosophy is so closely related to the economic conditions of the Chinese people, does what Chinese philosophy says only applies to those who live in such conditions? The answer is yes and no. There is always a part of the philosophy of any nation or of any age that has value only in relation to the economic conditions of that nation or age, but there is always another part of greater value than this. The part that is not relative has long-term value. I hesitate to say whether it is absolute truth or not, because to determine what absolute truth is, this task is too great for anyone to undertake, and it should be left to God alone, if there is really a God. Let us take an example from Greek philosophy. Aristotle's justification of slavery can only be seen as a theory relative to the economic conditions of Greek life. But this is not to say that there is nothing incompatible in Aristotle's social philosophy. The same is true of Chinese thought. Once China industrialized, the old family system was bound to be abolished, along with the Confucian theories that justified it. But this does not mean that there is nothing incompatible in Confucian social philosophy.

The truth is that the ancient Greek and ancient Chinese societies were different, but both belonged to the general category we call "society." All the theoretical explanations of Greek society or Chinese society are also partly “society in general” explanations. While some of them belong exclusively to Greek or Chinese society itself, there must be something more general that belongs to "society in general." It is the latter things that are not relative and have long-term value. Taoism is the same. The Taoist theory that human utopia is an ancient primitive society must be wrong. We modern people have the concept of progress and believe that the ideal state of human existence can only be created in the future and will not be lost in the past. But some modern ideals of human existence, such as anarchism, are not at all similar to what Taoism thinks.

Philosophy also gives us ideals in life. A part of the ideal given by the philosophy of a nation or an era must belong only to this kind of life formed by the social conditions of that nation or era. But there must be a part of it that belongs to the "general life", so it is not relative but has long-term value. This seems to be illustrated by the Confucian theory of ideal life. The ideal life, according to this theory, is one in which, despite a profound awareness of the universe, it remains within the boundaries of the five basic human relationships. The nature of these relationships can vary according to circumstances. But the ideal itself does not change. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that because some of the "five relationships" must be abolished, the Confucian ideals of life must also be abolished. Also, it would be wrong to say that because this ideal of life is desirable, all the "five relationships" must be preserved. A logical analysis is necessary in order to distinguish in the history of philosophy what is constant and what is variable, each philosophy has something constant, and all philosophies have something in common. This is the reason why various philosophies can be compared and translated with each other despite being different.