The Social and Natural Order Under the “Invisible Hand”

“看不见的手”下的社会自然秩序

Yang Peng (杨鹏) & Yang Ziyun (杨子云) |

Yang Peng is a scholar who formerly served as Director of the Policy Office at the Policy Research Center for Environmental Economics under the National Environmental Protection Agency (国家环保局环境经济政策研究中心), and as Director of the Beijing Tianxiagu Entrepreneurs’ Institute of Culture (北京天下谷企业家文化研究所), Secretary-General of the Alxa SEE Ecological Association (阿拉善SEE生态协会), and Secretary-General of the One Foundation (壹基金). His publications include Becoming God (《成为上帝》), the philosophical essays The Rise of a New East Asian Culture—On East Asian Economic Development (《东亚新文化的兴起——东亚经济发展论》), and the economics monograph A Detailed Explanation of Laozi—A Study in Laozi’s Governance Theory (《老子详解——老子执政学研究》).

Yang Ziyun (杨子云) is a poet, columnist, and seasoned media professional. He formerly served as Assistant Editor-in-Chief of China Lawyers (《中国法律人》) magazine and as Senior Editor at China Reform (《中国改革》) magazine. He was an IVLP international visiting scholar at the U.S. Department of State in 2008 and a visiting scholar at The Chinese University of Hong Kong’s Centre for Civil Society Studies. Currently, he is Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Tencent’s Thought Forum (腾讯网思想论坛组) and host of the Yanshan Lecture Hall (燕山大讲堂).

【Editor’s Note: This article is a record of a conversation on September 25, 2022, in which Yang Ziyun (杨子云) interviewed Yang Peng about Professor Gao Quanxi’s (高全喜) essay “Smith’s Theory of National Wealth and the Invisible Hand” (《斯密的国民财富论以及看不见的手》). Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (《道德情操论》) and The Wealth of Nations (《国富论》) describe a harmonious state of nature and reject the necessity and legitimacy of despotic power. Adam Smith’s concept of the "invisible hand" is deeply rooted in natural theology, connecting self-interest with public welfare through a divine, transcendent force—Providence. Drawing from The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, Yang Peng argues that the "invisible hand" reflects God’s rational order, akin to Newton’s watchmaker universe. This divine mechanism harmonizes self-interest and collective good, challenging Thomas Hobbes’ view of inherent human conflict. Yang critiques Professor Gao Quanxi's interpretation for reducing the "invisible hand" to natural law while disregarding its theological basis. Gao’s portrayal of Smith as a sentimentalist, emphasizing human emotions over divine order, misrepresents Smith’s reliance on Providence as the ultimate source of natural and moral law. Gao’s human-centered approach risks relativism by omitting the transcendent, while Smith’s faith in objective divine order offers a foundation for liberty, morality, and enduring justice.】

Ziyun : You told Professor Gao Quanxi (高全喜) in our group chat that you were dissatisfied with his interpretation of the “invisible hand” and intended to respond to his article “Smith’s Theory of National Wealth and the Invisible Hand.” Professor Gao suggested you read some of his other related essays before replying. Have you done so?

Yang Peng : I have. I also read his “Casual Reflections on Adam Smith’s Philosophy of Sentiment” (《漫谈亚当斯密的情感主义哲学》) and “The Smith Question in Intellectual History” (《思想史中的斯密问题》).

Ziyun : What’s your impression after reading these three articles, and how do you plan to respond?

Yang Peng : All three pieces share the same underlying issue. I don’t intend to respond to each of them individually. Instead, I’d like to use this opportunity to clarify what Smith’s “invisible hand” actually is. Once we establish an objective standard, the merits and flaws of Professor Gao’s essays will become self-evident. At the end, I’ll offer a brief comment on his articles.

Ziyun : So you mean that before engaging with Gao’s viewpoint, you want to first dissect and clarify what the “invisible hand” actually represents?

Yang Peng : Precisely. Let’s first settle on what the “invisible hand” stands for. Once we have that objective standard, we’ll see clearly where his interpretation aligns or diverges. After this discussion, I’ll give a concise assessment of his writing.

Ziyun : Understood. Let’s start with the text itself. I’ll quote the passage in The Wealth of Nations (《国富论》) where the phrase “invisible hand” appears:

“Indeed, the merchant (the capital owner) generally neither intends to promote the public interest nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic industry to that of foreign industry, he seeks only his own security. By directing his industry in such a manner that its produce may be of the greatest possible value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end that was no part of his intention. Nor is it always worse for society that this was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes the interest of society more effectively than if he really intended to do so.”

The only fairness is laissez-faire fairness.

This reference appears only once in The Wealth of Nations, yet it became famous as a symbol of how the free market economy spontaneously regulates order.

Yang Peng : In your view, what does the “invisible hand” mean in this passage?

Ziyun : Smith believed that individuals invest in industry and commerce out of self-interest. Yet, within the market, they unwittingly follow proper rules that serve the public good. Thus, an intangible mechanism integrates private self-interest with public welfare. The “invisible hand” ensures that individual self-interest and societal benefit unite spontaneously.

But why does such a mechanism exist in the marketplace? Smith does not directly answer this question. Judging from this single passage, we cannot ascertain what the mechanism truly is.

Yang Peng : That’s precisely the core issue. How can self-interest and public benefit be unified so effortlessly in market competition? Smith’s thinking is premised on understanding and explaining this question.

Ziyun : In The Wealth of Nations, Smith analyzes economic problems, such as how the degree of division of labor determines the extent of the market, and so forth. He does not actually explain the “invisible hand.” He seems to treat it merely as a background assumption. If we merely label it as “the spontaneous order of the market,” we end up not answering the question at all.

Yang Peng : Exactly. The “invisible hand” isn’t explained in The Wealth of Nations; it’s elucidated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (《道德情操论》).

Without the hand of God, the human spirit cannot be sustained.

Ziyun : I was about to ask about that. The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, while the concept of the “invisible hand” had appeared earlier in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, published in 1759. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, there is an indirect explanation: the “invisible hand” comes from Providence.

According to Merriam-Webster, “Providence” (often capitalized) chiefly refers to divine guidance or care, or God conceived as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny, the eternal presence of divine grace.

Yang Peng : The “invisible hand” appears once in each of Smith’s two major works—The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations. In both contexts, it conveys the same idea: self-interested individuals, through economic activity, unintentionally promote the public interest. Both describe how personal gain and social benefit spontaneously converge.

Crucially, The Theory of Moral Sentiments refers to the origin of this unifying mechanism as Providence.

I’ll show a Cambridge University Press 2002 edition excerpt. Note the line I’ve drawn linking “invisible hand” and “Providence.”

Ziyun : So the “invisible hand” is associated with Providence. However, I have two questions: First, how should we understand Smith’s use of Providence (God)? Is it merely a conventional phrase devoid of deeper meaning, or is it a genuine theological issue? Second, The Wealth of Nations was published much later—can we use The Theory of Moral Sentiments to interpret The Wealth of Nations? In “The Smith Question in Intellectual History,” Professor Gao Quanxi mentions the academic debate known as the “Smith Problem”—the apparent discrepancy between the altruistic moral agent in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and the self-interested economic agent in The Wealth of Nations.

Yang Peng : Let me address your second question first. The Theory of Moral Sentiments was published in 1759, when Smith was 36, and The Wealth of Nations in 1776, when he was 53. Smith revised and republished both books multiple times. The fifth edition of The Wealth of Nations appeared in 1789 when Smith was 66. The sixth edition of The Theory of Moral Sentiments appeared in 1790 when Smith was 67. These two works were continuously revised and overlapped in Smith’s lifetime. From his perspective, there was no contradiction.

The difference lies not in fundamental ideas but in perspective. The Wealth of Nations looks from the individual to the collective, from self-interest to the public good; The Theory of Moral Sentiments looks from the collective to the individual, from the public good to self-interest. Both reveal the intrinsic unity of self-interest and public welfare, individual and collective. There is no genuine contradiction in Smith’s thought.

Ziyun : That’s a strong, well-grounded argument. As for the first question: In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, the “invisible hand” and Providence are indeed linked, but Smith does not elaborate further. If we simply regard the “invisible hand” as a manifestation of God’s will, it feels almost too easy—like dodging the explanatory challenge.

Yang Peng : To understand the relationship between Providence and the “invisible hand,” we must consider Smith’s cosmology, which he clearly outlines in The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Smith’s cosmology can be called a “watchmaker universe.”

Ziyun : A watchmaker universe?

Yang Peng : The Theory of Moral Sentiments is rich in content. To understand the “invisible hand,” we only need to focus on a crucial section.

In Smith’s view, the universe resembles a watch. A watch is designed with a purpose: to tell time accurately. It consists of numerous parts, each occupying a specific place and serving a distinct function. Together, they work toward a unified goal. Smith writes:

“The wheels of a watch are admirably contrived for the purpose of pointing out the time. Their different movements conspire to produce this effect. If they were endowed with a desire or intention to attain it, they could do no better.”

Ziyun : This passage seems to parallel the relationship between individuals and society. Individuals are like watch components; society is like the watch. Just as parts differ in form and function, individuals differ in roles, yet all serve a common social purpose. What, then, is this collective social goal?

Yang Peng : Smith explains it clearly:

“In all the parts of the universe, we observe means adjusted in the most perfect manner to produce certain ends. In the mechanisms of plants and animals, we marvel at how intricately all things are contrived to promote nature’s two great goals: sustaining the individual and propagating the species. From these, or from all such objects, we find that their operations and organization serve these final causes.”

Ziyun : Whether the analogy is mechanical, like the watch, or organic, like plants and animals, the same principle applies: each component serves a unified, overarching objective. For organisms, the goal is individual survival and species propagation. But is that the ultimate aim—merely survival and reproduction?

Yang Peng : Smith believes the Creator made humankind for happiness. For him, the love and goodness of the divine establish a purposeful universe. Though Chinese readers lacking a theological background might find Smith’s reasoning unfamiliar, let’s quote him:

“Countless reflections confirm this conclusion: the happiness of humankind and other rational beings appears to be the original purpose for which the Author of nature created them. No other result so fully matches His surpassing wisdom and divine benevolence. As we contemplate His infinite perfections, this belief becomes more certain, since the works of nature exhibit a tendency to promote happiness and prevent misery.”

“When we act according to the laws of our moral nature, we endeavor to most effectively promote human happiness, thereby cooperating, to some degree, with the plan of Providence. Acting contrary to this moral nature would obstruct the Author of nature’s design for the world’s happiness and perfection, essentially placing ourselves as God’s enemies. Naturally, we seek His particular favor and reward and fear His vengeance and punishment.”

This language, linking human happiness to divine purpose, might bring to mind the “pursuit of happiness” from the Declaration of Independence (《独立宣言》). Happiness is both a secular aim and a theological imperative. As we often say, “Above our heads, the gods watch.” A deeper order of the world rewards good and punishes evil.

This viewpoint does not stray far from human intuition. Entrepreneurs know that to thrive, one must improve value and serve consumers better. This creates a tendency toward goodness in competition. Smith perceived, behind this market order, a transcendent theological principle. Human market behavior is guided by an unseen divine hand, rewarding good and punishing evil.

Ziyun : Smith’s tone here sounds almost pastoral. If we keep asking, we inevitably come to “Who designed and controls the invisible hand?”

Yang Peng : Naturally. Smith, ever brilliant, anticipated this question. He says:

“When we are led by natural principles to achieve these ends—ends that a refined and enlightened reason would recommend—we are inclined to attribute them to our own reason, sentiments, and actions as their proper causes. In truth, however, this is the wisdom of God.”

Ziyun : The evidence is clear. God sets humanity’s grand purpose as individual survival and species propagation. God’s natural law pervades everything, expressed in human reason, sympathy, wisdom, and social organization. All lead us, seemingly without conscious effort, toward this overarching goal. This unification of individual and collective, of self-interest and public good, cannot be attributed to human rationality alone. It derives from the Creator.

Now, the “invisible hand” is transparent: it is God’s natural law that manifests in nature, human nature, human society, and economic activity.

I haven’t read The Theory of Moral Sentiments thoroughly. Are the three passages you quoted connected or pieced together from disparate sections?

Yang Peng : These three excerpts all come from The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Volume II, Chapter III. They appear nearly on the same page. I separated them for clarity. On that single page, the notion of a watchlike universe is laid out, showing how parts serve the whole and how the whole comprises these parts. This corresponds to Smith’s economic thought—individuals and society, self-interest, and public benefit, are inherently unified.

Ziyun : Careful reading indeed matters. I wonder if Professor Gao noticed these texts. Smith’s cosmology resembles Newton’s: God is a clockmaker who established rational, harmonious laws, revealing Himself through nature’s stable order.

So Smith’s thought falls under the tradition of natural theology: God is rational, and His will is expressed in natural laws.

Yang Peng : Precisely. Smith wasn’t unique in this. This conceptual framework was laid by René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Isaac Newton, and Gottfried Leibniz. Despite their disagreements, they shared the same fundamental paradigm. Smith inherited their natural theology.

Descartes saw the cosmos as a vast timepiece, a watch created and wound by a great watchmaker operating according to fixed laws.

Newton, beyond founding modern physics, was also a pioneer of modern thought. In the second and third editions of his Principia Mathematica, he includes a “General Scholium” explaining God’s relationship to natural order:

“This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. If fixed stars are the centers of similar systems, they must be formed by the same wise counsel, governed by the same dominion…”

Ziyun : So Yang Zhenning’s recent remarks on discovering a Creator through natural law reflect Newton’s cosmology.

Yang Peng : In the Christian tradition, going back to Paul and Plato’s Republic, people discovered God’s existence through the harmony of creation. Newton’s rational, harmonious universe and Spinoza’s philosophical and ethical expressions shaped a worldview shared by many Western scientific elites—Einstein, Musk, and so forth—affirming a God-nature-law paradigm.

Leibniz (1646–1716), the mathematician, philosopher, inventor of calculus and binary, and a key German thinker proposed the idea of a “pre-established harmony.”

Ziyun : Leibniz’s “pre-established harmony” suggests a deep rational order predetermined by God. Newton studied celestial mechanics; Smith applied Newtonian methods to economics. Smith is like the Newton of economics. The Wealth of Nations essentially analyzes how the “pre-established harmony” of the market economy functions. The unity of self-interest and the public good is a manifestation of “pre-established harmony.”

Yang Peng : Precisely.

Ziyun : Does this “pre-established harmony” underlie Smith’s opposition to government mercantilist controls and his emphasis on free, open markets?

Yang Peng : Yes. All regulation presupposes an underlying “disharmony” that demands the intervention of a “visible hand.” Distrusting market harmony, human goodness, and the spontaneous alignment of self-interest and public welfare boils down to not trusting God’s harmonious order. Instead, it places faith in the virtue of those in power, calling for deliberate intervention.

For Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, and Smith, God imbues the world with intelligent, benevolent laws. Rational goodness is the world’s fundamental nature, and individual interests naturally serve the public good. In this sense, freedom embodies God’s benevolent governance, while regulation usurps divine authority, leading to corruption and decline. Newton and Smith’s faith in the goodness of God’s natural laws underpins their revulsion at excessive government interference. This theological conviction forms a deep cornerstone of the Western liberal order.

Smith’s The Wealth of Nations largely counters Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, published in 1651. Hobbes claimed that in a state of nature, humans are locked in mutual hostility—a war of all against all—requiring a Leviathan to maintain harmony and stability.

By contrast, The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations depict a naturally harmonious order, rejecting the necessity and legitimacy of despotic power.

Ziyun : So behind different national systems lie deeper mainstream philosophies. Freedom presupposes belief in the “invisible hand” in the rational, harmonious tendency of nature. I sense a certain similarity between Smith’s idea and the Chinese philosopher Laozi (老子).

Yang Peng : Indeed, Laozi advocated “Wu Wei” (无为) governance and minimal intervention, premised on believing in a natural way (“Dao”) that is beneficial rather than harmful—a form of “pre-established harmony.” But there’s a difference. Laozi’s thought focuses on governance strategy, while Smith’s involves a theological dimension—the sacred right of freedom grounded in a divine rational order. （Editor’s Note： Laozi's "Wu Wei" (无为) is often translated as "non-action", "effortless action", or "action through inaction." It is a core principle of Daoist philosophy, emphasizing naturalness, spontaneity, and alignment with the flow of the Dao (道, "the Way"). Rather than forcing or controlling events, Wu Wei advocates for letting things unfold naturally according to their inherent rhythms. It does not imply passivity or laziness but rather a profound understanding of timing, patience, and minimal intervention. By practicing Wu Wei, one achieves balance and harmony with the natural world, similar to how water, soft and yielding, overcomes hard obstacles over time.）

The Wealth of Nations and the Declaration of Independence (《独立宣言》) both emerged in 1776, sharing the same theological faith. The Declaration of Independence derives human rights—life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness—from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Smith attributes the free market’s public benefits to the “invisible hand,” likewise rooted in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Thus, social welfare finds fulfillment in market and political freedom. The state’s task is to safeguard and serve freedom, limiting the infringement of economic and political rights.

These two foundational texts of modern freedom—The Wealth of Nations and the Declaration of Independence—appearing in the same year is no coincidence. They represent the natural theological vision of a free order in both economics and politics.

Ziyun : Reflecting on key figures like Descartes and Newton, we should also remember Martin Luther (1483–1546). Luther’s Reformation and Newton’s Principia shaped modern thought. Luther distrusted human nature’s inherent goodness, while Smith’s natural theology seems to transcend the traditional Christian notion of inherent sinfulness. How do we reconcile Luther with Smith?

Yang Peng : Luther confronted the Church’s claim that only through papal authority could one attain salvation. He countered that no intermediary is needed; individuals can face God directly. Individuals and God can be in harmony without papal oversight.

If Luther had ventured into economics, he might have arrived at a similar conclusion as Smith: though human nature is weak, God’s justice prevails. The invisible hand ensures that free individuals who trust in God’s order follow a righteous path. In the marketplace, universal freedom guided by God’s order is the greatest justice. No one and no institution can replace God’s authority.

Legal frameworks remain necessary, but their purpose is to protect freedom and prevent wrongdoing, not to supplant God’s design. Luther’s emphasis on faith and grace complements Newton’s emphasis on rational order. Both faith (Luther) and reason (Newton) rest on trust in God’s overarching goodness.

Ziyun : Luther’s theology of grace and Newton’s theology of rational order both influenced the rise of modern freedom. Luther stresses divine grace, while Newton emphasizes divine law. Smith aligns more closely with Newton’s natural theology: God’s rational order, human reason, sympathy, and shared sentiments all unify self-interest with the common good. This is the essence of the “invisible hand”: a teleological faith in God’s goodwill, guiding life toward happiness.

We started this discussion to evaluate Professor Gao’s interpretation of the “invisible hand.” Now that we’ve clarified the standard, what is the central problem you see in Gao’s three articles?

Yang Peng : Gao’s core problem is a “spiritual ceiling” that blinds him to transcendence. Not recognizing God, he cannot perceive the theological dimension in Smith’s thought. He thus selects only certain facets and ignores the clear presence of a divine source in Smith’s work.

Ziyun : Could you provide specific examples?

Yang Peng : In “Smith’s Theory of National Wealth and the Invisible Hand,” Gao reduces the “invisible hand” to mere natural law, or “heavenly principle,” while deliberately excluding the divine Author of these natural laws—God. Like admiring a watch’s structure without acknowledging the watchmaker’s purpose, he fails to see the designer.

Ziyun : And what about Gao’s “Casual Reflections on Adam Smith’s Philosophy of Sentiment”?

Yang Peng : He labels Smith’s thought as “sentimentalism,” implying that sentiment forms the core doctrine. However, the sentiment is not Smith’s foundational principle. The “invisible hand” isn’t a product of emotion. From Smith’s watch metaphor, sentiment is just one component. The true architect is the “great Judge of hearts”—God.

Smith’s texts clearly state that human reason and sentiment come from the Author of nature. Yet Gao erases the supreme Judge and Creator, leaving only human emotion. This selective reading distorts Smith’s original framework.

Ziyun : And Gao’s “The Smith Question in Intellectual History”?

Yang Peng : The so-called “Smith Problem”—a contradiction between moral sentiment in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and self-interest in The Wealth of Nations—doesn’t actually exist. Without acknowledging the “invisible hand” as a unifying divine principle, one sees only fragments and imagines contradictions. The unity is clear once we recognize Smith’s theological perspective.

Ziyun : Gao claims in one passage:
“In Smith’s economics and moral philosophy, the institutions of justice and virtue, as well as the market order, are not natural but man-made, emerging from natural sentiments. … They are created by human beings.”

Yang Peng : Smith would never claim that justice, virtue, and market order are mere human inventions. Such a view places “visible hands” above all else and disregards the divine author of harmony. It’s wholly inconsistent with Smith’s genuine stance.

Ziyun : Gao also states:
“Smith believes we cannot ground moral sentiments externally, like Christian morality derived from God’s will…we must return to human sentiment itself…”

Yang Peng : This thoroughly contradicts Smith’s original text, where God and His natural law provide the ultimate grounding. Gao’s interpretation strips Smith of his transcendent anchor, making everything human-made. Smith never denies the external grounding of moral sentiments in divine wisdom.

Gao essentially champions “No savior from on high,” insisting everything arises from human feelings. He imposes his own human-centered worldview on Smith.

Ziyun : Perhaps this relates to a broader intellectual trend. Traditional Chinese thought once revered Heaven’s mandate beyond human will. Later, influenced by Buddhism and subjective philosophy, the tendency shifted to seeing the heart as the source of all phenomena. Many scholars reflexively fold all external principles into the human mind, neglecting objective natural and moral laws.

Yang Peng : Indeed. The sinicization of Buddhism and the rise of heart-centered neo-Confucianism promoted a worldview where everything springs from the self, overshadowing objective natural and moral laws. Such subjectivism hinders the recognition of objective truths, whether natural laws or moral principles.

Without trust in objective laws, there can be no true science or stable rule of law. Everything becomes arbitrary—a matter of whoever holds power.

Smith was a devout “objectivist,” convinced that natural and moral laws come from a Creator. This belief fosters science, law, and freedom. By ignoring Smith’s theological dimension, Gao turns him into a mere sentimentalist, an inventor of human-made morality and justice, which misrepresents Smith’s core message.

Ziyun : Gao downplays the “invisible hand” to a supplementary role, asserting it cannot dominate wealth creation or set moral standards. He sees it as a side note to human creativity and spontaneous social evolution.

Yang Peng : He treats Smith’s primary principle as a servant. From Smith’s perspective, the “invisible hand” is foundational—God’s laws structure the market’s self-interested actions into the public good. Without acknowledging God’s transcendent design, one can’t grasp the centrality of the invisible hand.

Newton revealed a universe governed by elegant, mathematical law. Smith revealed an economy guided by a moral law uniting self-interest and the common good. It’s not a mere adjunct but the key pillar of his entire theory.

Ziyun : Some might say that at least Gao promotes freedom. Are we being too harsh?

Yang Peng : Freedom rests on a foundation of objective principles. The Declaration of Independence directly attributes rights to the Creator. Smith anchors free economic order in the invisible hand of Providence. Without acknowledging a transcendent foundation—natural law, moral law, God’s design—freedom becomes a fragile human invention, subject to arbitrary revision.

A freedom built solely on human whim and sentiment lacks durability. True freedom, as Smith and the American founders understood, is discovered, not invented. It precedes us, bestowed by a higher order. Law and virtue must have an objective grounding to resist tyranny and secure lasting liberty.

Ziyun : So without transcendence, what remains is relativism, human contrivance, and the risk that the powerful reshape justice. Smith’s vision encourages us to look upward, to recognize higher laws that guide us toward freedom and harmony. Gao, however, attempts to drag Smith downward, losing sight of that transcendent frame.

Yang Peng : Precisely. Smith starts with the Creator and natural law, leading us to discover that human liberty and the common good align under divine governance. He raises us up. If we refuse to follow, insisting on human-centered interpretations, we lose the grandeur and coherence of Smith’s insight.

Truth sets us free. Without recognizing transcendent truth, we remain confined. Smith looked upward; we too often gaze downward. Let us hope Smith will forgive us for our inability to see what he has revealed so clearly.

This translation is authorized by the original author and undertaken by the China Thought Express editorial team. The original text can be found here: Humanities China (《人文中國》）HumanitiesChina.substack.com

Kindly attribute the translation if referenced.