"The other" is one of the most important themes of European Philosophy in the 20th century. When the thinking subject no longer regards himself as the origin, it is necessary to find an other who can really talk to him, and look at himself through mutual gaze with him. As the poet Valerie said, what we see in each other's eyes is the self we can't see. It is in this sense that the task of contemporary philosophy has become to try to understand "dissimilarity" rather than construct "identity". It was from this ideological context that Francois Julian, who was still a student of Paris Normal University, glimpsed his future research path and saw the possibility of establishing a theory between the unthinking of philosophy and "heterotopia" China, that is, to reflect on Sinological research with philosophy. However, Julian's appearance in that year caused quite a stir in the French Philosophical and Sinological circles. Both the philosopher Alan Badio and the Sinologist Wang Demai, who applauded him loudly, praised him for "opening up a new road" for French Sinology and philosophy, and some sinologists Xie Henai and bilade believed that he had actually taken a shortcut, This has triggered a continuous pen battle. In 2006, bilade published a book entitled "against Francois Julian". He believed that he regarded China and Europe as the "heel" facing each other from a distance, looked at each other from the outside, catered to the imagination of the French elite on China since Voltaire, and "lacked universal feelings and critical spirit". Julian responded with his consistent research ideas: the so-called universalism is only the universalism of Europe. There is no similar concept not only in India and the Arab world, but also in Japan, which is close to China. Chinese thought is neither similar nor different from European philosophy, but completely outside the European framework. If we look at China from the inside, we can only see the tension and rupture dismembered by epistemology; But from the outside, we can see the characteristics that constitute Chinese thought, so as to get the fundamental difference between this characteristic and the logic that constitutes the basis of European rationality, so as to launch a relatively fair dialogue between Chinese thought and European philosophy. This proposition has received a lot of support. For example, the collection "dare to construct for Francois Julian" written by European, American and Chinese philosophers and Sinologists published in 2007, the possibility of thought in 2013, and the conference on Julian's works convened in the French National Library in 2017 can be regarded as a response to many opposition voices. The great form has no shape. China's entrance to China is the most important part of Julian's works. For example, "silent change" is based on the author's perception of the passage of invisible time, which introduces the "change" in Chinese. "Hua" has become one of the basic modes of thinking and action of the Chinese people since the era of the book of changes and the book of Songs: the book of changes says enlightenment, the book of changes says flexibility, and the opposite is precisely convertible. Why has "humanization" never appeared in European Philosophy? If we trace back to the source of the problem, we will find that China's "urbanization" is an "ambiguous behavior" with no exact subject, no specific form, and no division of change stages. This is bound to be rejected by European philosophy with "logos" (reason) as the reasoning tool from the beginning. Since ancient Greece, the "change" in European philosophy has clearly pointed to the different states from thing a to thing B, but ignored the change process of the intermediate state emphasized by China's "transformation". Therefore, when Aristotle encountered "gray", a non black and non white color, it was difficult to define. Therefore, what European Philosophy before the 20th century focused on was not the living and continuous "life" and "life", but the "existence" beyond this process. What this existence must choose is to take the road of philosophy and theology. Like many dualistic propositions, when existence is highlighted, death must be placed on the opposite of existence. Kant and Hegel tried to answer the question of "life or death" with "transcendental" and "absolute spirit" respectively, and finally failed to get out of the quagmire of ontology. Therefore, in Julian's view, it is not appropriate to look at Chinese thought with "intellectual rational" thinking. For example, understanding Chinese culture from a European philosophical concept is actually a preset thinking trap. For example, comparing the concept of "subject" between China and Europe, however, there is no discussion on "subject" in Chinese traditional thought, and Chinese thought does not use concept to promote logic and elaborate thought. Using the ready-made concepts of European philosophy is indeed the most effective and clear way to show the value of discourse, but the result is that it is inevitable to place Chinese thought under the European philosophy system and become its vassal. How to jump out of this "comparison" may still start from rationality itself. If rationality is not limited to a given, absolute and transcendental category, but an active and expandable understandable thinking that develops with experience and experience, the greater the gap between multiple rational thinking, the more space for exploration and mutual inspiration. If we go further and do not regard the "between" that can be opened as a meaningless interval that is limited to separating the two ends, no longer think that only the two ends can be defined, and provide meaning in the definition to make people touch the essence, but realize that everything actually occurs in the "between", then we will not be so persistent in the "essence" and "absolute", but in the possibility Take a new look at effectiveness and comprehensibility. Julian always talks about "between" and "spacing" together. In fact, these two concepts are directly inspired by "between" in Chinese. The glyph of "Jian" in Jinwen is between the two doors at the moon. "Shuowen Jiezi" also said: space, gap, from the door to the moon. As the source of this word implies, the moonlight leaks through the crack of the door and is expandable. Therefore, this "space" can be infinitely large or small. It is a very important aesthetic concept in Chinese culture, from which we can see the way Chinese people look at and express the world. For example, Chinese painting is not limited to the real form of things, but adheres to the spirit of the things painted, which is neither real concrete nor generalized abstraction; Another example is Chinese opera, which does not necessarily reproduce the truth, but expresses the perception of the truth. Therefore, the simple set of one table and two chairs on the opera stage can allow actors to travel between different time and space at will: Chinese art does not want to imitate reality and is inseparable from reality, but from this, it develops the "space" as an invisible channel. At this point, "Jian" and "Dao" are homogeneous. Compared with "between", "spacing" is a concept of "disturbance or agitation": this agitation will disrupt the original order and make other perspectives emerge. Once different perspectives of various cultures appear, the real dialogue can begin. In an interview with reporters, Julian pointed out that after the 1960s-1980s, when there were a large number of elites, the contemporary French philosophy circle was inevitably a little lonely. However, silence also implies that this is an era of constant surging, re convergence and re integration of various ideas, especially the Enlightenment between different ideas at the farthest distance. (outlook new era)