Firmly rooted in Catholic doctrine, the document Antiqua et Nova (“The Old and the New”) nevertheless advances core arguments—particularly its framing of human intelligence and relationality as defining features of humanhood—that also resonate with, for instance, Buddhist and Confucian thought. In this way, it speaks to Asian worldviews and can be fruitfully read alongside major Asian wisdom traditions. Such cross-cultural engagement may offer a conceptual foundation for envisioning constructive reflections and a more sustainable future for our society. As an initial step, I propose a parallel between Catholic understandings of intelligence and humanhood and Asian perspectives on these themes.
For a start, the debate over the term “intelligence” and its inadequacy for inclusion in the concept of “artificial intelligence” already brings to mind a distinction in the Chinese context: between intelligence understood as capabilities (zhineng 智能) and wisdom (zhihui 智慧).
Continuing the exploration of “humanhood,” Christian theology describes the human person as the union of spirit and matter, which are two parts of one single nature rather than two natures. In a parallel way, Buddhism teaches the five aggregates: one material aggregate—form—and four non-material aggregates—feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. From the Abhidhamma through Yogācāra, Buddhist thinkers have developed sophisticated, multi-layered accounts of consciousness. These accounts indicate that rationality, intellect, and emotion form a unified whole, echoing the Catholic view of human intelligence as an integrated system. Similarly, Confucius emphasized the practice of the fine arts and, more broadly, what we now call “the humanities” as essential for personal cultivation and moral growth; it is not just about rationality. Thus far, apart from a few exceptions in the Buddhist tradition, the prevailing view in both worlds is that AI appears to lack much of what is considered the non-material nature.
Christians and Confucians also agree that humans are fundamentally relational beings. Buddhism likewise grounds its purpose in the practice of compassion and giving, although it conceives of relationships in a somewhat different way. The question of today, millennia afterwards, is whether this relationality could be extended to non-human/artificial entities.
We find that the Christian theological tradition regards human beings as imago Dei (“image of God”), whereas Buddhism understands all sentient beings as Buddhas in potential. Theologically, the two statements are substantially different, yet both worlds ponder the implications of an incoming human as imago roboticae.
