requestId:684c3e4aa88a17.14147667.
Orientation, progress and scientific revelation: Rethinking of Mencius’s Humanitarian Discussion
Author: Liu Xiaogan (Doctor of Philosophy, Specially Produced by Beijing Teachers and Major Philosophy Academy)
Source: “Ji Lu Journal” (Qufu) 2020 Issue 05
Content summary:There are people in the modern academic circle about Mencius The interpretation of Taoism includes two kinds of advances: the first one can be called “direct and simple interpretation”, represented by Han scholar Grayhan, philosopher Meng Dan, and historian Hua Jingren; the second one can be called “circumcised and introverted remarks”, represented by Mou Zongsan and An Lezhe, who borrowed Kant’s theories, Dewey’s views, and process philosophy to elaborate theories of Mencius. When discussing Mencius’ humanitarian discussion, we should not ignore the new discoveries of modern science. Paul Brum used practical thinking to determine that the baby’s reaction was certainly characterized by some of the scheming characteristics of human nature and moral judgment, thus confirming the hypothesis that “man naturally has a sense of morality”, which is completely consistent with Mencius’ humanitarian view. Mencius and modern psychologists both reminded the existence of good genes in humanity from their respective perspectives. In a step further, it should be of primary meaning to explore and reflect on the origin and origin of these theories, which helps us to establish the right attitude towards humans and human society, which in turn will affect the quality of our careers for a long time.
Keywords: Two progressions/Two orientations/Mencius Humanitarian Discussion/Mu Zongsan/An Lezhe/Paul Brum
This article will explore the problem of the way of discussing the academic community’s understanding and emphasis on Mencius’ humanitarian Discussion. Our discussion is based on my own analysis of cases, which show two approaches contained in the academic world’s humanitarian notion.
The first method or introduction can be called “straightforward reading”, represented by related research and discussions by Han scholar A.C. Graham, philosopher Donald J. Munro, and historian Irene T.博官网彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩� I think this is the basic way to read textual and historical interpretations of modern Chinese classics. Although Han and historians are less interested in modern philosophy problems, modern philosophers are not able to pay much attention to the faithful interpretation of modern classical texts, this method can still provide the basis for the modern reconstruction and creative interpretation of classical texts.
The second method or progress can be called “injective reinterpretation”,Represented by the relevant comments of Mou Zongsan and Roger T. Ames, it refers to injecting internal elements into a philosophical theory with constant value. For example, Mou Zongsan added the concept of Kant into Mencius’s teachings, while An Lezhe added Dewey’s view of his new comments. We can also say that they review and review Mencius’s teachings through the perspectives of Kant and Dewey. “Circumcision, introverted resonance” can be an inspiring and creative method of modern interpretation and resonance. However, if the interpreter does not have sufficient self-consciousness and understanding of the resonance process, it can lead to a mix between what modern thinking actually says and its modern development.
The two methods or advances of “direct and simple interpretation” and “circumcised and introverted” are derived from my assessment of Chinese Philosophy. Although neither of the two methods can be completely guaranteed to be practical, reliable and informative in the study, we are interested in reflecting on the differences between these two methods and the progress, and will greatly improve and improve their respective study standards. We obviously cannot judge a research and discussion based on the research methods and advances. Although I will have some worries and concerns and will review specific cases in subsequent discussions, the two methods or the arts I use are undoubtedly lyrics rather than ratings.
In order to further the level and file of the discussion, we need to introduce the conceptual theory of two orientations. Any discussion should have a clear and purpose-built orientation. To be honest, the research and discussions on Chinese thinking are mostly based on two basic theoretical approaches: one is object, text, historical, and creative, philosophical, contemporary or forward-looking. Since these two orientations are opposite, even if some learners can apply these two orientations one after another and combine them into a essay or a book, they seem to be unable to integrate the two into a unified analysis. I do not believe that one of these two orientations is superior to the other, because it depends on the specific goals of academic research and the goals that correspond to their own reality or achievements [1](P60-96).
The concepts of “two advances” and “two orientations” are proposed to enhance our understanding of the way of discussion in Chinese philosophy research. The view that direct and simple interpretation is more suitable for object-oriented and textual orientation, while the roundabout and introverted commentary seems to benefit more from creative and modern goals, should be said to be more simple. In fact, direct and accurate interpretation can bring new discoveries to old texts, and even clarify the clarity they contain and their correlation with modern society; on the other hand, introverted and roundabout comments can also help us discover new ways and advances, and investigate and follow them.The profound meaning of recent classical texts and thoughts.
The focus of this article is not actually on the principle of the theory of tree-setting methods, but is aimed at advocating and encouraging our own perceptions when discussing Chinese philosophy, especially modern philosophy that is far away from the modern philosophy environment. Therefore, when applying modern philosophical theories and concepts to modern classical texts in China, we must be cautious in doing things, otherwise we will miss their historical authenticity and their applicability to the modern world.
The concepts of “two advances” and “two orientations” remind us of the tension and separation between the themes and methods of modern philosophical thinking and the focus and style of modern Chinese thinking. What I say seems to be implying that the serious text—the incompatibility between the discussion of history and the discussion of philosophy. However, can the research on philosophy be essentially short texts and non-historical? From the theoretical discussion and method, I think there is no certain conflict between philosophical research and historical and textual research. But in most cases, I find that when a person is arranged by philosophical sentiment or modern concerns, he tends to neglect histories-textual evidence and accuracy. In this situation, potential, primitive facts and original appearances will be lost. The consequences of this tendency are: (1) All the philosophy we use to analyze Chinese thinking comes from the East, which is in the tradition of Chinese historical civilization; (2) The things that philosophers use are not complete and suitable for the topics they are studying; (3) Few learners simultaneously study (Oriental/Modern) philosophy and Chinese modern classical texts and their thoughts. These problems are not difficult to fight in a short period of time, but we can at most improve this situation through self-consciousness and personal appropriate efforts. From this point of view, the concepts of “two advances” and “two orientations” can be helpful to the quality of the research on Chinese philosophy in Henan Province.
1. Direct and simple interpretation
The word “straightforward” here refers to a method for researchers and speakers to read and directly and discuss the “Mencius” and its related texts based on the appropriate rules of grammar, lexicon and historical landscapes. The principle of reading text can be described in many words, such as “direct”, “simple”, “careful”, “loyal”, “customized”, “customized”, etc. The reason why I chose the term “direct and simple” is to make a clearer comparison with the “circumcised and introverted commentary” we will discuss in humanities.
In direct and simple reading, the speaker needs to be interested in preventing modern and external concepts from being brought into the text of Mencius and the theory of Mencius. Although this is a perfect effort to achieve loyalty and proper understanding of Chinese modern philosophical literature, it does notIf you don’t have the guarantee, you can find the classical and true meaning. In the Chinese Philosophy Research, learners often debate the true meaning of the text, which explains the main meaning of the underlying meaning that can exist. Few scholars say that they finally found the true meaning of the text. But as long as our goal is to restore the facts and true aspects of a work, direct and simple reading will be a good choice, even if not the best way to investigate modern texts.