requestId:684c3e07ec5bb9.72700390.
The “national Confucianism” structure and its problems in the post-new Confucianism
——Comparison with the “Chinese Justice Discussion” in the Confucianism
Author: Aunt Zhang (Shandong University Advanced Confucianism Research Institute)
Source: Author Author Authorized Confucianism Network Published
� href=”https://twsweetdating99.org/”>Baocai WebmasterTong Yue Forum” 2019 No. 11
Time: Confucius was in the 2570th year of Jihai and Wuchen
� November 27, 9th
【Abstract】 The contemporary reconstruction of Confucian righteous theory is a noteworthy academic hotspot in the modern transformation process of Confucian philosophy. The most representative theoretical form of this is the “national Confucianism” constructed by Lin Anwu and the “Chinese righteous theory” constructed by Huang Yutong. As for “national Confucianism”, although its directional guidance effect for the modern transformation of Confucianism, its own content structure needs to be understood and deepened. Compared with the “Chinese legitimacy” there are many shortcomings in “national Confucianism”: first, it is mixed with the difference between the standardization and the principle of righteousness, which leads to the error in the relationship between the two, that is, “gift as meaning”; secondly, the origin of this error-related relationship lies in the incomplete ideological structure of the “outer king-inner sage” in the post-new Confucianism, and the “reverse transformation” between “inner sage” and “outer king” failed to truly surpass the dilemma of modern new Confucianism; finally, “national Confucianism”Integrating software‘s own certification has been included in the circular evidence of “national ethics” and “national society”. The lack of “national Confucianism” means that a truly meaningful “national Confucianism” that settles in modern life needs to be further thought and advancement.
【Keywords】 National Confucianism; post-new Confucianism; Chinese legitimate argument; gift as meaning; external king-inside sage
[Author introduction] Aunt Zhang Jiu (1992-), male, doctoral student at the Shandong University of Confucianism Advanced Study.
【Fund Project】 The results of the interim study of the key research base of the Humanities and Social Sciences of the Cultural Education Department, “Modern Transformation Research and Development of Confucian Philosophy” (Agreement No.: 16JJD720010).
Contemporary reconstruction of Confucian righteousness, that is, to strive to comply with the value basis of social regulation and regulations, and to explore the social standard and specific aspects of the specific standards of the companyQuestions such as how to construct are an important academic highlight in the modern transformation process of Confucian philosophy. The most influential one is the “national Confucianism” proposed by Lin Anwu, a representative of the “critical New Confucianism” in the three periods of the Later Mou Zong period, in his “post-new Confucianism”; the other is the “Chinese legitimacy” proposed by Huang Yutong, a representative of the New Confucianism in the New Century, in his “life Confucianism”[②]. As two new forms of political Confucianism, although “national Confucianism” and “Chinese legitimacy” both express modern social justice in Confucianism, there are many differences between the two schools’ thinking methods and speech methods. This article will analyze the ideological structure of “national Confucianism” and then develop its comparison with “Chinese righteousness” and further develop some problems in the modern construction of Confucian righteousness.
1. Gift as the meaning: the error between the specifications and the principle of righteousness
We understand that as a basic ethics, the basic problem lies in the pursuit and establishment of effective principle of righteousness, that is, the basis and value standards for the establishment of the specifications of the specifications. In Confucian Philosophy博官网 ppt, this principle of righteousness is expressed as “meaning”, and this regulation of reorganization is expressed as “grace”, and the two appear as “meaning (meaning)” (meaning) Principle) → Gift (social norms)”, that is, the relationship laid by the former for the latter, that is, what Confucius said, “Talks are used as quality, and Gifts are implemented” (“Speech·Wiling Gong”), which can be said to be the focus structure of the Confucian classical ethics system, including two dimensions: political philosophy and moral philosophy. The “contemporary reconstruction of Confucian righteousness” in the current era refers to the Confucian righteous theory that expresses modernity from the perspective of this focus structure and constructs modernity. In this sense, whether it is “national Confucianism” or “Chinese legitimacy”, it can be said to be a Confucian expression of modern legitimacy.
Here, let us discuss the basic problems handled by the “Social Righteous Discussion” of “People’s Confucianism”.
As the Confucianism of the People’s Era[③], “Confucianism of the People” no longer confuses the problem of “how can the inner sages become new to the foreign king” faced by the modern neo-Confucianism in the 20th century, especially Mou Zongsan sage, but based on the historical situation of the social transformation period that recognizes the social situation and advances to the modern civil society, and pursues the question of “how can social justice be maintained under the civil society” [④]. From this question, from the “national society” that highlighted the “national society” that emphasizes the modern social form, it can be seen that this “social justice” belongs to a modern social justice theory, and its established “social justice”.”The principle is only suitable for modern civil society. This is the biggest difference between it and the “Chinese legitimate theory” as general theory of justice. The latter strives to build a theory that can explain all social norms and systems in ancient and modern times, China and abroad, and why it can be “in order to Caring is suitable for universal things that are suitable for any era, any region and any cooperation”[⑥]. This should be a clear point for our first requirement; secondly, the question about the “why can it be” If the so-called “social justice” actually means the principle of justification discussed in ordinary justice, then this question is difficult to establish, because “social justice can be sufficient” means that the “social justice” industry in the national era has been established as a matter, but the principle of justification itself as a certain value judgment is obviously not a practical meaning. “Factual”, so the conclusion of the presumption of the gain can only be that its so-called “social justice” means a practical social norm and its system, rather than a legitimate principle that precedes the system.
However, the relevant arguments of New Confucianism after the assessment can be found that “social justice” actually contains two distinctions The concept of “righteousness” at the level of disagreement, and the “righteousness” mentioned above as social norms and their reorganizations is one of them, that is, “gift as meaning”, which obviously belongs to a “tributive” relationship; the second is the “righteousness” that truly acts as a just principle of value standards. For the latter, we can analyze Lin An in one step href=”https://twsugarhoney520.org/”>Consumer amount of moneyWu’s related statement:
“Social common sense” refers to the “commonism” as a political society. “Society” is commonly used It refers to a total body formed by “national people” with “contract”. This general body is formed by “national people” with “contract”, so it can be called “national society” or “contract society”. This is different from the overall body formed by the bloody nature of Chinese tradition. It is a “he is” that is different from “I and you”. Such “he is” “What is based on is not “bloody affection”, but “social contract”. “National people” is not the inherently “public” nature of “selflessness”, but the approach to the “public domain”.
“National people” are the approach to the “public domain”, and such “common” is not “ethics” People, but “public person”, are made by
發佈留言