requestId:684d911b678614.72196648.
Taifeng VS Creativity—Comparison between Zhu Xi and the original discussion of the Tehai
Author: Wang Hu
Source: “Modern Philosophy” Issue 05, 2021
Abstract: The similarity between Zhu Xi and the Tehai philosophy is observed by both Thai himself and modern neo-Confucian figures. Since Li Joseph started Zhu Xi and the Hai’s comparison, Zhu Xi’s comparison has attracted more attention. This article takes the organic philosophy of Tsehai as the foreword, and compares Zhu Xi and Tsehai’s original model of Tsehai—“Taiyang” and “creativeness”. As the highest intrinsic model, Zhu Xi’s “Taiyang” and the “creative nature” of the Tehai have both the ultimate principle and the organization and development orientation. The meanings of the two are the same; the intrinsic theory of the Tehai are more in line with Zhu Xi in terms of emphasizing the unity of nature and internality, body and use. The difference is: Zhu Xi came to the “heart of Liuhe Biology” from Taiji’s “infinite life” and finally stood up the “benevolence” body theory, forming his own moral metaphysics; while the intrinsics of the Tehai are natural and three-dimensional, lacking the high moral metaphysics.
Keywords: Zhu Xi; Qing Tehai; Taiyang; Creative; Intrinsic Discussion
Author Introduction: Wang Xu, Ph.D., a Ph.D., a graduate student of Chinese Thought Civilization in South East China, and a postdoctoral fellow in philosophy in Wuhan. He is now a professor at the Zhejiang Masters and Model College.
Introduction
Zhu Xi is a philosopher with a macroscopic system and has always been attracting attention in the field of Chinese and Western philosophical studies. Since the 20th century 30-40s, Chinese and foreign scholars have compared Zhu Xi with Platte, Aristotle, St. Tomas Aquinas, Malebranz, Sphenomens, Lebniz, Kant and others [1]. In the past few decades, especially american scholars in China, such as John Berthrong, Cheng Zhongying, etc., have begun to compare Zhu Xi with the Tse Sea. This article takes the organic philosophy of Tehai as the foreword, and compares Zhu Xi and Tehai’s original theory model – Taiyang and creative, to remind Zhu Xi of the life and organic characteristics of the science of philosophy, which has the main meaning of increasing the transportation and mutual understanding of Chinese and Western philosophy.
1. The convergence between Zhu Xi and the sea of Said
As we all know, Zhu Xi took Confucius and Mencius as the focus, combined with the Confucianism of the Song Dynasty and merged Buddhism and Taoism, and constructed the rational thinking based on “reason” as the basis, becoming the most comprehensive, systematic and macro-system philosophy in China.and Yetehai is the most powerful metaphysicist in the 20th century. In the tide of metaphysics in the 20th century, he creatively used organicism and process philosophy to consolidate the price and form a new metaphysics system. Although Zhu Xi and the Tsehai are very different in time, space and civilization traditions, the “family similarity” of the two people in their thinking and temperament is becoming more and more noticeable.
In fact, the similarity between Tyrannosai philosophy and Chinese philosophy, Tyrannosai himself once said: “In terms of discussing the ultimately realistic ordinary standpoint, organic philosophy seems to be closer to some Indian and Chinese thinking, rather than Western or European philosophy.”[2] He once told Cecilia Cheung that his work contains the most beautiful “Heavenly order” of Chinese philosophy, and it is not difficult for Chinese people to appreciate and understand [3]. During the period of the People’s Republic of China, Fang Dongmei, Mou Zongsan, Tang Junyi, Cheng Shiquan, Zhang Dongxi, Xie Youwei, Ce Lin, Zhang Dainian and others all praised the Tehai Sea, and a tide of studying Tehai’s philosophy appeared. They all noticed the harmony and compatibility between Tsehai Philosophy and Song and Ming Philosophy, and their influence on their respective Chinese and Western studies and the architectural development of philosophical thinking [4]. Unfortunately, this tide was cold in the late 1940s, not only did Tehai and Zhu Xi’s special topics not expand, but Tehai seemed to be forgotten in China.
The real comparison between Zhu Xi and the Philosophy of Tse, the famous Han scholar, was the first to promote it. He did it based on the previous research and criticism. Li Joseph accurately grasped the problem of Zhu Xi’s philosophical focus of his philosophy as “reason” and “game”, and believed that Chinese and Eastern scholars had a very misunderstanding of Zhu Xi’s “reason” and “game” concepts during their comparative study. Li Joseph believed that over the past few hundred years, Eastern scholars (including some Chinese scholars) in the Chinese and Western comparative perspectives have three aspects of the most common interpretation and translation of “reason”: First, “reason” is the “form” of Aristotle’s meaning. This explanation is to regard “reason” as Platz’s “idea” or equivalent to Aristotle’s “emotion”. This is to mistake Platz-Aristotle Theory is strengthened on Zhu Xi’s thoughts; secondly, “reason” is a natural (scientific) “law”, which has determined that Zhu Xi’s thoughts have developed the concept of oriental scientific theory; thirdly, “reason” is a “sensory” (vernunft or Reason) with the energy of creation and dominance, which is even more implicitly strengthening on Zhu Xi’s thoughts by mistake. The interpretation and translation of “gas” include “gas”, “quality”, and “vital force” (vital force), “matter” and other words. Lee Joseph specifically emphasized that inclusive cannot be as good as some Eastern scholars (including some Chinese scholars), and “emotion” equals “information” and “quality” of Platonic-Aristotle’s philosophy, or perhaps equals “laws” (laws) and “materials” of Eastern scientific theory. As for the reason for the above misunderstanding, it is because Zhu Xi was an organic philosopher. All previous explanations of Zhu Xi’s cognition lack the outlook of modern organic philosopher represented by the sea [5]. The main reason for making this judgment is that Lee Joseph believes that Zhu Xi’s philosophy is an organic philosophy, and its system is extremely similar to that between the sea of specialty. To this end, he will interpret “reason” as the organization principle or organizational foenhance meaningrce), and interpret “gas” as “matter-energy” [6]. Li Joseph’s conclusion is that Zhu Zi’s philosophical learning is the most basic organic theory, and Song Confucians rely on their understanding to reach a level similar to that of the Yantehai [7]. Not only this, Li Joseph further further evaluated the history of organic philosophy, pointing out that Zhu Xi’s organic theory, passed through Lebniz to the East and became direct information of organicism, and through Engels and Hegel’s verdict on materialism, it was closely related to the Yetehai organicism. In short, the modern organic philosophy represented by the Oriental Sea was the leading guide of Zhu Xi’s philosophy of philosophy. Although this dissatisfaction of Lee Joseph still needs to be further tested, he pointed out that the similarity between Zhu Xi and the Hidehai in the organic characteristics has a great impact on the academic world. Influenced by this, especially american students in the country, such as Yu Danshen (David Y), Cheng Zhongying, Bai Fengshang, Du Weiming and others, began to pay attention to the comparison between Zhu Xi and Yan Tehai. They all determined the organicity and processivity shared by Zhu Xi and Yan Tehai Philosophy [8]. It can be seen that Zhu Xi and the Tyrannosea have a reason, but to deeply understand the differences between Zhu Xi and the Tyrannosea philosophy, we must compare the main theory and its basic model of the two.
2. The highest body: Taiyang and creative
As a metaphysicist with a macroscopic system, Zhu Xi attaches great importance to the pursuit of the “first principle”. Zhu Xi’s most iconic concept is “Surveying things””分” or “study things to lead to knowledge”. The words “分” and “分” in this are the quest for what he calls “the principle of roots” or “the first meaning”. Zhu Zi often said: “Whenever you look at things, you must have to lie in the roots of the original… All things and principles come from the original source to find out that they are sure. ” (Volume 117 of Zhu Zi’s Words)[9] He taught students, ConsolidationRegistration not only requires knowing the “second meaning” or “third meaning” of things, but also promoting the “first meaning” of things, that is, finding a final reason for the Liuhelian things in logic. The “first meaning” and “root principle” he studied and deduced is form The first principle he learned was that he also gave the “first principle” a
發佈留言