requestId:685186141c1f74.20848082.
Criticism of scholars from ancient and modern times on the argument of nature: Review and summary
Author: Fang Chaoxi (History of the School of Humanities, Qing Dynasty)
Source: The author authorized the Confucian network to publish, original published by “International Confucianism” No. 4, 2021, this is the complete version
【Summary】The criticism of nature goodness in history is very rich. Throughout history, people have developed from the following seven stages, and criticized Mencius’s nature goodness, namely: nature has no good deeds, nature is super good deeds, good deeds, good deeds, nature is inconsistent, good deeds, good deeds, good deeds, good deeds, good deeds, good deeds, good deeds, good deeds, good deeds, good deeds, good deeds, good deeds. Not only this, people also criticized Mencius’s argumentative methods of nature, including six aspects: physical and single-faced and single-faced certification, circular-faced certification, mixed-efficacy and reality, mixed fantasy and reality, door-to-door views, and disagreement of the true intentions of the saints. Tomorrow, no behavior that attempts to protect nature good deeds or advocates to guide nature good deeds will be ignored. The purpose of this article is not to protect any of the humanitarian good deeds, but the test shows the reconciliation of the natural good problem, especially: Since Mencius, the dispute over humanitarian good deeds has been for thousands of years, and there has been no discussion so far. The main consequences of incompatibility and inability to resolve are mainly composed of the scholars’ summary of humanitarianism. There is no broad common understanding of the concepts, content, types and standards of evil, and they often speak in different ways. On the other hand, from the past, a large number of scholars criticized and responded to the arguments of nature and formed so many views and doormen, it can also be seen that Mencius promoted and influenced humanitarian discussions in East Asia and even the contemporary world.
[Keyword] Mencius, nature is not good and evil, nature is super good and evil, humane evil
Since the rise of Korea, especially the rise of Cheng and Zhu’s cognition in the Song Dynasty, Mencius, nature is good and good and evil, has become the mainstream explanation recommended by most scholars. Students in the Qing Dynasty strongly criticized Cheng-Zhu’s academic studies, and refused to accept the latter’s plot that had a dual humanity, but this does not mean that scholars in the Qing Dynasty refused to accept the good arguments of nature. In fact, although most Qing Dynasty scholars (including Dai Zhen, Ruan Yuan and others) realized their reply to the pre-Qin concept in terms of humanity, they did not deny Mencius in terms of humanity good and evil problems, and even insisted on good arguments. In the contemporary era, there are still many students who have maintained their nature good deeds. We can understand this from many contemporary scholars such as Kang Youwei, Mo Mu, Mou Zongsan, Xu Yaoguan, Liu Shuxian, Du Weiming, Huang Zhangjian, Fu Peirong, Yuan Baoxin, Guo Qiyong, Li Jinglin, Yang Zebo, Liang Bian and many other contemporary students. But on the other hand, if we ask the popular people in society who do not regard Confucianism as their worship or professionalism, they can come up with a complete and opposite conclusion. That is: in tomorrow’s real life, most ordinary people can never accept nature good deeds. On the contrary, they either tend to believe that humanity has coexistence or that humanity has nothing to sayEvil, goodness and evil are cultivated later. At most, in my opinion, the impact of these two views in real life is far greater than the theory of nature. In fact, if we studied history, we could find that these two opposite views had long been proposed by some people (even before Mencius). This article test shows that there are several views on sexual good in history, and what is their logic. Our goal is neither to defend the good argument nor to overturn the good argument. I just think that the sorting of historical critical theory of good deeds will help us deepen our understanding of Mencius’ humanitarian theory, and of course, it will also help deepen our understanding of humanitarianism.
Angus C. Graham (1919-1991) specifically emphasized the main effect of the times’s thoughts on understanding Mencius’s nature good deeds. He analyzed the influence of the following aspects of thinking resources on Mencius: one is the Yang Zhu School, the second is Taoist scholar, the third is Confucian scholar (such as Prince Gui), the fourth is the Jixia School (Gaozi, Guanzi Houxue, etc.), and the fifth is the Mohist scholar. With the help of “Guodian Chu Tomb Bamboo Simplified” [1], we understand that in the Mencius era, Confucian humanitarianism was already very rich, and from this, it was explained that it must be of the right nature. According to Ge Ruihan, Mencius’ concept of humanity should have been inherited from Yang Zhu and Taoism, that is, the initiative of humanity refers to a proper life method, which is the contribution of Yang Zhu and Taoism to Mencius. Ge Ruihan believed that Yang Zhu’s one-night challenge to Mencius was that he discovered a life method that conforms to the way of heaven outside of Confucianism, and that Confucianism should develop from human nature to demonstrate morality from the beginning. Another school that influenced Mencius’s thoughts was Confucianism’s pioneering career. The princess Sui, Mi Ziqi, Qi Diaodan, and Gongsun Nizi introduced in “The Legend of the Condor Heroes” all advocate the truth of being good and evil. Mencius should criticize their statement that “humanity is good” and disagree with their statement that humanity is evil. This is his important criticism. Another object of Mencius’s argument should be the Jixia School represented by Gaozi and others. This school’s view is close to Xunzi’s later humanitarian theory, that is, it advocates the “nature of life”. Ge Ruihan believes that Gaozi’s views are different from those of the Jixia School represented by Guanzi. In addition, the Mohist views are more utilitarian. In this version of “Mozi”, there are only two words about the word “sex” and the so-called “sex” is limited to temperament (“Sex is violent…the nature is not correct”). The views of the Mohist family’s humanity seem very simple and lack the focus of structure to form the discussion, so Mencius did not respond in a key way. Finally, although Mencius was not seen at the time of Mencius, Mencius’s opposition to the worldly “humanity is evil”, he himself included opposition to later sexual misconceptions. [2] These can represent various humanitarian arguments of the contemporaries criticized by Mencius.
However, Mencius’ criticism or opposition to scholars of his contemporaries did not stop later generations from criticizing him. On the contrary, after Mencius, not only Xunzi criticized Mencius’s argument for his good nature. Since the Han Dynasty, Dong Zhongshu clearly criticized Mencius’s argument for his good nature. Yang Xiong (also known as Yang Xiong), Liu Xiang, Zheng Xuan, Xu Shen, Wang Chong, Xun Xun and others also criticized or did not accept his good nature. Except for Korean, Shanxi, Zhaoqi and other people, Han Chinese scholars are almost all good at nature.Criticize or preserve. Although Korean scholars in the Tang Dynasty often followed Mencius’ Taoism, they also criticized his nature for his good comments. People who criticized the nature of the Song Dynasty were even more interested in it. Li Li, Wang Anshi, Sima Guang, Euro Xiu, Su Zhen, Su Xiao, Ye Yangyang… and even Cheng Jun criticized the nature of the nature of the nature of the. I think the theory of nature was opposed by most mathematicians in the Song Dynasty. Even though Song and Ming Ching’s Neo-Confucianism was highly praised, they did not accept the full account of nature good deeds. For example, Zhang Xu, Cheng Xi, Zhu Xi and others actually answered the source of humanity with their temperament. Their humanity theory is not a dualistic theory of good and evil, [3] but only gives good and noble position. As for the representative of the psychology of Wang Yangming, his family’s money, Dehong, Wang Ji and others, they actually did not fully accept the nature of good deeds, so Wang Yangming was not satisfied with Gao Zi, but he also had some points of recognition.
In other words, in Chinese history, those who are close to the Gaozi style of nature and are extremely evil or are extremely evil (or are similar to their words), have never been successful. From Wang Anshi, Su Zhen, Su, and Su in the Song Dynasty, Wang Yangming and Wang Fuzhi in the Ming Dynasty to Huang Zizhen, Liang Qichao, Wang Guowei and Zhang Taiyan in the late Qing Dynasty are all representatives. In addition, at most, in terms of the natural nature of humanity from human beings, the humanity of Taoism is closer to Gaozi than Mencius. In short, there are many people in China’s history who hold similar or close to Gaozi’s humane statements, which can be called a main line.
In addition, after Xunzi, there were very few people who stood on the verbal verbal stance to criticize Mencius, but there were always many people who coexisted by humanity, which was almost another main line. From the former crown prince of Mencius, Qing Diaobo, Ling Nizi, to the Han people Dong Zhongshu, Yang Xiong, Ban Gu, Liu Xiang, Xu Shen, to the Song people Wang A
發佈留言