【黃玉一包養app順】儒家“品德個人主義”能否能夠？——略評“心性論禮法學”的政治哲學建構

requestId:68499aab9ff013.00690804.

Can Confucian “morality and personalism” be sufficient? ——A political philosophy structure briefly evaluating the “Mental and Nature Discussion Law”

Author: Huang Yusong

Source: Author Authorized by Confucian Network Published

          Original from “Academic World” Issue 1, 2017)

Time: Confucius was in the 2568th year of the year Dingyou March 15th, Wuchen

       Jesus April 11, 2017

[Abstract]The legal philosophy and jurisprudence in contemporary China are basically Oriental products; in judicial theory and practice, the legal philosophy and jurisprudence in the Chinese legal system can be said to be silently gone. Therefore, China’s legal philosophy should be rebuilt, that is, to construct modern Chinese legal philosophy. Song Daqi’s “The Basics of Mind and Nature of Ming Confucian Law and Its Modern Inspiration” is a major attempt to rebuild Chinese legal philosophy. This book touches on three questions: Can personalism reject metaphysics? Can Yangmingxin study be characterized as “moral personalism”? Can the personalism of modern political philosophy be just the result of thinking itself to develop logic? In fact, the personal theory of modern political philosophy is not without its own metaphysical foundation; the learning of the mind is neither personal nor moral; the modern personal theory is not only the result of thinking about its own logic, but is a product of modern lifestyle.

【Keywords】Confucianism; mind and nature; Short-term cultivation of gifts; morality; personalism; political philosophy

Not only this, the meaning of Song books is not limited to legal philosophy. In fact, it is a more broad political philosophy exploration, which is a construct of Confucian modern political philosophy. What Song Book calls “Gongju Law” or “Legal Philosophy” is actually that political philosophy is happy too suddenly. learn. The author himself said: “If legal philosophy is not only staying in the head of the thinker, but it will become an action (this time it should be called political philosophy),…”[ii]Inclusive market conditions This statement can be incorrect because “political philosophy” is not the use of legal philosophy in the realm, that is, it is not a certain kind of “applicable philosophy”. But if you look at the “Gift Law” problem discussed in Song Book, it is actually the problem of setting up the system, which is indeed the subject of political philosophy. And from the perspective of history, “Greeting Law” is a decomposition term, and was first seen in “Xunzi”, which means social norms and regulations and their establishment. This is exactly the basic subject of political philosophy. [iii] So it can be said that Song Shu used the perspective of legal philosophy to examine political philosophy problems. In recent years, there have been many research results on Confucian political philosophy; however, studying Confucian political philosophy from the perspective of legal philosophy is the only way of thinking in Song Dynasty.

The theoretical concept of Song Shu is very clear: we should find a solid “cornerstone” for modern legal philosophy or political philosophy. Song Shu believes that classical legal philosophy and political philosophy are based on the metaphysical system of overall theory; while modern Eastern legal philosophy and political philosophy are based on the foundation of personalism, which rejects metaphysical learning. The latter responds to the modern transformation of career methods, which should be determined; but it lacks certainty and lacks a solid “cornerstone”. Therefore, although tomorrow’s “thinking people are already on the ground of personalism, (but) they must constantly find a more reliable and suitable cornerstone” [iv]. To this end, Song Shu proposed that this cornerstone is a special personalism – the Confucian “moral personalism”, which can find its own ideological resources in Wang Yangming’s confidant. [v]

The Song Dynasty combined the most basic characteristics of modernity into a comprehensive nature, and believed that Confucianism, or some Confucian schools, embraced modernity, which I agree with. But I feel that some of the views of Song Shu can be negotiated, such as: Can personalism reject metaphysics? Can Yangmingxin study be characterized as “moral personalism”? Can the personalism of modern political philosophy be just the result of thinking about its own logic?

1. Can personalism reject metaphysical learning?

Song’s basic judgments are correct: “Modernity does not mean that there is no needA place of accommodation, on the contrary, it requires a cornerstone of accommodation”; this cornerstone is individuality, or “widespread individual subjectivity”; specifically, “unrestrained, equal, obsessive, and human rights, all things that appear modern in the ruling-based layer. The foundation in legal philosophy is the standing of each subject, and to be clear, It is a personalism”; this is because, “in the post-authoritarian era, people become individuals who have no authority to take control and have no system to rely on. Each person must find a cornerstone for himself and grow a personal living system from it. Otherwise, when facing the remnant world, he will have a confusion of knowledge and decisions.”[vi] These arguments are reasonable.

But what I think is confusing is: On the one hand, Song Book believes that individuality is the cornerstone of modernity, and on the other hand, they believe that this cornerstone is not solid. This cornerstone also requires a cornerstone – the cornerstone of the cornerstone. For this reason, the evidence provided by Song Book is: “The foundation of personalism Shi is just a place to settle down and decide. At this point, there can be countless systems that can be self-represented, and each system does not have the priority over other systems” [vii]; in other words, this is a confusion state of relativeism. Only in this way, Song Shu proposed his own theme: to find a piece of personalism More solid foundation. Otherwise, all the tasks of Song Shu are no longer interested. But we found that the cornerstone found by Song Shu is still individual. In this way, the cornerstone of individuality is individuality. What is going on?

It turns out that the “personality” mentioned by Song Shu, In fact, there are two different concepts: one is the metaphysical concept, which refers to “every person”, “it has fallen to the talent that covers the world, and is only the individual”; the other is the metaphysical concept, which is “a broad-based individual subjectivity”, and “the decline of the special physical cap force is exactly the weak and strong when a cat calls. She searched for a while before she could stand in the body of the flower”.[viii] The Song Book did not fall into the absurd self-contradiction, but provided this way of thinking: to find or construct a metaphysical subject to lay the foundation for the metaphysical personalities. In my personal opinion, this is the most in-depth point of the Song Book in philosophy and the main theme of the Song Book. The key to establishing it. Of course, my judgment is only from the perspective of “conceptual laying”; as for the perspective of “conceptual being born”, it can still be discussed, but this question will be left to the third part of this article to discuss.

 Inclusive meaning

But, isn’t the so-called “widespread individual subjectivity” exactly a kind of metaphysics? How can one say that personalism rejects metaphysics?

The question here is: What is metaphysics? What is the relationship between metaphysics and subjectivity and includes individual subjectivity? To this end, I would like to quote Heidegger (Heidegger’s two main points: First, “Philosophy is metaphysics”[ix]; Second, the work of philosophy is subjective work: “What is the work of philosophy research? … This work is the subjective nature of consciousness”; “The work of philosophy as metaphysics is the existence of beings, and the presence status of beings who use physicality and subjectivity as form.”[x] Taken together, the logical conclusion of Heidegger’s two views is: metaphysical work is a work that includes subjectivity and individual subjectivity; vice versa, subjectivity and individual subjectivity is a work that includes metaphysical work.