【一包養網黃玉順 任劍濤】儒學反思：儒家·權力·超出

requestId:684c3e3ce7b222.24618935.

Confucianism Reflection: Confucianism·Power·Exceed

Author: Huang Yutong, Ren Liufeng

Source: Author Author Authorization Confucian Network Published

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           � Out of concern for the reality of the future of contemporary Confucianism, the two scholars conducted profound reflection and analysis on the internal transcendence of Confucianism and its relationship with secular power in Confucian history. From then on, they conducted a new review of the two thousand years of Confucian development history, put forward in-depth and independent explanations and thought-provoking questions.

Huang Yu talked about Confucianism, power and beyond problems

I did not plan to write articles this year because there were relatively large changes in thinking, so I needed time to liquidate. My latest thoughts start with the problem of “transcendence”. This important thing is the Confucian “immanent transcendence” problem that many people are discussing (Yu Yingshi later changed it to “inward transcendence][①]). They have two basic conclusions: first, “inner beyond” is a unique thing that Chinese philosophy, especially Confucian philosophy; second, they believe that “inner beyond” is a more superior thing than “inner beyond” in Eastern philosophy and religion. I admit that Confucian philosophy is indeed “inner beyond”, but in my opinion, their two basic judgments cannot be established.

One

First of all, “inner beyond” such a philosophical approach is not only Confucian philosophy, but also Eastern philosophy. Especially since the emergence of modern philosophy, the epistemological turn, that is, the subjective turn, Oriental philosophy has taken an internally transcended route. To talk more widely, many philosophical studies can actually be said to be beyond the scope of the inner world. Let me give you some examples.

Let’s talk about Descartes first, his philosophy is beyond the inner world. On the one hand, he turned to inner and subjective nature because he used “cogito” to lay the foundation for the entire world, and this “cogito” is pureTo first experience the consciousness is of course something inside, there is no need to say more. On the other hand, its transcendence lies in the fact that the subjectivity of man replaces the inner transcendence God because he uses the inner “I thought” to reconstruct the inner God—to give God from the head. Therefore, Descartes’ philosophy is obviously beyond the scope of its inner abilities. Descartes thus opened up the basic approach of modern Eastern philosophy, that is, the approach beyond the internal approach. From this we can see that the inner transcendence is not something that only Chinese philosophy can do.

Descartes philosophy is a sensible philosophy; experience sensible philosophy is actually beyond the basics.

Talking about it with a philosophical philosophy is also an internal transcendence. On the one hand, the sensualist is like the sensible. Starting from exploring the inner world and returning to the inner world, this is what is called “agnosticism”, that is, beings outside of experience are unaware; but he does not return to pure thought and sensibility like the sensibleist, but returns to “perception”, which is what he calls the “impression” of the final direct experience. But perception is also something inside. Incubation On the other hand, he also wants to use perception to give a complete world, even if it is a world of intellectual discourse, but it also gives a certain “existent whole”. According to Heidegger’s definition, this “existent body” is actually a metaphysical, that is, something beyond nature. Therefore, in general, from the perspective of modern understanding and subjectivity, whether it is a path of sensory or empirical theory, it is actually an internal path beyond the scope.

To go forward, Kant tried to integrate the two schools of experience and sensory theory, but his philosophy also exceeded this number internally. According to his critical philosophy, everything must be received from emotional criticism. This is to say that he uses “sensibility”, including laying for metaphysical and mathematical and science in metaphysical science. “Sensibility” is not only “pure sensibility” (theoretical sensibility) or “real sensibility”, but of course it is also inner things, which is the same as Descartes’ pre-experience sensibility. And the transcendent dimension of his philosophy lies in his ability to doze beyond the snooze. After waking up, she realized that she was actually a supporting role in the book, and that her sexual God, that is, to regard the inner God as an internal real-sensual publication.

The unique classic is Hussier’s phenomenon. He also began to first understand the inner “transcendence”, but especially interested in thinking that when he sucked the inner transcendence and returned to the inner phenomenon stage, this inner pure consciousness happened to be “transcendence” again (tran)scenetal). The word “experienced” that is “transcendental” can also be translated into “extra” or perhaps “extraordinary”, because the word “transcendence” and the word “transcendence” are actually homologous. It is easy to see that Huthier relies on “inner beyond” and returns to “inner beyond”; in his opinion, the inner prior consciousness has transcendentality.

Baoqing.com dcard

Mu Zongsan and others first discussed the problem of “inner beyond” from Kant’s “experienced sensibility”. Through a meticulous review, I denied their first judgment, which is to say: “Inner transcendence is unique to Chinese philosophy.” This judgment cannot be established.

The second judgment is also wrong when they say “inner excess is good and superior”. In fact, since modern literary and artistic rejuvenation and enlightenment, philosophy has embarked on the path of inner transcendence, and has vigorously highlighted people’s sensibility. The problems brought about by the problem of “reflection and enlightenment”. In the end, the inner transcendence is actually a substitute for the gods in the sacred world with people from the secular world. People think they are transcendent and sacred, and they think they are the most good and capable of everything. In essence, they are “using the heavens with people”, and in the most basic sense is a kind of presumptuousness. So, I want to emphasize: “Inner beyond” is not necessarily a good thing, it is at most a double-blade sword. To this end, we must conduct in-depth reflection on the Confucian “inner beyond”.