|
Greener Journal of
Philosophy and Public Affairs Vol. 2(1), pp. Copyright ©2021, the
copyright of this article is retained by the author(s) |
|
The popularization of common
philosophy - 41
Suqian Economic and Trade Vocational School
|
ABSTRACT |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
ARTICLE INFO |
|
|
|||||||
|
Article
No.: 06082100041 |
Accepted: 01/07/2021 Published: 27/08/2021 |
*Corresponding
Author Zhou Mi E-mail: 1024317354@ qq.com |
Keywords:
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
What is the "nature without good and evil" thought
of Neo-Confucianism in the Song and Ming dynasties?
Press the corollary of cheng
hao, not only good and evil cannot word a priori, it
is "sex" concept also expresses hard, once express, had been the
start of sex and good and evil is born, namely "life and static" the
realistic human nature below. Whether the nature of good or evil, in fact, are
acquired; Have nothing to do with nature, nature is just static and indifferent
to good and evil.
In the early Southern Song Dynasty, Hu Anguo and his son Hu Hong further put forward the viewpoint
that "goodness is not enough to talk about nature" and "goodness
is not enough to tell the difference between good and evil", emphasizing
that nature, as the noumenon and the highest category
of philosophy, is beyond the acquired evaluation of good and evil. Therefore,
in addition to the beauty of praise, even the saints are "not
famous", natural good and evil "is not enough to describe."
The thoughts of Hu's father and son had a
great influence on the relationship between noumenon
and good and evil in the thinking of Chinese philosophy of mind nature. The
views of Wang Shouren and others in the Ming Dynasty
that there is no good and evil in nature can be explained from the perspective
that nature is quiet and transcends good and evil.In
his view, the noumenal state is transcendental and
cannot be confused with the idea of acquired good and evil on the emotional and
mental level. Good and evil are the result of the action of the mind. Namely,
the noumenon cannot be regulated by the value
judgment of phenomenological state.
Try to compare Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's
"heart is reason".
Zhu Xi advocated the unity of mind and
principle, which was not unreasonable to him. As the subject of cognition, the
mind's original task is to investigate and regulate, and the role of reason can
be shown through the general play of the subject, which is in accordance with
the general law of cognition. However, the psychological unity of epistemology
is obviously different from the psychological unity of ontology, because the
former can have two and one, while the latter can only have one and the same. Zhu
xi's viewpoint is actually "mind is reason" (in the sense of
epistemology) rather than "mind is reason" (in the sense of being or
ontology), so it was sharply criticized by lu jiuyuan and wang Shouren at that time and
later.
Although Lu Jiuyuan
advocated the theory of mind, the difference between him and Zhu Xi lies in his
theory of mind that "the universe is my mind, and my mind is the
universe", that is, the principle of the universe is equal to the
principle of the original mind. Lu jiuyuan's solution
to the problem of reason is not from epistemology, but from the Angle of
existence, namely, from ontology. Mind and reason remain the same in all time
and space. This identity is undisturbed by any external conditions and never
changes. Thus, Lu Jiuyuan's "mind is the
principle" and Zhu Xi's "mind is the principle" also have the
fundamental difference. Lu's "mind is the reason" means that mind and
reason are the same entity, saying that the reason or contentment is actually
just a form, there is no difference in essence, "there can
not be two", so mind and reason can "be consistent".
|
Cite this Article: Zhou M. (2021). |