requestId:684d911b6dcf45.10977468.
“Serving the Heaven” or “using the Heaven” – Two paradigms of Confucianism beyond its conception
Author: Huang Yusong
Source: The author authorized the Confucian Internet to publish, originally published by “Nanjing Major Research” No. 5, 2021
[Abstract] The so-called “inner beyond” is to say that the human heaven is extraordinary, that is, beyond the mundane world; while the so-called “inner beyond” is to say that the human emotion or mind is super-experience, that is, beyond rational experience. Confucius, Mencius and Confucianism and Song and Ming Ching Neo-Confucianism have both internally exceeded dimensions, but there are two distinctly different types of beyond paradigms: Confucius, Mencius and Confucianism have not abolished the “heaven” that is beyond the inner, which is beyond the purpose of “serving the heaven”; while Song and Ming Ching Neo-Confucianism replaces the “heaven” that is beyond the inner, which is beyond the “user of the heaven”. Although the actual considerations of this “using the sky” path are understandable, their initial aspirations cannot be realized under the existing secular format, but they will have serious consequences. The correct choice is to change the secular format, and this just asks to return to the path of “working with heaven” and rebuild the inner transcendent heaven.
Since the 1980s, Mou Zongsan and others have proposed the view of Confucian philosophy’s “immanent transcendence”; recently, the “out of transcendence” problem of Confucian philosophy has become a hot topic in the academic world. The reason why this problem is eye-catching is that it not only touches on the reflections on Confucian history, but also contains in-depth real-life concerns. This article proposes “Two paradigms of Confucianism beyond concepts” based on the author’s series of papers, aiming to promote related research and deepen the understanding of the historical evolution, success and future path selection of Confucianism.
1. Determination of the concept of “outside”
In the academic discussion in this field, the author took the lead in criticizing the Confucianism after Confucius and Mencius, especially the new Confucianism in the Song and Ming dynasties, and took the initiative to return to Confucius and Mencius’s internal transcendence. [1] The author’s statement at that time was easy to cause misunderstanding, as long as Confucius and Mencius had exceeded the inner level, there was no inner level. In fact, Confucius, Mencius and Confucianism and Song and Ming Technological Neo-Confucianism have internally exceeded the dimensions; but despite this, they are two distinctly different types of beyond paradigms, that is, Confucius, Mencius and Confucianism did not abolish, but insisted on respecting the “Heaven” that is externally beyond the purpose of “serving the Heaven”, while Song and Ming Technological Neo-Confucianism replaced the “Heaven” beyond the inner nature with its inner nature, which is actually “usering the Heaven”.
The reason for the above error is that the connotation of the concepts such as “out”, “inner beyond”, and “inner beyond” used by it is confused, especially the diffuse subjects of internal excess and internal excess: the subject of internal excess is internalIn the heaven or emperor of man; and the subject that exceeds the inner is human, which refers to the inner lies in the emotion or mind of man. Liu Shuxian once explained “religion” based on the “Vera Dictionary”, pointing out: “What religion cares about is existence beyond the visible world… and trust that people will be comforted by such worship. This statement…both beyond (God) and (Man) inside…”[2] This is also the subject of two distinctions in a strict area. To this end, the writer specially wrote an article pointing out that the heaven or emperor is transcendent, that is, transcendent, that is, transcendental, that is, transcendental, that is, transcendental, that is, transcendental, that is, transcendental, that is, transcendental, that is, transcendental, that is, transcendental, that is, transcendental, that is, transcendental, that is, transcendental, that is, transcendental, that is, transcendental, that is, transcendental, that is, what is called “internal transcendence”. [3] If both the inner and inner transcendence are considered to be the human subject, it will form confusion and even lead to serious consequences. But to this day, the academic debate about Confucianism beyond its view remains in this subjective confusion. To this end, it is necessary to further determine the concept of “outside” in one step.
(I) Analysis of the term “exceeding”
There are two different subjects (subject) concepts:
(1) The subject of “transcendental” is “people”, and its transcendence refers to the sensibility of rational experience (beyond the experience), so it should be translated as “experience”, which is what is called “immanent transcendence”;
(2) The subject of “transcendent” is “heaven” or “god”, and its transcendence refers to the metaphysical transcendence of the world (beyond the world), so it should be translated as “extraordinary”. This is what is called “external transcendence”.
The demand here specifically points out that this article has different differences between “transcendental” and “transcendent” from any translation method of Kant’s philosophical concept (Table 1):
Table 1: Differences beyond concepts Han translation
Han translation
English
Kant Philosophy Translation
This article is translated
transcentental
Experience
transcentent
Experience
Extraordinary
Of course, the translation of this article is more appropriate to the term “transcendental” means (human sentiment or mind) beyond experience; “transcendent” means (God or Heaven) beyond ordinary.
Although modern Han language already has the word “out”, the philosophy and religious language “out” of modern Han language “out” is an extraneous word, namely “transcendence”. The Spanish “transcendence”, “transcendent”, and “transcendental” are based on the word “transcend”, from the Latin word “culturetranscendere”, meaning “over” or “over” (a line). Therefore, there is a “planning” problem at first, because the original meaning of “over” is to cross a certain “boundary line”. For philosophy and religion, the most basic boundary is the plot of “inner” and “inner”: “inner” refers to this mundane world, especially the human mind or consciousness; “inner” refers to the human mind, and even the entire mundane world (Table 2). This is also the “interaction between heaven and man” problem mentioned by Chinese philosophy.
Table 2: The two subjects transcend the plot
Inner
The extraordinary
Dagata or God
Inner
The shadow machine targets those people.
Superexperience (sensory)
The spiritual consciousness
Experience (rational)
The so-called “sensory” here not only has an cognitive sensibility, but also an interested sensibility, as Kant called “Praktischer Grund”; the so-called “experience” does not only refer to rational cognition, but also to emotions. The author has done the following analysis of the human spiritual consciousness structure (Table 3) [4]:
Table 3: Spiritual consciousness structure
Area
Levels
Awareness
Intention
Sensibility
Thinking
Let’s
Rationality
Perception
Emotion
The “rationality” in Table 3 contains cognitive perception and intentional emotion. From this we can see that in philosophy, the so-called “inner is super”It means that sensibility exceeds reason, and this is so rude.
Sensibility can certainly transcend reason, but the problem is: after transcending reason, can the sensual self, or the subject of sensuality – the human being, actually think that it is God or heaven? Of course, sensibility can transcend the boundary line of reason, but can it transcend the boundary line of the secular world on the other side? It can be denied. The reason why people want to transcend their inner sense beyond their inner rational experience is to move towards the inner extraordinary; but even if human sensibility points to the inner extraordinary, it is still something inside and cannot replace the inner extraordinary, otherwise it is an usurpation – to use man to usurp the heavens.
(II) The era of “outside” concepts in Eastern religion and philosophy
This “using man to heaven” is exactly the
發佈留言