requestId:684c3e4f82a607.93430838.
One-Shi San Gong Case: Is Mou Zongsan’s confidant presenting Kantian or Hegel?
Author: Chen Yingnian
Source: “Chunshan Journal” Issue 4, 2020
Content summary: The case of “Is a confidant a hypothesis or a presentation?” in 1933, “Is it a confidant a hypothesis or a presentation?” in 1981, and finally turned into the case of “Mu Zongsan is a sentimentalism, or a disgusting theory?” in 1995. This three-fold case has the main meaning of understanding the integration of Mou Zongsanzhe’s “pre-examination” and “experience” in learning. On the one hand, Mou Zongsan and Hegel “denied” Kant’s boundary line of things themselves, “presented” his confidant, and made the country a civilized object and sacred work, and then surpassed Kant’s opinion of idealism and established a profound idealism. On the other hand, Mou Zongsan “stable” the division between Kant’s phenomena and the object itself, and asked to prove that the principle of not being restricted in the “hidden” skill of long-term experience. On the former side, Mou Zongsan is from the inside out and from top to bottom, which is Hegel-like. Li Zehou’s criticism of Mou Zongsan is also Kant’s anti-criticism of Hegel. On the latter side, Mou Zongsan is from the outside to the inside and from the bottom to the top, which is Kantian. Li Zehou’s criticism of Mou Zongsan is just a matter of making a statement. Mou Zongsan’s contradiction is the contradiction between Li Zehou’s “from morality to ethics” and “from morality to morality”, and the contradiction between “two” of “dual body”, “two virtues”, and “unified Mencius and Xunxun”. Mou Zongsan also combined the sensible theory with the experiential theory, which is “returning to Kant after the theoretical process of Hegel and Marx”, and “Confucius plus Kant”.
Keywords: Mou Zongsan/Confidant presentation/Li Zehou/Kant/Hegel
Title notes: National social science late-stage assistance general project “National and Mind: Mou Zongsan’s Political Philosophy Criticism” (19FZXB063).
In the eighty years of the previous generation, Li Zehou was a furry little guy. He was so terrible that he hugged him in his arms. He closed his eyes and discussed Mou Zongsan. Baocai.com Recently, Teacher Li, criticized Mou Zongsan to clarify his own views. His judgment is very representative and negligible, and he can understand the Chinese response of Hegel’s dispute with Kant.
To truly understand this question, at most three questions need to be answered: First, what does Hegel criticize and outsize Kant in terms of what meaning does it mean? Second, can Li Zehou’s Kant-Max vision affect his evaluation of Mou Zongsan? Third, is Mou Zongsan Bi actually “Hergel-style” or “Kantian-style”?
These are all big problems, especially the first one, manySpecial discussion, sweat is filled with food. The difference between Kant-Marx’s vision and Hegel-Marx’s vision is even more a question that Chinese scholars cannot overcome and cannot discuss vigorously. In this scenario, it is very interesting and meaningful that Mou Zongsan Bi is “Hergel-style” or “Kant-style”. This also stipulates the difficulty of the research and development task and must have a closing point. Here we start from the triple case.
1. One-way three-fold case
1. One-fold case: “Is a confidant a hypothesis or a presentation?” In 1933, Xiong Shili and Rongyoulan had a conversation:
Once, Rongyoulan went to visit Mr. Xiong, the teacher Yu Erdaoqiao. At that time, Rong’s “History of Chinese Philosophy” had been published. Teacher Xiong talked about that with him, and at any time pointed out, “Of course this is something you don’t agree with.” Finally, he mentioned, “You are an assumption to say that your confidant is an assumption. How can this be said to be an assumption. A confidant is real, and it is a presentation. This must be directly viewed and confirmed directly.” Rong Shi was in a dark and sensible way. This statement: You only talk about you, I still have one of my own. A confidant is real and present, and at that time, it was never seen. This thunder sound is a sound that resonates and relies on people’s perceptions to the level of Confucians in the Song and Ming dynasties. But Rong’s voice depends on the old voice. This shows that those rigid teaching minds only focus on the experience level and the knowledge level, only recognize the experience as true, and only recognize the wise and the wise can be compared. This layer of truth forms a line of boundaries, and in the past, it has been assumptions and illusions. People are just swelling in their drowsy atmosphere and cannot understand their confidants. The mind is in the drowsy atmosphere, and the feeling of experience is embodied, and his atmosphere is fixed with wise references… The people who are swollen are all over the country, and people’s minds do not know that there is a “upward move”. The thunderous sound of Teacher Xiong’s teacher directly revived China’s learning. [1]78
Mu Zhongsan also recorded this in “Mind and Nature”:
Based on the development of primitive Confucianism and the large number of Confucians in the Song and Ming dynasties, the unrestrained and causal nature of will, as Kant said, was not a definite reservation from the beginning for us to be unable to understand, but a manifestation in the actual physical evidence. This is from Confucius to today’s teacher Xiong, who truly possesses his life and practice this scholar, and no one can have any differences. Therefore, thirty years ago, when I was in the north, one day, Mr. Xiong talked with his friend Lan. Mr. Feng said that the confidant Wang Yangming talked about was a hypothesis. Mr. Xiong heard it and said, “The confidant is present, why do you say it is a hypothesis!” I listened quietly by the side, and knew that the basic principle of Mr. Feng’s words was Kant. (Rong finally didn’t understand Kant, but he just learned this and said 杨成Now. As for your confidant, you are even more confused. ) And the teacher Xiong said that it was a big shock and a new force. Although I was not very clear at that time, the meaning of “confidant is present” has never been forgotten in my heart. Now I know it is certain. [2]184
There are differences between Mou Zongsan’s heavy ink and heavy ink, and Rongyoulan has no ink on this. This does not seem to be too slight to the Guyland. In 1986, Li Zehou quoted the above case, believing that “Mu Zongsan was just the opposite of the Youlan”, “he dramatically rejected Feng and returned to Xiong”, and then formed a “overall process” and “round the circle of the whole journey” with Xiong, Liang and Rong. [3]304-309 Whether it means protecting Youyoulan, Li Zehou is now more and more concerned about Mou’s “opponent” meaning. Liu Li denies Mou, which is obviously asking for a different “circle”.
2. Second case: “Mu Zongsan is emotional, or is he disgusting?” In 1995, Li Zehou said:
Teacher Mou, along this path, wanted to establish a set of “metaphysical learning of morality” in modern China and use it to explain Confucian traditions. This has gone one step further than Yangming, and is an attempt to reconstruct a certain knowledge/power structure to schedule people. Therefore, the so-called “hidden” of confidant who is very meticulous and artificial, said by “the inner sage opens the outer king”. If we can really work on the real level, this will be a dangerous path towards resentfulism. [4]Preface 2-3
The logic here is: Kant decided to fight against the secret experience of the Olympics and denounced the encouraging sciences or the passion of such sciences as spiritualism and astrology. Mou Zongsan surpassed Kant, and held people with wise directness and could not be restrained. Therefore, he must have left the “sensory experience” and entered the “sensory experience” and “offensive theory”. “Australian experience” is a “knowledge/power structure” that is released to consolidate “feeling experience”, of course “very artificial” and “criminal”.
3. The triple case: “Do you want Kant, or Hegel?” In 1981, Li Zehou proposed a question:
In ordinary terms, we want both Kant and Hegel. However, if I must choose one between the two, my answer is: Kant, not Hegel. [5]
Even the first and second cases do not mention Hegel, so this third case seems to have nothing to do with the previous two, and cannot form the “three-part case”. However, Mou Zongsan also borrowed Hegel’s resources, and even the same debate as the debate about who was Marx’s energy source. People are still quarrel about who was Mou Zongsan’s doorstep and formed the three factions.
1. Represented by Li Mingxu, it is believed that the three basic principles of Mou Zong can only be in Kant, not in Hegel:
It is not very clear to say that this form of thinking is “Hegel-style”; in addition, it is “Hegel-styl
發佈留言