requestId:6852da4ceafa95.85987745.
Personality, reasoning and atmosphere: Zhu Zi’s thoughts, nature, and emotions
Author: Chen Zhiwei
Source: Author Authorized by Confucian Network, Originally published by “Shandong Youth Political Science Institute Newspaper” 2023 Issue 6
Abstract: Zhu Zi’s discussion on Mencius only talked about the nature of the origin and neglected the nature of the atmosphere. He believed that this mental and nature discussion could not solve the source problems of evil, and thus could not recognize people’s integrity and differences. Zhu Zi sorted out the historical conclusions of human theory from Confucius and Mencius to Xunyang and then to Korean Yu, and pointed out that they each have their own biases; based on Zhang Xiu’s “mind character” and Zhang Xiu’s “six-herit nature” and “elegance” in the two processes, Zhu Xi explained the meaning, characteristics and achievements of the three models of mind, nature and emotions from the head. Effectively, it is believed that the mind is a perfect mind, has a scheming and dominant meaning, and nature is a truth, and its connotation is “common” or natural reason, that is, the moral direction of standard nature and correct nature, while emotions are the movement of the mind and the use of the nature. Therefore, it is based on the atmosphere, and the essence of the atmosphere and the roughness and positive bias lead to the difference between emotions and evil. In addition, Zhu Zixiao believed that aura also belongs to nature, and the evil in this is also the reason for the formation of nature. This breaks the concentration of Mencius’s nature good deeds and tends to be the view that nature good deeds are mixed.
Keywords: Zhu Zi; character; nature of origin; nature of aura
Author introduction: Chen Zhiwei (1975-), male, from Junan County, Shandong Province, Ph.D., professor of philosophy, professor of the Department of Philosophy at the Xi’an Institute of Electronic Science and Technology Humanities, a tutor of the guru student, and is an important researcher in the history of Chinese philosophy, overseas Chinese, and comparison of Chinese and Western philosophy.
Confucian philosophy of mind and nature has been developed from the pre-Qin and Confucius and Mencius, and has been interrupted from the two Wei, Han, Sui and Tang dynasties. By the Song and Ming dynasties, the problems of mind and nature have been analyzed in detail by the theorists, and more important meanings have been developed. Among them, Zhu Zi’s reversal of mind and nature is particularly worthy of attention. To evaluate Zhu Xi’s philosophy of mind and nature, we need to take the discussion of Confucianism in the late Qin Dynasty, especially Mencius’s discussion on the problem of mind and nature. Mencius talked about the mind and nature with the mind, which was to say that the mind was good, that is, “benevolence, kindness, wisdom and wisdom are rooted in the heart.” At the same time, he did not deny that the mind also included unkind emotions and desires, that is, the desires of the mouth and nose are also found in the heart. When Zhu Zi faced similar problems, he used the “mind character” to summarize the relationship between mind and nature and used rationality as the focus to control the mind and nature. In addition to continuing Mencius’s purpose of being good in nature, he specifically raised the atmosphere or atmosphere of mind and nature, and believed that Mencius had some confusion about the latter to solve the original problem of evil. A detailed analysis of Zhu Zi’s criticism of Mencius’ lack of mental and mental problems, and at the same time, restoring Mencius’ true face in this problem, is interested in the clarification of the historical evolution of Confucian philosophy of mind and nature.
1. The question is derived: Zhu Zi’s criticism of Mencius’s discussion on the mind and nature
Zhu Zi’s philosophy of mind and nature originated from the pre-Qin Confucius and Mencius’ development of mind and nature, and Confucius was more contagious about this issue. Zhu Zi did not discuss this much, but only briefly said it;However, the focus of Mencius’ philosophy is the problem of mind and nature, so Zhu Xi had to touch on the data on this problem in a large number of ways in the process of relating to the door life, and comment on Mencius’s discussion of mind and nature. Zhu Zi used the standard used by Mencius when he criticized the nature of the mind and nature of the mind and nature proposed by Zhang Xuan Ercheng, and used its rational and atmosphere relationship to control the mind and nature. This theoretical context made him realize Mencius’ shortcomings in the problem of mind and nature, that is, although Mencius clearly knew that nature was good, he was ignorant of where the evil originated in real people and the relationship between good and evil. In Zhu Zi’s view, it is difficult to explain the problem of good and evil relations, which will inevitably affect the theoretical completeness and systematicity of the theory of mind and nature.
When discussing the “Doing of the Mean” “The Destiny of Heaven”, Zhu Xi focused on the concept of “nature”, but he understood “nature” in the contradiction between “destiny” and “quality”. He believed that “the so-called destiny and the quality of heaven are also the same. Only when there is destiny, there is destiny, and there is a destiny, and it cannot be separated from each other. If one is the same, the creature cannot obtain it. Since there is destiny, it must be this kind of destiny that can be followed. If there is no such kind of destiny, how can this kind of principle be released?” [1] The “sameness” here is not the same meaning, but the meaning of confusion between each other. Destiny and weather are mixed with each other, and the two cannot be separated from each other. This is about things. Any specific thing is composed of the principles and atmosphere of the destiny of heaven. Otherwise, “the creature cannot obtain it”, things will not be born and exist, because without this atmosphere, the contracting contracts will be placed without it. From this we can see that the influence of the quality here is the reason. The principle must have a load-bearing, and the atmosphere is this load-bearing. In addition, from the concept of “nature”, “the nature of destiny is not biased. However, where the destiny of the destiny is biased, the aura has differences in the thickness and thickness. However, benevolence and wiseness are also unreasonable. But if there are too many, but if there are too many, it will be soft and cowardly; if there are too many shames, there will be people who are ashamed and shameless as they are not shameful.” [2] If as long as the destiny of the destiny is indecent, there will be good things in the way of human beings; however, once the nature of the destiny is involved, there will be evil, because the characteristic of the aura is that it has differences in “brightness and thickness”. This is like the nature of “benevolence and wisdom”, which is complete in principle, but fear, shame, etc. are emotions that come from the heart, and are of temperament and will become bright and thin due to the differences in people’s temperaments. This will cause people to show deviant expressions in their feelings and actions, perhaps because of their lack, or because of their excessiveness. Zhu Zi believed that “this principle is just good”, but the problem is, since this is the case, “how can you get evil?” He decided that “what is said to be evil is just aura.” [3] This leads to bad source problems. It is obvious that Zhu Xi’s reasoning method is different from Mencius. As everyone knows, “Mencius’s nature is good, and his words must be called good” (Mencius Teng Wengong 1), but he must also face the evil in reality and answer the question of since humanity is good, so where does evil come from. Mencius’s method of answering this question is closely related to his nature’s good deeds.Maybe he answered this way in order to adhere to the differences between his nature’s good arguments. Mencius believed that the reason why a person acted evil or did not want to be good was that he “didn’t think of his original conscience” or let go of his conscience (Mencius: Gaozi 1), or perhaps because he “does not know why he cultivated it” in his body. The most basic reason was that he failed to extricate the influence of the thoughts of the heart, and “not thinking” or “not thinking” became obsessed with his heart (ibid.). Mencius’s “desire” is more complicated and points to the purpose of multiple tags, which is divided into lines of desire for the mouth and nose (small body) and desire for benevolence and wisdom (big body). However, the purpose of “thinking” is only one, which means it is to think about good and evil and make decisions. [4] Zhu Zi quoted a passage to analyze Mencius’s thoughts and said: “Mencius’s argument is to say that nature is good. Even if there is bad, it is to say that it is addicted. It is to say that there is no evil at first, but there is no evil later.” [5] This analysis reveals the root cause of Mencius’s argument for evil, that is, he must adhere to the past and later of good at nature. A person cannot deny the focus of human nature from the ori TC:
發佈留言