requestId:684d911da6f966.63228216.
Copywriting:
Confucianism: Predesign and reason
Author: Fang Chaoxi
Source: Author authorized by Confucianism. Originally published by “Hengshui Academy Newspaper” No. 6, 2021, this is the previous version of the publication
Summary: This article is a trial plan to analyze the preset, principles, principles and their relationship structure of Confucianism. It is believed that The Confucian rule of Taoism is based on the basis of the other side orientation of Chinese civilization. Its highest value principles can be combined into national principles, civilization principles and similar principles. On this basis, it has formed seven principles, including the principle of moral governance, energy principles, human nature principles, gift principles, tradition principles, moral principles, and the foundation of people’s origins. A series of specific methods of Taoism in Confucianism can be regarded as the products of these seven principles. Overall, Confucian governance has three characteristics: governance, unity and mentalism.
Keyword: Pre-setting principle
This article is based on the pre-Qin literature and uses modern language to summarize the Confucian thinking on governing the Tao over the past two thousand years. In terms of method, I tried to stand as far as possible from the perspective of outsiders, that is, outsiders, and try to prevent myself from speaking from standing inside the Confucian system.
This article discusses Confucian governance, including the preset, principles, principles, etc. of Confucian governance proposed, and is not for some practical purposes such as constructing modern Confucian governance theory or for exploring modern meanings of Confucian governance. Even if I never deny the latter’s main meaning. The idea of this article is: Can you be a person outside the circle, stand on the stage of modern people, and use modern people’s thinking logic to give a fair explanation of the Confucian governance for thousands of years? For example, what is the highest preset or ultimately the Confucianism’s entire set of thoughts on the Taoist governance? Many principles of Confucianism are like common thinking, domineering thinking, obscene thinking, common thinking, common thinking, and profit thinking, etc. If you draw a conclusion, you will not be able to use reason to find the internal relationship and logic, especially find the highest truth?
If we can find the secrets of these problems, we may also give modern people a good perspective, which will at most allow us to stand in the modern standpoint to better understand our predecessors. This may be of great help to understand the modern meaning of Confucianism. In short, my final footfall is to explain, rather than constructing a new set of theories for a certain modern need, nor to advocate for a certain plan or theory.
Method
One of the problems we encountered at the beginning is that Confucian governance has implications and differences among different Confucianists. Over the past thousands of years, its implications have always changed in times of divergence and schools of divergence. To this end, I try to borrow Max Veber’s “fantasy” concept, orMaybe more accurately, borrow Kuhn’s concept of “paradigm” for discussion. This is not to say that I personally adopt a certain paradigm to study my predecessors, but like the scientific group of scientists in history, I discovered the predecessors’ thoughts on governance and some thinking paradigm that actually existed in reality. My thoughts are that although Confucian governance ideas have historical changes, behind all these changes, there are some basic assumptions of cooperation, prefabricated principles and principles, and support the proposal and implementation of a series of governance methods. These presets, principles, principles, etc. are combined into one way, forming something like a thinking model, becoming the basis or template for various disagreements or thinking in later generations; the ideals of governance and the methods of thinking they represent become the driving force to activate various views or thinking in later generations. This may be more similar to Kuen’s “paradigm”, but it was summarized by the ancients for their predecessors, referring to the thought paradigm of the predecessors’ governance mind for thousands of years.
In the process of proposing the Confucian paradigm, I thought about it in the context of Eastern civilization and even global civilization. I hope to use a language that can be interpreted by people in other human civilizations, rather than a set of languages that can be read and understood by Chinese or Confucians. It tried to illustrate that if there was no such a theory of governance in other civilizations, the department could be due to the fact that the latter did not have the pre-design and principles of Confucian governance, or perhaps there was no soil for the civilizational mind produced by the Confucian governance principles. Next, I am willing to invite all learners to explore with me along the way: Is the preset, principles, principles and relationship of Confucian governance that I have summarized really true?
Preset
First of all, I believe that Confucian thought of governing the way (of course, it also includes most pre-Qin sects) is located on the following highest definitions:
1) This world is the only end of human beings that cannot be avoided;
2) The most basic solution to human problems is on this-world, not on this shore or the transcendent world. The so-called “super-experience world” refers to other worlds beyond this world, such as after death, the City of God, the “Three Thousand Worlds”, the “physical body” in Kant’s meaning, etc.;
3) The most basic solution to human problems is to be sufficient, and there is indeed a perfect fantasy human world that can be meaningfully perfect.
In particular, Confucianism has designed a fantasy society to be realized through the efforts of human beings – learning. This is very different from the purpose of Oriental Social Sciences. backPeople think that society is a natural object of interest, and the important task of social science is to study the objective rules as much as possible. Of course, since the second half of the 19th century, more and more scholars have emphasized that human society cannot be discussed as visually as nature, and humanities-social sciences abide by the laws of differences between natural sciences. Even so, the way the entire social science field is still in the form of intellectualism tomorrow. Its important meaning is to explore various rules or laws of the human world, without regarding solving and guiding principles as direct and important tasks. On the contrary, if a research and discussion directly aims to solve the plan or guide principles, it is not difficult to understand that it is not a research and practice, which violates academic rules.
This is completely different from Confucian tradition. The important task of Confucian tradition is to provide people with a comprehensive, profound and most basic solution plan or guidance for the problems of the world. Although it can include or receive the results of the cognitive theory, it is definitely not cognitive theory in nature. It advocates the world-based approach to Oriental social sciences is often unfamiliar and even unimaginable. No Eastern social scientist thinks that his task is to ask for a comprehensive, profound and most basic solution plan for the world. On the one hand, they dare not imagine that learning has such a grand effect, and on the other hand, they can even think that it is inexplicable and contrary to science. Even if they have many people who have developed a comprehensive and basic exploration or research on many real problems, and have proposed their own plans or solutions in some areas. Plata’s “Fantasy Country”, Marx’s communist theory, seems to provide some comprehensive picture for the human world. However, Plath only proposed a set of solutions to the real problem, but he did not think that the real world is the ultimate fate of human beings. The fantasy country diagram he described is just a better way to form the human nation (rather than the human existence form); Marx’s communist fantasy is based on the understanding and discovery of the laws of human history development, which is eighteen. The masterpiece of the evolutionary theory of celestial history is also a product of the thinking of society as a “serious scientific object” at that time; communist society represents the “highest form” of human history in Marx’s mind, but it cannot be described as a final plan for Marx’s problems for all human problems, regardless of Marx’s own great wait for it. Whether it is Plato’s “fantasy” science or Marx’s communist theory, they do not represent the mainstream paradigm of Oriental humanities and social sciences, which is exactly the same as what we see in Confucianism.
The demand points out that the reason why Confucianism believes that the ultimate fantasy that can be learned to realize the world is the other side orientation of Chinese civilization (this-worldliness) That is, a world in Chinese civilization that regards this world as a true and unique. This is very different from other Greek civilizations, Indian civilizations, and Monotheistic religions that set this world as a illusion and to surpass this world as the ultimate goal of human being