requestId:685185be919778.42689701.
Original title: Rethinking the “law” of Chinese philosophy – taking “the problem of Chinese philosophy conforming to legal norms” as the central part*
Author: Wang Baofeng (Doctor of History, lecturer at the South East School of Philosophy)
Source: Author Authorized Confucian Network Published
Originally published in “Bao Chicken School of Arts and Sciences (Social Science Edition)” Issue 06, 2017
Time: Confucius was the fourth day of the 11th month of Wuxu
By 2018
Jesus December 10, 2018
data-filtered=”filtered”>
* This article is a phased result of the National Social Science Foundation of China: “Chinese Philosophy and Literature Research on the Field of Sampling” (Project Consent No.: 15BZX056).
Summary:Delhida and Zheng Jiaqi over the “law” (“theory”) of Chinese philosophy, in order to thoroughly reflect on the basics of Chinese philosophy and innovate the research and development methods of Chinese philosophy, it provides a serious historical machine. The challenge made us realize that the general history of Chinese philosophy is not “reliable history”, but a “recapitalization” based on the concept of “philosophy”; as a modern subject, Chinese philosophy and its history are only a stage of Chinese thinking history; the main purpose of Chinese philosophy is to strive to modernize Chinese traditional thinking; “creative interpretation” is the basis and method of Chinese philosophy. The reason why Chinese philosophy has a crisis of “compliance with the law” is important because of the paradigm of “selected and described”, which has led to the lack of “Chinese validity” and “philosophical validity”. It is actually “Oriental Philosophy in China”, and it is no longer suitable for the requests of the current era. The way of innovation in Chinese philosophy is to respond to problems of the times as a driving force. On the one hand, we should regain our lives by using the “reduction of nature method” and “study path” to ensure the “Chinese validity” of Chinese philosophy; on the other hand, we should settle down in our studiesinclusive‘s cultural subject, using the Eastern philosophical method, to compare and dialogue domains “to transform the West” and “revise” classics and have been renewed for a long time, ensuring the “philosophical validity” of Chinese philosophy.
Keywords:Chinese Philosophy Comply with the Law Science Chinese Validity Philosophy of Validity
In 2001, Zheng Jiaqi formally proposed the “China Philosophy Comply with the Law” in the “Year of Chinese Philosophy 2001”. In a sequel, Delhida published a book on “Bookwriting and Differences”. In the “Preface to Interview” at the beginning of the book, Delhida formally put forward his own view on the fairness of “Chinese Philosophy”, which the author calls “Delhida Question”. “Chinese Philosophy conforms to the legality problem” and “Delhida problem” are the same: both rely on historical reality and compare Chinese and Western thinking as the domain, which puts forward continual challenges for the past research and research on Chinese philosophy. After the two students asked questions, “one stone stirred up a thousand layers of waves”, which triggered widespread, durable and intense discussions, and the impact has continued to this day. [①] With the profound discussion, students began to examine the nature and research paradigm of Chinese philosophy from the beginning, and realized the main nature of the Chinese philosophy subject matter, and also tried to respond to challenges through methods such as “speaking by oneself” and “speaking by oneself” to explore new ways of Chinese philosophy research. [②]
However, it must be pointed out that “Chinese philosophy complies with the legal nature” and “Delhida problem” were questions raised by Zheng Jiaqi and Delhida in 2001, with specific content, rather than “a problem that exists since the birth of Chinese philosophy”. In the past, participants and debaters did not truly clarify and discuss the actual content and most basic questions of “Chinese Philosophy conforms to legality” and “Derrida Question”. In particular, they did not recognize that Zheng Jiaqi and Delhida questioned the Chinese Philosophical Theory from a historical perspective, which completely overturned the severe challenge of “law” (“theory”) discussed in previous Chinese Philosophy.
“The problem of Chinese philosophy complying with the law” is absolutely not the so-called “desperate problem”, “a problem of insulting oneself”, “a problem of being immoral”, and therefore it can be stopped and must be “stayed”. On the contrary, despite being misinterpreted and misread, the severe challenges between Zheng Jiaqi and Delhida were actually like being in the throat, bringing great difficulties and “insider damage” to Chinese philosophy and practitioners, seriously hindering the development of science. The scholar said bitterly: “The crisis of ‘Chinese Philosophy’ conformity to law has become an indescribable shadow. It is so noisy that it is still a stalemate. It has become a long-term pain in the hearts of modern Chinese people.”[③]Recently, some scholars have developed the tragedy of Chinese traditional thinking “not saying philosophy is rude”, and some scholars have tried to “Chinese Philosophy conform to law”, “resolve doubts”, “discuss again”, etc. That is clear. [⑤]
Since the question was proposed, the academic community has spent a lot of effort to solve the problem of “Chinese philosophy complying with the legal principles”, but the result is that the current Chinese philosophy research has not embarked on the path of “Chinese philosophy paradigm innovation” as the initial debaters were waiting for. The reason is that students have failed to clarify the actual challenge of Chinese philosophy in compliance with legal norms, so they cannot fully understand the “law” (“law” or “reason”) of Chinese philosophy from the response challenge, and thus open up a new path for future Chinese philosophy.
1. The actual content of “Delhida problem” and “Chinese philosophy conforms to legal norms” and its overwhelming challenges
In the Japanese (Japanese) Western Zhou Dynasty (182Prepare a month’s price9-1897), philosophy had not been translated into the word “Philosophy”, but in the East, there were already words such as “Confucius’ philosophy” and “Chinese philosophy”. [⑥]From Lima (1552-1610), Eastern scholars began the process of learning “textuality” Chinese traditional thinking based on Eastern philosophy. When he arrived in Hegel (1770-1831), he also used words
發佈留言