requestId:687938cb439003.01476504.
The strengthening and weakening of the saying of good nature: From Xunzi to Dong Zhongshu
Author: Liao Xiaoying (Associate from the School of Philosophy of Huazhong Science and Technology)
Source: The author authorized by the Confucian Network, published by “Hengshui Academy of Sciences” No. 5, 2024
Abstract: Mencius’s saying of good nature is aimed at explaining that the acquired ability to be good in humanity, and its theoretical purpose is in line with the “should be energetic” of Kant’s ethics. href=”https://sites.google.com/view/sugardaddy-story-share”>号号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号。号� In history, it is often emphasized to this view: people will definitely do good in reality, so gifts, royal sects and even all acquired efforts are redundant. Xun and Dong both criticized Mencius based on this strong interpretation of Mencius’s nature. In order to illustrate the nature of acquired education, the two schools had to decide that humanity includes some good quality that needs to be cultivated and developed in a step-by-step manner. Many scholars since the Qing Dynasty followed this thought and understood Mencius’ nature goodness, but this was essentially a weakening of Mencius’s words. This article briefly demonstrates the important meaning of Mencius’s good nature and good nature, and carefully sorts out the criticisms of Mencius’s words by Xun and Dong, as well as the weakened nature and good nature implicated in their thoughts, and then introduces the impact of weakened nature and good nature and good nature on later generations of scholars understanding Mencius’s good nature and good nature.
Keywords: Mencius; Xunzi; Dong Zhongshu
Nature good words are the most well-known initiative of Mencius, but they also suffer the most mistakes. The first person who criticized Mencius for his mistaken nature and was fiercely criticized by Xunzi. Based on the division between ability and ability, he determined that Mencius’ nature and nature would definitely be good in reality, but this obviously goes against common sense. Therefore, Xunzi believed that we can only say that people have the conditions (quality, possession) that “can” be good, which is from the perspective of being able to be able to be good; but it cannot be said from the perspective of reality that people have the sufficient conditions that “can” be good. Based on similar logic, Dong Zhongshu, the Han Confucian scholar, believed that Mencius’s good nature refers to “nature is good”, which is contrary to the fact that humans (nature) must be taught before they can be good. Therefore, he advocated that “nature has good nature but cannot be good.” Xunzi’s reflection on Mencius’s nature goodness is of course in his understanding, but he made strong recommendations on the statement, making it the most basic theoretical basis. 大家彩发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发Xunzi’s own explanation of the conditions that make good can lead to a “weak” statement of good nature. All of this was inherited by Dong Zhongshu. To be honest, Xunzi’s “weak nature is good at speaking” or Dong Zhongshu’s “nature is”There is a foundation for many scholars to understand Mencius’s nature and good speech, especially since the Qing Dynasty. This article briefly summarizes the basic meaning of Mencius’s nature and good speech, and focuses on clarifying the interpretation and criticism of Mencius’ nature and good speech, as well as a weak nature and good speech brought about by their statements. Finally, it explains the impact of Xun and Dong Zhi’s words on later generations’ knowledge of Mencius’ nature and good speech.
1. The reality of Mencius’s good nature
How to interpret Mencius’s good nature is one of the most controversial topics in the history of Chinese philosophy. [1] Due to space limitations, this article cannot read the various interpretations of Mencius’s good nature in history. It can only use the text of Mencius as a basis to briefly describe Mencius’s good natureBaoqiang.com dcard focuses on the purpose. As we all know, Mencius clearly explained in “Good nature” in “Good nature” only in “Good nature”:
If it is the emotion, it can be good, which is what is said to be good. If a person is not good, it is not the sin of talent. Everyone has a heart that is jealous; everyone has a heart that is shameful and evil; everyone has a heart that is respectful and gentle; everyone has a heart that is long and short. A heart that is jealous is benevolence; a heart that is jealous is righteous; a heart that is respectful and gentle is kind; a heart that is long and short is wisdom. Benevolence and wisdom are not caused by external me, but I am inherent, so I cannot think about it. Therefore, it is said: “Seeking to get it, and giving up it.” “Or those who are more likely to be foolish and cannot be as good as their talents.
Mencius’s explanation of “nature is good” is the key to to consolidate the conditions “It is like his feelings, so he can be good, and it is what he calls good.” In this case, “it” refers to (human) nature, and “emotion” is explainedPure care software is “real”. The literal meaning of the whole sentence is: In terms of humanity, it can be good, which is what is called good nature, but this is not enough to grasp the exact meaning of Mencius’s saying good nature. “If a person is bad, it is not a sin of talent” points out the previous sentence The key point of the sentence: Mencius emphasized that in terms of human nature, its “can” be good because the “talent” of “good”, that is, the talent of “good”, is inherently possessed by human nature. Therefore, if people are not good or bad in reality, the problem is not in the “talent” of “good”. Mencius then specifically said the “talent” of “good” in “four hearts”Baobao.com and specially highlighted its “acquired nature” to find a sluggish little guy. , which is what I call “not from the outside, but I am inherent.” Mencius also discussed this in “People have an unbearable heart” in “People have a chapter of unbearable heart”:
Everyone has a heart that cannot bear to others. The former kings had the intention to bear others, so they had the policy of not be patient. With a heart that cannot bear others, and to do politics that cannot bear others, and govern the whole country’s ability to do so. Therefore, if everyone has the intention to bear it, the ancients suddenly saw that a child would enter the well, and they all had the intention to be afraid and be jealous. It is not because it is internal to the child’s parents, it is not because it is important to be honored by the country’s family, it is not because it is a shame. From this perspective, a heart without worries is not human; a heart without shame is not human; a heart without worries is not human; a heart without worries is not human; a heart without shortness is not human. A heart that is obsessed is the end of benevolence; a heart that is ashamed is the end of meaning; a heart that is resigned is the end of favor; a heart that is long and short is the end of wisdom. People have four ends, and they have four bodies. Some people who say that they cannot overcome the situation are self-reliant; those who say that the king cannot overcome the situation are self-reliant; those who say that the king cannot overcome the situation are self-reliant.
“There are four ends of people, and the watch has four bodies” means that the watch is emphasized as the “four ends” is ordinary, and it is the original possession of people. As for the specific meaning of nature being good at speaking, the sentence “If there are four ends and those who say that they cannot overcome themselves, they are self-reliant; if they say that the king cannot overcome them, they are self-reliant.” It is particularly worth paying attention to. The two “unsuccessful” words are omitted after both “unsuccessful”. The “self-deprecating” words are good or benevolent and wise, [2] The “that the king cannot be defeated” words are “performing a policy that cannot bear to others.” [3] The “salary” here is used as a statement of damage or violent concession. “The “Self-breaking and self-destruction” in “The Legend of the Condor Heroes” has a concrete explanation of this:
Mencius said: “Those who are self-destructive will not be able to make words; those who are self-destructive will not be able to make things happen. Words are not a tribute, but a self-destructive; my body cannot be able to do anything. When you live in benevolence, you will betray yo TC: