requestId:684c3e47991e81.14356074.
The epochal discussion of Xunzi’s humanitarian theory
Author: Li Qian (Professor and doctoral supervisor of Beijing Teachers and Masters of the Daughter of Academic History)
Source: “Jianghuai Forum”, 2021 No. 1
Abstract
The academic community has many assessments of Xunzi’s humanitarian theory, but most of them are discussed in a versatile way. Although current research has changed the simple statement of Xunzi’s dominance of nature and evil, such as the statement that Xunzi is a statement of nature and that “Natural Evil” is not a work of Xunzi, these views have not been widely recognized, and the new statement seems to be reasonable and even controversial. If we conduct a study from a timely perspective, we will find that the view of these differences is the view of thinking about the period of differences and the environment of differences, which is a timely view and without any contradiction. Taking Xunzi’s humanitarian theory as an example, it is feasible to conduct time-based discussions on his humanitarian theory, which will allow us to make great changes to the discussions of humanitarian theory in the pre-Qin period, or to make similar topics in the future use time-based discussions.
Keywords: Xunzi; humanitarianism; temporality; eroticism;
The pre-Qin thinking school discussed humanity, and expressed its truth from humanity, which was very popular at that time. Mencius said that it was the nationwide language, and there were many differences within Confucianism. At this day, the basic impression left to people by the discussion on humanity at that time was that Mencius was good in nature and Xunzi was bad in nature. Although recent discussions have put forward differences on the concept of this kind of sign, such as saying that Xunzi is a sexual argument, and “Sexual Abuse” is not a work of Xunzi, etc. These discussions are profound and detailed, promoting humanitarian discussions, but they have not received widespread recognition and cannot be based on the most basic changes in the “label”. The important reason for this is to be afraid官网It is not because we do not read the text carefully, but because in terms of understanding and method, we are interested in unintentionally using common-temporal research methods to list the works of thinkers as works completed simultaneously. Each school evaluates the humanitarian theory based on the content provided by the corresponding text, and determines who is the focus and keeps clear. Therefore, in the new and old sayings, they all say that they are reasonable and persistent, and they cannot obtain long-term inverted advantages, and even argue endlessly and negotiate. Therefore, even though it is found that the humanitarian theory of the thinker is not shown by the “label”, but is a different viewpoint, how to explain this seemingly inconsistent and parallel phenomenon is lacking in admirableSay. In fact, these differences are the views of thinking about the differences period and in the environment of differences, and are timely views that can be both irrelevant and without any conflict. We should pay attention to the temporal assessment of the humanitarian theory of these thinkers, and we cannot fail to fight against the “Guogong War against Qin”.
The difference between age-time and cotemporality comes from language learning, and today it is already familiar with it, and seems to be very humble. Moreover, there are many data in later generations, and we can skillfully compare data according to the years and use time-based research and discussion. However, in the pre-Qin period when data was lacking, it seems that the ability of operating time-based research and development methods was lacking. Therefore, even those who study the year and month and literary staging of the book are rarely seen using time-based research and discussion methods to discuss the book. Therefore, tomorrow many scholars who are engaged in late Chinese thinking and research are using a symbiotic perspective to treat the composition of the internal chapters of the text, so that they can feel or unconsciously seek the integration and divergence of the thinking of the thinker, so that one way of saying the war will lead to another opinion. For example, some scholars believe that the thinkers should only have a humanistic argument, and thus doubt whether Mencius could say “nature is good”, whether “nature is evil” is Xunzi’s work, etc. One of the causes of Huaxia is because we do not self-examine the composition of texts from a timely perspective. If we try our best to assess the humanity of the pre-Qin thinkers in a timely manner, no one likes “other people’s children”. The child curled his lips and turned around and ran away. Discussions can be drawn that differ from previous conclusions and promote research on humanitarianism. This method can also be used to discuss other topics. The above trial uses the content of the section chapter as an example to discuss how to discuss humanitarian discussions using a timely manner.
1. Questions about Xunzi’s humanitarian theory
In recent years, the research and discussions on baoqing.com has undergone new changes in the contradiction between Mencius’ good nature and Xunzi’s bad nature. In fact, since the Qing Dynasty, Dai Zhen, Chen Li, Luo Genze, Liang Qixiong and others have all believed that Xunzi’s humanitarian theory includes content that is good-natured, which has been considered by most people in traditional ways.There are differences in the following nature of evil, and Gao Buying and others even said that “Natural Abuse” was not written by Xunzi. 2japan (Japan) Kaneya-ji pointed out in 1950 that when discussing Xunzi’s thinking, there was an inappropriate point in his thinking. Yoneda Torika proposed that sexual misconception was not Xunzi himself’s initiative. In 1958, Tatsuroro published a paper on the “Japan (Japan) China Academy of Sciences” (Episode 26), and pointed out: “What can really be close to what Xun Shi discussed is the disgust of Tang Yang’s deathBreeding MarketStrange Sexual Sentences, japan (Japan) Tsubasa Bigo Sexual Sentences, ‘Of-Category’ Tianguan Tianjun, Taiwan Chen Daqi The humanitarian sayings and the contents of Wei Zhengtong in “Xunzi and Modern Philosophy”. Although the discussion is too weak, it is already in opposition to the acquired evil and perverted beliefs that many scholars such as Liu Xiang, Xie Yong, and Money Xin believe in. “[1]104 Zhang Xunzi’s humanitarian sayings are sexual arguments, not sexual arguments. After that, japan (Japanese) scholars explored Xunzi’s humanitarian theory, and all valued the diversity of Xunzi’s humanitarian theory, and all believed that it was not appropriate to be moved or not to be moved and compare it with Mencius’s nature good discussion. 3 However, Chen Daqi’s statement changed later and he had a disagreement with what Yu Liulang saw. Chen Daqi pointed out that Mencius’s nature goodness is not far different from Xunzi’s nature badness, and even “the two are consistent in their bodies”, “The reason why the two families’ humanitarianism seem to be opposite but not the opposite is that the names of the characters used by the two schools are the same but the meaning is different.” “What Mencius and Xunzi said is the theory of goodness originating from the origin of goodness. Mencius regarded goodness as inherent in the acquired world, and Xunzi treated goodness as derived from the acquired world. However, if we examined the ways of maintaining goodness and achieving goodness in detail, the same thing.” 4 Since Tang Ruju said, “In the full book of Xunzi, what he can prove and wants to prove is not the evil nature, but the good deeds.”[2] 171, and then Long Yu-chan, Cai Fengchang, Wang Qingguang, Liu Youyan, and Sato, a japan (Japanese) student who taught in Taiwan, opposed the mainstream academic theory, especially the Neo-Confucianism’s understanding of Xunzi’s humanitarian theory. Jin Guzhi believed that the “Natural Abuse” was a hypothetical work by the Legalists [3] 30-31. Donald J. Munro believed that he could not afford to pay the meaning of sexual abuse, and believed that the nature mentioned in “Xunzi” was undeveloped and neutral, which meant that it was based on moral concepts. The direction of command and action is not a characteristic of humanity, which is an important difference between Mencius and Xunxun; Mencius insists that a certain acquired direction will inevitably lead to a certain moral behavior, and the evaluation of the heart just leads this direction appropriately. Xunzi did not believe that moral behavior is a direct manifestation of the acquired direction. [4]77-81 However, Zhu Xiaohai has criticized the conclusion of Jinyaji. [5]837-858
In the English world, some of its first students were wrapped in Song Wei’s feathers all the way. They no longer trembled, but they still admitted thatThe existence of the chapter “Natural Abuse” does not recognize Xunzi’s seriousness in this view