【一包養價格茍東鋒】正名與正義——兼論儒家權利觀念的隱沒與浮現

requestId:684c3e44532398.61735687.

Realization of name and righteousness—and the confusion and appearance of Confucianism’s concept of rights

Author: Chi Dongfeng (Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Huadong Teacher Fan and China Institute of Modern Thought and Civilization)

Source: “Anhui Major” (Philosophy and Social Science Edition) 2021 Issue 1

Abstract: Speaking of the general nature of righteousness, the concept of “responsible” should be regarded as the basic discussion area of ​​righteousness. To trace the root of the origin, the Chinese legitimate theory laid by Zhou Gong only considers the problem of giving someone “responsible” to his “responsible” under the conditions of solving the situation of who “responsible” the whole country. The Eastern legitimate theory is the opposite. This difference determines the idea of ​​rights that appeared early in the East and never raised in China. As for the latter, Confucian theory of correcting names and doctrines can be regarded as a specific Chinese rationale. Research on the issue of correcting names and teachings can be found that on the one hand, the basic characteristic of traditional Confucian righteous theory is a format that corrects people and is dedicated to common people. This format determines why the concept of rights is obscure in Confucianism. On the other hand, the condition of traditional Confucianism is to correct the concept and reality of the two parts of people and commoners. Therefore, when the dual structure of the righteous and common people gradually evolved into the national structure, Confucian righteous thoughts also needed to change from the righteous people to the common people to the ordinary people to a theoretical format that was important for the people to be their own. The purpose of this change means the emergence of the concept of rights.

Keywords: correct name; right; right; right; right; correct person; common people

There are two discussions under the name of “China’s Righteous Discussion” Views: First, the strong apology for social justice and justice that has emerged in the 1950s and 1960s of the 20th century, and the political philosophy trend marked by Rors’ “On the Righteousness”; second, the civilization reflection and traditional civilization rejuvenation movement of Chinese society since the 1980s of the 20th century. In this context, the Chinese academic community has three stages of participation in the rightful problem: the late period is important to explore the relationship between “righteousness” and “justice” from the lexicon source; the comparison of the concepts of medium-term and Chinese and Western righteousness; and discussions on the so-called “Chinese righteousness” [1] have emerged in recent years. The “China Justice Discussion” clearly does not point out the right argument in the current “China”, but rather the right argument discussed with Chinese traditional thinking as a resource. The condition for this kind of justification is to acknowledge that there are two aspects: generality and speciality. From a large perspective, today’s China’s righteous discussions have all been exposed to these two aspects, but disagreement learners have different understandings about the generality level included in China’s righteousness. Some sides are more important than EasternThe generality of the theory and seeks a communicable aspect in the Chinese justification [2]; some sides emphasize the generality of the Chinese justification and believe that a Chinese-style justification should be established as a positive Chinese-style justification [3]; some people believe that the Eastern and Eastern justifications have their own lengths and weaknesses, and in the future, a new kind of justification should be sought [4]. So, is China’s justification? Is it broader than speciality or vice versa? The key to the problem is how to understand the generality of justice. The generalized question of righteousness can actually be reduced to whether there can be a cooperative discussion between the right arguments of disagreement. If we can find a connected domain, we can also determine that there is a broad sense of justice that follows different opinions. Questions about how to evaluate and build a Chinese legitimate discussion can also be found here. So can there be a cooperative discussion on the Chinese and Western legitimacy?

1. The generality and speciality of righteousness problems

The word “righteousness” in modern Han begins with a translation name, which is a pattern of the Spanish “justice”. If the word “China” is given before “righteousness”, the problem that is touched is the “reverse pattern”. Therefore, discussing the Chinese legitimacy theory cannot be separated from the perspective of comparative thinking and speak on its own. Standing in a relatively standpoint, the most prominent problem is undoubtedly the difference between the right arguments between Chinese and Western countries. In ordinary terms, in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, “as justice, the connotation of its focus is the importance of rights” [5]. If you admit this, then why is the important issue of Confucian righteousness in China, especially being hidden and whether it can appear [6]. It should be noted that discussing the Chinese legitimate argument with a comparative philosophy does not expect to be a kind of “interpretation of the Chinese from the West”, but instead seeking a field of cooperation between Chinese and Western legitimate arguments. This domain should be appropriate. If it is too big, it cannot be able to frame the scope of Chinese legitimate argument; if it is too small, it can miss the rich meaning of Chinese legitimate argument.