requestId:68499ab13e0d54.54388924.
Speaking nature with goodness or speaking goodness with nature
——A New Interpretation of Mencius’s Good Nature
Author: Liao Xiaoying (Department of Philosophy of China Science and Technology)
Invite love Source: “Wuhan Major: Human Science Edition” Issue 3, 2017
Author Introduction: Liao Xiaoying, Department of Philosophy of China Science and Technology, E-mail: xwliao＠hust.edu.cn. Wuhan 430074
Content summary: Mencius’s good nature is not “to speak of nature with goodness”, that is, to make a value judgment on all humanity content, but “to speak of goodness by nature”, that is, to explain the true nature of goodness. The basic meaning of Mencius’s good nature can be explained as follows: it originates from the four ends of humanity, and the acquired nature has sufficient talents to be good; as the inner unity of emotion and emotion, under the true state, the four ends of mind are the generator of good ability has self-expanding and directness. In other words, the goodness of the four-end heart as the moral subject does not involve any utilitarian considerations, and the four-end heart does not take any internal norms as the basis for moral reality. Not to mention, the four-end heart itself is the “decision cause” of goodness. The above can be said to be a complete reminder of Mencius’ good character.
Keywords: Mencius/human nature is good/interpret goodness with human nature
Title notes: Human Social Science Research Youth Fund Project (16YJC720012).
The nature is good at speaking and is the most concerned topic in Benzhihua. Due to the differences in the theoretical position held by the critic, there are many different forms of disagreement about Mencius’s nature. Therefore, the debate about Mencius’ understanding of nature’s good speech can be regarded as a dispute on the stage of disagreement of philosophy. You are the most promising person in our community. After a small achievement, this article does not plan to make a comprehensive analysis of various versions of the nature of nature, but uses the historical thinking structures that Mencius belong to, and tries to make a creative explanation of the basic meaning of the nature of Mencius in detail.
1. Proposal of good nature
According to the commonThe understanding that Mencius called “good nature” means “human nature is good”, but one of the doubts that this must lead to is that Mencius’s good nature is unrealistic because it erases the reckless nature of humanity (such as ignoring the human line, mouth and nose desire), and only “natural” understands the concept of virtue. Some scholars even believe that Mencius did not deny that there is “badness” in humanity. Generally speaking, why did Mencius advocate “good nature” become a very suspicious task? Chen Li, a Qing Confucian, emphasized, “What Mencius said about good nature is that everyone’s nature is good, not everyone’s nature, they are purely good.” ④. This type of doubt is important based on the above common interpretation of the wrong interpretation of Mencius’s nature goodness. Mencius’s nature goodness is not a valuable evaluation of all content in humanity. If Mencius’s “good nature” is important, does not mean that “humanity is good” or that “hearing nature with goodness”, then what is its most basic purpose? In short, what Mencius said about good nature is to find the “good” condition of “goodness” in humanity, that is, “hearing goodness by nature.” Regarding this point, we can explain it through a specific analysis of Mencius’ criticism of Gaozi and Yang Zhu Siwei, and it is difficult to determine the most basic mechanism for Mencius to put forward the saying of nature.
Meng and Zhaozhi are involved in many aspects, and there is no need to discuss them here. But it is not difficult for us to grasp the focus of Gaozi’s thinking: 1. Benevolence or goodness is inseparable from human nature, and its integrity is the result of the acquired human beings’ construction; 2. The origin of moral laws or moral values can only be found in the inner objects⑤, which is the statement of Gaozi’s “outside the meaning”. Mencius’ criticism of Gaozi is focusing on these two points. Of course, there is an internal connection between these two. The former eliminates the ability of goodness from humanity, while the latter further explains the origin of goodness beyond humanity.
Mencius’ criticism of Yang Zhu was mainly focused on his statement of “for me”: “Yang took it as me and profited the whole country, not to do it” (“Mencius·Everyone in the Heart”), “Yang was for me, and there was no king” (“Mencius·Teng Wengong 2”). According to the views of Master Junyi of Tang, the main theme of Yang Zhu’s “For Me” is what Huainanzi·Panular Discussion” says: “To maintain the truth in all nature, and not to use things to accumulate form, which is what Yang Zi established.” “Liezi·Yang Zhu” states that Yang Zi’s following statement: “Losing loyalty to the king is enough to harm the body; lack of meaning to benefit things is enough to harm life.” Combining these statements, it is difficult to show that the most basic reason why Yang Zhu advocated the “no self” is that the common goodness of the “object outside the body” will form a constraint on human nature or life structures, which will reduce or even harm human nature.
Gaozi’s “outsider speech” is inherently related to Yang Zhu’s “discussion for me”. In fact, the former is only one step away from the latter. In other words, as long as goodness is complete and lies in humanity, then the tension and even conflict between goodness and humanity can appear. Mencius’s remarksThe question of Zi’s “metaphor of Qiliu” is difficult to understand this point: “Can Zi smooth the nature of Qiliu and think it is a cup of wine? Will it kill Qiliu and then take it as a cup of wine? If you kill Qiliu and think it is a cup of wine? If you kill Qiliu and think it is a cup of wine, it will also kill people as benevolent and righteous? Those who lead people across the country to comprehend benevolent will definitely say their words!” (Mencius: Gaozi 1) Mencius’s meaning is very clear. If good is just a purely inner person for the construction, then the tight relationship between good and the natural nature of man will not be eliminated. One step further can lead to the foundation of Yang Zhu’s defeat of goodness in order to defend the natural nature of man. Therefore, Zhu Zi’s notes say: “In this way, people in the country regard benevolence as harmful nature and do not want to do so. This is because of the words of the master and benevolence as a result of benevolence.”⑦ The difference between Gaozi and Yang and Zhu is that the latter completely denies the value of goodness, while the former also advocates that Zhang Liang is humane, but he still recognizes the value of goodness.
Mencius believed that Yang Zhu’s words had a huge impact at that time. In fact, there are many similar sayings in the book “Zhuangzi”: “Since the Yu family recruited benevolence and righteousness to defeat the whole country, all the nations were running for benevolence and righteousness, and their nature and weaknesses were changed with benevolence and righteousness?” (“Zhuangzi·华Thumb) “The Master also let go of virtue and acts, and follows the way and moves. It has arrived; what verses reveal the meaning of benevolence? If you beat the drum and seek a deceased son, what is the intention? The Master is a bad person.” (“Zangzi·The Way of Heaven”) Mencius wanted to save benevolence or good, but he could not help but not give up the position of Yang Zhu’s defeat of goodness. Of course, if Mencius’ response simply determines the meaning of benevolence or good, it is obviously impossible to compete with it. As Gaozi said, although the determination of goodness included, in Mencius’s view, “in addition to the meaning” was Yang Zhu’s “discuss for me”, and it was very difficult to slide to “官网彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩彩� Therefore, Mencius wanted to truly criticize Yang Zhu’s words and defend benevolence or goodness, but he would not be able to criticize the “external statement” or the standpoint that was indifferent to benevolence and humanity. In other words, as long as you establish an internal connection between good and humanity, and to put it more accurately, you can truly eliminate Yang Zhu’s denial of goodness. In fact, this is exactly the most basic problem that Mencius wants to respond to when he speaks of nature, that is, establishing the basis for the reason why goodness can be sufficient in human nature, which is what the above-mentioned “to speak goodness by nature”⑧.
It must be noted that the “good” mentioned by Mencius is no longer the “good” of the common sense, but the
發佈留言