requestId:684c3e33d8c657.41763680.
About the three meanings of “original” and their modern confusion [①]
Author: Fang Chaoxi
Source: Author authorized by Confucian Network, original issue “Philosophy Research” No. 9, 2020
[Abstract] The modern concept of Chinese intrinsic refers to the original form or existence, and later refers to the appropriate style inherent in things; it can be used for everything, not for the universe and the whole body; it is important to apply it in the meaning of the body. This concept of intrinsic use has the most basic difference from the intrinsics that have been widely spoken from the perspectives of the universe and the highest determiners, final essence or ultimate reality in the academic world since modern times. If we use modern styles and refer to the modern Chinese Tao, the laws of nature and even the confidant (in the study of mind) as the body (referring to the universe or the body of all), we must also recognize that they are closer to the intrinsic concepts in a large number of teachings in the world, and may not necessarily be called the body of philosophical meaning. The three different ontological concepts of complexity, namely (1) the use of the ontology, (2) the religious ontology, and (3) the philosophical ontology, regard the modern ontology concept of China as a philosophical ontology without doubt, and explain the characteristics of Chinese philosophy. This is the error of modern Chinese science when modern Chinese science accepts the Oriental Science system, and presents the dilemma of modern Chinese academics from one side.
【Keywords】On the body, Philosophy, Religious, Usage,
One of the important reasons why the research and development of Chinese academic research in modern China is that under the driving force of the Eastern modern academic model and the concept of academic subjects, they are eager to position themselves in the Eastern academic system, but instead lose themselves. This is not to say that we cannot accept oriental arts and accept oriental subjects, but to say that due to the unclear nature of oriental subjects and the incorrect positioning of the subjects, the real goal and desire are lost. If the positioning is correct, it is actually possible to maintain its independence and completeness while accepting Eastern science, and find its own goals and meanings. This article analyzes the three differences and implications of the term “original” and their confusion in modern China, or can explain this point indirectly.
For more than a few decades, discussions or disputes among the domestic academic community on the issues of modern ontology/intophysical discussion in China have never been interrupted. In these discussions, the question that students are most concerned about is probably whether modern China can have a set of intrinsic philosophy that is in line with the oriental intrinsic philosophy and is unique in nature. Some students strongly sing the existence and characteristics of Chinese modern intrinsic/into-physical philosophy, and some students raise doubts about the compliance of Chinese modern intrinsic/into-physical theory. In fact, this discussion has begun as early as the time of the People’s Republic of China, so it is an old problem that accompanied the Chinese academic circles nearly a century. This article will sort out the basics of the concept of using the ontology of modern Chinese modern bodies, reminding the most basics between the concept of philosophical ontology and the concept of religious ontology; and also trying to explain that the serious confusion of the differences between the differences in the ontology is the principle.This is the end point that has caused this stalemate and has been plaguing people for a long time.
Comparison of the intrinsic problems in the field
The meaning of the term “into” in modern Chinese literature has been assessed in recent years. Students are happy to find content that corresponds to the intrinsic theory in Oriental philosophy from the modern Chinese intrinsic concepts, and try to match the modern Chinese body application relationship with the nature and phenomenon in Western philosophy, or the intrinsic relationship and the intrinsic relationship and the nature and attribute relationship. One view of style is that although Chinese people do not have the same nature and concepts as Oriental Philosophy, they have their own concepts, which constitute the intrinsic theory of the characteristics of Chinese philosophy itself. Although some people have raised doubts about this view, some questions have not been clearly understood, so there are still many people who hold this view today. Let’s see where the error area of this view is above.
First, let’s take a look at the term “essence” that is often used to describe the body. We understand that the essence of Eastern philosophy is important to refer to something behind the experience phenomenon that cannot be seen or touched, but determines that something is one thing. Another more important, but often neglected fact is that it is from an incomparable intellectualism tradition in the East, which refers to a visual existence that can be discovered through fair reasoning and verified through the experience of mortals. It’s like Sucrates’ skin changes day by day. What do you mean or do you mean the same Sucrates? The thing that decided Sucrates as Sucrates in this series of changes is its essence. “This is your nature to be you because of you” (1029b16. Aristotle, page 129[②]). Aristotle said, “Intrinsic is what a thing is exactly what it is” (1030a2-3. Aristotle, p. 787), “Intrinsic is what anything is from itself” (1029b14. Aristotle, p. 786), he specially invented to ti ên enai (simplified as to ti esti) to express this meaning, which is translated directly in English as “the what it was to be” for a thing (Cohen).
Aristotle called nature the body (ουσ?0?7α[ousia]), and at most it is one of the “items that determine the body” (983a28, 1029b13, etc.). The intrinsic concept of Aristotle has been discussed in the academic world (Wang Zisong; Yu Yuan). Here we only add a little bit, the body and essence are the same as the Greek text, and both refer to the “what is” of things in daily experience. When describing the relationship between Aristotle’s body and Phantom, Wu Yepeng summed up: “All things must be ‘rights’, either humans, horses; whites or blacks; longs or shorts. Daily talks or academic theories only describe what they are ‘rights’” (Aristotle, 375page). We also understand that Aristotle’s body is in harmony with Plata’s concept, which was later called ?0?5?0?7δος [eidos], which is often translated as “emotion”, that is, Plata’s concept. In the Plata dialogue, Sucrates retaliated on the questions of “what is big”, “what is small”, “what is virtue”, and “what is investigation network ppt is the right thing”. It is not difficult to find that in Plata, finding the accuracy of things is the main way to find their essence, because essence is what a thing is. In short, the essence and body are purely cognitive concepts. There is no worship of life here, which does not represent the ultimate value. It is hard for some scholars to worry that today they apply Oriental intrinsic theory and eventually “cannot remove the limitations of thinking that ‘initial’ as the object of cognitive theory” (Zheng Kai, page 70).
So, isn’t China’s modern “original body” also the decision to determine what is one thing and represents what is one thing? Can it also be called the essence of things? It should be known that the above-mentioned nature and phenomena, intrinsics and attributes are the relationship between creation and being created, or the decision and being decided, sometimes similar to the relationship between mother and child, sometimes similar to the relationship between master and slave. However, the Chinese people’s “transformation and cultivation style” and “do not understand the use of this principle” (Zhu Xi, 1983, page 22) are not talking about the highest body “reason” that creates all things; the predecessors say that “use means that it flows out of the body” (Zhu Xi, 1994, page 1095), and they are not simply understanding that use is created or dominated by the body, but are talking about the foundation of the activity. If the relationship between nature and nature is understood as the relationship between nature and nature, or the relationship between nature and nature, then since the theorist advocates that the essence of nature is “very good”, he must prove that the use of nature is also purely good. At most, it should explain that the use of nature is determined by the essence of nature. In fact, there is no such determination (determinism) in Chinese civilization. In addition, in Oriental Philosophy, the essence/originality is a super-experience existence that is completely independent of all experiences. Aristotle called the body “a separate and independent” (1017b24-25). Xie Xun, carrying the beauty of the sky, won the game in the selection competition and sang. Sphenosa pointed out that “substance in my opinion refers to the existence of a leisurely existence, through itself. In other words, the concept of the body does not need to be formed through other concepts” (page 3). Chinese thinkers have always opposed the understanding of Taoism or the body as having an independent existence that is transcen
發佈留言