requestId:68499ac0434683.36318164.
An analysis of the humanitarian argument between Gaozi and Mencius
Author:Huang Qixiang (Authorized by Shandong University of Philosophy and Social Development)
Source: Author authorized by Confucian Network, original article “My character and civilization” 2019 Issue 1
Time: Confucius was the 22nd year of the 2569th year of Wuxu month, Jiazi
� Most of the past scholars have stood on the Confucian standpoint to comment on their disagreement in their views and even their thinking gaps. Some students think that the difference between Gaozi and Mencius in this dialogue is most obvious in humanitarian issues. Some students think that Gaozi and Mencius’ humanitarianism are not on the same level. Some students imply that Gaozi lacks understanding and fails to understand Mencius’s thoughts. But 官网 is an explanation of Gaozi’s argument. If we carefully consider and analyze the dialogue between Gaozi and Mencius and clarify the meaning of their concepts and metaphors, we will find that Gaozi’s expression of humanity is an advanced and internally unified proof system. Although Gaozi and Mencius’s humanitarianism are not different, there is no incomparable duck between the two. Whether from the perspective of bilateral discussions or emotions, Gaozi was a suitable dialogue for Mencius.
[Keywords]Mencius, Gaozi, Humanity
The arguments between Gaozi and Mencius about humanity in “Mencius” are classical dialogues in the history of Chinese philosophy. Previous researchers have mostly stood on the Confucian Taoist standpoint and discussed their disagreement in their views and even thinking gaps. Some scholars, like Youlan, think: “When they discussed this problem with Mencius at that time, they regarded Gaozi as the most obvious.”[1] Some scholars, like Xu Xie, think: “Mencius’s nature, more Gaozi… is always promoted to a higher level in terms of phenomenon”[2]. Zhao Qi, a Han Dynasty scholar, believed that Gaozi “studied from Mencius but could not be able to understand the principles of life” [3], implying that Gaozi lacked understanding, just like a student who could not keep up with thoughts, could not be able to fully understand and follow Mencius’s thoughts. If we carefully study the discussions between Gaozi and Mencius, we will find that Gaozi’s speech is a linked and profound thought development step by step. Although Gaozi and Mencius have different definitions of human “sex”, theoretical life can also be different.But there is no boundary between their humanitarianism.
1. 博官网
Gaozi said: “博官网, 博官网, 博官网, 博官网, 博官网, 博官网, 博官网, 博官网, 博官网, 博官网, 博官网, 博官网, 博官网, 博官网, 博官网, � href=”https://twsweetdiary.com/sweetdating520/”>彩神彩彩彩彩
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� Later, he thought it was a stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen Equivalent humanity to benevolence is like equating Qiliu to cups. Qiliu is neither a cup nor a plate. Similarly, humanity is neither good nor bad. Gaozi believed that virtues such as benevolence are the result of humanitarian cultivation and shaping, and watches like cups are the result of processing and production of qiliu. Gaozi used this to describe his view that “none of goodness and evilness” was.
Mencius did not object to Gaozi comparing humanity to original data and virtues such as benevolence to products, but he used this as a condition to oppose Gaozi in two aspects. First, Mencius said that people always have characteristics of data to make tools, which illustrates that data has the potential or characteristics of becoming a certain type of tool. Similarly, we always cultivate various virtues based on the good of human beings. This shows that there is good in human nature, not without goodness and evil. Secondly, Mencius said that if humanity is not good, then cultivating virtues such as benevolence is contrary to humanity. The consequence of this is that people will refuse to cultivate and implement virtues on the grounds that benevolence and morality are not in line with humanity.
We have not seen Gaozi’s direct response to Mencius’s reversal, but if we stand on Gaozi’s stand, we will find that Mencius’s view is not inconsistent. First of all, even if we admit that as long as we apply the benefits or potential quality in humanity, we cannot achieve better moral character, we cannot pronounce the inherent goodness of humanity, because we cannot deny that there can be evil in humanity at the same time. Secondly, Mencius adopted a binary view of humanity, believing that benevolence is either to accept humanity or to rebel against humanity. But Gaozi’s view is exactly between these two. Although Gaozi said that humanity is good and evil, he did not believe that benevolence is contrary to humanity as Mencius criticized. The third is to admit that humanity is good and bad, but it does not seem to be unable to cultivate benevolence and moral character based on humanity. Gaozi can say that virtue does not lie in human beings, but in how we shape it.Make it. Although benevolence is not inherent in humanity and does not come naturally from humanity, they also disagree with the contrary to humanity, which is the result of humanitarian education.
The problem is also how do we understand that Qiliu has the potential to make cupboards? If Qiliu has this kind of potential, of course, sufficient sacrificing rather than harming this kind of potential is the best way to make cupboards. This is exactly as Lebniz said, if a marble pattern has the potential for abstraction of Helkule, inheriting this potential is of course the best way to abstraction of Helkule. [4] Can Gaozi accept this kind of potential? His dialogue did not directly touch this problem, and Mencius wanted to remind and emphasize this potential to Gaozi. If Gaozi admitted this kind of potential, could Mencius definitely succeed in this round of discussion?
If Qiliu has the potential to make cups, it does not seem that it has the potential to make other instruments. A large piece of marble has the potential of the abstraction of the carved Helcull, but it does not seem that it has the potential of the abstraction of the carved Athena. In other words, if the data of divergence has the potential to create divergence vessels, and divergence marble has the potential to carve different characters, can we similarly say that some people have good deeds and others have bad deeds? If we give a definite answer to these questions, we will not be able to come up with Mencius’s argument for being good at nature, but rather with the conclusion that “has good at nature, and has bad at nature.”
On the ordinary, we always determine the use of wood based on its potential quality, so that we can use it as much as possible. But the problem is, is it that wood itself has some kind of potential quality or do we think it has this potential quality? Even if we don’t deny that the yarn willow has its produced material, we decide what kind of utensils we make into is our goal. A woodworker who wants to make cookware from yarn will think it has the potential to make cups, but a manufacturer of weapons and toys can think it has the potential to make swords. That’s to say, the potential quality of wood is actually in relation to our goals. Similarly, we can say that even if we acknowledge that humanity has a natural orientation, this natural orientation is relatively good or evil. Mencius believed that humanity was good and Xunzi believed that humanity was evil, so he explained this. If Qi Liu does not make any oriented nature of the utensil itself, then why the utensil can completely determine its internal goals and shape. Similarly, if humanity is inherently free from evil, benevolence and virtue will be completely determined by acquired teaching and cultivation. This can explain Gaozi’s view that “humanity is good and evil” is not unreasonable.
But Gaozi did not directly emphasize Mencius’s questions, but instead changed the perspective to describe his own views, which is the metaphor of turbulent water.
2. Sexual turbulent water
Gaozi said: “The nature of the turbulent water is to form a group, humming faintly. It is to ma
