requestId:6852da49e12de9.22702056.

The difference and interaction between Lima’s sensual view and Confucian destiny on good issues

Author: Shang Wenhua

Source: “Ethics Research” 2023 No. 4

Abstract: Being interested in goodness or being unintentional in goodness is one of the focus issues in the discussion between Lima’s sergeant. It concerns whether the sensual view can be self-sufficient, and whether the sensual destiny (consciousness) can be sufficient. Compared with the preserved real state, the relevant evidence of Lima’s interest in being good is to stand firm: because based on established experience and actual sensibility, “being good” must be “interested”; “meaning” refers to the self-requirement from the foundation of the foundation, because it is a voluntary choice, and good deeds will be separated. But human preservation is not only a real state, but also because it is not only a real state, preservation can be related to destiny: the actual “internal” status opened by this connection is to be unintentional basis for goodness. Analyzing the preservation state described by good without intention, it can be argued that the meaning of “good” in preservation is established for good and unintentional cooperation: in the ultimate meaning, for good without intention, for good without intention, provide the ultimate root of existence for good without intention; and the former always participates in the “yes” of the latter in the method of “no”; they all the way to build true preservation of themselves. Saving oneself has seen the differences and complementary between the Rima-style sensual proof and the Confucian destiny. This is the key point for realizing the deep fusion of thinking between China and the West.

 

Author introduction: Shang Wenhua, professor and doctoral supervisor of Shandong University of Philosophy and Social Development, and a working researcher at Shandong University of Social Sciences, PhD in Philosophy

 

By the idea, that is, a specific concept and dynamic level, discussing good deeds is very important in various thinking traditions. From the perspective of “nature” and “awareness”, if you proactively “has interest in goodness”, goodness is guided by specific concepts and motivations, so the problem of goodness comes from cognition. 心号 If you admit that “being good is unintentional”, the rare book does not belong to any specific concept or motivation, and therefore is not the property of the behavior that is based on some certain degree of recognition: it is an act that is carried out according to nature. For Confucianism, which advocates “heaven” and “nature of destiny”, if only stays on the level of being interested in goodness, the system of destiny belongs to a set of cognitive systems; on the contrary, if goodness is unintentional, the nature of destiny can be understood from the meaning of nature. In God’s Reality, Lima and Sgt. (Representatives of Confucianism) deal with this problemMade quite arguing. This dispute highlights the most basic limitations of the Rima-style sensible theory, and at the same time highlights the strong ideological and preservation meaning that Confucian thought of destiny can have. Reflecting on this problem and explaining it based on strict definitions and suggestions, it can not only explain the depth of the basic subject of Confucianism, but also describe the pure sensual system of Rima style, and provide a basic and powerless theoretical basis for it facing the destiny (consciousness).

1. The deep confusion of benefits, will and goodness—Rama’s solution plan and its problems

 

Whether in the Chinese thinking tradition represented by Confucianism or in the Eastern thinking tradition, what is good, especially “whether you can be interested in goodness”, is one of the main problems. China’s traditional thinking began at most since the times of Confucius and Mencius, and the distinction between righteousness and profit is one of the ways to divide the right people and gentlemen [1]. In the eyes of the writer, the focus of distinguishing power is to determine what true goodness is [2]: If you use virtue to gain, it is the state of a gentleman; it is obvious that profit comes from a certain meaning, a meaning of “for… (profit)” cannot be determined. In contrast, goodness is not for goodness, and all “goodness” of “for…” is not true goodness. But the problem is that it seems that all human activities are accompanied by the intention of judgment. Can a kind of good that does not accompany judgment or “for…” (intention) be sufficient? If it can be done, what kind of existence will it be? This is the real challenge to Confucianism.

 

Lima, the representative of Session, denied the existence of such goodness from the very beginning. He first adopted a large number of modern classics to prove that Chinese predecessors did not match profit and good: “The Shun Dian says… “Year” is the poem of Confucius, who says that long and short, but not short” [1](164-165); and then believed that long and short are the key to the problem. The question is, why do you mean long and short? Who judges that the length is the true shortness? At most, it is clear that the length and shortness are all levels. For example, when the family is the focus unit, the family is the basis for judging the length and shortness; when the country is the focus unit, the “length and shortness” of judging the family can be not long and shortness. Therefore, profit is relative, and the length seems to be relative. Lima believes that using “long and short” to escalate “profit” is only a larger profit (precisely presented by “long and short”) to escalate smaller profits:

 

However, the secular world mainly emphasizes the shortness of reputation, and the benefits of self and wealth, so it is said that “The “Year” is completed and the ministers are escalated.” What if the illegitimate ministers are in trouble? Isn’t it a bad thing to be harmed? Meng Qishou used benevolence as the subject, and afterwards, he would go on to do tyranny, and wrote that “those who are not kings are not kings have never been there.” Is it not profitable for the king to take the whole country? Who doesn’t like to be with you? Benefit for relatives? If profit does not lead to a heart, why do you want to be friends? Ren Zhi’s preface said: “Don’t want to punish yourself, don’t blame others.” Since it is not advisable to regard profit as oneself, the view must be profit as oneself. Therefore, we know that profit is nothing to harm virtue. The reason why profit cannot be expressed is because of its disgust and its contradictory meaning. The Book of Changes says: “Present is the harmony of meaning.” It also says: “To use it to maintain one’s body, to respect virtue.” Although the great power is as great as the king’s country, it is worthy of profit. The lord of a warring country may not be able to be a king even if he practices tyranny; even if he enables a king, he will be a king in the whole country. If you don’t take this, you will not give it to that. This is the benefit of the world. What I mean is the benefit of coming to the world, the ultimate power, and the ultimate power, but there is no connection between them. If anyone gets it, no one will win it. If this is used as a profit, the king wants to benefit his country, the great man wants to benefit his family, and the scholars want to benefit his body. The high and low are at their best, and the whole country will be at peace. Those who come back to the world will have to pay light on the benefits of the present world. Those who are willing to fight against the emperor, the father and the king will never be heard. If everyone sees the benefits of future generations, what is the political situation? [1](165-166)

 

It is also for profit to be compared with the benefits of the body and money. If fame is regarded as “yes” in the comparison between fame and body and wealth, then such a short-term judgment is also a result of greater benefits. Mencius led the king to call the king by implementing benevolence and righteousness. Isn’t it also a profit to call the king? What’s more serious is that such benevolence is not derived from a more powerful benefit? If the benevolence of the long-term judgment standard is less than profit, how can we not judge the good through profit? Therefore, Lima has sufficient information to explain the golden rule that “does not do to others what you do not want others to do to you” as follows: do not seek self-interest, but seek benefits to others; profit happens to be the key point of respecting morality and harmony. It is obvious that everyone has a basic desire to live, and benefits are jobs that everyone needs and will definitely seek. This existence of the recipient means that within a certain scope, promoting the favorable needs of others is a distinctive character. Moreover, it is necessary to only accept the existence attribute of the person himself, and to satisfy (profit) in itself, so it is a “appropriate” to promote the benefits of others under the situation of “appreciating morality” in social meaning, which is a state of “summation of meanings”.

 

It is obvious that the starting point of the Rima discussion is that people have basic desires, and no mat TC: