1.  65
    Self-transformation and civil society: Lockean vs. confucian.Kim Sungmoon - 2009 - Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 8 (4):383-401.
    Although contemporary Confucianists tend to view Western liberalism as pitting the individual against society, recent liberal scholarship has vigorously claimed that liberal polity is indeed grounded in the self-transformation that produces “liberal virtues.” To meet this challenge, this essay presents a sophisticated Confucian critique of liberalism by arguing that there is an appreciable contrast between liberal and Confucian self-transformation and between liberal and Confucian virtues. By contrasting Locke and Confucius, key representatives of each tradition, this essay shows that both liberalism (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  2.  29
    The anatomy of Confucian communitarianism: The Confucian social self and its discontent.Kim Sungmoon - 2011 - Philosophical Forum 42 (2):111-130.
  3.  51
    Trouble with korean confucianism: Scholar-official between ideal and reality.Kim Sungmoon - 2009 - Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 8 (1):29-48.
    This essay attempts a philosophical reflection of the Confucian ideal of “scholar-official” in Joseon Korea’s neo-Confucian context. It explores why this noble ideal of a Confucian public being had to suffer many moral-political problems in reality. It argues first that because the institution of Confucian scholar-official was actually a modus-operandi compromise between Confucianism and Legalism, the Confucian scholar-officials were torn between their ethical commitment to Confucianism and their political commitment to the state; and second, that because the Cheng-Zhu neo-Confucianism vigorously (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  4.  65
    From Desire to Civility: Is Xunzi a Hobbesian?Kim Sungmoon - 2011 - Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 10 (3):291-309.
    This article argues that, contrary to conventional wisdom, Xunzi’s and Hobbes’s understandings of human nature are qualitatively different, which is responsible for the difference in their respective normative political theory of a civil polity. This article has two main theses: first, where Hobbes’s deepest concern was with human beings’ unsocial passions, Xunzi was most concerned with human beings’ appetitive desires ( yu 欲), material self-interest, and resulting social strife; second, as a result, where Hobbes strove to transform the pathological (anti-)politics (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  5. Michael Oakeshott and Confucian constitutionalism.Kim Sungmoon - 2015 - In Terry Nardin & Edmund Neill (eds.), Michael Oakeshott's Cold War liberalism. New York, NY: Palgrave-Macmillan.
    Export citation