Zhu Xi is the most important of the twelfth-century neo-Confucianists. Some consider him second only to Confucius himself in his importance to Chinese philosophy as a whole, since it is his interpretation of Confucius that has been canonical since his lifetime. This short book, modeled after the Burton Watson "Basic Writings" volumes for Zhuangzi, Xunzi, and Han Feizi, is an accessible, one-volume introduction to Zhu Xi's influential philosophical system designed especially for course use. In "classifying" Zhu Xi's conversations in the (...) Classified Conversations of Master Zhu, Li Jingde dedicated the first thirteen chapters to conversations explaining his general philosophical system. Readers are introduced to his metaphysics of principle (li), psychophysical stuff (qi), spiritual beings (guishen), human nature (xing), mind-heart (xin), and emotions (qing); and to his program of self-cultivation-that is, the curriculum that Confucians should follow to attain moral perfection. Gardner argues that these chapters constitute the best overview of Zhu Xi's basic philosophical teachings, and selections from them form the basis of his volume. Occasionally, they are supplemented with passages from the Collected Literary Writings of Master Zhu and from Zhu's commentaries on the Classics. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Ideas 63.1 (2002) 1-17 [Access article in PDF] What if the Father Commits a Crime? Rui Zhu Apparently, Socrates and Confucius respond similarly to the question if a son should turn in his father in the case of the father's misdemeanor. When Euthyphro, flaring his pride of his moral impartiality, tells Socrates that he is on his way to report his father because he (...) has thrown one of the household slaves into a ditch and left him bound there until he was dead, Socrates says, "Good Heaven! Certainly, Euthyphro, most men would not know how they could do this and be right. It is not the part of anyone to do this, but of one who is far advanced in wisdom." 1According to Socrates, only a man of high wisdom knows how to prosecute his father righteously, but Euthyphro does not appear to have this wisdom. When his interlocutor observes that an upright man in his state would bear witness against his father if he misappropriates a sheep, Confucius contradicts the interlocutor's understanding of uprightness by speaking in a matter-of-fact tone: "In my country the upright men are of quite another sort. A father will cover up for his son, and a son his father—which incidentally does involve a sort of up—rightness." 2Confucius stands on the same line with Socrates but seems the more radical of the two. Socrates does not directly refute Euthyphro and only suggests that he make sure he understands what he is doing before going any further. Socrates is not only typically Socratic—indirect and suggestive—but also sounds so reasonable that Euthyphro appears in contrast to be a reckless youth who harbors [End Page 1] only a faint understanding of morality. Confucius's response is more rigid, for he categorically dismisses an act of the Euthyphroian kind. He demands that father and son cover up for each other in the case of either one's guilt. Compared to Socrates, Confucius advocates the position that seems a little too strong and leaves no room for justice, while Socrates does not have that problem with justice. This is how we feel about Socrates and Confucius on our first impression. The prima facie observations that we make from the remarks of Socrates and Confucius seem both plain and unproblematic.By embedding these remarks into their respective social or philosophical cultures, this paper will show that our previous observations are not quite accurate. The apparent affinity of the Socratic and Confucian stances belies different underlying moral philosophies. We want to use their comments as bridges to explore the early Greek and Confucian ethics and show how different a picture we see after things are examined within their traditions.The issue of a possible father-son conflict may be treated as a case study of the early Greek (the Heroic era until the age of Socrates) and early Confucian (Confucius and Mencius) morals. There is a strong theme in the early Greek morals that allows, or sometimes demands, a son such as Euthyphro to prosecute his father for the sake of justice, because justice, instead of love (philein) or filial piety, is the governing principle in the early Greek ethics. Confucian ethics is founded on love (human-heartedness), which in turn is extended from the love between father and son. All moral principles including justice are derived from this extension of love. The mutual love of father and son then becomes the governing principle in the case of Confucianism. A Guilty Father: The Greek Motif The question, "What if the father commits a crime?" has a certain realistic aroma to a boy coming of age in the Hesiodic Greek world. That father has to be overcome by son before some relief from strife becomes possible is a familiar theme in Greek literature. In Hesiod's Theogony, Uranus (the sky) incurs hatred from all his newborn children since he hides them in their mother Gaia's womb and does not let them return to the light, for no reason... (shrink)

本书通过比较研究揭示出,在生存主义哲学和道家思想对人之生存结构的理解方面,存在着深层的共识,这是二者之间展开深度对话的"客观基础".本书分为两大部分,第一部分,包括本研究的第一章和第二章,分别对海德格 尔存在与时间和萨特存在与虚无中的生存主义思想加以呈现,诠释,以期读者能够对生存主义哲学的"标本式"理论有所了解,并为后文的比较研究提供一定的理论铺垫.第三到八章,对道家思想与生存主义思想展开多维比较. 主要围绕"无"在生存结构中的地位和作用来展开,并努力揭示出,生存主义哲学和道家思想在人的"带无生存"这一点上,有着极为醒目的相通之处.然而,在此基础上产生的价值导向,却表现出同样醒目的分梳.通过分析道 家与生存主义哲学思想上重叠性与互补性,可能为融合东西方智慧,尤其是吸收中国传统道家智慧的现代生存哲学理论体系的建立提供一定的思想素材和理论参考.

Technology has a pervasive and profound effect on the contemporary world, and engineers play a central role in all aspects of technological development. In order to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, engineers must be morally committed and equipped to grapple with ethical dilemmas they confront.

In nontheistic moral traditions, there is a typical ethical conundrum concerning the relation between cosmic order and human agency. Within those traditions, it is generally recognized that the universe has its own order and history that are independent of human will. A moral discourse has to find space to accommodate human agency in the midst of the iron grid of cosmic law. Both Confucius and Aurelius use the concept of timeliness (kairos) to resolve the difficult issue. But their philosophies take (...) on divergent paths. By studying their resolutions of the issue, we will be able to appreciate the distinctive nature of their nontheistic moral narratives. (shrink)

Yidali si xiang jia Weike de "Xin ke xue" de zhong yao xing bu xia yu Daerwen de "Wu zhong qi yuan", shi mei xue jia Zhu Guangqian wan nian tou ru zui duo jing li wan cheng de yi bu zhong liang ji yi zuo. Zhu Guangqian zai fan yi de tong shi, hai dui "Xin ke xue" jin xing le shen ru yan jiu. zai ben shu zhong, Zhu Guangqian xian shi e yao jie shao le "Xin ke (...) xue" de jing sui, ren wei Weike yan jiu li shi shi qiang diao qiong ben qiu yuan, yi bu luo zi ran fa wei qi dian, lun zheng ren lei ji she hui zhi du de fa zhan; hou you tou shi Weike de shi xue he mei xue, fen xi le wei ke dui xi fang zhe xue de ge xin he Zhongguo mei xue de ju da ying xiang, bing dai chu le Zhu Guangqian zi ji dui zi you ji ren dao zhu yi de zhui qiu. (shrink)

As one of the three systems of China's traditional culture, Daoism has an important place in the history of Chinese philosophy. Based on the ideas of inaction performing all, the Way modeling spontaneity, and the dialectic of you [having, being] and wu [lacking, nonbeing], this article is a systematic exploration of Laozi's philosophy of denial, spontaneity, and atheism, as well as of the deep and lasting influence of his metaphysical principles on all schools of traditional Chinese philosophy.

Abstract In ?On Making an Effort? E. J. Coffman develops what he takes to be a fairly serious problem for Robert Kane's positive theory of free choice, where the concept of efforts of will is pivotal.1 Coffman argues that the plausibility of Kane's libertarian account of free choice ?is inversely proportional to the plausibility of a certain principle of agency? (p. 12). And since the latter is quite plausible, the former is therefore ?at best fairly implausible? (p. 12). In what (...) follows I will show that Coffman's objection is in fact misplaced. Kanean libertarianism not only is in accordance with the essence of the principles of personal responsibility that Coffman advocates, it also affords a more plausible and intelligible account of the sources of personal responsibility superior to the proposed principles. (shrink)

本书共分为"异峰突起,细数儒学大师""儒家万千滋味,且待一一品尝""比肩而立,儒与众家何处异"上中下三篇,包括"天不生仲尼,万古长如夜""孟子取义,浩然为生""儒学之流贯千年""人之为人在于'仁'"等 14章内容.