孙子一书,即孙子兵法,该书以其睿智而富有思辨性,反映了春秋末期,战国初年社会变革的历史,总结了一套科学,实用的系统军事理论.

Feizi’s philosophy is usually represented as an amoral autocracy where the ruler is the sole political power and runs the state by controlling the people through rewards and punishments. While his system is formally autocratic, this article argues that the purpose behind this system bears some similarity to the republican political ideal of non-domination. In this interpretation, Han Feizi makes the ruler the sole power to mitigate the danger of the state being dominated by ministers. He does not (...) employ republican institutions, but attempts to discourage the ruler from using his power capriciously in order to increase order and security in the state, which are his ultimate political values. Han Feizi is not a republican, but this similarity suggests that when revised for today’s very different circumstances, Han Feizian philosophy’s focus on impartial law can make a contribution to contemporary Chinese political thought. (shrink)

Several scholars have recently proposed that Confucianism should be regarded as a form of virtue ethics. This view offers new approaches to understanding not only Confucian thinkers, but also their critics within the Chinese tradition. For if Confucianism is a form of virtue ethics, we can then ask to what extent Chinese criticisms of it parallel criticisms launched against contemporary virtue ethics, and what lessons for virtue ethics in general might be gleaned from the challenges to Confucianism in particular. This (...) paper undertakes such an exercise in examining Han Feizi, an early critic of Confucianism. The essay offers a careful interpretation of the debate between Han Feizi and the Confucians and suggests that thinking through Han Feizi's criticisms and the possible Confucian responses to them has a broader philosophical payoff, namely by highlighting a problem for current defenders of virtue ethics that has not been widely noticed, but deserves attention. (shrink)

Han Feizi’s criticisms of Confucian and Mohist political recommendations are often thought to involve materialist or historicist arguments, independently of their epistemological features. Drawing largely on Amia Srinivasan’s recent taxonomy of genealogical arguments, this paper proposes a genealogical reading of passages in “The Five Vermin [五蠹 wudu]” and “Eminence in Learning [顯學 xianxue].” This reveals Han Feizi’s arguments to be more comprehensively appreciated as problematizing Confucian and Mohist political judgments as arising from undermining contingencies, rendering them irrelevant, if (...) not detrimental, to any lasting excellence of a state. In doing this, it is also suggested that there is a ‘master argument’ underlying Han Feizi’s criticisms, according to which the epistemology of the Confucians and Mohists are fundamentally unreliable. (shrink)

Writing only decades apart, Han Feizi (ca. 250 BCE) and Kautilya (ca. 300 BCE) were two great political thinkers who argued for strong leaders, king or emperor, to unify warring states and bring peace, who tried to show how a ruler controls his ministers as well as the populace, defended the need for spies and violence, and developed the key ideas needed to support the bureaucracies of the emerging and unified states of China and India respectively. Whereas both thinkers (...) disliked the new merchants, Han Feizi seems content with a traditional feudal economy, whereas Kautilya wanted to use the state to increase production and the wealth in the king's treasury. Kautilya also had much more extensive discussions of war and diplomacy. (shrink)

Han Feizi es el principal representante de la escuela legista china. Los principios de su teoría política le han granjeado el apodo de “el Maquiavelo chino”. Sus ideas serían adoptadas por Qin Shihuang, el Primer Emperador, quien unificó China e impuso un régimen despótico caracterizado por la represión del debate político y la supresión de la libertad de expresión. La conexión entre el desarrollo de la retórica y la situación política en el contexto de la última etapa del clasicismo (...) chino puede servir de fondo para una consideración más amplia de dicho nexo. La retórica comparada proporciona las bases para relacionar el pensamiento legista chino con el discurso neoliberal contemporáneo. (shrink)

Han Feizi’s 韓非子 thought, I argue, contains a political theory that justifies principled, law-governed government. A key element of his theory is a solution to the problem of rectifying names. He recognized that the same word can have varying criteria of application depending on the purpose of the practice that requires a criterion. Some criteria for a practice are good and some bad. A wise ruler knows which criteria are good and appropriate to ruling. His view is illuminated by (...) considering the phenomenon of paradiastole and a contemporary view about the relationship between meaning and criteria of application. (shrink)

本书内容包括:虚静无为之术、政治洞察之术、以法治国的艺术、赏罚的艺术、势治的艺术、用人的艺术、政治语言的使用艺术、法家与中国传统政治文化的现代转化。.

Persuasion is one of the main rhetorical techniques employed in debates by early Chinese “wandering persuaders,” as it is attested by several examples preserved in Classical Chinese pre-imperial and early imperial politico-philosophical literature. The present article contributes to the study of persuasion by providing a detailed structural analysis of one of the most famous texts that openly deals with this technique, Chapter 12 ‘Shuìnán’ 說難 (The Difficulties of Persuasion) of the composite “Masters text”Hán Fēizǐ韓非子. Through such analysis, the article discloses (...) the complex, multi-layered underlying rhetorical structure of the text, and the thick network of conceptual cross-references that are established among its different sections through the ingenious distribution of different kinds of text-structuring elements. As the present case study will show, this type of analysis is an invaluable hermeneutic tool that provides a substantial contribution to a better and fuller understanding of Classical Chinese texts. (shrink)

本书æ ̄由一系列的专é¢研究成æž综合而成的国学论著, 除了论述韩非的政治思想之外, 对过去研究成æž稀缺的内容, 如《韩非子》的版本流传、著作年代、文学成就、史学价值、研究概况等等, 都作了详尽深入的学术研讨.

本书包括概说、初见秦、存韩、难言、爱臣、主道、有度、二柄、十过、孤愤、亡征、南面、解老、说林上等。.

This includes a full translation of the following chapters of the Han Feizi: -/- Ch. 5 – The Way of the Ruler; Ch. 6 – Having Standards; Ch. 7 – The Two Handles; Ch 12 – The Difficulty of Persuasion; Ch 27 – Employing the People; Ch. 29 – The Great Whole; Ch. 40 – A Critique of the Doctrine of Positional Power; Ch. 43 – Establishing Methods of Government; Ch. 49 – The Five Vermin. Ch. 50 – On (...) the Illustrious Schools of Thought -/- Additionally, it includes translations of short sections of the following chapters: -/- Ch. 32 – Collected Illustrations • Outer Part • Upper Left Section; Ch. 35 – Collected Illustrations • Outer Part • Lower Right Section; Ch. 47 – Eight Explanations. (shrink)

선진 제가는 춘추시대 이전의 역사적 사건과 인물에 대한 서술에서 내용상 대체로 유사하며 공통적으로 상고주의적 경향을 갖고 있다. 그러나 그들 각자가 견지한 정치 윤리적 관점에 따라 차이가 난다. 한비는 피상적으로는 시대 구분론을 견지한 것 같지만, 내용상에서 보면 그것은 옛 것과 지금 것을 구분하는 이분법적 경향이 뚜렷하다. 구체적으로 보면, 그는 法治를 표준으로 삼아 상고의 인물과 사례 가운데 본받을 만한 것과 경계해야 할 것을 양분하여 모두 당대 법치의 귀감으로 삼고자 하였다. 역사의 변천에 있어서 한비는 지속적 발전 과정이라고 하기보다는 ‘一治一亂’의 교체 과정으로 보고 있다. (...) 비록 시대의 변천에 따라서 성인이 출현하면서 사람의 생존 환경의 개선을 이루고 기술적 측면에서 발전하는 것은 분명하지만, 법치의 각도에서 보면 民智의 개화는 오히려 바람직하지 못한 것으로 파악한다. 역사 변천에 있어서 군주의 역할이 강조되고 있지만, 한비의 법치에서 보면 立法과 治國의 대리자일 뿐이며, 人民은 그것의 적용대상일 뿐이다. 이상에서 보면, 한비의 역사관은 법치적 역사관이라 할 만하다. 그런데 한비가 개괄적으로 유가와 묵가를 비판하였지만, 구체적으로 그들의 역사관에 대한 비판적 내용이 없는 것은 특이한 일이다. 요컨대 제가의 역사적 사실에 대한 해석은 관점에 따라 달라지며, 그것은 당대의 정치 사회적 정당성 확보를 위한 것이다. 또한 당대의 역사관은 해석자의 기반에 근거할 수밖에 없고 따라서 역사 해석의 다양성은 필연적이다. 문제는 다양성을 확보하면서 역사 발전은 어떠한 방향으로 진행되어야 하는가이다. 오늘날의 관점에서 본다면 역사는 민주주의적 가치의 확대 과정이며 따라서 다양성과 아울러 이에 대한 사회구성원 다수의 共感을 얻어야 마땅한 것이다. 이러한 점에서 보면 한비의 법치적 역사관에 반영된 제반 사상은 당시 역사적 조건하에서 秦나라의 통일 이념의 근거로 유용할 수 있었지만 오늘날의 관점에서 보면 분명한 한계점이 드러난다. (shrink)