v. 1-32. Mou Zongsan xian sheng quan ji -- [33] Mou Zongsan xian sheng quan ji. Zong xu xiang mu.

Jason Clower publishes English translations of this most famous and influential of modern Chinese philosophers for the first time. In essays chosen for their clarity and approachability, this leading contemporary Confucian speaks on the topics that best define his career: the future of Chinese culture and philosophy, the unique achievements of Confucianism, the place of Buddhism and Daoism in Chinese culture, and the possibility of a new partnership between Chinese and Western thought.

Cet ouvrage, issu de douze conférences données à Hong Kong en 1973, présente les points fondamentaux de la pensée du philosophe, ancrée au plus profond de la tradition chinoise. A partir d'exemples tirés de la philosophie et de la religion occidentales ainsi que de sa réflexion sur de grands textes chinois classiques, il commente ceux-ci à la lumière de l'époque et des problématiques actuelles.

本书是著名哲学家牟宗三先生关于人生问题的一部名著,针对技术时代的种种偏颇,探索人生的正途,旨在提高人的历史文化意识,点醒人的真实生命。.

本书收录了作者讲授宋明儒学、反映学者思想发展的讲辞文本形式,以及对于明代名儒刘蕺山的学术及刘氏区分“心宗”与“性宗”进行研究的文章等。.

Mou Zongsan 牟宗三 contends that Confucianism is an ethics of autonomy. It is maintained that Mou’s version of ethics of autonomy differs from Kant’s in that Mou comprehends subjectivity differently than Kant in such a way that he, unlike Kant, locates the ethical a priori in moral feelings instead of reason. This paper will explore Mou’s metaphysical grounding of morality to show that Kant’s notions of autonomy and subjectivity undergo more radical modifications in Mou’s contention.

Mou Zongsan uses the highest moral principle “autonomy” to interpret Confucius’ benevolence and Mencius’ “inherent benevolence and righteousness”, focuses on the self-rule of the will. It does not do any harm to Mencius’ learning, on the contrary, it is conducive to the communication between Chinese and Western philosophies. If we stick to Kant’s moral self autonomy and apply it to interpreting Zhu Xi’s moral theory, similarly we will discover the implications of Zhu Xi’s “autonomy” in his moral learning. Therefore, (...) it is inappropriate for Mou Zongsan to say that Zhu Xi’s ethics belongs to the autonomous one. (shrink)

Mou Zongsan was one of the most important Chinese philosophers of the twentieth century, yet his political thought is given little attention. This is unfortunate, because his political philosophy presents significant challenges to liberal views on freedom and the basis for democracy. Mou rejects the liberal understanding of freedom as absence of interference, and instead argues for a limited conception of positive freedom in government that includes teaching basic moral values. He bases democracy on the Confucian idea of respect (...) for humanity's universal moral potential. At the same time, Mou also provides an alternative to many current conceptions of Confucian democracy, which favor pragmatist and communitarian interpretations. Mou's thought thus illustrates how Chinese conceptions of Confucian democracy frequently differ from those in English-language scholarship. The goal of this article is to examine how Mou creatively interpreted Confucian thought to develop a unique New Confucian theory of democracy that neither uncritically accepts liberalism nor discounts the importance of liberal features such as individual freedom and rights. It also considers major objections to Mou's view of democracy and his possible responses. (shrink)

Many historians of philosophy, with all their intended praise, let the philosophers speak mere nonsense. They do not guess the purpose of the philosophers.… They cannot see beyond what the philosophers actually said, to what they really meant to say.Mou Zongsan (1909–1995) is one of the key figures of contemporary New Confucianism (當代新儒家) who to this day remains largely unknown and grossly understudied in the West.1 This neglect by the Western academy contrasts sharply with the ever-growing output of literature (...) by Chinese and Taiwanese scholars in which Mou Zongsan emerges as one of the most discussed and most controversial Chinese philosophers of the twentieth century. Given this unfortunate East-West divide—as .. (shrink)

In this essay, we discuss a perspective remote from German academics on the examination of Heidegger’s interpretation of Kant, which was developed by Mou Zongsan (牟宗三). Mou focuses his interpretation of Kant on the infinite aspect of human morality and he praises Heidegger’s interpretation of the essence of human existence as “being-able-to-be”. Although, like Heidegger, he emphasizes the recognition of human finiteness as the basic premise of Kant’s philosophy, he refuses to apply this premise to Kant’s entire philosophy. He (...) addresses the fact that for Kant man is “finite but can be infinite”. Furthermore, he criticises Heidegger, on the one hand, for withdrawing the dimension of independence, infinity, supersensibility and timelessness from morality, and Kant, on the other hand, for rejecting the possibility of a positive use of intellectual intuition. By making use of a general insight from the schools of Chinese philosophy that positively recognise the intellectual intuition, one can, Mou believes, change the downsides of Kantian philosophy and organically connect Western and Asian philosophy. (shrink)

Recent years have witnessed a growth in the literature in Western languages devoted to Mou Zongsan 牟宗三.1 Among the New Confucians, Mou's writings are regarded as the most argumentative and the most systematic. He is also one who has engaged with Western philosophers such as Kant, Wittgenstein, Russell, Whitehead, Hegel, and Heidegger. This essay addresses a more primordial theme: how does Mou Zongsan compare with Heidegger when they come to the central issue of the self-transformation of traditions and (...) the question of cultural communication and integration? In relation to these concerns, they respectively formulate the notion of the self-reversal of moral reason (or of liangzhi 良知... (shrink)

In Late Works of Mou Zongsan , this influential Chinese philosopher speaks on the future of Chinese culture, the achievements of Confucianism, the place of Buddhism and Daoism in Chinese philosophy, and the possibility of partnership between Chinese and Western thought.

The first thorough study in English of the multi-faceted system of Mou Zongsan, this book examines key influences on the New Confucian thinker and introduces his Kantian- and Mahāyāna Fo-inflected moral metaphysical reading of the Lu-Wang Learning of the Mind.

Mou Zongsan (牟宗三) extols Heidegger’s interpretation of human Dasein as “being-capable” and admits that he was inspired by Heidegger’s interpretation of Kant in many ways; however, although he, like Heidegger, emphasizes that human finitude is the basic premise of Kantian philosophy, he refuses to apply this premise to Kant’s philosophy as a whole. He argues, for Kant, “human beings are finite but can be infinite.” Moreover, he, on the one hand, criticizes Heidegger for withdrawing the dimension of absolute spontaneity, (...) infinitude, supersensibility and supratemporality from morality and, on the other hand, criticizes Kant for rejecting the possibility of a positive use of intellectual intuition. By the general insight of Chinese philosophy, which positively recognize the intellectual intuition, Mou believes that one can change the downside of Kantian philosophy and organically combine Western and Asian philosophy. (shrink)

本书内容包括:“一切综合判断的最高原理”与逻辑的两层涉指格——牟宗三哲学思想演进的一条轴线、前逻辑起点的考察等。.

On connaît peu la pensée chinoise contemporaine. Annie Boisclair s'intéresse ici tout particulièrement au philosophe Mou Zongsan (1909-1995) au parcours singulier. D'origine modeste, il quitte le milieu rural de Shandong pour aller étudier à l'université de Pékin en 1929. Juste avant la prise du pouvoir par les communistes en 1949, Mou fuit à Taïwan puis, plus tard, à Hong Kong. Il enseignera dans diverses universités et les turbulences sociales et politiques de la Chine seront intimement liées à l'approfondissement de (...) sa connaissance de la tradition intellectuelle chinoise qu'il mettra en relation avec les courants philosophiques occidentaux. C'est le dialogue entre les deux traditions et leur fécondation mutuelle que Annie Boisclair fait apparaître en suivant la pensée du philosophe. De tous les penseurs de ce courant, peu ont eu autant d'influence que Mou Zongsan. Mou supposait que les Chinois subiraient une perte d'identité culturelle s'ils ne valorisaient que le savoir étranger et, en même temps, que la civilisation chinoise ne survivrait pas à un enfermement sur elle-même. La pensée de Mou intégrait déjà plusieurs traditions fondamentales chinoises comme le confucianisme, le taoïsme et le bouddhisme, il était donc naturel d'y inclure des courants de philosophie occidentale. Rarement traduit en français, l'auteure propose en annexe de l'ouvrage quelques pages du philosophe. (shrink)

Fuzhi’s philosophies of qi. In this essay, both the strength and weakness of their interpretations will be critically examined. As a contrast, an alternative interpretation of the School of qi in Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism will be outlined. This new interpretation will uncover that, like Leibniz, Zhang Zai and Wang Fuzhi introduced a non-substantivalist approach in natural philosophy in terms of an innovative concept of force. This interpretation not only helps to show the limitations of Mou Zongsan’s and Tang Junyi’s understandings (...) of Zhang Zai’s and Wang Fuzhi’s doctrines of qi, but also indicates a way to bridge the traditional Chinese philosophy of nature and modern physics. More generally, our critical discussions will bring to light a new angle with which to re-appreciate Mou Zongsan’s and Tang Junyi’s contributions to the development of Confucianism. (shrink)

The New Confucian philosopher Mou Zongsan once compared the ethics of Mengzi to that of Kant, claiming that Mengzi’s ethics shares the same fundamental features with Kant’s and can therefore be better understood through a Kantian lens. This paper aims to argue against Mou by elaborating on two important but hitherto insufficiently addressed differences between Kant’s and Mengzi’s ethics. First, the paper shows that, as opposed to what Mou suggests, passages 6A1 to 6A3 of the Mengzi demonstrate Mengzi’s adoption (...) of an a posteriori approach to ethics that stands in direct contrast to Kant’s a priori approach. Second, the paper argues that even if we read Kant’s ethics in a non-rigorous way that works in favor of Mou’s interpretation, ren (humaneness), yi (optimal appropriateness), li (observance of rites), and zhi (wisdom), as the core concepts of Mengzi’s ethics, can still hardly be regarded as Kantian moral laws. (shrink)

本书将牟宗三哲学研究置于当前国内外关于牟氏研究现状的大环境, 大视野之中, 着眼于牟氏道德的形上学, 紧扣牟氏著述文本, 不仅考察和梳理了牟宗三的学思历程, 学术资源, 而且重点从良知论, "现象" 与 "物自身", 两层存有论, 内圣与新外王, 宗教论, 圆善论, 道德的形上学之完成等方面展开对牟宗三哲学的阐发和剖析.

本书以形而上学文体为背景,通过对康德哲学与牟氏哲学的比较研究,重构了牟氏的道德形上学体系,逻辑地再现了牟氏对良知作为意义本体的构筑过程。.

本書撰寫目的在講明牟宗三哲學體系之性格，對牟宗三哲學之架構作一客觀的理解並作出客觀的衡定。本書研究提出：牟先生哲學之成果應分為兩大方面：一是以絕對的唯心論為奠基而通儒釋道三教的精神哲學之體系，此體系即 牟先生名之為「圓善論」的圓善學說系統；一是以儒家道德的形而上學為拱心石的純粹的哲學體系。牟先生本人以「圓善論」為其哲學體系命名，視之為「人極之極則」，並且對康德多有批評。本書之工作是消除牟先生對康德的 誤解，以論明：牟先生提出的儒家道德的形而上學，其義與康德之形而上學新論相通，乃客觀的、最高的而且是最根源的通識與洞見。此通識與洞見正是二十一世紀人類發展急需要之純粹哲學的根基所在。.

This chapter contains section titled: The Quintessence of Chinese Philosophy Intellectual Intuition and Moral Metaphysics Perfect Teaching and the Summum Bonum Chinese Philosophy versus Western Philosophy.