requestId:68499aab9485b5.26418774.
Return to the moral subject: Foucault and Confucian modern value
Author: Wang Long
Source: Author Author Authorized by Confucian Network, Originally published by “Tianfu New Commentary” Issue 3, 2016
Time: Confucius was in the 2568th year of Dingyou and Mid-Spring on Jiyou
Jesus March 23, 2017
Author Introduction
Wang Lang, born in 1986, male, Han nationality, candidate for doctoral degree in social science in Idinburgh, England. The purpose of the study is to teach society, political society, Confucianism and the people.
Content Summary
What should we discuss the modern value of Confucianism in what meaning should we discuss? This article takes Foucault’s critical comments on the modern subject of the East, and proposes that the “moral subject” is the basis for discussing the modern value of Confucianism. Foucault believed that the “Descartesian moment” was the symbol, and before that, he gained self-knowledge and Caring one-month priceThe ethical self-transformation is integrated along the way, and the “fearless speaker” is a model of the Eastern moral subject; after that, the relationship between the truth and the subject has been broken, and the modern self is not only restrained and produced by regulatory power, but also developed self-relevant technical trials to escape power, which points to the fate of “returning to morality”. Confucianism can make useful responses to this subject: the Confucian education system produces righteous people. They obtain moral integrity and moral courage from the “way of heaven”. They use self-skills such as “benevolence” and “right” to combine the self-realization gain with the transformation of the ethical self, becoming the moral subject that resists power.
Keywords: Confucianism, Foucault, moral subject, correction of people, education
【Note】
Return to moral subject: Foucault and Breeding websiteConfucian modern value
Since the transformation of civilized movement, two problems have always troubled the Chinese academic world, that is: Can Confucianism have modern value? If the truth is certain, then what kind of modern value does Confucianism have? After nearly a hundred years of conflicts and reflections, the academic community has gradually reached a consensus on the first problem, that is, the value of Confucianism to contemporary China has been determined at the level of disagreement. However, for the second problem, the academic world is still very different. The disagreement here is now understood as the differences in the establishment of Confucianism, and can be considered as two parties: one side advocates the use of Confucianism as the overall principle and structure of the country and social system, and at the same time chooses to accept the unrestrained civilian resources of the Oriental people, and realizes the nationalization and socialization of Confucianism; the other side is sure that Confucianism has partial value in perfect national management and social system, but on the whole, it actively establishes modern countries with unrestrained civilian principles. The former is represented by the majority of “political Confucianism”. They put forward the view of “Confucianism’s political doctrine” and believe that Confucianism not only believes in itself. href=”https://twsugardaddy.org/”>Female College Students’ Care ClubThere are mentally energetic and strive to establish political system in practice, and constantly promote the value of Confucianism to penetrate the national and social careers[ 1]; At the same time, they also advocated a kind of “open, emotional and symposium that highlights public value” [2], and “accepts the concepts and systems of multi-party system, competitive general election system, separation of power, and infinite bureaus in the political system, and thus realizes the integration of tradition and modernity” [3]. Compared with “political Confucianism”, there are scholars with unrestrained and dominant tendencies. They believe that Confucian governance has internal restrictions that are unsuccessful, that is, “the personal virtues based on the sage king’s reputation cannot be implemented from the most basic perspective. The governance that should be resolved in accordance with the legality, the useful limitations of power and the orderly replacement of power”[4 ]; they do not believe that Confucianism and rigging design are suitable for a national cooperation body that exceeds the size of the scale, but regard Confucianism as a civilized form of small cooperation body, which can be influenced in the process of constructing small cooperation bodies, but the country’s reform needs have been further implemented to implement the principle of universal adaptability of unrestrained civilians [5].
So, how can you understand the above inconsistencies? Are they inconsistent? The focus of the problem is how to understand the relationship between Confucianism and unrestricted inclusive. In fact, political Confucianism and unrestrained constituents raised what they knew, “What kind of modern value does Confucianism have?” and produced a very disagreement. However, both of them also neglected a perhaps more important question, namely: How does Confucianism have modern value? In other words, in what meaning do we think Confucianism has this or that “modern value”? This question opens up a new oneThe purpose of thinking is to think about what modern value Confucianism has. We should first understand what meaning we are exploring the “modern value” of Confucianism, and move our visual line from the inconsistency about “what modern value of Confucianism has”, and find a “cooperation bottom line” to explore the problem.
1. Moral subject: the basis for the coordination between Confucianism and the unrestrained theory
Following the following thoughts, the problem is clearly determined in a step: Where is the “coordination bottom line” between Confucianism and the unrestrained theory? The author believes that “unrestricted subject” is the “bottom line of cooperation” between the two. On the one hand, the unrestrained theory is precisely the condition that the subject is unrestrained, and the focus is the subject’s self-determination, self-responsibility and self-management. What is worth exploring is the other hand, that is, can Confucianism also take the “unrestricted subject” as its basis? To discuss this question, we need to first understand what an “unrestricted subject” is and what “unrestricted” means here. When future generations’ understanding of “unrestrainedness” is affected by Hayek’s “spoken personalism”, that is, a personalism that provokes should dispel all social relations and move towards atomic state; the “real personalism” is “true personalism”. In addition to personal good, provokes also have good cooperation, and individuals should be “compassionate” and accept the value of moral traditions and ethics [6]. In short, “sweeping personalism” is a personalism that goes into morality and ethics. Seeking to be unrestrained means removing the moral ethics; “true personalism” is a personalism that connects morality and ethics. Seeking to be unrestrained not only means removing the moral ethics, but also means that individuals should become the subject of moral ethics. As long as this is, individuals are unrestrained individuals. From this meaning, the author believes that “Confucian political theory” is an interesting attempt to find a Confucian “unrestricted subject”. The value of this attempt is not only its argument for the Confucian political energy, but also in its discovery that the management subject of actual Confucian political politics – the correct people. This is a meticulous and moral subject, with benevolence, charity, wisdom and trustworthiness as the principle of the world, and the goal of cultivating peace and peace.
So, the basic point of this article is: Confucianism and “true personalism” distribute to friends the foundation of cooperation, that is, the unrestrained subject of ethical morality, but it is completely different from “sick personalism”. The author will demonstrate this view in my literature. The arguments in this article are based on Foucault’s critical reflection on modern subjects. Foucault has a very interesting view. He thought,Since Descartes, Oriental Philosophy has developed a trend of separation from the ethical subject, and gaining knowledge no longer requires self-transformation of ethical. Therefore, he returned to ancient Greece, analyzed the self-technology at that time, and believed that it was a golden era that combined self-transformation with self-transformation. It is precisely because truth and subject are separated in modern times that “swallowing personalism” occupies the dominant position, publicizes “atomized subject”, and eliminates all
發佈留言