requestId:68753bd5ae2fd6.89565207.
Xunzi’s Humane Discussion in Literature – Controversy between Commentary on Sexual Discussions
Author: Wu Feifei
Source: Author Author Authorized by Confucian Network, Original from “Confucius Research” No. 2, 2023
Abstract: In the past twenty years, the discussions on Xunzi’s sexual disguise are a very interesting academic debate. The author does not approve of nature as the original material, but a definition of nature, rather than a judgment of human goodness, so it is not a problem with nature. Xunzi very self-contained and developed the literary traditions since Confucius, and discussed humanity and gifts under this theoretical framework. He regarded as a humane understanding as a quality in articles such as “Sexual Abuse”, but he also determined the sentiment and quality in articles such as “Travels”, which demonstrated the theoretical power of literary theory. In contrast, Mencius did not discuss literary literacy as deeply as Xunzi, but his natural good discussion was more suitable for literary theory.
Keywords: Xunzi; Literature; Nature Proverb; Gentle Studies; Tribute Studies;
Author Introduction: Wu Feifei, a professor and doctoral supervisor in the Department of Philosophy in Beijing, a special expert at Confucius Institute, and a Taishan student. The purpose of important research and development is to study, gifts, religious human studies, comparative philosophy, etc.
In recent years, scholars such as Zhou Cheng, Lin Guizhen, and Lu Debin have advocated Xunzi’s personality discussions, and doubted Xunzi’s old sayings, which has formed a focus problem in the discussion of Chinese philosophy. Although the writer does not agree with Xunzi’s nature statement, he believes that it reminds a major theoretical issue in China’s traditional humanitarian theory and deserves serious treatment. The basic point of the writer is that Xunzi’s humanitarian theory should still be sexual misconceptions. He used his contemplation, not to propose another humanitarian theory on the same level as sexual misconceptions, but to establish a basic theoretical framework for humanitarian discussions, that is, to discuss humanitarian issues in literature; the so-called “quality” is the relationship between nature and evil is the relationship between quality and literature. The contradiction seen by students between sexual habits and sexual evil is actually the internal contradiction of sexual evil under the framework of literary theory. This just shows that in the Confucian philosophy tradition, nature evil has its own serious internal difficulties. After reason, Mencius’s nature good deeds became the main humanistic theory, and it has its own philosophical principles.
1. The conflict between sexual habits and sexual evil
We first need to sort out the history of the conflict between sexual habits and sexual evil. Regarding Xunzi’s nature malice, some students have been uneasy for a long time. As Wang Xian said, “When fighting against the country, he competed for traits and did not cultivate benevolence. Xun Qing knew how to govern, knew that it could be transformed, and had no position to overcome it, so he was inspired and wrote this statement.” [1] In his opinion, sexual absurdity was just a verb, and it was not necessarily his true theory.confidence. In the late Qing Dynasty, Gao Buying, Cai Yuanpei, Fu Sinian and others all doubted the view that “Xunzi held a rude attitude”. In 1923, Liu Nianyi proposed that the complete book of Xunzi never mentioned nature evil except for “Natural Abuse”, so “Natural Abuse” was written by later generations, and Xunzi’s humanistic discussion was read in the “Justice Name”. [2] Later, japan (Japanese) scholars Haruka Kaneya and Tamaroro continued to Liu Nian’s doubts about “Sexuality”. Based on the “Traditional Proverb” in “Traditional Proverb”, Tamaroro proposed that Xunzi’s true humane theory is the theory of sexual proverb.
The academic community has been hotly discussed about sexual habits, and it was first proposed by Zhou Lincheng, referring to the opinions of ordinary Japanese and Japanese students. He began by systematically highlighting his new views in “Xunzi’s Social History and Philosophy of Feizi in Korea” [3], and believed that there is a large number of internal contradictions in “Xunzi·Natural Evil” and is inconsistent with the entire book of “Xunzi”. In addition, it was found that this article was not written by Xunzi, but was later discussed. Xunzi’s true humanism was the theory of nature. He also presented important views in the article “Xunzi: A Sexual Concerns A Non-Sexual Concerns”, which attracted a lot of attention. Later, Zhou Lincheng published several more articles discussing this issue and had had trouble with Zhang Fengyi several times, all of which spent the revised version of the previous book – “Xun Korean Humanitarian Discussion and Social History and Philosophy”. Later, Zhou Cheng continued to describe and develop Xunzi’s thoughts on nature and style, believing that it was not only Xunzi, but Confucius, Zhuangzi, and Dong Zhongshu, and Yang Xiong, all had personality and style discussions. [4]
Lin Guizhen is a scholar who vigorously promotes the study of sexual habits. His important statements about sexual habits are seen in the third chapter of his specialized in “The Way of Heaven and the Perspective of Humanity”. In addition to Liu Niancun and other scholars mentioned by Zhou Cheng, Lin Guizhen also discovered Gao Buying, Cai Yuanpei and others’ thoughts on sexual evil. But the difference between the two Zhou Lincheng is that Lin Guizhen does not believe that the “Natural Abuse” is written, and that Xunzi’s “Natural Abuse” is actually a “Natural Abuse”. In fact, actual thinking is a discussion of nature. In addition to the above works and some of the articles from this book, Lin Guizhen also published several articles to illustrate their views. [5]
A other scholar who supports sexual arguments is Lu Debin. The differences with the two students, Zhou and Lin, Lu Debin’s proposition and sexual misconception can be adjusted, but is not completely different [6].
At the beginning of Xunzi’s statement that he proposed, some scholars expressed their differences. Zhang Fengyi was the first to criticize Zhou Lincheng. Except for the fact that the confession of “Sexual Abuse” was not sufficiently proof, he specifically pointed out that sexual characteristics and sexual abuse are not completely opposite and can coexist. It has been difficult for Zhou Cheng to revise his special edition. Huang Kaiguo criticized Zhou Yicheng’s advance on Dong Zhongshu’s sexual habits, and his entire personality theory. In addition to the same as he believed that “Sexual Abuse” was written, he also wrote other chapters of “Xunzi” about sexual evil, and believed that DongZhongshu’s third-rank sex theory said that it had developed outside Xunzi’s humanistic theory. [7] Shen Shuofu also criticized the sexual argument for those who believe that sex is the meaning of “nature” and cannot understand the quality. [8] Another criticism from Yang Zebo earlier said that although the sexual argument has its fairness, this is not Xunzi’s point of opposition to Mencius. It is inappropriate to use the sexual argument to combine the humanistic argument of Xunzi. [9] In these criticisms, many mention that sexual habits, sexual misconduct and goodness are not unified. Even those who receive sexual speech have similar tendencies, such as Lu Debin and some other students.
2. Xunzi’s literary thinking
The author believes that no matter how scholars adjust the sexual argument and sexual misconceptions, the theoretical contradictions found by sexual arguments still need to be treated seriously. BaoyingWhen faced with this problem, they either thought “Sexual Abuse” was written or thought “Sexual Abuse” was “Sexual Abuse”. Lin Guizhen pointed out: “The above self-contradiction in Xunzi is actually from the text in the text writing process? Or is the world-translated text suitable for the original work of the author and the author’s explanation of the self-contradiction? If it is the latter, it must be amazing.” [10] In his opinion, Xunzi, who was called “the most teacher” by Sima, could not be able to confuse himself. Therefore, such a problem must be because there was an error in the text copying. The author believes that although we cannot completely eliminate the ability of later generations to write or copy, in the absence of powerless evidence, we should still trust the reliability of the text. Since “Xunzi” is like many pre-Qin Zi’s books, Han people edited many single articles into books, then Xunzi did not write it as a logical and distinct work. The chapter on Differences has its own divisive writing time and language, and it is not very surprising to see the common things that conflict with each other. Zheng Xuan has different statements about the notes of the books of differences. Zhu Xi and Yang Ming’s thoughts have changed in the early and late periods. There can be differences between Plattu’s differences in dialogue, Aristotle’ TC:
發佈留言