Abstract
Scholars have different views on Zhu Xi’s moral philosophy based on their own interpretive approaches. This chapter suggests one particular approach to understand and reinterpret Zhu Xi’s core concepts related to moral practice. We focus, in particular, on clarifying the relationship between mind (xin 心) and moral principle(s) (li 理) in accordance with his original texts. On the basis of our interpretations of the original texts, we will address some controversial issues derived from various modern interpretative approaches to Zhu Xi’s studies. This chapter intends to focus our research on interpretations of Zhu Xi’s moral claims made by contemporary Confucian philosophers, Mou Zhongsan and Tang Junyi. One important reason is that their interpretations are constructed on the basis of precise philosophical analyses and the study of a great deal of texts. Another factor is because of their great influence on modern scholars of Sinophone and Anglophone academia in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Mou and Tang shared some perspectives on Zhu’s philosophy. However, their understandings of the core idea in Zhu’s moral theory, “how mind and moral principle(s) are related,” are quite different. The issues concerning “how mind and moral principle(s) are related” will be addressed in this chapter. We introduce and discuss the main interpretations of Mou and Tang regarding Zhu’s moral philosophy. Then, we will also provide a brief sketch of Cheng Yi’s 程頤 moral theory because of his great influence on the development of Zhu Xi’s philosophy. Based on these discussions, we offer our conclusions that (1) Zhu Xi’s moral philosophy is the “Model of Priority in Reflecting on Moral Principle(s)” (zhulixingtai 主理型態); (2) The primary purpose of investigating moral principle(s) of things (gewu zhizhi 格物致知) is to accomplish a philosophically rational understanding of morality, which means that one has to elevate the “ordinary rational understanding of morality” (changzhi 常知) to a level of a “philosophically rational understanding of morality” (zhenzhi 真知); (3) Tang’s interpretations better conform to Zhu’s original claims.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Most of Mou’s students, such as Cai Renhou 蔡仁厚, Lee Shui Chuen 李瑞全, Lee Ming-huei 李明輝, and Lin Yueh-hui 林月惠, followed his interpretations of Zhu Xi’s philosophy. As a student of Mou, I (Yang Cho-hon 楊祖漢), generally agree with Mou, but I find that clarification of the relationship between mind and moral principle is worthy of reconsideration. My coauthor and I will discuss the difference between Mou’s interpretations and ours in Sects. 3 and 4.
- 2.
- 3.
In this chapter Jujing and qiongli have the meaning of stabilizing the mind in the state of calmness, attentiveness and reasonableness and investigating moral principle(s) of things respectively.
- 4.
Zhu criticizes that: “Gao Zi does not understand thoroughly. If he did, he would appeal to his inward moral principles to make moral judgments” (Zhu 1986: [52] 1236).
- 5.
This essay is included in the appendix of Tang (1973: [3]). The title of this essay is changed into “On Normative Principle and the Principle of Existence: Zhuzi on the Priority of the Principle over the Vital Force.”
- 6.
Tang’s “reality” (zhenshi 真實) has the same meaning as Mou’s “ontological reality” (cunyoulun de shiyou 存有論的實有). From this we can see why Tang and Mou share the perspective that the meaning of the term, priority (xian 先) is a “metaphysical priority.”
- 7.
When Zhu Xi discusses the relation between “elevating one’s own moral knowledge” (zhizhi 致知) and “purifying one’s own motivation” (chengyi 誠意), his concern centers on how to respond to the question of the “natural dialectic.” More explanation in details below.
- 8.
We quote the translation from Daniel K. Gardner in italic (Gardner 2007: 8).
- 9.
We appreciate and adopt most of professor Huang Yong’s suggestion and advice on this translation. We also provide Daniel K. Gardner’s translation as follows: “... the first step of instruction in the Great Learning teaches students that, encountering anything at all in the world, they must build on what they already know of principle and probe still deeper, until they reach its limit. Exerting themselves in this manner for a long time, they will one day suddenly become all penetrating; this being the case, the manifest and the hidden, the subtle and the obvious qualities of all things will all be known, and the mind, in its whole substance and vast operations, will be completely illuminated” (Gardner 2007: 8).
- 10.
Professor Chen Lai also claims that mind possesses inward moral principle(s) (Chen 1990: 190–91).
- 11.
This is similar to the philosophical statements in the Mencius: “the distinction between righteousness and profit” (yi–li zhi bian 義利之辨) or “that moral principle is the internal standard of moral judgment” (yi-nei 義內) (Zhu 1983: 201–2, 326–27).
- 12.
A possible and reasonable justification for translating mingde as “conscience” (liangxin良心) can be found in the following text: “‘[N]o child does not know how to love his/her parents; as he/she matures, none does not know how to reverence his elder siblings.’ This is conscience. Conscience is mingde” (Zhu 1986: [14] 269).
References
Chan, Wing-tsit 陳榮捷. 1988. Proceedings of Zhu Xue 朱學論集. Taipei 臺北: Taiwan Student Press 臺灣學生書局. (The articles included in this book take the approach of philosophy or textual criticism to discuss Zhu’s thoughts and the development of his school.)
Chen, Lai 陳來. 1990. Research of ZhuXi’s Philosophy 朱熹哲學研究. Taipei 臺北: Wenjin Press 文津出版社. (This book employs the historical and philosophical approach to investigate the theory of li and qi, theory of Xin and Xing, and theory of moral cultivation in Zhu Xi’s thoughts.)
Cheng, Hao 程灝, and Cheng Yi 程頤. 2004. Collected Works of the Two Chen 二程集. Beijing 北京: Zhonghua shuju 中華書局.
Feng, Youlan 馮友蘭. 2001. A New History of Chinese Philosophy 中國哲學史新編. Beijing 北京: Renmin Press 人民出版社.
Gardner, Daniel K., trans. 2007. The Four Books: The Basic Teachings of the Later Confucian Tradition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Kant, Immanuel. 1964. Groundworks of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and analyzed by Herbert J. Paton. New York: Hagerstown; San Francisco, London: Harper & Row, Publishers.
———. 1997. The Critique of Practical Reason, translated and edited by Mary Gregor. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Korsgaard, Christine M. 1996. The Source of Normativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. (There are 9 chapters of this book. Christine Korsgaard’s discussions are as the following: the normative question, reflective endorsement, the authority of reflection, the origin of value, and the scope of obligation. This book also includes three philosophers’ articles, which are “reason, humanity, and the moral law” by G. A. Cohen, and “morality and identity” by Raymond Guess, “Universality and reflective self” by Thomas Nagel, and “History, morality, and the test of reflection” by Bernard Williams. At the final chapter, Christine Korsgaard gives her reply to those who raise questions to her.)
Lai, Ko-chu. 2016. “To justify Chu Hsi’s ‘Ko-Chih Kong-fu’: A Reflective-Mode from ‘Ch’ang-chih’ to ‘Chen-chih.’” Chung Cheng Chinese Studies 28: 49–75. (This article is to justify that Chu Hsi’s [Zhu Xi’s] moral cultivation of Ko-wu chih-chih is not merely a cognitive mode, but also a reflective mode. It provides a different approach to interpret Chu Hsi’s [Zhu Xi’s] moral philosophy from Mou Zongsan.)
Lao, Sze-kwang 勞思光. 2001. A History of Chinese Philosophy 中國哲學史, vol. 3. Taipei 臺北: Sangming Press 三民書局.
Leung, Fan-ching 梁奮程. 2017. Constructing Democratic Discourse of Contemporary New-Confucianism Based on the Concept of Public Sphere 以公共空間概念為核心建構當代新儒家的民主論述. Chungli 中壢: Graduate Institute of Philosophy, National Central University 國立中央大學哲學研究所. (The aim of Leung’s dissertation is to discuss the typology and argumentation of New Politics or external kingliness [xin wai wang 新外王] in the context of contemporary New Confucianism.)
Liu, Shu-hsien 劉述先. 2015. On the Three Great Epochs of Confucian Philosophy 論儒家哲學的三個大時代. Hong Kong 香港: The Chinese University Press 中文大學出版社. (Professor Liu Shuhsien was a famous philosopher who studied Chinese philosophy in Asia. He, taking the perspectives of contemporary Confucians, analyzed and clarified the development of important Confucian concepts in three periods, such as: pre-Qin, Song and Ming dynasties, and contemporary. The part we employed to help discuss is his perspective of autonomy which is not exactly the same with the definition of Mou Zongsan.)
Mou, Zongsan 牟宗三. 1968–1969. Metaphysical Mind and Moral Ability 心體與性體, vols. 1 and 2. Taipei 臺北: Zhengzhung shuju 正中書局. (In volume 1, Mou Zongsan argued that the Neo-Confucianism [Song–Ming Confucianism] can be understood and defined as three theoretical modes. They are Lu–Wang Mode, Cheng–Zhu Mode, and Wufeng–Jishan Mode. The Cheng–Zhu Mode is essentially different from the others. In volume 3, Mou Zongsan provided his penetrating philosophical interpretations of Zhu Xi’s theories of ontology, cosmology, and morality.)
———. 2000. From LuXiangshan to LiuJishan 從陸象山到劉蕺山. Taipei 臺北: Taiwan Student Books 臺灣學生書局. (This book includes: [1] the analysis and interpretations of Lu Xiangshan’s and Wang Yangming’s moral theories; [2] the development of Wang’s philosophy after him; [3] Liu Jishan’s philosophy, which were all given by Mou Zhongsan.)
———. 2003a. Nineteen Lectures on Chinese Philosophy 中國哲學十九講. Taipei 臺北: Linking Publishing 聯經出版公司. (Mou Zhongsan made nineteen Lectures of Chinese Philosophy including the particularity of Chinese philosophy, two kinds of truth and the differences between their universality, the significance of Chinese and the happening cause/reason for Pre-Qin philosophers, Confucianism, Daoism, the school of Legalist, Buddhism, and Philosophy of the Wei and Jin Periods [Xuanxue 玄學], the investigations of summum bonum and perfect teaching, etc.)
———. 2003b. Lecture of Lao Zi’s Dao Te Jing 老子《道德經》演講錄, session 5. Legein Monthly 鵝湖月刊 338: 5–17. (Mou Zhongsan gave his philosophical interpretations of Chapters 22 and 25 of Dao De Jing.)
Qian, Mu 錢穆. 2011. The Main Point of Zhu Zi’s Thoughts 朱子學提綱. Taipei 臺北: Su-Shu-Lou Cultural & Educational Foundation; Lantai chubanshe 素書樓文教基金會 蘭臺出版社. (Qian Mu gave a sketch of Zhu Xi’s theories of ontology, cosmology, and moral philosophy by analyzing main and important concepts which are relative to Zhu’s philosophy.)
Tang, Junyi 唐君毅. 1973. An Enquiry into Chinese Philosophy: On the Way 中國哲學原論:原道篇, vol. 3. Hong Kong 香港: New Asian Institute Press 新亞研究所. (Tang Junyi gave his philosophical analyses of Chinese philosophy including Confucianism, Daoism, the school of Legalist, Buddhism, and Philosophy of the Wei and Jin Periods [Xuanxue 玄學].)
———. 1984. An Enquiry into Chinese Philosophy: On the Education 中國哲學原論:原教篇. Taipei 臺北: Taiwan Student Books 臺灣學生書局. (Tang Junyi gave his philosophical analyses of Neo-Confucianism [Song–Ming periods]. He especially investigated and clarified the debate of the similarities and dissimilarities between Zhu Xi and Lu Xiangshan.)
———. 1989. An Enquiry into Chinese Philosophy: On Nature 中國哲學原論:原性篇. Taipei 臺北: Taiwan Student Books 臺灣學生書局. (Tang Junyi discussed the development of relevant concepts and conceptions of human nature in Chinese philosophy.)
Yang, Cho-hon 楊祖漢. 2011. “The Neo-Interpretation to Cheng Yi-chuan’s and Zhu Xi’s ‘Zhenzhi’: From the Viewpoint of Kantian Moral Philosophy.” Taiwan Journal of East Asian Studies 8.2: 177–203. (In this article, Professor Yang attempts to justify that Zhenzhi in Chen–Zhu philosophy is able to successfully motivate an agent to complete a moral conduct while he or she has to make moral decision in a relevant moral situation. Professor Yang gives his philosophical interpretations of Zhenzhi on the basis of Kantian approach.)
Zhu, Xi 朱熹. 1983. Four Books in Chapter and Verse with Collected Commentaries 四書章句集注. Beijing 北京: Zhonghua Shuju 中華書局.
———. 1986. Classified Dialogues of Master Zhu 朱子語類. Edited by Li Jingde 黎靖德. Beijing 北京: Zhonghua shuju 中華書局.
———. 2000. Literary Corpus of Master ZhuXi朱子文集. Edited by Chen Junmin 陳俊民. Taipei 臺北: Defu wenjiao jijinhui 德富文敎基金會.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yang, Ch., Lai, Kc. (2020). Zhu Xi and Contemporary New Confucians: Reflections on Mou Zongsan’s and Tang Junyi’s Interpretations. In: Ng, Kc., Huang, Y. (eds) Dao Companion to ZHUXi’s Philosophy. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29175-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29175-4_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29174-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29175-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)