requestId:68499ae0795391.30677036.
The importance of rights and its meaning in Confucianism [①]
Author: Chen Yuefu (Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy of Huadong Master Fan, Vice President of Shanghai Confucian Studies)
Source: Author Author Authorization Confucian Network Published
href=”https://twsugarhoney520.org/”>Baocai.com (Philosopher Edition)” 2019 Issue Six
Time: Confucius was in the 2570 year of Jihai, November 19th, Yiyou
� Incompatible speakers either deny rights or confucianism, but both hold the special arguments of “rights” and historical theory, and believe that they cannot use “rights” to describe Confucianism and even the Oriental classical world. By evaluating the source of the concept of “rights” and especially the understanding of humans, as well as determining the essence and basis of classification of the concept of “rights” from concept analysis, the use of rights thinking and speech to emphasize the relevant ideas of classical Confucianism can effectively reflect the rights concept in Confucianism, respond to the important opinions of incompatible speakers without effort, and promote the views of compatible speakers. The power importance of Confucianism will not benefit the development of Confucianism and power, and will protect the fairness and desire of power.
Keywords: Confucianism; rights; deserve;
Since the late Qing Dynasty, the concept of oriental rights has been introduced to China, and this debate has focused on whether Confucianism or Confucian society can be compatible with rights. From the enthusiastic call of the new school to the extreme acceptance of the new Confucianism in Hong Kong, from the old school to the criticism and denunciation of the rights society by contemporary american community-based Han scholars, from the inverted Confucius movement of the May Fourth Movement to the unrestrained the opposition and incompatibility of Confucianism, all have been through a century, and they are still gathered together. After observing these arguments, we will find that Confucianism and rights (or Confucian society and rights) and their relationship is still a question that needs to be clarified and worth exploring. This article will first summarize and briefly review several understandings of the relationship between Confucianism and rights over the past century, especially the two opposite forms of incompatible arguments; then evaluate the two views of the origin of the concept of “rights” and determine the key points and classification of “rights” from concept analysis; then 官网Based NetworkBased on the basis of this 一下载Use rights to emphasize Confucianism-related thoughts; finally respond to the disagreement on the emphasis on Confucianism in power to emphasize Confucianism, and explain the meaning of this kind of emphasis or connotation.
1. The incompatibility between Confucianism and rights: From “Confucianism is not worthy of rights” to “right is not worthy of rights”[②]
The word “right” has long been found in the pre-Qin classics. As a noun, its basic meaning is power or power and benefits; as a dynamic structure, it means that the balance of rights and interests is small. The word “right” in ancient Chinese books is not the concept of “right” derived from the East in modern meaning. The first time he used “rights” or “rights” to translate the English “rights” from the American priest W.A.P. Martin translated the “Elements of International Law” by Wheaton Henry in 1864. The international law was published by the General Yamen of the Qing Dynasty. Although there are disputes about this translation method, such as “the king of transcendence”, it has been launched in the late Qing Dynasty and in the United States, and has been approved to be a definite translation. Translation issues are not the issues discussed in this article. The author abides by the conventional translation and usage for a hundred years.
Since the late Qing Dynasty, the idea of Oriental Rights has been passed on to our country, and the Chinese have become disagreeable from the very beginning. Before and after the 18980s, the Chinese people discussed whether they could introduce the idea of Eastern rights. People such as Kang Youwei, Liang Qichao, Huang Zunyun, He Qi, Hu Rongyuan, etc. called for the idea of power, and tried to use traditional thinking resources to give the idea of the theory. “They have to repeatedly confess that they are also to maintain Confucian ethics, and strive to prove that their personal rights are not in conflict with Confucian ethics.” [③] In contrast to this, Zhang Zhidong, a former guardian, known as the “Chinese and Western Use”, believed that the thinking of power is incompatible with the three realms and five constants of China. He said: “Recently, those who have picked up the Western sayings even say that everyone has the right to be independent, which is even more strange and unreasonable.” “Therefore, we know that the monarch and ministers cannot express their rights; If you know the consequences of father and son, the statement that the father and son are exempted from being sacrificed for the same crime cannot be done; if you know the consequences of husband and wife, the statement that the equal rights of men and women cannot be done. “[④] It is incompatible with Zhang Zhidong and the right to uphold Confucianism and rights, but the idea is complete and opposite to the idea is the May Fourth Movement School later, and its representativeness is Chen Hengxiu. Chen clearly stated: “The new worship of the same human rights is not compatible with the new worship of Confucianism, which is not compatible with the new worship of this new society and the new country, and the determination of courage; otherwise, it will not be stopped!” [⑤] How is Confucianism and rights incompatible? Chen said: “(Western) has all ethics, morals, politics, laws, society yearns for, and what the country prays to protect the unrestricted rights and happiness of individuals.” “(Oriental) patriarchal society takes the family as its basis, while individuals have no rights.” Therefore, “the cause of good deeds is to beWith personal-oriented theory, family-oriented theory” [⑥ Achievements to achieve.] It can be seen that from the late Qing Dynasty to the May Fourth Movement, Confucianism and rights have been divided into three stages: (1) Maintaining the compatibility and harmony of the new school, which was based on the modern neo-Confucianism; (2) The incompatible discussion of the old school is denying the rights discussion, this The viewpoints were fresh in the late May 4th period, but in the contemporary era they received unpredictable harmony; (3) The incompatible argument of the radical school was denying Confucianism, and in the 1980s and 1990s, the new Meng school focused on the unrestrained theories. At this point, they were not as suitable as they were to start (see later) ). Fortunately, in the past 10 or 20 years, many middle-aged and young unrestrained theories have no longer been as fostered by Confucianism as the older generation. They have been happy to explore the modern value concepts in Confucianism.
However, what is gratifying is that when the voice of “Confucianism is not worthy of rights” is said to be As the sound becomes weaker, another sound, that is, “rights are not worthy of Confucianism”, seems to be more and more powerful. There are many reasons for this. Most of the scholars who hold this theory in China are reflecting on the enactment of Mongolian sports and the society of power. The three contemporary american Han scholars, namely, Herbert Fingarette, Henry Rosement and Roger Ames. These three american Han scholars are deeply influenced by communityism. They have criticized the atomic individuals, rights individuals and good legal society in modern East China. They are a commendable community that admires Confucianism. In contrast to the “atomic individuals” and “rights-Bearing Individuals” in modern East China, Roseman proposed the so-called “Role-Bearing” The concept of Persons explains the Confucian concept of “people”, and Anle Philosophy developed a so-called “Role-Ethics” to describe Confucian ethics. In short, these three american Han scholars have important aspects of the relationship between Confucianism and rights. Two points of discussion: First, there is no isolated self in the Confucian community constructed by the tribute, “I am my selves”, and “the modern concept of ‘right’ is also complete and missing in classical Chinese thinking”; [⑦] Second, there are many social problems in power, and using Confucianism to transform their perspectives. [⑧] The author believes that the three community-minded Han scholars have described the Confucian community as more fantasy, and the May Fourth intellectuals criticized traditional tributes with greater sensibility and deviated from the plot, but they are
發佈留言