Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

ISSN 1673-3436

ISSN 1673-355X(Online)

CN 11-5743/B

Postal Subscription Code 80-983

Front Phil Chin    2009, Vol. 4 Issue (1) : 38-51    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11466-009-0003-8
research-article
Aesthetic judgment: The power of the mind in understanding Confucianism
XIE Xialing()
Department of Sociology, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
 Download: PDF(353 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Mou Zongsan incorrectly uses Kant’s practical reason to interpret Confucianism. The saying that “what is it that we have in common in our minds? It is the li 理 (principles) and the yi 义 (righteousness)” reveals how Mencius explains the origin of li and yi through a theory of common sense. In “the li and the yi please our minds, just as the flesh of beef and mutton and pork please our mouths,” “please” is used twice, proving aesthetic judgment is necessary to understanding Mencius. An analysis of Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming’s ideas will show that Confucianism should be interpreted by appealing to aesthetic judgment, and a discussion of Kant’s theory of judgment and Gadamer’s critique of Kant’s theory will support the same point. The conclusion is that Chinese moral philosophy should be interpreted through aesthetic judgment.

Keywords Mencius      Confucianism      practical reason      aesthetic judgment     
Corresponding Author(s): XIE Xialing,Email:xialingxie@hotmail.com   
Issue Date: 05 March 2009
 Cite this article:   
XIE Xialing. Aesthetic judgment: The power of the mind in understanding Confucianism[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2009, 4(1): 38-51.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.1007/s11466-009-0003-8
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2009/V4/I1/38
[1] TENG Fei. Joining the Transformation of Nature—The Post-Natural and Confucian Perspective on Earth Stewardship in the Anthropocene[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 53-72.
[2] NI Peimin. How Is the Kantian or Confucian Metaphysics Applicable to Human Dignity—Response to Wang Xiaowei[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 29-35.
[3] WANG Xiaowei. Toward a Confucian Notion of Human Dignity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 7-28.
[4] Henrique Schneider. Tricking or Benefitting the People? Guanzi on Objective Government and Subjective Preferences[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(3): 363-383.
[5] Michele Ferrero. Motivation to Act in Confucianism and Christianity: In Matteo Ricci’s The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven (Tianzhu Shiyi 天主實義)[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 226-247.
[6] Yoshimi Orii. The Limits of a Confrontational Approach: Fabian Fukansai’s Critiques of Neo-Confucianism and Christianity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 181-200.
[7] Rina Marie Camus. “Athl-Ethics”: Virtue Training in Mencius and Aristotle[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(1): 152-170.
[8] Karyn Lai. Emotional Attachment and Its Limits: Mengzi, Gaozi and the Guodian Discussions[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(1): 132-151.
[9] XU Keqian. A Contemporary Re-Examination of Confucian Li 禮 and Human Dignity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 449-464.
[10] NI Peimin. Toward a Gongfu Reconstruction of Confucianism —Responses to Comments by Huang Yong, Fan Ruiping, and Wang Qingjie[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(2): 240-253.
[11] PENG Guoxiang. Contemporary Chinese Philosophy in the Chinese-Speaking World: An Overview[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 91-119.
[12] Ady Van Den Stock. The Semantics of Wisdom in the Philosophy of Tang Junyi: Between Transformative Knowledge and Transcendental Reflexivity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 39-54.
[13] Alicia Hennig. Three Different Approaches to Virtue in Business- Aristotle, Confucius, and Lao Zi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 556-586.
[14] TAN Mingran. The Problem of Confucian Moral Cultivation and Its Solution: Using Ritual Propriety to Support Rule by Law[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 88-103.
[15] LAN Fei. Humanity and Paternal Eros: The Father-Son Relationship in Comparative Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 629-646.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed