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. Philos. China    2014, Vol. 9 Issue (3) : 381-395
research-article |
Conceiving Possibility: Kierkegaard and Zhuangzi
XIE Wenyu()
School of Philosophy and Social Development; Center for Judaic and Inter-Religious Studies, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China
 Download: PDF(264 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

This paper examines two notions of possibility conceived by Kierkegaard and Zhuangzi respectively. Kierkegaard conceives of it with appeals to the feeling of anxiety, while Zhuangzi deals with it in terms of a type of aesthetic feeling. Based on these distinctions, the paper goes further to explore two types of human existence as fostered by these two corresponding concepts of possibility. According to Kierkegaard, in order to maintain a connection with possibility, which would provide freedom to human existence, one must have faith in the redeemer bringing back possibility so that an individual human being might renew his or her choice ceaselessly. Zhuangzi, on the other hand, advises staying in the realm of nothingness and letting go of all things to avoid being trapped by the struggle of discerning between good and evil.

Keywords possibility      anxiety      esthetic      human existence     
Issue Date: 23 September 2014
 Cite this article:   
XIE Wenyu. Conceiving Possibility: Kierkegaard and Zhuangzi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(3): 381-395.
[1] LIU Yuedi. From “Practice” to “Living”: Main Trends of Chinese Aesthetics in the Past 40 Years[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 139-149.
[2] Patricia Huntington. Place as Refuge: Exploring the Poetical Legacy of Matsuo Bashō[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 572-590.
[3] Bo R. Meinertsen. Towards Gratitude to Nature: Global Environmental Ethics for China and the World[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(2): 207-223.
[4] Jos de Mul. The Earth Garden: Going Back or Going Forward to Nature?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(2): 237-248.
[5] Richard Shusterman. Somaesthetics and Chinese Philosophy: Between Unity and Pragmatist Pluralism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 201-211.
[6] Roger T. Ames. “Bodyheartminding” (Xin 心): Reconceiving the Inner Self and the Outer World in the Language of Holographic Focus and Field[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 167-180.
[7] Russell Pryba. Ars Erotica and Ars Gastronomica in Shusterman’s Somaesthetics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 192-200.
[8] Eva Kit Wah Man. A Cross-Cultural Reflection on Shusterman’s Suggestion of the “Transactional” Body[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 181-191.
[9] Marian Hobson. Diderot’s Encyclopédie and the French Enlightenment: Summarizing Knowledge and Questioning Knowledge[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(2): 215-229.
[10] GUO Zhaodi. Wisdom and Knowledge: The Outline of Eastern and Western Aesthetic Spirits?[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(1): 90-111.
[11] HU Jiaxiang. Mencius’ Aesthetics and Its Position[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(1): 41-56.
[12] FAN Minghua. The Significance of Xuwu 虚无 (Nothingness) in Chinese Aesthetics[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2010, 5(4): 560-574.
[13] YANG Chunshi, . Transcending the opposition between consciousness aesthetics and somaesthetics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2009, 4(4): 616-630.
[14] ZHANG Qian. The boundaries of beauty in Pre-Qin Confucian aesthetics[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2009, 4(1): 52-63.
[15] XIE Xialing. Aesthetic judgment: The power of the mind in understanding Confucianism[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2009, 4(1): 38-51.
Full text