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    2018, Vol. 13 Issue (1) : 55-71    https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-007-018-0005-0
Orginal Article
Mou Zongsan and Martin Heidegger: Reopening a Debate on Ontology and Ethics
Selusi Ambrogio()
Department of Humanities, University of Macerata, Macerata 62100, Italy
 Download: PDF(324 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

In this paper I investigate differences and similarities in the definitions of human being and human essence as proposed by two of the most influential thinkers of 20th-century world philosophy, namely Mou Zongsan and Martin Heidegger. I first examine a number of interpretations put forth by scholars that assess the philosophical compatibility of the thought of the two philosophers. Each of these assessments tend to agree that they are incompatible with each other based on what they perceive as an absolute distance between Mou’s and Heidegger’s ways of thinking. Although these studies are pioneering and show an in-depth understanding of Mou’s thought, none demonstrate a correct understanding of Heidegger’s philosophy. Therefore, I will attempt to demonstrate that, despite their differences, the ontological and ethical theses of Mou and Heidegger have several striking points of contact. I will also put forth the claim that Heidegger’s post-turn philosophy is more compatible with Mou’s philosophy than Kant’s system.

Keywords Mou Zongsan      Martin Heidegger      ethics      ontology      ontological ethics      opening     
Issue Date: 23 April 2018
 Cite this article:   
Selusi Ambrogio. Mou Zongsan and Martin Heidegger: Reopening a Debate on Ontology and Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 55-71.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-007-018-0005-0
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2018/V13/I1/55
[1] YAO Xinzhong. Wall, Gate and Self-Other Dynamics: A Confucian Ethics of Separation and Interconnection[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(4): 567-585.
[2] ZHANG Xianglong. The Marginality of Phenomenology[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 472-492.
[3] WANG Qingjie. Heidegger, Communal Being, and Politics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 395-408.
[4] ZHANG Wei. Formalism and Heteronomy qua Logonomy—On Max Scheler’s Critique and Development of Kant’s Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 380-394.
[5] MA Lin. Toward a Multi-Layered Chiasme-Focused Topology: A Reading of Merleau-Ponty’s Later Writings[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(2): 242-269.
[6] ZHU Qin. Confucian Moral Imagination and Ethics Education in Engineering[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 36-52.
[7] John Robert Williams. A Couple Nagging Interpretive Difficulties in Zhuangzi Studies vis-à-vis William James on the Ethics and Psychology of Belief[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 593-611.
[8] Mark Kevin S. Cabural. Daoism and the German Mission in Martin Heidegger’s “The Thing”[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 570-592.
[9] SUN Ning. Embodied Perception and the Schemed World: Merleau-Ponty and John Dewey[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(3): 423-434.
[10] Rina Marie Camus. “Athl-Ethics”: Virtue Training in Mencius and Aristotle[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(1): 152-170.
[11] LI Cunshan. Forty Years’ Study of Chinese Philosophy[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 634-650.
[12] SUN Zhengyu. Chinese Marxist Philosophy Since Reform and Opening-Up[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 430-448.
[13] HUANG Yong. Confucian Ethics: Altruistic? Egoistic? Both? Neither?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(2): 217-231.
[14] Ellen Y. Zhang. The Face/Facelessness of the Other—A Levinasian Reading of the Ethical of the Zhuangzi [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 533-553.
[15] DONG Xinchun. Western Marxism’s Misreading of Marx’s Critique of Capitalism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(3): 466-482.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed