Humanity and Paternal Eros: The Father-Son Relationship in Comparative Perspective

doi:10.3868/s030-004-015-0050-8

Front. Philos. China

2015, Vol. 10

Issue (4) : 629-646 https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-004-015-0050-8

Research Article

Humanity and Paternal Eros: The Father-Son Relationship in Comparative Perspective

LAN Fei(

)

Department of Philosophy and Religion, The University of Mississippi, University MS 38677， USA

Download: PDF(380 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

This paper examines the human relational patterns presented in the philosophical writings of the Confucian thinker Dai Zhen (戴震1724–77) and the Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas’s (1906–95) Totality and Infinity to uncover the ethical significance of the father-son relationship. I argue that for both thinkers the father-son relation is not just one type of human relationship among other social dyads, but rather, of greater significance, serves as the paradigmatic model of the ethical human relationship in bringing to light the idea of the ethical self as a responsible being in relation to others.

Keywords Confucianism Jewish thought Dai Zhen Emmanuel Levinas the father-son relationship responsibility

Issue Date: 26 January 2016

Cite this article:

LAN Fei. Humanity and Paternal Eros: The Father-Son Relationship in Comparative Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 629-646.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-004-015-0050-8
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2015/V10/I4/629

[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]	Marcel Brass, Derk Pereboom. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Free Will[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 361-376.
[8]	ZHANG Ke. Situationism and Moral Responsibility[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 420-429.
[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]	Sai Hang Kwok. Tianming and the Other: Rethinking the Source of Responsibility in the Zhong Yong and Emmanuel Levinas[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 501-520.
[15]	François Raffoul. The Invisible and the Secret: Of a Phenomenology of the Inapparent[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 395-414.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed