【馬愷之一包養網站比較】“儒家不受拘束觀”的悖論與能夠性：從嚴復到牟宗三

Keywords:Serious retribution/Mold/Mil/Kant/Unrestrained

Since the 17th century, unrestrained has been defined as the most secret concern of all philosophical science. In asset-level, philosophy obtains an unexplained law and uses it to find unrestrained obscure soil. Even if you care about this unrestrained concern, you are in conflict with yourself. ——Adono[1](P.213)

The unrestricted normative form of fantasy lies in the profound self-understanding of modern oriental society. The Infinity of Oriental SocietyMost people believe that the concept of unrestrained is reasonable and reasonable; and, according to a profound and profound philosophical theory, that is, the view of unrestrained theory, modern understanding of unrestrained can be widely used in human society with divergent civilizations. Even the modern thinker Michel Foucault, who believes that our modern components are produced by regulatory systems, is often regarded as a representative figure of so-called metaphysical decisions, is devoted to the pursuit of unrestrained ideas and values. [2] However, in the era of globalization, the debate on civilization is increasingly supporting the general public. Many people now believe that the identification of human rights (as a focus dimension of modern unrestrained view) is confined to a specific civilization or community. At the same time, the idea of ​​unrestrained and broad-minded people is increasingly challenging by the normative initiatives of the improvement of non-oriental and non-restrained society. To put it more and more Chinese intellectuals criticize the basic concept of unrestrained and broad-minded based on the grounds of differences in civilization. ① Some Eastern scholars such as Fred Dolemil and Farah Godre also believe that political philosophers need to be sensitive to civilization differences and the “civilized others”②, even if they do not hold an anti-unrestrained position.

I believe that with the emergence of global modernism, we need to think about the unrestrained form of fantasy from a more widespread, international and not single oriental perspective. Following the views of contemporary Hegelists Robert B. Pippin and Axel Honneth, I think that the current unrestricted theory has reached a common understanding in the East is a historic factor of a certain collective. [3][4] Therefore, I praised the views of Bernard Williams, who criticized the unrestrained theory and thought about “how to realize (unrestrained theory)” and “not interested”. [5](p.197) One condition of this article is that in order to more comprehensively understand the connotation of modern unrestrainedness, there is a need to think about the historical situation that promotes the generation of this unrestrained concept. According to the principle, only detailed historical events can explain how this value view has gradually developed and formed over the past four hundred years. In fact, the Oriental unrestrained and capitalist society that was developed in many parts of the world in the colonial and imperialist political activities (in the broad sense, it was from the 16th century to the 10th century 60th century) was the key to this historic event. However, such conditions are not clear and the connotation is not clear. ③ A thorough understanding of it depends more on our understanding of enlightenment and ecology, sensibility, historical progress and overall people.

What to solve in this articleThe topic is smaller: what are the acceptance of the two main representatives of the unrestrained Eastern doctrines? What is the situation of Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill in China? The modern unrestrained view of Kant and Mill have a profound influence in Eastern society. Their unrestrained initiative (in Kant’s view, it is metaphysical unrestrained or unrestrained by will, and in Mill’s view, it is social unrestrained) has formed a common understanding of the unrestrained theory in the present. Therefore, it is very important to understand how modern Chinese thinkers introduced these two modern unrestrained views into China. To be more precise, I would like to explore how Serious Resurrection (1853-1921) and Mou Zongsan (1909-1995) translated the unrestrained views of Mill and Kant into China, what their translation strategies were, and how these Chinese thinkers reiterated their existing understanding of human behavior through their translations (especially Confucian understanding of moral behavior). I will describe and criticize the above two Eastern Thinkers and criticize the amazing similarities: as long as we do, Serious and Mou, they work hard to introduce Eastern thoughts into China, but they are basically old-fashioned; both of them apply “translation is the strategy of equalization” (Stephen Schmidt) in their translation, and believe that the concept of focus of classical unrestrained theories was translated through Chinese traditional civilization. Therefore, readers will naturally think that the modern unrestricted conception advocated by Kant and Mill have long included in the Chinese thinking tradition. ④To put it in Douglas Haolan, both of them worked hard toward an “unrestrained constructive method.” [6](P.4)

This double-weight attitude that is both suitable and resistant is indeed not easy to understand, let alone evaluate it. The capable explanation of “Confucianism is unrestrained” by Shou and Mou is still quite controversial, especially when facing a serious opposition: For most observers, how can Confucianism take into account the modern perspectives from earlier sources? [7] In addition, the so-called “Confucian unrestrained view” was inconsistent from the beginning, because most of the Confucian education was related to the strict social level and moral elite.

Of course it is more about the nature of the two people’s initiative. Can they believe in certain specific principles of Chinese traditional thinking (I) prediction, (II) tolerance, (I) strong common denomination or (IV) must be pointed out by Kant or Miller’s unrestrained view? We will see that to accurately position the initiative of the Shou and Mou, whether from the perspective of philosophy or conceptual standpoint, it is relatively vague and unclear. But this ambiguity was difficult to prevent in the “modernity of slander” era. Compared with the basic texts that faithfully expounded European and American modernity, non-Eastern thinkers were more interested in integrating external experiences into a new civilization. ⑤

The next important thing for my analysis will be based on the strict revision of Mill’s “Not Restricted in Discussion” and Mou Zongsan’s translation of Kant’s “Real Sensitive Criticism”. I’llWe pay more attention to the philosophical meaning of criticism from Serious Rebirth and Mou Zongsan than our historical dimensions. And even though many people may say that two conceptualized experiments on “Confucianism is unrestrained” ended up in failure, but this unrestrained trial itself also provided the main inspiration to the Chinese world and even the global proof of contemporary unrestrained relations.

Some words about the unrestrained sect 

Acc