Han Feizi’s philosophy is usually represented as an amoral autocracy where the ruler is the sole ... more Han Feizi’s philosophy is usually represented as an amoral autocracy where the ruler is the sole political power and runs the state by controlling the people through rewards and punishments. While his system is formally autocratic, this article argues that the purpose behind this system bears some similarity to the republican political ideal of non-domination. In this interpretation, Han Feizi makes the ruler the sole power to mitigate the danger of the state being dominated by ministers. He does not employ republican institutions, but attempts to discourage the ruler from using his power capriciously in order to increase order and security in the state, which are his ultimate political values. Han Feizi is not a republican, but this similarity suggests that when revised for today’s very different circumstances, Han Feizian philosophy’s focus on impartial law can make a contribution to contemporary Chinese political thought.
A central issue in Chinese philosophy today is the relationship between Confucianism and democrac... more A central issue in Chinese philosophy today is the relationship between Confucianism and democracy. While some political figures have argued that Confucian values justify non-democratic forms of government, many scholars have argued that Confucianism can provide justification for democracy, though this Confucian democracy will differ substantially from liberal democracy. These scholars believe it is important for Chinese culture to develop its own conception of democracy using Confucian values, drawn mainly from Kongzi (Confucius) and Mengzi (Mencius), as the basis. This essay describes some obstacles to this form of Confucian democracy. It argues that considering the political philosophies of Kongzi and Mengzi in the context of their views on personal cultivation reveals that they oppose some of the central assumptions of democracy. They do not trust the public to make good decisions, and advocate government for the people, but not by the people. These philosophies alone cannot generate democracy.
Dao Companion to Contemporary Confucian Philosophy, 2020
XU Fuguan is less known than his contemporaries and friends MOU Zongsan and TANG Junyi. He never ... more XU Fuguan is less known than his contemporaries and friends MOU Zongsan and TANG Junyi. He never developed a philosophical system on the order of theirs, feeling that the core of Confucianism is found in practice and not developing philosophical theory. Instead he wrote widely on Chinese intellectual history, literature, and aesthetics. Nevertheless, in many of his writings he defends a distinct perspective on Confucian thought and argues for its continued relevance in a modernizing world. This chapter focuses on three major areas of concern in Xu’s writings: his claim that humanistic study generally and Confucianism in particular must be related to practical concerns, his analysis of Confucian theories of human nature, and his claim that democracy can best realize the spirit of Confucian humanism. Sharing the common New Confucian views that human nature is good and that democracy is form of government most suited to Confucian societies, Xu had his own understanding and defense of these claims less reliant on elaborate metaphysical views. Instead he focused on practice and moral cultivation. In this regard, Xu departed from his mentor XIONG Shili as well as Mou and Tang. As he himself believed, this less metaphysical view is arguably closer to the classical thought of Kongzi and Mengzi. Though receiving less attention in Anglophone scholarship, Xu’s thought is more creative than commonly supposed.
Han Feizi’s philosophy is usually represented as an amoral autocracy where the ruler is the sole ... more Han Feizi’s philosophy is usually represented as an amoral autocracy where the ruler is the sole political power and runs the state by controlling the people through rewards and punishments. While his system is formally autocratic, this article argues that the purpose behind this system bears some similarity to the republican political ideal of non-domination. In this interpretation, Han Feizi makes the ruler the sole power to mitigate the danger of the state being dominated by ministers. He does not employ republican institutions, but attempts to discourage the ruler from using his power capriciously in order to increase order and security in the state, which are his ultimate political values. Han Feizi is not a republican, but this similarity suggests that when revised for today’s very different circumstances, Han Feizian philosophy’s focus on impartial law can make a contribution to contemporary Chinese political thought.
A central issue in Chinese philosophy today is the relationship between Confucianism and democrac... more A central issue in Chinese philosophy today is the relationship between Confucianism and democracy. While some political figures have argued that Confucian values justify non-democratic forms of government, many scholars have argued that Confucianism can provide justification for democracy, though this Confucian democracy will differ substantially from liberal democracy. These scholars believe it is important for Chinese culture to develop its own conception of democracy using Confucian values, drawn mainly from Kongzi (Confucius) and Mengzi (Mencius), as the basis. This essay describes some obstacles to this form of Confucian democracy. It argues that considering the political philosophies of Kongzi and Mengzi in the context of their views on personal cultivation reveals that they oppose some of the central assumptions of democracy. They do not trust the public to make good decisions, and advocate government for the people, but not by the people. These philosophies alone cannot generate democracy.
Dao Companion to Contemporary Confucian Philosophy, 2020
XU Fuguan is less known than his contemporaries and friends MOU Zongsan and TANG Junyi. He never ... more XU Fuguan is less known than his contemporaries and friends MOU Zongsan and TANG Junyi. He never developed a philosophical system on the order of theirs, feeling that the core of Confucianism is found in practice and not developing philosophical theory. Instead he wrote widely on Chinese intellectual history, literature, and aesthetics. Nevertheless, in many of his writings he defends a distinct perspective on Confucian thought and argues for its continued relevance in a modernizing world. This chapter focuses on three major areas of concern in Xu’s writings: his claim that humanistic study generally and Confucianism in particular must be related to practical concerns, his analysis of Confucian theories of human nature, and his claim that democracy can best realize the spirit of Confucian humanism. Sharing the common New Confucian views that human nature is good and that democracy is form of government most suited to Confucian societies, Xu had his own understanding and defense of these claims less reliant on elaborate metaphysical views. Instead he focused on practice and moral cultivation. In this regard, Xu departed from his mentor XIONG Shili as well as Mou and Tang. As he himself believed, this less metaphysical view is arguably closer to the classical thought of Kongzi and Mengzi. Though receiving less attention in Anglophone scholarship, Xu’s thought is more creative than commonly supposed.
Uploads
Papers
Book Reviews
Books