File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Book Chapter: Xunzi Among the Chinese Neo Confucians

TitleXunzi Among the Chinese Neo Confucians
Authors
KeywordsEpistemic Virtue
Great Root
Human Nature
Moral Knowledge
Moral Psychology
Issue Date12-Nov-2016
Abstract

This chapter explains how Xunzi’s text and views helped shape the thought of the Neo-Confucian philosophers, noting and explicating some areas of influence long overlooked in modern scholarship. It begins with a general overview of Xunzi’s changing position in the tradition (“Xunzi’s Status in Neo-Confucian Thought”), in which I discuss Xunzi’s status in three general periods of Neo-Confucian era: the early period, in which Neo-Confucian views of Xunzi were varied and somewhat ambiguous, the “mature” period, in which a broad consensus formed and then became orthodoxy for several centuries, and a late and often overlooked reassessment of Xunzi that took place in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In the second section (“Debating Human Nature on Xunzi’s Terms”), I discuss in greater detail Neo-Confucian criticisms of Xunzi’s views on human nature, noting that in key respects the Neo-Confucians accepted Xunzi’s somewhat uncharitable characterization of the doctrine that human nature is good, thereby taking on a considerably greater burden of proof than necessary. In the third section (“Virtue without Roots”), I attempt to explicate what is perhaps the most prominent but also the most laconic Neo-Confucian criticism of Xunzi, which is that Xunzi misunderstands the “great root” or “great foundation” of cosmic and social order, finding it in conventional human relationships rather than in the deeper, purer and more powerful inner workings of human nature. In the final section (“The Accretional Theory of Knowledge Acquisition”), I explain how the major differences between Xunzi and his Neo-Confucian critics can be cast as a dispute about how moral knowledge is acquired, where Xunzi’s critics assume that acquiring moral knowledge of any meaningful kind is impossible without a natural base or foundation of moral knowledge to begin with.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/338015
ISBN

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTiwald, Justin-
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-11T10:25:38Z-
dc.date.available2024-03-11T10:25:38Z-
dc.date.issued2016-11-12-
dc.identifier.isbn978-94-017-7743-8-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/338015-
dc.description.abstract<p>This chapter explains how Xunzi’s text and views helped shape the thought of the Neo-Confucian philosophers, noting and explicating some areas of influence long overlooked in modern scholarship. It begins with a general overview of Xunzi’s changing position in the tradition (“Xunzi’s Status in Neo-Confucian Thought”), in which I discuss Xunzi’s status in three general periods of Neo-Confucian era: the early period, in which Neo-Confucian views of Xunzi were varied and somewhat ambiguous, the “mature” period, in which a broad consensus formed and then became orthodoxy for several centuries, and a late and often overlooked reassessment of Xunzi that took place in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In the second section (“Debating Human Nature on Xunzi’s Terms”), I discuss in greater detail Neo-Confucian criticisms of Xunzi’s views on human nature, noting that in key respects the Neo-Confucians accepted Xunzi’s somewhat uncharitable characterization of the doctrine that human nature is good, thereby taking on a considerably greater burden of proof than necessary. In the third section (“Virtue without Roots”), I attempt to explicate what is perhaps the most prominent but also the most laconic Neo-Confucian criticism of Xunzi, which is that Xunzi misunderstands the “great root” or “great foundation” of cosmic and social order, finding it in conventional human relationships rather than in the deeper, purer and more powerful inner workings of human nature. In the final section (“The Accretional Theory of Knowledge Acquisition”), I explain how the major differences between Xunzi and his Neo-Confucian critics can be cast as a dispute about how moral knowledge is acquired, where Xunzi’s critics assume that acquiring moral knowledge of any meaningful kind is impossible without a natural base or foundation of moral knowledge to begin with.<br></p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofDao Companion to the Philosophy of Xunzi-
dc.subjectEpistemic Virtue-
dc.subjectGreat Root-
dc.subjectHuman Nature-
dc.subjectMoral Knowledge-
dc.subjectMoral Psychology-
dc.titleXunzi Among the Chinese Neo Confucians-
dc.typeBook_Chapter-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/978-94-017-7745-2_15-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85146128765-
dc.identifier.volume7-
dc.identifier.spage435-
dc.identifier.epage473-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats