Reflections on Lao Sze-Kwang and His Double-Structured “Intra-Cultural” Philosophy of Culture

R. Ames
{"title":"Reflections on Lao Sze-Kwang and His Double-Structured “Intra-Cultural” Philosophy of Culture","authors":"R. Ames","doi":"10.1515/icos-2022-2003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In his own time, Lao Sze-Kwang formulated his own intra-cultural approach to the philosophy of culture that begins from the interdependence and organic nature of our cultural experience. In this article, I will address three questions: Why did Lao abandon his early reliance on the Hegelian model of philosophy of culture and formulate his own “two-structured” theory? Again, given Lao’s profound commitment and contribution to Chinese philosophy and its future directions, why is it not proper to describe him as a “Chinese philosopher”? And why is the much accomplished Lao Sze-Kwang not installed in the Chinese University of Hong Kong pantheon as yet one more of the great “New Confucian” philosophers that are associated with this institution?","PeriodicalId":123663,"journal":{"name":"International Confucian Studies","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Confucian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/icos-2022-2003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In his own time, Lao Sze-Kwang formulated his own intra-cultural approach to the philosophy of culture that begins from the interdependence and organic nature of our cultural experience. In this article, I will address three questions: Why did Lao abandon his early reliance on the Hegelian model of philosophy of culture and formulate his own “two-structured” theory? Again, given Lao’s profound commitment and contribution to Chinese philosophy and its future directions, why is it not proper to describe him as a “Chinese philosopher”? And why is the much accomplished Lao Sze-Kwang not installed in the Chinese University of Hong Kong pantheon as yet one more of the great “New Confucian” philosophers that are associated with this institution?
反思老斯光及其双重结构的“文化内”文化哲学
劳思光在他所处的时代,从我们文化经验的相互依存和有机本质出发,形成了他自己的文化内哲学。在这篇文章中,我将回答三个问题:为什么劳放弃了他早期对黑格尔文化哲学模型的依赖,而形成了他自己的“双结构”理论?再一次,鉴于老挝对中国哲学及其未来发展方向的深刻承诺和贡献,为什么称他为“中国哲学家”不恰当呢?为什么成就斐然的劳思光没有作为与香港中文大学有关的又一位伟大的“新儒家”哲学家被供奉在香港中文大学的万神殿中?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信