{"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?