关系自治:孔孟对自由的立场

IF 0.5 2区 哲学 0 ASIAN STUDIES
Lan Yu
{"title":"关系自治:孔孟对自由的立场","authors":"Lan Yu","doi":"10.1080/09552367.2021.1902095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT I approach the person in the context of ren (being-humane) and li (ritual propriety) in dialogue with role ethics and the issue of autonomy. The hypotheses are as follows: first, even if the person is committed to dao, the person is to enjoy uncoerced freedom of choice, or at least some measure of it in the case of early Confucianism; second, the sentimental and rational dimensions are unified and make up a judgment as a whole in the Chinese context, whereas the functioning of reason is more elevated in the West; third, ren and li are mutually constitutive, requiring and complementing one another as internal awareness and external practice respectively. Even though ren and li both share an orientation to social order, they differ with respect to internalized recognition and simply following norms. If relationships are constitutive of persons and the focus of relational autonomy is on cultivation, then there is no conflict between self-completion and autonomy.","PeriodicalId":44358,"journal":{"name":"ASIAN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"31 1","pages":"320 - 335"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09552367.2021.1902095","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Relational autonomy: where Confucius and Mencius stand on freedom\",\"authors\":\"Lan Yu\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09552367.2021.1902095\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT I approach the person in the context of ren (being-humane) and li (ritual propriety) in dialogue with role ethics and the issue of autonomy. The hypotheses are as follows: first, even if the person is committed to dao, the person is to enjoy uncoerced freedom of choice, or at least some measure of it in the case of early Confucianism; second, the sentimental and rational dimensions are unified and make up a judgment as a whole in the Chinese context, whereas the functioning of reason is more elevated in the West; third, ren and li are mutually constitutive, requiring and complementing one another as internal awareness and external practice respectively. Even though ren and li both share an orientation to social order, they differ with respect to internalized recognition and simply following norms. If relationships are constitutive of persons and the focus of relational autonomy is on cultivation, then there is no conflict between self-completion and autonomy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44358,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ASIAN PHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"320 - 335\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09552367.2021.1902095\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ASIAN PHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2021.1902095\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ASIAN PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2021.1902095","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了人在“仁”与“礼”的语境下与角色伦理和自主性问题的对话。假设如下:第一,即使一个人致力于道,这个人也享有不受强迫的选择自由,或者至少在早期儒家的情况下有一定程度的选择自由;第二,感性和理性的维度在中国语境中是统一的,构成了一个整体的判断,而理性的功能在西方语境中则更高;第三,仁与礼是相互构成的,作为内在意识和外在实践,仁与礼是相互要求和相辅相成的。尽管仁和李都有社会秩序取向,但他们在内化认知和简单遵循规范方面存在差异。如果关系是人的组成部分,关系自主的重点是培养,那么自我完成和自主之间就不存在冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Relational autonomy: where Confucius and Mencius stand on freedom
ABSTRACT I approach the person in the context of ren (being-humane) and li (ritual propriety) in dialogue with role ethics and the issue of autonomy. The hypotheses are as follows: first, even if the person is committed to dao, the person is to enjoy uncoerced freedom of choice, or at least some measure of it in the case of early Confucianism; second, the sentimental and rational dimensions are unified and make up a judgment as a whole in the Chinese context, whereas the functioning of reason is more elevated in the West; third, ren and li are mutually constitutive, requiring and complementing one another as internal awareness and external practice respectively. Even though ren and li both share an orientation to social order, they differ with respect to internalized recognition and simply following norms. If relationships are constitutive of persons and the focus of relational autonomy is on cultivation, then there is no conflict between self-completion and autonomy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ASIAN PHILOSOPHY
ASIAN PHILOSOPHY Multiple-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Asian Philosophy is an international journal concerned with such philosophical traditions as Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Buddhist and Islamic. The purpose of the journal is to bring these rich and varied traditions to a worldwide academic audience. It publishes articles in the central philosophical areas of metaphysics, philosophy of mind, epistemology, logic, moral and social philosophy, as well as in applied philosophical areas such as aesthetics and jurisprudence. It also publishes articles comparing Eastern and Western philosophical traditions.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信