郑中英与儒家、康德的对话:一种加达主义批判

IF 0.2 3区 哲学 0 ASIAN STUDIES
S. Palmquist
{"title":"郑中英与儒家、康德的对话:一种加达主义批判","authors":"S. Palmquist","doi":"10.1163/15406253-12340038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nGadamer’s hermeneutics offers several strategies for critiquing Chung-ying Cheng’s synthesis of Confucianism and Kant. Interpreting Kant’s Groundwork, Cheng argues that the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties is too rigid: if the “life principle” is the ultimate root of Kant’s four types of duty, then human inclinations are good; Kant’s perfect duties turn out to be imperfect in some situations, while his imperfect duties such as benevolence (or ren, in Confucian philosophy) turn out sometimes to be perfect. Although Cheng’s synthesis does not satisfy the Groundwork’s universal aim, it does show how to apply Kant’s insights to empirical moral situations.","PeriodicalId":45346,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chung-ying Cheng’s Dialogue with Confucianism and Kant: A Gadamerian Critique\",\"authors\":\"S. Palmquist\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15406253-12340038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nGadamer’s hermeneutics offers several strategies for critiquing Chung-ying Cheng’s synthesis of Confucianism and Kant. Interpreting Kant’s Groundwork, Cheng argues that the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties is too rigid: if the “life principle” is the ultimate root of Kant’s four types of duty, then human inclinations are good; Kant’s perfect duties turn out to be imperfect in some situations, while his imperfect duties such as benevolence (or ren, in Confucian philosophy) turn out sometimes to be perfect. Although Cheng’s synthesis does not satisfy the Groundwork’s universal aim, it does show how to apply Kant’s insights to empirical moral situations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45346,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15406253-12340038\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"JOURNAL OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15406253-12340038","RegionNum":3,"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

伽达默尔的解释学为批判郑中英的儒、康德思想提供了几种策略。程在解读康德的《基本原理》时认为,完全义务与不完全义务的区别过于僵化:如果“生命原则”是康德四种义务的终极根源,那么人的倾向是好的;康德的完美职责在某些情况下是不完美的,而他不完美的职责,如仁(或儒家哲学中的仁),有时是完美的。尽管程的综合不能满足《基础》的普遍目的,但它确实展示了如何将康德的见解应用于经验道德情境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Chung-ying Cheng’s Dialogue with Confucianism and Kant: A Gadamerian Critique
Gadamer’s hermeneutics offers several strategies for critiquing Chung-ying Cheng’s synthesis of Confucianism and Kant. Interpreting Kant’s Groundwork, Cheng argues that the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties is too rigid: if the “life principle” is the ultimate root of Kant’s four types of duty, then human inclinations are good; Kant’s perfect duties turn out to be imperfect in some situations, while his imperfect duties such as benevolence (or ren, in Confucian philosophy) turn out sometimes to be perfect. Although Cheng’s synthesis does not satisfy the Groundwork’s universal aim, it does show how to apply Kant’s insights to empirical moral situations.
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Since its foundation Journal of Chinese Philosophy has established itself at the forefront of contemporary scholarly understanding of Chinese philosophy, providing an outlet for the dissemination and interpretation of Chinese thought and values. The journal has three main aims: first, to make available careful English-language translations of important materials in the history of Chinese philosophy; second, to publish interpretations and expositions in Chinese philosophy; third, a commitment to publishing comparative studies within Chinese philosophy or in relation to schools of thought in the Western tradition.
×
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