{"id":568,"date":"2022-01-02T20:56:16","date_gmt":"2022-01-02T10:56:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/?p=568"},"modified":"2022-01-02T22:41:52","modified_gmt":"2022-01-02T12:41:52","slug":"feng-youlans-revisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/2022\/01\/02\/feng-youlans-revisions\/","title":{"rendered":"Feng Youlan’s Revisions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Feng\u2019s own philosophical positions were presented in a series of works beginning with the\u00a0Xin<\/em>\u00a0Lixue<\/em>\u00a0(The<\/em>\u00a0New Study of Principles<\/em>) which proposed a reform of the\u00a0Lixue<\/em>\u00a0branch of Neoconfucianism associated with the names of the Song dynasty scholars Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi. (It is for that reason also called the Cheng-Zhu School.) His reform involved the analysis of certain terms important in both Neoconfucianism and Taoism according to the methods and standards of Western philosophy. He claimed, in fact, that each of these terms named an idea that was the logical consequence of the statement that \u2018something exists.\u2019 Having derived these concepts in a rationally acceptable way he could then reconstruct the core philosophy with regard to these new understandings. We shall look at the reconstruction of just two of these terms.<\/span><\/p>\n

Li<\/em><\/strong>. <\/span><\/p>\n

You might recall that\u00a0li<\/em>\u00a0was proposed by Cheng Yi as the cause of\u00a0qi<\/em>\u00a0condensing into a flower in one case and leaves in another.\u00a0Qi<\/em>\u00a0condenses into a flower \u2018because\u2019 it is \u2018informed\u2019 by the\u00a0li<\/em>\u00a0of a flower. Zhu Xi added that the\u00a0li<\/em>\u00a0of a flower also gives the definition, standard, or norm of that flower \u2013 how the flower ought to be \u2013 rather in the way that a mould can be taken as defining the shape of the object cast. A difficulty with all this, however, is that proposing\u00a0li<\/em>\u00a0as an\u00a0ad hoc<\/em>\u00a0solution to the problem of a causal gap tells you nothing about the nature of that\u00a0li<\/em>\u00a0or whether it does exist, and arguments derived from Hume \u2013 with which Feng would have been familiar \u2013 show that we could not derive the claimed normative role from its supposed positive causal nature.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Feng\u2019s view,\u00a0li<\/em>\u00a0are the ideal reality that we implicitly hypothesize or the abstractions that we implicitly create when we accept that general terms name things that exist in the real world. Because we accept that there are flowers, there must be the class of things called \u2018flowers;\u2019 there must be a characterization of that class; there must be an ideal of \u2018flowers.\u2019 In this case\u00a0li<\/em>\u00a0is a purely formal concept and has no necessary content. The discovery of its content \u2013 if in fact there is any\u2013 is a task for empirical research. \u201cIt is the business of science to find out the content of the individual\u00a0Li<\/em>, using the scientific and pragmatic method.\u201d[1]<\/a>\u00a0The cause of the condensation of\u00a0qi<\/em>\u00a0into that particular instantiation of the\u00a0li<\/em>\u00a0is equally a matter for science. Such research then takes the place of Zhu Xi\u2019s\u00a0gewu\u00a0<\/em>or \u2018investigation of things, an important praxis of that school, whose purpose was rather to use deep contemplation on the assumed content of the\u00a0li<\/em>\u00a0of some experienced thing to reach a sudden enlightenment concerning the content of all\u00a0li<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Qi<\/em><\/strong>. <\/span><\/p>\n

The\u00a0daoxue<\/em>\u00a0generally accepted the view of Zhang Zai according to whom\u00a0qi<\/em>, originally just meaning \u2018breath\u2019 and signifying one of several kinds of influence,\u00a0<\/em>was taken to be the material force \u2013 the motive towards materiality of the universe \u2013 which produces the two subsidiary principles or tendencies of\u00a0yin<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0yang<\/em>\u00a0which, in their turn, influence\u00a0qi<\/em>. Under the influence of\u00a0yang<\/em>\u00a0qi<\/em>\u00a0has the property of Movement and constitutes Actuality: it condenses to form the things in the world. Under the influence of\u00a0yin<\/em>\u00a0it has the property of Quiescence and constitutes Potentiality: when it dissipates things in the world go out of existence. There are many difficulties with this view too: For example, how are\u00a0yin<\/em>,\u00a0yang<\/em>, and\u00a0qi<\/em>\u00a0causally related, is the circularity involved vicious, and what is the character of this\u00a0qi<\/em>\u00a0beyond its mere relationship with\u00a0yin<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0yang<\/em>?<\/span><\/p>\n

According to Feng,\u00a0qi<\/em>\u00a0is no more than the logical consequence of the claim that a principle can be actualiised in matter. If that is the case, he argues, then there must be a potential for materialization and a material force to bring this about. Understood in this way \u2013 if this way\u00a0can\u00a0<\/em>be understood \u2013\u00a0qi<\/em>\u00a0is no more contentful as a concept than\u00a0li<\/em>\u00a0and remains an empty form waiting for empirical investigation to complete it. In particular, it implies nothing at all about whatever relationships may exist amongst itself and\u00a0yin<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0yang<\/em>\u00a0which are, as with the case of\u00a0li<\/em>, relationships to be explored empirically.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Feng\u2019s own philosophical positions were presented in a series of works beginning with the\u00a0Xin\u00a0Lixue\u00a0(The\u00a0New Study of Principles) which proposed a reform of the\u00a0Lixue\u00a0branch of Neoconfucianism associated with the names of the Song dynasty scholars Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi. (It is for that reason also called the Cheng-Zhu School.) His reform involved the analysis of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-568","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/568","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=568"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/568\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":572,"href":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/568\/revisions\/572"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=568"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=568"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=568"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}