First of all, I didn't expect two things: First, I didn't expect Mr. Huang Yushun to be a "time spirit-historical determinist". Anyway, your "trend of the times", "that era" and "we are today" can't help but make people think so; Of course, I should have thought of it: aren't you a Husserl phenomenologist? If such scholars do not pay attention to yesterday's era, today's history or today's era and tomorrow's history, how can they explain all kinds of phenomena? Second, I didn't expect Mr. Huang to be so fond of "postmodernism" and so complete and thorough! In fact, I should have thought of this: how can we talk about reconstruction without a more complete and thorough deconstruction? Although you seem to oppose postmodernism, just as we unconsciously turned ourselves into metaphysics when criticizing metaphysics in the past, it goes without saying that you don't seem to criticize postmodernism (and only criticize its absolute relativism), and at the same time unconsciously turned yourself into postmodernism? However, we think that construction can be achieved through deconstruction, just as we used to think that unbreakable, unbreakable and broken characters stand in it. Finally, as Li Zehou said, "only destruction has no construction"! People can't have any illusions about this. In fact, this is just pot calling the kettle black.
From the Confucian thought of "etiquette 300, dignity 3000", it is finally sorted out and summed up as "shame and fear", which is recognized as "we have lost two most important feelings today" and even thinks that "awe is an ultimate need of mankind" I don't agree with this-because awe is not the most important thing, or at least it seems that it can't be said to be "an ultimate need of human beings" (this sentence seems to be grammatically unreasonable: since it is "ultimate", why talk about "one kind"? Can there be many kinds of "ultimate"? As far as I know, awe is a prerequisite for people to learn from great works written by great minds; In other words, you not only know shame and awe, but you have reached the extreme and will never be able to overcome it. "But why do we lose our sense of awe?" For this question, Mr. Huang should probably ask himself first: Is awe, not awe, really lost? Just as happiness and happiness are not the same as happiness and happiness, awe and awe are probably not the same thing: if the former is sex, then the latter may just mean love. We say that it is probably ok to lose feelings, awe or awe; But the question is, can we also say that we have lost sex and humanity? This statement is too big)? Then again, how can we talk about "rebuilding tradition" or even "rebuilding the first entity" if we don't presuppose losses? Reconstruction is absolute! " ? At this point, the sense of shame (rather than shame, that is, shame on the NPC, shameless shame) and awe (rather than awe itself) once again become the first entity and absolute! From reading Mr. Huang's other articles, we can see that between "love and thinking" (this is the name of Mr. Huang's masterpiece), Mr. Huang obviously sees the former, that is, "love" But the question is, I have repeatedly pointed out that between love and thinking, which is more important or even the most important? Emotions and sorrows, love evil desires, seven can learn; Or add a sense of shame and awe, in fact, it is just the innate secular desire of people; However, don't you smell that "the ceremony is abolished and the feelings are followed, and the merits are at the end"? However, when people become people and what kind of people they become, they always get tired of feelings and don't serve things; But the question is, what is love in the world? Call people to death? Compared with Confucius and Mencius, Xunzi is obviously affectionate. However, if the sky is sentimental, it will be easy to get old, and the human path will be vicissitudes-in fact, this sentence is a replica of the following sentence: the load in the sky is silent and odorless; Of course, let alone love. Therefore, "heaven has feelings" means that heaven is ruthless, and it has nothing to do with people's secular desires, feelings and dogs. Destiny is nature, frankness is Tao, and cultivation is teaching; Sex is pretentious, life falls from the sky, Tao begins with love, and love comes from sex. Teacher Huang seems to like visual illustration (phenomenology), so I'll draw you the relationship between the concepts contained in these two sentences:
Heaven → Life → Sex → Love → Tao.
↓ ↓
(Thinking) (Love)
In Mr. Ma Yifu's view, those who work hard must be original in thought, which is completely consistent with classical Confucianism. The official of the heart thinks, thinks, gains, and does not think; On the other hand, if you are absent-minded, you must turn a blind eye, listen without hearing, and even eat without knowing its taste. Zhi Zhi made a decision, then he could be quiet, then he could be quiet, then he could be safe, then he could think, and then he could get it (the sage got it, the outsider got it, and the insider got it). In his speech, Mr. Huang repeatedly emphasized the importance of knowing (thinking is knowing and getting it; And vice versa) but this is obviously unheard of! Don't you know that you are diligent and idle, and you are thinking (which can also be understood as knowing, because the ancients have the same sound, similar sound and similar meaning). And think about it before you get it! If you don't think, don't know, just do, how can you ensure that you are not blind? More importantly, thinking is called Rui, and Rui is sacred. As for Mr. Huang's understanding, I'm afraid it only stays at the level that Yan Yuan can't do. Therefore, Confucius, who teaches students in accordance with their aptitude, advised him to listen to see no evil's words and deeds (however, these four things only concern the eyes, ears, mouth and body), and did not further tell him the deeper problem of "thinking" (the official thinking of the heart is concerned about things); Even so, Yan Yuan has become "the best in the world, the strongest in the world, with foresight, backwardness and the temptation of a master." Bo me with a text, ask me with a gift, can't stop; I have exhausted my talents. If I have done something, I have failed. "Confucius has been stunned and confused. Perhaps because of this, Naishi did not give him further instructions about thinking, only said "move" (do), and never said anything more. This is the so-called "don't be angry, don't be angry, don't be angry, don't give up, replace three corners with one corner, you can't do it!" However, Mr. Huang saw the level of "doing", which is certainly gratifying compared with Yan's son; However, this view is obviously not enough: because there is a kind of thought or knowledge on action or action or combination of actions, we should know that it is difficult to know and easy to do. Of course, you can say that you are the first person to know (think) about it or even before it; But I think, obviously, you have fundamentally reversed the relationship between material and knowledge, and confused the internal order of the eight Confucian items, namely, material, knowledge, sincerity, integrity, self-cultivation, keeping the family in order, governing the country and leveling the world; Know that it is in the case of things. If you don't know something, how do you know it? In fact, Wang Yangming's "unity of knowledge and action" only knows what is before and what is after, and does not say that knowledge and action are one. It is easy to know the difficulties, and the difficulties of the Tao are also here; Otherwise, Confucius probably wouldn't have said, "Listen to Taoism, and you'll die late!" "! Moreover, in his view, "I know what the Tao can't do: the knower goes over it, but the fool doesn't;" "The Tao is unknown, I know it: the sages have passed it, and the unscrupulous are not as good as it." Even he said with despair and emotion that "Tao cannot be a husband"! What I want to say here is that Mr. Huang, you may have made a fundamental mistake and reversed the facts. From Tian Zi to Shu Ren, one is based on self-cultivation. It was a mess, but it was not cured in the end! Thick is thin, thin is thick, and there is nothing. This is called knowing it, this is called knowing it! Besides, in Zhuangzi's view, it is enough to get (Germany) after thinking, and the book "University" comes to an abrupt end. And look at Zhuangzi's following complete words:
Only those who achieve their goals know that common sense is one, and they will not use it, but tolerate all kinds of mediocrity. If you are mediocre, you can use it; Use also, pass also; If you pass, you will get it; A few is appropriate, because it is already, and I don't know what it means. Trying to understand one without knowing one is called "Trident Street". What is "Tide III"? The spy gave him a gift and said, "Go three times and die four times." All the snipers are angry. He said, "However, it is always hot and cold." All the snipers said. It is also because the name is not worthy of the name and it is used angrily. So it is called the "two lines" between saints and right and wrong.
Yes, it's just a question of suitability (morality). In fact, this is the way it is, whether it is knowing or doing, it is just fitness; If you don't know what's going on, just call it "Dao"-I'm afraid Zhuangzi is at home, so I don't need to elaborate.
"We can only lose what we once had"; In other words, what we don't have won't be lost. You can say that, yes, but the problem is, not owning it, not being owned by someone, someone or someone in a certain era doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist or is "lost", right? Since there is no loss, it is still there, just do it after use. Give up and hide. What about "reconstruction"? And how can this "reconstruction" not be "repeated construction"? Useless waste? The two "traditions" in "We should rebuild the tradition instead of simply returning to the tradition" are obviously not the same concept, but what is revealed here is that we have not lost or will not lose it, but even if we have not lost it, then we are not going to "return" but to "rebuild"! So why on earth is this? Why "I don't advocate the so-called' return to tradition'"? In the speaker's view, it is because of "no": "Tradition can't' return' in at least two senses: in the phenomenological sense, if there is tradition there, we should return to it, then it is just a transcendence that should be suspended, so such a return should not be; In the sense of hermeneutics, it is actually impossible to return to tradition completely according to its true colors. First of all, it should not be, and second of all, it is impossible. It must be rebuilt, but we can't see its sufficient and necessary reason: phenomenology should not, because times have changed, and there is no longer a phenomenon called "tradition" for us to return. Therefore, this should not actually be impossible. Hermeneutics tells us that it is impossible, because history cannot be seen again and completely restored, so it is natural that tradition cannot be completely restored. Why not hang them up or hang them up and make them a transcendental thing? "Go along the direction of postmodern deconstruction" and even carry postmodernism to the end! Tradition must be rebuilt and it must be important! Then "how to rebuild the tradition? Contemporary people have the characteristics of the times of contemporary people "-the subtext of this sentence is just to say: the world has changed. "In those days, many dissenting Confucian Hanwu was a little less literary talent, and Tang Zongsong Zu was a little less coquettish. A generation of arrogant people only knew how to bow and shoot big eagles. In the past, I was a romantic figure. Look at the present. " "Contemporary people have the characteristics of the times of contemporary people", so contemporary people should also have their own Confucius accordingly, and hang up the past or past Confucius. Fortunately, they didn't say they would knock him down and set foot on 10 thousand feet, so that he would never turn over!
Conscience is understood as a moral heart, which is wrong. Really? Really? However, we want to ask, what are "Tao" and "virtue" in this "moral mind"? Now that you have taken pains to explain what benevolence, courtesy and wisdom are, and think that "the further development of benevolence is' righteousness'", and so on, as for wisdom, then you can know that if you follow Laozi's division, there is morality above benevolence and courtesy, that is, "it is necessary to lose morality, lose morality before benevolence, lose benevolence before righteousness, and be rude before courtesy." Courtesy, loyalty and chaos. "Otherwise, I'm afraid it's hard to say clearly. And how to "hang (living) reality as transcendence"?
"Specific ethical norms are variable, and Confucianism has its own higher principle, that is, the principle of righteousness, which is constant and difficult to change. Of course, righteousness is not the highest principle, but the foundation of benevolence. This expression is obviously contrary to the speaker's "caution": "Specific ethical norms are changeable"? What are this "changeable" and "specific ethical norms"? As "the higher principle of Confucianism itself" and "righteousness", this is unchangeable and difficult? If so, how to be "at a loss, without Mo Ye", "Right, wrong", "Stop being an official, it will take a long time, and it will be soon" or even "impossible", "Right, keep" Of course, righteousness is not the highest principle, but the cornerstone of benevolence is "obviously necessary." Benevolence is also a place for people to live; Righteousness is the right way to be human. It is sad to live in a safe house and live in it, but not because of the right way! "Since' benevolence and righteousness are the right path of human beings', it is impossible to' remain unchanged'; People (benevolent, human) can't hang from a tree until it gets dark, can they? In addition, "righteousness is also appropriate" and "appropriate, things are also"; In this case, how can we say that "righteousness is unchangeable"? If so, what else can we do (a bit like "two whatevers")? I have never heard of "the relationship between benevolence and propriety is the relationship between one and many, and the relationship between transcendence and experience." "Benevolence as ontology is transcendental, and it does not enter time and space. Entering time and space is a ritual.
I'm afraid this is also the speaker's carelessness rather than caution. The essence of Fang Lin's politeness. Confucius said, "What a big problem! Rites are more extravagant than luxury and quite frugal; Sadness is not as good as sorrow. " In that case, how can the ceremony be compared with "more"? It seems understandable to say that courtesy is experience, but if benevolence and righteousness are transcendental, I am afraid it is difficult to establish: benevolent people, people also; In short, Tao is also. Righteousness, appropriateness; Appropriate, things are also. No matter who and what is concrete, how can it be said to be transcendental? Why is phenomenology not working? It's really a square chisel, and the tenon and rivet are not connected. Where are they? Doesn't matter! It seems that it is all caused by comparative philosophy!
"As the four ends of the internal intention structure of Confucian psychology, it is a seemingly' circular' structure: conscience (knowing) discovers conscience (benevolence or heart or thinking), conscience exerts its goodness (courage), and goodness can mobilize conscience." "Cycle" is an important concept of Mencius and Sima Qian. But it seems inappropriate to play this role here: in my opinion, conscience, as shown in the brackets above, is probably equivalent to the knowledge (wisdom) of three dads, and conscience is equivalent to benevolence, heart or thought, and courage is probably the best ability; In other words, Wang Yangming is not inventing, but expressing the opinions of primitive Confucianism with his own concepts. "According to my conscience, it matters, it matters!" This sentence is just a question of knowing things and knowing things. "From Metaphysics to Metaphysics" or by courage, knowledge, benevolence and learning? As mentioned earlier, Wang Yangming's "unity of knowing and doing" lies in knowing difficulties and doing things easily, but the speaker thinks that "usually according to our daily experience, it seems that the prophet should act after acting, but this is wrong"? But he thinks that the example of this move is obviously not enough to solve this problem.
Finally, let's talk about the "Wang Men Four-sentence Teaching Method": "There is no good or evil (beyond the other side of good and evil), there are good and malicious actions, knowing good and evil is a conscience, and eliminating evil for good is a governor (to put it bluntly or a governor). These four sentences can be summarized into four words, namely, benevolence, righteousness, courtesy and wisdom. " Here, what we want to ask is, whether to know things or to know things and then know things? In this regard, Mr. Ma Yifu has long said that "seeking truth from facts is knowing". However, since it is "knowledge", why is it (line)? In short, in my opinion, if sex and love, thinking and love, knowledge and action are fundamentally reversed, then I am afraid that anything unimaginable may happen.