【方旭東】當朱子碰到傳教士——從利瑪竇一包養網站的改編看朱子的“理有偏全”說

requestId:684c3e3cedfdf3.23735270.

When Zhu Zi meets a priest

——From the adaptation of Lima’s “reason is comprehensive” statement

Author: Fang Xudong (Teachered by Huadong Master Fan Philosophy Department)

Source: Author Author Author Authorized Confucian Network, Original “Jiangnan Major Research. Humanities and Social Science Edition” Issue 5, 2020

Abstract:The Chinese priest Lima from the late Ming Dynasty, based on his own “reason<a When evaluating the philosophical meaning of the chapter "Life of Life" in "Mencius", Zhu Zi's "reason is partial and comprehensive" was adapted into the "normality of nature" in "Mencius". Although Zhu Zi's views on the same problems of character during the period of differences changed, from the beginning to the end, there was a partial difference between people and material things, and this was not changed since then. Zhu Xi's "reason is partial" statement that he always understands the differences between people and things in terms of many rather than structure, which is related to his unwillingness to give up the promise of "all things are the original (source)".

Keywords: Lima; Zhu Zi; nature; reason; partiality

In the years of the Ming Dynasty, the great god-speaking Jesus Christ, Lima (MatteoRicci, 1552-1610, named Xitai, also named Qingtai and Xijiang) to teach. Lima has extensively contacted Chinese scholars and actively learned the “Four Books and Five Books” to spread Christian meaning, and wrote “God’s Reality” and other books. In the Chinese era, the one who arranged the heads of Chinese scholars was Zhu Xi or Yang Ming Consciousness. Standing at the stance of theology of God’s religion, Limath criticized Zhu and Wang’s studies. This article importantly assesses Rima’s understanding of Zhu Zi’s character homogeneity.

Sweetheart Baobab Nursing Network 

VII.426.Reason is to rely on the goods and cannot be used as humanity. In ancient times, there was no good deeds in the human way, who has doubtsIs there anyone who is not good? Mencius said: “Humanity is different from the nature of dogs and cattle.” The interpreter said: “Man has the right nature, and birds have the right nature.” The reason is neither two nor biased, and this is the ancients, so the nature is different from the truth. [1]182-183

Lima quoted Mencius without recording the original text, but rather summed up his meaning. Mei Zuli’s notes provide readers with the original text of the chapter “The Nature of Life”. Mei’s notes say:

See “Mencius: Gaozi”: Gaozi said: “The nature of life is called “. Mencius said, “The nature of life is white, the nature of the white, the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the human being?”[1]182

The chapter “The nature of life is white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, and the nature of the white, was one of the difficult chapters recognized by the Mencius in “Mencius”. Mencius’ last sentence, “However, the nature of a dog is the nature of a cow, the nature of a cow is the nature of a human being?” According to Zhaoqi’s understanding, what Mencius wanted to say is: the nature of a dog is different from the nature of a cow, and the nature of a cow is also different from the nature of a human being. 2 In other words, humanity and the nature of dogs and cattle are different. The true genius of technology, integrity, president x fake, and beautiful male singer 3

Gaozi did not respond to Mencius’s last sentence. He generally believed that this was the expression of Gaozi’s rational verbs, because Mencius made him realize that his view of “the nature of life” was absurd. The reason why Mencius was able to make Gaozi realize that the view of “life’s nature” he proposed at the beginning was wrong because even when talking to Gaozi, the differences between humanity and the sexual differences between dogs and cattle were self-evident. Mencius’s essence lies in the fact that he introduced the conclusion that “humanity is similar to that of dogs and cows” from Gaozi’s fate: the nature of dogs and cows is the nature of human beings, and cows are the nature of human beings.

This statement is not so clear to Mencius. It is emphasized by Zhu Zi. The content is as follows: If it is said that “the nature of life” and dogs and cows are reborn as well as humans (knowledge movement), then the nature of dogs, cows and humans should be the same (no difference). Zhu Zi’s original words were:

“However, the nature of a dog is the nature of a cow; the nature of a cow is the nature of a man?” Mencius also said: If this is the case, both dogs and cows and people have knowledge and can move, and their nature is completely different. At that time, Gaozi knew that what he said was wrong but could not be correct. [2]

Mencius’s own proof of evidence is very controversial. It was completed in two steps, the first step linking “the nature of life” with “the whiteness of whiteness”. The second step also connects “the white feather is the white of white snow; the white snow is the white of white jade” with “the nature of dogs, the nature of cows; the nature of cows, the nature of human beings”. In fact, as many commentators doubt, these two steps have jumps or slips in logic. 5 Lima combined Mencius’s views into “humanity and dog-boat sexual differences”, which is a simple treatment that misses the key components of Mencius’s proof. Because, “humanityThe sexual differences between dogs and cattle are not recognized by Gaozi, and it is not a unique way of Mencius. If it is said that although Rima Tsai’s remarks of Mencius did not capture the key points, it did not completely refute Mencius’ original intention, then the statements viewed by Rima Tsai’s interpretation of the Fema Tsai’s interpretation was adapted according to his own needs, and it was far from the original intention. Mei Zu did not understand that Rima Tsai had adapted. After the search was fruitless, he reported in the note: “The original text is unknown. ”[1]182 notes 6 However, when I was surprised, Mei Zi guessed that the interpreter of Lima’s words should have something to do with Zhu Zi. Therefore, he copied Zhu Zi’s related statements later.