requestId:684c3e42091bf6.14298465.

The metaphysical foundation of Confucian public-private-virtue and family-domestic-uniform

——From the perspective of the conflict between China and the West rather than the changes between ancient and modern times

Author: Zhao Yan (speaker of the School of Philosophy of Ning)

Source: “Literature, History, Philosophy” 2021, Issue 1

Abstract: Behind the distinction between public-private-virtue morality, it is not the “change between ancient and modern times” that has become a foregone conclusion, but the “competence between China and the West” of the differences between modern Chinese and modern Eastern times. The conflict between China and the West is developed in the dual strength of rules (political order) and the ability (virtue) to implement rules. From this, the first thing is to be a disagreement about whether the enforcer of the rules should have the kindness of morality: the modern order of the Chinese tribute political and criminal order originates from the kindness of the nature of the law and the nature of the law. From the nature of the law, filial piety and brotherhood to cultivate oneself, one can implement the order of the tribute political and criminal order and govern the country, so that public and private virtues are one virtue, and family and country are one body; the modern Oriental The laws and regulations originate from the contract of acquired people under the same responsiveness and unrestrainedness. “Presentment is not restricted” and “moral neutrality” bring about separation of public and private affairs and division of family and country. The public department mainly focuses on protecting the rights of life and property, and has nothing to do with the good of morality. Private morality is not restricted, so it is not difficult to get into the crisis of desire and morality. On the other hand, the conflict between China and the West also presents the power between the existing nature of the rules and the change of the self-reliance of the rule: China has more emphasis on the learning of managers to achieve virtue and the flexible use of the system, but more self-reliance also gives favoritism and fraud to take advantage of it. The East modern times have further emphasized the complexity and checks and balances of the rules themselves, which limits favoritism and fraud, and also limits the power change (as well as related requests and training for managers themselves), and the blind spots of restrictions still exist in the ability to be impartial and pervert the law.

Keywords: the conflict between China and the West; the changes between ancient and modern times; virtue; morality; private morality; private morality;

Liang Qi Chao believed that China’s modern era grew up in private morality and lacked private morality. Chen Laiche taught that China’s modern era does not lack private morality. “It is just that modern private morality is mostly for scholars and officials.” The contemporary Chinese should “restore human virtues” and advocate “correcting people’s virtues and ruling people’s virtues”. This “is also suitable for public careers” and can “benefit, consolidate and rationalize groups from the purpose of differences” [1]. Cai Xiangyuan taught to raise doubts about this from the perspective of “forensic and fraud” of private morality, believing that “the distinction between public and private morality hits the internal dilemma of the Confucian ‘family and nation’ thinking structure. This dilemma is not impossible to simply solve it through private morality. In a modern civilized society, the first priority of building Confucian morality is to divide the private domain and the public domain, and clarify the boundary between the family and the country” [2]. The teaching of the scheming of the scheming of the same qualities from the perspective of “change of ancient and modern times”, and believed that behind the discussion of private morality and private morality is not the “conflict between China and the West” but the “change of ancient and modern times”. The sorting of the history of thought and political history taught by Chen Lai is only a “static and partial solution”, and does not consider the “change of ancient and modern times” under the “modern social change landscape”; thus, “public and private moralitySexual diversion” is not a problem that can be argued from a scientific point of view, but a “no rebellion” and “historical process”, “national public rights must be constructed based on the social contract and the local contract. …This is exactly the starting point of John Locke’s statement on the establishment of the agency. … Any attempt to focus on public and private ethics directly as one, and to try to cultivate private morality to develop the effects of private morality is an ancient and virtual one that does not reflect the changes of ancient and modern times and rebells against modern regulations” [3].

The social change cannot be recognized, but what is the “determination” of the “historical process”? It is the benevolent who sees benevolence. The wise see wisdom. Even if the “widespread situation of human beings” [4] is actually like this, it may not be a change, nor may it be reasonable. As Wu Zengding taught: “The moral neutrality of the country as unrestricted and… the principle of separation between the public and the private are not the absolute truth or universal value that is open to all the world, but a last resort for the Oriental Christian world when facing internal dilemma. ”【5】

The world is even more difficult than changing history. The discussion on thinking history and political history taught by Chen Lin is not “separating it in books”【6】, but directly points to the metaphysical source and foundation of the “behind” the public and private distinction. What is touched here is not the dispute between the static part and the dynamic whole, but the contradiction between the difficulty of the metaphysical source and the change of the presentation of its history. Neglecting any aspect will be an error. The historical process can be made from the silence of the world and from the seal The foundation of the founding county is never easy in the process of time change. Is there any way of heaven? Is there any god? Scientific technology is progressing, can humanity also progress? Can the real political system be unaffected by this? Behind the distinction between public and private, “the agitated sentiment between Chinese and Western conflicts” [7] may not be targeted.

This article attempts to further a step to clarify the metaphysical foundation of modern Chinese public and private, Germany and the family, and under the framework of the conflict between Chinese and Western countries, Compared with the differences between the respective political systems of modern China and modern Oriental. The modern Chinese eulogy politics and punishment have the advantages of maintaining morality and overcoming power changes, and at the same time there are also the disadvantages of being easily “forensic and fraud”. The complexity and checks and balances of modern Oriental laws have restricted “forensic and fraud”, while the departments have also restricted the changes in human self-reliance, and it is not difficult to break into the crisis of unrestrainedness and morality. Which of the two is better is not a conclusion. The concepts such as unrestrained, equal, and civilian are only in the unrestrained modern Oriental. The application of meaning is different from the socialist focus of Chinese characteristics in the new era. The national situation of contemporary China is different from the modern Chinese, and even more from the modern Eastern era. However, it is undoubtedly helpful to distinguish the logic of China’s modern politics and its differences from the modern era in the East. Discussion on our better advancement to the construction of contemporary moral character in China.

1. Modern Chinese: the prestige of political rules and the morality of public and private / the same family and country

If “private” refers toThe personal behavioral domain that does not affect others, as Michael Slott said, is “‘self-regarding virtue’ and’other regarding virtue’” [8]. If “public” refers to the public domain of a social state, “the ‘towards’ do not all belong to private morality” [9], Chen Lai teaches that the virtues related to others but not public are called “other morality” and “between private morality and public morality, there is also other morality, forming a -private -other public sequence.” In addition, we will further refer to “private morality” and “other person’s morality” in “personal basic morality (morality)” [10], which is also called “universal private morality”. “Personal basic morality is not necessarily a moral private morality, that is, a morality that is only related to itself…universal private morality is personal basic morality other than private morality” [11]. The most important thing here is the virtue of personal self-cultivation [12]. “Private virtue should not be just about one’s own virtue, but should be the virtue of correcting others and the virtue of bad others” [13]. The discussion in this artic