requestId:684aed7d9da337.85242054.
What does “sex” mean? ——The Starting Point of Mencius’ Humanitarian Discussion
Author: Li Wei (Speaker of the Department of Philosophy in Zhongshan)
Source: “Modern Philosophy” 2016 Issue 5
Time: Confucius was in the 2568th year of Dingyou Xuanyue on Wushen
Jesus November 17, 2017
Abstract: The restriction on the term “sex” is the first question that Mencius considered when constructing the theory of human principles. From its argument, four limitations can be found, namely, what is called “humanity” refers to the desire of human beings to be self-developed, ② inherent, ③ independent and ④ to be independent. The purpose of putting forward restrictions ①②③ is to compare sensory psychological desires, strengthening the true nature of the moral desires of the heart, so as to refer to the sum of the physical desires of the human body; to introduce restrictions ④, to eliminate sensory desires as non-self-reliance desires beyond the meaning of “nature”, and to use self-reliable moral desires (mind and nature) as humane realities. But in general, there are four restrictions on one of them. It was through them that Mencius had implemented the pursuit of “goodness” and moved towards the discovery of “heart”.
Keywords:Sex, Humane Discourse, Mencius
Humanity Discourse was the main component of late Confucianism, and “Sex” was the focus of humane Discourse. But asking what “sex” means is not to explore humanitarianism, but to the basis for its ability. Because for any theory, to say something, you must first determine the meaning of the focus theory, otherwise the disagreement of the theory can only refer to different things in similar terms. And here we discuss what “nature” refers to Mencius. This is not only because “Mencius’s Tao is good in nature” (Mencius Teng Wengong) has a serious idea of Confucian humanitarian theory, but also because the previous discussions on his nature are both sufficient and profound, the term “nature” has not been fully explored [1]. This may be because people pay more attention to the “goodness” of “nature goodness”, and when “goodness” is conquered to “heart”, “heart” becomes a more eye-catching word than “sex” (see below). However, if Mencius’s basic thinking in constructing human theory was to talk about “heart” from “nature” to “heart”, then if one does not determine what “nature” refers to, one cannot truly understand his discovery of “heart”. Of course, this is not simply a problem of adopting a certain research perspective, because Mencius’s humanitarian structure must start with the meaning of limiting “sex” and himselfThere is a self-willed desire, otherwise there will be no discussion on the expression of “sex” again [2]. Therefore, from what “nature” refers to, it is actually following Mencius and seeing how he sets up his own humanistic theory step by step.
As soon as she was in the book, Ye Qiu-jin rarely appeared after this, and was a slight, “sexual” expression that made her have no choice but to choose A. Referring to the word
“Sex” as a public language must become a disagreement due to differences in the word. For example, in “Mencius: Gaozi 1”, Gongduzi reported to Mencius the humanistic theory of conduct at that time, that is, what Gaozi said, “nature is good and evil” and “nature can be good and bad” and “nature is good and bad” and “nature is good and bad” are different from what Gaozi calls “nature” to refer to. Among the first two views, “sex” seems to refer to the potential that can be shaped by a person, but Gaozi believes that it is complete and neutral, and the other says that there is a distinction between good and evil; in the last view, “sex” refers to the good and evil state that people have already shown. Therefore, the difference in “sex” refers to is mainly because these theories produce the origin of inconsistency. It is worth noting that when Gongduzi asked Mencius whether these suggestions could be “non-almost”, he did not directly ask the reason for good nature, but asked the reason for good nature. This has reminded that the first thing to consider is the expression of “nature”. Similarly, Mencius did not clearly explain the three humanistic arguments “all are not”, but said “it is as if its feelings… are good”, which is just a discussion of “speaking” or expressing questions. Therefore, no matter how to interpret the “emotion”, it should be first described as the emotion of “what is said to be good”, which is what “now is called good nature” means.
Mencius must have realized this confession that the meaning of “sex” is a condition for discussing humanitarian issues. However, his analysis of the intention of “nature” refers to was particularly clear in his discussion with Gaozi:
Gaozi said: “The nature of the vegetarian willow is the meaning of vegetarian willow, and the meaning of vegetarian willow is the meaning of vegetarian willow. Taking humanity as benevolence, and the vegetarian willow is the meaning of vegetarian willow.” Mencius said: “Can you repel the nature of vegetarian willow and think it is the meaning of vegetarian willow? Will you kill the vegetarian willow and then take it as the meaning of vegetarian willow? If you kill the vegetarian willow and think it is the meaning of vegetarian willow, you will also kill people as benevolence and? Lead the whole countryThose who support affection and benevolence must have the words of their son! “(same as above)
Here, Mencius’ criticism of Gaozi fell on the words of his son, and was still talking about the expression of “nature”. The “nature” mentioned by Gaozi refers to the neutral potential that can be shaped by people or things, so it is called “Qi Liu”For example. “Goodness” or “benevolence” is the result of shaping, so “cup” is used as an example. But Mencius clearly advocated that the “nature of the willow willow” could only obtain willow trees, but he could not get a cup. To get a cup, it will harm the willow trees. Therefore, although the so-called “nature of willows” is a kind of potential, it is definitely not neutral, but rather a development trend that makes the willows become the willows (rather than becoming a wax). The key is that this direction cannot be understood as a function of a certain use. This reminds people of what Mencius said, “The nature of the nation is so entangled, so profit is the basis” (Mencius: Leave the Mother II), which seems to refer to people’s function – this kind of application-worthy thing – as the reason for disregarding the “nature” of things. This explanation is mainly related to the Mohist school, because they first emphasized the meaning of “so” as utilitarian reasons. For example, Sweetheart Baobaby Baobaobao NetworkBuild a house to avoid the cold and heat, distinguish between men and women, and to build a house to build a house is not considered a reason (see “Mozi·Gong Meng Chapter”). Therefore, Mencius’ criticism of “all the words of sexuality” is to say that the Mohist school is precisely accusing them of not distinguishing the “sexuality” from the functional function of things. Back to Meng Gao’s statement, he should say that Gao Zi’s “nature is like a squid and willow; it means that he is like a squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid and squid
In this way, we can see the first limitation that Mencius refers to “sex”, that is, “sex” as the potential of things is not a function that is suitable for a certain use, but a self-developing direction for things to become themselves and to form themselves. Therefore, he could not accept Gaozi’s expression of “taking humanity as benevolence” (the “taking X as Y” here contains the meaning of application and production), and he could not accept Gaozi’s relationship between “benevolence” and “qi Liu” com