requestId:68499ac060e998.48724766.
Pre-subjective commentary: Solution to the subjective commentary ——A classical essay form of “Eastern Asian Confucianism”
Author: Huang Yulu
Source: “Philosophy Research” 2019 Issue 1
Time: Confucius was in the 2570s and was in the mid-spring of Jihai on the 23rd day of Yichou
In this form, whether it is the original creator and his classics, or the verbian and his commentary, they are all “master-guest” relationships. This form of subjective verbalism must face the “understanding dilemma”, which leads to the concealment of the root cause, because it cannot answer the questions of “why can the existence be able to be” and “why can the subjective nature be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to truly understand the innate nature of the creator himself and his classics, the verb himself and his verb. It is worth noting that the concept of “speaking the junction” is already close to the concept of root. The root of all beings is existence or career. Therefore, a form of “pre-subjective verbalization” can be proposed, that is, treating the verbalization activity as the existence of the pre-subjective and the existence of the pre-existent. It is precisely this activity that brings new subjects and objects, namely the verbator and the verb. This form is based on the Confucianism’s root concept of life and life, and thus truly answers the questions of the original creator and his classics, critics and his critics.
【Keywords】 East Asian Confucianism; classical remarks; verbal form; subjective remarks; pre-subjective remarks
This article is a review of the classical remarks of “Eastern Asian Confucianism”. It aims to propose a new form of remarks through the negotiation of the article “Three Theoretical Questions in the History of Confucian Classic Remarks” [2] (hereinafter referred to as “Huangwen”) taught by Huang Junjie [1].
1. The classical form of “Eastern Confucianism”: subjective commentary
Huang Wen put forward the “three theoretical questions”. These problems have a structure that takes a slander form.
(I) The original creator and his classics, critics and his comments: The “subject and guest” structure
The first question raised by Huang Wen is “all the right of the original creator to think about”: “For the later generations, can the original creator of thinking have all rights and correct ‘final review’ for his own thinking?”
Huang Wenming answered correctly: “The remarks of this questionIt can be denied. “Its basis is: “Any concept of thinking or destiny, once the original creator… proposes it, it will be obtained from short-term maintenance, which seems to have an independent life”; “In the dialogue between classics and readers, readers will come from classics. href=”https://twlovecandy520.org/”>Brain the Internet Experience to develop new problems and propose new explanations”. This is analyzed from the independence of two aspects—classical and its thinking aspects and the readers, that is, the speakers—and Huang Wen calls it “self-reliance”:
1. Independent and independent nature of classical thinking Question
Huang Wen believed that: “Once the concept of thinking is raised, one will gain independence”; for example, “When Confucius proposed the “low-cost and sweet-hearted rebirth and benevolence”, this task was abandoned from the founder and became an independent existence in the world, and became a task that future generations can imitate, deduce, argue or doubt.” This seems to be reasonable: Confucius’ words became an objective task, That is, the creative results of the subject become an object of object.
The philosophical conception described by Huang Wen is actually a basic thinking structure caused by Descartes’ “recognition theory turn” or “subjectivity turn”: the “master-guest” structure. There is not only the subject-object relationship between the “interpreter as the subject and the classic text as the object” mentioned by Huang Wen, but also first exists As the subject-object relationship between the classical creator of the subject and the classical creator of the object and its thinking subject. But this “master-guest” structure is exactly what the frontier of thinking wants to solve since the 20th century. This “deconstruction” is intended to ask why the existence such as the subject and the object can be “restored” to the existence of the preexisting being (Sein/Being), and then Baobao.com “reconstruct” the existence.
For classical commentary, what we need to ask is: As the original and critic of the subject, why can his subjective nature be self-abundant? As the classical and criticized result of the object, why can his objective nature be self-abundant? For example, for Confucius’s mission in the classic “Speech” “Rebirth and Sweet Rebirth as Benevolence” , Zhu Xi’s commentary on this in “Collected Notes on the Confucianism”, why is Confucius’ subjective? Why is Zhu Xi’s subjective? Why is Zhu Xi’s objectivity in “The Confucianism” and its subjective theme “Low and sweetness to reciprocate and benevolence”? Why is Zhu Xi’s objectivity in commentary? These are all deep-seated questions that Huang Wen could not touch.
2. Questions about the independent and independent nature of the verb
Huang Wen put forward two points: First, “Explanation is creation; the second is that “the interpreter is more important than the text.” Of course, it is not unreasonable, because the interpreter is a different original creator, and his explanation is a different independent text. But here, where is the original creator and his classic position? Huang Wen quotes Gadamer’s statement: “All things are interpreted in the future, and it is correct to be used as such an explanation. In this meaning, it is “understanding”. ”[3] But this just doesn’t seem to support the yellow text, because what Gadamer emphasized here is: Understanding is actually understanding the classics of the original creator, and the explanation is actually an explanation of the classics of the original creator, and the reappearance of the classics of the original creator, the original creator and his The main problem is that this is still the thinking method of the “master-guest” structure, that is, the subjective form of the argument, but the original “original-classic” structure has now become the “interpreter-explanatory” structure. Why can the subjective nature of the interpreter be self-abundant? Why can the objectivity, justification and truth of the interpretation be self-abundant? These are all deep-seated problems that Huang Wen cannot touch.
(II) The unrestrainedness of the interpreter: The second problem raised by Huang Wen is “thinking the ‘integrity conversion’ in communication and the problem of unrestrainedness of the interpreter”. The so-called “integrity conversion” is indicated by Huang Wen as “contextual Turn”[4], the author believes that the translation is “textual conversion” or “textual conversion” or may be easier for Han language readers to understand.
Regarding “textual conversion”, the following will be discussed in detail. Regarding the problem of unrestrainedness of the interpreter, Huang Wen proposed: “At what level, under what meaning, the interpreter is not restricted? “Huang Wen’s answer is: “The unrestrainedness of the explanation is still unlimited, because their explanation is subject to at most two reasons: (1) The immersion of the atmosphere of the times… (2) The seal of the original text can…”
Such an answer includes Reminders containing the reasons for the two contracts, especially the proposal of the subject’s language constraints, responded to the question raised by the writer at a certain level: Why can subjectivity be sufficient? But Huang Wen concluded this question as the question “understanding the unrestrainedness of the person”, which is worth discussing. Huang Wen “unrestrained” The “unrestricted” mentioned in degree” is certainly not the “unrestricted” concept of political philosophy, nor is it the metaphysical absolute concept of subjectivity; but no matter what, it is always a metaphysical concept of relative subjectivity. [5] This still faces the problem of “why can subjectivity be sufficient”, that is, this solution Why can the person himself be able to do it?
Huang Wen talked about the question of “The decision under the ‘the authority of explanation’”: The person who criticizes the authority of classics in history. When the authority of these interpretations conflicts with each other,
發佈留言