requestId:684c3e2c3b3133.17309779.
Confucianism’s “family and country” thinking dilemma and modern future
——Adjustment of public and private morality with Mr. Chen, Teacher Chen
Author: Cai Xiangyuan
Source: Author Authorized Confucian Network Published
style=””>Abstract: Liang Qi super modern Chinese scholars have developed from the public and private morality, criticizing Confucian morality for the lack of private morality, and the latter is indispensable for the construction of the modern civilized society. By clarifying the relevant concepts, Chen Lai made a bias to this criticism and pointed out that the problem of moral construction since modern times is that he has excessive smiles and aroused language. He should be talking to his boyfriend. To emphasize private morality and suppress private morality, we need to achieve a balance between public and private morality through the development of private morality. Of course, private morality is the main one, but Chen Lin did not see that the distinction between public and private morality hits the internal dilemma of the Confucianism’s “family and nation” thinking structure, and it is not impossible to win the battle through the realization of private morality. In a modern civilized society, the first priority of Confucian moral construction is to divide the private domain and the public domain, and to clearly define the boundary between the family and the country. Only in this way can we protect the public domain and become the private domain while building it.
Keywords: Private morality; private morality; family nationwide; rules
In the article “The directions and disadvantages of private morality in modern China”[①], Mr. Chen examined Liang Qi’s super academics from the head by clarifying the basic connotation of public and private morality. Those who have a certain degree of public and private morality and have considered the construction of moral civilization in modern times. On this basis, it is pointed out that the biggest problem in modern times is “political private morality replaces personal morality, suppresses personal morality, abolishes personal morality, and correspondingly ignores social personal morality, destroys the balance between political private morality, social private morality and personal morality.” [②] In his opinion, the importance of reflecting on the moral career of contemporary morality and advocating social personal morality is the key to reflecting on the moral career of contemporary times. The article has detailed assessments of the important views of modern scholars and the relevant charter for the construction of modern social energy and civilization. 官网 not only clearly analyses the unscrupulous concepts in discussions by later generations, but also takes this as a point of view to the reality of modern social atmosphere, and provides his own constructive opinions from the perspective of a Confucian scholar. Just as Mr. Wang recommended him to the Baoqing.com The review of this article points out that this is a “very realistic theoretical problem”.
Although it advocates the cultivation of human nature and moral cultivation related to the rejuvenation of traditional civilization, it is also suitable for the moral construction request of the times. In my opinion, this thinking request does not completely hit the question of the distinction between public and private morality. The source and the actual relationship behind it. This section raises a grand challenge for the modern transformation of traditional Confucian ethical morality in both thinking and practice. Here, the author takes the thoughts of Master Chen and further evaluates this problem on his basis.
1. The thinking purpose of modern Chinese students to distinguish between public and private morality
Mr. Chen, this article is a head-on review of the distinction between public and private morality of modern Chinese scholars. They took the Eastern ethics and conducted critical reflection on Chinese traditional morality from the perspective of private morality and private morality. Let’s first examine their basic position, and then see if Mr. Chen, Chen, criticism can be correct. China problem.
Liang Qichao took the modern Eastern thinking as a landscape. By dividing private morality and private morality, he made a prominent judgment on China’s traditional morality, especially Confucian morality. In his opinion, private morality is the personal morality of individual self-cultivation, and private morality is a character that does not benefit the country and society. “Everyone who is good at his own body is the private morality, and everyone who is good at his own group is the private morality. ”[③] He pointed out from this that the traditional Chinese morality of China is developed as a whole, while the private morality is perfect and has defects [④]. However, Liang Qichao also noticed that the five elements in modern ethics in China and the standard morality between many people and people are not entirely related to the individual themselves. In this regard, he further analyzed and pointed out that the Confucian ethics relationship The moral character emphasizes the private to the private, not the private to the country and community. Moral cultivation also emphasizes the private morality of the individual, and does not pay much attention to the private moral cultivation, and the latter is very important for the organization and operation of modern countries. He regards the cultivation of private morality as the first priority of “new people”: “What is the private morality?” The reason why people are a group and the reason why countries are a country is that this virtue is established. ”[⑤]
Liu Master Pei also divided Confucian ethics into private morality and private morality. He divided Confucian ethics into two categories: one is the “self-study school” and the other is the “Jieli School” [⑥], which is basically in line with Liang Qichao’s private morality and privateness. href=”https://sites.google.com/view/sugarpapa”>Baobao price ptt morality. The difference between Liang Qishy is that Liu Pei’s criticism of Confucian traditional morality should be gentle. He did not absolutely deny that Confucian morality lacked private morality, but pointed out that Confucius, Zhang Xiu, Luo Nian’an and other Confucian eras all had the idea of seeking social welfare, and was not limited to personal self-cultivation. The decline of Confucian traditional social morality is particularly particularly important in modern times.The consequences of the fact that the scholars and officials surrendered to the Ming and Qing dynasties led to private affairs. “I tried to consider the words of the predecessors of China. Confucius said “want to establish” and “want to achieve”, Mo Zi said “love to make profit”, “see others to treat themselves”, Zeng Zi said “people are not friendly”, Han Confucians said “people are benevolent”, and Song Confucians said “communications are easy to approach and things”, who is not the essence of social ethics? Since the late age, Chinese people have not cultivated their private morality, and few people know about social ethics.” [⑦]
Ma Junwu also inherited the basic division of Liang Qichao about public and private morality. “What is private morality? It is the virtue of the family. What is private morality? It is the virtue of the society.” [⑧] However, his criticism of Confucian traditional morality is even more prominent. In his opinion, Chinese modern society not only lacks private morality, but even the so-called private morality is flawed. He believed that China’s traditional self-cultivation virtues are all “slave” virtues, and they are not strong in their hearts and are extremely vital. “Advisors speak of the development of Chinese morality. Although private morality is as good as private morality, it is also the six (王) that are described by the hundreds of Confucian scholars, as if private morality has been shattered. How can we hear! What China calls private morality, we have to grow into slaves who are generous and willing to wish, and we have to grow into a lack of national civil servants who are living and gaining.” [⑨]
Mr. Chen combined their statements and referenced the East<a The views of relevant scholars have made a more comprehensive review and clarification of the connotation of private morality and private morality, and have responded to the above-mentioned criticisms of traditional morality by enlightenment scholars. In terms of private morality, he divided social morality and political morality. Social private morality is the relevant standards and norms of public morality in meaning, and social coming and public life. What the political private morals see is "the state's political request for the people." As a result, he responded to the criticism of Confucian morality in modern times that the Mongolian scholars criticized the lack of private morality. In his opinion, in terms of social morality, China's modern society is not lacking. Otherwise, there would be no "land of gifts".