Product Code Database
Mou Zongsan (; 12 June 1909 – 12 April 1995) was a Chinese philosopher and translator. He was born in Shandong province and graduated from Peking University. In 1949 he moved to Taiwan, and later Hong Kong, remaining outside of mainland China for the rest of his life. His thought was heavily influenced by Immanuel Kant, whose three Critiques he translated from English, possibly first,• Chan, Wing-Cheuk. "Mou Zongsan's Transformation Of Kant'S Philosophy." Journal of Chinese Philosophy 33.1 (2006): 125-39. Print. into Chinese, and above all by Tiantai Buddhist philosophy.
Over the last 40 years of his life, Mou wrote histories of "Neo-Daoist," Confucianism, and Buddhist philosophy (totaling six volumes) a group of constructive philosophic treatises, culminating in his 1985 work, On the Summum Bonum (), in which he attempts to rectify the problems in Kant's system through a Confucian-based philosophy reworked with a set of concepts appropriated from Tiantai Buddhism.
In the People's Republic of China, Mou is especially famous for his cultural traditionalism and his defense of democracy as a traditional Chinese value.
Substance of Mind and Substance of Human Nature 心體與性體 (1968–1969). This is probably the most studied of Mou's books, and by far the most famous in the West. It is a three volume history of Confucianism in the Song (960-1279) and Ming (1368-1644) dynasties, often called "Neo-Confucianism" in the West. It challenges usual two-part division of Neo-Confucian thought into a "school of principle" ( lixue 理學), the Cheng-Zhu school represented by Cheng Yi, Cheng Hao, and Zhu Xi, and a "school of mind" ( 心學) or represented by Lu Xiangshan and Wang Yangming. Mou identifies a third lineage, whose main figures are Hu Hong (Hu Wufeng) and Liu Zongzhou (Liu Jishan), which best conveys the basic message of the classical sage Mencius. Mou's later book From Lu Xiangshan to Liu Jishan (從陸象山到劉蕺山) (1979) is treated as the fourth volume of this book.
Buddha-Nature and Prajna 佛性與般若 (1977). This is Mou's main examination of Buddhist philosophy, written in two volumes. It upends usual Chinese recognition of Huayan school as most well-developed form of Buddhism and puts the Tiantai school in first place. Mou credits Tiantai with having the best concepts for understanding the authoritative Hong-Liu line of Confucianism.
Phenomenon and Thing-in-Itself 現象與物自身 (1975). This develops Mou's famous doctrine of "two-level ontology," patterned off of Kantian and Buddhist metaphysics.
Treatise on Summum Bonum (圓善論) (1985). This is Mou's last major work. Mou did not intend it as his final book, but scholars generally treat it as the definitive summary of his thinking. It attempts to use Tiantai ontological concepts as inspiration to find Confucian solution to Kant's problem of the highest good or summum bonum. It includes a chapter with Mou's commentary on Mencius and a more complete evaluation of the place of Daoist and Buddhist philosophy for the modern Confucian.
Mou's philosophy develops as a critique and transformation of Kant's critical philosophy.• Schmidt, Stephan. "Mou Zongsan, Hegel, and Kant: The Quest for Confucian Modernity." Philosophy East and West 61.2 (2011): 260-302. Philosopher's Index ProQuest. Web. Mou believes in the compatibility of Chinese thought and Kantian philosophy because both are backed by the Way, where the Way is essentially truth and different philosophies manifest different aspects it.• Jiadong, Zheng. "The Issue of the "Legitimacy" of Chinese Philosophy." Contemporary Chinese Thought 37.1 (2005): 11-23. Print. Mou's analysis of Kant centers on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. One of Mou's major criticisms of Kant involves Kant's regard for free will as theoretical. Herein lies one of Mou's fundamental beliefs, that morality and the moral life are, contrary to what Kant posits, really real. This presumption stems from Mou's belief in the metaphysical necessity of the capability of improving one's moral praxis, and thus Mou develops a moral metaphysics within the tenet of subjectivism. While Kant believes that intellectual intuition is only possible for God, Mou ascribes human beings equal capability of this intuition, which Mou finds superior to Heidegger’s fundamental ontology. Mou rejects Heidegger because according to Kant, true metaphysics is transcendent. Mou further departs from Kant’s philosophy, eventually transforming it into what is commonly referred to as New Confucianism or Mind Confucianism.
Mou Zongsan agrees to a certain extent with Heidegger’s interpretation of Kant. Mou introduces a two-layer structure of understanding of the transcendental determination of the Kantian categories: a “logical” layer of understanding and an “ontological” layer of understanding. Mou believes the Kantian thesis that “objectivity is subjectivity” is not an “ontical proposition” but rather an “ontological proposition”. He agrees with Heidegger's analysis of Transcendental Schematism, which indicates that the meaning of objectification presupposes a subjective horizon that enables the object to appear. Mou names the ontology of the phenomenal world as “attached ontology” ( zhi de cunyoulun).• Billioud, Sébastien. "Mou Zongsan's Problem with the Heideggerian Interpretation of Kant." Journal of Chinese Philosophy Vol. 33 (2006): 225-247. Mou rejects Kant's declaration that human beings are incapable of producing any intuitive knowledge of thing-in-itself. He embraces Heidegger's affirmation of the “subjective” character of the Kantian transcendental distinction, which he learns from Kantbuch:
The distinction between the concept of thing in itself and that of appearance is not objective but merely subjective.The thing in itself is not another but another aspect (respectus) of the representation with regard to the same object.• Heidegger, Martin. "Kant and Metaphysics." p.37.
Heidegger’s descriptions could let us think of a disclosure of a “true mind” (zhen xin) for instance when he speaks about “call of consciousness”(Ruf, liangxin de huhuan), feeling of guilt ( jiuze zhi gan), dread (Sorge, jiaolü), determined being (Entschlossenheit, jueduan) or nothingness (Nichtigkeit, xuwu). Nevertheless, all these descriptions are still “floating” and he has not been able to pave the way for a “true mind.”• Mou, Zongsan. "Intellectual Intuition and Chinese Philosophy (Zhi de Zhijue yu Zhongguo Zhexue)." Taipei(2000): 362.
According to Mou, Heidegger's descriptions are “floating” because Heidegger's thought does not recognize any transcendental reality ( chaoyue de shiti) but focus on the immanent metaphysics ( neizai xingershangxue) to develop his fundamental ontology. “True metaphysics” is “transcendent.”• Mou, Zongsan. "Intellectual Intuition and Chinese Philosophy (Zhi de Zhijue yu Zhongguo Zhexue)." Taipei(2000): 32. In the eyes of Mou Zongsan, since the immanent metaphysics merely focuses on the problem of the meaning of phenomenal beings, it fails to deal with Kant's transcendental concepts of freedom, immortality, and God. Mou also thinks Heidegger's philosophy is too heroic and romantic and thereby fails to maintain an inherent calmness to approach to “true mind.”• Chen, Yingnian. "Mou Zongsan and Heidegger." Confucian Study (2013): 88-111. Besides, Mou disagrees with Heidegger's “value-free,” and in particular, “morally-neutral” approach. The lack of moral awareness indicates that Heidegger's fundamental ontology does not reach the realm of moral metaphysics, but merely offers an empty and inauthentic answer to the subject.
In short, Mou considers Heidegger only as a “commentator” or “usurper” of Kant.• Ni, Liangkang. "Mou Zongsan and Phenomenology." Philosophy Study, Issue 10 (2002): 42-48+80. According to Mou, the reason why Heidegger's fundamental ontology fails to reach the realm of moral metaphysics is that Heidegger sticks to the Kantian thesis of the finitude of human being and fails to recognize the intellectual intuition ( zhi de zhijue) of human beings.• Mou, Zongsan. "Phenomenon and Thing-in-Itself (Xianxiang yu Wuzishen)." Taipei(1975): 3. Mou claims that although the study of Kant's philosophy helps him understand the relation between phenomenal world and metaphysical ontology, it is his teacher Xiong Shili who makes him realize the fundamental union of the two via the intellectual intuition. The idea of intellectual intuition is widely manifested in Confucianism, Neo-Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism, especially in the thought of Wang Yangming, who assimilates moral learning with the course of action such as archery and calligraphy. According to Mou, intellectual intuition is not the central concept of a highly complex speculative system, but a form of knowledge acquired through our deeds (including emotions and intentions).
Mou's “misplacement” of Heidegger's transcendental metaphysics may arise from his misconception of Heidegger's Time ( Zeit, shijian). Heidegger's concept of Time is different from the time as a priori knowledge for Kant, which is actually the temporality ( Zeitlichkeit, shijian xing) of Dasein (the experience of being that is peculiar to human beings). Heidegger's Time serves not only as the fundamental character for Being, but also as the fundamental unveiledness of Being. Mou confuses Heidegger's Time ( Zeit, shijian) with temporality ( Zeitlichkeit, shijian xing) and thereby fails to see the transcendental nature in neither Time nor Being. The different understanding of the concept Time further causes Mou's disagreement with Heidegger's discussions of finitude of human beings. In fact, Heidegger's discussions of finitude are based on his interpretation of the temporality of Dasein. It is not the rejection of the transcendental ontology. Mou fails to recognize that Heidegger's Time represents the transcendental metaphysics that overcome the normal sense of time in phenomenal world. This failure limits Mou's understanding of Heidegger's philosophy only as the immanent metaphysics that stick to the attached (phenomenal) ontology.
Subsequently, Mou uses 良知 ( liangzhi, or good consciousness) and 智的直觉 ( zhi de zhijue, or intellectual intuition) to identify the substance in his system. Again, Mou chooses to translate his philosophy in Kantian terminology. Here, liangzhi refers to the foundation or essence of morality. Within Confucianism liangzhi also means the essence of human beings, explaining why Mou writes that, “the substance of human being is one and the same as that of the world, the world of value, but not the world of reality.” For Mou, this substance is independent of social background. This idea reflects the human nature proposed by Mencius through the example of the apparent, innate reaction of an individual to seeing a child sitting precariously on a well (The Four Beginnings). Here, Mou departs from traditional Confucianism by defining the essence of an individual in terms of modern individualism. Thus with regards to Mencius’ example, it is the very life of the child that evokes a reaction, and not the individual's relation to the child. Mou notes that the basic implications of this example – an individual's inherent benevolence – are consistent with the autonomy of a moral subject. This autonomy, the motivating force for morality according to Mou, exists within the transcendental and philosophical mind of the individual.
In accord with his notions of intellectual intuition, Mou is committed to the idea of moral transformation, whereby all individuals can transcend themselves to ultimately become sages. Mou borrows this conception of moral transformation from Confucianism, as well as the concept of summum bonum, in which there exists a connection between one's worthiness of happiness and the actual attainment of happiness.
Some traditional Confucians reject Mou, citing his wholesale acceptance of Western liberty and democracy as problematic. Despite Mou's attempt at Confucian Modernity, critics claim that New Confucianism cannot handle modernity's interconnectedness and its inevitable negative consequences. Others argue that because Mou is not political, he should not even be considered a Confucian because much of Confucian doctrine advocates for the active pursuit of change. However, the limitations of speech in China during the time period when Mou philosophized may address this criticism.
|
|
