He started from a new perspective, borrowed traditional intellectual resources, and used Western logical methods to construct such a metaphysical system. In addition to responding to a challenge faced by traditional metaphysics, he also attempted to reinterpret the concepts of Chinese philosophy and rebuild its position in world philosophy. It is a historical and contemporary development, with historical development giving rise to the Cheng Zhu Neo Confucianism, and contemporary development responding to the challenges posed by Western philosophy.
In fact, from its inception until now, many people have put forward quite different opinions on Neo Confucianism. Here we introduce a few different opinions.
The first one is that Hong Qian believed that Feng Youlan's metaphysical proposition was a repeated narrative proposition. When reading that proposition, you will find that many things are self-evident and meaningless,
It looks verbose, the expression is not concise, and the meaning is not very clear, so there is indeed a problem of repeated narration. He said that there is no principled method of proof, so it is true under any conditions. You cannot prove it empirically, nor can you logically prove whether there is an error. He said that it is an unconditional truth, so it has become an empty system unrelated to reality.
So, at the most philosophical level, we need to establish a philosophy that is not influenced by science or any temporal or spatial conditions. Of course, this is a beautiful expectation, but this established philosophy forms an absolute truth. Absolute truth, unconditional truth under any conditions and circumstances, where does this absolute truth exist?
God, God's principles, and this logical self explanatory nature. This is the only way, because it is what we say, often as a prerequisite for our speech.
Mr. Feng Youlan himself also made some revisions in the preface of "San Song Tang". He said that the correct answer to the question of commonality and dissimilarity is that they are already present in the matter. The commonality of a certain type of thing in commonality and dissimilarity, and the existence or non existence of a certain type of thing are both present and present at the same time. He later reflected on the issue of commonalities and differences, and he himself criticized himself for placing too much emphasis on the opposition between reason and things.
Fourthly, we need to introduce the fundamental purpose of constructing a new system of Neo Confucianism.
What is the purpose of constructing the entire system from a theoretical perspective, rather than from a historical background?
He said that reason, as the essence of all things, is also the essence of morality. It is deduced through logical analysis and transcends any individual or phenomenon. If a person wants to grasp this essence, they must learn metaphysics, realize their own position and behavior in the universe, act according to reason, consciously integrate with the whole, and pursue the realm of heaven and earth.
This is what we introduced earlier. He hopes to derive a philosophy of life through systematic construction. What is this philosophy of life?
Placing people in the universe, placing them in the dynamic process of heavenly laws, placing them in a comparison between the whole and its parts, and then making them aware of the truth, and then making them consciously integrate with the whole, ultimately pursuing a state of heaven and earth.
We can already see inside why metaphysics is being discussed?
Just like what the Neo Confucians wanted to construct back then, I hope to find a complete theoretical system for it about the individual and the general, about the individual and the world, about the whole and the parts, and so on, in order to better explain the understanding of life.
In fact, the most important part of our class is actually returning to the fourth part, which may be more worth considering or learning from today besides the introduction content, which is the philosophical dilemma inherent in Neo Confucianism. We not only need to talk about the philosophical dilemma of the New Neo Confucianism, but also about the internal dilemma of the development of contemporary Chinese philosophy, and more importantly, how to break through this dilemma.
Firstly, we can respond to this dilemma through philosophical methodology.
The most philosophical philosophy advocated by Neo Confucianism holds that philosophy deals with the logical form of existence, and therefore strictly defines philosophy as an analysis in a logical sense. The process of philosophical contemplation has become a rigorous deductive process, and the conceptual system of metaphysics is a kind of implication of initial concepts. This analytical method turns philosophy into a method of logical analysis and absolute analysis, which puts Mr. Feng's entire system in a dilemma of absolute analysis.
Philosophy cannot simply deduce everything from the perspective of existence. This philosophical method requires logical analysis when writing papers. However, when you only focus on logical analysis, you will find that the final article you write is very hollow. From concept to concept, the entire discourse has not been implemented, becoming a deduction of concepts. Even if you play the entire concept very logically consistent and define the concept itself very clearly, it does not mean that your article is meaningful or that the chapter itself is valuable.
So this method of logic, of course, when we train you, we constantly emphasize the importance of logical analysis methods for you. This is a very important criterion for you to become a philosopher and have philosophical reasoning ability. However, you must not be satisfied with your logical analysis, nor should you just stay at logical analysis.
Although the method of logical analysis can give traditional metaphysics in China a universal logical unity, in fact, there has not been a philosophical constitution system expressed in Chinese since ancient times. Mr. Xiong Shili's proposition is that the ontology of Chinese philosophy cannot be regarded as a shared view, and if it is regarded as a shared view, it has already materialized and is not the manifestation of the ontology. When Xiong Shili was constructing his own system, he noticed a very good communication or connection between the phases and the ontology.
So we can see that regarding the whole as a commonality of things is emphasized by Mr. Feng. However, after later reflection, he has made the relationship between this ontology and commonality even more complex. Therefore, the concepts of reason, qi, Dao body, and Quanta proposed in the New Neo Confucianism have become empty formulas, with no theoretical content. It is difficult to say what Dao is, what reason is, and what qi is, which has lost its value and significance in Chinese philosophy.
In fact, in the Neo Confucianism of the Song and Ming dynasties, what was Zhu Xi's philosophy and what was the relationship between his philosophy and harmony?
In fact, the Neo Confucianism of the Song and Ming dynasties may have fallen short of being too metaphysical, but generally speaking, it is still lively and vivid. It is popular as a whole, and the relationship between body and use is the same as that between body and use.
The second is the dilemma between his starting point and his outcome.
The original intention of Neo Confucianism itself, which is dedicated to logical analysis, is to eliminate the dogmatism of traditional belief studies. However, in reality, through this strict deduction of ontology, it ultimately falls into the Platonic style dogmatism. Therefore, every thing has its complete appearance, whether it is the purification of nature or our social life. This natural appearance is the standard and basis for us to establish value judgments of things, and it is also the direction that our rationality should strive for.
So, initially he hoped to criticize traditional metaphysics through this method, but in the end, the path he took not only failed to break through the flaws of metaphysics itself, but also embarked on a larger misunderstanding, making the metaphysical nature of metaphysics more prominent. It widens the distance between philosophy and things.
The third one is the dilemma between abstract perception and spiritual realm.
He said that reason, as the essence of all things, is also the essence of morality. We have already read this sentence just now. We need to grasp what this essence is aware of, and how we should consciously pursue it. In the end, we need to pursue this immortal realm. In fact, it emphasizes a kind of self-awareness and a demand of human beings. Its metaphysics originally hoped to enter a realm, but in the end, it made this introduction unnatural, very rigid, and even contradictory.
The methods and life realm of Chinese philosophy are relatively abstract and require a high level of critical thinking. However, you can basically understand these concepts, the differences between them and traditional philosophical concepts, as well as the dilemma of this methodology or the inherent philosophical dilemma of this new Neo Confucianism. Combining the criticisms of several scholars, this article explores the future development direction of Chinese philosophy based on the inherent dilemma of the new Neo Confucianism.
Nowadays, in the research of Chinese philosophy, many of us still study the path established by Mr. Feng. Through logical reasoning, we establish a system or system that can be spoken of for all the ancient Chinese philosophers in the past. No matter what kind of system or system we follow, it may be a very rigid system such as cosmology, epistemology, philosophy of life, etc., or a slightly more natural one. However, at least you are establishing a system for him, analyzing its concepts, and extracting phenomena from different contexts. But is this really the Chinese philosophy we want to do?
Is there a genuine fit between the philosophical paper he produced and the purpose they were discussing at the time? If we don't do this in Chinese philosophy, are there any other ways we can do it? Many people say that we should abandon the form of writing essays in philosophy. Instead, we should use ancient Chinese annotations and commentaries to express our thoughts. We don't necessarily have to follow the path of Western philosophy and express our views in the form of essays and treatises. We don't need to establish a system, we just need to propose an idea or something, but you need to explore this issue.
