An overview of Dai's ethics, highlighting some overlooked or misunderstood theses on moral deliberation and motivation.

It is commonly assumed that historical materialism was first developed by Karl Marx, whose philosophy is often equated with this idea. The following paper challenges this opinion by showing that historical materialism, understood as a general position within the philosophy of history, can be traced back to two generally unheralded Chinese thinkers: Liu Zongyuan (773–819) and Li Gou (1009–1059). Historical materialism is here understood as a standpoint built on three tenets: (1) a belief in the dependence of culture on the (...) material fundaments of social life; (2) the interpretation of human history through the prism of structural transformations; and (3) understanding political and economic relationships in terms of antagonism between social groups. After elaborating upon the presence of these tenets in the thought of Liu and Li, the paper analyzes the influence of their ideas and, finally, points out the main differences between the premodern and modern forms of historical materialism. (shrink)

This essay attempts a philosophical reflection of the Confucian ideal of “scholar-official” in Joseon Korea’s neo-Confucian context. It explores why this noble ideal of a Confucian public being had to suffer many moral-political problems in reality. It argues first that because the institution of Confucian scholar-official was actually a modus-operandi compromise between Confucianism and Legalism, the Confucian scholar-officials were torn between their ethical commitment to Confucianism and their political commitment to the state; and second, that because the Cheng-Zhu neo-Confucianism vigorously (...) imported and indigenized by Joseon Koreans exalted the family over the state, Joseon neo-Confucian scholar-officials were torn between two competing moral obligations, filiality and loyalty. The essay concludes by discussing whether, given the problems with which the ideal of the Confucian scholar-official was frequently entangled, liberal individualism should be pursued as its normative alternative. (shrink)

: This essay examines the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate and its shifting interpretations—those of Zhu Xi (1130–1200) and Wang Tingxiang (1474–1544) in particular—and by doing so explores the significance of ‘‘cosmogony’’ in the Confucian tradition and its significance for the change of political philosophy from the Song dynasty through the Ming. First, through a close reading of Zhu Xi’s commentaries on the Diagram, it is argued that they should be interpreted primarily as a statement of political philosophy rather than (...) a mere textual study of Zhou Dunyi’s metaphysics. Wang Tingxiang’s reworking of the Diagram is examined in order to explore the transformation of its worldview through the shifted focus from li to qi. Then, by connecting the fundamental structures of the two cosmogonies to other aspects of their systems of thought, the moral and political implications that develop from the cosmogonies are unraveled. This examination of shifting interpretations of the Diagram will shed light on the cosmogonies as crucial expressions of political philosophy in the Confucian tradition without losing sight of their historical contexts. (shrink)

Zhu Xi’s 朱熹 interpretations systematized the Five Classics; moreover, he elevated the “Four Books” to such a supra-canonical status that these texts along with his commentaries became the core curriculum for civil service examinations from the early 13th century to the 20th century. Inquiring into what was the essential and unique Song 宋 character of Classical scholarship, we will highlight the canonical Ritual Classics because these texts were crucial for centuries, especially during the Han 漢 through Tang 唐 dynasties. We (...) show how Zhu updated ritual practices by focusing on the Yili 儀禮 as the crucial Classic for guidelines on etiquette, and also rebalanced the relation between rituals and moral “principles.” We will explore how Zhu’s systematization of moral principles and ritual did not fully resolve tensions from his major 11th-century philosophical predecessors regarding principles and ritual, as well as the Four Books and the Five Classics. Even if Dai Zhen’s 戴震 criticism of Zhu was somewhat misplaced or overstated, tensions within Zhu’s views provide us a basis for understanding Dai’s attacks and ambivalence among Qing 清 and 20th-century scholars toward Zhu Xi’s philosophy. (shrink)