{"title":"郑中英与儒家、康德的对话:一种加达主义批判","authors":"S. Palmquist","doi":"10.1163/15406253-12340038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nGadamer’s hermeneutics offers several strategies for critiquing Chung-ying Cheng’s synthesis of Confucianism and Kant. Interpreting Kant’s Groundwork, Cheng argues that the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties is too rigid: if the “life principle” is the ultimate root of Kant’s four types of duty, then human inclinations are good; Kant’s perfect duties turn out to be imperfect in some situations, while his imperfect duties such as benevolence (or ren, in Confucian philosophy) turn out sometimes to be perfect. Although Cheng’s synthesis does not satisfy the Groundwork’s universal aim, it does show how to apply Kant’s insights to empirical moral situations.","PeriodicalId":45346,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chung-ying Cheng’s Dialogue with Confucianism and Kant: A Gadamerian Critique\",\"authors\":\"S. Palmquist\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15406253-12340038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nGadamer’s hermeneutics offers several strategies for critiquing Chung-ying Cheng’s synthesis of Confucianism and Kant. Interpreting Kant’s Groundwork, Cheng argues that the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties is too rigid: if the “life principle” is the ultimate root of Kant’s four types of duty, then human inclinations are good; Kant’s perfect duties turn out to be imperfect in some situations, while his imperfect duties such as benevolence (or ren, in Confucian philosophy) turn out sometimes to be perfect. Although Cheng’s synthesis does not satisfy the Groundwork’s universal aim, it does show how to apply Kant’s insights to empirical moral situations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45346,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15406253-12340038\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15406253-12340038","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Chung-ying Cheng’s Dialogue with Confucianism and Kant: A Gadamerian Critique
Gadamer’s hermeneutics offers several strategies for critiquing Chung-ying Cheng’s synthesis of Confucianism and Kant. Interpreting Kant’s Groundwork, Cheng argues that the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties is too rigid: if the “life principle” is the ultimate root of Kant’s four types of duty, then human inclinations are good; Kant’s perfect duties turn out to be imperfect in some situations, while his imperfect duties such as benevolence (or ren, in Confucian philosophy) turn out sometimes to be perfect. Although Cheng’s synthesis does not satisfy the Groundwork’s universal aim, it does show how to apply Kant’s insights to empirical moral situations.
期刊介绍:
Since its foundation Journal of Chinese Philosophy has established itself at the forefront of contemporary scholarly understanding of Chinese philosophy, providing an outlet for the dissemination and interpretation of Chinese thought and values. The journal has three main aims: first, to make available careful English-language translations of important materials in the history of Chinese philosophy; second, to publish interpretations and expositions in Chinese philosophy; third, a commitment to publishing comparative studies within Chinese philosophy or in relation to schools of thought in the Western tradition.