Haven't found the Essay You Want?
GET YOUR CUSTOM ESSAY SAMPLE
For Only $12.90/page

Review Asian 104 Essay

I. Review questions for short-answer questions 1. Briefly characterize the following terms: a. Hexagram-The I Ching book consists of 64 hexagrams. [2] [3] A hexagram is a figure composed of six stacked horizontal lines ( ? yao), where each line is either Yang (an unbroken, or solid line), or Yin (broken, an open line with a gap in the center). The hexagram lines are traditionally counted from the bottom up, so the lowest line is considered line one while the top line is line six. Hexagrams are formed by combining the original eight trigrams in different combinations.

Each hexagram is accompanied with a description, often cryptic, akin to parables. Each line in every hexagram is also given a similar description. b. yin-yang-In its broad sense, the term ‘yin-yang’ means the unity of two mutually-opposed but correlative and complementary forces existing within anything in the universe: the yang is considered to be the positive, active, and (manifestly) strong force, while the yin the negative, passive, yielding force. In a narrow sense, it means two complementary fluid-force elements within qi whose mix determines the existence of all things in the universe.

The yin and yang are inter-dependent, inter-penetrating, inter-transformational, and harmoniously balanced; these features are represented by the dot at the heart of each half of the flowing circle in the yin-yang diagram: ?. In some conventional accounts, the yang is depicted in terms of the sun, light male, summer, dry, dominant, upper, active, etc. , while the yin in terms of the moon, dark, female, winter, moist, receptive, submissive, lower, passive, etc. c. yin-yang metaphysical vision-The yin-yang metaphysical vision concerning the relation between changing/becoming and unchanging/being, as delivered in the Yi-Jing (I Ching) text

takes neither priority of changing/becoming over unchanging/being nor priority of unchanging/being over changing/becoming, but regards changing/becoming and unchanging/being as complementary yin-yang opposites in an organic unity. The yin-yang metaphysical vision has a strong methodological implication and suggests the yin-yang way of thinking or, in more theoretical terms, the yin-yang model of interaction and transformation, which reflects the collective wisdom of ancient Chinese people on how to understand the fundamental way of the world and how to look at happenings around us.

It has profoundly influenced the orientation of mentality, and methodological strategies, of subsequent Chinese thinkers in various schools or movements. According to the yin-yang way of thinking, anything in the universe intrinsically contains two mutually opposed but correlative and complementary forces, yin and yang.

The constitution and interaction between yin and yang is considered to have the following characteristics: (1) universal: yin and yang co-exist within everything in the universe; (2) fundamental: their interaction within is the ultimate source or pushing force for everything’s becoming-process (forming, developing, altering, and changing); (3) complementary: they are interdependent, mutually supportive, and supplementary; (4) holistic: they are united into one thing within rather than separate without;

(5) dynamic: they are not in a static state but in changing process and transform into each other; and (6) harmonious equilibrium: they seek balance through cooperation and in accord. d. jun-zi (in the Analects) Behind Confucius’ pursuit of the ideal moral character lies the unspoken presupposition that the ultimate concern a person should have and also the primary worthwhile thing a person should do is to strive to become a jun-zi/ ??morally superior person–gentlemen with the ideal moral character.

One’s morality or moral cultivation has to be pursued for its own sake and for its intrinsic value, with complete indifference to one’s secular success or failure and to one’s rewards after death or in this life; it is more important than one’s biological life. (Cf. , 4. 8; 14:38; 18:7) e. ren (in the Analects)- The concept of ren occupies the central position in Confucius’ philosophy. ‘Ren’ has been rendered into English in various ways such as: benevolence, man to manness, perfect virtue, human heartedness, and, as in our textbook, humanity.

It has been regarded as the defining virtue of a junzi/gentlemen and the ultimate commitment in Confucius’ thought.

However, Confucius never intends to offer a formal definition of ren; instead, he gives only various answers to questions about ren in different circumstances for students with different temperaments and with varying degrees of understanding. f. yi (in the Analects)- Yi is another important virtue through which ren is cultivated. Confucius stresses yi as necessary for developing ren. Unlike li as external rituals and rules of propriety, yi is internal virtue, a moral disposition to do what is right and an ability to recognize what is right; yi functions like a kind of moral sense or intuition regarding action.

Like Kant’s conception of good will and duty, what is according to yi unconditional and absolute; some actions must be performed only because they are right, and not because of what they produce. On the other hand, unlike Kant, yi is not something that has nothing to do with inclination, disposition or intuition. As far as the relation between yi and li is concerned, cultivating yi is carried out through observing li. “The superior person regards righteousness (yi) as the substance of everything.

He/she practices it according to the principle of propriety (li). He/she brings it forth in modesty. And he/she carries it to its conclusion in faithfulness” (15. 17). One way of cultivating ren is through caltivating yi by means of practicing adequate li. g. li (in the Analects)- Although ren is the most fundamental virtue, the basis of humanity, and the ultimate guide to human action, Confucius recognizes that more concrete, particular and immediate guides to action are needed in everyday life.

Those concrete guides Confucius found in the rules of propriety (li) which cover various socially established rules governing social, moral, and religious practices (ranging from rituals, customary codes, ceremony regulations to moral rules). Confucius thinks that practicing li is one important or even indispensable way to cultivate and realize the potential of humanity. (i)

The virtue potential needs to be revealed, strengthened, and cultivated through human actual actions which per se need those ready-made, socially established concrete guides to regulate. [The need for action-implementation guidance] (ii) Li has its social and public character and emphasizes the openness of the participants to each other;

this kind of open, shared participation in life with other persons would evokes and fosters the development of ren. [The need for social-participation cultivation. ] h. shu (in the Analects)- Zi-gong asked, “Is there one single saying which one can put into practice through one’s whole life? ” Confucius replied, “Perhaps it is the saying of shu: ‘Never do to others what one would not desire [others or oneself] to do to oneself’. ” First, one part of Confucius’ conception of shu lies in its methodological formulation “do to others what one would not desire [others or oneself] to do to oneself”.

Note that these words in the bracket parentheses are not Confucius’ own but be added there by me – I mean Confucius’ saying there is open to (should be given if we look at the whole context of them in the Analects) two interpretations; that is: i. zhong (in the Analects)- Zhong: One’s sincere and devoted commitment to those culturally and historically established social-constitutions like the li (rites and rules). Zhong is the external starting-point for self-examination of one’s own desires and one’s treatment of others by virtue of those external ritual rules in concrete situations. Zhong is eventually

regulated by the internal starting-point dimension (the substantial aspect of shu) but is a way to practice ren. j. the principles of reversibility and extensibility (of Confucius’s version of the Golden Rule) The Principle of Reversibility: (Do not) Do unto others what you would (not) desire others to do unto yourself. The Principle of Extensibility: (Do not) Do unto others what you would (not) desire yourself to do unto yourself. k. four fundamental virtues, ren, yi, li, and zhi in Mencius’s doctrine The four “beginnings”—Ren*, yi, li, and zhi. Not “original goodness” but potentials inclined to the good (Mencius 6a1). Note: for Mencius “potential” must mean something already on the way to actualization.

The actual Chinese character is the one for “sprout” not “seed. ” •Ren ? as an ethical attribute is a disposition in heart-and-mind; it emphasizes an affective concern for others, both not wanting to harm others (7B:31) and not being able to bear the suffering of others(7B:31). Ren is taken as that in which one resides (4A:10). •Yi ? as an moral attribute emphasizes a strictness with oneself, a commitment to abide by certain ethical standards that involves both not acquiring things by im proper means and not accepting others’ improper treatment of oneself.

Yi as a quality of actions (propriety) consists in those ethical standards; it refers to what is fitting or proper to do, and it is often related to a path (4A:10) or way (dao) (2A:2). •Li ? as the rite is identified with various socially established rules of conducts. Li as an ethical attribute involves a general disposition to follow li as rites and a mastery of the details of li, enabling one to follow li with ease. •Zhi ? as an ethical attribute means an ability to tell what is proper in accordance with circumstances. l.

Mo Zi’s three tests of arguments- Mo, Zi (MoTzu) ?? (given name ‘Di’ ? : 470- 391 BCE) was the founder of Mohism (Mo-Jia ?? ). His teachings are presented in the Mo-Z ???. His work is the first one that is presented in argumentative form in classical Chinese philosophy and develops serious criticisms of classical Confucianism. (1)Mo Zi’s Three Tests for Any Doctrine Mo Zi (Mo Tzu) was concerned with bian(arguing out alternatives by distinguish) and the standards by which to distinguish shi-fei (right and wrong alternatives) [cf. , Course Package, Part I, 3. 1, p. 222].

He put forward his account of Three Tests for Any Doctrine or his ‘three-standard’ methodological strategy (san-biao- fa ??? ): (a) Ancient Authority Test: It must have its basis (to examine whether it would have agreement with the practice of the sage kings above); (b) Direct Experience Test: There must be evidence for it (to examine it by inquiries into the actual experience of the ordinary people below); (c) Utilitatian Test: It must have practical application (to examine whether it coincides with the benefit of the ordinary people of the state) m. (Mo Zi’s) utilitarianism Utilitarianism:

Maximize goodness (utility) of consequences of our actions for all people affected. • For the Mohists:, the Utilitarian Test provides a principle by which to judge all traditional morality and outweigh any ancient authority. [Cf. , CP, Part I, 3. 1, p. 214. ] • Both Confucius and Mo Zi talked about ren(humanity) and yi(righteousness). However, to Confucius, yi is regulated by ren; a main difference between Jun-zi (the superior person) and Xiao-ren(the inferior person) is this: the former is after yi while the latter after li 4 (benefits/profits). In contrast, to Mo Zi, renand yi are eventually to be understood in terms of beneficial results. n.

(Yang Zhu’s) ethical egoism Ethical egoism: One ought always to maximize one’s own personal good as an end. Egotism: Being selfish with no regard to others’ well beings and interests. 2. What are major focuses and characteristic features of philosophical inquiry? In what sense is philosophy considered as the most radical discipline? In what sense is philosophy considered as the most conservative discipline? • Philosophical Inquiry:

A certain kind of reflective activity which has its major focuses and characteristic features to be mentioned. • Philosophical Thoughts: Results of philosophical inquiry which are often systematic and theoretical in character. (2)

Major focuses of Philosophical Inquiry <1> Inquiry into the most fundamental and general issues concerning the human being and the world part of which the human being is (ultimate concerns), such as “What is the meaning of human life? ” “What is the fundamental value of human conduct and character? ” “What is being? ” “How can we truly know anything? ” With this focus, a philosopher is like an ultimate/global-concern pursuer who is concerned with the most fundamental issues about the human being and world, which no other disciplines are supposed to handle.

<2> Inquiry into those presupposed basic conceptions or underlying assumptions in various fields of study, including philosophy itself. With this focus, a philosopher is like a pushing-forward gadfly who pushes forward a (local) filed of study through challenging, and constantly re-examining, those unjustified presuppositions and practices of this field of study. ) <3> Inquiry into all those intellectual problems or original foundational work with which other disciplines cannot cope. With this focus, a philosopher is like an intellectual stepmother who welcomes those intellectual orphans rejected by other disciplines.

<4> Inquiry into the meaning and structure of those important concepts and key terms involved in the above inquiries through conceptual, logical and linguistic analysis and meaning- clarification. With this focus, a philosopher is like a thought janitor who cleans up messy terms and concepts. 3. What are common concerns and crucial differences between philosophy and religion? Although philosophy and religion share some fundamental concerns, and although a historical movement of thought can contain both elements, philosophy is distinguished from religion in two closely related connections.

(1) Philosophical inquiry is critical in nature in the sense that philosophical inquiry does not blindly claim or accept anything and that nothing is absolutely safe from a philosophical inquirer’s gaze. [This includes a philosopher’s attitude towards her own claims. Though she can very firmly maintain her current position (not blindly but on the basis of argumentation, understood broadly), a philosopher is expected to be open-minded and have his or her position open to criticism and possible improvement or change, rather than rendering it absolutely immune from criticism. ] (2)

Philosophical inquiry establishes its conclusions intrinsically and primarily through argumentation, justification and explanation rather than being based on faith 4. What do yin and yang mean? What are the double meanings of yin-yao and yang-yao as ideographic symbols? First, when used alone, the yin-ya o or the term “the YIN-yang universal” denotes the yin force as characterized before; in this case, the term yang in the name “the YIN-yang universal” is used to highlight the interactive and interpenetrating relation between the yin force and the yang force.

Second, in the context of the hexagram, the yin-yao or the term >the YIN-yang universal” denotes the yin-dominant stage of a changing process at which yang force is also an indispensable contributor to the changing or development in a certain pattern and is denoted by the term yang in the phrase; in this case, the term yang in the name “the YIN-yang universal” is used to denote the complementary yang-component in the yin-dominant state. The same holds for the yang-yao or the term “the YANG-yin universal”.

The ideographic simplexes yin-yao and yang-yao, i. e. , the ideographic symbols and , are used in the Yijing text to refer respectively to what might be characteristically called “the YIN-yang universal” and “the YANG-yin universal” for the reason to be explained.

The yin-yao and yang- yao alone point respectively to the two most basic mutually-opposed but interdependent and interpenetrating forces that exist in the universe, or in everything of the universe, in their various and distinct ways insofar as each of wan-wu (ten-thousand- things) has its own distinct identity. One might as well identify them, in more or less metaphorical terms, respectively as the negative, passive, weak and deconstructive Yin force and as the positive, active, strong and constructive Yang force.

They constitute the two most fundamental components of the universe: they present themselves as the unchanging in changing and the being in becoming. The ideographic symbols and , as a matter of fact, present one of the earliest attempts of human beings to generalize and abstract the being- aspect of the universe (in this case, what are shared by everything in the universe) into the fundamental metaphysical categories through ideographic symbolization. In so doing, the Yijing philosophy reveals a certain being- concerned metaphysical perspective. 5. Give a brief explanation of the relation among ren, li, and yi in Confucius’ doctrine.

The principle of Ren is related to the concepts of li and yi. Li is often translated as “ritual” while yi is often translated as “righteousness”. These three interrelated terms deal with agency as Confucians conceive it. Li is the action which has been deemed appropriate by society, yi is the action that is indeed correct, while Ren deals with the relationship between the agent and object of the action. Often li and yi are the same; however, that is not always the case. Li is the outward expression of Confucian ideals, while Ren is both the inward and outward expressions of those same ideals.

Li, according to Hopfe and Woodward: “Basically, li seems to mean ‘the course of life as it is intended to go’. Li also has religious and social connotations. When a society lives by li, it moves smoothly: men and women respect their elders and superiors; the proper rituals and ceremonies are performed; everything and everyone is in its proper place. ” 6. What are the major points of Mencius’s and Xun Zi’s distinct views on human (moral) nature? What are their major arguments for their views on the issue?

Like Mencius, Xunzi claims to interpret Confucius’ thought authentically, but leavens it with his own contributions. While neither Gaozi nor Mencius is willing to entertain the notion that human beings might originally be evil, this is the cornerstone of Xunzi’s position on human nature.

Against Mencius, Xunzi defines human nature as what is inborn and unlearned, and then asks why education and ritual are necessary for Mencius if people really are good by nature. Whereas Mencius claims that human beings are originally good but argues for the necessity of self- cultivation, Xunzi claims that human beings are originally bad but argues that they can be reformed, even perfected, through self-cultivation.

Also like Mencius, Xunzi sees li as the key to the cultivation of renxing. 7. What are Mencius’s and Xun Zi’s distinct models of moral self-cultivation? How are their distinct models related to their respective views on human (moral) nature? For Mencius, the locus of philosophical activity and self-cultivation is the xin (hsin), a term that denotes both the chief organ of the circulatory system and the organ of thought, and hence is translated here and in many other sources as “heart-mind. “

Mencius’ views of the divine, political organization, human nature, and the path toward personal development all start and end in the heart-mind. The goal of Mencian self-cultivation is to bring one’s qi, xin, and yan (words) together in a seamless blend of rightness (yi) and ritual propriety (li). Mencius goes on to describe what he means by “flood-like qi”: It is the sort of qi that is utmost in vastness, utmost in firmness.

If, by uprightness, you nourish it and do not interfere with it, it fills the space between Heaven and Earth. It is the sort of qi that matches the right [yi] with the Way [Dao]; without these, it starves. It is generated by the accumulation of right [yi] – one cannot attain it by sporadic righteousness. If anything one does fails to meet the standards of one’s heart-mind, it starves. (2A2)

To sum up, both biology and culture are important for Mencian self-cultivation, and so is Tian. Schwartz, p. 296: Another contrast with Hobbes and the Confucians. There is not a hint in Hobbes’ description of the absolute monarch about his moral cultivation or the necessity of his being virtuous at all. His is a rule of law not personal virtue. Xunzi of course disagrees: “The law cannot stand alone. The various categories [of Li? ] cannot implement themselves. It is only when one obtains the [right] man that they can be actualized. Without the right man, they are lost.

The law is the principle of good order. The noble man is the source of the law” (quoted in ibid. ) Xunzi’s criticism of the legalist Shendao would fit Hobbes’ king very well: “He despises self- cultivation and has a predilection for creating [new] laws. . . . He exalts law and is without law” (quoted in ibid. , p. 319). 8. Give a briefly explanation of the relation between Mo Zi’s two basic positions against Confucius’s doctrine. It is important to note that both Confucius and Mo Zi talked abour ren (humanity / whose traditional literal sense is “inter-personal love or care”) and yi (righteousness).

However, to Confucius, yi is regulated by ren; a main difference between Jun-zi (the superior person) and Xiao-ren (the inferior person) is this: the former is after yi while the latter after li4 (benefits/profits). In contrast, to Mo Zi, ren and yi are eventually to be understood in terms of beneficial results. Another related major thesis of Mohism is its idea of universal care for each (jian-ai / chien-ai ? ?).

In contrast to Confucian emphasis on one’s love with distinction in view of relations of kinship with oneself (that is, show more love/care to your parents, family members than remote strangers), Mohists emphasized that one needs to show impartial concern for each irrespective of relations of kinship with oneself.

Also in contrast to Confucian approach, Mohists advocated universal care because of its beneficial result rather than based upon some inherent goodness of human beings or of the act. Confucius maintains love with distinction while Mo Zi insists on universal care for each “Those who love others will be loved by others. Those who benefit others will be benefited by others.

Those who hate others will be hated by others”. See – “loving” or care/benefiting other is to be justified by its (external) beneficial consequences, instead of its (internal) intrinsic value [in contrast, for Confucius, one’s morality or moral cultivation has to be pursued for its own sake and for its intrinsic value, with complete indifference to one’s secular success or failure and to one’s rewards after death or in this life; it is more important than one’s biological life. (Cf. , the Analects 4. 8; 14:38; 18:7) ]. 9. What is the difference between Yangzhu (Yang Zi) as a hermit and the Unabomber (Theodore Kaczynski) as a hermit?

10. What is the rationale underlying Gong-sun Long’s several arguments for the thesis that the white horse is not the horse (using one of the three arguments in Handout 9 to illustrate the point)? Normally, in Chinese and English, it is clear from context which sense is intended, so we do not notice the ambiguity. So the sentence “White horses are not horses” would normally be taken to assert the obviously false claim that white horses are not part of the group of horses.

However, the “sophist” in the dialogue defends the statement under the interpretation, “White horses are not identical with horses. ” The latter statement is actually true, since — as the “sophist” explains — “horses” includes horses that are white, yellow, brown, etc. , while “white horses” includes only white horses, and excludes the others. ‘Distinct-Necessary-Identity-Contributor’ Argument in B (4) [1] Pr.

1 [The necessary identity contributors of] A white horse includes white color [as its necessary identity contributor]; [2] Pr. 2 A horse does not have white color [as its necessary identity contributor]; [3] So, a white horse and a horse do not have the same necessary identity contributor; [4] [Pr.

3 If two things are the same, then they must have the same necessary identity contributor;that is, if they do not have the same necessary identity contributor, then they are not the same;] [5] So, the white horse is not identical to (or differs from) the horse; that is, the white horse is not the horse. 11. What is the point of Hui Shi’s proposition that “the moment the sun reaches the zenith at noon, it is declining; the moment the creature is born, it is dying” (Proposition 4)? What is the point of Hui Shi’s proposition that “Connected rings can be in separation” (Proposition 8)?

“The moment the sun reaches the zenith at noon, it is declining; the moment the creature is born, it is dying. ” [This characterizes the two features of changing/becoming process in the nature: things will develop in the opposite direction when they become extreme; being and non-being interpenetrate each other. ] “Connected rings can be in separation. ” [Connected rings themselves are separated from each other in regard to the identity of each ring; each ring is at the same in connection with and separation from the other rings. The point is that seemingly opposed and unrelated states or processes can be possessed by the same thing and thus be interpenetrating and complementary. ] 12.

According the Later Mohist’ text Xiao-Qu, why does the following application of the “linguistic-parallel” inference go wrong: Alleged premise: The robber is (identical to) the human being. Conclusion: Killing robber is (identical to) killing the human being. “I’m thinking that it is not “killing the person” because though it is said that “the robber is the person”, robbers aren’t the only distinct person. There are many people who can be considered a “person” and therefore generalizing that killing the robber is killing the person would be incorrect”] is correct, I think you are on the right track.

When saying that “killing the robber is not killing the person”, what is focused on is not the common aspect shared by all human beings but some distinct aspect that is possessed by the robber (they thus got the punishment for that) but not by any member of the human being collection; with this focus in place, the due premise that leads to this conclusion is expected to be “the robber is not identical to the person [with regard to that distinct aspect possessed by the robber but not by any member of the human being]”, instead of “the robber is (identical to) the person”. 13.

What are differences and connections between three methodological things (i. e. , a methodological perspective, its related methodological instrument and its related methodological guiding principle) involved in how to approach an object of study? What are two morals we can draw about their relation? How can we maintain an adequate methodological guiding principle to look at the relation between distinct methodological perspectives?

“The same-object-recognizing condition… and both can know they are talking about the same issue of ? lial piety and the same (type of) the object (a kind of respect feeling) that both groups of guys are really experiencing in their real lives towards their parents (if they do have parents).

By looking at the the Euthyphro and Confucius’ 2. 5-2. 8 of the Analects, both talk about what constitute the sons/daughters’ “reverence” feeling, emotion and attitude towards their parents; in this way, though this emotion/attituds is label “? lial piety” in English and ‘ ‘ ? in Chinese, clearly they are talking about the same object in the human society on this same earth.

“So from what I am understanding is that this is saying that because we can understand the same “object” based on personal knowledge and are able to talk about it because we can see the similarities even though di0erent words are used to describe the same “object” II. Review questions for essay questions Notes: The criteria for evaluating your answer to an essay question are these: (i) whether or not the required steps are taken (ii) whether or not the key concepts used are clearly given; (iii) whether or not your line of thought are coherent or consistent; (iv) whether or not you provide your argument / justification for your point.

1. Explain how the Yin-Yang and Hegelian models of interaction/transformation could be complementary. Steps: (i) Briefly characterize the Ying-Yang model of interaction/transformation (yin-yang way of thinking); (ii) Briefly characterize the Hegelian mode of interaction/transformation; (iii) Explain how the two models of interaction/transformation can be complementary (can we maintain both simultaneously? why? )

2. Give a comparative examination of Confucius’s and Christian versions of the Golden Rule. Steps: (i) Present the basic points of Confucius’s version of the Golden Rule; (ii) Briefly explain the common and distinct points between Confucius’s and Christian versions of the Golden Rule; (iii) Evaluate them in comparison: how they can make joint contribution to our understanding and adequate application of the Golden Rule.

“What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others. ” Confucius “Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. ” Christian The Golden Rule does not advocate reciprocity, but generosity also toward persons who behave egoistically without restraint. 3. Confucius maintains love with distinction while Mo Zi insists on universal care for each; would you think Confucius can respond to Mo Zi’s challenge by maintaining both universal love/care and love with distinction in a consistent way?

Steps: (i) explain Confucius’ thesis of love with distinction; (ii) explain Mo Zi’s thesis of universal care for each; (iii) imagine you were Confucius, could you respond to Mo Zi’s challenge by resorting to some relevant resources in the Analects and maintain both universal love/care and love with distinction in a consistent way? Confucius how to love everyone and everything in a way most appropriate to the person or thing. Love depends on the object or thing you are loving for the level in which you love it.

Love same people in the same ways and different people in different ways, if we loved different people in the same ways and same people in different ways the love would be wrong. Another related major thesis of Mohism is its idea of universal care for each (jian-ai / chien-ai ? ?). In contrast to Confucian emphasis on one’s love with distinction in view of relations of kinship with oneself (that is, show more love/care to your parents, family members than remote strangers), Mohists emphasized that one needs to show impartial concern for each irrespective of relations of kinship with oneself.

Also in contrast to Confucian approach, Mohists advocated universal care because of its beneficial result rather than based upon some inherent goodness of human beings or of the act. “Those who love others will be loved by others. Those who benefit others will be benefited by others.

Those who hate others will be hated by others”. See – “loving” or care/benefiting other is to be justified by its (external) beneficial consequences, instead of its (internal) intrinsic value [in contrast, for Confucius, one’s morality or moral cultivation has to be pursued for its own sake and for its intrinsic value, with complete indifference to one’s secular success or failure and to one’s rewards after death or in this life; it is more important than one’s biological life. (Cf. , the Analects 4. 8; 14:38; 18:7) ].

4. How Gongshun Long’s and Hui Shi’s different emphases can jointly contribute to your understanding and treatment of an object of study. Steps: (i) what is Gongsun Long’s emphasis via his argument for the white-horse-is-not-horse; (ii) what is Hui Shi’s emphasis via his Ten Propositions; (iii) how their different emphases can jointly contribute to your understanding and treatment of an object of study. (GSL 1) The white hor.


Essay Topics:


Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. If you need this or any other sample, we can send it to you via email. Please, specify your valid email address

We can't stand spam as much as you do No, thanks. I prefer suffering on my own