【劉悅笛】儒家何故無“絕對惡”與“最基礎惡”？ ——中西比較倫理的“消極一包養網心得情性”視角

In terms of good and evil problems, China is more “good” and more important than “good” and the East has become a common understanding, so it has formed a comparison of either one or the other, but when it comes to careful consideration, there are many differences and conflicts between China and the West before, and need to be reflected on it in an advanced way.

“Undermind”: The fundamentalization of “evil” in the East

In the East, “radical evil” or “absolute” Evil’s conception is widely present. In China, “Tao and Good Nature” became the absolute mainstream among the Confucian Confucians of Song Dynasty. Xunzi’s “nature evil” theory was even historically suppressed. After Cheng argued that “Xunzi was extremely biased, with only one sentence of nature evil, and his body had dropped”[1], evil seemed to have become a space for China’s thinking. Why is this?

Looking at the foreign country from the East, the Han scholar’s perception is extremely accurate: “In contrast to the East, what will be noticed is in China, where the concept of evil is not observed and does not remove the general words. In fact, this broad “absolute confrontation” is even in our civilization. ’The concept of ‘the most basic evil’ is completely non-existent. In the traditional Chinese tradition, it is more clearly stated that evil is regarded as an incompetent, a kind of pain, a kind of natural principle, a kind of violation of the norm, and a kind of confrontation. Sometimes it can also be imagined as a kind of ‘natural evil’ (‘natural’) evil’). But it neither expresses as a broad energy or an absolute existence that is opposite to good, nor as two opposites to push forward the way forward. ”[2]

This just illustrates that the Eastern East’s approach to evil is very different. The mainstream thinking of good and evil is the opposite side of good. Good and evil are placed at the two ends of the “dualism”, and good and evil become a common character. In comparison, what Lao Tzu said, “The whole nation knows that good is good, and this is bad, so there is no relationship.” The existence of good is due to the existence of badness (rather than “badness”), and goodness and badness also form the existence and no relationship between mutual generation. Good deeds are not only mutual in Chinese thinking, but also form a kind of verbal interaction. What is even more divergent is that the Oriental not only regards evil as good, but also regards evil as a broad-minded force, and believes that good and evil duality promotes the development of things. Evil is also one of the forces of the development of things, but when this evil is regarded as “definite existence”, the concept of “definite evil” will be reproduced.

In terms of the meaning derived from theology, “definite evil” and “creative good” are often opposite. The reason why evil is absolutely transformed is because evil exists as an “obstructive evil” against good. This kind of evil is determined in the three meanings: the first meaning is evil, which is “nothing is not allowed”In, this is the case in any situation; the second meaning is that evil is “unqualified” (unqualified Evil, in contrast, if there is some construction of goodness, it is not simply qualified; the third meaning is in terms of the meaning of “ultimate”, and evil becomes absolutely correct. [3] This means that, first, evil exists “unswer” to the point where evil exists, second, evil is “unswer” because of the loss of goodness, and third, evil moves towards the point where extreme states can be “unswer”. This is the basis for why “unswer” is absolutely correct. From the location.

This means that in addition to the duality of good and evil, the “absolute opposition” appearance proves that Oriental thinking has the tendency to “originately” evil. China has never had this kind of thinking orientation, including Xunzi’s innate, “For evil, Xunzi did not even have the opportunity to imagine or reason about the evil of intrinsic theory, an attraction to evil, and to discuss the existence of suppression and dedication of evil for himself. ”[4] Mencius’s nature is good and Xunzi’s nature is definitely not as good as it was seen in later generations. It is just like A and non-A are different from ordinary. The Qing Dynasty’s money-sin once said clearly: “Meng said that his nature is good, and he wanted people to be kind as good as they are; Xun said that his nature is bad, and he wanted people to be kind and encourage people to be kind. Although his words are different, he taught people to be kind. ” (“Xunzi’s Biography·Postscript”) Mencius was “to be as good as he did” nature and “please” good, Xunzi “to transform” nature and “encourage” good. Not only did the two of the original and original are not contrary to each other, but they are also mutually replicated and mutually generated. This is the bright place of China.

Xunzi said evil: From the evil of “desire-emotion” to publish “nature-emotion” and “good heart”

The Chinese thinker’s first recommendation is Xunzi, who is the only one who has ever lived. Xunzi’s logic positioning “nature-emotion-restraint” in this way: “Nature-emotion-restraint” is the nature of heaven; emotion is the quality of nature; desire is the response of emotion. If you want whatever you want, you can get it, and what you love will never be eliminated. ” (Xunzi·Justice Ming)). However, the source of nature is not not from the sky from top to bottom, but from the bottom to top self-desire. This means that we must examine the origin and origin of Xunzi’s “nature verbalism” based on the order of “desire-emotion-nature”.

The Tang people’s notes “Xunzi” are just 1,200 years ago. According to his notes: “Nature is achieved in the nature of heaven. Love is the quality of heaven. Desire and love are what it is. Therefore, people will be unable to avoid desires. ”[5] In fact, from the perspective of experience, everyone has their own desires and feelings. Desire is the “feeling” of emotions, or is it moving for the “response” of emotions. The problem here is, is desire first,