JULLIAN UMALI

4LM
09/12/2020
PHL104
Journal Critique

Critique to the Journal “Dare to Compare: The Comparative Philosophy of Mou

Zongsan” by Xiaofei Tu.

The title of the Journal that is the topic of my critique paper is “Dare to Compare:

The Comparative Philosophy of Mou Zongsan” by Xiaofei Tu. According to Xiaofei Tu

(2007) , the new Confucianism is comparative philosophy par excellence. It stands or

falls with the validity of the comparisons its thinkers have made regarding Western and

Asian religious and philosophical systems and conceptions. Yet comparative philosophy

and comparative religion in and beyond Asia have recently received criticisms.

Mao Zongsan aimed to reinvigorate traditional Chinese philosophy through an

experience with Western (and especially German) philosophy and to restore it to a

position of prestige in the world. In particular, he engaged closely with Immanuel Kant’s

three Critiques and attempted to show, pace Kant, that human beings possess

intellectual intuition, a supra-sensible mode of knowledge that Kant reserved to God

alone. He assimilated this notion of intellectual intuition to ideas found in Confucianism,

Buddhism, and Daoism and attempted to expand it into a metaphysical approach that

would establish the objectivity of moral values and the possibility of sagehood.

Influenced by Hegel, Mou thought of the history and culture of the Chinese nation as an

organic whole,, with a natural and knowable course of development. He thought that

China’s political destiny would ultimately be contingent on its philosophy, and in turn he
blamed China’s conquest on its loss of focus on the Neo-Confucianism of the Song

through Ming dynasties (960-1644). The main topics or questions being answered here

is the following :

● Is it not a fallacy to take Asian philosophy and religion out of their historical and

social contexts and to present them as unchanging entities?

● Are the across-space-and-time comparisons between Asian and Western

philosophy and religion far-fetched and forced?

First all the author stated here in the journal, that the philosophy of Mao

Zhongsan is influenced by many other philosophers like Confucius. One of which is the

Doctrine of the mean by Confucius. The Doctrine of the mean all about symbolism and

guidance to perfecting oneself. The goal of the mean is to maintain balance and

harmony from directing the mind to a state of constant equilibrium. It is stated in the

Doctrine of Mean that human nature is traced to heaven. The connection between

heaven and humanity is through our human minds. Through this journal, Xiaofei wanted

to show us Mao Zhongsan’s way to bring back confucianism by utilizing it and

connecting it with western ethics.

According to Xiaofei, mao said that the only difference between ancient Chinese

and Western traditions is that the West first sought “the ultimate being” in either nature

or God, while the Chinese looked for it in the Mind (xin), which is understood as the

spiritual aspect of human existence that synthesizes cognitive, emotional, and most

importantly, moral faculties. While trying to reappropriate Confucianism and to situate it

as a part of the world's way of thinking, Mou joins Western philosophical points of view
on this issue and chooses Kant as his exchange accomplice. Indeed, in contrast to such

German scholars as Leibniz and Christian Wolff, Kant does not hold Chinese ideas in

exceptionally high regard. The purpose behind Mou's choice of Kant lies in Mou's

conviction that Kant speaks to the "cutting edge" theory in the soul of the Enlightenment

age. Mou's expectation is for Confucianism to address advancement.

Xiaofei stated that mao saw parallels to to the confuncian tradition ,that features

the solidarity among Heaven and mankind, through Kant's assertion of the authority of

good objectives, and the Kantian exertion to come to the otherworldly by means of

functional explanation. Kant sees the human psyche just in insightful and psychological

terms, and as such the brain is not ready to come to the "Ding an sich." Kant makes the

inconceivable differentiation among noumenon and phenomenon, that is, what can't be

the object of observational information and that which can. About noumenon, the

knowledge we can only have is the negative knowledge that it is in principle insulated

from our perception.

In Kantian terms, Mou accepts that the Way of Heaven is a noumenon, i.e., the

inconspicuous reality that underlies the watched wonder. Notwithstanding, he contends

against Kant that this noumenon is not a lofty Ding an sich indifferent to the human

world. Mao depicts reality as what the Confucians customarily considered the Way of

Heaven that brings moral importance and what's more, virtues into being. Mou believes

that reaching noumenon is humanly possible for the following reasons : Both Kant and

Confucianism concur that moral orders are unrestricted.

 Hence, the supplier of good orders ought to be unrestricted. Additionally, such a

supplier can't be God – moral laws given to people by another are adapted by this

Other. Hence, moral orders must act naturally giving, that is, they are given by the

human Mind. Since unlimited things can't be given by something molded, the human

Mind must be unlimited as well. Since the human Mind and the Way of Heaven are both

genuine, and a definitive unequivocal being must be indeed the very same, thus, the

human Mind and the Way of Heaven must be identical. Xiofei stated that mou

contended that both Heaven and the Mind are not hypothetical speculations but rather a

self uncovering reality. The solidarity of Heaven and the Mind is existentially introduced

to us, closer and more consistent with us than any of our insight that we assemble from

our observation.

In light of Mou's contention, the Mind raised by immaculate good effort is both

human and trans-human on the grounds that the Mind is drastically indistinguishable

from the Way of Heaven. Thus, the Mind itself is noumenon, and there would be no

trouble for its self-understanding and self-acknowledgement. The issue for Mou rather

lies by the way it could be feasible for his extraordinary mind to connect with the

wonders of the world.

Here Mou borrows a notion from the Buddhist text “The Awakening of Faith,”

that the worlds of nirvana and samsara both arise from the same original Buddha Mind.

In Mou's framework, the equivalent Mind can act in both noumenal and amazing circles,

however in various ways. While the Mind comprehends and grasps the Way of Heaven

as a type of self-understanding and self-acknowledgement, for it to wrestle with

phenomena the mind would need to intentionally force restrictions on itself furthermore,
subsequently change itself into a restricted operator of insight, with its engineered moral

character being changed to an absolutely intellectual quality. Mou's relative way of

thinking is persuaded by his existential concerns. According to steven collins (2019)

"existential” is an intellectualist endeavor to locate an intelligent, justified requesting of

life, and demise, as a calculated and fanciful entire, and to endorse a few methods for

conclusive (if just creatively, so far as a non-devotee can tell) getting away enduring and

death." As Zheng Jiadong, a main researcher of Mou, noted, Mou's existential

sensitivities are especially solid, and are somewhat significant since a customary

Confucian is ordinarily depicted as being in amiability with nature and society and

subsequently "stress free." Mou's philosophical exertion isn't simply for theoretical joys,

but instead to set up a post-Kantian good subjectivity as a reaction to human existential

conditions. Levinas commented that people have two different ways to get to the

outside world, in particular, by vision and by contact.

This journal is very intrinsic and very crucial to our subject cause this journal

wants to tackle the relationship of west and east ethics,and its similarities and

differences. The author stated that Mao wanted to bring back Confucianism by

modernizing it by using western ethics. For me that is impossible because Western and

Eastern ethics have different perspectives in life . Morals are a part of reasoning,

otherwise called moral way of thinking. It assists people with managing human profound

quality and ideas, for example, great and abhorrent, good and bad, righteousness and
bad habit, equity and wrongdoing. The primary distinction among eastern and western

morals is the way that Western Morals are tied in with discovering truth, while Eastern

Morals are particularly about the convention, and appearing of regard.

As indicated by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Senior of the Establishment for

Basic Reasoning, "the vast majority mistake morals for acting as per social shows, strict

convictions and the law", and don't regard morals as an independent idea. Paul and

Senior characterize morals as "a lot of ideas and rules that manage us in figuring out

what conducts aides or damages conscious animals".

Nonetheless, culture, social shows and childhood majorly affects morals and

profound quality. Subsequently, individuals from various societies will in general have

various arrangements of morals. This is particularly clear in morals of gatherings of

individuals from the Eastern culture when contrasted with individuals from the Western

culture.

Morals and ethical quality are not inbuilt, they are instructed. We learn good and

parts of right or wrong from our folks, instructors, books, movies, and TV. Watching

them, we build up a set thought of what is good and bad, however principally of what is

satisfactory and what isn't.

East versus West : The primary distinction among eastern and western morals is

the way that Western Morals is tied in with discovering truth, while Eastern Morals are
especially about the convention, and appearing of regard. Eastern morals is

substantially more about making the right decision regarding what is anticipated from

you by your family, society and culture.

Western Morals, then again, has a greater amount of an accentuation on self and

what is soundly or legitimately evident. Besides, Western Morals put more emphasis on

law and equity, though Eastern Morals express that one must make the wisest decision

and expected and the universe will deal with the rest. Eastern culture depends on the

primary schools of Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Islam, Taoism, and Zen though the

Western culture depends generally on Christianity, logical, legitimate, and levelheaded

schools. Eastern culture has a roundabout perspective on the universe that depends on the

impression of everlasting repetition while Western culture has a straight perspective on the

universe that depends on the Christian way of thinking that everything has a start and an

end. Eastern culture utilizes the profound and teacher approach of looking inside oneself for

answers through contemplation while western culture takes on a logical and passionate

methodology in looking external oneself through exploration and investigation.

Eastern culture accepts that the way to progress is through profound methods.

Western culture accepts that the way to progress is through material methods. Eastern

culture accepts that one's future is controlled by one's deeds today. The Western culture

accepts that one's future is obscure and that it is dictated by God. Eastern culture accepts

that an individual is an essential aspect of the general public just as the universe and

practices community.
 In Western culture, independence is more grounded, accepting that a person is

individualistic and is a free aspect of the general public and the universe. Western way of

thinking centers around morals. As people, one must do what should be managed without

making sick others. Achievement depends on the amount one strolls his way without

harming others. Eastern way of thinking is likewise more about the profound while Western

way of thinking is even more a hands-on style. The thing that matters is the "I" of the West,

and the "We" of the East, as one spotlights on discovering truth and importance.

Conclusion: It turns out Mao was right all along . Western ethics can be mixed with Eastern

Ethics because they also have many similarities. Western way of thinking centers around

morals. As people, one must do what should be managed without making sick others.

Achievement depends on the amount one strolls his way without harming others. Eastern

way of thinking is likewise more about the otherworldly while Western way of thinking is to a

greater degree a hands-on style. The thing that matters is the "I" of the West, and the "We"

of the East, as one spotlights on discovering truth and significance.

The likenesses among eastern and western ways of thinking are more noteworthy than any

distinctions referred to by advanced essayists and teachers on the theme. The frequently

referred to distinction is that western way of thinking is 'fragmentary' while eastern way of

thinking is 'comprehensive'. The well known essayist Sankara Saranam, writer of the book

God Without Religion, is one case of this when he asserts that eastern way of thinking is

worried about broad information while western way of thinking focuses on explicit

information. This alludes to the famous understanding that eastern way of thinking -

explicitly Chinese way of thinking - addresses the entire human presence while western way
of thinking - starting with the Greeks - just spotlights on specific parts of the human

condition.

A model given by scholastic researchers is the way Confucius' analects manage both the

inward and external existence of an individual (all encompassing) while Aristotle's works

stress how one should lead one's self to live well among others (fragmentary). Mo-Ti, in

some cases, focuses on an all encompassing comprehension of one's self and one's

environmental factors while a western savant like Plato underlines explicit objectives one

ought to make progress toward in finding what is valid and genuine throughout everyday

life.

In this journal the two main problems given were the following :

● Is it not a fallacy to take Asian philosophy and religion out of their historical and

social contexts and to present them as unchanging entities?

● Are the across-space-and-time comparisons between Asian and Western

philosophy and religion far-fetched and forced?

Many philosophers say that it is a fallacy. In Buddhist terms, any

misrepresentation of the similar researchers is the paradox of specialists, not the error

of the dharma. In a conventional Chinese anecdote, you ought not quit eating and

starve yourself to death since you have been stifled by food once. These just mean that

the mistakes committed by overzealous or careless comparativists should not be

blamed on the comparative method itself.

 The across-space-and-time comparisons between Asian and Western

philosophy and religion are not far-fetched and forced. The way of life of a community

or a country relies on the environmental factors, the qualities and convictions that they

are raised upon. Thus various pieces of the world element various societies that shift

particularly from each other. Today, the way of life of the world can be isolated into two

primary parts, for example, the Eastern and Western culture. Anyway consistently, the

two have come to impact each other continually because of globalization, and forming

and shaping each other simultaneously.

Sources:

The Doctrine of the Mean, in A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, trans. by Wing-tsit

Chan (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1963).

Hadot, Pierre, Philosophy As a Way of Life: Spriritual Exercises from Socrates to

Foucault (New York: Blackwell Publishing Professional, 1995).

Xiaofei Tu (2007). Dare to Compare: The Comparative Philosophy of Mou Zongsan .

Kritike: An Online Journal of Philosophy, VOLUME ONE NUMBER TWO

Journal Article: http://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_2/tu_december2007.pdf