◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Organizer of Shanghai Federation of Social Sciences
There are academic ideas EXPLORATION AND FREE VIEWS
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Chinese why it is inseparable from "home", the re-recognition of the concept of "home" in the modern world
Sun Xiangchen | Dean and Professor of the School of Philosophy at Fudan University
This article was published in Exploration and Controversy, No. 10, 2021, originally titled "Saving the "Home" in the Modern World: A Response to the Philosophical Discussion of "Home""
Unless noted, the pictures in the text are from the Internet
In the modern world, the concept of "home" has been squeezed and challenged by all aspects, and how to save "home" has become an urgent problem. In social reality, the phenomenon of non-marriage, fewer children, old age, single parents, same-sex marriage and so on is increasing; in terms of values, modern society is also more self-centered. On the one hand, "home" is the most common reality in social life; on the other hand, it has not been reflected very deeply in theory. After the publication of the humble work "On the Scholar", it received widespread attention, and the book was printed for the second time within a year, indicating that society attaches great importance to this issue. I would like to thank Professor Zhang Xianglong, Professor Zhang Zailin and others for their comments on humble works, all of whom have a profound background in Western philosophical research, and are also committed to the reinterpretation of Chinese intellectual traditions, with fruitful academic achievements. This article will respond to their questions and reflections, and further elaborate on how to view "home" in the modern world.
Philosophical or social
"Home" is a highly social topic. "Home" has many discussions in ethics, sociology, psychology, and so on. It is true that "home" as a social issue involves many aspects that can be discussed. The book "On the Scholar" mainly deals with the problem of "family" from a philosophical point of view. After the publication of the humble work, many reviews were received, among which there was also a view that the discussion of the "Commentator" was too philosophical, and this view was discussed from an ontological point of view, ignoring the new problems encountered by the "home" in modern society, so it was proposed to talk more about the problem of "home" from the perspective of real life. Under what conditions can "home" have universal theoretical value? In my opinion, there are mainly the following aspects.
First, the modern world is a comprehensively reflective society, a "post-customary" society. No social phenomenon or social organization automatically acquires its legitimacy because of its antiquity. Therefore, the basic feature of modern society is to reflect critically on all aspects of society itself. At a time when society is moving from tradition to modernity, there will indeed be many philosophical theories, especially political philosophy, which deals with the question of "home". When the transformation of society from identity to contract, from the family to the individual, from the natural power of the family to the freedom and rights of the individual, "home" is more often reflected as a negative concept, and there is no positive position of "home" in the modern theoretical picture, which is caused by historical changes, but there is also a kind of "theoretical forgetting", the problem of "home" lacks comprehensive thinking in modern society, and it lacks understanding and thinking from the perspective of affirmation. If these problems are not sorted out as a whole at the philosophical level, there will be a phenomenon of "headache healing, foot pain healing", and reflected in social life, there will be various deviations, such as the high divorce rate and the emergence of same-sex marriage. Philosophical thinking seems to be far removed from social phenomena, but in fact, it is intrinsically closely related.
Second, "home" is a common phenomenon of human beings living on earth. Compared with other human civilizations, Chinese culture attaches great importance to the tradition of "family", from the fundamental concept of Confucian "birth" to "kinship", from the ambition of "family style and family training" to "repair qi zhiping", from the metaphor of "brotherhood within the four seas" to "one family under the world", it can be seen that "family" culture has very rich ideological resources in China. Is such a cultural tradition just some pre-modern intellectual resource, or does it still have modern values and meanings? If so, what is the meaning of "home" in modern society? Is it just a need for natural reproduction, or is there a deep portrayal of "life in the world"? How can the "home" culture in chinese cultural traditions enter modern society? These fundamental questions must be clarified at the philosophical level. If traditional ideas cannot be reconstructed and transformed at the rational level in the modern world, it will be difficult to survive in modern society.
Third, the May Fourth New Culture Movement has a strong anti-traditional cultural character, of which the criticism of "family culture" is an important aspect. The critique of the New Culture Movement is carried out at the level of social phenomena and ritual systems, focusing on the criticism of family culture. "Family" or "family" is a word difference in Chinese, and its theoretical connotation is very different. From the criticism of familial culture in history, there is a critique of family culture. "Family" is more of a traditional institutional cultural concept, which carries too many institutional meanings in history, and "family" can be clarified as a philosophical concept. Discussing the "family" problem from a philosophical point of view requires a clear source, to prevent this fundamental problem from being obscured by various institutionalized mechanisms in history, and to prevent this problem from being biased by the family problem. For the author, the May Fourth New Culture Movement has a positive significance for the reflection and criticism of "family" culture, but the author believes that the New Culture Movement does not give a clear distinction between the concepts of "family" and "family", and does not make a hierarchical distinction between "benevolence" and "etiquette", so the criticism of various phenomena in family culture will affect our in-depth understanding of "family" and cause theoretical gaps in the understanding of "family".
Fourth, there is a huge tension between modern values and family values, which are biased towards an individualist stance, and family values are more of an ethical stance. Therefore, there is a difference and conflict between modern values and family values. This needs to be clarified in particular at the philosophical level: Hegel's certain analysis in The Philosophical Principles of Law is a theoretical starting point for this work; Hornet also finds this problem in The Right to Liberty, calling for greater emphasis on the positive meaning of family values in modern society, but does not give a more concrete line. How to give a clear and satisfactory interpretation of the relationship between the two values is the most important issue of the philosophy of "family" in the modern world.
Fifth, although "home" is a universal theory of human existence, and there are very detailed discussions on "home" in various civilizations in the world, in the Chinese cultural tradition, the discussion of "home" is the most complete and has a long history. Therefore, based on the Chinese cultural tradition, a clear philosophical analysis and sorting out of the "home" is convenient for establishing a unique perspective of Chinese philosophy, so as to re-establish our understanding of Western philosophy and form a western philosophical study with Chinese characteristics.
The discussion of "home" at the philosophical level has led everyone to further reflect on this issue that is "crucial" for Chinese from this level. Many thanks to the columnists, who have advanced this work from a philosophical perspective, expanding the discussion of "home" to a broader theoretical context.
"Two books in one" or "two ontology"
In specifically discussing the issue of "home", Humble Put forward the concept of "dual ontology", that is, the individual and kinship. On the one hand, it actively affirms the positive significance of "individuals" in modern society, and at the same time clearly sees the limitations and negatives of "individuals" themselves; on the other hand, it highly respects the chinese cultural tradition for the development of "relatives" and affirms the importance of "kissing" for the growth of individuals and the occurrence of ethics, but we should also see the burden of "kissing" as the foundation of "home" culture formed in history. Both Professor Xianglong and Professor Zailin affirmed the "dual ontology", which Professor Xianglong called "adhering to the coexistence of two principles or values that are full of color, giving people a sense of happiness". Professor Zailin also believes that his "two books in one" is based on a view put forward by Professor Sun Xiangchen's 'dual ontology'. This refreshing 'dual ontology' aims at each end of the past or the 'Western use of the Chinese body' or the 'Western body', which not only adheres to the modern individual value, but also respects the traditional value of 'kinship', and uses this 'dual vision' to try to make the "individual" and "kinship" come into being in an opposite way." I am very grateful to the two professors for their affirmation of the humble work and for their full understanding of the position given in it.
While giving affirmation, the two scholars invariably believe that the "dual ontology" is not thorough enough, Professor Xianglong believes that modern society should have "three bodies", that is, the individual, the group and the home, and believes that the "individual" is the "entity" opposite to the "group", and the "home" is the more original "essence". In the "three-body", only the "home" is self-sufficient and originating. Therefore, Professor Xianglong's position can be called "home-based", and the "three-body" has become "one source and two bodies".
Based on the traditional thinking of the Ming and Qing dynasties, Professor Zailin put forward the duality of "eroticism" and "family-orientedism", and at the same time believed that "in Professor Sun Xiangchen's view, the philosophical reasons that enable the two to be integrated more profoundly and more fundamentally are actually in vain, that is, he needs to answer the question of what basis the two are opposite and mutually interesting." From this standpoint, Professor Zailin put forward the "body-oriented doctrine", believing that whether it is "desire-basedism" or "family-orientedism", it is triggered by "body", so it is called "one body opens two doors", quoting Dai Zhen, "There is a body, so there is a desire for sound and smell; there is a body, and there is a monarch, a father and a son, a husband and wife, a Kundi, and a friend", which supports "one body and two doors", and "body" not only opens up a specific individual based on "desire" for us, but also establishes a social ethic based on "home" for us.
Professor Xianglong's "one source and two bodies" and Professor Zailin's "two books and one body" are quite similar, and both give further explanations for the clumsy "dual ontology" and strive to make the integration of the "double ontology" have a deeper foundation. Professor Xianglong attaches great importance to the "originality" status of the "home" and expounds it from the perspective of intergenerational temporality, which is "completely inseparable from the human life time, but it is seen that it itself has a super-individual structure that can continuously produce meaning, that is, the family structure that embodies and generates intergenerational time." At the same time, Professor Xianglong criticized the Western concept of temporality, "although it is very important to advance, they have not found the structure of this base time in real life, in fact, it is its original structure, so Husserl can not come up with the real life form to deal with the 'European scientific crisis', And Heidegger can only say in his old age that 'only one god can save us'."
Professor Zailin attaches great importance to endogenous ideological contributions, that is, the principle of individuality is not only influenced by the modern Western world, but also the principle of "home" was once again valued in the Ming and Qing dynasties. Both professors invariably mentioned Luo Jinxi of the Taizhou School, believing that the "inner transcendence" that modern Neo-Confucians are struggling to find is also embodied in the "home" and "body", which is embodied in "Taiji is Taizu", embodied in the "family way" of "filial piety through the gods", and embodied in the "family way" of "generations of generations" and "from near and far".
On the basis of affirming the "dual ontology", both professors try to go one step further, either returning to the "home-based" or emphasizing the "body-based". The author believes that emphasizing the "duality" of the "dual ontology" still has its necessity in modern China, and further reduction work may also bring certain limitations and limitations.
First of all, the "dual ontology" has its own civilizational origin, and although the principle of "individual" and the principle of "affinity" have universal significance for human beings, the two principles are formed in the historical process of China and the West. The concept of "individual" has universal significance in modern society, and is a peak and ultimate unit of human understanding and respect for itself, but the complete evolution of the concept of "individual" is completed in Western civilization. Chinese cultural traditions also have in-depth discussions on many aspects of "individual", such as "desire", but a concept of "individual" that has a profound impact on modern society and is complete in form is mainly from Western cultural traditions. "Kinship" is also a universal human emotion, an emotion that occurs naturally between parents and children, but a civilization based on "kinship" and "filial piety" has only gradually unfolded and formed in the Chinese cultural tradition. Therefore, although the principle of "individual" and the principle of "affinity" have universal value, they can also make various "mergers" from different theoretical levels; in reality, the two are conceived in the two major civilization systems and have their own origins. Professor Xianglong discussed that "individual" is developed and formed in "kinship", but the evolution of the concept of "individual" is completed in the Western cultural tradition. This point cannot be replaced by theoretical elaboration of mutual "merging".
Professor Xianglong believes that "individual" should correspond to "group", which is emphasized in Mr. Liang Shuming's "Essentials of Chinese Culture", in essence, "group" is not the original concept, neither the original in time nor the logical origin; it is completely late-occurring and constitutive. A "group" can be composed of "individuals", such as clubs, modern political parties, etc.; a "group" can also be composed of "families", such as tribes, tribes, and so on. This also needs to be discerned.
Second, the "dual ontology" is logical. The reason why it is "double" is because "individuals" and "relatives" have their own status, which are logically irreducible to each other, and are both "starting points" of dependent arising. As far as human understanding is concerned, the "individual" is the most basic, the logical starting point, the smallest unit that cannot be dissolved. "Kinship" is the "starting point" of genesis, the originating, physically skin-bearing parent; the "individual" cannot be self-sufficient in epigenesis and must be raised by "kinship". Therefore, "individuals" and "relatives" have their own "starting points", just as in the Western cultural tradition, "revelation" and "reason" have their own "starting points", and for a long time, they show an irreducible tension between them.
Finally, the "dual ontology" is checks and balances. In the "Treatise on the Family", special emphasis is placed on the relationship between "individuals" and "relatives" in which "opposites" are formed; "individuals" have their positive achievements and negative consequences; "relatives" have their positive effects and also have unbearable weights in history. The negative consequences of the "individual" need to be remedied by "kissing", and the historical burden of "kissing" needs to be balanced by "individuals". This "form" is also the traditional wisdom of Chinese culture, emphasizing that one yin and one yang are the way, and mutual achievements are achieved in mutual checks and balances, and without "duality", it is inevitable to lose sight of one or the other in modern society.
The story behind the "individual"
The "individual" has its indissoluble "ultimateity", the "individual" is the ultimate unit of human self-understanding, and respect for man is ultimately implemented on the basis of respect for everyone. This is why the idea of the "individual" is so prevalent in the modern world. In the classical world, individuals are all part of the whole, citizens to the city-state, members to the family, and villagers to the village community; only in the modern world does the individual have its independent status as an individual, although from the perspective of Professor Xianglong's "source occurrence", the "individual" is not jumping out of the stone, but has its origins, and the fact that this "source occurs" does not erase the fact that the "individual" is an independent "unit" both logically and in reality, and the modern world is constructed based on the "individual".
The universal significance of the "individual" to the modern world does not obscure the fact that the concrete formation of his ideas has a strong background in the Western intellectual tradition. This is what we call the "story behind the individual." There are various links in the evolution of this story, which is not covered by Professor Zairin's "eroticism". "Eroticism" does have the color of the modern "individual", but it cannot produce modern "individualism", "desire" is not necessarily the origin of "individual", and "desire" does not necessarily lead to the modern concept of equality. The origins of modern individualism have their own prescriptiveness and limitations.
As far as the "individual" of the Western intellectual tradition is concerned, it originated from the Christian emphasis on "equality before God", which is in a sense a destruction of the traditional "home", although eternal life in the afterlife, but man left the house, wife, brother, parents or children for God's kingdom in the New Testament Luke). This "abandonment" is the ideological origin of the "individual", although in reality the Catholic hierarchy and ecclesiastical system are hierarchical, and the salvation of the "individual" requires the intermediary of the "Church". It was not until Martin Luther's Reformation that the freedom and independence of the "individual" was truly embodied, and Hegel even considered this to be the starting point of the modern world. By establishing a direct connection between the individual and God, Martin Luther abolished the various hierarchical relations in the world, and also abolished the hierarchy within Christianity, thus realistically realizing the logic of the "individual", which is considered the starting point of the modern "individual".
In the humble work, the duality of the modern "individual", that is, the distinction between the "individual of rights" and the "individual of morality", is also discussed. Hobbes did attach importance to individual desires, and he standardized "individual desires" as "individual rights", which was not available in the Chinese intellectual tradition of the Ming and Qing dynasties, and it only stayed in the emphasis on "desire". Dai Zhen condemned "killing with reason" as a justification for "desire", but has not yet raised the pursuit of "desire" to the height of "rights", and the determination of "rights" is the first link of modern individuals.
How to prevent such "individual rights" from "acting arbitrarily"? Kant's philosophy established the "moral individual", excavated the source of morality at the level of individual rationality, and strived to make the individual a "self-disciplined individual" through the promulgation of the moral law of the individual, to prevent the "individual" from "acting arbitrarily" at the level of desire. In terms of academic theory, it is derived from Yang Ming's "mind study". On the one hand, "desire" is not regulated as a kind of "right"; on the other hand, there is no check and balance between "science" and "desireism" derived from "psychology", so there will be "crazy" people such as Li Zhen. This is not the way a "modern individual" is established.
A complete "individual" story, in addition to the distinction between "rights individuals" and "moral individuals", there is also a distinction between "external individuals" and "inner individuals". Martin Luther, after proposing the direct connection between the "individual" and God, specifically distinguished between the "inner man" and the "outer man." Based on "justification by faith," Luther believed that salvation was all about God's grace, and that the relationship between the individual and God was all maintained by "faith," so that the "inner man" was faithful, spiritual, and godly; the "outer man" was meritorious, acting, and his domain belonged to the public sphere, accepting the norms of the monarch.
Based on this distinction between the "inner individual" and the "outer individual", certain qualities of modern individualism were formed. This trait is both the foundation of modern liberalism and the crisis of modern individualism and even modernity. In Luther's discourse, the "inner world" of the individual belongs to God, and political power cannot be violated; John Locke discusses the issue of "religious tolerance" based on this framework, arguing that the "external individual" is limited by public power, but the "inner belief" is inextricably impossible to interfere, and the judgment power of the inner faith lies only with God, which is the philosophical-theological justification behind religious freedom; to John Mill, he also argues that modern "freedom of thought" still maintains this "inner-outer" logical framework, but the "inner world" Not to God, but to oneself, especially after Kant's "moral individual," modern individualism places sufficient trust in the "inner individual." After enlightenment, the "individual" had full autonomy because of his rational faculties.
However, after the second half of the 19th century, when the "individual" was completely autonomous and completely entrusted to himself, what followed was modern nihilism, existential exclamation, a sense of absurdity and nihilism, and relativism was popular. Modern individuals have a tendency to "collapse" from within. This is the limit of modern individualism, and it is its crisis.
Under the premise of respecting the freedom of the "individual right" and the public norms of the "external individual", how to ensure the freedom of the individual in the modern world also requires efforts on the "moral individual" and the "inner individual". At this level, we cannot rely on Western cultural traditions, but also rely on Chinese cultural traditions, which is also the direction that Neo-Confucians have been focusing on, that is, to enrich the "moral individual" and "inner individual" with the "theory of mentality" of the Chinese ideological tradition. Therefore, on the basis of a thorough understanding of the ins and outs of the "modern individual", we must clearly see how the Chinese cultural tradition can balance the wanton behavior of the modern individual; the study of mental nature is based on the "conscience and conscience", and the "conscience and conscience" is precisely the study of "relatives", in this sense, we can understand the deep relationship between "individuals" and "relatives".
The story behind "kissing"
The feeling of "affection" is also a universal human emotion that can evoke universal resonance. The emotion of human love has a different focus in different cultural traditions. In ancient Greece, there were four terms for "love": "Eros" was the love of a man and a woman; "Philia" was the love of friendship; "Agape" was God's love for man; and "Storge" was the love of affection. In ancient Greek philosophy, we see more discussions about "Eros", the most typical of which is Plato's "Drinking", which focuses on his understanding of "Eros", and from this emotion based on the love of men and women, derives the pursuit of truth, the pursuit of "oneness". Moreover, In his The Ethics of Nicomach, Aristotle deals with "Philia"—a kind of friendly love—and Aristotle speaks of "Philia" in such a broad sense that the relationship between superiors and subordinates, conjugal relations, and even between parents and children is discussed in terms of "Philia". In the Western Christian cultural tradition, God's love for mankind has developed, that is, "Agape", which is God's pure love for human beings without asking for anything in return, and is a kind of "holy love". In the Western cultural tradition, there are very rich expositions on "Eros, Philia, Agape", and there is no particularly in-depth theory of "Storge"; "family love" has not been reflected philosophically as a prototype of love, while "Eros, Philia, Agape" has been carried forward as a "prototype of love" in different fields. In the Western cultural tradition, "affectionate love" has become a subspecies of the archetype of love such as "Philia", so it does not have theoretical elaboration and is in the position of being interpreted.
In the Chinese cultural tradition, "affectionate love" has a special term, that is, "kissing". The examination of "kinship" can have two aspects: one is as a universal human emotion; the other is as a basic emotion of Chinese cultural tradition. There is a big difference between the two. As a universal human emotion, "kinship" can be fully felt in various human civilizations, but it is not sufficiently unfolded in theory; in the Chinese cultural tradition, "kinship" has received special attention and has an extraordinary position in theory. Wang Guowei examined the succession system at the time of Yin Zhou in "On the System of Yin Zhou", behind which there are cultural differences, and the Chinese cultural tradition based on Zhou attaches special importance to the feeling of "kinship". By the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, "kinship" as an institutional principle had become a philosophical concept, the basis of "benevolence", and the principle of human nature: "Benevolent people, people also; affinity is greater." (Zhongyong, Chapter 20) It can be seen that "relatives" occupy a unique position in the Chinese cultural tradition. Why does such a universal human emotion stand out in the Chinese cultural tradition and become a basic emotion?
First of all, this is closely related to the ontological presuppositions of the Chinese cultural tradition. In the Chinese cultural tradition, there is no presupposition of a personality god, and the position of life in the cosmic order is not solved by the existence of gods, but emphasizes the large-scale popularity of the universe itself, emphasizing the "endless life" of life, which is based on this understanding of the order of life, and the Chinese cultural tradition attaches special importance to the close relationship between "generations". Therefore, the emotional bond between generations is also particularly valued, and the feeling of "intimacy" is highlighted. This is also the reason why Xianglong and Professor Zailin invariably attach importance to Luo Jinxi's thought. Luo Jinxi very bluntly expressed the logic of thought from birth to relatives. "The destiny of Heaven is unceasing, and the party is born and born; born and born, the party is the parent and the body, the body and the son, the son and the grandson, and even the former and Xuanye." Therefore, the parents, brothers, and descendants are born for the Destiny of Heaven to show a skin; the Destiny of Heaven is to penetrate the bone marrow for filial piety to parents, brothers, and benevolent descendants, and when they are erected, they will become ancient and modern, and they will go away, and they will write the country and the world. Confucius said: Benevolent people also, relatives are great, and their moderation and university are already a sentence. ”
Secondly, "kissing" is not only a basic emotion, but also develops a virtue. "Kinship" love emphasizes "love" between generations, between parents and children. Among the various emotional patterns of human beings, the Chinese cultural tradition highlights the love of "affection" and develops the basic virtue of "filial piety" on the basis of "affection", and thus develops the "family" culture. Based on "relatives" to develop "filial piety", based on "filial piety" to launch "benevolence": "Filial piety is also the basis of benevolence." This is very different from the concept of "love" developed based on "Eros". The morality of "benevolence" will be stronger. As Professor Xianglong said, "kissing" contains two dimensions: both the love of parents for their children and the filial love of children for their parents. Loving-kindness is more of a natural emotion, and even in animals it has a strong expression; while "filial piety" is more of a humanistic indoctrination, which is based on "kissing", and Mencius emphasized that "kissing" is the conscience and conscience, and is the heart of a child. Children often have a rebellious period when they grow up, which is an inevitable part of the growth of "individuals". This is at the same time a period of enlightenment, in which the self is allowed to grow without a check and balance that in Greek culture is accomplished by the indoctrination of the citizens of the city-state, which in the Christian tradition is accomplished by faith in God, and in the Chinese cultural tradition by virtue of "filial piety" based on "kinship." Based on the love of nature," kinship " , it has been civilized into the virtue of "filial piety" through indoctrination, and this virtue has also played a role in ensuring that life is endless and that generations are connected. This also explains the reason why Chinese cultural traditions attach importance to "relatives" and attach importance to "filial piety".
Third, the principle of "pro-kinship" is also embodied in the system of "home country". From the perspective of the "kingdom", it is the principle of the succession of the Son of Heaven; from the perspective of the "family", "kinship" forms a set of virtuous subjects of the family. In other civilizations in the world, each has a "family" culture, ancient Greece has a family culture, Christianity also has a family culture, why China's "home" culture is different from these family culture, the key lies in having a moral culture based on "relatives", which is the most fundamental point of Chinese cultural tradition. In this sense, Professor Xianglong analyzes from the perspective of "source occurrence", "home" seems to have no foundation, "home" needs to be supported by source and primary emotions, in order to truly play a huge role in The Chinese cultural tradition, there is no "relative" home, no "filial piety" home is not solid. In the same way, Professor Zailin attaches great importance to the "body ontology", although the memory of "generation" has been portrayed in the Chinese character "body", but the "body" is still individual after all; the "Filial Piety Sutra" says that "the parents of the body hair and skin" essentially need to be blessed by "kinship" feelings.
China is still the world
"Individual" and "kissing" are obviously two different "stories". It can be said that the "individual" is a story formed within the Western cultural tradition, and the "kinship" is a story that takes place within the Chinese cultural tradition. Today we talk about whether "home" is a story about China or a story that will be played on the world stage. On the one hand, some commentators feel that "On the Family" is basically based on the Chinese cultural tradition in dealing with the issue of "home"; on the other hand, they also feel that the author has the impulse to advocate the universality of "family philosophy".
Today's discussion of "home" is first and foremost a Chinese story. As repeatedly emphasized earlier, "home" has a special place in the Chinese cultural tradition, and Xianglong teacher is particularly prominent in his article: "'Yi' already has a structure of home from the form", and this "prototype of home" can be seen as early as the "Zhou Yi Prologue Gua Biography". The so-called "there are men and women and then there are couples, there are couples and then there are fathers and sons, there are fathers and sons and then there are kings and subjects, there are kings and then there are ups and downs, there are ups and downs and then there are mistakes in etiquette and righteousness." This has even become the way Chinese understand the world, "heaven" and "earth" are human parents, and the world is a family. "'Home' represents a way of understanding the world. This relational, emotional, and ethical understanding of 'home' provides us with a new style of understanding the world around us, which is a characteristic of the Chinese cultural tradition, expressing the relationship with everything in the universe in the way of 'home'. "When we talk about home now, we must talk about it in the historical context of Chinese culture.
In the modern context, what is the role of the "home" tradition of Chinese culture? This is also what we have repeatedly focused on in the text, in the face of the "individual principle" in the modern world, "home" has a positive significance for the development and soundness of "individual" and to resist the negative consequences of "individual position". Individuals and relatives, in the context of modern Chinese culture, can play the role of "opposite". Although the "dual ontology" has evolved separately throughout history, it has merged in evolution. In the Chinese cultural tradition, we can find the factor of attaching importance to the "individual", and in the Western cultural tradition, we can also see the discussion of "home", but each has insufficient development. The West has a "home" culture, but it is inferior to the maturity of the concept of "individual", and the modern "individual-based" culture is mainly developed in the Western world; there are also "individual" elements in the Chinese cultural tradition, but second to the "home" culture. The concept of "individual" in modern Chinese culture was mainly introduced from the West. The opposite of the "dual ontology" takes place in the context of modern Chinese society.
The whole world has its own home culture, and these family cultures have their own crises under the impact of modernity. Some regional cultures have deep roots, such as southern Europe, Latin America, Southeast Asia, East Asia, etc.; some local cultures are relatively weak, and "individuals" are more prominent, such as areas influenced by Anglo-Saxon culture. In different civilizations, the composition of the "family" is different, early Greece is from the perspective of the gods to understand the "home", classical Greece from the perspective of "home economics" to understand the family, Christianity itself is based on the "family" as the prototype, the construction of the "Holy Family" of "Holy Father, Virgin, Son", we can see everywhere "the prototype of the family". In this sense, Xianglong teacher emphasizes that "home" has its universal significance, and the author fully agrees with such a view.
In the modern rationalized world, today we talk about "home" on a philosophical level. Under what conditions can a "home" have universal theoretical value? A fundamental feature of philosophical discourse is the "non-contextualization" of discourse. According to Hegel, the traditional custom with "rational content" must acquire a "rational form" in the modern world, so that it can get rid of its own "custom" and become universal. The concept of the "individual" has the following characteristics: it has gradually acquired rationalization from the beginning of the discourse in the Context of Christianity, to the discourse in the context of Anglo-Saxon culture, and has acquired a "non-contextualized" narrative. Whether the question of "home" today has world significance depends first of all on whether we can philosophicalize the problem of "home" and whether we can "non-contextualize" the discussion of "home". When discussing the issue of "kinship", after understanding the important role of this concept in the Chinese cultural tradition, we also strive to make this concept detached from the context of the "Chinese cultural tradition" and discussed at the most basic emotional level of human love, explaining in a rational way its basic role as an ethical emotion, and how to construct ethical virtues and principles on top of it. The work of philosophicalizing the thesis of "home" has only just begun, and it is hoped that it will be contributed to the world as a universal philosophical thesis.
We stand in the modern era to conduct in-depth discussions on the "home" issue, hoping to have the ability to discuss the home problem in modern society. "Home" is a motif, a prototype, where there are both the problems of how to face the challenges of recreating the family in the modern world and how to construct a "home away from home" in modern society, such as the welfare society. Hegel's conception of the "second family" or "universal family" already has the shadow of a welfare society. Therefore, saving the "home" in the modern world is a very broad field of discourse, including many extended questions. "Only by exerting the power of 'home' can there be a kind of 'sound individual'. At the same time, 'kissing' can develop a culture of community of life, a culture that warms the world. In this sense, it is still possible for Chinese cultural traditions to contribute to the modern world in this way. Such a culture will have a positive significance for modern people, and 'returning home' is the common destiny of modern people. ”
There is academic thought There is thoughtful scholarship
Focus on China
Uphold a humanistic stance
A platform for humanities and social science scholars
Welcome to "Explore and Argue" Together