甜心一包養網【丁為祥】“踐行”還是“踐形”？——王陽明“知行合一”的根據、先驅及其判準

requestId:684c3e1471e818.60673017.

“Performance” or “Performance”?

———Wang Yangming’s “Unification of Knowledge and Action”, and its judgments

Author: Ding Haoxiang (Teacher from the Department of Philosophy, Master Xian, Xinxi)

Source: Author Author Authorized by Confucian Network, Original Philosophy, Philosophy, 2020 Issue 1

Time: Confucius was the 2570th year of the Gengzi third month 8th, Guiyou

                                                                                                                                                                                       p> 

Abstract:

Since “Shangshu”, Chinese people have formed a “action” system based on the foundation of cognition. Since then, due to the collapse of traditional destiny and the convexity of virtue and life and their individualization, since Confucius, through the onset of the rise of the thoughts of the past and Mencius, Confucianism has formed a “action” system based on the foundation of scrupulousness and integrity. Therefore, when it comes to the Neo-Confucianism of Song and Ming Dynasty, his knowledge and action had both the “action” system based on the knowledge system, and the “forming” system based on the “Mencius” and “Big Science”; and Wang Yangming’s “unity of knowledge and action” was based on the “forming” system developed from the “forming” system to the “action” system based on the knowledge basis. This twist, of course, interferes with people’s cognitive style at a certain level, thus highlighting the deep disagreement between moral sensibility and cognitive sensibility and its different life effects.

Keywords: Realization; steadiness; unity of knowledge and action; learning of body and mind; learning of knowledge and action;

1. Proposing questions

More than ten years ago, the author wrote the article “Realization and action-the work system of two differences in the Song and Ming dynasties” (hereinafter referred to as “Realization and action”), and published it in “History of Chinese Philosophy” No. 1, 2009. The article proposes that since “Shangshu”, Chinese people have formed a “action” system based on cognition. Since then, from Confucius and through the onset of Zisi and Mencius, Confucianism has formed a “formal” system based on the individual’s cautious and honesty. In Song and Ming Ching’s Neo-Confucianism, his knowledge and action were both “action” systems based on the knowledge system, and “forming” systems based on “Mencius” and “Big Science”; Wang Yangming’s “unity of knowledge and action” was derived from the “forming” system to the “action” system based on the knowledge basis. Over the years, the author once said that Wang Yangming’s “unity of knowledge and action” and its direction were unremitting.1, but the term “performing action” was always a basic category for Wang Yangming’s “unity of knowledge and action”; and for modern society, when people put their ideas on the basis of understanding in their real life into “performing action”, “performing action” became an important purpose that Wang Yangming said that “unforming knowledge and action” was neither able to be friends nor understood. But that’s equivalent toThe Cheng Zhu Li learned about Zhu Li’s “integration of knowledge and action” by Wang Yangming.

Why do you say this? Because “action” originally refers to “action” and implementation in “action”, and the provision of “action” clearly defines the first-standing nature of “knowledge”, so the so-called “action” can only be a kind of manifestation and implementation of “knowledge first”, and can only be based on the basis of knowledge, so it can be said to be a certain conclusion based on the basis of “knowledge first and then”. Because it corresponds to the knowledge and action view of Song and Ming dynasties, this view represents the basic direction of Cheng and Zhu’s knowledge and action view.

Regarding Cheng and Zhu’s knowledge and action view, from the example of Cheng’s example, “It is like a person who wants to go to a Beijing teacher, he must know that it is Carry a month’s price out of that door, walk that way, and then go. If you don’t know, even if you have the desire to do it, what will it be?” (Volume 18 of “Cheng’s Book”), to the “I don’t understand the meaning, how can I go about it” as Zhu Xi emphasized “(Volume 9 of Zhu Xi’s Words), and what Zhu Xi said, “to generalize the principles of knowledge and action, and to observe it in one thing, know first, and to act later, there is no doubt about it.”2, both clearly determine the first nature of knowledge, and only on the basis of knowing first can one have the realization and implementation of “action”. Therefore, when people use the so-called “action” to describe and conclude Wang Yangming’s “unity of knowledge and action”, on the one hand, they understand Wang Yangming’s thoughts based on the manifestations and implementation of “action” and “words” recognized by Cheng and Zhu. On the other hand, it is equivalent to completely erasing the basic differences between Yang Ming’s mind and Cheng and Zhu’s theory of knowledge and action, thus making the “unity of knowledge and action” completely an indescribable argument that lacks specific meanings. In other words, if Wang Yangming’s “unity of knowledge and action” is the present and implementation of “action” and “words”, then not only does it have no need to put forward, but even if it is proposed, its meaning is basically included in the knowledge and action view of Cheng and Zhu’s philosophy.

Of course, understanding Wang Yangming’s “unity of knowledge and action” by the categories of “realization” and “realization” is undoubtedly a confusion between Yang Ming’s knowledge and action view of Cheng and Zhu’s philosophy, or perhaps it is said that the code is to “realization” as “realization”. In factBaobao.com, the so-called “repeat”, “repeat” and “repeat” include “repeat”, etc., are all meanings that Cheng and Zhu Zhixing and Huaxia have intellectual knowledge. There is no theorist’s theoretical exploration in Song and Ming Technological Studies that does not refer to “repeat”. Therefore, this completeness can be said to be a kind of “comprehensive” in Song and Ming Technological Studies. Understanding” or “common law”. In this scenario, either Wang Yangming’s “unity of knowledge and action” does not have the need to be put forward, or even if it is proposed, its meaning does not exceed Zhu Zi’s “unity of knowledge and action”; or Wang Yangming’s “unity of knowledge and action” has its own unique value.