requestId:68499ab6c5d1a5.39763677.

Comparison of family and country views in Chinese and Western political thinking

——Assessment of the Chinese between Asian Risott and Pre-Qin Confucianism

Author: Wen Huosheng (Associate Professor of the Department of Political Science, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Qing Dynasty)

Source: “Politics Research” Issue 6, 2017

Time: Confucius was the 19th day of the first month of Wuxu

Dingyou

Jesus March 6, 2018

 

When Chinese who are familiar with “cultivating themselves, pursuing their families, governing the country, and pacifying the whole country”, he would be strongly affected when he translated into Aristotle’s “Politics”. Because the “Politics” proposed in the first chapter that there are differences between the country and the country (1252a8~17). Aristotle spent a whole volume discussing why families and countries are different, and used this as the basis for the entire book. In this article, the disagreement of Chinese and Western mentality era about the relationship between the country and the country has had a major impact on the subsequent political thinking and even the development of political reality.

 

It should be said that the relationship between the country and the country is not a new problem. Whether in the East or in China, there are relatively rich research and developments on the relationship between the country and the country. Moreover, there are disagreements in the research on the research, especially history, society and political science, which provides us with rich insights. From the perspective of political thinking history, there are many research results on the relationship between the country and the country. Related discussions include representative thinkers such as Aristotle, Augustine, John. Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John B. Rawls) and others explored the family-country relationship thinking. However, there are not many special works to sort out the discussions of Chinese thinkers on the relationship between the country and the country from the perspective of political thinking history, and there are even fewer results in comparative discussions on the study of Chinese and Western thinkers on the relationship between the country and the country. Teacher Lin Anwu has a special chapter in his works to discuss this, but he has placed the relationship between the Eastern Family and the country in the modern context of social contract discussions for assessment. This treatment method is too simple and not only destroys Oriental Thoughts.However, the reconciliation of the internal tradition and the use of modern Eastern thinking to survey Chinese traditional thoughts will inevitably be suspected of being misplaced by the times. This paper specifies the differences between the two regarding the relationship between the country and the country from the perspective of the history of political thinking and taking the thinking of the Chinese and Western axial era as an example.

 

As a study on comparing the history of political thinking, there are several ways to discuss the needs to be explained in advance.

 

First, in terms of the selection of the subjects of discussion, this article limits the comparison subjects to Aristotle and Confucianism in the pre-Qin period. This is because there are colorful thinking traditions within the Chinese and Western political thinking. Aristotle and pre-Qin Confucianism both occupy a high-level position in their respective civilization traditions and have a major impact on the political thinking of later generations, and there is indeed comparable between the two. As for specific texts, this article focuses on the use of the Aristotle text, with important points being “Politics” and “Nicomac Ethics”; Confucian texts are mainly concentrated in the four books, including “Shangshu” and “Filial Piety”.

 

Secondly, in terms of research and discussion, we need to pay attention to the gaps and forks in thinking when comparing political thinking history research. Pay attention to the gaps means that we should not only pay attention to what the thinking school has said, but also what the thinking school has not said. As for the topic of this article, we need to pay attention to why there is no discussion on political issues in traditional Chinese political vocabulary, and is it the focus of political thinking in Eastern modernity? Why does the relationship between the monarch and the subject leave rich information in Chinese traditional political verbs, but is fundamentally in the Eastern political thinking? Pay attention to the fork means that some issues have been discussed by both parties, but the discussion methods are very different. For example, the Confucianism in the pre-Qin period had a “sage king” and Plata had a “fool king”. Aristotle also discussed a monarch who was ordinary like a god, but the purpose of their thinking was very different. These gaps and forks are exactly the places where political thinking and historical research need to focus.

 

Third, from the perspective of research and development, this article focuses on combining the inner perspective and the inner perspective. Inner perspective emphasizes that each specific ideological tradition has its own specific problem consciousness and internal logic; while inner perspective emphasizes the interaction between political thinking and political reality. This article believes that in the study of comparative political thinking, these two perspectives are not biased. For example, only through the inner perspective can we understand why loyalty and filial piety become a focus of China’s modern political thinking; only through the inner perspective can we understand why loyalty and filial piety in the pre-Qin period was expressed as filial piety before loyalty, but after Qin and Han, it gradually changed to loyalty and filial piety before filial piety. Therefore, during the discussion, we must master the twists and turns of ideological development in the interaction between political thinking and political practice.

 

Because of the loss of this articlePointing to political thinking, not political practice, means that in the book, Ye Qiu-jin rarely appears after this, and is a slight and insignificant Chinese and Western politicsConsumering and family situation are not the focus of this article. They will only enter our vision when it helps us understand the thinking of the family and the country. This article does not deal with the problem of how ideological traditions themselves bind political practices, and are even used to shape the inner political environment. At the same time, this article’s research is importantly limited to the political thinking in the Arizona era, and it is still unable to deal with the development problems of Zhang Li in the later generations of thinking traditions.

 

This article is divided into three departments. The first section draws the two basic presets of “family and country-specific paths” and “family and country-specific structure” in Chinese and Western political thinking; the second section analyzes why the “family and country-specific paths” are conducive to opening up the imagination space of political design, and the basic presets of “family and country-specific structure” are He tends to take the monarchy as a unique political choice; the third section examines why Confucianism changes filial piety and loyalty, and expands filial piety in family ethics to social and political fields, while Aristotle thinks about the relationship between the people with perfect friendship between the companions as the prototype. In the discussion department, the author will explore how to place a “home” in the “country” to better promote the healthy development of politics.

 

1. Basic Preparation: The family and the country have different paths and the country are the same

 

Aristotle believed that the family and the country were two different kinds of things. The little girl went inside and took out the bottles and cats, and fed some water and food. Things of minor discordance, while the Confucianism of the pre-Qin Dynasty believed that the family and the country were coherent, or even one.

 

In the opening of “Politics”, Aristotle sets up a target: “Some people say that city-state politicians are similar to kings, parents or slaves. This statement is misleading” (1252a8~9). The “someone” here refers to the “master of Ilia” in Platt’s “Politicians”. He believes that there is no real difference between the master’s court and the small city-state. The politicians and parents “just compete with each other in terms of the number of people they manage” (1252a10). This view is very similar to that of Chinese tradition: the home is a small country, and the country is a master.

 

However, Aristotle obviously cannot criticize this view. He believes that there are quality differences between the family and the country. They are a combination of two different types. The theme of the first volume of “Politics” is to discuss the differences between them. To this end, Aristotle proposed two evidences: the first is the evidence of learning. The emergence of human society is that the two relationships of male, female, mast