131.
Neo-Confucianism
Confucianism was oriented towards order, rules, ritual,
social responsibility, and filial piety. That is in danger of stifling
innovation and yielding formalism and stagnation, blocking the creativity of
deviance . Or is this view of mine the typical Western bias towards
individualism? In this blog I have argued the importance of collaboration and
trust and the empathy needed for it. I am seeking a middle path between self
and other, and between stability and change.
From the 11th century AD neo-Confucianism tried to
develop a new synthesis, with a re-absorption of Confucianism. This was
inspired, in part, by the fear that Taoist metaphysical speculation would go
overboard at the expense of practical things, and ‘the negative attitude of the
Buddhists toward life in the world and their preference for retreating from
active social life … would undermine the ancient forms of Chinese social
organization’ (quoted from John M. Koller’s survey of Oriental philosophies,
2nd edition p. 306).
There is a need to reconcile opposites of stability and
change, order and disorder, self and other, good and evil, and that is what
Taoism, in particular, aims to establish.
However, one source of tension is that while Buddhism and
Confucianism are non-religious and non-metaphysical, Taoism proposes Tao as a
metaphysical entity, the source of both being and non-being, a fundamental
principle and source, without characteristics, which cannot be named, and which
functions through the world and is indistinguishable from it. This resembles
Spinoza’s notion of God.
A source of tension between Confucianism and Taoism is that
in contrast with Confucianism Taoism is non-interventionist. From its
metaphysical view of the harmony and perfection of nature it wants to let
things work out for their perfection naturally, left to themselves. This led to
a split in neo-Confucianism between interventionists and non-interventionists
that reminds us of the split, in the West, between socialists and
libertarians.
A similarity between Taoism and Buddhism is that the sage
transcends the world of ordinary experience and cognition. In relinquishing the
mind of its own the sage is at peace and one with the world. This reinforces
non-interventionism.
In view of these complementarities and tensions, it is not
surprising that neo-Confucianism has a variety of forms.
However, a deep commonality of Confucianism, Buddhism and
Taoism seems to be a sense of underlying unity, of the spiritual and the
material, of substance and change, of thought and action, of knowledge and
morality, of self and other.
I wonder how robust that is under incorporation of Western
philosophy, as occurred later, in new Confucianism.
Where do I stand in all this? I am trying to reconcile the
oppositions between subject and object, self and other, order and disorder, and
trust and control, without metaphysics, by analysing the logic of the dynamics
between them. Here, I run into a fascinating possibility of a parallel with the
Taoist principles of Yin and Yang, which I will discuss later.
No comments:
Post a Comment