| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Legitimacy of Chinese philosophy ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Legitimacy of Chinese philosophy
The debate over whether the ancient Chinese masters can be counted as philosophy has been discussed since the introduction of this academic discipline into China about a hundred years ago.〔p. 3, Defoort, Carine, and Ge Zhaoguang. "Editors' Introduction." Contemporary Chinese Thought 37.1 (2005). Print.〕 Cultural immersion in the West by figures such as Hu Shi and Feng Youlan led to an increased interest in a Chinese philosophy and stimulated the creation of this field which had not yet been labeled nor discussed as such until this point.〔p. 4, Defoort, Carine, and Ge Zhaoguang. "Editors' Introduction." Contemporary Chinese Thought 37.1 (2005). Print.〕 Feng Youlan made sure to make the distinction between ''Zhongguo de zhexue'' (philosophical activity pursued in China ) and ''Zhongguo di zhexue'' (philosophy from Chinese soil ).〔p. 4, Defoort, Carine, and Ge Zhaoguang. "Editors' Introduction." Contemporary Chinese Thought 37.1 (2005). Print.〕 The debates over the legitimacy of Chinese philosophy primarily concern the indigenous philosophy of China. They range in their central focus: whether the disciple of “philosophy” existed in traditional Chinese thought; whether the subjects and issues involved in the discipline existed in Chinese thought; and whether the now established discipline of Chinese philosophy can be truly be considered Chinese. These contentions have led to larger questions about the nature of philosophy and its discipline.
==Academic Discipline of Chinese Philosophy==
The discipline of philosophy did not enter China until the 19th century. Nishi Amane, a Japanese scholar, first translated the term “philosophy” into Chinese as ''zhexue'' (wisdom learning) in 1873. Though he originally coined this term solely to refer to the concept of Western Philosophy, he argued that the nature of the discipline of philosophy was in a constant flux, thus creating an opening for the realm of Chinese philosophy. After the Western infusion at the turn of the 20th century, an emulation of the Western educational system and its way of categorization spread through China.〔p.69, Gan, Chunsong. "Changing from Choice of Methods to Question Awareness: An Interpretation of the Question of the “Legitimacy of Chinese Philosophy." Contemporary Chinese Thought 37.1 (2005). Print.〕 While ancient Chinese education had been based on ethical education, after the Opium War the educational system was considered an obstruction in the realization of Chinese potential.〔p.81, Gan, Chunsong. "Changing from Choice of Methods to Question Awareness: An Interpretation of the Question of the “Legitimacy of Chinese Philosophy." Contemporary Chinese Thought 37.1 (2005). Print.〕 The ''Dao tong'' (Confucian orthodoxy) was refashioned into the “history of Chinese philosophy,” effectively objectivizing a concept meant to be lived.〔p.69, Qiao, Qingju. "Western Discourse and Shadows in the Legitimacy Crisis of Chinese Philosophy." Contemporary Chinese Thought 37.3 (2006). Print.〕 The Chinese philosophy of the past included classical learning (jinxue), the learning of the ancient masters (zhuzixue) speculative learning (xuanxue), Buddhist learning, and learning of principle (lixue). While all these branches share common elements with Western philosophy, it was definitively decided that these were not philosophy in their original state. Hence, there was the subsequent distillation by later scholars using Western notions to form a history of Chinese philosophy.〔p.35, Yu, Xuanmeng. "On the New Round of Comparative Studies of Chinese and Western Philosophical Types." Contemporary Chinese Thought 37.3 (2006). Print.〕
The Rules for Colleges and Universities in 1903 divided academic subjects into disciplines, with classics as one of these disciplines; by 1913, classical studies was dropped, diminishing its former significance.〔p.82, Gan, Chunsong. "Changing from Choice of Methods to Question Awareness: An Interpretation of the Question of the “Legitimacy of Chinese Philosophy." Contemporary Chinese Thought 37.1 (2005). Print.〕 There were no divisions of scholarship based on the nature of knowledge in China prior to Western importation.〔p. 63, Hu, Jun. "The Legitimacy of the Discussions on the “Legitimacy” of “Chinese Philosophy." Contemporary Chinese Thought 37.3 (2006). Print.〕 By 1914, Beijing University created a Division of Chinese Philosophy and in 1919, Cai Yuanpei, the new president, changed the name to the Department of Philosophy. 〔p.13, Zheng, Jiadong. "The Issue of the “Legitimacy” of Chinese Philosophy." Contemporary Chinese Thought 37.1 (2005). Print.〕 This marked the start of the new academic discipline of Chinese Philosophy.
Chinese philosophy developed under the paradigm of Western philosophy, rather than the other way around, because of the prevalent view in the early twentieth century of the superiority of Western culture. With advanced military, technology, and a wider dissemination of culture, Western systems of knowledge attained a “universal” quality that relegated Chinese paradigms as “local particularities.”〔p.82, Gan, Chunsong. "Changing from Choice of Methods to Question Awareness: An Interpretation of the Question of the “Legitimacy of Chinese Philosophy." Contemporary Chinese Thought 37.1 (2005). Print.〕 Yet because any global contact will most likely stimulate change, the transformation of traditional Chinese academics can be seen as both an imposition by the West, as well as a conscious choice by the Chinese to move towards a seemingly inevitable direction.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Legitimacy of Chinese philosophy」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|