Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front Phil Chin    2009, Vol. 4 Issue (2) : 157-179     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11466-009-0010-9
research-article
“Ru”: Xunzi’s thoughts on Ru and its significance
CHEN Lai()
Department of Philosophy, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
Download: PDF(287 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

No matter what the original meaning of “Ru” was, looking at it from the perspective of the history of philosophy, the image of “Ru” as portrayed by other schools in the Warring States period was infused with the characteristics of Confucianism of that time. The self-understanding of Warring States Confucians expressed by their employment of the character “Ru” clearly displayed Ru’s character as well as the main points of the Ru school, namely Confucianism. In particular, the words and thoughts of Xunzi, the great Confucian master, on “Ru”, epitomize Pre-Qin Confucian’s understanding and expectations of themselves, and also reflect the Confucian new pursuit in facing the age of the unification of Qin.

Keywords Xunzi      Ru      Pre-Qin period     
Corresponding Author(s): CHEN Lai,Email:chenl@phil.pku.edu.cn   
Issue Date: 05 June 2009
 Cite this article:   
CHEN Lai. “Ru”: Xunzi’s thoughts on Ru and its significance[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2009, 4(2): 157-179.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.1007/s11466-009-0010-9
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2009/V4/I2/157
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
CHEN Lai
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] XU Difei. Hintikka’s Logical Revolution[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 630-648.
[2] WANG Niecai. Revelation or Reason? Two Opposing Interpretations of the Confucian Classics during the Chinese Rites Controversy[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 284-302.
[3] Daniel Canaris. The Tianzhu Shilu Revisited: China’s First Window into Western Scholasticism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 201-225.
[4] Jan Szaif. Drunkenness as a Communal Practice: Platonic and Peripatetic Perspectives[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(1): 94-110.
[5] NI Peimin. Toward a Gongfu Reconstruction of Confucianism —Responses to Comments by Huang Yong, Fan Ruiping, and Wang Qingjie[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(2): 240-253.
[6] HUANG Yong. Confucian Ethics: Altruistic? Egoistic? Both? Neither?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(2): 217-231.
[7] FAN Ruiping. Principlism, Pragmatism, or Reconstructionist Confucianism? —Some Comments on Ni Peimin’s English Translation of the Analects [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(2): 207-216.
[8] Patricia Huntington. Place as Refuge: Exploring the Poetical Legacy of Matsuo Bashō[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 572-590.
[9] ZHENG Shuhong. James Legge’s Hermeneutical Methodology as Revealed in His Translation of the Daxue[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(2): 249-264.
[10] PENG Xinwu. The Development of Traditional Chinese View of Rule of Law and Its Modern Transformation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 587-607.
[11] GUO Yi. Research Findings Concerning Excavated Texts and Learning in Early China[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(2): 168-184.
[12] TAN Mingran. The Problem of Confucian Moral Cultivation and Its Solution: Using Ritual Propriety to Support Rule by Law[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 88-103.
[13] Stewart Candlish. Was Wittgenstein an Analytic Philosopher? Wittgenstein vs Russell[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 35-53.
[14] XU Yingjin. Does Wittgenstein Actually Undermine the Foundation of Artificial Intelligence?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 3-20.
[15] ZHOU Lian. Can Rawls’ Constructivism Avoid the Euthyphro Dilemma? In Reply to Shafer-Landau[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 568-578.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed