Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front. Philos. China    2009, Vol. 4 Issue (3) : 360-369     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11466-009-0023-4
Research articles |
Morality and nature: The essential difference between the Dao of Chinese philosophy and metaphysics in Western philosophy
YU Weidong , XU Jin ,
College of Philosophy, Hubei University, Wuhan 430062, China;
Download: PDF(218 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract Both thinkings on Dao in Chinese philosophy and metaphysics in Western philosophy investigate things on a spiritual level that transcends experience, but there are incommensurable differences between them. The objective of “metaphysics” is ontological knowledge about nature from the perspective of epistemological “truth-pursuing”. Western metaphysics is thus a “metaphysics of nature”. Dao in Chinese philosophy, on the other hand, more often manifests itself in “good-pursuing” by means of the internal, experiential pursuit of moral stature and spiritual security. Philosophy of Dao is thus a “metaphysics of ethics”. The cause of this difference can be traced back to the differences between the rational tradition of the West, characterized by the dualism of the subject and the object, and the moral tradition of China, characterized by the integration of man and nature.
Keywords Dao      metaphysics      morality      nature      
Issue Date: 05 September 2009
 Cite this article:   
YU Weidong,XU Jin. Morality and nature: The essential difference between the Dao of Chinese philosophy and metaphysics in Western philosophy[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2009, 4(3): 360-369.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.1007/s11466-009-0023-4
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2009/V4/I3/360
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
YU Weidong
XU Jin
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] 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.
[2] Jana S. Rošker. From Humanized Nature to Naturalized Humans―Li Zehou’s Transformation of the Classical Chinese “Tianren Heyi ” Paradigm Through the Lens of Kant and Early Marx[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 72-90.
[3] John Makeham. Xiong Shili on the Nature, the Mind and the Origin of Badness as Evidenced in Ming Xin Pian 明心篇 (Explaining the Mind )[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 4-22.
[4] Mario Wenning. Mysticism and Peace of Mind: Reflections on Tugendhat and Daoism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 554-571.
[5] ZHANG Weiwen. The Philosophy of “Naturalness” in the Laozi and Its Value For Contemporary Society[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(3): 340-357.
[6] ZHENG Kai. Ontology and Metaphysics in Chinese Philosophy[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(3): 408-428.
[7] Bo R. Meinertsen. Towards Gratitude to Nature: Global Environmental Ethics for China and the World[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(2): 207-223.
[8] Jos de Mul. The Earth Garden: Going Back or Going Forward to Nature?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(2): 237-248.
[9] LIU Jing. Growth, Experience and Nature in Dewey’s Philosophy and Chinese Philosophy[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 90-103.
[10] CHENG Lesong. The Symbolism of the Body in Daoism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 54-71.
[11] David Chai. Ji Kang on Nourishing Life[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 38-53.
[12] Alan Fox. A Process Interpretation of Daoist Thought[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 26-37.
[13] Thomas Michael, CHEN Yazhou. Approaching Laozi : Comparing a Syncretic Reading to a Synthetic One[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 10-25.
[14] Alicia Hennig. Three Different Approaches to Virtue in Business- Aristotle, Confucius, and Lao Zi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 556-586.
[15] Christopher C. Chrappa. The Incomprehensible Art of Thomas Hobbes[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 680-697.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed