Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front Phil Chin    2013, Vol. 8 Issue (2) : 183-198     https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-002-013-0014-0
research-article |
The Battle over Confucius and Classical Chinese Philosophy in European Early Enlightenment Thought (1670-1730)
Jonathan Israel()
School of Historical Studies, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA
Download: PDF(276 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

A profound split is evident during the period 1670–1730 in the way European scholars and commentators attempted to understand and describe classical Chinese thought. For some, Confucianism acknowledged divine creation and divine governance of the world, immortality of the soul and other elements of Natural Theology. The Radical Enlightenment thinkers, however, and also some Christian scholars denied that Confucianism was based on Natural Theology or pervaded by belief in divine providence, characterizing it rather as monist, naturalist and Spinozist. The disagreement proved fundamental in several respects and proved divisive for the Church, as well as European thought more generally, producing a series of lively disputes that continued over several decades.

Keywords Radical Enlightenment      Confucianism      atheism      naturalism      Spinozism      monism      Jesuits      creation      divine providence      Natural Theology     
Corresponding Authors: Jonathan Israel,Email:jisrael@ias.edu   
Issue Date: 05 June 2013
 Cite this article:   
Jonathan Israel. The Battle over Confucius and Classical Chinese Philosophy in European Early Enlightenment Thought (1670-1730)[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(2): 183-198.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-002-013-0014-0
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2013/V8/I2/183
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Jonathan Israel
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] XU Keqian. A Contemporary Re-Examination of Confucian Li 禮 and Human Dignity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 449-464.
[2] 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.
[3] PENG Guoxiang. Contemporary Chinese Philosophy in the Chinese-Speaking World: An Overview[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 91-119.
[4] Ady Van Den Stock. The Semantics of Wisdom in the Philosophy of Tang Junyi: Between Transformative Knowledge and Transcendental Reflexivity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 39-54.
[5] CHEN Yajun. Between Darwin and Hegel: On Dewey’s Concept of Experience[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 104-119.
[6] Alicia Hennig. Three Different Approaches to Virtue in Business- Aristotle, Confucius, and Lao Zi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 556-586.
[7] Mircea Dumitru. On Toleration, Charity, and Epistemic Fallibilism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 671-679.
[8] GAO Kun. A Naturalistic Look into Maddy’s Naturalistic Philosophy of Mathematics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 137-151.
[9] 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.
[10] LAN Fei. Humanity and Paternal Eros: The Father-Son Relationship in Comparative Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 629-646.
[11] Richard Shusterman. Somaesthetics and Chinese Philosophy: Between Unity and Pragmatist Pluralism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 201-211.
[12] YAO Xinzhong. An Eco-Ethical Interpretation of Confucian Tianren Heyi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(4): 570-585.
[13] Jung-Yeup Kim. Confucian Ethical Practice as a Method of Creating and Sustaining Whiteheadian Beauty[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(2): 318-328.
[14] Chris Fraser. Xunzi Versus Zhuangzi: Two Approaches to Death in Classical Chinese Thought[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(3): 410-427.
[15] John Ramsey. The Role Dilemma in Early Confucianism[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(3): 376-387.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed