Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front. Philos. China    2015, Vol. 10 Issue (4) : 629-646     https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-004-015-0050-8
Research Article |
Humanity and Paternal Eros: The Father-Son Relationship in Comparative Perspective
LAN Fei()
Department of Philosophy and Religion, The University of Mississippi, University MS 38677, USA
Download: PDF(380 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

This paper examines the human relational patterns presented in the philosophical writings of the Confucian thinker Dai Zhen (戴震1724–77) and the Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas’s (1906–95) Totality and Infinity to uncover the ethical significance of the father-son relationship. I argue that for both thinkers the father-son relation is not just one type of human relationship among other social dyads, but rather, of greater significance, serves as the paradigmatic model of the ethical human relationship in bringing to light the idea of the ethical self as a responsible being in relation to others.

Keywords Confucianism      Jewish thought      Dai Zhen      Emmanuel Levinas      the father-son relationship      responsibility     
Issue Date: 26 January 2016
 Cite this article:   
LAN Fei. Humanity and Paternal Eros: The Father-Son Relationship in Comparative Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 629-646.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-004-015-0050-8
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2015/V10/I4/629
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
LAN Fei
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Marcel Brass, Derk Pereboom. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Free Will[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 361-376.
[2] XU Keqian. A Contemporary Re-Examination of Confucian Li 禮 and Human Dignity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 449-464.
[3] ZHANG Ke. Situationism and Moral Responsibility[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 420-429.
[4] 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.
[5] PENG Guoxiang. Contemporary Chinese Philosophy in the Chinese-Speaking World: An Overview[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 91-119.
[6] 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.
[7] Alicia Hennig. Three Different Approaches to Virtue in Business- Aristotle, Confucius, and Lao Zi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 556-586.
[8] Sai Hang Kwok. Tianming and the Other: Rethinking the Source of Responsibility in the Zhong Yong and Emmanuel Levinas[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 501-520.
[9] François Raffoul. The Invisible and the Secret: Of a Phenomenology of the Inapparent[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 395-414.
[10] 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.
[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