Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front. Philos. China    2018, Vol. 13 Issue (4) : 574-584     https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-007-018-0044-1
SPECIAL THEME |
Hegel, Schelling and Laozi on Nothingness
Kwok Kui Wong()
Department of Humanties and Creative Writing, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China
Download: PDF(337 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

This article looks at Hegel’s and Schelling’s discussions of Laozi’s wu 無 in History of Philosophy and Philosophy of Mythology respectively, and then relates them back to those two Western thinkers’ own understandings of the concept of nothingness. This exploration demonstrates that while Hegel sees nothingness more as a logical concept not different from being, Schelling equates Laozi’s wu with Nichtseiende of the first potency in his theory of the potencies of God. This article will further put the question in perspective by examining or speculating how the three philosophers would address the problem of ex nihilo nihil fit. Finally, it will highlight the striking similarity between the views of Schelling and Laozi regarding the role of the will or desire (yu 欲), in our knowledge about nothingness: While Schelling’s first potency, Nichtseiende, is a “not willing will,” the second potency is “willing” and therefore the beginning of existence. Laozi, on the other hand, believes that without desire we can discern the ultimate mystery, while with desire we can only see the outer fringe of things. However, Laozi differs from Schelling in that the latter’s willing God is absent in his philosophy.

Keywords nothingness      being      will      desire     
Issue Date: 03 January 2019
 Cite this article:   
Kwok Kui Wong. Hegel, Schelling and Laozi on Nothingness[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 574-584.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-007-018-0044-1
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2018/V13/I4/574
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Kwok Kui Wong
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Nahum Brown. Why Is Being Nothing? An Apophatic Reading of Hegel’s Opening to the Science of Logic [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 518-534.
[2] Thalia Wheatley, Terence Horgan. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Mental Causation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 349-360.
[3] Marcel Brass, Derk Pereboom. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Free Will[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 361-376.
[4] Timothy O’Connor. Consciousness, Free Will, and the Sciences of the Mind[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 394-401.
[5] Paul Thagard. Mind, Consciousness, and Free Will[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 377-393.
[6] LIN Guanghua. Exploring the Non-objectified Character of Dao in the Laozi : A Modern Articulation1[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(3): 358-376.
[7] ZHENG Kai. Ontology and Metaphysics in Chinese Philosophy[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(3): 408-428.
[8] SUN Ning. Natural Realism or Transactionalism: On the Relationships between Putnam and Two Pragmatists, James and Dewey[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(2): 295-305.
[9] HE Jing, Ejgil Jespersen. Habitual Learning as Being-in-the-World: On Merleau-Ponty and the Experience of Learning[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(2): 306-321.
[10] Alan Fox. A Process Interpretation of Daoist Thought[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 26-37.
[11] JIN Xiping. Heidegger’s Conception of Being-with (Mitsein ) and His Simple Designation of Social and Political Reality in the Black Notebooks[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 415-429.
[12] Teun Tieleman. The Early Stoics and Aristotelian Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 104-121.
[13] GE Tianqin. Can Physical Parts of Substances Be Substances? The Dual Models of Analysis in Aristotle’s Notion of Substance[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(3): 474-491.
[14] Roger T. Ames. “Bodyheartminding” (Xin 心): Reconceiving the Inner Self and the Outer World in the Language of Holographic Focus and Field[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 167-180.
[15] Nicholas S. Brasovan. Conjunctions and/or Disjunctions: Radical Empiricism in the History of Philosophy[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(1): 130-148.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed