Chinese philosophy is a philosophy based on “home” rather than merely a philosophy about the home. “Home” is the origin from which the individual emerges. Heaven and Earth are the origins from which humanity emerges. Human knowledge and thought allow individuals to transcend the undifferentiated unity of “home,” becoming individual existences while also endowing themselves with a universal ethical mode of existence. Returning to oneself through the act of departure becomes the inevitable way to realize human existence. Civilization, as a rational forward movement, is inevitably accompanied by the obscuration of ignorance, causing individuals to deviate from their true essence. The realization of human existence inherently contains a dimension of returning to one’s original essence within its forward movement. In the depths of the human soul, there is an original and persistent nostalgia for “home.” Chinese philosophy emphasizes “knowing where to stop,” with Daoism advocating “having become remote, it returns” and Confucianism advocating “returning from a short distance,” which aims to maintain a balanced tension between advancement and stopping, preserving the holistic significance of human existence. Humans, as holistic beings, grasp themselves and their surrounding world in an original modal way. Human existence originates from “home,” with the closest emotional expression being “kinship.” “Home” and “kinship” serve as intermediaries or bridges for individuals to realize universal love for themselves and others, extending to “loving the people and all things.” This universality, founded on the premise of difference, bestows the image and meaning of “home.” Thus, human self-identity and the development of civilization can achieve their authentic significance and rational foundation. The modal existence approach followed by Chinese philosophy presents a unique spiritual direction for the future development of philosophy.
The concept of “inner sage and outer king” (neisheng waiwang 内圣外王) first appeared in Zhuangzi, later evolving to become the Confucian Way (Dao 道 ). Daoist sages and Confucian sages are inconsistent in terms of inner sage due to the fundamental starting point of their thoughts and the way of thinking and reasoning, and thus the ways of their inner sage have their own characteristics and are inseparable. Regarding outer king, Confucian sages are more proactively concerned with real politics and social life, and the way of the king is richer and stronger. Confucian “inner sage” and “outer king” take “body” as the coordinate, and the directions of force are different, one being inward while the other being outward, but the two are actual one, unified in the ideal personality of the saint. From a modern perspective, Confucian “inner sage and outer king” features historical rationality and realistic vitality, and constitutes our valuable thought resources for the creative transformation and development of the fine traditional Chinese culture nowadays. That said, it has its historical limitations.
The concept of “common good” takes on various theoretical forms throughout the histories of both Chinese and Western philosophies. In “Identification with the Superior” of Mozi 墨子·尚同, Mozi endeavored to create an ideal community and advocated “unification of righteousness in the world.” He sought to integrate the complex and diverse individual wills into a collective community will, promoting the pursuit of the overall interests (“common righteousness”). According to the “common good” theory, the political proposition of “identification with the superior” (shang tong 尚同) does not represent a form of despotism but an “integrated common good” that emphasizes the “common righteousness” shared by all people. This “common good” theory encompasses two dimensions: “identification with Heaven” and “identification with the people.” Both of the dimensions underline the pursuit of “common righteousness.” Mozi’s idea of “identification with the superior” can enrich the “common good” theories in the world and highlight the universal significance of traditional Chinese political thought and the distinctive path of thinking based on the universal significance.
The two passages, “Li Lou II” of the Mencius 孟子·离娄下 (Mencius 2A.2) and “Gongsun Chou I” of the Mencius 孟子·公孙丑上 (Mencius 4B.26), have been difficult to undestand for readers of all times. However, according to the hermeneutic circle, i. e., works of the same time must have shared the same concepts, topics, and writing style, if they are to be interpreted from the perspective of the Zhuangzi, these two passages will be easy to understand. Based on this interpretation, deliberation (gu 故) in “Gongsun Chou I” means deliberation or craft, which comes close to the meaning of wisdom (zhi 智) and thus facilitates our understanding of the whole passage. In “Li Lou II,” Gaozi’s words, “If words are not satisfactory to me, I will not let them trouble my mind; if something does not produce satisfactory result in my mind, I will not let them influence my qi 气 ” disclose a spiritual realm as high as that stated in Chapter 12 “Heaven and Earth” of the Zhuangzi 庄子·天地: “Though the world might praise him and say he had really found something, he would look unconcerned and never turn his head; though the world might condemn him and say he had lost something, he would look serene and pay no heed.” What is more, Mencius’ “unperturbed mind (bu dong xin 不动心)” is actually the vast, flowing spiritual realm (haoran zhi qi 浩 然之气) which results from abiding by righteousness, and this realm keeps quite a distance from Zhuangzi’s detached mind in the face of right and wrong, which is achieved by “the fasting of mind (xin zhai 心斋).”
The mainstream of modern Western philosophy is a subjective philosophy based on mind-body dualism. Unlike Western philosophy, which mainly concerns being, Chinese philosophy, represented by Confucianism, highlights life and living. Most modern Chinese philosophers readily embrace materialism owing to the longstanding tradition of qi philosophy in China. This form of materialism, however, is not mechanical materialism, as it is not based on dualism. The zoeontological subject is established based on body-mind monism. It is closely related to two philosophical propositions: the cosmology of the philosophy of qi, and the notion of human beings as the heart of cosmos, thereby providing an initial outline of the philosophy of zoeontology.
The relationship between the body and mind is one of the most important topics in Chinese and Western philosophies. Wang Yangming held the view that “body, mind, consciousness, conscience, and things are one piece,” and the five elements are integrated and inseparable, which together form the “true self” of “integration with the world and all things,” namely, the “big self.” The “big self” represents the original field of pre-objectification, pre- cognition, and pre-theorization. In general, “mind” is the induction of the original field; “body” is the manifestation of the original field. However, due to the self-objectification of consciousness, people cling to the “body’s self” and fall into the “small self” separated from others: “body” becomes the physiological basis relative to the mind, consciousness, conscience and things, and “consciousness” becomes the psychological activity relative to the body, mind, conscience and things, so there is a relationship of “non-uniformity and non- difference” between body and consciousness. Wang Yangming’s discussion of body and mind is not focused on the feeling and cognition under the interaction of physiology and psychology at the level of “small self,” but on returning to the original “big self” to realize the settlement of life, involving cosmology, ontology, and other broader perspectives. In this regard, it is possible for Chinese and Western philosophies to learn from each other in the discussion of the body and mind.
Throughout the history of Chinese philosophy, philosophers have interpreted humans and the world from different perspectives. Contemporary scholars have proposed new views and perspectives to deepen our understanding and insight into humans and the world. Against this background, the concepts of “viewing through affairs” and the “intention noumenon theory” deal with humans and the world through the lenses of “affairs” and “intention” respectively. The perspective of “viewing through affairs” marks a progression from “concrete metaphysics,” and “affairs” are presented as the concrete implementation of “concrete metaphysics.” “Viewing through affairs” is mainly characterized by “originality,” “unity,” and “concreteness.” “Originality” serves as the foundation, “unity” represents the negation of the “division of existence,” and “concreteness” signifies the triumph over “abstractness.” The “intention noumenon theory” seeks to interpret humans and the world from the perspective of “intention,” viewing the world from three dimensions: “creation of intention,” “actualization of intention,” and “generation of the realm of intention.” The perspectives of “intention” and “affairs” have something in common in understanding humans and the world, allowing them to blend with each other. “Intention” initiates the understanding of humans and the world, while “affairs” represent the specific implementation; intention catalyzes the generation of affairs, and in turn, affairs embody intentional actualization. Through diverse perspectives, we can get a more profound and comprehensive understanding of humans and the world.