Episode 18 of “This Is the Way”: Neo-Confucian Metaphysics

Much of the technical philosophy of Confucianism was developed by sophisticated thinkers that came well after the time of Confucius, starting in the Song dynasty. This episode is our first devoted to the foremost of these “Neo-Confucians,” Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130-1200 CE). To help us with this introduction, we are joined by special guest Stephen C. Angle, one of the leading scholars of Neo-Confucianism.

Consider a boat: it’s the nature of a boat to move more easily over water and not over land, and there is greater harmony and order in using boats this way than in trying to drag them across roads and fields. We can also make better sense of boats as waterborne vehicles than as land-based ones. Why are all of these things true of boats? Zhu Xi’s influential view is that we must ultimately posit the existence of an intangible entity or source that he calls “Pattern” (li 理) to explain these sorts of facts, not just about the nature and orderly use of boats, but about the nature and value of human beings, human life, and so much more. Join us for a discussion of Zhu Xi’s metaphysics of Pattern. Topics that we discuss include the following: it’s implied position on the fact-value distinction, holistic vs. individualistic approaches to ethics, and the senses in which Zhu’s worldview does (and does not) call for something resembling religious belief.

Key passages

Zhu Xi’s “definition” of Pattern:

至於天下之物、則必各有所以然之故、與其所當然之則。所謂理也。

As far as things in the cosmos go, we can be certain that each has a reason by which it is as it is, and a rule to which it should conform. This is what is meant by Pattern (li 理).

(Some Questions on the Greater Learning [Daxue Huowen 大學或問]  A/512; Angle and Tiwald’s translation)

Sources and phrases mentioned

Our guest:
Stephen C. Angle

Co-hosts:
Richard Kim’s website
Justin Tiwald’s website

One thought on “Episode 18 of “This Is the Way”: Neo-Confucian Metaphysics

  1. Read trlhrough your Sources and Phrases list. Everytime I see reference to Pascal’s Wager, I chuckle a bit. The fundamental meaning of the wager, is, I think, God does not exist anyway, so there are no consequences for it, ergo, Pascal could say whatever he wished, without fear of any afterlife retribution. So, if, and only if, there were an afterlife, Pascal faced no fear of eternal damnation, making the wager a meaningless exercise. At best. A disingenuous one, on the other end of a deontological continuum, if there were one in the first place.Ouroboros defeats, or, at least deflates Pascal on this. Unless he was joking, a priori.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.