Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Other Titles:||The Way I See 《Lieze》 and 《Remarks on Lieze》|
Lieze;Remarks on Lieze;ZHANG Zhan;Metaphysics;Taoist
|Issue Date:||2016-05-23 14:27:41 (UTC+8)|
In the first place, I like to propose my opinion on the controversial 《Lieze》. I believe the book retains certain works left from the 《Lieze》 in the Qing Dynasty and, with the remarks of ZHANG Zhan, 《Lieze》 became a popular work. Owing to the remarkable difference between the points of view introduced by 《Lieze》 and 《Remarks on Lieze》, ZHANG Zhan could not be the author. In the second place, we have come to conclude that the thought introduced by 《Lieze》could be formed between XIANG Xiu and GUO Xiang. The fact that it changes from XIANG Xiu’s Self Production to GUO Xiang’s Self Creation and from XIANG Xiu’s Natural Desire to GUO Xiang’s Natural Function indicates that GUO Xiang’s Self Creationis not anything coming from nowhere, it is a social thinking and XIANG Xiu and 《Lieze》 both had made their contributions with certain theories. Secondly, when it comes to discussing 《Remarks on Lieze》 that theoretically unifies WANG Bi’s The Noble is Nothing and GUO Xiang’s Self Creation as the theory of Emptiness Governs Metaphysics, where ZHANG Zhan proposed the idea of utmost emptiness as replacement of lacking to avoid misunderstanding triggered by The Noble is Nothing. In fact, it is to explore the definition of lacking and the term of utmost emptiness is not any objective body, it means being centered on the lacking.
|Relation:||政大中文學報, 8, 29-44|
Bulletin of the Department of Chinese Literature National Chengchi University
|Appears in Collections:||[政大中文學報 THCI Core] 期刊論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.