Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy East and West 47 (4):495-520 (1997)
|Abstract||Mencius, who often spoke of ming in different senses among which only one can be taken as fate, upheld two doctrines of fate--moral determinism and blind, unalterable fate--but he was prone to apply the former to collective entities, and the latter to individual persons. This bi-level distinction, which is at variance with the non-distinction in both Moism and Taoism, exercised a profound influence upon the minds of later Confucians|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael Gelven (1991). Why Me?: A Philosophical Inquiry Into Fate. Northern Illinois University Press.
Ning Chen (1997). Confucius' View of Fate (Ming). Journal of Chinese Philosophy 24 (3):323-359.
Xunwu Chen (2011). Crisis and Possibility: The Ethical Implication of Contingency. Asian Philosophy 21 (3):257 - 268.
Kidder Smith (2006). Mencius: Action Sublating Fate. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 33 (4):571–580.
Steven M. Cahn (1967). Fate, Logic, and Time. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Sarah Broadie (2001). From Necessity to Fate: A Fallacy. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 5 (1):21-37.
Robert C. Solomon (2003). On Fate and Fatalism. Philosophy East and West 53 (4):435-454.
Xunwu Chen (2010). Fate and Humanity. Asian Philosophy 20 (1):67 – 77.
James A. Ryan (1998). Moral Philosophy and Moral Psychology in Mencius. Asian Philosophy 8 (1):47 – 64.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #170,346 of 740,724 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,802 of 740,724 )
How can I increase my downloads?