Conclusion
My purpose has been more negative than positive. That is, I have challenged the view that Sorai understoodtian as an intentional agent. At minimum, Sorai’s philosophical views do not depend upon such a conception oftian, and he refrains from characterizingtian in such terms when he discusses the concept oftian directly. However, I do not claim to have proven that Sorai’s view oftian was completely naturalistic, or even that Sorai did not—at some level—believe thattian had intentions. I have, I hope, shown thatthe case that Sorai viewedtian as intentional has not been convincingly made. Further, something closer to a dynamic and indeterminate naturalistic view is a reasonable alternative. On my reading, Sorai steers a course between the Song Confucian view oftian as static and knowable (a view that he explicitly rejects) and a view oftian as intentional (a view he never unequivocally expresses)—indeed, he rejects the idea of personifyingtian. When Sorai speaks of thexin or “mind”of tian, he is best understood as employing a metaphor that implies complexity, mystery, activity, and perhaps moral structure, but not intentionality in the normal sense. The complexity, indeterminacy, and dynamism oftian, as these are expressed in Sorai’s writings, do not necessarily imply willful intent on the part oftian, for they are all consistent with the Xunzian interpretation oftian as a natural process, even iftian’s regularities have a moral character.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ames, Roger T., and Henry Rosemont, Jr. 1998.The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation. New York: Ballantine Books.
Hagen, Kurtis. 2005. “Sorai and Xunzi on the Construction of the Way.”Asian Philosophy 15. 2: 117–141.
Hiraishi, Naoaki. 1984.Ogyû Sorai Chronicle (Ogyû Sorai Nempukô). Tokyo: Heibonsha.
Imanaka, Kanji. 1992.An Historical Study of the Sorai School (Sorai gaku no shiteki kenkyû. Kyoto: Shibunkaku Shuppan.
Inoue, Tetsujirô and Kanie Yoshimaru, eds. 1970.Edited Collection of Japanese Ethical Works (Nihon rinri ihen [NRI], Volume 6. Tokyo: Rinsen Shoten.
Knoblock, John. 1988, 1990, 1994.Xunzi:A Translation and Study of the Complete Works. 3 volumes. Stanford: Stanford University Press (references abbreviated as K: section #).
Kodama, Rokurô. 1992.Xunzi’s Thought (Junshi no shisô). Tokyo: Kozama shobô.
Kurozumi, Makoto. 2003.Early Modern Japanese Society and Confucianism (Kinsei Nihon Shakai to Jyukyô). Tokyo: Perikansha.
Lidin, Olof G. 1970.OGYU Sorai: Distinguishing the Way [Bendô]. Tokyo: Sophia University.
—. 1999.Ogyû Sorai’s Discourse on Government (Seidan). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Machle, Edward J. 1976. “Hsün Tzu as a Religious Philosopher.”Philosophy East and West 26. 4: 443–461.
—. 1993.Nature and Heaven in the Xunzi: A Study of the Tian Lun. Albany: SUNY.
Maruyama, Masao. 1952.Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan (Nihon seiji shisôshi kenkyû). Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.
—. 1974.Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan. Translated by Mikiso Hane. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Matsumoto, Sannosuke. 1978. “The Idea of Heaven: A Tokugawa Foundation for Natural Rights Theory.” InJapanese Thought in the Tokugawa Period. Edited by Tetsuo Najita and Irwin Scheiner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McEwan, J. R. 1962.The Political Writings of Ogyû Sorai. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Minear, Richard H. 1976. “Ogyû Sorai’sInstructions for Students: A Translation and Commentary.”Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 36: 5–81.
Nakai, Kate Wildman. 1980. “The Naturalization of Confucianism in Tokugawa Japan: The Problem of Sinocentrism.”Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 40. 1: 157–199.
Najita, Tetsuo, ed. 1998.Tokugawa Political Writings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Setton, Mark. 1997.Chông Yagyong: Korea’s Challenge to Orthodox Neo-Confucianism. Albany: SUNY Press.
Tucker, John Allen. 1998.Itô Jinsai’s Gomô Jigiand the Philosophical Definition of Early Modern Japan. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Xunzi. 1966.Concordance to the Hsün Tzu (Xunzi Yinde). Harvard-Yenching Institute Sinological Index Series, Supplement 22. Taipei: Chinese Materials and Research Aids Service Center (references to the Chinese text for theXunzi are to this concordance: page/chapter/line).
Yamashita, Samuel Hideo. 1994.Master Sorai’s Responsals: An Annotated Translation of Sorai Sensei Tômonsho. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Yoshikawa, Kôjirô. 1975.Jinsai, Sorai, Norigana. Tokyo: Inwanami.
—. 1983.Jinsai, Sorai, Norigana: Three Classical Philologists of Mid-Tokugawa Japan. Translated by Kikuchi Yûji. Tokyo: Tohô Gakkai.
Yoshikawa Kôjirô et al. (eds.) 1973.Nihon Shisô Taikei 36: Ogyû Sorai 36: [NST]. Tokyo: Iwanami.
Zhongyong. InThe Great Learning—The Doctrine of the Mean. Beijing: Sinolingua, 1996.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hagen, K. Sorai and the will oftian . Dao 5, 313–330 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02868038
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02868038