Leading Harvard philosophy professor William Ernest Hocking (1873-1966), author of 17 books and in his day second only to John Dewey in the breadth of his thinking, is now largely forgotten, and his once-influential writings are out of print. This volume, which combines a rich selection of Hocking’s work with incisive essays by distinguished scholars, seeks to recover Hocking’s valuable contributions to philosophical thought.
The Guan Zhong school of thought was formed by the people of the state of Qi during the Warring States period in inheriting and developing the legacy of Guan Zhong's ideas. This school, on the basis of the concrete conditions and the cultural tradition of the state of Qi, and in summing up the experience of social reform in that state, provided the feudal rulers with a complete system of political philosophy. It was distinctly apart from the Meng-Xun (...) school, which had historic connections with the civilization of the state of Lu and the Shang -Han school, which originated in the three Jin states . Generally speaking, the primary distinctions between the three schools reside in their different attitudes toward the patriarchal rule system. The Lu school, i.e., the Confucian school, adopted the attitude of wholesale acceptance of the patriarchal rule system. It advocated the establishment of a feudalists hierarchical system of patriarchal government molded after the rule-by-rites order of the Zhou dynasty. The Three Jins school, i.e., the Legalist school, stood on the exact opposite end to this and adopted the attitude of totally rejecting the rule-by-patriarchal system, but advocating the establishment of a monarchical regime which was absolutely despotic. It believed that the code of morality based on patriarchal rule was disadvantageous to the monarchical regime, that standards of good and bad ought to be replaced by standards of merit, and that law should replace morals. The Qi school, i.e., the Guan Zhong school, stood in between the other two. It adopted an attitude of accepting the patriarchal system in part while also rejecting it in part. It advocated that the patriarchal rule system and the system of centralized authority must be organically integrated, that rule by rites and rule by law must also be integrated. In this way it emphasized strengthening the monarchical power through the means of law while at the same time it also emphasized using the patriarchal and clan-oriented morals to consolidate feudalistic government. Thus, on the premise of their different attitudes toward the patriarchal system, each of these three schools created and established a completed system of social-political and philosophical thought. They engaged each other in polemics, and each propagandized its ideas broadly and played very major roles on the stage of the contention of the hundred schools of scholarship and thought during the Warring States period. (shrink)
William Ernest Hocking was an American philosopher as comfortable with the categories of fact and experience as with those of reason and idea; one optimistic and self-reliant as his Midwest background suggests who also both in travel and spirit was at home in India and the East. In fact, he believed that an adequate metaphysics or theory of knowledge would be one that contained, as did his own, elements of Eastern mysticism and Western realism. His conception of the self also (...) contains elements of both traditions. Because of this combination of elements and also because of the manner in which he combined them, his position deserves more consideration than it is generally accorded. In various of his writings Hocking described three different but interrelated conceptions of the self. In his own terminology, the self is a “field of fields,” a “reflective-excursive system,” and a “will to reality.” The aim of this paper, then, will be to summarize and relate these conceptions, with a view also to making visible certain realistic and mystic, certain Western and Eastern, elements in these conceptions. (shrink)
Leading Harvard philosophy professor William Ernest Hocking , author of 17 books and in his day second only to John Dewey in the breadth of his thinking, is now largely forgotten, and his once-influential writings are out of print. This volume, which combines a rich selection of Hocking's work with incisive essays by distinguished scholars, seeks to recover Hocking's valuable contributions to philosophical thought.
The term "political philosophy" refers to the abstract, fundamental, and guiding principles and basic theorems for observing, handling, and dealing with political problems and political struggles. Its meaning is analogous to, say, "military philosophy." Naturally, these theorems are connected to and integrated with specific political viewpoints, just as "military philosophy" is connected to and integrated with specific military strategies and military tactics. This kind of integration does not hinder in any way our study of political philosophies in history, just as (...) it does not hinder our study of any particular "military philosophy.". (shrink)
Included with this letter, please find a list of corrections to the chapter "Lao Zi's Political Philosophy." The Jilin People's Publishing House did not show us the page proofs of the book Lao Zi Tong prior to publication, and as a consequence it contains a large number of typos. In the chapter "Lao Zi's Political Philosophy" alone there are 63 errors and deletions, some of which are serious and may make an accurate English translation difficult. For instance, "si hu" has (...) been typeset as "xiong [vicious beast] hu" throughout. "Si" means rhinoceros, and "si hu" thus means rhinoceros and tiger. Compare the passage "the rhinoceros finds no place to cast its horn; the tiger finds no place to put its claws." We hope that the translation can be checked against the list of corrections. (shrink)
The rapid development of information science and technology today, its impact on culture and society, and how we should respond to this new phenomenon in our cultural undertakings is something that is probably of concern to many people. I would like to approach this question from the macro level, from the interrelationship between cultural exchange and the culture industry, linking it to the current state of international cultural exchange.