Alice Simionato

This paper proposes an exploration of notions of common sense within Chinese Neo-Confucianism. While common sense has played a key role in the history of European traditions, indicating both lower and higher types of knowledge depending on its context of usage, the notion has been rarely explored in the context of non-European traditions. In the following discussion, I propose to interpret specific aspects of Neo-Confucian theories of knowledge as theories of common sense that, while greatly differing from each other, nevertheless point to a practical endeavour or a modus operandi with a twofold relevance; on the one hand, common sense denotes a shared practical knowledge which serves as a necessary basis for common experience and understanding while, on the other hand, it also signals that which needs to be challenged in order to acquire higher knowledge of both the self and reality in general. Since Neo-Confucianism is a broad and diverse philosophical tradition, the discussion will focus on the theories elaborated by the two Cheng brothers (Cheng Yi and Cheng Hao) and Wang Yangming, as they represent two major philosophical tendencies that display differing understandings of common sense. In the first section, I start by making some preliminary remarks with regard to the role of common sense in European philosophical discourse, as well as considering a set of methodological challenges posed by the aim of my discussion. I then examine a set of core elements within which Neo-Confucian theories of knowledge are inscribed, with particular focus on li 理 (‘principle’, ‘pattern’, ‘coherence’), the nature (xing 性) and the heartmind (xin 心). On the basis of these elements, section three is devoted to discussing the Chengs’ theory of the investigation of things (gewu 格物) and Wang Yangming’s elaboration of pure knowing (liangzhi 良知), on the basis of which I propose to individuate two differing notions of common sense. I conclude by considering the potential dangers of universalising notions of common sense as well as the merits of cross-cultural analysis in improving our understanding of the meaning and function of this notion.

Recent anglophone scholarship on Chinese philosophy provides students and scholars with a great variety of introductory materials, especially when it comes to encyclopedias and manuals on the history of Chinese philosophical traditions. It is therefore increasingly difficult for scholars to produce innovative studies on the subject that can provide a significant and original contribution to the field, especially when addressing both specialists and enthusiasts. In this context, The History of Chinese Philosophy Through its Key Terms by Nanjing University’s Wang Yueqing 王月清, Bao Qinggang 暴庆刚, and Guan Guoxing 管国兴 certainly represents a valuable and innovative contribution. Instead of presenting the history of...

With the rapid proliferation of New Confucian studies since the mid 1980s, it has become an unquestioned dogma that one particular event at the beginning of 1958 marks a watershed in the movement’s development. This event is the publication of the Manifesto that Mou Zongsan 牟宗三, Tang Junyi 唐君毅, Xu Fuguan 徐復觀, and Zhang Junmai 张君劢 co-signed and published almost simultaneously in the two journals Minzhu pinglun 民評論 (Democratic Tribune) and Zaisheng 再生(National Renaissance) with the title 为中国文化敬告世界人士宣言─我们对中国学术研究及中国文化与世界文前途之共同认识 (Wei Zhongguo wenhua jinggao shijie renshi xuanyan –women dui Zhongguo xueshu yanjiu ji Zhongguo wenhua yu shijiewen qiantu zhi gongtong renshi; translated in English as A Manifesto on the Reappraisal of Chinese Culture – our Joint Understanding of the Sinological Study relating to World Cultural Outlook). Scholars have interpreted the document as an emblematic expression of cultural conservatism, in reaction to the intellectual trend of 1920s best represented by the so-called Scienticist School (kexuejia 科学家). Concepts such as cultural identity and cultural conservatism, however, do not account for the philosophical richness articulated in the Manifesto, whose main purpose is to benefit Western intellectuals in ‘aiding them to appreciate Chinese culture’. In order to do so, the authors employ a strategic terminology, which allows them to build a consistent cross-cultural dialogue between Western and Chinese philosophy by means of an unprecedented discourse on Chinese Rationalism (Zhongguo xinxing zhi xue 中国心性之学). Interestingly, the latter is described by the authors as «the essence of Chinese Culture» and, beside its comparative value, it represents the most comprehensive configuration of Confucianism in the context of 20th century. Academic interest in Chinese Studies and Chinese Philosophy should take into account the articulation of Chinese Rationalism in the Manifesto of 1958 as representing a paradigm of post-comparative dialogue that exemplifies the underlying philosophical continuity beyond consistently different traditions of thought.