ABSTRACT
Academic discussions on Qing scholars’ methodology for studying the Confucian Classics always focus on the ways they used philology, phonetics, and etymology to pursue the thoughts of the Sages. Those in academia who are sympathetic to their approach usually believe that their conclusions have a strong linguistic basis and thus are reliable; those who disagree with their approach believe that philosophical meaning cannot be acquired through philology. Etymological, linguistic, and philological methods were certainly very important to Qing scholars, and I do not wish to refute this point of view. However, I want to stress that if we persist in such an understanding, we overlook Qing scholars’ other methods of interpreting the classics, and this would result in a skewed perspective on the nature of Qing Confucian studies. This misunderstanding is in fact already present in the current arena of Confucian studies. It is time to rethink this issue.
