ABSTRACT
Modern scholars of classical Chinese philosophy find the indistinctness of notions as well as the lack of a single conceptual system to be one of the greatest obstacles to interpretation of philosophical texts. This is traceable to the uniqueness of the mode of writing and even thinking which prevailed in ancient China. Take, for example, the Analects, the most authoritative Confucian text. The Analects is comprised of a series of disconnected short dialogues and events wherein we cannot discern a single overarching systematic series of representations. This is in sharp contrast to Plato’s dialogues, where the discussions proceed first with a definition of terms and then are followed by a disputation. To be sure, in the Analects we occasionally find argumentation, such as that in 17:21, where Confucius discusses the significance of a three-year mourning period with his pupil Zai Wo, 1 but most dialogues in this work lack argumentation. Furthermore, the use of notions in the Analects is also unfamiliar to modern readers. As is well known, the notion of ren (humanity) 2 holds a central position in Confucius’ thought. In the Analects, there are forty-eight sections where Confucius uses the notion of ren and discusses its meaning. In addition, there are five sections where Confucius’ pupils talk about ren. Among these examples, however, we find no consistent formulation, except between the two passages, 17:17 and 1:3. Thus, the Analects do not present a Socratic-like definition of ren. Owing to these characteristics of Confucius’ sayings, Hegel dismissed the Analects because they lacked the kind of speculative philosophy and rigor found in Cicero’s De officiis. 3
