Asian Studies II (XVIII), 1 (2014), pp. 115-126

^BJff Ming-huei LEE*
mz*. ^M^M^memMz-o sftfflt, r^wisi^iüi,
rnrnrn: ^mmmu,	s^m ^nwsmm
Abstract
In the 1950s, Contemporary Modern Confucians of Hong Kong and Taiwan have exposed the theory of the "Development of Democracy from Confucianism". In their controversies with the Taiwanese liberals, this theory also became one of the main points of debate. The author of the present article believes that the contents of this theory are not too complicated to understand; however, it nevertheless often became subject of various misunderstandings and questionings. During the past years, the author has written several studies on this topic, aiming to clarify such misunderstandings and to responding to such questionings. Therefore, the present article does not restate the details of this theory, but rather aims to provide further explanations of its essential meaning.
Keywords: Taiwanese Modern Confucianism, the Theory of the "Development of Democracy from Confucianism", liberalism, political theory, Self-negation of Conscience.
Ming-huei LEE, Research Fellow, Academia Sinica, Taiwan lmhuei@hotmail .com
7

mmz&to
rnzT,	1950 mmmmm
«fin, s^iâM
1	165ffl(1982^ 10M 10
> ,	, ^ftAtf	(Stt:
1991	(Lee 2009, 33-62).
2001	Sl-117o
s
Asian Studies II (XVIII), 1 (2014), pp. 115-126
(Isaiah Berlin, 1909-1997) ^HW	(negative
liberty) tM^tt, «MM^: iMgiJ	rflftgiJ (positive liberty )o
[ff^^KiiJ^ifSIii^Io	1958
A±ts) 4o im <M>	iiwia^tfA, m
(I 897 )	+	(I 896
897 )
A^iififrtttf, ^eissst^-	m
(M 896 )
TK^WiMJ oRIil^dDIAI:
4	9 1 $(1958 ¥ 1 M 5	1
1 $(1958 ¥ 1 1981
1980	+
1975	+
HKiM, 1974
9

ittT, f^Tif.IAS^K^i^iiSfttT, I'JA&faK
mrawm^it, AKtliii^At^t^wK^iMiift
»liiio
IS-AtSl,	TMJ «
iSliWii, IfSlKiftIK, ^^^^iftlKt*^^, &MAT, l^lEHfiifto	ft
&MAT, ^AAi^Mt^to	t^AA^
f^ttl^K^ltKi^S, ^iftAIiiSlifii
io (K 903-904)
<M> tfg.itKiffllS^i; ^^i^^Iff^iWI^fHo
+ , ^ftT^fWMitffittJ (synthetically rational spirit MitffittJCanalytically rational spirit) Hit. S «Kl^£l» + , ftXS^ [itttlfflf I ( functional presentation ) ® ^ fi M I ( constructive presentation ) J f iittt^^WMS ( intensional presentation )^^bMWMI(extensional presentation) JSMI
r-^p^ru m ra^ di±i) tsst^
(self-negation)J o

10
Asian Studies II (XVIII), 1 (2014), pp. 115-126
ihhIO
Ä^m^M mmmj, im^m^J. ^ÍÜTMSSO fo'mfèm&'ù^mm&ù&m- Ä*—^ m
®Mfé,®êr&lMféJ(Sub-Ordination)o
(......) M^M^I'JffiHo
( Co-Ordination )o	T^^^MJ M
ž.	rsttJ
rma\J m rarnattJ, H
IftëlK^ttilWo 7
fêJo 8
O
6 106-115o
7	1987	52-53 (»fc:«^®^, 2003 10 ffl.H
M^ft^WMXWïlÂSMfô^teWïliito
8	140 (10: 155)o
11

««i, ^.m.mmx^^^m^m^^^mm,
«s10) it, i$anMê#imo »,
11o wMAS««^
(MMW«»,
il^t^ttMl (communitarianism) » TäÄj WiK^Ü^o
t^^iÂifcaiwiëofttt,	«
M^ (justification)	SlülT,
íff^WM^j o
9	»^((Âfêif^t^f^Wtt^^ÂMÎ^CÏ«*!^^«^, 2003 ¥).H 82-83, 174-175o
10	2000
11 S®«^ 1958 ^ 5 n 1	+	18 9
1990	11	577o
12
Asian Studies II (XVIII), 1 (2014), pp. 115-126
^(John Rawls)W	Theory of Justice) fiMMMM
1949	(^rffiffi r®^ij)
[^Iftljo 1960 ^	+
MAMffi. fia 1986	^
«^^i^imrffiffir^iij), is^i^tfff.fiisi
2000
2008 ^ as. finwi, af^nwffi^,
(populism) MM^S, iiaift. sm,
13

mrnm^tMrnim
JH^tlfi.J 12
mmmjW) , Mi^^^ftWitKi.	1947
1949 ^m,	ffiMHH
m 1966	^b, »»M^
1949	1963
iMtt13, Mffi^Ri ri^ft, SSAffiWM . H^, liKiftWIg^ii.ft^tti.
1980 ^Mp^ifflmm^m, Waf14.ili,ifKiim 2000
ft (iSiittt)Wli.
i.	(Heiner Roetz) W^fe, mM^-fl TS^W^
reconstructive hermeneutics of accommodation) (Roetz 1999, 257).
12 «Sffi»® 20	2012 ^ 1	175.
2010
81-98.^#W (Lee 2013, 129-43).
14
Asian Studies II (XVIII), 1 (2014), pp. 115-126
r^WM^J (democratically Confucian) , rM^^^JCConfucian democracy)--
mmm,	(King 1997, 174)0
Islamic fundamentalist)
ffi^WtilfftffiSIfloffl-ai.ffl^lift^iittf ^iMioffiwft^sai^^tiasiws
irffiM^», H^SMM^ffi^ftMo	ma
(Confucian fundamentalism) M^fti^S^, ^^^^
References
Chen, Zhaoying IMBS^. 2012. "Xu Fuguan yu ziyou zhuyi de duihua
WiifS (The Dialogue between Xu Fuguang and the Liberals)." Sixiang (Reflexion) 20, November: 175-93.
Jiang, Qing ^M. 2003. Zhengzhi ruxue: Dangdai ruxue de zhuanxiang tezhi yu fazhan ^ g^M^H^	(Political Confucianism: The Re-
Orientation, Characteristics, and Development of Contemporary Confucianism). Taipei County: Yangzhengtang wenhua shiye gongsi.
King, Ambrose Y. C. 1997. "Confucianism, Modernity, and Asian Democracy." In Justice and Democracy: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, edited by Ron Bontekoe and Marietta Stepaniants, 163-79. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Lee, Ming-huei. 1994. Dangdai ruxue zhi ziwo zhuanhua g^M^^	(The Self-
Transformation of Contemporary Confucianism). Taipei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Zhongguo wenzhe yanjiusuo.
15

-, ed. 1998. Rujia sixiang zai xiandai Dongya: Zonglun pian fS^ffiS^ï®^.^^: IS
(Confucianism in Modern East Asia: A General Perspective). Taipei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Zhongguo wenzhe yanjiusuo.
-. 2009. "Culture et démocratie: réflexions à partir de la polémique entre libéraux
taiwanais et néo-confucéens contemporains." Extrême-Orient, Extrême- Occident 31: 33-62.
-. 2013. Konfuzianischer Humanismus: Transkulturelle Kontexte. Bielefeld: transcript.
Mou, Zongsan ^^H. 1987. Lishi zhexue M^^^ (Philosophy of History). Taipei: Taiwan xuesheng shuju.
-. 1987. Zhengdao yu zhidao	(The Principle of Legitimation and the
Principle of Governance). Taipei: Taiwan xuesheng shuju.
-. 2003. Mou ZongsanXiansheng quanji ^^H^A^M (Collected Works of Mr.
Mou Zongsan). Taipei: Lianjing chuban gongsi.
Roetz, Heiner. 1999. "The 'Dignity within Oneself: Chinese Tradition and Human Rights." In Chinese Thought in a Global Context, edited by Karl-Heinz Pohl, 236-61. Leiden: Brill.
Tang, Junyi	1975. Zhonghua renwenyu dangjin shijie ^^À^^^^ÏÏ^
(Chinese Humanistic Culture and the Contemporary World). Taipei: Taiwan xuesheng shuju.
Yin, Haiguang	1990. "Genzhe wusi de jiaobu qianjin ig^iHWP^^^
(Going Forward by Following the Footsteps of the May Fourth Movement)." In Yin Haiguang quanji	(Collected Works of Yin Haiguang), edited by Lin
Zhenghong	11: 571-78. Taipei: Guiguan tushu gongsi.
Zhou, Ailing ^SM. 2010. Huaguo piaoling: Lengzhan shiqi zhimindi de xinya shuyuan
(The Dispersion of Flowers and Fruits: The New Asia College under Colonial Rule during the Cold War), translated by Luo Meixian S^FmI. Hong Kong: Shangwu yinshuguan.
Summary
The 1950s witnessed a debate between the Modern Confucians of Hong Kong and Taiwan on one side and the Taiwanese liberal intellectuals on the other side. The debate focused on the issue as to whether traditional Chinese culture, especially Confucianism, was appropriate for the development of science, technology and democratic political system in the modern sense. In this context, the Modern Confucians of Hong Kong and Taiwan have exposed the theory of the "Development of Democracy from Confucianism". Since the author of the present article has already tried in several past studies to clarify various misunderstandings connected to these questions, this article does not restate the details regarding the
16
Asian Studies II (XVIII), 1 (2014), pp. 115-126
abovementioned theory. Instead, it rather offers further explanation of its inherent significance.
On the one hand, even though the Modern Confucians admitted that traditional Confucianism did not include science and democracy in modern sense, they did not believe that the Confucian tradition was obstacle to the of modern country with its attributes. On the other hand, the liberals believed in the opposite and insisted that China had to get rid of all of its relicts of Confucianism if it wished to become a modern, technologically developed and democratic state. This debate has shown that the Modern Confucians acknowledged the limits between politics and morality; however on the theoretical level they stressed that political freedom has to presuppose moral freedom. The representatives of the liberal camp denied this assumption, because in their own opinion this scenario (in the best case) would lead to a "totalitarian democracy".
Through in depth analyses of this controversy, the author comes to the conclusion that democracy and traditional Confucianism do not exclude one another. He exposes the fact that Taiwanese Confucian scholars have never rejected multiple approaches to democracy on the basis of different cultural traditions. In this sense, Taiwanese Modern Confucians have been thoroughly— though indirectly—contributing to the democratization of their country.
Povzetek
V petdesetih letih smo bili priča razpravi med sodobnimi konfucianci iz Hong Konga in Tajvana na eni in liberalno strujo tajvanskih izobražencev na drugi strani. Razprava se je osredotočila predvsem na vprašanje, ali je tradicionalna kitajska kultura in zlasti konfucijanska miselnost primerna za razvoj znanosti, tehnologije in demokratičnega političnega sistema zahodnega tipa. V tem kontekstu so moderni konfucijanci iz Hong Konga in Tajvana izpostavili teorijo o »razvoju demokracije iz konfucianizma«. Ker je avtor tega članka že v več preteklih študijah poskusil razjasniti različne nesporazume povezane s temi vprašanji, ta članek ne prinaša podrobnosti glede zgoraj omenjene teorije. Namesto tega raje nudi dodatno razlago o pomenu teorij.
Čeprav moderni konfucijanci na eni strani priznavajo, da v tradicionalnem konfucijanstvu ti elementi sicer niso bili prisotni, vendar to še ne pomeni, da konfucijanska tradicija razvoj moderne države s temi atributi zavira, so bili liberalci prepričani o nasprotnem in so zato poudarjali, da mora Kitajska, če želi
17

postati moderna, tehnološko razvita in demokratična država, odstraniti vse prežitke konfucijanske miselnosti. V tej polemiki se je izkazalo, da so moderni konfucijanci sicer priznavali razliko med politiko in moralo, vendar so sistem politične svobode na teoretski ravni pogojevali z moralno svobodo. Predstavniki liberalnega tabora so zanikali njihovo predpostavko, po kateri naj bi bila politična svoboda osnovana na moralni, kajti to bi po njihovem mnenju v najboljšem primeru privedlo do »totalitarne demokracije«.
Skozi poglobljene analize te polemike avtor pride do zaključka, da demokracija in tradicionalni konfucianizem ne izključujeta drug drugega. Avtor izpostavlja dejstvo, da tajvanski konfucijanci niso nikoli zavračali demokratičnega razvoja na osnovi kulturno pogojenih razlik. V tem smislu so tajvanski moderni konfucijanci nemalo - četudi posredno - prispevali k procesu demokratizacije njihove države.
18