Talk:Kant's influence on Mou Zongsan

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments[edit]

The entry “Kant's influence on Mou Zongsan” presents a logically clear and philosophically instructive analysis of the crucial relations between Mou and Kant. The writer of this entry offers detailed descriptions of some central ideas in Kantian philosophy and describes Mou’s answers and developments of these ideas. I have a little concern that this entry may be too professional to be understood by normal readers (with limited philosophical training). However, I still think the writer did an excellent job in showing the changes and continuity between Kant’s and Mou’s philosophy from both sides. I only want to mention some ambiguous places in this entry that may deserve further elaboration. In the sub-entry, “Limitation of Kant’s theory of moral feeling”, the writer may want to elaborate more on Mous’ transcendental “oneness” as the alternative of Kant’s empirical moral feelings. What, indeed, is “the transcendental dynamic ground” for Mou’s moral realization? How can one understand the “dynamic” in Mou’s transcendental ground, which should be fundamentally “oneness”? The writer may want to address Mou’s discussions of Confucianism or Daoism as examples that support his descriptions of transcendence. In the sub-entry, “Intellectual intuition”, the writer did well in explaining the sense of finitude expressed in Kant’s thing-in-itself and tracing it back to the traditional Western understanding of God. However, the writer may want to explain more on how Mou’s intellectual intuition overcomes Kant’s thing-in-itself and reaches the realm of “limitless”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkang01 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This new-established entry has provided some useful information and citations for Mou's readers to further learn about the intellectual influences Mou received from Immanuel Kant. I appreciate the way the entire entry was formulated. I think another fundamental difference between Mou and Kant should be introduced and elaborated. While Kant believes that metaphysical truth exists but cannot be learned entirely by human faculties and thinkings, Mou holds his confidence in Confucianism and believes it could be learned through correct Confucianist practices. The accessibility of metaphysical truth differs greatly in their arguments. Waldgrave (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]