The Political Doctrines of Sun Yat-sen: An Exposition of the San Min Chu ILinebarger, Paul Myron Anthony
History
The Political Doctrines of Sun Yat-sen: An Exposition of the San Min Chu I
Linebarger, Paul Myron Anthony
Sun, Yat-sen, 1866-1925. San min zhu yi
94 Wei Yung, translator, _The Cult of Dr. Sun, Sun Wên Hsüeh Shê_,
cited. See the discussion on dietetics, pp. 3-9.
95 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 337.
96 Wei Yung’s translation, cited, is an English version of _The Outline
of Psychological Reconstruction_ of Sun Yat-sen. This work is
devoted to a refutation of the thesis, first propounded by Wang
Yang-ming (ca. 1472-1528), that knowledge is easy and action
difficult. In a society where the ideology had been stabilized for
almost two millenia, this was undoubtedly quite true. In modern
China, however, faced with the terrific problem of again settling
the problem of an adequate ideology, the reverse was true: knowledge
was difficult, and action easy. This was one of the favorite
aphorisms of Sun Yat-sen, and he devoted much time, effort, and
thought to making it plain to his countrymen. The comparative points
of view of Wang Yang-ming and Sun Yat-sen afford a quite clear-cut
example of the contrast between an established and unsettled
ideology.
97 d’Elia translation, cited, pp. 336-345. This discussion occurs in
the fifth lecture on democracy, incidental to Sun Yat-sen’s
explaining the failure of the parliamentary Republic in Peking, and
the general inapplicability of Western ideas of democracy to China.
98 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 344.
99 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 344.
100 It might again be pointed out that Sun Yat-sen differed with Marxism
which, while it, of course, does not hold that all knowledge is
already found, certainly keeps its own first premises beyond all
dispute, and its own interpretations sacrosanct. The dialectics of
Marx and Hegel would certainly appear peculiar in the Chinese
environment. Without going out of his way to point out the
difference between Sun’s Nationalism and Marxism-Leninism, the
author cannot refrain—in view of the quite popular misconception
that Sun Yat-sen was at one time almost a Marxist convert—from
pointing out the extreme difference between the premises, the
methods, and the conclusions of the two philosophies.
101 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 344.
102 Hsü, _Confucianism_, cited, contains two chapters relevant to the
consideration of this problem. Ch. III, “The Doctrine of
Rectification” (pp. 43-61), and Ch. XI, “Social Evolution” (pp.
219-232), discuss rectification and ideological development within
the Confucian ideology.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account