DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2021-2-149-165

Chinese philosophy in interpersonal relations

Liu Youren
Ph.D. Student of the Faculty of Public Administration

Lomonosov Moscow State University,
27/4, Lomonosovsky av., Moscow, 119991, Russia;
e-mail: kasuo.king0607@gmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5633-8332
ResearcherID: AAM-8301-2021

Anatoly T. Zub
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor,
Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Public Administration

Lomonosov Moscow State University,
27/4, Lomonosovsky av., Moscow, 119991, Russia;
e-mail: ZubAT@spa.msu.ru
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8794-2399
ResearcherID: B-4811-2019

The article analyzes the differences between the philosophical traditions of the West and the East. Among the foundations of Chinese philosophy, the main categories of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism are differentiated and separately presented. The understanding of this difference gives us the key to several mysteries in the development of Chinese society and to the understanding of how traditional Chinese philosophy affects interpersonal relations in modern China. In particular, the article discusses the concept of ancient Chinese ethics as the basis for religious and scientific views of traditional and modern Chinese society. In addition, the article indicates that the human-centered Chinese morality, oriented outside of human experience, determines the relationship between people and the outside world. The paper also provides a comparison of Christian and Chinese ethics. Since people are one of the most important factors of governance, it makes sense to understand how differently people behave in different countries. The study was conducted with the use of comparative analysis and document research methods. Reflecting on interpersonal relations through ancient Chinese philosophical thoughts, the authors try to explain the problem of Needham (The Great Question) and interpret the modern meaning of the philosophy of science using the philosophical truth of modern interpersonal relations. From this point of view, the thoughts contained in the article are of interest and novelty. In the context of researching Needham’s problem, the authors compare socio-political and religious traditions in China and Europe. The paper also discusses the guanxi mystery — the basis of social and business relationships that have a «quasi-family» trusting nature. In addition, when discussing the peculiarities of modern business relations, the text unfolds the mystery of mianzi, which determines the understanding of reputation and human dignity. From the point of view of philosophy, human is the first of the motivations in science, as well as one of the most important factors of influence in modern management, the authors try to investigate the characteristics of humanity of different countries in order to explain the behavior of people. The study also provides a basis for studying the role of the human factor in governance.

Keywords: philosophy, Chinese philosophy, interpersonal attitude, modern-type science, guanxi mystery, mianzu mystery, self-improvement, variability, understanding of fate.

References

Benedict, R. (2016). Khrizantama i mech. Modeli yaponskoy kul’tury [The chrysanthemum and the sword: Patterns of Japanese culture]. Moscow, Saint Petersburg: Tsentr gumanitarnykh initsiativ Publ., 256 p.

Kobzev, A.I. (ed.) (1987). Sovremennye istoriko-nauchnye issledovaniya: Nauka v traditsionnom Kitae [Contemporary historical research: Science in traditional China]. Moscow: ISISS RAS Publ., 200 p.

Kobzev, A.I. (2001). [Categories and basic concepts of Chinese philosophy and culture]. Universalii vostochnykh kul’tur [The universals of Oriental cultures]. Moscow: Vostochnaya Litaratura Publ., pp. 220–243.

Kobzev, A.I. (2006). [Chinese ethical thought]. Dukhovnaya kul’tura Kitaya: entsiklopediya v 5 t. T. 1: Filosofiya [Spiritual culture of China: encyclopedia: in 5 vols. Vol. 1: Philosophy]. Moscow: Vostochnaya Litaratura Publ., pp. 126–129.

Luk’yanov, A.E. (ed.) (2003). Konfutsianskiy traktat «Chzunyun»: Perevody i issledovaniya [The Confucian treatise «Zhongyong»: Translation and research]. Moscow: Vostochnaya Litaratura Publ., 247 p.

Malyavin, V.V. (ed.) (1999). Chzhuan-Tszy. Le-Tszy [Zhuangzi. Liezi]. Moscow: Mysl’ Publ., 440 p.

Men’shikov, L.N. (ed.) (1999). Men-tszy [Mencius]. Saint Petersburg: Peterburgskoye vostokovedenie Publ., 272 p.

Mesle, C.R. (2008). Process-relational philosophy. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press Publ., 138 p.

Seibt, J. (2003). Process philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by E.N. Zalta. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/ (accessed 01.10.2020).

Sima Qian (2003). [Xiang Yu Ben Ji. The Basic Annals of Xiang Yu]. Syma Cian. Istoricheskie zapiski (Shi Tszi). T. 2 [Sima Qian. Records of the grand historian. Vol. 2]. Moscow: Vostochnaya Litaratura Publ., pp. 117–156.

Smith, A.H. (2010). Chinese characteristics. Norwalk, CT: EastBridge Publ., 342 p.

Speshnev, N.A. (2011). Kitaytsy. Osobennosty natsional’noy psikhologii [Chinese. Features of national psychology]. Saint Petersburg: Karo Publ., 336 p.

Stepin, V.S. (2006). Filosofiya nauki. Obschie problem [Philosophy of science. Common problems]. Moscow: Gardariki Publ., 384 p.

Yutang, L. (2010). Kitaytsy: moya strana i moy narod [My country and my people]. Moscow: Vostochnaya Litaratura Publ., 335 p.

Received: 19.11.2020. Revised: 24.05.2021. Accepted: 28.05.2021

For citation:

Liu Y., Zub A.T. [Chinese philosophy in interpersonal relations]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofia. Psihologia. Sociologia [Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology], 2021, issue 2, pp. 149–165 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2021-2-149-165