Crisis and Hermeneutics: Wang Fuzhiâs Interpretation of Confucian Classics in a Time of Radical Change from Ming to Qing Dynasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to explore how hermeneutic reason functions in cultural crises, and more specifically, how a Ming loyalist Wang Fuzhi dealt with the political and cultural crises at the Ming-Qing dynastic transition, this dissertation critically examines his commentaries on Confucian classics and historical writings as well as his criticism toward other Confucian scholars and heretical schools. My conclusion is that, unlike his peers’ iconoclastic criticism of Neo-Confucianism, Wang’s uniqueness consists in that he attempted to reconstruct it through such criticism. Through this reconstruction, he tried to provide a solution to the political and cultural crises of his time by promoting universal harmony/he and humanity/ren. In his opinion, humanity originated from the harmonious qi in the universe, was identical with human nature, and demonstrated in the humane governance. Thus, he established a comprehensive system that incorporated cosmology, human nature, and political governance. \n Wang insisted that human beings’ destruction of the universal harmony caused the rise of perverse qi that gave rise to natural disasters and social conflicts. In order to decrease the amount of perverse qi and in turn the number of bad people and conflicts generated, Wang thought that man could cultivate his own harmonious qi or humanity and thus increase the universal harmonious qi through self-cultivation. Individually, the measures were dependent upon complying with ritual propriety and awakening one’s innate knowledge. Politically, it depended upon the ruler’s humane governance—the cultivation and extension of humanity to the people. \n Wang’s motivation of reconstruction was also powered by his arrogance. From his slogan, “the Six Classics require me to start a new phase”, he tacitly assumed himself to be on par with Confucius, justifying his criticism of others. Regrettably, his criticism of other non-Confucian schools was often impertinent and biased although his criticism of Neo-Confucianism was to the point.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".