Mengzi and Gaozi on the Concept of Xing: Two Perspectives on the Vital Centre

The article discusses the passage 6.1.3 of Mengzi, which is crucial for clarifying the meaning of the concept of xing. The existing interpretations, taking xing as “nature” and sheng as “life” or “innate”, fail to explain Gaozi’s silence and to figure out what Mengzi’s questions serve. One has to choose: either Gaozi’s position is completely wrong and Mengzi’s questions open Gaozi’s eyes, causing his confusion, or Gaozi’s position is plausible and the confusion is caused by the fact that Mengzi’s questions are a sophism. The author comes to the fol­lowing conclusions: 1) xing is not “nature” or a name of essential properties etc., but a physical object that serves as the vital centre; 2) Mengzi’s first question clarifies that for Gaozi xing is a viable object within a living being, 3) with the last two questions, Mengzi problematizes Gaozi’s position and marks a basic disagreement with him, rather than confusing him: Mengzi does not agree that xing as a necessary cause of a living being’s life can be, by analogy with bai, “white”, understood also as a universal cause.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Voprosy filosofii
Published
2025-08-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2025-8-186-193
Primary Topic
Geochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Mengzi and Gaozi on the Concept of Xing: Two Perspectives on the Vital Centre

Voprosy filosofii
Geochemistry and Geologic Mapping
article

Mengzi and Gaozi on the Concept of Xing: Two Perspectives on the Vital Centre

article en

Abstract

The article discusses the passage 6.1.3 of Mengzi, which is crucial for clarifying the meaning of the concept of xing. The existing interpretations, taking xing as “nature” and sheng as “life” or “innate”, fail to explain Gaozi’s silence and to figure out what Mengzi’s questions serve. One has to choose: either Gaozi’s position is completely wrong and Mengzi’s questions open Gaozi’s eyes, causing his confusion, or Gaozi’s position is plausible and the confusion is caused by the fact that Mengzi’s questions are a sophism. The author comes to the fol­lowing conclusions: 1) xing is not “nature” or a name of essential properties etc., but a physical object that serves as the vital centre; 2) Mengzi’s first question clarifies that for Gaozi xing is a viable object within a living being, 3) with the last two questions, Mengzi problematizes Gaozi’s position and marks a basic disagreement with him, rather than confusing him: Mengzi does not agree that xing as a necessary cause of a living being’s life can be, by analogy with bai, “white”, understood also as a universal cause.

Voprosy filosofii(8)
Far Eastern Federal University (RU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Geochemistry and Geologic Mapping
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Mengzi and Gaozi on the Concept of Xing: Two Perspectives on the Vital Centre · Voprosy filosofii (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS