Reconsidering the Traditional Terminology of East Asia:
A New Perspective on the Philosophical Investigation of Mind, Body, and Environment

Organizer: ITO Takayuki, Professor

　The key concepts in Confucian thought T’ien (天; Heaven), Tao (道; Way), Li (理; Principle), Ch’i (気; Life Force, Material Substance), Hsing (性; Human Nature), Hsin (心; Heart and Mind), Ch’ing (情; Feelings and Sentiment), Yü (欲; Desires), and Li (礼; Rites, Propriety), well known in Japan, were extremely commonplace words of Chinese origin. However, as they came in contact and competition with other thought systems such as Daoism and Buddhism over the course of the history of Chinese thought, they gradually gained a degree of refinement, and finally were largely formulated in the Sung dynasty with the establishment of the Neo-Confucianism framework. Following this, over the course of the ensuing premodern period, Neo-Confucianism exerted a profound influence across the vast region of East Asia, including countries such as Korea, Japan and Vietnam, providing a common intellectual framework, worldview, and conceptual vocabulary.
　However, these concepts were written in Chinese characters, and they often overlapped with everyday connotations; differences due to period, region, and intellectual trends were often overlooked with the tendency to be understood through preconceived ideas. This poses major problems in understanding Japanese thought, too, such as the study of Confucianism during the Edo (Tokugawa) period. In addition, as these words and concepts formed the basis of an education that was shared between intellectuals throughout pre-modern East Asia, they have frequently been referred to in understanding and explaining a range of Christian and Islamic concepts.
　My ultimate goal is to elucidate the nature of traditional East Asian thought by making use of research in such fields as Western philosophy, Japanese thought, Indian philosophy, Buddhist and Islamic studies. I will also re-examine the modern Western intellectual framework, while at the same time eliminating overly simplistic comparative research.

Back to top