12 David S. Nivison

In section 17.2 of this chapter, Nivison presents a hypothesis about the his-
torical relationship and mutual influence of Dai and Zhang. In section 17.3,
Nivison discusses the solutions offered by Dai and Zhang to the following

problem:

[H]ow can we give a rational account of the human world of value—human
norms and goals—in terms of an abstract picture of the world as a whole in
which norms and “virtue” are not explicitly posited—in such a way as to ex-
plain and justify our study and veneration of the Confucian classics? And con-
versely, how can we give a plausible natural account of the origin and nature of
the Classics such that, given the respect we have for them, they in turn justify
the personal values and goals we do have???

This problem is far from academic. If we substitute “Aristotelian” for “Confu-
cian” we can see that the issue Nivison explores is also a problem for contem-
porary Western philosophers, such as Alasdair MacIntyre (1988, 1990), who
argue that appeal to an intellectual tradition helps provide a justification for
their own beliefs. In addition, the issues raised by Nivison’s discussion of Dat
and Zhang are of general interest regardless of whether one believes in the
importance of Classics and tradition. As Nivison observes, “we could as well
put ‘generally accepted moral order’ for ‘Classics. |

So what solutions do Dai and Zhang propose? Briefly, Dai seems to present
a sort of ideal-observer theory, which relies upon a universalizabulity test. Zhang
presents a historical justification for ethics as the cumulative wisdom of the
past. (Hence, Zhang has been compared to both Burke and Hegel.)”

1.3 Editorial Issues

The editor chose to convert all romanizations in these essays to Pinyin, and to
supply characters and tone marks for at least the first occurrences of Chinese
expressions in each chapter. Citations were standardized and supplied where
lacking. In some cases, text that was originally in the body of an essay has been
moved to the notes. The editor occasionally requested, or made suggestions
for, partial rewriting for the sake of clarity.?° Every note (or parenthetical com-
ment within a note) that is an addition by the editor (other than supplying
citations for works referred to) has been marked as “[Editor.].” The reference
listings include annotations by both Dr. Nivison (mostly drawn from his 1980b)
and the editor. Dr. Nivison has read the revised manuscript, and (with the
exception of some formatting issues), the editor has not knowingly diverged
from his wishes. In a work so wide-ranging, some typographical errors or mis-
taken citations may remain. Readers are invited to report any to the publisher
for correction in future editions.

Once other issue perhaps deserves special mention. The use of gender-neutral