High School History, Kneeling for Answers, Speed Speed

The European Renaissance was the revival of ancient Greek and Roman culture, but there was also innovation in the revival (which is important), it was a bourgeois ideological emancipation movement, the guiding ideology was humanism, and the attitude towards classical culture was positive, and a large number of humanists were trying to revive classical culture in order to criticize the feudal system at that time.

China's New Culture Movement is different. At that time, many of the new cultural elites, such as Hu Shi, Lu Xun, Li Dazhao, etc., were reflecting on Chinese classical culture, and even once negated Chinese culture, they wanted to introduce Western democracy and science to transform China's inherent culture, so in terms of attitude towards ancient culture, China's new culture movement and the European Renaissance were different.

But one thing needs to be explained, if you study history in college, you will find that there are actually some similarities between the two, China's New Culture Movement is even said to be China's Renaissance, considering that this is a problem in the second year of high school, I won't say much, I'm afraid of misleading you, if you're interested, you can find relevant books to read in college.

In addition, when it comes to attitudes towards traditional culture, I would like to say that of course we should inherit and carry forward good traditions, and we should criticize rubbish traditions.

The starting point of the Renaissance in Europe was to oppose the church that criticized the feudal ideology, re-establish the value of "man", advocate the movement of valuing human nature and emancipating the mind, preach the subjective status of man, and develop the development of art, culture and society.

China's New Culture Movement was a movement against feudal culture, and to a certain extent, it also played a role in opposing imperialism. It pursues democracy, freedom, and science, advocates learning from Western science, democracy and culture, and comprehensively negates and affirms China's feudal traditions and culture!

The reason for the difference is the historical period and the economic and social status in which they live. The European Renaissance was a period of great ideological change and the germination and development of capitalism, and it was a stage of pursuing human values. China's New Culture Movement is in the historical stage of internal and external troubles, and was launched out of rebellion against feudal retro.

In dealing with traditional culture, we should absorb its essence and oppose its dross. The beneficial traditional culture should be inherited and carried forward!

This is Confucianism, from the Analects.

Confucianism basically adheres to the legislative principles of "kissing" and "respecting", upholds the "rule of etiquette", advocates the "rule of virtue", and attaches importance to the "rule of man".

Taoism, on the other hand, advocates the rule of inaction.

Mohist thought advocates "love", "non-attack" and "sage".

Legalist thought advocates the rule of law.

In this way, only "Confucianism" and "Mohism" are more likely to be confused.

Let's look at the meaning of this sentence itself: funerals can be cautious, sacrifices can be pious, and the social atmosphere will tend to be pure.

Prudently pursuing the future, emphasizing that people should uphold a very cautious attitude and a strong sense of responsibility for cultural and moral inheritance, and should carefully consider whether their words and deeds are contrary to the education of their ancestors and what impact they will have on future generations.

If everyone can behave and do things with such an attitude, the social atmosphere will be pure and simple.

And "love" is just to always be completely fraternity, love everyone around you, so it seems that this sentence is slightly limited. Because this remark emphasizes a deeper kind of moral education, which tends to be pure in the social atmosphere, which is obviously consistent with the idea of "rule by virtue" advocated by Confucianism, which educates people with moral influence.

aConfucianism.

This can be eliminated Legalists advocate severe punishment and this is inconsistent with this Mohists love non-aggression There seems to be no such thing Taoism seems to have similar ideas, but Taoists advocate Taoism and nature This is more in line with Confucian thought, because only Confucianism has great edifying ideas, and many concepts are now influenced by Confucianism.

First, this sentence comes from the Analects.

Second, it was Comrade Zeng Zi who said it.

Third, both the Analects and Zengzi are classified as Confucian.

Sum up. Choose a for this question

a, it is about benevolence and virtue in filial piety.

A, "De", it's not a Legalist, and neither is a Mohist. You say it's "edification", that is, Confucianism. Taoism is "going with the flow".

Actually, it's all in the book.

The first question is Venice, Manchester and other places, which are harbors and castles.

The second issue is the right to tax, etc.

The third issue is the development of capitalism.

People's attitude towards Confucius and his teachings", in other words, the attitude of later generations towards Confucius and his teachings, that is, the attitude of "today's people" towards the ancients, this attitude depends on the needs of "today's people", what kind of Confucius "today's people" need, whether they need to criticize Confucius or respect Confucius, are all determined by reality. Whether it is criticizing Confucius or respecting Confucius, it is the dialogue between the ancients and the "modern people" and their communication process.

Because it can be seen from the question stem that people have different understandings of Confucius since the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, why people have different understandings is determined by people's own historical background and social status. That is, the exposition of history by people today is based on the specific background of the times.

What we are confronted with in our interpretation of history is not historical events, but ideological concepts, spiritual tastes, and dialogues and communication between the ancients and the present in terms of survival wisdom.

There are two understandings of "dialogue" in a narrow and broad sense, and the narrow understanding is the explanation in the Modern Chinese Dictionary: "a conversation between two or more people" or "contact or negotiation between two or more parties." That is, a form of speech that corresponds to a monologue of a single person, which belongs to a purely linguistic phenomenon.

Dialogue in a broad sense also refers to dialogue that does not occur directly between people, but between people's spiritual products, nature, and society, and is not characterized by the intersection of oral language, but through people's understanding, perception, criticism, and expression of texts and others. In this sense, people today can have a dialogue with the ancients, and a person can have a dialogue with people, nature, and society that exist objectively but will most likely never be acquainted.