Chinese Philosophical Practice toward Self-Cultivation: Integrating Confucian Wisdom into Philosophical Counseling

Abstract

Traditional Chinese philosophy has always paid much attention to the cultivation of one’s body and mind, speeches and behaviors. The contemporary rise of philosophical practice, especially in the context of philosophical counseling, presents an opportunity to integrate the rich legacy of Confucian self-cultivation. This paper endeavors to delineate the practical applications of Confucian principles in philosophical counseling, with special emphasis on the actionable concepts of “gongfu” and “jingjie” and their synthesis in the “unity of knowledge and action”. Through a series of illustrative examples and proposed session outlines, we offer a vivid portrayal of how Confucian thought can be operationalized within a counseling framework to address the existential and ethical dilemmas faced by individuals in ancient and modern times. We argue that the nuanced understanding and practical implementation of these Confucian concepts can significantly enhance the efficacy of philosophical counseling. Additionally, we outline the requisite qualifications for becoming a Confucian philosophical counselor, suggesting a certification process that ensures counselors are both philosophically adept and exemplars of moral cultivation. Thus, this paper not only expounds on the theoretical underpinnings of Confucian thought in philosophical practice but also provides a clear blueprint for its application in contemporary settings.

1. Introduction

Philosophical practice, also termed philosophical counseling, has emerged as a novel domain in philosophical studies and is becoming a recognized profession (Ding and Yu 2022). The establishment of the Institute for Philosophical Practice and Counseling by Gerd B. Achenbach in 1981 signified the genesis of this movement. Over the years, the field has evolved, incorporating a comprehensive array of theoretical approaches, including the Socratic method, philosophical cafes, and philosophy for children (P4C).

Philosophical counselors or practitioners are tasked with recalibrating individuals’ misconceptions and refining their thought processes through philosophical analysis and engagement with personal experiences. This approach enables individuals to tackle practical and existential issues in their lives, ultimately fostering self-understanding, inner peace, and profound happiness (Marinoff 1999, 2002).

The globalization of philosophical practice underscores the significance of diverse cultural contributions, particularly in addressing the spiritual disorientation prevalent in contemporary China. This confusion manifests as a search for meaning against the backdrop of intense competition and societal pressures, epitomized by the concept of “involution” (neijuan 内卷) and the reactive cultural trend to “lie flat” (tangping 躺平) (Gullotta and Lin 2022; Zhang and Li 2023). The term “involution”, a top ten buzzword in 2020 (Jha 2023), originally academic in nature (Duara 1988), now symbolizes the counterproductive and anxiety-inducing competition among youth (Yi et al. 2022).

Additionally, a “value void” is evident, exacerbated by the rampant spread and refutation of fake news, making objective fact-based value judgments scarce (MacKenzie and Bhatt 2020; Zhang and Ghorbani 2020). The internet has transformed social interactions, creating “information cocoons” that compound existential anxiety and a sense of life’s hollowness (Piao et al. 2023). Coupled with intense societal competition, individuals are experiencing heightened “existential anxiety” and “ego depletion”, leaving many questioning their future direction and life’s purpose (Chan 2018; To and Chan 2016). These factors amplify the demand for philosophical counseling in China.

The post-pandemic era underscores the relevance of philosophical practice, as isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic heightened loneliness and misanthropy (Ding et al. 2022; Killgore et al. 2020). Despite China’s economic strides and material prosperity, many Chinese experience severe spiritual anxiety (Malone and Wachholtz 2018; Niu et al. 2022; Zhen and Zhou 2020), increasing the appeal of philosophical practice to the public and researchers alike (Ding 2016; Pan 2017). Efforts to integrate traditional Chinese philosophy—Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist principles—with philosophical practice are underway, yet the self-cultivation of philosophical practitioners themselves remains underexplored (Ding et al. 2022, 2023; Huang 2019; Hsu 2004; Lee 2017; Su 2011; Zhao 2019).

This paper aims to fill this gap by examining self-cultivation within philosophical practice from a traditional Chinese philosophical perspective. It asserts that traditional Chinese wisdom can enrich philosophical practice and highlights the need for Chinese scholarly participation to affirm its global relevance. We delve into the self-cultivation practices of ancient Confucian philosophers (see Section 2) and discuss the harmonious life pursuit through the lenses of “benevolence” (ren 仁), “inner sage and outer king” (neisheng waiwang 内聖外王), and “unity of heaven and humanity” (tian ren heyi 天人合一) (see Section 3). Additionally, we propose methodological enhancements to philosophical practice through traditional Confucian theories of “jingjie 境界” and “gongfu 工夫”, emphasizing the “unity of knowledge and action 知行合一” (see Section 4). We also describe what a session with a Confucian philosophical counselor would entail, including the methods and techniques used and how they differ from Western practices (see Section 5).

2. The Pragmatic Roots of Chinese Philosophy

2.1. The Philosophical Engagements of Confucius and Mengzi

The essence of philosophical practice involves engaging with individuals who actively participate in dialogues or seek counseling. The content of these dialogues stems from the concerns and issues raised by these subjects. Consequently, the primary goal of such dialogues is to discuss or potentially resolve the subjects’ personal issues. This discourse will highlight the lives of Confucius and Mengzi to illustrate that Confucian philosophers were deeply involved in philosophical practice, addressing a diverse audience, including students, peers, rulers, and the common populace.

Confucius, a preeminent educator and the progenitor of Confucian philosophy, is a pivotal figure in the formation of Chinese cultural tradition and is highly esteemed worldwide. His philosophical thoughts are encapsulated in the Analects, a compilation of his disciples’ memories, which has been likened to the Socratic dialogues and serves as a crucial text for understanding his philosophical practice.

Confucius’ dialogues were primarily with his students, reflecting his principles of inclusive education 有教無類, leading by example 言傳身教, and the cultivation of virtue 君子修養. For instance, in response to a student’s question about the qualities of a superior man (i.e., the gentleman), Confucius stated, “The superior man has neither anxiety nor fear 君子不憂不懼” (Analects 12.4)1. When the student expressed his doubts about Confucius’ answer, Confucius elaborated that a clear conscience negates fear and anxiety, suggesting that the attainment of such a state demands continuous introspection. Moreover, Confucius engaged in intellectual exchanges with his contemporaries, such as his conversation with Laozi about rituals, which was indicative of an academic debate. These interactions showcased the challenges faced by philosophers when encountering educated and steadfast interlocutors.

Mengzi, a successor to Confucianism during the Warring States period 戰國時期, debated with the scholar Gaozi on human nature. Contrasting Gaozi’s analogy of human nature as directionless water, Mengzi argued that human nature’s inherent goodness is as undeniable as water’s tendency to flow downward: “Water indeed will flow indifferently to the east or west, but will it flow indifferently up or down? The tendency of man’s nature to good is like the tendency of water to flow downwards. There are none but have this tendency to good, just as all water flows downwards 水信無分於東西。無分於上下乎? 人性之善也, 猶水之就下也。人無有不善, 水無有不下” (Mengzi 6A2)2. This demonstrated Mengzi’s preference for persuasive argumentation that aligned with human nature’s essential tendencies rather than confrontational debate.

Gaozi posited that human nature was akin to raw material, neutral to moral distinctions, and that qualities like benevolence and righteousness are shaped from it as cups and bowls are from willow (Mengzi 6A1). Mengzi contested this view, using the analogy of the inherent nature of whiteness in different objects (white feather, white snow, and white jade) to assert the innate attributes of human nature (Mengzi 6A3). Although Mengzi did not entirely dismiss Gaozi’s perspective, he criticized it as reducing virtues to burdens. Through these philosophical dialogues, Mengzi refined his theories on mental cultivation, advocating for a proactive approach to “nurturing the mind 養心” and “treating the qi 治氣”, aiming towards an ideal personality of “the full-grown men 大丈夫” (Peng 2018).

Confucius’ fourteen-year sojourn, beginning at fifty-five and culminating in his return to Lu state at sixty-eight, marked a pivotal period in the development of his philosophical framework (Li 1994). During this time, he expanded his influence beyond the aristocracy and court life—where he had roles as a teacher and official—to engage with a broader socio-economic spectrum, including rulers of various states and commoners such as farmers, fishermen, hunters, laundry women, singing children, and hermits (Zhang 1989). This experience enriched his understanding of society and reinforced his commitment to philosophy as an integral part of daily life (Hadot 1995). His interactions across social strata fueled his introspection and informed the establishment of the Confucian paradigm, with its core values of “ren” and “li”, and the pursuit of the ideals embodied by the “gentleman 君子”.

“Benevolence” (Ren 仁) is a central tenet of Confucianism, encompassing ethical behavior and moral integrity, and is highlighted 109 times in the Analects, underscoring its significance (Yang 2008, p. 221). The concept defies simple translation, leading to numerous interpretations, including “benevolence”, “virtue”, “humanity”, “The Good”, “manhood”, “authoritative conduct”, and “generosity” (Cooper [1996] 2002, p. 68; Dawson 1981, pp. 37–38). Some translators, like Waley (1938), Ames and Rosemont (1998), and Slingerland (2003), have chosen a consistent translation for clarity, while others adapt their choice to the context (Tao 2018).

In Confucian doctrine, “rites” (li 禮) embodies “ren” and is referenced 74 times in the Analects. It pertains to proper behavior and ritual conduct to maintain societal harmony. “Li” has been translated as “rites”, “protocol”, “etiquette”, “moral conduct”, “ritual”, “customs”, “ceremony”, and “decorum”, among others, with Ames and Rosemont (1998, p. 51) noting that no single English term can fully encompass its breadth. Western translations often simplify “li” to terms like “rites” and “ritual propriety” (Tao 2018).

Further, traditional Chinese philosophy, characterized by its dialogical nature and its immersion in the “life-world”, differs markedly from the abstract nature of theoretical texts. It encompasses a range of expressive forms, including dialogues, fables, and poetry (Chen 2022). Prominent Confucians like Zhu Xi 朱熹 and Wang Gen 王艮 emphasized the propagation and application of philosophical concepts among scholars and the populace, advocating for the establishment of academies and study halls across ancient China. The rich tradition of Chinese philosophical thought thus emerges from both the spoken and enacted philosophies of its ancient practitioners.

2.2. Self-Cultivation-Oriented Traditional Chinese Philosophy

The Chinese philosophical tradition, distinct from Western counterparts, emphasizes self-cultivation—a pivotal element of Confucianism that seeks the development of an ideal personality embodied by the “gentleman”, “saint”, and “true person”. This pursuit transcends mere conceptual understanding and necessitates consistent, reflective practice in daily life, integrating knowledge with action. Theories of “jingjie” and “gongfu” are fundamental in this discourse, representing the theoretical and practical aspects of moral and spiritual advancement, respectively.

“Jingjie” involves stages of ethical and spiritual evolution, where an individual progresses through levels of moral insight and wisdom, envisioning the universe as a unified whole. This concept, as Chen (2014, p. 32) explains, charts the dynamic journey toward moral perfection, harmonizing inner virtues with external conduct and progressively expanding one’s moral sphere.

“Gongfu”, often misinterpreted in the West as exclusive to martial arts, is actually about the expertise gained through sustained effort, a principle highlighted by Song-Ming neo-Confucians. Initially linked to compulsory labor, “gongfu” has come to denote the dedication to achieving goals through time and energy (Chen 2020b). Ni (2021, 2022) defines the measure of “gongfu” in terms of its effectiveness, appeal, and moral value. Ethical development signifies the disciplined practice of virtues and wisdom, fostering virtuous habits that enable resilience and ethical discernment in life’s challenges. “Gongfu” is thus the practical pathway to ascending the “jingjie”, enhancing ethical conduct and understanding.

In Confucianism, the “body” signifies more than physicality; it represents life and personality (Zhou 2005, p. 132). Self-cultivation prioritizes the mind, the “body’s” director, as ancient Chinese philosophy posits. Mengzi’s doctrine—“the great end of learning is nothing else but to seek for the lost mind 學問之道無他, 求其放心而已矣” (Mengzi 6A11)—suggests that rediscovering one’s innate “original mind” leads to the restoration of one’s inherent goodness and virtue. In the chapter “Removing Blinders 解蔽”, Xunzi’s 荀子 advocacy for “achieving calmness by modesty and concentration 虛壹而靜” suggests that clarity of understanding stems from an open-minded and serene approach to observation. These principles underscore the Confucian commitment to cultivating the mind as the essence of personal development.

The Book of History 尚書 asserts the importance of harmonizing internal and external cultivation, advocating for the resolution of affairs with righteousness and the regulation of the heart and mind through rites: “When the matter is outside, righteousness is controlled from within; while the mind is inside, rites are made from outside 以義製事, 以禮製心” (Li 1997b, p. 178). It underscores that clear, rational thought prevents impulsive actions: “as long as there is no delusional thinking in the mind, one will not act rashly. Human behavior is governed by thought, and wrong behavior has its root in thought 內無妄思, 外無妄動” (Li 1997a, p. 188), suggesting that thoughts govern actions and that missteps originate in the mind.

As we have mentioned in Section 2.1, the concept of “li” is central to individual self-cultivation and societal refinement. According to Cua (2002), “li” encompasses practices from formal ceremonies to etiquette and moral conduct, shaping individuals and communities toward harmony and order. Sarkissian (2014) reinforces that “li” deeply influences character development, instilling discipline and societal coherence through engagement in culturally and morally enriching activities, going beyond mere external participation to internalize moral values and virtues such as human kindness, filial devotion, and reverence.

“Li” was also a cornerstone of the “Six Arts 六藝”, fundamental to the ancient Chinese education of the elite, including disciplines such as music, archery, charioteering, calligraphy, and mathematics (Tan 2013). The integration of “li” into these arts reflects a commitment to self-cultivation and societal harmony (Hue 2010). Shusterman (2009) acknowledges Confucianism’s aesthetic approach to self-cultivation and the Six Arts as avenues to ethical refinement. He argues that philosophy, as an art of living, emphasizes the body’s role in achieving virtue and happiness, a concept he explores through “somaesthetics” (Shusterman 2008).

The “Great Learning 大學” in the Book of Rites 禮記 (39.2)3 outlines a progression from personal cultivation to societal peace: “cultivating one’s personality, regulating one’s families, rightly governing one’s states and making the whole kingdom tranquil and happy 修身, 齊家, 治國, 平天下”. It posits self-cultivation as the foundation of philosophical practice, suggesting that without personal integrity, philosophical ideals cannot gain widespread acceptance. In this tradition, the philosophical practitioner must exemplify the principles they teach, blending the theories of “gongfu” and “jingjie” in a comprehensive model of self-cultivation. Rosemont (2001) highlights that achieving harmony at home is the first step toward societal balance, with individuals leveraging their unique abilities within their roles. This philosophy extends from the family unit to the global community, intertwining personal development with the quest for universal tranquility.

3. The Theoretical Foundations of Self-Cultivation in Chinese Philosophical Practice

Shusterman (2002, p. 1) asserts that philosophical discourse across cultures enriches our understanding of philosophy as a way of life, a concept that Western philosophy, as Hadot (1995) notes, originated from but has not consistently maintained as its focal point. In contrast, traditional Chinese philosophy remains inherently tied to practical life, emphasizing the enrichment and enjoyment of human experience over abstract theorization. Philosophical practice, as Harteloh (2013) suggests, becomes vacuous without this life-centered approach. This intercultural philosophical exchange is pivotal not only for diversifying theoretical frameworks but also for revitalizing ancient Chinese wisdom in contemporary practice. Translating classical texts on Chinese philosophical practice can provide alternative arguments for a life-oriented philosophy, enriching the discipline globally.

3.1. Ren: A Moral Code

Confucianism, with its profound and systematic philosophy, was the official ideology in ancient China. Central to Confucian thought is “ren”, which plays a significant role in self-cultivation and societal guidance. Rosemont (2014) advocates for the Confucian model of role-bearing individuals engaging cooperatively, which he argues is more conducive to societal harmony than a model based on competitive self-interest. He refers to Confucius’ teaching “The exemplary person (junzi) seeks harmony (he), not sameness; petty persons, then, are the opposite 君子和而不同, 小人同而不和” (Analects 13.23), to illustrate that individual uniqueness is not compromised by societal harmony.

Ames (2008) views the Confucian individual as a dynamic process rather than a static entity, with personal essence emerging from interactions with others. This perspective shifts the focus to “human becoming” rather than “human being”, emphasizing relational development. Ames (2016) further reiterates that self-cultivation is a core tenet of Confucianism, aiming for relational virtuosity in all aspects of life—from filial piety to friendship (Ames 2011, p. 165). This process-oriented view aligns with the broader discussions on the theories of “gongfu” and “jingjie” in Chinese philosophy, where “ren” serves as a guiding principle for harmonizing one’s social and personal identities.

“Ren”, as a moral concept in ancient China, is a versatile and richly valued term. Confucius presented “ren” through various lenses, tailoring his teachings to his disciples’ needs. When Yan Yuan asks about “ren”, Confucius defines it as self-discipline aligned with propriety: “To subdue one’s self and return to propriety, is perfect virtue 克己復禮為仁”. When Yan Yuan further asks about the steps of that process, Confucius further suggests a rigorous practice of virtue that begins with the individual: “Look not at what is contrary to propriety; listen not to what is contrary to propriety; speak not what is contrary to propriety; make no movement which is contrary to propriety 非禮勿視, 非禮勿聽, 非禮勿言, 非禮勿動” (Analects 12.1).

Yet, when Fan Chi queries about “ren”, Confucius simplifies it to “love all men 愛人” and equates knowledge with “knowing all men 知人” (Analects 12.22). This discrepancy in his teachings indicates a tailored approach to moral education, aiming to nurture individual spiritual growth. To elucidate, Zi Xia cites historical figures like Shun 舜 and Tang 湯, who, by choosing virtuous individuals like Gao Yao 皋陶 and Yi Yin 伊尹 for their administrations, effectively sidelined the unvirtuous.

Confucius believed in “ren” as an ethical approach to life, central to his philosophy and life’s meaning and value. The goal of his moral education was to guide individuals toward a harmonious and fulfilling existence, encapsulated in his exhortation “the practice of ren 為仁” as a pathway to a good life. Modern Chinese philosopher Feng Youlan 馮友蘭 recognizes “ren” as the pinnacle of moral ideals, embodying a characteristic Chinese philosophy that does not separate the physical and spiritual realms in guiding life. This duality in Chinese philosophy emphasizes practical application while acknowledging the interplay of the corporeal and mental in human existence.

In dialogues with Zi Gong, Confucius articulates a key principle of Confucian ethics: the interdependence of personal development and ethical behavior. He suggests that virtuous individuals, or “junzi”, enhance their own virtues by nurturing virtue in others, stating, “They establish others in seeking to establish themselves and promote others in seeking to get there themselves 己欲立而立人, 己欲達而達人” (Analects 6.30). This philosophy highlights the relationship between self-improvement and the advancement of others, as described in the Analects.

Confucius emphasizes that the journey of the “junzi” is defined by both individual and communal advancement. The focus on ethical conduct within one’s close relationships underscores that morality is nurtured through daily interactions, identifying family and friends as vital to one’s ethical maturation. This interplay between the individual and society embodies Confucian ideology, where personal ethical progression is tied to societal upliftment. A “junzi” embodies this harmony of personal integrity and social responsibility.

Confucius also underscores the holistic nature of self-cultivation, which encompasses both the physical and spiritual, as stated in the “Great Learning 大學” of the Book of Rites 禮記 (39.2): “cultivating one’s personality, regulating one’s families, rightly governing one’s states and making the whole kingdom tranquil and happy 修身, 齊家, 治國, 平天下”. This self-cultivation requires introspection and an alignment with one’s true self, fostering a deep understanding and enactment of a virtuous life. As Confucius asserts, “Is virtue a thing remote? I wish to be virtuous, and lo! virtue is at hand子曰: 「仁遠乎哉? 我欲仁, 斯仁至矣」” (Analects 7.30), highlighting the subjective nature of virtue and its accessibility.

Confucius places the responsibility of self-cultivation on the individual. “Ren”, as the ultimate virtue, resides within and is demonstrated through action. This pursuit of virtue is an ongoing process, reflecting in both lifestyle choices and moral character. “When I walk along with two others, they may serve me as my teachers. I will select their good qualities and follow them, their bad qualities and avoid them 三人行, 必有我師焉. 擇其善者而從之, 其不善者而改之” (Analects 7.22) illustrates the continuous learning and self-improvement under the moral ideal of “ren”. This approach encourages humility and a commitment to an infinite journey of ethical practice. Confucius’ concept of “the practice of ren” enlightens life beyond the confines of moral education, offering a tangible path to self-harmony.

3.2. The Inner Sage and the Outer King: A Personality Paradigm

In our analysis, we have identified “ren” as the cornerstone of Confucianism, extending to the personality ideal of “inner sage and outer king”. This ideal not only embodies traditional Chinese life philosophy but also contrasts with Western practical philosophy. Wang (2013) underscores that pre-Qin Confucianism’s “inner sage and outer king” ideal signifies a dual focus on nurturing one’s moral and spiritual interior while also achieving societal and political impact. This contrasts with certain Western philosophies that have been critiqued for promoting a form of narcissistic self-perfection, disconnected from broader public concerns. Blaise Pascal, for instance, denounces egocentrism, not for its existence but for its insistence on being the universe’s focal point (Córdova 2019). This is a departure from the Socratic goal of understanding nature to comprehend the causes of things (Wang 2019).

Confucian self-cultivation, however, is far from narcissistic isolation. It is integrally connected to societal betterment, encapsulated again in the Confucian dictum from the “Great Learning 大學” of the Book of Rites 禮記 (39.2): “The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their personalities 古之欲明明德於天下者, 先治其國; 欲治其國者, 先齊其家; 欲齊其家者, 先修其身”. This philosophy aligns personal development with universal betterment. As pragmatism posits, valuing an end necessitates valuing the means (Shusterman 2003). Thus, the “inner sage and outer king” ideal, representing the quest for the ultimate personality, retains its relevance in contemporary philosophical practice.

3.3. The Unity of Heaven and Humanity: “Heaven, Earth, and I Were Produced Together, and All Things and I Are One 天地與我並生, 而萬物與我為一”

The concept of “inner sage and outer king” offers a holistic approach to life, integrating the pursuit of personal virtue with the broader external society and nature. This synthesis of the external natural world with human nature reflects the cumulative wisdom of Chinese philosophy. Mengzi builds upon Confucian thought, advocating for kindness to all beings and love towards humanity: “In regard to inferior creatures, the superior man is kind to them, but not loving. In regard to people generally, he is loving to them, but not affectionate. He is affectionate to his parents, and lovingly disposed to people generally. He is lovingly disposed to people generally, and kind to creatures 君子之於物也, 愛之而弗仁; 於民也, 仁之而弗親. 親親而仁民, 仁民而愛物” (Mengzi 7A45). Mengzi emphasizes the importance of nourishment, both literal and figurative, for growth and sustenance (Mengzi 6A8), suggesting a parallel between human development and natural laws, resonant with Daoist principles of simplicity and authenticity (Ding et al. 2022).

Daoism’s philosophy of life is not about escapism but about engaging with the world with a mindset of naturalness and “wuwei”. “Wuwei 無為”, often rendered as “non-action”, epitomizes Daoist ethical philosophy (Lai 2007). Slingerland (2000) explains that while “wuwei” translates to “in the absence of/without doing”, it is crucial to understand that it denotes less the physical inactivity and more the actor’s mental state. It is about the presence of a specific phenomenological state within the actor, irrespective of the visible actions being performed. As Shang (2020) argues, both entering and retreating from the world serve the purpose of harmonizing personal ideals with the realities of society.

Philosophy, as we have established, extends beyond theoretical exposition to enriching life’s meaning, anchoring curiosity and the quest for knowledge in a stable and serene mindset, akin to the Stoic pursuit of living in harmony with nature (Ding et al. 2023; Sellars 2013). This search for philosophical truth is grounded in the concept that “ren” is intertwined with the Dao (Shusterman 2002).

Confucianism also cherishes the simple, everyday joys that foster contentment, aligning with Confucius’ appreciation for activities characteristic of a way of life very different from the ideals espoused by any version of Platonism and Aristotelianism: a life of taking joy in simple pleasures with friends and loved ones (Van Norden 2003). This emphasis on simple, shared joys contributes to the harmonious life that Confucian thought seeks to cultivate, grounding the lofty principles of “ren” and “unity of heaven and humanity” in the tangible experiences of daily living.

In conclusion, we have explored how Chinese philosophical practice encompasses self-cultivation, balancing individual, societal, and natural harmony. We will next expand on this by examining Confucius’ philosophical counseling as a methodological approach to self-cultivation.

4. The Methodological Approaches of Chinese Philosophical Practice toward Self-Cultivation

4.1. Methodological Similarity: Taking the Philosophical Counseling of Confucius and Socrates as an Example

It is interesting to note that the most important method of philosophical practice, the Socratic dialogue, has many similarities to the practice that Confucius passed down to his disciples (Ma et al. 2021). Confucius is renowned for his method of teaching through dialogue, a technique that is reminiscent of the Socratic method known in Western traditions. This paper, however, will concentrate on the practices and teachings of Confucius, examining his unique approach to philosophical discourse. Notably, Confucian dialogues are typically situated within everyday contexts rather than abstract theorizations. For instance, Confucius critiques Wei Sheng Gao’s integrity over a simple act of borrowing vinegar, emphasizing the importance of honesty in seemingly trivial matters: “Who says of Wei Sheng Gao that he is upright? One begged some vinegar of him, and he begged it of a neighbor and gave it to the man 孰謂微生高直? 或乞醯焉, 乞諸其鄰而與之” (Analects 5.24). This anecdote underlines Confucius’ insistence on sincerity and serves as an instructive model for his followers, advocating for meticulousness in moral conduct.

Moreover, such dialogues allow for the articulation of general judgments that reveal the interlocutors’ underlying assumptions, aiding in the elucidation of rational truths. For example, in the chapter “Xian Jin 先進” of the Analects (11.26), Confucius observes his disciples expressing diverse life aspirations. His reactions—whether a smile or a sigh—reflect his nuanced guidance without overtly imposing value judgments, aligning with the philosophical view that principles are subject to interpretation and debate (Harteloh 2013).

Thirdly, the Confucian approach is fundamentally educational, aiming for the continuous moral development of individuals. Berkson (2021) argues that shame can be a transformative force driving self-reflection and ethical growth. Confucianism places a premium on this personal evolution, valuing ethical action over theoretical knowledge or prescriptive rules. It stresses the importance of both mentorship and personal accountability in cultivating one’s character. Confucius himself practiced inclusivity in education, exemplified by his principle that “In teaching there should be no distinction of classes 有教無類” (Analects 15.39). Scholars such as Ma Rong 馬融 and He Yan 何晏 from later periods echoed this sentiment, advocating for universal education regardless of people’ wealth and privilege (He 2011). This egalitarian ethos is further demonstrated by Confucius’ willingness to instruct anyone who sought knowledge, regardless of their social status or the value of their offering: “I have never failed to instruct students who, using their own resources, could only afford a gift of dried meat 自行束脩以上, 吾未嘗無誨焉” (Analects 7.7).

Finally, a key distinction between Socratic and Confucian philosophical counseling, as highlighted by a peer reviewer, lies in Socrates’ quest for universal abstractions versus Confucius’ attention to the nuances of individual circumstances. Socrates sought to define overarching concepts like “the Good”, while Confucius championed situational discernment and context-specific action, captured in the Confucian thoughts as “It is the person who is able to broaden the Way (Dao), not the way that broadens the person 人能弘道，非道弘人” (Analects 15.29) and “He (Shun 舜) walked along the path of benevolence and righteousness; he did not need to pursue benevolence and righteousness 由仁義行，非行仁義也” (Mengzi 4B47). In addition, building on Hall and Ames’ (1995) distinction between the first and second problematics, Ma et al. (2021) contrast horizontal (analogical/correlative) and vertical (causal) cognitive frameworks to further differentiate the counseling methodologies of Socrates and Confucius. Through tracing the nuances from broad conceptual contrasts to specific practices, Ma et al. (2021) particularly examine the Socratic dialogue and Confucian heuristic teaching, aiming to investigate the integration of these methods and propose an effective model for philosophical counseling in China that respects its cultural and intellectual heritage.

On the whole, unlike Socrates, whose dialogues, as recorded by Plato and Xenophon, reveal a distinct Athenian context involving interactions with a varied socio-economic audience, Confucius democratized learning by advocating accessibility to education across social strata. While Socrates, originating from a modest background, freely engaged with Athenian citizens from different classes, including aristocrats and refused payment for his philosophical discussions (Plato 1966, 19d-e)—a practice setting him apart from the Sophists who charged for their instruction—Confucius embraced a more inclusive model, teaching anyone willing to learn and accepting tokens of appreciation in return (Analects 7.7). Furthermore, the Socratic paradox arises from the contrast between the historical figure and the literary character who represents Plato’s ideas in the dialogues, complicating the understanding of Socrates’ own philosophical stance, which he often downplayed by claiming ignorance.

4.2. The Cornerstone of Embodied Self-Cultivation: The Unity of Knowledge and Action

Zhang (2008) observes that traditional Chinese philosophy diverges from its Western counterpart by emphasizing a “post-conscious body paradigm” rather than a “philosophy of consciousness”. This stands in contrast to the Western philosophical progression from “consciousness” to “categories” to “universe”, reminiscent of Hegel’s dialectical process (Gabriel 2009; Kosok 1966). Chinese thought prioritizes the integration of knowledge and action, aligning with the Confucian ideal of the “gentleman personality paradigm”, which advocates for congruence between one’s words and deeds. Accordingly, traditional Chinese philosophy views philosophical counseling as a reciprocal process that shapes both parties involved, reflecting the Confucian commitment to leading by example and ensuring that actions align with professed values.

4.2.1. The Unity of Knowledge and Action: Between the Philosophical Practitioners and the Visitors

Self-cultivation in traditional Chinese philosophy, marked by the theories of “gongfu” and “jingjie”, reached its latest stage in the Ming Dynasty with the Yangming School of Mind 陽明心學. This school, founded by Wang Yangming 王陽明, also known as Wang Shouren 王守仁, inherits pre-Qin Confucian ideals of cultivating an exemplary personality (Li and Wang 2022). At the heart of his teachings is the unity of knowledge and action, a principle that has profound implications for philosophical practice for both practitioners and visitors. Accordingly, this section will first introduce the specific elements of the unity of knowledge and action approach and discuss its value in conjunction with philosophical practice from the perspective of both the philosophical practitioners and the visitors.

The unity of knowledge and action, central to moral intellectualism in Confucian thought, interprets “knowledge” as moral belief and “action” as ethical practice (Chen 2013). Traditional Chinese philosophy has long wrestled with their interplay, as evidenced in early texts like the Zuo Zhuan 左傳 and the Book of History 尚書, which underscore the challenge of translating knowledge into action (Tao 2004). Cheng Hao 程顥 of the Northern Song Dynasty and Zhu Xi 朱熹 of the Southern Song Dynasty each contributed to the discourse, emphasizing the foundational role of knowledge and the essential, interdependent nature of knowledge and action (Arghirescu 2020, 2022).

Wang (1992, p. 42) was critical of his contemporaries’ penchant for discourse over action, highlighting a divergence from Zhu Xi’s approach, which prioritizes knowledge in theory and action in practice. Wang Yangming critiqued the dichotomy between knowledge and action as creating a harmful divide between “mind” and “matter”, “subject” and “object”. He observed that waiting for perfect knowledge before acting could lead to a lifetime of inaction, a concern mirrored in societal issues such as hypocrisy, misinterpreted Daoism, and unrealistic expectations of sage-like omniscience (Dong 2013; Wang 1992, p. 28). His own experience—studying bamboo intensively without gaining saintly wisdom—led him to advocate for the unity of knowledge and action as “one body of two sides”. He posited that morality should direct human behavior, with the mind’s moral inclinations initiating action and morally aligned actions fulfilling one’s conscience (Wang 1992, p. 4). Wang Yangming ultimately presents knowledge and action as concurrent, intertwined aspects of human practice without a strict temporal sequence.

Wang Yangming posited that the mind itself embodies reason, a concept he articulates as “the mind is the reason 心即理” (Wang 2004, p. 127). He underscored the primacy of conscience in one’s ontological journey, arguing that the path to sainthood demands introspection rather than an external search. Wang’s ontology of conscience, his theory of “gongfu”, and the “unity of knowledge and action” are interconnected, advocating that “the unity of the original substance and effort” is achieved through the reciprocal elaboration of substance and effort (Yang and Hou 2022). Actions are meaningful only when accompanied by deep understanding and effective implementation, with actions serving as the litmus test for true knowledge.

Philosophical practitioners must inspire individuals to think independently and harmonize their knowledge with action. Whether adopting a continental, humanistic focus or an analytic tradition emphasizing critical thinking and virtue development, practitioners often emphasize “knowledge” over “action” (Ding 2016, pp. 198, 215). However, philosophical counseling’s therapeutic impact hinges on integrating “action” with “knowledge” to address practical life challenges.

In the same vein, philosophical practitioners should recognize that “knowledge” and “action” are intrinsically linked and must coexist. The mind, likened to a rusty mirror, requires cleansing—a metaphor for the dual nature of action and knowledge acquisition as we clear our perceptions (Dong 2013). The efficacy of philosophical practice should be gauged not by ephemeral insights during dialogue but by the lasting impact on the visitors’ self-cultivation and the resolution of their issues post-counseling.

In certain instances of philosophical practice, there can be an apparent disparity between the practitioner and the visitor, assuming a superiority in the practitioner’s rational capacity and philosophical knowledge. This dynamic risks reducing the visitor to providing merely reactive responses, potentially fostering an unwelcoming atmosphere and feelings of disrespect. Such disapproval towards the practitioner’s approach can impede the effectiveness of the philosophical counseling session.

In Chinese philosophical practice toward self-cultivation, the ideal practitioner not only aids visitors in their personal growth but also concurrently advances their own self-improvement and mental well-being, exemplifying the integration of knowledge and action. Philosophical practitioners are not expected to be paragons of virtue; however, the expectation is that they model self-reflection and personal growth. While Western practitioners acquire substantial experience and reflection through dialogue, this differs from the Confucian emphasis on self-transformation and the cultivation of character, which encompasses “people’s self-transformation and self-cultivation, and the pursuit of a sound personality” (Chen 2004), aligning with the harmonization of the theories of “gongfu” and “jingjie”.

4.2.2. The Solution to the Separation of Knowledge and Action

Wang Yangming presents the “unity of knowledge and action” as a remedy for the ailment of their dichotomy, implying that the nature of this “medicine” is defined by the “disease” it treats (Wang 1992, p. 5). He asserts that the separation of knowledge and action arises when reason is sought outside the mind (Wang 2004, p. 128). The cure, therefore, is to transform theoretical “knowledge” into practical “action”. In the following, we will elaborate on how this principle could address current challenges in philosophical counseling.

First of all, the essence of the unity of knowledge and action is to prioritize practice over mere theoretical indulgence. Theory must inherently direct practice, as every effort in learning and thinking constitutes action (Wang 1992, p. 208). In philosophical counseling, visitors are exposed to profound principles and may understand their issues, yet the application of these theories to daily life remains a challenge. Moreover, Confucius underscores the symbiotic relationship between learning and reflection, noting that “Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous 學而不思則罔, 思而不學則殆” (Analects 2.15). This suggests that Confucius valued the interplay of acquiring knowledge (learning) and processing or contemplating this knowledge (thought) to inform appropriate action, although neither learning nor thought refers to action within the philosophical practice context.

Secondly, the unity of knowledge and action necessitates introspection and active application. Philosophical practitioners encourage the visitors to examine their lives comprehensively, integrating past experiences and present thoughts into their self-reflection, in line with the notion of encompassing “the whole of life and the present moment” (Chen 2020a). Mengzi articulates this as self-examination: “A gentleman must turn around and reflect on himself 君子必自反也” (Mengzi 4B56). Practitioners themselves must engage in ongoing self-cultivation, balancing retrospective and prospective reflection. This internal process should translate into external action, where the visitors are encouraged to live philosophically post-counseling. Practitioners may also revisit the visitors, with consent, as part of their reflective growth.

Thirdly, the goal of the unity of knowledge and action is authentic knowledge and practice, transforming the natural form of conscience (knowledge) to the actual practice (action) and then to the conscience (knowledge) in the form of clear consciousness (Yang 1997). Wang Yangming critiques superficial understanding, which fails to result in meaningful action, as “seeming knowledge”, i.e., the ignorant and empty “knowledge” that naturally leads to ignorant and blind “action”. True knowledge and purposeful action are achieved through the diligent application of self-cultivation principles.

Finally, the unity of knowledge and action aims to address the “inconsistency between words and deeds” by ensuring they align. In Confucianism, the learner’s active role is emphasized: “I have heard in the same way of (scholars) coming to learn; I have not heard of (the master) going to teach 禮聞來學, 不聞往教” (Liji 1A7), underscoring the expectation that students should be the driving force behind their own learning journey, not the teacher. Teachers are revered as custodians of wisdom and paragons of virtue, yet their role is not to solicit or cajole students into learning. It falls upon students to acknowledge their educational needs and actively seek instruction. This ethos distinguishes the Confucian approach from pedagogies that assign a more assertive role to teachers in directing education. Huang (2018) warns against the extremes of teaching without learning, which leads to dogmatism, and learning without teaching, which results in hollow camaraderie. Philosophical engagement should be a heartfelt exchange, not didactic preaching. Authentic communication and meaningful interaction between the practitioners and visitors depend on the congruence of their words and actions.

Confucius underscores the congruency between a gentleman’s words and actions: “The superior (gentleman) does not speak words which may be spoken indeed but should not be embodied in deeds; nor does he do actions which may be done in deed but should not be expressed in words. When this is the case, the words of the people can be carried into action without risk, and their actions can be spoken of without risk 君子弗言也; 可行也, 不可言, 君子弗行也. 則民言不危行, 而行不危言矣” (Liji 30.7). This principle suggests that philosophical practitioners must carefully evaluate the practicality of their counseling theories and methods, ensuring they are not only theoretically sound but also actionable. The core of the “unity of knowledge and action” is leading by example, as highlighted by Confucius’ counsel to rulers: “When a prince’s personal conduct is correct, his government is effective without the issuing of orders. If his personal conduct is not correct, he may issue orders, but they will not be followed 其身正, 不令而行; 其身不正, 雖令不從” (Analects 13.6). Philosophical practitioners should exemplify their teachings, sharing personal experiences to bridge the emotional distance with their visitors, thus fostering a deeper connection and enhancing the counseling experience.

5. Confucian Philosophical Counseling in Practice

In the realm of philosophical counseling, the approach derived from Confucianism provides a distinctive perspective that differs from Western practices (Hwang 2009). Confucian counseling is deeply rooted in the values and teachings of Confucius, focusing on moral cultivation, interpersonal harmony, and the roles individuals play within their families and society (Ramsey 2016; Su 2019). Hwang and Chang (2009) explore the concept of self-cultivation within Confucianism, shedding light on the therapeutic implications of Confucianism’s “relational self”. They examine a range of therapeutic techniques informed by Confucian values, analyzing their application in contemporary East Asian and North American Confucian societies.

5.1. Methods and Techniques of Confucian Philosophical Counseling

Confucian philosophical counseling employs methods and techniques that emphasize the cultivation of virtues, reflection on one’s roles and responsibilities, and the application of Confucian principles such as “benevolence” (ren 仁), “righteousness” (yi 義), “rites” (li 禮), “wisdom” (zhi 智), and “faithfulness” (xin 信). The counselor guides the counselee through a process of self-cultivation and enlightenment, using the wisdom of ancient texts like the Analects and Mengzi to address contemporary issues. For instance, Su (2011) examines the integration of Confucian philosophy into counseling practices, introducing the original concept of “Keh-Sheng-Shou-Sheh 克勝收攝”. This term, rooted in Confucian thought, outlines a structured counseling progression. Su (2011) clarifies the origins and rationale behind these four characters and illustrates their practical application in counseling. The aim of the “Keh-Sheng-Shou-Sheh” counseling process is to alleviate suffering and empower clients to confront and navigate life’s challenges with resilience, drawing strength from this Chinese philosophical framework.

In contrast to some Western practices that may focus on individual autonomy and self-actualization, Confucian counseling prioritizes social harmony and adherence to traditional roles (Hwang 2009; Hwang and Chang 2009). Counselors often use storytelling, parables, and analogies from Confucian literature to illustrate moral dilemmas and encourage introspection (Ma et al. 2021). Lu (2004) encapsulates the essence of philosophical counseling in the Analects as follows: (a) A philosophical counselor should embody wisdom, kindness, and courage, akin to the Confucian “gentleman”; (b) the counseling’s objective is to free the counselee from worry, fear, and confusion; (c) the counseling approach is intellectual in nature; (d) it advocates for a concise and focused counseling duration. Conversely, Tan (2004) debates whether Confucius’ teachings meet the standards of modern psychological knowledge within counseling. He posits that while Confucius guided his disciples toward moral rectitude, shaping them to be gentlemen or humane individuals, he did not address their emotional tribulations in the manner of a psychological counselor, which is a great difference between the philosophical counselor and the psychological counselor.

5.2. Qualifications for Becoming a Confucian Philosophical Counselor

Philosophical practitioners must possess a robust philosophical education to practice effectively. The American Philosophical Practitioners Association (APPA) dictates that Associates hold at least a Master’s Degree or ABD (All But Dissertation) status in philosophy, and for those in Hispanic countries, a Licensura. Fellows should possess a Doctoral Degree in Philosophy. Candidates must show proficiency in core philosophical disciplines, including ethics, logic, epistemology, metaphysics, and the history of philosophy.

The ethical criteria, as per the Code of Ethics, include maintaining integrity, prioritizing client welfare, and upholding professional behavior (Marinoff 2002). This entails a commitment to the client’s well-being, confidentiality, autonomy, appropriate referrals, avoiding conflicts of interest, and contributing to the community’s and society’s welfare.

A stringent certification system, potentially overseen by an entity like the APPA, should enforce these standards. This system would require strict certification requirements, regular recertification, supervised practice, and ongoing education in interpersonal psychology and psychopathology. The certification process should rigorously combine philosophical acumen with practical counseling skills, ensuring practitioners are both knowledgeable in theory and adept in managing the ethical nuances of counseling.

For Confucian philosophical counselors, the requisite qualifications include comprehensive education in Confucian texts and doctrines, coupled with a dedication to personal ethical development. Oversight of certification might be managed by a group specializing in Confucian studies and counseling, ensuring adherence to Confucian values and adaptability to contemporary counseling challenges. This framework mandates continuous learning and self-improvement, a reflection of Confucian philosophy’s adaptive and perpetual nature. Adhering to these strict guidelines ensures that certified Confucian philosophical counselors can offer informed, empathetic, and ethically robust guidance.

5.3. Hypothetical Dialogue: A Case Study

With the help of OpenAI’s GPT-4, here we present a hypothetical dialogue in a session of Confucian philosophical counseling that demonstrates the interaction between counselor and counselee, emphasizing the application of Confucian principles.

Counselee: “I have been feeling lost lately. I’m caught between pursuing a career that I love and fulfilling my family’s expectation to take over the family business”.

Counselor: “It is natural to feel conflicted when our personal desires clash with our duties. Let us consider the Confucian concept of filial piety and how it might apply to your situation. Confucius taught that we must respect and care for our parents, but he also emphasized the importance of following the ‘Way’ and cultivating oneself. Have you reflected on your motivations and the impact of each path on your character and virtue?”

Counselee: “I believe I can grow more in a career that I am passionate about, but I also don’t want to let my parents down”.

Counselor: “In the Analects, Confucius says, ‘To rule a country of a thousand chariots, there must be reverent attention to business, and sincerity; economy in expenditure, and love for men; and the employment of the people at the proper seasons 道千乘之國: 敬事而信, 節用而愛人, 使民以時’ (Analects 1.5). While this speaks of governance, it also implies that we must balance our personal growth with our responsibilities. How might you apply this principle to honor your role as a son while also pursuing personal fulfillment?”

Counselee: “I suppose I could discuss with my parents how I might contribute to the family business in a way that allows me to continue my own career”.

Counselor: “Indeed, it is through dialogue and negotiation that we find harmony. Remember ‘Yi’, the principle of righteousness. It is not merely about conforming to expectations but finding the right course of action that aligns with moral virtue. In your case, this might mean creating a balance between personal aspirations and family obligations”.

Counselee: “That sounds challenging, but it also feels right. It’s about finding a middle path, isn’t it?”

Counselor: “Precisely. The Middle Way teaches us to find balance and harmony in all things. Reflect upon this, and let us discuss how you can implement these ideas in practical ways during our next session”.

Such a hypothetical session with a Confucian philosophical counselor could be characterized by a dialogue that intertwines the exploration of personal issues with the teachings of Confucius. The counselor’s role is to facilitate the counselee’s moral development and to help them navigate their social roles and duties. The emphasis is on achieving harmony within the self and society, in contrast to some Western practices that might focus more on individualistic goals (Hwang 2009; Hwang and Chang 2009). Through the process, counselees gain insights into resolving their dilemmas by aligning their actions with Confucian virtues and principles.

6. Discussion

This paper has sought to underscore the integral role of Chinese philosophical traditions, particularly Confucianism, in the pursuit of self-cultivation. We contend that the traditional Chinese focus on nurturing the body and mind, speeches and behaviors offers indispensable insights for modern philosophical practice. A pivotal element of this research is the juxtaposition of Confucius and Socrates, emblematic figures in Eastern and Western philosophical traditions, respectively. Both utilized dialogue as a pedagogical tool, underscoring the universal applicability of philosophical practice beyond cultural or geographic boundaries.

Central to Chinese philosophy is self-cultivation—a multifaceted concept that includes “ren”, the ideal of the inner sage and outer king, and the harmony between heaven and humanity. These principles underscore a comprehensive approach to self-cultivation that is both moral and relational, aligning one’s conduct with the broader cosmos.

Building on prior research, this paper introduces a novel framework termed “Chinese philosophical practice toward self-cultivation”, which synergizes “gongfu” with “jingjie”, anchored by the principle of “unity of knowledge and action”. The fusion of “gongfu” and “jingjie” outlines a structured pathway for self-cultivation, emphasizing the progression through stages of personal evolution via consistent practice. The “unity of knowledge and action” demands the application of philosophical tenets to everyday life, bridging the divide between abstract thought and tangible action. In this way, we can summarize the theory and methodology of Chinese philosophical practice toward self-cultivation discussed in the paper as follows in

Table 1. The theory and methodology of Chinese philosophical practice toward self-cultivation.

	Theory/Methodology	Description
Theoretical Foundations	The Pragmatic Roots of Chinese Philosophy	Traditional Chinese philosophy, with its emphasis on self-cultivation, provides valuable insights into contemporary philosophical practice. The holistic approach encompasses the cultivation of body and mind, speeches and behaviors.
	Comparison of Confucius and Socrates	Confucius and Socrates are representative figures in Chinese and Western philosophical practice, respectively. Both employ dialogue and prioritize education in their practices. This brief comparison highlights the universality of philosophical practice across different traditions.
	Self-Cultivation Concepts in Confucianism	Confucianism offers a whole set of self-cultivation theories, including “ren”, inner sage and outer king, and the unity of heaven and humanity. These concepts emphasize moral character, personal conduct, and harmonious relationships.
Methodological Approaches	Theories of “Gongfu” and “Jingjie”	The theory of “gongfu” emphasizes the cultivation of skills and expertise through continuous practice and effort. The theory of “jingjie” refers to the progressive stages of personal growth and development. Integrating these two theories provides a systematic approach to self-cultivation.
	Principle of the Unity of Knowledge and Action	This principle underscores the importance of applying philosophical insights in practical activities. It emphasizes the need to embody philosophical beliefs and translate them into concrete actions. Bridging the gap between theory and practice ensures that philosophical ideas are lived and experienced.

.

Future research should encourage philosophers to transcend the confines of academic study and engage directly in the practice of philosophy, rejuvenating its presence in contemporary life. We advocate for a shift from the prevalent “writing-reading” paradigm to the “speaking-listening” model of traditional Chinese philosophy (Chen 2022). By embedding classical teachings within the modern context and championing the self-cultivation ideals of traditional Chinese philosophy, we aim to address the existential void and internal discord prevalent in modern society.

It should be noted that we acknowledge the rich tapestry of interpretations surrounding Confucianism, each offering a unique lens through which to assess its contributions to philosophical practice. The perspectives shared in this paper represent a selection from a broader scholarly discourse, and we wish to affirm that our approach is complementary to, rather than dismissive of, other prevailing interpretations. In our forthcoming endeavors, we commit to presenting a more refined comparative analysis that honors the profound complexity and pluralistic nature of Confucian heritage.

7. Conclusions

This paper establishes the critical need and practicality of incorporating Chinese philosophical practice into self-cultivation, with a special emphasis on the contributions of Confucianism (see Table 1). Traditional Chinese philosophy, with its concepts of “ren”, the “inner sage and outer king”, and the “unity of heaven and humanity”, can be interpreted as advocating a state of physical and mental harmony that intertwines thought and “knowledge”. Moreover, this paper underscores how Chinese philosophical practice enriches self-cultivation by synthesizing the theory of “gongfu” with “jingjie”, reinforcing the “unity of knowledge and action”. It proposes a dual developmental approach, whereby both the philosophical practitioner and the visitor work to bridge the gap between knowledge and action, thereby actualizing this unity in practice. Within this framework, self-cultivation targets both the “mind” and the “behavior”, embodying the Confucian belief that to “cultivate the mind” is to “cultivate the body”, and internal growth is synonymous with external development.

In summary, this paper underscores the invaluable role of traditional Chinese philosophy in modern philosophical practice, particularly concerning self-cultivation. By fusing Confucian concepts with the practical theories of “gongfu” and “jingjie” and advocating for the “unity of knowledge and action”, it offers a holistic and actionable approach to philosophical practice. This work contributes to the broader dialogue on philosophical practice, heralding new opportunities for individual and ethical advancement and the quest for wisdom on both a national and international scale.