The Heart–Mind as the Medium of Transcendence and Virtue: From Post-Confucian Thought to Mencius and Xunzi from a Religious–Ethical Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
What kind of transcendence is it? when you introduce Mengzi and in section 5 you refer to his approach leading to transcendence. What kind of transcendence is it? Usually in a religious context by transcendence we mean heaven, paradise or higher other-worldly realm of existence.
There is no other-worldly realm in Mengzi. So please define what type of transcendence you are finding in Mengzi.
lines 4 & 7: xin is not in italics.
line 20 the word "in" is missing at "... ) IN early..."
lines 41-42 You say within Confucianism and the then list Mozi who was not a Confucian. May be say within early Chinese philosophy? or delete Mozi and mention him afterwards.....
line 47 the character for qi is in simplified form. usually we use traditional characters.
line 72 insert "a, in the" "... A Confucian IN THE Qing Dynasty." You need a capital D on Qing Dynasty; it is a proper noun.
line 73 the Chinese characters for Liu Xi's name would be helpful.
73 onward As noted above we usually use the traditional full-body characters.
86 &89 italics on _sheng needed.
113 italics on _ren; best check the use of italics in the rest of the paper.
148-149 italics on _ming and _Tian. And _xin and _xing.
166 give the characters for these terms in this paragraph; especially for xi habit because it is discussed below.
248 I'd suggest inserting the word "other" before animals to read "... other animals" because humans are animals also.
indent the long quotes.
314 above zhi was translated as intentions; now you switch to "will" Either stay with one translation or explain.
371 indent this long quote.
417 best to give the characters for the chapter title along with your translation.
456 need characters for the chapter title.
518 need italics on _a priori_.
The style in the references is not consistent; for Chinese names you spell out the whole personnel name but for others you give the initials.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your careful reading of my manuscript and for your insightful and constructive comments. I have revised the manuscript accordingly and provide below a point-by-point response to each of your suggestions. All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript to facilitate your review.
Reviewer Comment 1:
“What kind of transcendence is it? ... There is no other-worldly realm in Mengzi. So please define what type of transcendence you are finding in Mengzi.”
Response: I have clarified the use of the term “transcendence” in Section 5. In this paper, “transcendence” refers to a moral transformation that elevates human character through the realization of innate moral potential (xing) endowed by Tian (Heaven). This transformation remains immanent and does not invoke a metaphysical or other-worldly realm.
Reviewer Comment 2:
“Lines 4 & 7: xin is not in italics.”
Response: The term xin has been italicized consistently in these lines and throughout the paper where appropriate.
Reviewer Comment 3:
“Line 20 the word ‘in’ is missing at ‘... ) in early...’”
Response: The missing word “in” has been added.
Reviewer Comment 4:
“Lines 41–42: You say ‘within Confucianism’ and then list Mozi who was not a Confucian...”
Response: I revised the phrase to “within early Chinese philosophy” and mentioned Mozi as a non-Confucian figure in a separate clause.
Reviewer Comment 5:
“Line 47: the character for qi is in simplified form.”
Response: The character 气 has been replaced with the traditional form 氣.
Reviewer Comment 6:
“Line 72: insert ‘a’ and capitalize ‘Qing Dynasty’.”
Response: Revised as suggested to: “a Confucian in the Qing Dynasty.”
Reviewer Comment 7:
“Line 73: the Chinese characters for Liu Xi’s name would be helpful.”
Response: Liu Xi is now presented with the Chinese characters: Liu Xi (劉熙).
Reviewer Comment 8:
“Use traditional full-body characters throughout.”
Response: All Chinese characters in the manuscript have been converted to traditional script.
Reviewer Comment 9:
“Lines 86 & 89: italics on sheng needed.”
Response: The term sheng has been italicized as requested.
Reviewer Comment 10:
“Line 113: italics on ren; check use of italics across the paper.”
Response: The term ren is now italicized. I also reviewed the entire manuscript to ensure consistent italicization of key terms such as xin, xing, Tian, ming, etc.
Reviewer Comment 11:
“Line 166: give the characters for these terms, especially xi ‘habit’.”
Response: Chinese characters have been added for all key terms discussed in this paragraph, including xi (習).
Reviewer Comment 12:
“Line 248: insert ‘other’ before animals.”
Response: Revised to: “... other animals ...” as suggested.
Reviewer Comment 13:
“Indent the long quotes.”
Response: All long quotations have been properly indented according to formatting guidelines.
Reviewer Comment 14:
“Line 314: inconsistent translation of zhi as ‘intentions’ vs ‘will’.”
Response: I now consistently translate zhi as “will” throughout and have added a footnote to explain its semantic scope and translation choice.
Reviewer Comment 15:
“Line 371: indent this long quote.”
Response: The block quote on line 371 is now properly indented.
Reviewer Comment 16:
“Line 417: give the characters for the chapter title.”
Response: Chinese characters for the chapter title have been added alongside the translation.
Reviewer Comment 17:
“Line 456: need characters for the chapter title.”
Response: Chinese characters have been inserted.
Reviewer Comment 18:
“Line 518: need italics on a priori.”
Response: A priori is now italicized.
Reviewer Comment 19:
“Reference style is inconsistent: Chinese names spelled out, others use initials.”
Response: I have revised all references for consistency. Chinese authors now use full names (e.g., Zhang Dainian), and Western authors follow initials (e.g., Ames, R. T.), following MDPI guidelines.
Once again, I thank you for your detailed and thoughtful feedback. These revisions have helped to significantly improve the manuscript. I sincerely hope that the revised version meets the expectations of the journal.
Warm regards,
Xiaoli Hong
Department of Philosophy
Yunnan University
xiaolihong@ynu.edu.cn
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article sets itself an ambitious and valuable task: to bring early Confucian conceptions of xin (heart–mind) into dialogue with contemporary discussions in religious ethics. The core argument is that early Confucians developed a morally driven sense of self. This concept is considered "religious" because it guides individuals towards a higher moral order. The idea offers great potential to broaden comparative ethics discussions.
In my point of view, there are some areas that need improvement:
1. The paper assumes that a “religious ethics” framework naturally applies to Confucianism, but it never demonstrates why this lens is appropriate before employing it in the paper. There are points that require clarification: Clearly state the meaning of “religion” and “religious ethics” right from the start. Is it any ethical system that appeals to a transcendent order (tian, Heaven)? Or must it involve worship, ritual mediation, and soteriological claims akin to those in Abrahamic traditions? In the introduction or footnote, the author might consider elaborating on the applicability of these terms in the pre-Qin period, given the absence of formal religious institutions or standardized doctrinal frameworks. During the pre-Qin period, "religion" was an integrated worldview encompassing ancestral rites, reverence for Heaven and natural forces, and divination as means to understand cosmic will. "Religious ethics" were the moral codes like benevolence (ren) and righteousness (yi) that emerged from this worldview, functioning as inherent principles for social and personal conduct To ensure clarity and prevent misinterpretation, provide a concise operational definition in the abstract or first paragraph. An example is defining 'religious ethics' as 'a moral discourse that links self-cultivation to an order beyond empirical social relations, such as tian or ancestral spirits,' which establishes a clear basis for all subsequent discussions.
2. There's a disconnect between the introduction's mention of a 'dual reading' of texts and the paper's body, which disproportionately emphasizes Mencius and Xunzi. The introduction promises to analyze both transmitted and newly discovered texts, but the main part of the paper relies mostly on Mencius and Xunzi. Excavated materials are discussed briefly in Section 2, with the discussion primarily centered on Xing zi ming chu. Some concrete changes will re-establish balance: First, the philological explanation of “xing性” is too lengthy and can be appropriately shortened. Second, other manuscripts in the Guodian and Tsinghua collections such as Wu xing, Xin shi wei zhong (as already mentioned in the paper) and Cheng zhi wen zhi (not mentioned in the paper) can be integrated and discussed more substantially. For example, Xin shi wei zhong discussed the relationship between the heart-mind and Heaven (between human subjectivity and cosmic constraint). There is a connection and overlap between ‘Xin shi wei zhong’ and Xunzi’s notion of the division between Heaven and humanity. These excavated texts provides a key to comprehending the difference between Mencius's idea that people are born good with moral feelings as a base, and Xunzi's view that rituals are needed to guide and change these feelings. Besides, the paper analyzes the characteristics of excavated texts, Mencius, and Xunzi in their understanding of the “heart-mind,” but it seems to pay less attention to the connections between the three. Further explanation in this area may be helpful.
3. The reference list in this paper appears somewhat limited in scope, predominantly drawing on Western-dominated academic traditions. It appears there is insufficient attention to studies written in Chinese by Chinese scholars. Expanding the coverage to include non-Western perspectives could strengthen the analysis. For example, regarding topics such as xin, xing, qing, and the excavated manuscripts, there are many research articles in both Chinese and English, especially in Chinese. Scholars like Chen Lai and Cao Feng, among others, have published extensively on these subjects. In English, there are relevant works such as the collection edited by Shirley Chan. Including these sources might enhance the manuscript by offering more perspectives. The author might consider incorporating those that directly engage with the study’s focus.
4. Section 5 makes an abrupt transition to Western theology, including grace versus works and Western scholars’ views. In contrast, the preceding sections focused exclusively on Chinese thought. The current application of the "grace vs. works" parallel (Western theology) lacks prior textual grounding. Section 5 seems forced and unconnected to the source material because the necessary groundwork is missing. To improve this, integrate the framework earlier (e.g., in the Introduction) or express it using Confucian-specific terms. For instance, "The essay will juxtapose the Mencian concept of Heaven-endowment with Christian notions of grace to clarify diverse models of moral dependence," will improve the flow. Before bringing in Western analogies (e.g., grace vs. works), it might show how early Confucians themselves construed tian, ritual, and xin in ways that satisfy the chosen definition.
Overall, this article sheds light on Confucian moral anthropology and effectively creates an opportunity for comparison with religious ethics. However, it is recommended that revisions be made to strengthen its arguments and bolster its contribution.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful review of my manuscript. Your comments have helped me clarify and strengthen the argument, improve structural balance, and expand the manuscript’s scholarly dialogue. Below, I provide a point-by-point response to your suggestions, with corresponding revisions made to the manuscript (highlighted in yellow):
- Clarify the Framework of “Religious Ethics” in Relation to Confucianism
Reviewer Comment:
The paper assumes that a “religious ethics” framework naturally applies to Confucianism, but it never demonstrates why this lens is appropriate before employing it in the paper. There are points that require clarification: Clearly state the meaning of “religion” and “religious ethics” right from the start. Is it any ethical system that appeals to a transcendent order (Tian, Heaven)? Or must it involve worship, ritual mediation, and soteriological claims akin to those in Abrahamic traditions? In the introduction or footnote, the author might consider elaborating on the applicability of these terms in the pre-Qin period...
Response:
Thank you very much for this perceptive and constructive comment. I fully agree that the conceptual application of “religious ethics” to early Confucianism requires precise justification, particularly given the significant differences between early Chinese traditions and institutionalized Western religions.
To address this issue, I have made the following substantial revisions:
In the abstract, I now include an operational definition of “religious ethics,” stating:
“‘Religious ethics,’ as used here, refers to a moral discourse that links self-cultivation to a transcendent or cosmic order—such as Tian (Heaven), ancestral spirits, or ritual cosmology—without assuming the presence of institutional religion.” (See p. 1, lines 25–32)
In the introduction (main text), I have added a paragraph that expands upon the distinct cosmological and ancestral dimensions of early Confucian moral thinking. This revised paragraph explains that early Confucianism, while lacking formal religious institutions or doctrinal systems, operates within a worldview in which moral principles like ren and yi derive authority from a transcendent moral order. This helps clarify how our use of the “religious ethics” framework refers to the linkage betIen ethical norms and cosmological legitimation, not to formalized theological constructs. (See p. 1–2, lines 59–97)
In Footnote 2, I have inserted an explicit definition to reinforce and supplement the introduction. The footnote reads:
“In this paper, ‘religious ethics’ is used in a broad comparative sense to refer to moral systems that ground ethical obligations in a transcendent or cosmic order. In early Confucianism, such an order is represented by Tian (Heaven), ancestral spirits, and ritual cosmology. This concept does not presuppose institutional religion, but rather the existence of a normative universe in which ethical values like ren and yi derive their legitimacy from beyond the empirical world.” (See Footnote 2 on p. 15)
Additionally, I have modified the paper’s title to more explicitly highlight the focus on the religious-ethical interpretation of early Confucian xin theory, ensuring that the thematic emphasis is clear from the outset.
These changes ensure conceptual clarity before applying the religious ethics framework throughout the paper.
- Balance the Analysis Between Transmitted and Excavated Texts
Reviewer Comment:
There is a disproportionate emphasis on Mencius and Xunzi, despite the initial promise of a dual reading of transmitted and newly excavated texts.
Response:
I have revised Section 2 to shorten the philological explanation of xing and to substantially expand discussion of excavated manuscripts. Specifically:
- Added analysis of Wu xing and Cheng zhi wen zhi, alongside the previously mentioned Xin shi wei zhong.
- Highlighted the connection between Xin shi wei zhong’s treatment of the heart–mind–Heaven relationship and Xunzi’s Heaven–human distinction.
- Strengthened the comparative linkages between excavated materials, Mencius, and Xunzi in understanding the heart–mind, showing how these texts mediate between the two paradigms.
All these additions are marked in yellow in Section 2 and Section 4.
- Expand the Reference Base to Include Chinese-Language Scholarship
Reviewer Comment:
The reference list is overly reliant on Western sources; more Chinese-language research should be cited.
Response:
I have expanded the bibliography to include key Chinese-language studies, e.g., works by Chen Lai, Cao Feng, and others, as well as the edited volume by Shirley Chan. These sources are now cited in discussions of xin, xing, qing, and the excavated manuscripts, enriching the analysis with both Chinese and Western perspectives. The additions are highlighted in the revised References list.
- Reframe Section 5 for Greater Thematic Coherence
Reviewer Comment:
The sudden introduction of Christian theological terms (grace vs. works) feels disconnected from the Chinese material discussed earlier.
Response:
I have revised Section 5 so that the grace–works analogy is foreshadowed in the Introduction, with a sentence stating: “This essay juxtaposes the Mencian concept of Heaven-endowment with Christian notions of grace to clarify diverse models of moral dependence.”
Before introducing Western parallels, I now explain how early Confucians construed tian, ritual, and xin in ways consistent with the earlier-defined religious ethics framework. Furthermore, to avoid an abrupt comparative turn, I have integrated Section 5 into the Conclusion. This structural adjustment makes the comparison a natural culmination of the argument rather than a standalone shift, clarifying that the paper’s aim is not to offer a comprehensive Sino-Western philosophical comparison, but rather to explore the religious-ethical value of early Confucian xin theory within a comparative perspective. This ensures smoother integration and keeps the main focus aligned with the study’s objectives.
Sincerely,
Xiaoli Hong
Department of Philosophy
Yunnan University
Email: xiaolihong@ynu.edu.cn
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper compares Mencius’ and Xunzi’s idea of xin in their moral subjectivity and their model of self-cultivation. This paper is too general. It seems to be just a general introduction of Mencius’ and Xunzi’s philosophy which lacks any profound comparative analysis. I cannot see what issues it attempts to solve or respond to? I cannot find any novelty or original contribution in this paper.
Regarding its structure, I cannot see how its historical retrieval to the development of the concept of xin has illuminated our understanding of Mencius and Xunzi’s philosophy. I cannot see any differences in its introduction of Mencius and Xunzi’s philosophy even without section 2.
Regarding its so-called “examined through a religious-ethical lens”, its saying “These models parallel debates in religious ethics over the role of grace versus works, nature versus nurture, or inner illumination versus external guidance” is too vague, too obscure, and wrong. I cannot see how the debates between Mencius and Xunzi are parallel to debates of “grace versus works”.
Its citation of (Taylor 1989) is also confusing. It is also unclear which version of the translation of Mencius and Xunzi it uses. Or is it the author’s own translation? I think this paper is far from being worthy of being published in this journal.
I suggest author to identify an issue or a debate first and see what kind of original contribution you can offer to that issue.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer ,
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comments on my manuscript. I have revised the paper extensively in light of your feedback. Below, I respond to each of your points and indicate how the new version addresses them.
Reviewer Comment 1:
“This paper is too general. It seems to be just a general introduction of Mencius’ and Xunzi’s philosophy which lacks any profound comparative analysis. I cannot see what issues it attempts to solve or respond to? I cannot find any novelty or original contribution in this paper.”
Response:
You noted that the earlier version lacked a clear problem statement and appeared to be a general introduction. In the revised introduction (pp. 1–3), I now clearly state the central research question:
How did Mencius and Xunzi transform the post-Confucian concept of xin into distinct models of moral subjectivity, and how can these be interpreted through a religious–ethical framework that clarifies the medium of transcendence and virtue in early Confucianism?
I also now identify the scholarly gap: although many studies examine Mencius and Xunzi separately, few connect their xin theories to the conceptual developments in excavated post-Confucian texts such as Xing zi ming chu and Wu xing. This linkage forms the paper’s main contribution.
Reviewer Comment 2:
“Regarding its structure, I cannot see how its historical retrieval to the development of the concept of xin has illuminated our understanding of Mencius and Xunzi’s philosophy.”
Response:
In the earlier version, the Mencius and Xunzi sections read like parallel summaries. In the revised Sections 3–4, I:
- Emphasize their distinct philosophical starting points (Mencius: a priori moral springs in xin; Xunzi: empirical regulation of xin through li).
- Compare their views on xin–xing relations (Mencius: xin as the innate moral root; Xunzi: xin as the governing but non-innate faculty).
- Contrast their models of self-cultivation (Mencius: expansion of four beginnings; Xunzi: removal of obstructions and ritual habituation).
- Link these to different religious–ethical orientations (Mencius: inner resonance with Tian; Xunzi: alignment through ritual order ).
The conclusion (pp. 651–672) now synthesizes these points explicitly, instead of leaving them implicit.
Reviewer Comment 3:
“I cannot see any differences in its introduction of Mencius and Xunzi’s philosophy even without section 2.”
Response:
You observed that the earlier historical background in Section 2 seemed disconnected from the main argument. I have now:
- Rewritten Section 2 (“The evolution of the concept of xin: from physiology to moral subjectivity”) to show how ideas from Xing zi ming chu, Wu xing, and Xin shi wei zhong (e.g., xin as dynamic activator of xing) anticipate both Mencius’s and Xunzi’s later models.
- Added transition paragraphs that explicitly state: “These excavated formulations of xin’s cognitive, affective, and volitional dimensions laid the groundwork for Mencius’s moral-sprouts theory and Xunzi’s emphasis on xin zhi.”
This way, the historical retrieval directly illuminates the philosophical developments in Sections 3 and 4.
Reviewer Comment 4:
“Regarding its so-called “examined through a religious-ethical lens”, its saying “These models parallel debates in religious ethics over the role of grace versus works, nature versus nurture, or inner illumination versus external guidance” is too vague, too obscure, and wrong.”
Response:
You found the previous analogy to “grace versus works” vague and misplaced. I have:
- Removed that analogy entirely.
- Reframed the “religious–ethical lens” in indigenous Confucian terms: the interplay between moral autonomy (xin’s capacity to know and act) and dependence on Tian dao (transcendent yet immanent moral order).
- Supported this with targeted references (Ames & Hall 2001; Taylor 1989) and avoided projecting Western theological categories onto Confucianism.
This makes the framework conceptually precise and culturally grounded.
Reviewer Comment 5:
“Its citation of (Taylor 1989) is also confusing. It is also unclear which version of the translation of Mencius and Xunzi it uses. Or is it the author’s own translation?”
Response:
To address your concern about translations, I have:
- Specified in footnotes that I primarily use the Mencius translation by D.C. Lau and Xunzi by John Knoblock, unless otherwise noted.
- Marked all my own translations explicitly, ensuring readers can verify them against source texts.
Reviewer Comment 6:
“I suggest author to identify an issue or a debate first and see what kind of original contribution you can offer to that issue.”
Response:
The paper now follows a tightened five-part structure:
- Introduction – research question, originality, and framework.
- Historical Evolution of Xin – excavated and transmitted sources linked to later developments.
- Mencius’s Model – xin as innate moral root and axis of virtue cultivation.
- Xunzi’s Model – xin as rational governor shaped by ritual and communal life.
- Conclusions – comparative synthesis and broader significance.
This structure clarifies the logical progression from historical context to comparative analysis.
I believe these revisions address your concerns and significantly enhance the paper’s clarity, depth, and originality. Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has greatly improved the work.
Sincerely,
Xiaoli Hong
Department of Philosophy, Yunnan University
Email: xiaolihong@ynu.edu.cn
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Compared with the original manuscript, the revised manuscript has made many changes in response to the reviewers’ comments, and the quality of the paper has significantly improved. Here are two remaining points that appear to be oversights for the authors to consider:
- line 504 render xin zhi as 心志 (translated “heart–mind knowledge”). However, 心志 does not occur in the Xunzi; the more likely reading is 心知 (xīnzhī). Please check the original source and either (a) correct the character to 心知 (and adjust the pinyin and translation accordingly), or (b) if you do mean 心志, supply a clear citation and justification for using that term (since it is not attested in Xunzi).
- "Religious ethics" appears defined in the abstract, introduction, and footnotes; maybe adjust the detail and avoid redundancy.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I sincerely thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our revised manuscript and for recognizing the improvements made in response to earlier comments. I have carefully considered the two remaining points you raised and have made the following revisions:
- On the rendering of xin zhi (line 504):
You are absolutely correct that the phrase xin zhi (心知, “heart–mind knowledge”) is attested in the Xunzi, whereas xin zhi (心志) does not occur in the text. Upon re-checking the primary sources, I have corrected the term throughout the manuscript to xin zhi (心知), with the corresponding pinyin and translation adjusted accordingly. I greatly appreciate your sharp observation, which has helped us ensure textual accuracy.
- On “religious ethics” appearing multiple times (abstract, introduction, and footnotes):
I have streamlined our discussion of “religious ethics” to avoid redundancy. Specifically, I now provide a concise definition in the introduction, while in the abstract and footnotes I briefly reference the concept without repeating the full elaboration. This adjustment preserves clarity while ensuring that the paper does not overstate or reiterate the same explanation.
- Summary of Revisions (in response to Reviewer’s comments)
- Correction of xin zhi (line 504):
Original text: “Xunzi’s emphasis on xin zhi (心志, heart–mind knowledge)…”
Revised text: “Xunzi’s emphasis on xin zhi (心知, heart–mind knowledge)…”
Reason: As the reviewer pointed out, 心志 does not occur in the Xunzi. After checking the source (Xunzi, “Exposition on Obscuration”), the correct phrase is 心知. I have corrected the characters, pinyin, and translation throughout the manuscript.
- Adjustment of “religious ethics” references:
Abstract (p.1, Lines5-7): Retained a concise mention of “religious ethics” to indicate the interpretive lens, but removed redundant definitional details.
Introduction (p.2, Lines22-24): Provided the primary definition of “religious ethics” with relevant references. This is now the central location where the term is introduced and explained.
Footnotes (p.17, lines816-817): Shortened references to “religious ethics” so they no longer repeat the introduction’s explanation. Instead, the notes now point back to the introduction for clarification.
Reason: This restructuring avoids redundancy while preserving conceptual clarity for readers unfamiliar with the category.
I am grateful for your careful reading and constructive suggestions. These revisions have helped me clarify our argument and improve the precision of the manuscript.
Sincerely,
Xiaoli Hong
Department of Philosophy
Yunnan University
Email: xiaolihong@ynu.edu.cn
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The structure of the revised manuscript has improved. However, I would suggest that in Section 3 and 4, the author can explain more how it is related to section 2. And how such historical retrieval can provide new understanding of Mencius’ and Xunzi’ xin, religion and self-cultivation.
In section 5 (p. 15), the Third point (how it has affected Neo-Confucianism and New Confucianism) is too vague, it requires more elaboration.
The author may also investigate how this studies can shed light on certain controversial issues, such as
- The debates between “human nature is originally good” 性本善 and “human nature tends toward goodness” 性向善. See Bo, X. (2023). Mengzi’s Theory of Human Nature and Its Role in the Confucian Tradition. In: Xiao, Y., Chong, Kc. (eds) Dao Companion to the Philosophy of Mencius. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, vol 18. Springer, Cham, p. 91. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27620-0_5
- Is Zhu Xi exclusion of Xunzi from Four Books reasonable?
“ren” on page 3 should be italic.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your detailed and constructive comments on my revised manuscript. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and further strengthen my work. Below I respond point by point to your suggestions:
Reviewer Comment 1:
“The structure of the revised manuscript has improved. However, I would suggest that in Section 3 and 4, the author can explain more how it is related to section 2. And how such historical retrieval can provide new understanding of Mencius’ and Xunzi’ xin, religion and self-cultivation.”
Response:
You rightly point out that the connection between the historical retrieval (Section 2) and the later discussion of Mencius and Xunzi (Sections 3–4) was not sufficiently explicit. In my revision, I add clearer transition passages at the beginning of Sections 3 and 4, also at the end of section 4, to show how the conceptual framework of xin reconstructed from excavated texts and early Confucian sources directly informs and illuminates Mencius’ and Xunzi’s respective models of moral subjectivity and self-cultivation. （See p.7, Lines 333-341, pp.11-12, Lines508-548, p.15, Lines 733-737.）
Reviewer Comment 2:
“In section 5 (p. 15), the Third point (how it has affected Neo-Confucianism and New Confucianism) is too vague, it requires more elaboration.”
Response:
I acknowledge that my discussion of the influence of early Confucian xin theories on Neo-Confucianism and New Confucianism was too brief and general. I expand this section by specifying how Mencius’s affirmation of innate moral tendencies shaped the Cheng-Zhu school’s emphasis on li, while Xunzi’s insistence on cultivated rationality resonated with or was contested by the Lu-Wang school’s focus on the active role of xin. (See pp.16-17, Lines 779-799.) I also elaborate on how modern New Confucians such as Mou Zongsan and Li Minghui reinterpret these debates within the framework of Kantian autonomy and moral metaphysics. (See p.18, Footnote 16, lines 852-859.)
Reviewer Comment 3:
“The author may also investigate how this studies can shed light on certain controversial issues, such as The debates between “human nature is originally good” 性本善 and “human nature tends toward goodness” 性向善. See Bo, X. (2023)……”
Response:
Thank you for your valuable suggestions regarding recent scholarship. I incorporate discussion of the distinction between “human nature is originally good” (性本善) and “human nature tends toward goodness” (性向善), drawing on Bo Xu (2023) study (Dao Companion to the Philosophy of Mencius). I also add a short discussion reflecting on the controversial issue of Zhu Xi’s exclusion of Xunzi from the Four Books, and consider whether a religious-ethical interpretation of Xunzi’s xin may offer new insights into this longstanding debate. (See p.18, Footnote 17, lines 860-868.)
I hope that these revisions will significantly improve the clarity, depth, and originality of the manuscript, and I am grateful for your guidance in refining it.
Sincerely,
Xiaoli Hong
Department of Philosophy, Yunnan University
Email: xiaolihong@ynu.edu.cn
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
