UDC: 165.17
https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2026-4-110


viewing

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CATEGORIES QI [氣] AND LI [理] WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF MODERN EPISTEMOLOGY

Gong Zhiyu
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba, Moscow, Russia
e-mail: meson120@yandex.ru

Abstract. This article is devoted to the study of categories in Chinese philosophy, specifically the categories of Qi [氣] and Li [理]. Within the framework of the analysis, the problem of the conditions for the formation of categories and their uniqueness in the context of a specific cultural-historical situation is posed. The relevance of posing this problem is based on the theses put forward by contemporary sinologists. Thus, Roger Ames writes about the difficulty of interpreting categories of Chinese philosophy through the categorical apparatus formed within the European scientific model; in this connection, the issue of accurate translation of categories, as pointed out by Hans Georg Möller, also comes to the fore. Even earlier, Chan Wing-tsit [陳榮捷, 1901–1904] wrote about the irreducibility of the categories of Chinese philosophy to the model of categories developed within the framework of European science. To achieve this goal, the article carries out a series of sequential steps based on the method of historical reconstruction, comparative analysis, and critical analysis. The first step analyzes categories in European and Chinese philosophical systems. The history of the development of the system of categories from Aristotle to I. Kant is examined. Whereas within the Western philosophical paradigm categories express operations of judgment and are considered primarily at the epistemological level, within the paradigm of the philosophy of the «Celestial Empire» (Zhongguo), categories are seen as pertaining to the problematic field of ontology. The latter depends on the structural interrelation of categories; thus, the categories Qi and Li are viewed as binary oppositions. In this regard, the line of comparison between the categorical apparatus in Aristotle’s philosophy and its juxtaposition with the categories of Neo-Confucian philosophy is analyzed. It is shown that this line was primarily developed by the representative of Post-Neo-Confucianism, Feng Youlan [馮友蘭, 1895–1990]. Next, the principle of historical classification within Neo-Confucianism is examined, reviewing the classifications proposed by Feng Youlan, A.I. Kobzev, and Chen Yunjie. The subsequent step investigates the historical development of the categories Qi and Li according to the schools and their founders, tracing the evolution of the categories Qi and Li from the Cheng brothers — Chen I [程頤, 1033–1107] and Chen Hao [ 程顥, 1032–1085] to Wang Yangming [王陽明, 1472–1529]. The final part critically evaluates parallels with Aristotle’s doctrine and Leibniz’s monadology. Within the framework of comparative analysis, the comparison with A.N. Whitehead’s philosophy of organism is recognized as the most productive. It is concluded that categories, in particular the categories Qi and Li, are not a priori, unchanging constructs, but rather represent a dynamic system whose content is shaped under the influence of historical events and philosophical debate.

Key words: Qi 氣, Li 理, Neo-Confucianism, matter, form, creativity, actual entity.

Cite as: Gong, Zhiyu (2026) [The significance of the categories Qi [氣] and Li [理] within the framework of modern epistemology]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 4, pp. 110–119. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2026-4-110.


References

  1. Aristotle (1978) Sochineniya : v 4 t. [Works: in 4 volumes]. Moscow: Thought, Vol. 2, 606 p. (In Russ., transl. from ancient Greek).
  2. Vandenko, V. A. (2025) [Classification of concepts included in the category «qi» (Part I)]. Mezhdunarodnyy nauchno-issledovatel’skiy zhurnal [International Research Journal]. Vol. 1 (151). Serial number 68. – https://doi.org/10.60797/IRJ.2025.151.10. (In Russ.).
  3. Efremova, N. V., Ibrahim, T. (2020) [On Avicennian reception of Aristotle’s «Categories» (Chapters V–VII)]. Oriyentalistika [Orientalism]. Vol. 3. No. 3, pp. 733–764. – https://doi.org/10.31696/2618-7043-2020-3-3-733-764. (In Russ.).
  4. Kant, I. (1998) Kritika chistogo razuma [Critique of Pure Reason]. Moscow: Science, 654 p. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  5. Karpov, K. V. (2016) [Hylemorphism in Modern Analytical Philosophy]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svyato- Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriya 1: Bogosloviye. Filosofiya. Religiovedeniye [Bulletin of the Orthodox St. Tikhon’s University for the Humanities. Series 1: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies]. Vol. 6 (68), pp. 78–93. – https://doi.org/10.15382/sturI201668.78-93. (In Russ.).
  6. Kobzev, A. I. (2002) Filosofiya kitayskogo neokonfutsianstva [Philosophy of Chinese Neo-Confucianism]. Moscow: East Literarure, 606 p.
  7. Leibniz, G. V. (2020) Monadologiya [Monadology]. Moscow: RIPOL classic, 200 p. (In Russ., transl. from French).
  8. Leibniz, G. V. (2005) Pis’ma i esse o kitayskoy filosofii i dvoichnoy sisteme ischisleniya [Letters and essays on Chinese philosophy and the binary system of calculus]. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences, 541 p.
  9. Liu, Xuezhen (2024) [«The Origin of Modern Chinese Ecological Aesthetics from A.N. Whitehead’s Processual Understanding of Nature, Marxist Dialectics, and the Conceptual Positions of Traditional Chinese Philosophy»]. Obshchestvo: filosofiya, istoriya, kul’tura [Society: Philosophy, History, Culture]. Vol. 4 (120), pp. 103–109. – https://doi.org/10.24158/fik.2024.4.14. (In Russ.).
  10. Whitehead, A. N. (1990) Izbrannyye raboty po filosofii [Selected Works on Philosophy]. Moscow: Progress, 717 p. (In Russ., transl. from Eng.).
  11. Frolova, I. A. (2021) [The Main Categories of Neo-Confucianism and Leibniz’s Monadology]. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Filosofiya [Bulletin of Tver State University. Series: Philosophy]. Vol. 2 (56), pp. 181–188. – https://doi.org/10.26456/vtphilos/2021.2.181. (In Russ.).
  12. Feng, Yu-lan (1998) Kratkaya istoriya kitayskoy filosofii [A Brief History of Chinese Philosophy]. St. Petersburg: Eurasia, 373 p. (In Russ., transl. from Eng.).
  13. Chernykh, V. I. (2022) [The Formation of the New Confucianism in the 1940s within the Framework of the Discussion of «Westerners» and Post-Neo-Confucians]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Filosofiya [Bulletin of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series: Philosophy]. Vol. 26. No. 1, pp. 166–177. – https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2022-26-1-166-177. (In Russ.).
  14. Chen, Panli, Kostikova, A. A. (2025) [Neo-Confucianism: Coherence and Continuity between the Teachings of Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 7: Filosofiya [Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 7: Philosophy]. Vol. 49. No. 6, pp. 55–72. – https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0201-7385-7-2025-6-55-72. (In Russ.).
  15. Wu, Wenyi (2013) The Concept of Qi in Ancient Chinese Philosophy. Available at: https://si-mian.ecnu.edu.cn/2e/21/c19254a208417/page.htm (accessed: 02.03.2026).
  16. Zhao, Yinyin (2025) Feng Youlan’s Justification of the Legitimacy of Psychology: Based on Self Correction of ‘Shi Lun Tong Gou’. Vol. 6. Available at: https://www.aisixiang.com/data/171958.html (accessed: 01.03.2026).
  17. Zhang, Dai Nian (1957) The Origin and Evolution of several Basic Concepts in ancient Chinese philosophy. Vol. 2. Available at: https://www.aisixiang.com/data/105618.html (accessed: 02.03.2026).
  18. Ames, R. T. (2015) «Bodyheartminding» (Xin 心): Reconceiving the Inner Self and the Outer World in the Language of Holographic Focus and Field. Frontiers of Philosophy in China. Vol. 10. No. 2, pp. 167–180. – https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-004-015-0013-1. (In Eng.).
  19. Chan, W.-T. (1963) A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy / translated and compiled by Wing-Tsit Chan. Princeton : Princeton University Press, 856 p. (In Eng.).
  20. Chan, W.-T. (1967) Neo-Confucianism: New Ideas in Old Terminology. Philosophy East and West. Vol. 17. No. ¼, pp. 15–35. (In Eng.).
  21. Needham, J. (1954) Science and Civilization in China : Volume 2, History of Scientific Thought. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 696 p. (In Eng.).

In order for us to provide you with high-quality services, we use cookies that are stored on your computer (location information; ip-address; type, language, OS and browser version; device type and screen resolution; source from which you came to site the user; what pages the user opens and what buttons the user clicks; the same information is used to process statistical data on the use of the site through the Yandex.Metrika Internet service). By clicking the "I agree" button, you confirm that you are informed about the use of cookies on our website. You can disable cookies in your browser settings.