An Overview of Contemporary Aesthetic Studies on Song–Ming Lixue

Pan Liyong

Abstract： Neo-Confucian thought in the Song and Ming dynasties was the dominant philosophy and ideological trend in the late period of Chinas feudal society. Its aesthetic implications have long been ignored or even negated. In the new age， growing attention is gradually being paid to the aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue， from individual thinkers to major schools， from categories to propositions， and from its aesthetic connotations to its influence. These studies chiefly explore the aesthetic import of Neo-Confucian categories， the aesthetic thought of the major schools and their leading exponents， and the theoretical character of the aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue. Although these studies are far from thorough and systematic， leaving much room for improvement， they have important theoretical value and practical significance.

Keywords： Song–Ming Lixue， Neo-Confucianism， aesthetic thinking， aesthetic history， overview

Introduction： The Nature and Position of Song–Ming Lixue

[Refer to page 18 for Chinese. Similarly hereinafter]

Song–Ming Lixue 理學(xué) （the Learning of Principle， or Neo-Confucianism） dominated Chinese philosophy in the last seven to eight hundred years of Chinas feudal society; moreover， it exerted a broad influence on Chinese ideology and culture， including its aesthetic theories and patterns， from Chinas late medieval period to the modern era. Scholars from Hong Kong and Taiwan along with overseas Chinese scholars sought to set up a “third-generation Confucianism，” oriented to strengthen the bond between contemporary Confucian studies and the spirit of classical Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism， and thereby to promote the core of Confucian ethics， which has universal value to the different cultures of the world. However， in the Chinese mainland， from the founding of the Peoples Republic of China to the end of the “Cultural Revolution，” due to political reasons， Neo-Confucianism was rejected and denounced as a form of “idealism” or backward official ethics of feudal China. It was not until the convening of the National Conference on Song–Ming Neo-Confucianism in Hangzhou in 1981 that a new era of studies in this field was ushered in. The conference was jointly held by the Chinese Association for the History of Philosophy and the Zhejiang Institute of Social Sciences， with 269 participants including experts from home and abroad as well as directors from related authorities and organizations， who reevaluated Neo-Confucianism with the rigor， depth， and openness of serious academic research.

Lixue has been variously called Songxue 宋學(xué) （Song Learning）， Yilixue 義理學(xué) （the Learning of Confucian Principle）， Xinglixue 性理學(xué) （the Learning of Human Nature and Principle）， Xin Ruxue 新儒學(xué) （Neo-Confucianism）， and Daoxue 道學(xué) （the Learning of the Dao）. The appellation “Songxue” denotes only the dynasty in which the learning was founded. It neither reveals its typical thought nor tells us anything about the period during which it existed， developed， and declined. In fact， as a cultural phenomenon and a mode of speculative thinking， Lixue extended across several periods. “Yilixue” or “Xinglixue” mainly express the subject matter of the learning. Compared with the aforementioned two， “Lixue” is more concise and to the point. Neo-Confucianism is a term mainly used by Western sinologists and overseas Chinese scholars to highlight that it is the second epoch of Confucianism， as a development of pre-Qin classical Confucianism. However， the name Neo-Confucianism may conceal its essential connections to Buddhism and Daoism， and is easily confused with contemporary New Confucianism， which has been deemed the third era of Confucianism. Obviously， “Lixue” has advantages over the other four appellations.

“Lixue” and “Daoxue，” two appellations denoting the complex relationship between Confucianism and other philosophies， were used interchangeably in history and are used even to this day. The present author holds that “Lixue” is preferable to “Daoxue” and others in capturing the philosophical content and characteristics of the trend of thought extending across the Song （960–1279）， Yuan （1206–1368）， Ming （1368–1644）， and Qing （1644–1911） dynasties. “Daoxue” tends to be confused with Daoism as a school of thought and Daoism as a religion; moreover， modern people may mistake it for learning concerned with morality. The truth is that the subject matter of Lixue is both larger and more profound than morality. Mou Zongsan 牟宗三 （1909–1995） calls it “moral philosophy，” or “moral metaphysics，” with a focus on “metaphysics， which is concerned with the being of the world.” It can be said that Lixue emerged due to the stimulus of Confucian ethics， but it transcended and sublimated Confucian ethics to assume an ontological and speculative status.

There are two theories in history to delimit the boundaries of Lixue. One theory holds that it is an umbrella term covering all the philosophies and schools of thought in the Song and Ming dynasties. In this way， the meaning of the term is stretched too far. The other theory employs the standard formulated in the “Biographies of Daoxue Masters” [道學(xué)傳] in the History of the Song Dynasty [宋史]. This standard is used in the book to distinguish Neo-Confucians from non-Neo-Confucians. However， this standard is arbitrary， a product of the struggles between the warring factions within Neo-Confucian schools， and is fraught with prejudices， so judging by this standard， many aspects which should rightly be included are expelled from Lixue. A more appropriate approach is to view Lixue as a prevailing trend of thought which emerged and developed in a particular historical period and under particular historical conditions. Seen in this light， along with pre-Qin philosophy， the Han learning of Confucian classics， the Dark Learning of the Wei and Jin dynasties， Buddhism in the Sui and Tang dynasties， and the Practical Learning of the Ming and Qing dynasties， it forms a crucial link in the development of the history of Chinese philosophy and the history of ideas in Chinese society. In a word， Lixue cannot be used as an umbrella term for all the kinds of thought in a particular historical period， nor can it be used to refer to one faction of the dominant school of thought in society. The standard by which to define Lixue can only be the schools basic ideas and main features.

As for the different Neo-Confucian schools， there are several theories， such as “the two-system theory，” “the three-system theory，” and “the four-system theory.” Comparatively speaking， the three-system division into qi-based ontology （ontology based on material force）， principle-based ontology， and mind-based ontology， is more appropriate. The reason is that this division has not only won the support of most Chinese mainland scholars at present， but is also fit for the description of the theoretical structure and historical development of Lixue. Its historical development generally consists of beginning， flourishing， and decline stages. Zhang Zai 張載 （1020–1077）， Zhu Xi 朱熹 （1130–1200）， and Wang Yangming 王陽明 （1472–1529） are the major representatives of the three stages respectively. Zhang Zai was the founder of Lixue， Zhu Xi became its greatest synthesizer， and Wang Yangming led it toward its end. The trajectory of Lixue is thus in accord with a things natural course of development， from its birth to its prime and finally to its death. Zhang Zais qi-based ontology served as the point of departure， marking the transition from cosmological exploration to ethics; Zhu Xis principle-based ontology was the culmination of Neo-Confucian thought， with a novel and comprehensive Confucian ontological system established that was highly intricate and complicated; the advent of Wang Yangmings mind-based ontology betokened the decline and disintegration of Lixue. The three representatives， along with their precursors and followers， form the three most distinctive and influential Neo-Confucian schools. Among the three， Zhu Xis principle-based ontology was the most typical school.

In short， Lixue was the prevailing ideological and academic trend as well as the dominant form of philosophical inquiry in the Song， Yuan， Ming， and Qing dynasties. It was not only a powerful and influential philosophical trend but also a well-developed and intricate pattern of thought. As a philosophical movement， it lasted for over eight hundred years， pervading the Chinese thought and culture of that period; as a comprehensive and systematic way of thinking， it has had an even more far-reaching influence.

Studies on Lixue Categories and Their Aesthetic Implications [20]

According to Wang Peiyou 王培友， the literature pertaining to the Lixue categories is abundant， producing a multitude of rigorously defined philosophical terms and categories which help to establish a comprehensive philosophical system. The monumental work in this regard is “The Canon of the Conduct of Learning” [學(xué)行典] in the “Collected Works in Lixue” [理學(xué)匯編] in the huge Complete Collection of Books of Old and Modern Times [古今圖書集成] compiled chiefly by Chen Menglei 陳夢雷 （1650–1741） and Jiang Tingxi 蔣廷錫 （1669–1732） in the Qing dynasty. In this work， the content of Lixue is arranged in a total of 300 volumes in terms of several different categories， including the conduct of learning， principle and material force， principle and numbers， inherent nature and endowment， inherent nature and emotion， the nature， the Five Constant Virtues， skillfulness and clumsiness， name and actuality， sincerity and hypocrisy， and the Learning of the Mind. Undoubtedly， this was a major breakthrough made by Qing scholars in analyzing and systematizing the categories of Lixue.

As the orthodox learning of Confucianism， Lixue spread out since the thirteenth century， influencing the state doctrines of Chinas neighbors in East Asia， such as South Korea and Japan， for hundreds of years. By the late sixteenth century， Lixue had spread into Europe， and attracted the attention of Western scholars， with a noticeable impact on the philosophical and aesthetic views of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz， Christian Wolff， and Immanuel Kant.

Wing-tsit Chan， a Chinese American scholar， was a pioneer in the study of Song–Ming Neo-Confucianism and Zhu Xi in North America in the second half of the twentieth century. In Sources of Chinese Tradition compiled by Chan， Wm. Theodore de Bary， and Burton Watson， a systematic interpretation of the basic Neo-Confucian categories， including principle and material force， Heaven and Earth， inherent nature and mandate， the mind and inherent nature， and benevolence， were given. In addition， they translated major Neo-Confucian works into English， such as Reflections on Things at Hand [近思錄]， Instructions for Practical Living [傳習(xí)錄]， and Neo-Confucian Terms Explained [北溪字義]. De Bary in The Liberal Tradition in China explored the notion of individualism in Lixue （Neo-Confucianism）. He approached several unit ideas such as liberty， naturalness， self-reliance， and self-attainment from the perspective of “self” （zi 自）， especially with an in-depth study of self-attainment （zide 自得） which means， for one thing， learning aimed at ones own satisfaction， and for another， “a silent recognition and penetration of the mind， so as to find the dao naturally within the self.” As can be seen， the search for a moral standard inwardly rather than outwardly reflects a moral and cultural individualism typical of traditional Chinese aesthetics. It also shows that the way taken by Lixue in search of liberty consists in the completion of the moral self. As a result， the highest state of becoming a sage is liberty in the truly aesthetic sense of the word.

Wing-tsit Chan and De Bary belonged to a group of scholars in North America who excelled in interpreting and rearranging the classical texts of Lixue. There is also another group engaged in the innovative construction of philosophical systems. A representative in this field is Peter K. Bol at Harvard University. In Neo-Confucianism in History， Bol has construed li 理 （principle） in tianli 天理 （Heavenly principle） creatively as “the very coherence of the universe as a whole and all things within it”; he thinks Song thinkers do not treat li as a philosophical proposition but as something absolutely real， so “l(fā)earning was in fact a process of internalization，” and Lixue is learning as theory and practice. If aesthetics ultimately means to bring human character and human nature to completion， enabling humans to possess harmony and liberty， then needless to say， Lixue along with its categories， although based on a moral metaphysics， has important and unique aesthetic implications.

Professor Stephen Owen in the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University and Professor Ronald C. Egan in the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at Stanford University note the tension between the aesthetic pursuits of scholar-officials and the limits of their aesthetic appreciation （delimited by their traditional Confucian ideas） after the founding of the Song dynasty. This tension in turn set the boundaries for scholar-officials aesthetic pursuits. Although the two professors seek to tease out the aesthetics not only in the creation， appreciation， and criticism of art and literature， but also in the quotidian business of conduct in life， they are mainly confined to rearranging and interpreting the aesthetic categories and systems in the Song–Ming period， and pay little attention to exploring the aesthetic categories of Lixue or delving deep into the philosophical and aesthetic significance of the school. This weakness is characteristic of research in North America on Neo-Confucianism and its aesthetic categories and theories.

Japan is noted for studies on the history of books and the preservation of old manuscripts， and Japanese scholars have made great achievements in collecting， cataloging， collating， and arranging ancient books and documents related to Song–Ming Lixue. Professor Azuma Juji 吾妻重二 in the Faculty of Letters at Kansai University wrote A Study on Song Thought： An Investigation on Confucianism， Daoism， and Buddhism

[宋代思想の研究：儒教·道教·仏教をめぐる考察] （2009） and An Empirical Study of Zhu Xis Family Rites [朱熹《家禮》実証研究] （2011）. In 2010， he and Wu Zhen 吳震， a Chinese scholar， edited a book entitled Thought and Literature： Studies on Song–Ming Confucianism by Japanese Scholars [思想與文獻：日本學(xué)者宋明儒學(xué)研究]. The book depicts the philosophical and cultural lineage of Lixue from Zhou Dunyi 周敦頤 （1017–1073）， widely regarded as the most important precursor of the school， to Song， Yuan， Ming， and Qing scholars， with a detailed analysis of how the school and other schools， including Daoism， Buddhism， the Dark Learning of the Six Dynasties， Wang Yangmings philosophy， the Jesuits studies， and textual research， influenced each other so as to examine the variations in the systems of the school in different dynastic periods. Professor Okada Takehiko 岡田武彥 （1909–2004） at Kyushu University was the leading exponent of the Neo-Confucian movement in Kyushu. His masterpiece Wang Yangming and Confucianism in Late Ming Dynasty [王陽明と明末の儒學(xué)] adopts an “immanent” approach to research. It is found in the book that from the Song dynasty to the Ming dynasty there was a gradual shift in thought from dualism to monism， and from rationalism to emotionalism; concurrently， there were shifts in Confucianism from the Learning of Principle （i.e.， of human nature） to the Learning of the Mind， a shift in literature from an emphasis on mimesis to an emphasis on inspiration， and a shift in art from a reliance on skills to a reliance on feeling. To a further extent， a shift in the Lixue categories also took place from focusing on reverence to focusing on joy， from espousing the moral self to espousing the natural self， and from ethics to aesthetics. This inherent tension brings forth the aesthetic categories of Lixue.

To sum up， the research on Song–Ming Neo-Confucianism and its aesthetics by foreign scholars （mainly sinologists）， especially by those from the United States and Japan， is mainly focused on Neo-Confucian categories. Although they approach the issue with new and diverse perspectives， and adopt distinctive research methods， their research achievements have little to do with the inherent relationship between Neo-Confucianism and aesthetics as well as the formers direct influence on the latter， so their works do not form the mainstay and can only be used for reference.

In China， for almost a hundred years， studies pertaining to the history of ideas， the history of philosophy， and Song–Ming Lixue have sought to illustrate the main theories and thoughts of Lixue by elaborating its categories. Earlier than others， Meng Peiyuan 蒙培元 made a systematic study of Lixue categories， and penetrated into their aesthetic connotations. In The System of Categories in Lixue [理學(xué)范疇系統(tǒng)]， Meng classifies the categories of the school into four groups， namely， principle and material force， the mind and inherent nature， knowledge and action， and Heaven and humanity. In fact， the four groups not only cover the fields of what modern people call natural philosophy， philosophy of life， and spiritual philosophy， but also address issues of the philosophy of art and aesthetics. Of the four groups， principle and material force entail the explanation of the essence and appearance of beauty， the mind and human nature entail the knowledge of aesthetic feeling and its psychological mechanism， knowledge and action involve ideas about aesthetic consciousness and the cultivation of aesthetic value and aesthetic ability， and Heaven and human bring into focus the aesthetic experience and aesthetic ideal of life on the part of the Neo-Confucian philosophers.

In the 1980s， two major works were published in the field of aesthetics， namely， Outline of the History of Chinese Aesthetics [中國美學(xué)史大綱] （1985） by Ye Lang 葉朗， and The History of Chinese Aesthetics [中國美學(xué)史] （1984， 1987） by Li Zehou 李澤厚 and Liu Gangji 劉綱紀 （1933–2019）. The two books concur in attaching importance to the study of traditional categories， and announce the priority of the study of the history of Chinese aesthetics， which means to analyze and explore the categories， prepositions， and systems of Chinese aesthetics based on unique national characteristics. Under the influence of these two books， a series of studies were conducted on aesthetic categories， including both case studies and general surveys， with a large number of achievements. On one hand， these achievements show growing emphasis placed on the research of traditional categories， thus facilitating the advance of the study of Chinese aesthetic categories; on the other hand， it is apparent that research on aesthetic categories is， in the main， still confined to the study of literature and art， and pays little attention to philosophical categories. In particular， the aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue has not been given due attention， and its categories are in need of systematic study.

The present author has published a series of papers， including “A Tentative Exploration into Lixue Aesthetics” [理學(xué)美學(xué)初探]， “The Concepts of Lixue and Aesthetics” [“理學(xué)”與“美學(xué)”的概念]， and “The Aesthetic Connotations of Lixue Categories and Their Theoretical Features” [理學(xué)范疇中的美學(xué)內(nèi)涵及其理論特色]. In these papers， the aesthetic categories and systems of Lixue are analyzed and investigated. In The Aesthetics of Zhu Xis Learning of Principle [朱子理學(xué)美學(xué)]， the present author outlined the system of Zhu Xis aesthetic categories and the aesthetic system of Lixue in general; after publishing the book， the present author also published dozens of papers to push the research forward through in-depth and systematic study.

Yang Qingjies 楊慶杰 doctoral dissertation “Introduction to the Aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue” [宋明理學(xué)美學(xué)引論] is another important study on the subject after the present authors The Aesthetics of Zhu Xis Learning of Principle， and also the first to address the aesthetic issues of Song–Ming Lixue directly and comprehensively. It discusses the aesthetic implications of Lixue categories， and seeks to illustrate the aesthetic connotations of the categories and the possibility of transforming them into aesthetic categories by means of the inherent mechanism for the mutual transformation between the categories of Lixue and aesthetic categories. Yang takes Zhu Xis theory as an example， comparing Zhus “group of metaphysical categories， group of empirical categories， group of qi-transformation categories， and group of practical categories” to respectively the “ontological categories， objective categories， generative categories， and the categories of the theory of practice” in Western philosophy. Although this comparison risks forcing ancient Chinese categories into Western philosophy， it does offer some innovative ideas. Nevertheless， the dissertation lacks ontological awareness in its analysis of the aesthetic categories of Lixue， and fails to discover the single string running through them， connecting benti 本體 （original substance）， gongfu 工夫 （effort）， and jingjie 境界 （spiritual realm）; therefore， it does not present the whole picture of the aesthetic categories and the aesthetic system of Lixue， nor does it show their depth and profundity.

How can Lixue categories be transformed into aesthetic categories， or how is it possible to speak of the aesthetic categories of Lixue？ How do the aesthetic categories present themselves in Lixue and in aesthetics respectively， and how do they spread to the various fields of aesthetics？ Wang Peiyou attempts to answer these questions in his work. He first proposes the idea 理學(xué)詩 （poetry of Lixue）， and takes the categories and propositions of Lixue as the object of his research， examining their aesthetic character and how they have been expressed in peoples aesthetic appreciation as well as literary creation. Wangs study deals with Lixue， aesthetics， and literature， and investigates the application of the aesthetic categories of Lixue in literature; however， it is mainly focused on the interaction and interconnection between the aesthetics of Lixue and literature， rather than the potential significance of Lixue aesthetic categories for the construction of the discourse system of Chinese aesthetics. Therefore， the ontological significance of Song–Ming Lixue for the theoretical construction of Chinese aesthetics is still in need of a systematic and thorough explanation.

Generally speaking， in Chinese academic circles， peoples understanding of Lixue categories is influenced， to varying degrees， by a Western philosophical discourse that is often regarded as the norm， and Lixue tends to be interpreted in Western terms. However， the truth is that Lixue is an independent and self-contained Chinese philosophical system that should be expounded on its own terms. A more appropriate and feasible way is to interpret Lixue against the framework of original substance， effort， and spiritual realm， which is “a well-developed theoretical framework and discourse system characteristic of the Chinese intellectual tradition with its focus on this-worldliness and human experience.” Illustrated against this tripartite framework， the categories of Lixue and its aesthetics can retain not only their theoretical features but also attributes unique to the Chinese nation.

Studies on the Aesthetic Thought of

Representative Neo-Confucians [24]

Contemporary studies on Lixue aesthetics began with the study of the aesthetic thoughts of representative Neo-Confucians. Zhang Liwen 張立文 began his study on Zhu Xis aesthetic thought in the 1980s. Mo Lifeng 莫礪鋒， Wu Changgeng 吳長庚， the present author， and Pi Chaogang 皮朝綱 conducted research on Zhu Xis literary and aesthetic thought. Since then， research on the aesthetic thought of the Neo-Confucian figures has developed and flourished， with growing attention paid to the influence of Lixue on the literature and art of its time and in posterity. The aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue can be divided into three schools： the aesthetics of principle-based ontology， the aesthetics of qi-based ontology， and the aesthetics of mind-based ontology. Systematic research has been done on the three schools and their major figures.

Studies on the Aesthetics of Principle-Based Ontology and Its Major Figures [24]

First， there are studies on Zhou Dunyi. Zhou Qiaojians 周喬建 “Zhou Dunyis Theory of Espousing Tranquility and His Aesthetic Taste” [周敦頤的主靜說及其審美情趣] （1995） and Chen Shuigens 陳水根 “On Zhou Dunyis Aesthetic Thought” [論周敦頤美學(xué)思想] （1995） were among the first to explore tentatively the aesthetic thought of Zhou Dunyis philosophy. Deng Yinghui 鄧瑩輝 speaks about Zhou Dunyis pioneering role in the development of Song Lixue aesthetics in “A Tentative Exploration into the Rise of Neo-Confucian Aesthetics in the Song Dynasty： Also on the Literary Creation and Literary Criticism of Neo-Confucian Philosophers” [兩宋理學(xué)美學(xué)之形成初探——兼論理學(xué)家的文學(xué)創(chuàng)作與批評] （2006）， “Music： The Ultimate Concern of Lixue Aesthetics” [樂：

理學(xué)美學(xué)的終極關(guān)懷] （2006）， and “The Aesthetic Implications of the Dao in Lixue” [理學(xué)

之“道”的審美意蘊] （2007）. Yuan Hong 袁宏 in “The Aesthetic Characteristics of Zhou Dunyis View of ‘the Great Ultimate” [周敦頤“太極”觀的美學(xué)特質(zhì)] （2007） and “A Study on Zhou Dunyis Neo-Confucian Aesthetic Thought” [周敦頤理學(xué)美學(xué)思想研究] （2008） discusses the aesthetic value of Zhou Dunyis concept of the Great Ultimate （taiji 太極）， and notes that Zhou laid the foundation for the aesthetic theory in the Song dynasty and in later generations. Zhuo Mengde 卓夢德 in “The Premises of Lixue Facing Aesthetic Questions： Art， Ethics， and the Dao in Zhou Dunyis Thought” [理學(xué)前提面對美學(xué)問題：論周敦頤思想中的藝、德與道] （2013） states that when moral cultivation needs to be accomplished through artistic practice， the concept of sincerity which is emphasized in Zhou Dunyis Neo-Confucian thought can be understood as an aesthetic concept. Chen Wangheng 陳望衡 and Qi Jun 齊君 note in “Environmental Aesthetics in the Context of Lixue： On Zhou Dunyis Environmental Aesthetic Thought” [理學(xué)視界的環(huán)境審美——論周敦頤的環(huán)境美學(xué)思想] （2016） that Zhou Dunyis thought abounds with environmental aesthetic ideas， which find their main expression in the view that environment functions to “nourish life，” and ecological harmony should be maintained. As to books published in this respect， Yuan Hong published A Study on Zhou Dunyis Neo-Confucian Aesthetic Thought （2014）.

Second， there are studies on Shao Yong 邵雍 （1011–1077）. Yi Pingce 儀平策 in “Lixue and Aesthetics in the Song and Ming Dynasties” [宋明之際的理學(xué)與美學(xué)] （1989） notes that Shao Yongs proposal to “view things from the viewpoint of things” and the theory of “aesthetic aftertaste” are in line with and closely related to the development of Song–Ming Lixue. The present author in “A Tentative Exploration into Lixue Aesthetics” （1995） discusses the aesthetic value of Shao Yongs commentaries on poetry and calligraphy. Xie Man 謝曼 in “Shao Yongs Poetic Creation and Lixue Aesthetic Thought” [邵雍詩歌創(chuàng)作及其理學(xué)美學(xué)思想] （2008） notes that Shao Yongs aesthetic view is derived from Shaos philosophy （including his pre-heavenly studies of images and numbers， the thought on the cultivation of a persons character， and the epistemology of the objective viewing of things）. It is also stated that the objective viewing of things in Shaos poetry is in fact to view truth as beauty， and that the plain and unrestricted style in poetic creation reflects the aesthetic standard of viewing nature as beauty in pre-heavenly Yijing studies. Luo Delin 駱德林 and Zhao Chunyan 趙春艷 in “A Study of Shao Yongs Aesthetic Thought” [邵雍美學(xué)思想研究] （2013） and “A Study of Shao Yongs ‘Peaceful and Happy Realm of Living and the Art of Living at Leisure” [邵雍“安樂”人生境界及“閑”之生活藝術(shù)研究] （2014） conduct research from a typically aesthetic perspective of Lixue， although the two papers are focused on different issues.

Third， there are studies on the Cheng brothers （Cheng Hao 程顥 [1032–1085] and Cheng Yi 程頤 [1033–1107]）. In “Lixue and Aesthetics in the Song and Ming Dynasties” （1989）， Yi Pingce speaks about the influence of the Cheng brothers Neo-Confucian thought on the aesthetics of the Song dynasty. In “Fragments on the Aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue” [宋明理學(xué)美學(xué)斷想] （1996）， Pi Chaogang expounds Cheng Haos spiritual ideal which is characterized by “the dao interconnected with Heaven and Earth” and the “spiritual joys of Confucius and Yan Hui.” In “The Self-Cultivation Theory and Aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue” [宋明理學(xué)的修養(yǎng)學(xué)與美學(xué)] （2002）， Wang Jianjiang 王建疆 discusses the relationship between the Cheng brothers theory of self-cultivation and aesthetics. In “A Tentative Exploration into the Rise of Neo-Confucian Aesthetics in the Song Dynasty： Also on the Literary Creation and Literary Criticism of Neo-Confucian Philosophers” （2006）， Deng Yinghui illustrates how the literary values of the Cheng brothers influenced studies on the Book of Poetry. In “An Examination of Aesthetics Based on the Mind and Human Nature： The Realization of Sincerity in Zhou Dunyi and the Cheng Brothers Aesthetic Views” [心性美學(xué)的是非

考辨——從周敦頤到二程的立誠審美論] （2013）， Wang Xiangfeng 王向峰 notes that Zhou Dunyi and the Cheng brothers think realizing sincerity and arriving at moral excellence are crucial to the activities of the mind and human nature， which include the creation of literary works to express the dao， and aesthetic contemplation in tranquility. In “A Study on the Cheng Brothers Effort Theory of Aesthetic Appreciation” [二程審美工夫論研究] （2014）， Wang Yajing 王雅靜 thinks the aesthetic ideals of the Cheng brothers theories include the ideal of the natural world where “birds are flying and fish are leaping out of water，” the ideal of a benevolent man who “has the spiritual joys of Confucius and Yan Hui，” and the ideal of a happy man who “shares Zeng Dians outlook on life，” and the corresponding efforts made in self-cultivation are respectively “the realization of benevolence，” “sincerity and reverence，” and “turning to oneself to be sincere.” In “A Study on the Literary Theory of the Cheng Brothers” [二程文論研究] （2015）， Bai Hong 白紅 explores the literary theory of the Cheng brothers as philosophers， and compares it with the literary theory of Su Shi 蘇軾 （1037–1101） who is a writer.

Fourth， there are studies on Zhu Xi. In “An Exploration of Zhu Xis Aesthetic Thought” [朱熹美學(xué)思想探析] （1988）， Zhang Liwen thinks the logic of Zhu Xis aesthetic thought is to take principle （the dao， goodness） as the point of departure， and that it employs beauty （literature， poetry） as a vehicle to combine moral rules or phenomena in accordance with the laws of nature， with perceptual forms and artistic expressions which stimulate pleasure and joy in mankind， hence harmony and unity between beauty and goodness， literature and the dao， and poetry and principle. In “From Morality to Aesthetics： The Logical Outcome of Zhu Xis Aesthetics” [從道德走向?qū)徝馈祆涿缹W(xué)的邏輯歸宿] （1990）， Zhang Xushu 張旭曙 discusses the inherent qualities of Zhu Xis aesthetic thought in terms of ontology， stylistics， and the cultivation of a lofty character. The present author has published over twenty papers， making achievements by systematically studying Zhu Xis Neo-Confucian aesthetic thought. In “Fragments on the Aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue” （1996）， Pi Chaogang illustrates the aesthetic dimension of Zhu Xis thought on “the spiritual joys of Confucius and Yan Hui” and “the joy of Zeng Dian.” In “A Brief Discussion on ‘the Virtue of Ceaseless Creation and the Key Issues in Lixue Aesthetics in the Northern Song Dynasty： One of the Tentative Studies on the Key Issues in Zhu Xis Aesthetics” [“生生之德”與北宋理學(xué)美學(xué)的核心問題簡論——朱熹美學(xué)核心問題研究前論之一] （2001）， Zou Qichang 鄒其昌 makes it clear that the aesthetic realm of life is central to Zhu Xis aesthetics， and that the basic way to acquire this realm is through reverence. In another paper “On Zhu Xis Aesthetic Theory in the Interpretation of the Book of Poetry” [論朱熹詩經(jīng)詮釋學(xué)美學(xué)] （2005）， Zou discusses the importance as well as the structure of Zhu Xis aesthetic theory in the interpretation of the Book of Poetry. Zhu Peng 朱鵬 in “Zhu Xi and Hegel： A Comparative Study in Terms of ‘Historical World，” Philosophical Thought， and Aesthetic Thought” [朱熹與黑格爾：“歷史世界”、哲學(xué)思想及美學(xué)思想之比較] （2008） and Fan Jiyi 范繼義 in “Hegels ‘Amiability and Serenity and Zhu Xis ‘Undifferentiated Whole of Mans Character and Artistic Expression” [黑格爾的“和悅靜穆”與朱熹的“氣象渾成”] （2011） carry out comparative research on Hegels aesthetic ideal and that of Zhu Xi. In “Equilibrium and Harmony： A Study on Zhu Xis Aesthetic and Poetic Categories” [中和：朱熹美學(xué)、詩學(xué)范疇研究] （2017）， Zhang Xiaowen 張曉文 calls attention to Zhu Xis development of equilibrium and harmony （zhonghe 中和） as an important classical aesthetic category. The present author has published The Aesthetics of Zhu Xis Learning of Principle （1999） which is the first book to conduct systematic research on Zhu Xis aesthetic thought， discussing not only Zhu Xi and his aesthetic achievements but also the contradictions within Zhu Xis aesthetic system. This research is comprehensive， covering various fields in Zhu Xis aesthetic thought， including aesthetic ontology， philosophy of art， landscape aesthetics， and aesthetic personality. Wang Zhenfu 王振復(fù) in his A Coursebook of the History of Chinese Aesthetics [中國美學(xué)史教程] （2004） discusses the relationship between the ontology of principle， the effort of self-cultivation， and aesthetics in Zhu Xis philosophy. Wu Zhixiang 吳志翔 in his The Hidden Coherence between Heaven and Earth and Me： The Aesthetic Implications of Zhu Xis Learning of Principle [天地與我默契：朱熹理學(xué)的美學(xué)意蘊] （2013） outlines Zhu Xis philosophy which is built on four theoretical pillars， namely， the theory of Heaven and humanity， the theory of being in the world， the theory of the mind and human nature， and the theory of ritual propriety and music.

Studies on the Aesthetics of Qi-Based Ontology and Its Major Figures? [25]

First， there are studies on Zhang Zai. In “On Zhang Zais Aesthetic Thought” [論張載

的美學(xué)思想] （1994）， the present author thinks Zhang Zais aesthetic thought is based on qi， and in Zhangs ontological thought the proposition that “every phenomenon is qi” is immediately relevant to aesthetics， involving views on beauty as the substance and its creation， as well as ideas about aesthetic forms. Pi Chaogang in “Fragments on the Aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue” （1996）， and Wang Jianjiang in “The Self-Cultivation Theory and Aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue” （2002） discuss the close relationship between Zhang Zais philosophy and aesthetics. There are also a series of studies done by scholars such as Zhou Liyun 周麗云， Nie Chunhua 聶春華， Zhang Jing 張晶， and Xiong Ye 熊椰 on the aesthetic issues in Zhang Zais theory of qi， focusing on aesthetic factors （aesthetic subject， aesthetic mind， aesthetic creation， aesthetic method， aesthetic categories， and aesthetic realm of life） and Zhangs view on works of art and literature （the relationship between literature and the dao）. Scholars such as Han Chaoyan 韓超艷 and Ding Lirong 丁利榮 take an original perspective， and discuss the relationship between Zhang Zais thought and the concept of harmony， ecological ideas， and environmental aesthetics.

Second， there are studies on Wang Fuzhi 王夫之 （1619–1692）. In “An Introduction to Wang Fuzhis Aesthetic Thought” [王夫之美學(xué)思想簡論] （1984）， Qian Gengsen 錢耕森 and Zhao Haiqi 趙海琦 note that Wang Fuzhis aesthetic thought is built on three interlocked components， namely， the philosophical foundation of beauty， the psychological mechanism of appreciating beauty， and the aesthetics of poetry， music， and art. In “Wang Fuzhis Aesthetic System” [王夫之的美學(xué)體系] （1985）， Ye Lang thinks Wang Fuzhi establishes a profound materialist aesthetic system， which is centered on the aesthetic images of poetry， and Wangs aesthetic thought can be regarded as the conclusion of classical Chinese aesthetics. Scholars， including Fan Jun 范軍， Chen Wangheng， Yang Jinfeng 楊金鳳， Chen Xi 陳西， Fang Disheng 方迪盛， and Wang Feng 王楓， have discussed the relationship between Wang Fuzhis qi-based view of nature and his aesthetic view. Gu Feng 古風(fēng) in “A New Interpretation of Wang Fuzhis Aesthetic Theory of Artistic Conception” [王夫之意境美學(xué)思想新解] （1996）， and You Peicheng 尤培成 in “On Wang Fuzhis Aesthetic Thought from the Perspective of the Theory of Artistic Conception” [從意境說談王夫之的美學(xué)思想] （2003）， among others， explore the relationship between Wang Fuzhis philosophy and his theory of artistic conception.

Studies on the Aesthetics of Mind-Based Ontology and Its Major Figures? [26]

First， there are studies on Lu Jiuyuan 陸九淵 （1139–1193）. Wang Zhenfu in A Coursebook of the History of Chinese Aesthetics （2004） mentions Lu Jiuyuans mind-based aesthetic thought. Zheng Suhuai 鄭蘇淮 in A History of Song Aesthetics [宋代美學(xué)思想史] （2007） which has one section on Lu Jiuyuan， thinks Lu Jiuyuans aesthetic thought finds its main expression in upholding human subjectivity， and investigating the aesthetic subject. Fan Qinyong 樊沁永 in “A Study on Lu Jiuyuans Aesthetic Thought” [陸九淵美學(xué)思想研究] （2011） explores the aesthetic connotations of Lu Jiuyuans Learning of the Mind from the perspective of Lus thoughts on life and the cosmos. In a series of papers， Wang Xu 王煦 examines Lu Jiuyuans mind-based aesthetic wisdom， focusing on two major issues， namely， the original mind and aesthetic appreciation and the effort in bringing oneself and external things to completion.

Second， there are studies on Chen Xianzhang 陳獻章 （Chen Baisha 陳白沙， 1428–1500）. In “Poetry and the Ontological Mind： An Introduction to Chen Baishas Aesthetic Thought” [詩與本體之心——陳白沙美學(xué)思想發(fā)凡] （1997）， Li Xu 李旭 discusses Chen Xianzhangs ontology which is characterized by the union of “my mind” and “the mind of Heaven，” and which leads to the appreciation of the beauty of nature and the composition of poetry expressive of the Way of Heaven. In “‘I Feel as Leisurely as Floating White Clouds： The Leisurely Realm in Chen Baishas ‘Enjoyment of Nature” [“逍遙復(fù)逍遙，白云如我閑”——陳白沙“自然之樂”的休閑境界] （2006）， the present author and Guo Xiaolei

郭小蕾 note that “the joy of Zeng Dian” held in high regard by Chen Xianzhang stands for an aesthetic realm of life. In “The Logical Connection between Chen Xianzhangs Philosophy and His Aesthetics of Poetry” [陳獻章哲學(xué)與其詩歌美學(xué)的邏輯聯(lián)系] （2010）， Zhang Jing contends that Chen Xianzhang develops Lu Jiuyuans mind-based ontology， but puts more emphasis on the interconnection between the mind and the universe， and that with regard to methodological considerations， Chen advocates “taking nature as a model” and “self-attainment.” In addition， some scholars have studied Chen Xianzhangs notion of beautiful personality （a reclusive lifestyle， the ambition of the superior man， and the prevailing features of the sage）， and the influence of Chens aesthetic view （on the aesthetic culture in the Lingnan region， the creation and reception of literary works in the Ming dynasty， and the calligraphic circles in the Ming dynasty）.

Third， there are studies on Zhan Ruoshui 湛若水 （Zhan Ganquan 湛甘泉， 1466–1560）， but the research achievements are few at present. Tang Xiongshan 唐雄山 in “Zhan Ganquans Discussion on the Formation of an Ideal Combination of the Factors of Human Nature： Also on the Possibility and the Path of ‘Realizing the Principle of Heaven Anywhere” [湛甘泉論理想人性組合形態(tài)的塑造——兼論“隨處體認天理”的可能性及其路徑] （2015） states that Zhan Ruoshui believes the ideal human nature is the balance of various elements in human nature， and this balance can be achieved through doing internal effort and the improvement of external conditions. He Jing 何靜 in “A Study on Zhan Ganquans Theory of Self-Attainment” [論湛甘泉的自得之學(xué)] （2016） notes that the mind as described by Zhan Ruoshui not only plays a cognitive and dictating role， but also is the basis for the existence of all things; it is also stated in the paper that Zhan Ruoshui advocates a theory of leading a higher life， including forming one body with the myriad things， having the spiritual joys of Confucius and Yan Hui， acting selflessly and caring for the public， and staying above troubles and restraints， and that Zhan seeks to promote the effort theory of realizing the principle of Heaven anywhere.

Fourth， there are studies on Wang Yangming. In “The Learning of the Mind and Aesthetics” [心學(xué)與美學(xué)]， a doctoral dissertation published in the early 1990s， Zhao Shilin

趙士林 addresses the issues of the relationship between the Learning of the Mind and aesthetics， and Wang Yangmings aesthetic thought. However， as Zhao puts it in the preface， the research is more on the Learning of the Mind than on aesthetics. It does not have an in-depth discussion on the aesthetics of the Learning of the Mind as an independent field of theoretical inquiry. In the middle and late 1990s， more scholars entered this field. In “A Discussion on Wang Yangmings Learning of the Mind and Aesthetics” [王陽明的心學(xué)與美學(xué)合論] （1996）， An Min 安民 thinks Wang Yangmings proposition that beauty lies in the mind， which is based on Wangs theory of the subjectivity of the mind， makes an important contribution to traditional aesthetic thought. In “Wang Yangmings Aesthetic Theory of Experiential Intuitive Knowledge” [王陽明的良知體驗審美論] （1998）， Zou Qichang analyzes the three major issues of Wang Yangmings aesthetic thought， namely， the issue of the spiritual realm and beauty， the issue of meaning and aesthetic experience， and the issue of the aesthetic attitude of emptiness and wisdom and the aesthetic practice of experience and enlightenment; and also does a tentative exploration into the features of Wangs experiential intuitive knowledge. In “Wang Yangmings Aesthetics： Consciousness Governs Emotions and Thoughts” [意統(tǒng)

情志的王陽明美學(xué)] （2000） and “The Unity of Writing and the Dao： Yangmings Aesthetics” [文道同一的陽明美學(xué)] （2001）， Xiao Ying 肖鷹 analyzes the relationship between Wang Yangmings aesthetics and “the consciousness of Heaven and Earth” which is a basic notion in traditional Chinese philosophy. Xiao thinks Wangs aesthetics is centered on consciousness， into which emotions and thoughts are integrated， so Wang was earlier than others in asserting emotions， hence reflecting the spirit of modern humanism. In “The Inward Experience of the Aesthetics of Wang Yangmings Learning of the Mind” [王陽明心學(xué)美學(xué)的內(nèi)指性體驗] （2002）， Li Jizhen 李計珍 thinks the unique significance of the Learning of the Mind which is different from the Cheng–Zhu Learning of Principle lies in an apparently aesthetic quality of the inward experience of life. Since 2003， The present author has published a series of papers to study the aesthetics of Wang Yangmings Learning of the Mind， together with a book One Body with a Myriad Forms： The Aesthetic Wisdom of Wang Yangmings Learning of the Mind [一體萬化：陽明心學(xué)的美學(xué)智慧] （2010）， which approaches Wang Yangmings aesthetics from the perspective of original substance and effort， and finally establishes a relatively adequate framework for the aesthetics of the Learning of the Mind.

Fifth， there are studies on Wang Gen 王艮 （1483–1541）. In “A Study on the Aesthetic Categories of the Taizhou School： On ‘The Common Peoples Everyday Usages” [泰州學(xué)派美學(xué)范疇研究——論“百姓日用”] （2006）， Shao Xiaozhou 邵曉舟 notes that the aesthetic framework of the Taizhou school， of which Wang Gen was a leading exponent， is built on the central idea of “the common peoples everyday usages，” with three prominent features， namely， “vitality” as the fundamental attribute of all things， “body” which creates beauty， and “joy” as the core of aesthetic experience. In “‘Truthfulness： A Study on the Aesthetic Categories of the Taizhou School” [“真”：泰州學(xué)派美學(xué)范疇研究] （2006）， Hu Xuechun 胡學(xué)春 thinks Wang Gen advocates the kind of life with equal achievements in the body and the dao， substance and function， and Wangs idea that “the great man makes his endowment” stimulates the literati worshiping truthfulness to pour their genuine thoughts and feelings into literary works. In “Fish Transforming into Dragons： Wang Gens Populist Aesthetic Thought” [魚化為龍：王艮的

平民主義美學(xué)思想] （2006）， Yao Wenfang 姚文放 contends that Wang Gens aesthetic thought is populist， and his theory on “complete beauty” is built on the theory of the investigation of things and the theory of respecting the body， with equal emphasis on the following of the dao and righteousness， and the reverence for life; in addition， Wangs theory is closely related to common peoples everyday life， and shows concern for the common people. In “On ‘Centrality： A Study on the Aesthetic Categories of the Taizhou School” [論“中”：泰州

學(xué)派美學(xué)范疇研究] （2011） and “On ‘Centrality： A Key Category in the Thought of Wang Gen from the Taizhou School” [論“中”：泰州學(xué)派王艮思想的核心范疇] （2014）， Huang Shiming 黃石明 researches into Wang Gens philosophical and aesthetic category “centrality.”

The Aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue as an

Independent Theoretical System [27]

To study the aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue as an independent theoretical system means more than to discuss whether there is any relationship between Lixue and aesthetics， whether philosophers of the school have aesthetic thoughts， or whether the school has any influence on aesthetics or literature and art. It is more important to study the foundation on which the aesthetics of the school is built， or whether the aesthetics of the school has its own features that distinguish it from other aesthetic systems.

“Lixue aesthetics，” after being proposed and illustrated by the present author， has been gradually accepted， used， and promoted by scholars in philosophical and aesthetic circles. For example， in the Dictionary of Aesthetics [美學(xué)大辭典] compiled by Zhu Liyuan 朱立元， the term is clearly defined as follows：

Lixue aesthetics refers to the aesthetics shaped by Lixue in Chinas Song， Yuan， and Ming dynasties. Under the strong influence of the trend of the synthesis of Confucianism， Daoism， and Buddhism， it is characterized by intellectual rigor， philosophical profundity， tranquility of the mind， and artistic elegance. Shaped by the prevailing ideological trend of Lixue， the philosophical and aesthetic theme of this period is how it is possible for morality to become essential to original substance， the subject， the process （effort）， and aesthetic appreciation， or how to move from the issue of “being good” to the issue of “being beautiful，” with reflections upon the Chinese aesthetics of personality， that is， what kind of person one should be and how to be human.

The present author thinks that both theoretical character and speculative quality make the Learning of the Mind， which is an important Neo-Confucian school in the broad sense of the term， closer to aesthetics. After demonstrating the aesthetic connotations of the Learning of Principle， the present author proposes the issue of developing the aesthetics of the Learning of the Mind， pointing to the more inherent and profound connection between Wang Yangmings Learning of the Mind and aesthetics. Ontologically， in the Learning of the Mind， original substance is not only transcendent and absolute but also perceptible and “intimately present”; therefore， the original substance of the mind stands for the mix of transcendence and being-in-the-world， and of reason and emotion， with an emphasis on the contextual rise or the manifestation of original substance in the here and now. This line of thought fits in with aesthetics. With regard to the theory of effort， the effort of the mind is not analytical， nor is it purely intellectual. It is about the lively contextual experience， understanding， practice， and enlightenment in the here and now of the original mind endowed with intuitive knowledge. This intuitive experience of life involves the participation of both the mind and the body， and hence is closer to aesthetic experience and aesthetic practice. Thus Wang Yangmings aesthetic system can be thought of as a triple system of original substance， effort， and spiritual realm. As can be seen， from the establishment of the status of Lixue aesthetics to case studies on the aesthetics of the Cheng–Zhu School and Wang Yangming， the research on the aesthetic system of Song–Ming Lixue is going deeper and further.

Conclusions， Limitations， and Future Research [28]

Generally speaking， the contemporary research on Lixue aesthetics breaks down prejudices， and attracts increasing scholarly attention. Remarkable progress has been made， with both case studies and studies on relevant schools and fields.

First， the field of classical Chinese aesthetic studies has been expanded. Categories and practices， such as the mind and human nature， morality， righteousness and principle， and effort， which previously were rarely heeded or won little attention in the aesthetic circles， have been included. As a consequence， a large number of figures， events， categories， and propositions， which used to be ignored and seemingly had little to do with aesthetics， have been studied， with rich and important findings for aesthetics， thus adding to the stock of literature of Chinese aesthetics， and pushing back the boundaries of the field.

Second， a shift occurs in research orientation from a direct and immediate emphasis or focus on literature and art to philosophical and ontological investigations that are more inclusive and profound. Previously， there was an inclination in the history of Chinese aesthetics to treat aesthetics as a theory of literature and art （including theory of literature， theory of poetry， theory of painting， and theory of music）， or even as forms of art. In fact， aesthetics is different from a theory of literature and art. Aesthetics is more philosophical， which addresses the ontological issues of aesthetic appreciation and art， and it is broader， even dealing with fields and things beyond the realm of art but related to humanitys experience of life. Therefore， the aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue adds a corrective to previous studies that are limited in scope， and expands researchers horizons， hence with much theoretical importance.

Third， gaps are filled and missing links are added in the development of classical Chinese aesthetic studies， the status of Lixue aesthetics is established， and the centrality of Lixue to the construction of the aesthetic discourse of the Song and Ming dynasties is affirmed. Traditional Chinese aesthetics is often charged with being not sufficiently theoretical or systematic. Especially when compared with Western philosophical aesthetics since ancient Greece， traditional Chinese aesthetics appears random and fragmentary， lacking depth in ontological exploration and rigor in logical reasoning and system building. However， Lixue aesthetics with Zhu Xi as its leading exponent demonstrates a range of qualities of Western aesthetics， including ontological inquiry， construction of logical systems， speculative thinking， and deductive reasoning， and it can facilitate the development of Chinese aesthetic discourses by making them ontological， speculative， and systematic. In this way， the link of philosophical aesthetics shall no longer be missing in the development of classical Chinese aesthetics， and a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the complexity of traditional Chinese aesthetics can be gained， with some prejudices among the scholarly circles rectified.

In-depth and systematic studies have been done on Confucian， Daoist， and Buddhist aesthetics， with considerable research achievements. Compared with them， although Lixue is the most important， systematic， and influential ideological trend and the dominant philosophy in China from the medieval period to the modern age， and therefore has an important position in history， the research on the aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue is far from thorough and systematic. The limitations of the contemporary research and suggestions for future research are as follows：

First， the research on relevant figures and schools is insufficient， so more potential research subjects need to be sought， and the scope of research expanded. Although the three main schools of Lixue， namely， the principle-based ontology， the qi-based ontology， and the mind-based ontology， and the aesthetic thought of the major figures of the schools have been studied to some extent （though far from enough）， little or no attention is paid to another important school， the inherent nature-based Huxiang school， and the aesthetic thought of the major figures of that school. In addition， in the research on relevant figures and schools， the focus currently is still on Zhu Xi， Wang Yangming， and other major figures， while the exploration of the aesthetic thought of other figures who do not have a central position or even have a rather marginal status （such as the Neo-Confucian philosophers in the Yuan dynasty） is far from satisfactory.

Second， it is necessary to advance from research on categories to research on propositions， thus enhancing the depth of the research on the aesthetics of Song–Ming Lixue. In this connection， Zhang Jings recently published paper is noteworthy， in which it is stated that study on ancient Chinese literary theory should advance “from categories to propositions.” The same is true of the study on Lixue aesthetics. As can be seen from above， some achievements have been made in the study on the aesthetic connotations of the Lixue categories; however， to make the study more thorough and systematic requires research on propositions. Categories are the crystallization of theories and can be expanded and formulated into propositions， with more definite theoretical connotations and universal values. Some aesthetic categories， like literature and the dao， in isolation do not seem to make sense aesthetically; however， when the two categories are put together to form the proposition “l(fā)iterature flows from the dao，” the aesthetic message of principle-based ontology is made more than clear. Such aesthetic propositions are abundant in Lixue， and they are worthy of further exploration.

Third， it is necessary to expose the impact of Song–Ming Lixue on Chinese aesthetics in the medieval and modern ages， and rewrite the history of aesthetics in the Song， Yuan， Ming， and Qing dynasties. The transformation of the aesthetics in the Song， Yuan， Ming， and Qing dynasties is closely related to Song–Ming Lixue. There are big differences between the aesthetics of the Han and Tang and the aesthetics of the Song and Yuan： the aesthetic trend changes from a focus on external grandeur and magnificence to internal tranquility and profundity， and the aesthetic ideas change from fenggu 風(fēng)骨 （expressiveness in style and sturdiness in structure）， qixiang 氣象 （prevailing features）， and yijing 意境 （aesthetic conception） to yunwei 韻味 （charm or appeal）， liqu 理趣 （philosophical substance through artistic appeal）， and xingqing 性情 （nature–emotion）. The changes took place largely due to the influence of Song Learning， of which Lixue formed the major part. In the middle and late Ming dynasty， the rise of Wang Yangmings Learning of the Mind steered the course of traditional Chinese aesthetics onto its modern track， and gave rise to the emotion-based romanticism in art and aesthetics in the Ming and Qing dynasties. Therefore， the internal influence and potential drive of Lixue within the transformation of aesthetics from the medieval period to the modern age is well worth studying and exposing.

Fourth， it is necessary to exploit the unique and rich discourse system of Song–Ming Lixue to enable the aesthetics of the school to have an equal dialogue with Western philosophical aesthetics. Since the discipline of aesthetics has its origin in the West， and the concept was later imported to China， the study on basic aesthetic doctrines often looks up to Western aesthetics as the norm， and the Western model is also employed as the standard by which to interpret and evaluate traditional Chinese aesthetics， even to the point of jettisoning aspects that do not fit in with the Western model. To redress this situation， scholars should make efforts to clarify the different cultural assumptions and thought patterns underlying Chinese and Western philosophical and aesthetic traditions， and to explore thoroughly and systematically traditional resources to construct a Chinese discourse system. The discourse system of original substance， effort， and spiritual realm， characteristic of the Learning of the Mind and abstracted from Song–Ming Lixue， can be a prime candidate. This system is worthy of being systematically developed and promoted.

Translated by Hou Jian