Some Classical Chinese Philosophy Pt 1: Confucianism
Part 1 on Chinese Philosophy: Some selections from Confucian Scholars with some additional historical context
First of all, I think a big part of what appeals to me about Chinese Philosophy is just the use of analogy, imagery, and parables. It’s also interesting that most of the philosophy we have today from the period was created during a period of conflict. At the same time in Greece, Socrates had lived through the peloponnesian war while Plato and Aristotle were a little late so there was more of a focus on metaphysics. The questions that Chinese philosophy, at least within the three main traditions, tends to deal with political philosophy and ethics instead of ontology, logic, or aesthetics.
I prefer this style of writing to that of most modern analytic philosophy which has a tendency to turn every complex concept into acronyms. My honors thesis was plagued with acronyms like “FW” “MR” “PAP” “SCA” “RCA” and so on. By comparison, the imagery and parables provided by Classical Chinese Philosophy is both far more accessible and interesting. The style is not sustained argumentation through definitions and logic and that is a strength of the style in my opinion. Similar to the aphorism style of philosophy seen in work like Nietszche’s.
The Historical Context of Chinese Philosophy
The three main “schools” of thought in Chinese philosophy are the Confucians, the Daoists, and the Legalists. Mohists tend to get left out of this as their form of ethics and logic often blends with Legalist philosophy. Although today people would probably suggest Buddhism instead of Legalism as the third school.
The three main schools were founded during the Zhou dynasty which lasted from 1045 to 256 BC. Prior to this, the Shang dynasty ruled but ended with the Zhou dynasty overthrowing them purportedly for moral reasons. Something they might say is that the Shang lost “the mandate of heaven.”
Heaven in the context of Chinese philosophy refers to earth and beyond, generally when the mandate of heaven is talked about it is used as a rhetorical tool. For example someone could say an emperor has the mandate of heaven and that would provide them with legitimacy.
After the Zhou and Qin (pronounced “cheen”) dynasties, the first Han emperor came to be known as “Son of Heaven.” Therefore making him not just have the mandate of heaven but also becoming a cosmological figure on earth. This is a little similar to the first emperor of Japan who is said to be a descendent of the sungod Amaterasu. Perhaps an idea for another article.
Kongzi (Confucius) and Laozi appear in the same century, founding Confucianism and Daoism sometime in the sixth century BC.
Kongzi has this to say about the Zhou dynasty:
3.14 The Master said, “The Zhou gazes down upon the two dynasties that preceded it. How brilliant in culture it is! I follow the Zhou.”
The warring states period (475-221 BC) followed from the “Spring and Autumn” period (770-476 BC) where changes in aristocratic authority led to power from aristocrats requiring coalitions to form governance. Education and Intellectual life flourished thanks to scholars such as Confucius and Laozi emerging.
During the warring states period, the teachings of Kongzi and Laozi were further expanded by Mengzi (372-289 BC), Xunzi (335-238 BC) and Zhuangzi (369-286 BC). Alongside the Mohist and Legalist traditions with Mozi (479-381 BC) and Han Feizi (280-233 BC).
I tend to put Mozi and Han Feizi together, although Mozi is really in his own school of thought which resembles consequentialism. Xunzi, while being a confucian scholar, also taught Han Feizi so some interpret Xunzi as being a kind of legalist for this reason. I tend to also separate Xunzi from Mengzi and Kongzi for similar reasons.
So, we have three main schools: Confucianism which is comprised of Kongzi, Mengzi and Xunzi (Kind of); Daoists which are Laozi and Zhuangzi; Finally Legalists who I suggest are Xunzi (Also a confucianist), Mozi and Han Feizi.
I think this video is interesting, mostly just because it shows how quickly a kingdom can come to power and also completely lose power. Anyway, most of the philosophy I want to talk about came about during this period of the Qin gaining power. This is also why state building was so central to the philosophy that emerged in this period, or at least that’s my interpretation.
The Qin dynasty was the first unification of China, the first emperor of China happened to subscribe to a version of legalism which was heavily influenced by one of the students of Xunzi, Li Si.
After the death of the emperor Qin Shi Huang, his eldest son, Fusu, would have become emperor. However, a royal counselor Zhao Gao who believed he would be better suited to running the country and hoped for a more malleable successor such as Qin’s younger son Ying Huhai. Zhao Gao hid the death of Qin by hiding it amongst a cargo of salted fish to delay the will. His plan worked, however the country descended into civil war as he was not as capable as he had thought. The second emperor, Ying Huhai killed himself shortly after.
Several years after the Qin dynasty had established itself as the central government it was already falling apart. I thought this was interesting, and it shows the importance of statebuilding in Chinese history/philosophy.
Humility in both Confucian and Daoist thought
“He who knows all the answers, has not been asked all the questions” - Kongzi
“He who speaks does not know, he who knows does not speak.” -Laozi
“To know that you do not know is the best. To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease.” -Laozi
These are just a few quotes from Laozi and Kongzi which show the importance of humility as well as intellectual curiosity. Something which was clearly missing with Zhao Gao at the end of the Qin dynasty.
I think this idea of humility is in some sense part of Kongzi’s virtue of wisdom, in the sense that central to Kongzi’s virtues is this love of learning. If you were not humble regarding your learning, you would think yourself above learning from others who might have valuable information to share.
Confucianism
Confucianism tends toward virtue theory for its moral philosophy, similar to that of Aristotle’s. For those unaware, a virtue theorist does not focus on actions but instead on certain characteristics of a person they deem positive. Provided the historical context of state building, this makes a lot of sense due to the creation of shared values in a community. For example, a virtue theorist might suggest courage as an important virtue to have. This is an important difference from Deontology or Consequentialism, as it is focused on internal motivation rather than specific actions or rules.
2.3 The Master said, “If you try to guide the common people with coercive regulations and keep them in line with punishments, the common people will become evasive and will have no sense of shame. If, however, you guide them with Virtue, and keep them in line by means of ritual, the people will have a sense of shame and will rectify themselves.”
I think this quote summarises the aim of Confucian philosophy, as it is primarily about state building, the idea is to create a virtuous society. The leader of the state acts as a mentor for the citizens. Although this would include advisory roles from scholars like Kongzi or other sages.
There is also this idea of filial piety which is central to Confucian thought, which also extends in a way to this way of viewing history. Essentially, Confucians look to the past for guidance on the future.
There are also interpretations of Confucianism that suggest instead of it being a virtue theory, that it is instead a role ethics account. Making the relational aspect of Kongzi’s ethics more pronounced.
Kongzi’s Virtues
I’ve already talked a little about humility being important to Kongzi, however there are several virtues which rank as far more important. Sometimes referred to as the five constant virtues. Although I’m not actually sure where this comes from, I think it’s just from later researchers wanting to give them a cool name or something. Also they aren’t compiled by Kongzi himself, instead it is Mengzi who compiles the first four virtues within the Mengzi. A fifth was added by Dong Zhongshu during the Han dynasty where Confucianism was integrated as the state cult.
The four virtues compiled by Mengzi are ren (benevolence), yi (righteousness), li (ritual propriety), and zhi (wisdom).
Ren (benevolence) I think is represented pretty well in Kongzi’s reply to Fan Chi’s question on goodness
12.22 Fan Chi asked about goodness.
The Master replied, “Care for others.”
Sometimes this also gets translated to “love others.” Essentially, Ren is about compassion.
Yi (righteousness) can also translate to justice, morality and meaning. In some sense this is perhaps the most nebulous of the virtues proposed by Kongzi and that is because it incurs a kind of moral intuitionism. It essentially just suggests doing the right thing.
Li (ritual propriety) is in many ways central to these other virtues for Kongzi. Propriety even precedes benevolence, in the sense that it is through adherence to ritual that leads to benevolence or at least seems that way in this passage depending on the translation.
12.1 Yan Hui asked about Goodness.
The Master said, “Restraining yourself and returning to the rites constitutes Goodness…”
In the James Legge translation it is more like this:
12.1 Yan Yuan asked about perfect virtue.
The Master said, "To subdue one's self and return to propriety, is perfect virtue. If a man can for one day subdue himself and return to propriety, all under heaven will ascribe perfect virtue to him…”
I assume perfect here to mean that they have acheived or have all the requisite virtues of a sage, so this is why I interpret Kongzi as suggesting that performing ritual propriety will lead to all the virtues of a gentleman.
Zhi (wisdom) I sort of touched on with the humility thing, this is something I think is shown also in Kongzi’s joy from learning.
1.1 The Master said, “To learn, and then have occasion to practice what you have learned—is this not satisfying?…
A fifth virtue, Xin (trustworthiness) was added by Dong Zhongshu during the Han Dynasty. Although I think that the virtue is in some sense implied by most of the other passages dealing with other virtues, trustworthiness is more or less just an outcome of propriety, righteousness, wisdom, and benevolence.
Pretty solid virtues I think, and something for later scholars to base their work on.
The Confucian Scholars
I’ve already talked a little about some changes, or things made more clear thanks to confucian scholars. The virtues being an example of something made clear thanks to efforts from Mengzi and Dong Zhongshu. I won’t be covering Dong Zhongshu in the next section, instead I will be focusing on the two main scholars people tend to think about in relation to Kongzi. Those two being Mengzi and Xunzi.
Both Mengzi and Xunzi are fun to read, for the imagery and story reasons I had already mentioned. The main aspect I want to cover is the question of human nature, is it good or bad? I would say though Xunzi kind of has a little bit of sustained argumentation in his book. In the sense that he engages in a style where he will present something, predict some responses to his argument, then respond to those. Although in a very loose way, where he is really setting up some easy responses to reply to.
I obviously encourage reading all three in your own time, as these are excerpts I’ve picked out with my own interpretation and biases. So I am not representing them objectively. I think maybe one more thing to note when talking about a lot of Chinese philosophy is the use of the word “profit,” it doesn’t mean literally financial profit but instead just the general concept of gain. I mean it’s already pretty clear, but this tends to get used a lot especially by Mozi and Legalists. Anyway, there are many more scholars aside from Mengzi and Xunzi, however they are the most talked about.
Human Nature according to the two main Confucian scholars
17.2 The Master said “By nature people are similar; they diverge as the result of practice.”
Kongzi in this quote doesn’t make any clear declaration on his view of the nature of humans, and instead supports a view that would suggest humans are conditioned by their actions. However, following confucian scholars such as Mengzi and Xunzi support conflicting views on the inherent nature of humans.
Personally, I think this quote and by extension Kongzi’s view of human nature is positive. I think poor leadership leads to negative impacts on people in terms of behaviour and vice and assume Kongzi shares this view.
Mengzi appears to take the view that human nature is good, whereas Xunzi takes the view that human nature is evil, or more accurately human nature is selfish. Both create a fun little metaphor for their positions. I should mention that their virtue theory views come in very clearly through these metaphors.
Mengzi
2A6 … If one is without the heart of compassion, one is not human. If one is without the heart of disdain, one is not a human. If one is without the heart of deference, one is not a human. If one is without the heart of approval and disapproval one is not a human. The heart of compassion is the sprout of benevolence. The heart of disdain is the sprout of righteousness. The heart of deference is the sprout of propriety. The heart of approval and disapproval is the sprout of wisdom.” …
Essentially what Mengzi is saying here is that all four virtues, represented as seeds, are present within all humans. As for the reason he chooses seeds as his analogy, this is due to the fact seeds can grow or die depending on how someone nurtures those seeds. Which follows from what Kongzi previously said.
The full passage is great, and I find the story he weaves regarding compassion convincing.
2A6 … “The reason why I say that humans all have hearts that are not unfeeling toward others is this. Suppose someone suddenly saw a child about to fall into a well: everyone in such a situation would have a feeling of alarm and compassion—not because one sought to get in good with the child’s parents, not because one wanted fame among their neighbours and friends, and not because one would dislike the sound of the child’s cries.”
I think this also touches on a few things like psychological altruism, emotional responses and the nature of humans in a positive light which I like. It would be strange to have to perform some kind of analysis before reacting to such a situation, and would be indicative of something a little wrong with someone if they engaged in acting in the world through analysis in that way.
In any case, this metaphor is delightful. The optimism provided by Mengzi in this short chapter cures nihilists. If you’ve ever seen someone, especially an elderly person trip over in the street, you’d pretty quickly see people offering to help them up. This idea that people are callous or uncaring for strangers is really just bollocks. It’s only when social roles or dynamics are involved in affairs where people tend to avoid being involved in conflicts, but even then people step in. Naturally, people are less likely to step into conflicts where they believe they will be ineffective.
Anyway, Mengzi believes that everyone is capable of virtue in the sense that while they might have the ability this does not mean they always act as such. After talking to King Xuan about a situation in which the king had seen an Ox taken to be sacrificed and heard its cries, he decided to prevent the Ox from being killed, showing compassion to the animal. In a later talk to King Xuan, Mengzi has the following to say:
1A7 Mengzi said, “In the present case your kindness is sufficient to reach the birds and beasts, but the benefits do not reach the commoners. Why is this case alone different? Hence, not lifting one feather due to not using one’s strength. Not seeing a wagon of firewood is due to not using one’s eyesight. The commoners not receiving care is due to not using one’s kindness. Hence, your Majesty’s not being a genuine king is due to not acting; it is not due to not being able.”
This is another clear display of Mengzi’s view that virtues are more like an innate ability that has to be practiced, rather than something we can only learn unlike the view Xunzi will provide.
I find Mengzi’s view as a whole very attractive. It suggests humans are innately compassionate (true) and that virtues can be refined and practiced so that we may grow these sprouts of virtue in a way that might resemble sages’ virtues. It good.
Xunzi
Just the title of the twenty third chapter of the Xunzi is enough to make me despise this guy. It sounds like something some annoying nihilistic Rick and Morty fan would say on Reddit “Human Nature is le bad.” Anyway, in the Ivanhoe and Van Norden translation the chapter is called “Human Nature is Bad.” That is very clearly Xunzi’s view, although perhaps he only says this for political reasons rather than it being his actual view. Xunzi is often said to be an authoritarian, and I think this chapter shows that very clearly. It’s also why I put him in the Legalist camp of philosophy, rather than being purely a Confucian scholar. In fact, two of the more important legalist scholars were taught by Xunzi, those being Han Feizi and Li Si.
Funnily enough, Han Feizi is often compared to Machiavelli in the west. As for Li Si, he was a chancellor for the Qin. Li Si helped Zhao Gao in suppressing the late Qin emperor’s choice of successor, however not everything he did was quite so devious. Li Si helped in standardising a lot of the laws, governmental ordinances, and weights and measures which included currency. I will cover Han Feizi in more detail in a later post.
Anyway, here’s a snippet from the chief sage himself:
CH 23: Human Nature is Bad
People’s nature is bad. Their goodness is a matter of deliberate effort. Now people’s nature is such that they are born with a fondness for profit. If they follow along with this, then struggle and contention will arise, and yielding and deference will perish therein. They are born with feelings of hate and dislike. If they follow along with these, then cruelty and villainy will arise, and loyalty and trustworthiness will perish therein. They are born with desires of the eyes and ears, a fondness for beautiful sights and sounds. If they follow along with these, then lasciviousness and chaos will arise, and ritual and the standards of righteousness, proper form and good order, will perish therein…
He makes his view of human nature very clear already within the title of the chapter and the preceding paragraph shown above. The quote continues a little, essentially just suggesting that people need moral guidance from ideal teachers
…So, it is necessary to await the transforming influence of teachers and models and the guidance of ritual and the standards of righteousness, and only then will they come to yielding and deference, turn to culture and order, and end up under control.
While I was just going to provide Xunzi’s metaphor for human nature, I think these quotes are kinda fun especially with words like “control,” “profit,” “hate and dislike,” and “cruelty and villainy.” I think this whole paragraph is just so dire and pessimistic which makes it kinda fun to read. He would have hated anarchists and their views on human nature and how governance should occur lol. I wonder what Alan Moore thinks of Xunzi? Anyway, on to the delightfully awful little metaphor Xunzi provides us with.
Thus, crooked wood must await steaming and straightening on the shaping frame, and only then does it become straight. Blunt metal must await honing and grinding, and only then does it become sharp. Now since people’s nature is bad, they must await teachers and proper models, and only then do they become correct in their behaviour. They must obtain ritual and the standards of righteousness, and only then do they become well ordered. Now without teachers or proper models for people, they will be deviant, dangerous, and incorrect in their behaviour….
I guess one issue I take with Xunzi and other thinkers like him is particularly in regard to this idea of moral teachers. First of all, if humans by nature are driven purely by selfish wants and profit and become completely disloyal when those needs and wants are met, how did the first moral teachers come about? Did they just magic out of nowhere? At least under this moral teacher view if you agree with Mengzi, there can at least be someone who already had the sprouts and perhaps these sprouts are more pronounced in certain people. In the state of nature prior to society, there would not be any moral teachers so everyone would be completely selfish and brutish. Xunzi’s view cannot logically come about.
I just think Xunzi’s view has to come with some caveats, maybe pre society people were somehow mythologically better or more selfless than those that came after and the prior era provided us with good moral teachers. Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense. He has a bit of a response to this, in essence he seems to suggest that sages like himself are just a different kind of thing from the average human. As if sages magicked themselves into existence for the sole purpose of enlightening the masses. In reality, people were always compassionate like how Mengzi suggests in his parable. The purpose of his teaching is to legitimize control from scholars like himself, Han Feizi, and other legalists and that is the only interpretation I can make.
Also this idea that liking to look at things which are beautiful or hear beautiful music is somehow wrong is very weird. Of course people like looking, hearing, smelling, tasting, or otherwise feeling things that are nice or good. How stupid. One thing consequentialists get right is that there is really nothing wrong with pleasure. In this sense, Xunzi comes across as one of those annoying protestant type people. Maybe I was too harsh in counting Mozi as a legalist.
What next?
Next post I make about Chinese Philosophy will cover Daoism, specifically Zhuangzi and Lao Tzu. I love Zhuangzi as he has the best imagery, and stories and just generally seems like a lot more fun than many of these other guys. Very whimsical, the type of guy you can imagine being a gnome.
I’ll talk a little about the Han as well. Who take a bit more influence from the Daoists compared to the Qin who were influenced primarily by a Legalist taught by a confucian.