A
Comparison of Confucius with Socrates in the Light of a New Perspective: Primary
and Secondary Society
You-Sheng
Li
Taoist
Recovery Centre, London,
Ontario,
Canada
Click Here to Reach the Author's Website
Abstract
Outline
All human societies can be divided
into two types: genetically coded primary society and man-made secondary
society. Western civilization, especially in Mesopotamia and Greece, started with city states, which were formed by free
citizens after primary society or clans were disintegrated while Chinese
civilization started as the super state of a two-level system. The super state
enabled people to live in a relatively peaceful social environment while the
two-level system, namely the newly formed secondary societies were built on the
top of numerous primary societies, enabled them to still live in primary or
quasi-primary society. From primary to
secondary society is a critical step in human cultural evolution, and it thus provides
a new powerful perspective to understand Western and Chinese philosophies and
their difference.
Socrates is traditionally regarded
as the father of Western ethics or moral philosophy, and Confucius holds that
position in Chinese ethics. The two men lived nine years apart. A comparison
between Confucius and Socrates serves as an illustration to show how the two
fatherly philosophers were hallmarked by their different social environments. Socrates' most important contribution is the
so-called Socratic Method while Confucius’s most important contribution is the
ethical code of benevolence and righteousness (renyi)
which he set up for Chinese people. The Socratic Method reflects the need of a
secondary society to search for a far-sighted ideology for a more stable life
and society while Confucius’s ethical code of benevolence and righteousness
reflects the need of a primary society to rely on its members’ subconscious to
prevent unwanted division. Confucius held a strong belief in governing by doing
nothing, which summarises the way of life in primary society. As a result,
Confucius and Socrates lived different lives with different attitudes towards physical
labour. Language functions differently in primary and secondary societies. With
the face-to-face interaction in primary society, language is mingled with
emotional and psychological exchange. As a result, Confucius and Socrates
talked differently. Confucius’s talks are more like pieces of art while
Socrates’ talks contain mainly information and insights.
Human nature and instinct keep a
primary society stable and functional while in the early stage of secondary
society, religion or belief in gods was often used to consecrate the form and
course a society was taking, and thus provided a powerful cohesive force to stop
its members from seeking other types of secondary society. In primary society,
no authority can force his will on others, and their gods do not interfere with
people. As a result, Confucius and Socrates had quite different attitudes
towards religion. Confucius stayed away from gods and refused to speak about
parapsychology, psychic power, mental disturbance, and ghosts (guaililuanshen). In spite of Socrates’ sincere
belief in and devout reverence for the gods, his critical thinking eventually
led to his execution.
Although both Confucius and Socrates
believed in tianrenheyi or the united
one of heaven or earth, but tian (heaven) and ren (man) identify different entities in primary and
secondary societies. The Chinese word tian
(heaven) may indicate God, ideology or nature. With a fixed ideology and social
structure as its guide, and with God as its inspiration, a particular secondary
society can pursue whatever their goals may be in the environment of nature
while primary society is part of nature, and their God and ideology are only
reflections of human nature and their society. In primary society, man is a
natural man coded by genetics and guided by human nature while man is of his
own making in secondary society.
A Comparison of
Confucius with Socrates in the Light of a New Perspective: Primary and
Secondary Society
According
to A. N. Whitehead, all philosophy is only a footnote
to Plato. 1 Such a
statement always reminds me of what Karl Jaspers called the Axial Age from 800
to 200 BC: a period of interregnum for liberty, a period of transition for
critical thinkers to lay down the frame of thinking or philosophical foundation
for the coming years. Lao Tzu, Confucius, Socrates, and Plato are as relevant
today as they were more than two thousand years ago. But the different social
environments hatched different philosophies in China and in Greece during the Axial
Age. The Chinese civilization developed on the basis of primary society while
the Western started with secondary society. It provides a new powerful
perspective to understand Western and Chinese philosophies and their
difference, since it is based on a fundamentally critical step of human cultural
evolution, from primary to secondary society. I will explain this new
perspective of primary and secondary society, and then use Confucius and
Socrates as examples to show the difference between Western and Chinese
philosophies in light of this new perspective.
I. The Concept of
Primary Society and Secondary Society 2
Primary society is genetically coded society, and secondary
society is any society that is created by man or human culture. Although there
is no real primary society for us to examine, it is not difficult to outline
the features of a primary society through its definition and the study of animal
societies and human society before civilization.
In primary
Society, human nature and instinct are enough to keep the society harmonious
and functional. Primary society is the basic social organization of man
immediately above families. Members are linked together emotionally and
psychologically, and thus they are a whole at the subconscious level. The ideal
number of people in a primary society is believed to be around 150. Bands and
tribes are regarded as primary societies. Bands or tribes were headed by
headmen who had no power to force their will on others. Their leadership was
based on persuasion and consensus. The culture of primary societies is close to
human nature and has no power to modify human nature.
Secondary
society is created by man, and so it has an ideology and a corresponding social
structure to support the ideology. As a creation by man, it has limitless
possible types with different value systems, different directions, and
different structures while primary society, dictated by genetics, has only one
type. Social stratification and institutionalized violence such as police and
army are often necessary to keep a secondary society stable in its present type
and restrain its members from seeking other types of society.
Here we
define spare time as time left after one’s basic biological needs such as food
and water are fulfilled. Primary society spends spare time on enjoyment or on
anything closely related to survival such as controlling flood and building
city walls. As a result of social stratification and institutionalized
violence, secondary society is able to force its will on its members.
Therefore, secondary society spends its spare time on its goals that are often
not closely related to enjoyment or survival.
An analogy
is the lobefin fish that moved onto land and became a land animal around 300
million years ago. The lobefin fish had strong fins but did not have limbs yet.
Once on land, they had the possibility to transform to different animals:
reptiles, birds, or mammals. Humans moved from primary to secondary society
like fish moved onto land: it is not an ordinary move but a move to a different
level that is open to multiple dimensions or directions.
Primary
society has long been disintegrated in modern civilized society. Since primary
society is determined by genetics, and human genetics has not been substantially
changed, we can still see the vestige of primary society. It is what Charles
Horton Cooley called the primary group, the circle of families, relatives, and
friends. 3
II. The Super State and the Two-level System in Ancient China
The
Western civilization, especially Mesopotamia and Greece, started with
city states. Primary society or clans were disintegrated to form city states
with free citizens, a typical secondary society while the Chinese civilization
started as a super state of two-level system: the super state
enabled them to live in a relatively peaceful social environment while the
two-level system, the newly formed secondary society was built on the top of
numerous primary societies, enabled them to still live in primary or
quasi-primary society. A quasi-primary society is a society similar to primary
society. This system was first started by the Yellow Emperor around 2300 BC. 4 From 2300 to 476 BC, peace and morality were apparently the
main voices. The first authoritative volume of Chinese history, Historical
Records, starts with such words:
“…When Godly Farmer’s (Shen Nong) rule was weakened,
vassal states (tribes or federations of tribes) were fighting and conquering
each other, people were devastated, but Godly Farmer was unable to punish them
with military actions.” 5
Now the Chinese academic circle
considers Godly Farmer as a period of history and not a specific ruler. During
this time, agriculture was developed and people lived together in peace except
for its later years when violent conflicts developed. The first real ruler in
Chinese history was the Yellow Emperor, who conquered two large federations of
tribes that were apparently the major powers violating peace, and he then set
up this super state to put an end to those chaotic years. This super state was
further enlarged and solidified by Yu the Great around 2070 BC when the first
Chinese dynasty Xia was founded. A super state was
the far largest state of the known world to its people, and there were not any
other states to compete with it. With limited geographical knowledge, its
people saw this super state as the only power in the whole world. As the above
quotation implies, this superpower or super state was to function as police to
keep peace among tribes or confederations of tribes (vassal states) like the
United Nations keep peace in our world today. If primary society is encoded by genetics,
the following important assumption shall apply:
A primary
society or quasi-primary society will form automatically if,
1), the
population is no more than a few hundreds;
2), the
society is based on face-to-face interactions;
3), no
contact with and no ideological influence from secondary society;
4), no
outside force is threatening their survival.
The
Two-level System of Chinese Ancient Society from 2300 BC to 476 BC was modeled
as follows:
The King and his clan +
Intellectuals
Quasi-primary society
│
The vassals and their clans +
Intellectuals Quasi-primary society
│
Villages and
tribes
Primary society
Although the king and vassals, who were the heads of
vassal states, were in secondary society according to the above definitions,
they were able to live in quasi-primary society, since all the four “if”s in
the above important assumption were met. No similar powerful states competed
with this super state, which ensured that no outside force threatened their
survival. It is further explained as follows:
1), The king, vassals, villages/tribes, and their clans all
lived in primary or quasi-primary society.
2),
The king, vassals, and their clans lived a better material life than the
village/tribal people, but a ten percent tax was well tolerated and was not
enough to change the idle life style of the people.
3), The king and vassals did not live together, but they
engaged in face-to-face interaction. Their numbers were within a few hundreds,
and they formed a quasi-primary society;
4),
Similarly, the vassal and his subordinate headmen formed another quasi-primary
society. The king ruled his vassals and the vassals ruled their headmen in the
same way as a headman ruled his subjects in a primary society, mainly by
persuasion and consensus.
5), The relations between the above primary and quasi-primary societies
followed the princinple of reciprocity and mutual respect as if it was in
primary society.
6),
Ideally, adminstrative and military conflicts were minimized to nearly zero
according to the Taoist princinple: govern by doing nothing or follow the
natural way. At the level of the king and vassals, administration was mainly to
help those who could not survive by themselves, and military actions were
mainly to keep peace. Thus it was ideal if everyone was able to survive and
there was no violence.
Secondary
society is not an enlarged primary society but fundamentally different society.
The first critical thinker of China was Lao Tzu, who
had a clear vision about this difference. He said, “The human world (tianxia) is sacred, not something that can be
manipulated or possessed. Whoever manipulates the human world will fail.
Whoever possesses the human world will lose it.” (Daodejing,
Chapter 29)
The human
world is apparently a term used in contrast to primary society, and, therefore,
is secondary society. With limited geographical knowledge, their human world
was the only world they knew, the ancient Chinese world or China today. From those
words by Lao Tzu, we know that the king of the super state of China did not have
absolute power during or before Lao Tzu's time. The king and his government did
not possess their super state and did not have the power to manipulate state
affairs. What they could do was only to follow the natural course as the Taoist
philosophy says. Taoist philosophy is only a natural ideology that summarizes
the way of life in the ancient Chinese primary society.
In
summary, Chinese people were able to live in primary or quasi-primary society
after civilization, and human nature was still the main force to stabilize the
society and keep it functional. With the analogy of fish moving onto land, the
fish was on land but still in water in the Chinese system.
III. A Comparison
of Confucius with Socrates to Show their Different Social Environments
Confucius
was the first Chinese critical thinker who tried to restore the social order
and set up standards for human behaviour. Similarly, Socrates was the first
critical thinker who shifted his attention to society and the human world.
Their different thoughts and different outcomes are like hallmarks to label the
different societies they were in. The Greek society had been a typical
secondary society for at least a few hundred years before Socrates was born
while the Chinese still lived in primary or quasi-primary society. But the
Chinese society was in crisis during Confucius' time. Socrates is traditionally
regarded as the father of Western ethics or moral philosophy, and so is
Confucius of Chinese ethics. The two men lived nine years apart, and both died
in their early seventies. Neither of them wrote anything down, and far too much
was ascribed to them by their followers. Analects and Apology are
the most reliable sources for the two fatherly figures.
(1), The Top Contribution:
Socrates' most important contribution is the so-called Socratic Method, which
he largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts. The Socratic Method
is a negative method of hypothesis elimination by asking a series of questions.
With this method, better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and
eliminating those which lead to contradictions. The influence of this approach
is most strongly felt today in scientific studies.
As a
typical secondary society, the ancient Greek society was built to satisfy and
also stimulate the materialistic needs of the population. Knowledge,
techniques, and the social structure that supported such pursuits had to be
tested to increase its odds of success. Socrates' method reflects such a social
need, and also reflects the need of a more stable life course by the ordinary
people. Since secondary society faces all possibilities like a boat on
uncharted high seas, people need the more grounded experience of primary
society.
Confucius’s
most important contribution is the ethical code of benevolence and
righteousness (renyi) which he set up for
Chinese people. The core concept of this ethical code is benevolence (ren). Confucius once said, “Benevolence means loving
people.” In fact, ren (benevolence) and man
are interchangeable words in Analects. Thus Confucian benevolence (ren) is very close to the meaning of
humanity. When a primary society is facing the possibility of unwanted division,
people rely on collective unconsciousness to make sure the society stay intact,
since nobody has the power to force other members to stay. They call on people to
search in their subconscious the feeling that they are humans and they are
members of this society. In other words, they call on people to feel their
subconscious bond with the society and with others. As mentioned above, a
primary society is a whole at the subconscious level because the members are
linked together emotionally and psychologically.
Confucius
came up with a similar way to call on people's subconscious, and remind them:
“Please remember, you are human beings and behave like one!”
In
secondary society, humanity is pretty much a creation by man and culture.
Socrates would have responded to Confucius' call, “What kind of human beings?
Please define it first.”
It must be
pointed out that people who lived in ancient primary society responded to those
calls fundamentally different from us, since we are no longer as sensitive as
they were to those calls. An analogy is that a toddler playing outside and ignoring
his mother’s call comes back immediately when his mother asks, “You do not want
mommy any more?” A six month old infant knows to share his feeling with his
mother by looking at her repeatedly when he is excited with a new toy. It is
the subconscious bond between mother and child that the above toddler cannot
part with.
(2), The Meaning of Life: Many people have a life long
quest which serves as the meaning of their lives. Confucius' quest was to
restore the social order while Socrates' quest was to find the truth. When a
primary society was in trouble, every member felt the obligation to help
especially the elite. In a secondary society, it was not Socrates' business to
restore social order, and his duty was to fight bravely in the battlefield and
work hard to make a living. In the remaining time, Socrates quest was to
examine everyone including himself and also examine many philosophical topics
in order to find the truth. Such truth is ultimate in nature, not influenced by
personal opinions. Such a concept of truth is characteristic of secondary
society, of which the construction is based on rational thinking. Generally
speaking, it is beyond the reach of a primary society to seek such truth. In
the social affairs of primary society, it is mingled with emotions and
psychological feelings that rules out any rational thinking and calculation.
The Chinese say, a law-binding magistrate keeps himself from meddling in family
affairs. What Socrates sought was exactly the truth in life and in society.
Unfortunately the truth Socrates finally found was unacceptable to the Athenian
authority and the Athenian citizens, which led to his execution.
(3), Governing by Doing Nothing as
a Political Philosophy and as a Way of Life: To govern by doing nothing (wuweierzhi) is often regarded as part of Taoist
philosophy. In fact, Confucius himself
held a strong belief in governing by doing nothing. Analects cites Shun, a legendary king, as the model of governing by
doing nothing. Shun was said to have only five officials but the whole China was orderly
during his reign. Once Confucius says, “The one who governed by doing nothing
was Shun, and wasn’t he? What did he do? He did nothing except for sitting in
the throne solemnly and courteously.”(Analects 15.4)
The
Western social and political philosophy hardly had any thoughts in history
close to such an idea of doing nothing to rule. Western civilizations were
adventurous expeditions on large scales from the very beginning.
Furthermore,
Confucius gave a lovely picture of the life in the ancient Chinese primary
society where there was no trace of any government. It is another way to
express his belief in governing by doing nothing. He says, “When the Tao
prevailed, the world was publicly owned, virtuous ones were selected and able
ones were chosen, and people lived in harmony and honesty was valued. Everyone
treated all the others as his own family, and treated all children as his own
children. The elderly enjoyed their later years, the middle-aged made their
contribution, and the young were nurtured to grow up. All those who had lost
their families were taken care of. Males had their shares, and women had
husbands. Goods were displayed on the ground, and nobody took them as their
own. Everybody worked but not for themselves. There was neither plot nor
scheme, and there was neither theft nor robbery. Doors and gates were not
locked. It was called the World Commonwealth.” (Liji, The Rites)
If
governing by doing nothing summarizes the social and political ideology of
primary society, it can also be considered as a way of life. Thus it applies to
every level and every aspect of life.
In a
primary society, members spend their spare time enjoying themselves like most
animals do after their basic biological needs are fulfilled. Enjoyment includes
intellectual and philosophical pursuits, and also includes all aesthetic
pursuits. If spare time is time left when one’s basic biological desires are
fulfilled, civilization can be built using spare time or its building process
can be enjoyed by the people who build it. Thus the Chinese system did not
hinder the development of their civilization though their early civilization
may be less materialistic and ostentatious.
A
secondary society often organizes its members to pursue its goal using their
spare time. It is most successful if it makes its member regard the goal as
their own. An easy way to achieve this is to link the goal to war, which makes
any goal look like a survival issue. Such tricks worked in the Greek system but
did not work with the Chinese super state of a two-level system.
The
Chinese system was based on human nature and therefore unable to accommodate
any big project like building the pyramids that was outside the survival needs
of the population, since it was hard to get the consensus of the whole
population. During the above mentioned period from 2300 to 476 BC, there was no
such project mentioned in Chinese records except for the flood control around
2100 BC. The vast flooded area itself was an urgent call to the population so
that it could be regarded as a project for survival. On the other hand, in 841
BC, the angry citizens within the capital were enough to drive away the king.
During the subsequent history after 476 BC, the two-level system was
substantially changed but the traditions were still there. Two ambitious
emperors, one built the Great Wall and the other, the Great Canal to link up the
major rivers of China, both caused
massive uprisings and immediate collapse of their dynasties. Their projects
were far more useful than the ancient Egyptian pyramids and the Greek temples.
The
Chinese system itself also means the separation of the two-levels: primary
society and quasi-primary society. The former includes villages and the latter,
the king and vassals. They both lived their lives inside their own societies,
and the only connection between the two was tax and occasional military
service. In the ancient Greece, all the slaves,
free citizens, and government officials worked inside the same social and
economic network. The close connection between slaves and their masters ensured
the normal productive process. In the Chinese system, too many interactions
between the two levels might lead to the emergence of typical secondary
society, which would have the potential to destabilize the whole system. Lao
Tzu promotes the separation, and he says, “The best rulers are scarcely known
by their people…When the best rulers achieve their goals, their people would
say it is their own doing. (Daodejing, Chapter
17)”
As a result,
Confucius and Socrates had radically different attitudes towards physical
labour, though both of them were from poor families of the ruling class.
Socrates was one of the free citizens who formed the ruling class over slaves.
Confucius disliked physical labour and scorned those disciples who liked. He
was said to have never laboured his limbs and was unable to tell millets from
rice. Socrates was a mason. Some statues in the city of Athens were said to be sculptured
by him. As the duty of a citizen, Socrates bravely fought several battles. Both
as a teacher, Confucius apparently earned an income while Socrates refused to
teach for money. Socrates regarded his teaching as part of the ideal
philosopher’s life he was pursuing. It is apparent that the ancient Greek life
was more energetic and industrious while the Chinese, more peaceful.
(4), The Length of Speech: It is interesting to compare the
lengths of Socrates' and Confucius’s talks recorded by their followers. Analects
that records Confucius’s words during his whole life has only 27,000 words in
English translation while Apology that records Socrates' speech at the
court has 14,700 words in English translation. The way Plato recorded Socrates'
words might be different from the way Confucius’s disciples recorded
Confucius’s words, and the latter might be more concise. Both Plato and Meng Tzu (372-289 BC) expounded their thoughts in detail,
since they both wrote for contemporary and future readers. Plato wrote more
than two dozen books ranging from 20 to 300 modern printed pages while Meng Tzu wrote only one book with some 45,000 Chinese
characters and less than 100 modern printed pages. The difference reflects the
different functions of language in primary and secondary societies. China and Greece were at different
stages of language evolution though they were both in typical Axial Age.
Anthropologists
believed that primates groom each other as a way to solidify the social bond
while naked humans chat with each other to solidify their social bond. Even
today when people spend most time working, watching television, they still chat
at home. Such chat does not necessarily function as exchange of information or
discussion of a current issue but can be only for the enjoyment. I often see
children of three or four years old chat this way: they giggle wholeheartedly
at the nonsense they are talking. Such chat is a piece of pure art. Through
such chat and other collective activities, all members integrate into a whole
psychologically and emotionally in primary society. The cohesive force and the
unity of secondary society rely on the uniform understanding of their
collective goals. A highly developed system of communication that is based on
exchange of information is a must.
Both Lao
Tzu and Confucius lived in the late Spring and Autumn
Period (770-476 BC) when the above two-level system was in crisis, and a new
system had not emerged yet to replace the old one. Both Lao Tzu and Confucius
admired the past. Confucius’s Analects is by no means a chat, and
Confucius himself lived a life more like that in secondary society since he
traveled from state to state to promote his ideas. The friendly atmosphere
among his disciples and himself is more like a typical primary society. Since
people could live in primary or quasi-primary society with the above two-level
system, they lacked the experience of secondary society and lacked their
sophisticated language. Plato and Socrates used to worry about the emotional
effect of poetry and arts and ban them from their ideal republic except hymns
to the gods and praise of famous men. Modern arts have lost such effects
because we have all been exposed to too many arts already since our childhood.
Similarly we have all lost our sensitivity to language, printed or spoken
words. You can finish reading Analects within a few hours but it is not
the way to read it. You have to read only a few lines a day and ruminating over
those words the whole day. You may then appreciate the beauty and deep meanings
of those words. You may even be induced into a particular mood that was
precisely the effects of those words. You then may roughly have experienced
what ancient people did when they heard those words because they were sensitive
and we are not. Such effects do not apply to Socrates' speech in Apology,
which is not much different from today's speech of a similar man in a similar
situation. Ancient Greek secondary society was well developed by Socrates'
time.
A Chinese
scholar says, Analects is one of the few good
books that you can read any time under any circumstances and enjoy it. It will
calm you down when you are in a bad mood. According to him, Meng
Tzu's book does not have such effects on him. 6 Thus, Analects is not an ordinary
piece of art like Children's chats but one of the greatest masterpieces of art
in thousands of years. Meng Tzu, though a loyal
Confucian scholar he was, lived in the period of Warring States (475-221 BC)
when secondary society was well established. The time required him to write
differently from Confucius: there is more information and more insights but it
is less like a piece of art.
(5), Religious Philosophy: In the early stage of secondary
society, religion or belief in gods was often used to consecrate the form and
course a society was taking, and thus provide a powerful cohesive force to stop
its members from seeking other types of secondary society. It was certainly a
contributing factor in the outcomes of ancient Greek wars. When Greeks defeated
the Persian invasion in 480 BC, the Greek cities agreed to restore the Temple at Olympia and build a great
temple to Zeus and a huge statue of him to thank the gods for their victory.
When the Athenians were defeated in the Peloponnesian war (431-404 BC),
Socrates was executed for blasphemy.
In primary
society, the social cohesive force was human nature, and they did not face the
possibility of different types of society. Their religion was quite different. Chuang Tzu says, “In the
ancient time, yin and yang were in harmony. Gods and spirits were quiet and did
not interfere with people. The four seasons followed their course. Animals and
plants were not harmed. Humans lived to their full life span. People had
knowledge but there was no use of it. This is called the big One.”( zhuangzi, Chapter 16)
Chinese
countryside was close to Taoist ideal society. They consumed what they
produced, and only rarely bought something from outside. Here I use my own
experience to show the different attitude of Chinese people toward religion
because of the Taoist cultural tradition.
When I was
a child in the early1950s, the gods Chinese peasants worshiped were all natural
deities. The only god who had a temple for villagers to pay respect was the god
of earth. A village may have several such temples, each for a clan or a cluster
of households, since it was considered as a local god like the headman of a
tribe. They were usually the size of a room, much smaller than a farmer house.
Even a single room, peasants never forgot to use it for something else. They
could be used as grind mills, public places for meetings, or playing grounds
for children during rainy days. In my village, all the temples for the god of
earth had no image of the god. Each household of peasants usually worshiped
three additional gods: the kitchen god, the fortune god, and the god of heaven
and earth. Except for the kitchen god who had a paper portrait hung on the
wall, the other two were only specific locations, the granary for the fortune
god, and the yard for the god of heaven and earth. There were neither images of
gods nor any shrines for those two gods. The god of heaven and earth was really
a god of nature and had thus no image, but the fortune god was a male anthropomorphic
god. Even with the portrait of the kitchen god, a Chinese calendar was printed
below the god image to increase its sale. As a child, I saw clearly that Chuang Tzu was right: gods do not interfere with people,
and they do not have the power. When Buddhism and Christianity spread to China, Chinese peasants
worshiped them all as part of their polytheist faith. Since the houses of
Chinese peasants were all one-storey, you could see only trees and crops in the
summer. Such a natural picture of life was well in contrast to modern cities
and to the ancient Greek landscape with huge buildings. My hometown is some two
hundred mile south of Beijing but to my
knowledge, it was more or less the same in all Chinese countryside in the
1950s.
Under such
circumstances, Confucius' principles regarding gods are: pay your respect to
gods and spirits but keep a distance from them. A suitable interpretation of
these principles is that gods and people do not interfere with each other. It
is like in a primary society where nobody can force his will on others. Furthermore,
Confucius had so-call Four No-Comments in his teaching and counselling
practice, namely, Confucius never spoke about parapsychology, psychic power,
mental disturbance, and ghosts (guaililuanshen).
Confucius seemed to understand well today's psychology of religion. He was a
practical man and did not want to go into these grey areas. His religious
attitudes brought him no trouble since gods do not interfere with people in a
primary society setting.
A
secondary society often stimulates its talents into free thinking but
restricting it within its boundary, and often stimulates its talents into
religious imagination but restricting it within its gods and beliefs. Socrates
went too far both in religious imagination and in free thinking for his society
to tolerate. Socrates talked about his inner voice that stopped him from
entering politics. In a deep religious culture, such subconscious similar to
Socrates' inner voice must be commonplace. The Athens government used
Socrates to stop others, or even to use him as a scapegoat to silence
complaints. Such political trickery is typical of secondary society that is not
seen in primary society.
(6), The United One of Heaven and Man (tianrenheyi): The Chinese philosophical phrase tirenheyi, (heaven and man are one, or the
united one of heaven and man) is a concept that embraces a broad array of interpretations,
including man's immersing himself in nature or losing himself in meditation. It
is often regarded as the hallmark of Chinese philosophy that stresses the
holistic thinking. As modern science shows, both man and the world are made by
the same atoms and obeying the same law of nature. Furthermore, spiritual
people pursue the high entity that guides both man and nature.
Confucius
certainly had such a belief in the united one of heaven and man. He talked
about the mandate of heaven and emphasized the heart and human nature. His
follower Meng Tzu furthered Confucius' thought
saying, “Once one knows human nature, he will know heaven.” (Mengzi: Jinxin)
Mr. Fang,
a notable Chinese scholar, has recently pointed out that both Western and
Chinese philosophers believe in the united one of heaven and man, and there is
no fundamental difference among their beliefs. He says, “Almost all Western
traditional metaphysicians held and expounded the view of the united one of heaven
and man, because one of the utmost ideals of Western traditional metaphysics is
to seek the ultimate reality and the guiding principle for the whole world.” 7 Socrates was indeed one of those
metaphysicians. Thus both Confucius and Socrates believed in the united one of
heaven and man.
I disagree
with Mr. Fang, and I believe that their beliefs are fundamentally different though
Western and Chinese philosophers may both hold the same view that heaven and
man are one or the united one of heaven and man. Chinese philosophy was first
hatched in a primary society while Western philosophy was founded in a
secondary society. The words “heaven” (tian)
and “man” (ren) may identify different
entities in primary and secondary societies.
The Chinese
word tian (heaven) can mean three things: God,
nature, and ideology. All the three words, God, nature, and ideology, indicate
different things in primary and secondary societies. In primary society, gods
do not interfere with people, people are integral part of nature, and if they
have an ideology, their ideology is based on human nature and instinct. Their
ideology is shared by all primary societies. In secondary society, God often
interferes with people and has the power to kill those who, like Socrates,
offended God. Nature is something to work on and to conquer in secondary
society while primary society has no intention or power to conquer nature as
they see themselves as part of nature. The ideology of a secondary society is
created by man, and different societies and different people have different
ideologies. Primary society has no ideology in such a sense. Therefore, God,
nature, and ideology indicate completely different entities though they use the
same words.
With a
fixed ideology and social structure as its guide, and with God as its inspiration,
a particular secondary society can pursue whatever their goals may be in the
environment of nature. Both Mesopotamian and Greek civilizations commercialized
society to stimulate and satisfy the materialistic needs of the population.
During the Axial Age, Greece had a huge class
of slaves, but those slaves were part of this social structure built by man.
Therefore, government officials, free citizens, and slaves were all well
organized into the same system to pursue the same goals.
Finally,
the word “man” (ren) also points to different
entities in primary and secondary society. In primary society, man is a natural
man who is encoded by genetics and guided by human nature. As secondary society
is created by man, and the man who lives in it is also of his own making. It is
only in secondary society that a man can pursue a life of his own choice that
is not dictated by human nature, though the majority of us are dictated to by
our culture. But our culture is largely a creation of man. Human nature
remained the major topic in Chinese philosophy from the Axial Age till the last
dynasty ended in 1911. The predominant opinion was that human nature is born good. In the West, the discussion of human nature involved
many controversies though the latest thoughts tend to assert that human nature
is the product of either culture or the result of our own free choice. 8, 9 In
other words, man is of his own making.
As
mentioned above, humans moved from primary to secondary society like fish moved
to land. When fish moved onto land and became a land animal such as mammals or
birds, they can no longer be called as fish, and it is only their ancestors
that were fish.
Both
Chinese Taoist philosophy and Confucian philosophy hold the view that heaven
and man are one, but only Taoist philosophy holds primary society as its ideal
model and holds itself back from secondary society. In Taoist opinion, a man
can still become a natural man in the modern society. They call such man a real
man.
IV. Conclusion
Many consider the
ancient Greek city, Athens, as unique such
as commercial activities, wealth, democracy, the pooling of different people
with different ideas from different places etc., to produce the most critical
thinkers during the Axial Age. The Axial China had none of those. But there was
one thing they shared with the Athenian, and that is freedom. The Chinese had
no freedom to pursue wealth or any projects on the Athenian scale, but they did
not have the bondage of commercial activities, wealth, democracy, etc. either.
The first Chinese philosophers were able to think from the basis of the born
human nature and the genetically coded society, primary society. Although the
whole world including China is now on the
road built by Axial Greece or the Western civilization, Chinese culture may
still point to a different direction for the future.
Endnotes
1. The original words are: “The safest general characterization of
the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of
footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which
scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of
general ideas scattered through them…” Alfred North Whitehead,
Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Corrected edition, edited
by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne (Free Press, 1979).
2. You-Sheng Li, A
New Interpretation of Chinese Taoist Philosophy (London, Canada: Taoist Recovery
Centre, 2005), 36-45, 232. The Chinese version of this book: You-Sheng Li, Zhonghua Daoxuede yige xinjieshi (London, Canada: Taoist Recovery
Centre, 2005), 338-64.
3. Gordon Marshall, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of
Sociology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 92-93; and Charles Horton
Cooley, Social Organization (New York: Schocken
Books, 1962).
4. The Yellow
Emperor is considered to be a legendary figure, and the time of his reign
around 2300 BC is only an estimation.
5. All quotations
from Chinese resources in this article are translated by the author You-Sheng
Li.
6. Liu Mengxi, Zhuangzi yu Xiandai he Houxiandai
(Chuang Tzu and Modern/Post Modern) (Hebei Jiaoyu Chubanshe, 2004), 24.
7. Fang Zhaohui, “Shitan Xifang Sixiangshi Shangde Tianrenheyi Chuantong”(On the Traditional Concept of the United One
of Heaven and Man in the Western History of Thought), http://www.Confucius2000.com,
2006.
8. Michael Ruse: “Human
Nature,” in The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1995), 376-77.
9. Gordon Marshall, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of
Sociology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 227.
Chinese Glossary
Zhuangzi 莊子 Tian 天
Daodejing 道德經 Tianrenheyi 天人合一
Guaililuanshen 怪力亂神 Tianxia 天下
Mengzi: jinxin 孟子﹕盡心 Wuweierzhi 無為而治
Ren
人 Yi 義
Ren
仁
Renyi 仁義
shennong 神農
Liji (The Rites ) 禮記
