The Concept of "Man" in Ancient Confucianism —— Also on the Debate between Confucianism and Mohism
Release date: April 2008-19 Click: 164.
Second, the case-solving dispute between Confucianism and Mohism.
(1) Mencius compared Yang Mo to an animal.
During the Warring States period, a hundred schools of thought contended and the stars were bright. Zhuangzi and Tianxia mean that each school has its own way. Sima Tan said that each family should manage its own affairs, "each has its own way and each has its own ear." ("Historical Records" and "Preface to Taishi Gong") Because of different opinions, it is common to see difficult words from each other. One of the harshest words is that Mencius compared Yang Mo with animals.
Mencius regarded himself as a saint. He said,' Yang is for me, and there is no gentleman; Mohist universal love is fatherless. Without a father and a king, it is an animal. "("Mencius "and" Summer ") Modern scholars talk a lot here, because the word" beast "gives people the impression that it is extremely humiliating. Wang Zhong thought that Mozi "taught all the people in the world to be all-loving, filial to their closest relatives, and called them fatherless." [7] redress for Mozi. Shen Gangbo thinks that there is not much difference between Mohism's theory of "feeling the same, giving as the beginning" and Confucius' filial piety thought. The real reason why Mencius refuted Mozi was that Mozi combined love and benefit. Therefore, Shen Shi also believes that the "fatherless" felony and the "beast" notoriety are indeed too severe and should be rehabilitated. "[8] Mei Yibao even said,' Mozi is selfless and self-sacrificing. He should only be praised, but how can he be criticized? It goes without saying that Mozi's universal love has no father and no father is an animal. It goes without saying that Mozi is an animal! This is really not like discussing academics, and there is no such argument in the world. [9] In the ten years of the Republic of China, Liang Qichao said in the book "The Case of Mozi":' Universal love has no father, so universal love has become an animal. I don't know where this ethics comes from. [10] A year later, in the History of Political Thought in Pre-Qin Dynasty, Liang revised Mencius' assertion that "love has no father" and thought it was not abuse. But Liang still regards universal love as the highest ideal of human beings, but it is just' good but not available'. [1 1] All the above sages affirmed that Mozi's theory of universal love was a lofty ideal, or considered it' good but useless'; Or that there is no difference between universal love theory and Confucian universal love theory; However, Mencius compared animals to Mozi and expressed great dissatisfaction. People close to Mozi rehabilitate their grievances, and most of them use' beast' as a simple swearing language, which is contrary to Mencius' great demeanor. But Mencius criticized Yang Mo, who had no father and no gentleman, and was an "animal". Is this just a temporary insult? Does the word "beast" have a special meaning in this context? It seems to be ignored. www.54yjs.cn
(2) The difference between man and beast as understood by ancient Confucianism.
There are five references to' animals' in Mencius, one of which quotes Mencius' rejection of Yang Mo; The second part is On Teng Wengong:
People have a way, eat and wear warm clothes, live in seclusion and don't teach, so they are close to animals. Sage worries, about Stuart, teaches human relations: father and son are close, monarch and minister are righteous, husband and wife are different, young and old are orderly, and friends are trustworthy.
The third part is Under Li Lou:
The reason why a gentleman is different is because of his heart. A gentleman is considerate with benevolence and considerate with courtesy. ..... Since it is a benevolent person, since it is a courtesy person, it is also deviant. A gentleman will do the opposite: I will be unfaithful. Since loyalty, its disobedience is also justified. The gentleman said,' This is also stupid. Why choose it with the beast? "What's so hard about animals?"
The fourth is "GaoZiShang":
Although people have it, don't they have the heart of righteousness? The reason why it puts its conscience is to point an axe at the wood, and it can be beautiful when it is cut at any time. The rest of the day and night are peaceful, and their likes and dislikes are similar to those of people, and their paintings are doomed. Repeatedly, the air at night is not enough to survive; If there is not enough air at night, it is not far from invading wild animals. Is it a pity that people think that they have never been talented when they see their beasts? The fifth part is "Li Lou":
The reason why people are different from animals is that they want ordinary people to go and gentlemen to stay. Shun ming is good at ordinary things, observes human feelings, and acts with benevolence and righteousness, not with benevolence and righteousness.
These five paragraphs about animals reveal quite complicated news. It can be analyzed from at least three different levels. The first is to distinguish between man and beast. Mencius clearly pointed out that' no father, no gentleman, is an animal'. At the same time, Mencius believes that if you just eat and wear warm clothes, if you live in seclusion and don't teach, you are close to an animal. The specific content of' teaching' is the human relations system taught by the contract:' father and son are related, the monarch and the minister are righteous, the husband and wife are different, the age is orderly, and friends are trustworthy.' The former can actually be included in the latter, and the father has the way of monarch, that is, the father and son in the five ethics, monarch and minister. These five ethical relations and their specific norms (affection, justice, parting, order and faithfulness) are the concrete contents of human beings, and they are also the places where human beings are different from animals. www.54yjs.cn
Secondly, since the distinction between man and beast is not entirely based on biological standards, and thus the cultural significance is established, it is debatable whether a person with human form in biology is absolutely called' man'. Some people are good enough to be human, while others are close to animals. The difference between trial and judgment is still whether they have five virtues, and their concrete presentation is the difference between a gentleman and a villain (ordinary people). Mencius said that the difference between man and beast is very subtle, and these things are' Shu Ren goes there, and the gentleman keeps it'. At the same time, when a gentleman is disobedient, if he is kind and polite, and he can reflect kindness and courtesy as much as he can, then the disobedience he encounters is the opposition between a fool and a gentleman, and he doesn't know how to be kind and polite, just like an animal.
Furthermore, Mencius further discussed the universal basis of human characteristics (benevolence, courtesy and five virtues, in fact, the three are one) and their differences in concrete practice. Although people have it, don't they have the heart of righteousness? As a human trait, benevolence and righteousness are inherently sufficient and universally exist in every biological person. However, due to the difference of cultivation time the day after tomorrow,' those who put their conscience on are as heavy as axes, and they will be cut down when they die' and' the lack of night air is not far from violating animals. '
The above three levels are interrelated, and also related to some important issues in the history of China's ancient thought and social history. Choosing people beyond the biological level to judge also means setting a set of rules or norms for people's thoughts and behaviors, thus establishing a mode of human life operation. Because the selected standard is specific and special, it is not universal compared with the operation mode of human life. I am a freshman.
On the one hand, this paradigm is incompatible with other possible paradigms, on the other hand, it excludes some biological people by its definition. As mentioned above, some people are not really' people', but close to animals. So people are divided into several different categories, and what kind of relationship between different categories of people specifically affects the arrangement of the world order. In the following discussion, it can be found that the definition of human way and the emergence of different ideas are closely related to the existing lifestyle of human beings (see below for details). Between ideas and social practice, one party does not decide the other, but a dialectical and interpenetrating relationship.
The third of these three levels and its related issues will be discussed in the third part of this paper. In this part, I only try to clarify the deep meaning of Mencius' denunciation of Mozi beast from the first two levels. We clearly see that' fatherlessness' is the main reason why Mencius criticized Mozi, that is, Mencius thought Mozi lacked the most basic human condition: the relationship between father and son, so he denounced him as an animal. So we have to ask, is there no father-son relationship in Mozi's mind? This will continue in the next section. Another question is: What distinguishes people from animals is benevolence, courtesy or five virtues, so what is the solution of "Shu Ren goes to it and the gentleman stays"? Are people close to animals because they have no five virtues of benevolence, righteousness, propriety and righteousness? How to define' subaltern' and' gentleman'? On the surface, this issue seems to have nothing to do with the dispute between Confucianism and Mohism, but in fact it has a very important relationship.
The word' gentleman' originally refers to aristocrats, so in the classical sense,' gentleman' and' Shu Ren' are only two categories of relative treatment. In recent years, scholars believe that the social class meaning of "gentleman" has been replaced by moral meaning since Confucius. After Confucius, those who call themselves "gentlemen" mostly refer to people with high morality. I think it can be established, but it is not complete. Confucius endowed "gentleman" with moral significance, or an indisputable theory. However, can this "gentleman" be called a moral civilian (villain)? There is no doubt about it. B.I.Schwartz interprets "gentleman" as "TR2006-11-25 3: 51:kloc-0/0 UE aristocrats", that is, Confucius endowed the aristocrats in feudal society with new moral contents, which only some moral people practiced. Maybe this is a more appropriate understanding. That is to say, from the context of Mencius' quotation, it seems that' gentleman' and' Shu Ren' are relative, and it is inappropriate to judge both ends simply by moral standards. If the terms "gentleman" and "Shu Ren" in this chapter must be understood from the social stratum, then why did Mencius say "where Shu Ren goes, the gentleman stays"?