At the beginning of the article, the sages of past dynasties are listed, and the fable of "waiting for the rabbit" is quoted, and various rhetorical devices such as parallelism and metaphor are used to satirize the conservatives who "want the former king to be a political modern man". It can be said that it hit the nail on the head, hitting the nail on the head and making people stunned.
However, the author's weakness is revealed when he turns to explain the deep reason of the theory that "ancient and modern customs are different and new ideas are different". The author said: "the husband of the ancients did not plow, and all plants and trees ate;" Women don't knit, and animals' skins are all clothes. If you don't work hard to lift your feet, the people have less money and more money, and the people don't argue. " This is really a low-level mistake. As we all know, in primitive society, the productivity is extremely low, and people can only survive if Qi Xin cooperates and distributes products equally. It was not until the level of productive forces developed to private ownership and even the emergence of class countries that the production mode and distribution mode of * * * working together and distributing products equally were abolished and replaced by slavery production relations. In Laozi's view, the deep-seated reason for the demise of ancient "Great Harmony" is the selfishness of human nature. This is actually another manifestation of the emergence of private ownership caused by the development of productive forces. However, Han Feizi blamed the "people's struggle" on the "people's poverty and wealth" and logically made the mistake of "replacing the essence with the phenomenon". This fundamental position is fallacious, and the following argument can only be repeated mistakes. First of all, Han Feizi cited the example of "King Yu is the king of the world", and made a mistake in time ... people-oriented, endless stock, barren bones ... ". "There is no shortage of stocks, and there is no hair on the shin" describes Dayu's hard work in managing water, not his hard work after he became the master of the world. For example, then Han Feizi said, "It is difficult for the county magistrate to go today because people make way for him ...". As we all know, Yao Shunyu and other ancient kings are mythical figures, and their authenticity remains to be tested. As a political system in the late primitive society with low productivity, abdication system has its rationality and fixity, and is not controlled by the owner's personal wishes. So why say "light"? If you don't have to give up, it's at least another thing: "You can go to the old and welcome the new when your term expires." Finally, Han Feizi came to such a conclusion: "It is easy to be rich in ancient times, but it is not benevolent, and it is rich and rich. Today's struggle is not despicable, and there is little wealth; Farewell to the son of heaven, not high, weak, the weight of the land, not down, heavy. " It is a fallacy to say that more money is less. No matter from the overall level or per capita property, I believe no one will accept the view that "primitive society has more property than feudal society" It is also nonsense to say that the ancient emperor was weak. Is it a sign of cowardice that Dayu killed Fang Feng because of a small mistake? Speaking of the status of the ancient emperor, he had little power and wealth, so why did Xia Qi kill Boyi to inherit this job? If it's not a struggle, what is it? The third is also. With these three fallacies, even if the famous thesis that "the story is suitable for the world" is drawn, its argumentation system cannot be established, and it can only be said to be sophistry. How can a smart person like Han Feizi not see the loophole? Just as a representative of Legalism, he tried his best to maintain the rationality of the existence of monarchy and state institutions, and tried his best to maintain the position of private ownership as a direct symbol of the state, so as to prevent Laozi's thought of "small country and few people" from being deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. So he overcorrected. On the one hand, he avoided the deep-seated causes of private ownership caused by the development of productive forces; on the other hand, he acted recklessly? Avoid ups and downs? Hang up? Heir? Contradictory? What happened to Nandao? What happened to poor Linlin? Squinting geisha? Address? What are you doing?
In the following conclusion, Han Feizi adopted the usual method of "attacking one point, not as good as the rest". But the conclusion is really unconvincing. Taking Zhou Wenwang as an example, he cited King Huai Xirong as the emperor of the world, and Xu Yanwang's benevolence and righteousness led to national subjugation, which showed how one-sided it was to say that "benevolence and righteousness were used in the past but not today". The king of Qin adopted such a one-sided view, and the final result can only be what Jia Yi said in "On Qin": "benevolence and righteousness are not applied, and the offensive and defensive trends are different." Next, "Benevolence and righteousness, Zigong fight for Lu." A word is even more slippery. This may be somewhat similar to describing Song Xianggong's failure because of his righteousness, but it will not lead to national subjugation. Which of the five tyrants in the Spring and Autumn Period ruled the country by tyranny? As for arguing and attacking the country, I believe that Lu Zhonglian and all of you will not agree with the candle dance. There is nothing wrong with restraining Confucianism and attaching importance to law, but speaking out of turn and respecting punishment. Just extreme and one-sided, I'm afraid it will make people laugh but not generous.
Policy papers always pay attention to logical rigor. Han Fei takes Cang Xie's creation of the word "public" and "private" as an example to illustrate that "incompatible things cannot be reconciled". Limited by the times, it is understandable that Han Feizi has never heard of the word "win-win", but he overemphasizes the opposition between benevolence and justice and the legal system, and the author dare not compliment him. Ruling the country by law and by virtue is still a topic of discussion until today, and Han Feizi arbitrarily concluded more than two thousand years ago that "it is inevitable that today's scholars say that people are masters, do not win, can be kings, and ask people to be masters, and everyone in the world is like a disciple." Furthermore, in order to highlight the rule of law, the king of Qin was even required to implement the "ignorance policy" of "teaching people by law", and the skill of guiding the king of Qin to play with political skills was at its peak. It's just that there are many examples of benevolent governance in past dynasties. For example, in the Han Dynasty after the Qin Dynasty, in order to buy the hearts of Liu Bang and let him enter Xianyang, Qin Dou, it was natural to show benevolence and righteousness, so harsh laws were abolished. But it can't be completely hopeless, so it is "three chapters of the law." Wendi was moved by Ti Ying's filial piety to save his father, which reflected benevolence and righteousness, but he did not abolish the punishment, but only imposed a lighter stick instead. Both of them were handed down as beautiful talks by later generations. Huang Lao's theory of "ruling by doing nothing and recuperating" in the early Han Dynasty was a manifestation of benevolent government, but it did not stop the appearance of cruel officials such as Zhang Tang and Zhufuyan. Dong Zhongshu's emphasis on "divine right of monarchy" and his rejection of Confucianism are the concentrated expressions of Confucian benevolent governance and legalist centralization. Under the combination of benevolent government and rule of law, there has been a prosperous situation of the rule of culture and scenery. I wonder how Han Feizi would feel if he had knowledge under the spring. Perhaps Han Feizi needed such courage to suppress Confucianism and respect the law in the troubled times when he longed for reunification, but if this was the direct cause of the tyranny of the Qin Dynasty, he was also to blame.
At the end of the article, the author also wants to talk about Han Feizi's thought of emphasizing agriculture and restraining business. This view has long been put forward and demonstrated by legalist pioneers Guan Zi, Shen Buhai and others. It's nothing new, but Han Fei's final list of five poisons still makes me feel very cold. On the one hand, I think Han Fei's attack is too big, so it is unnecessary to arrest all Confucianism, strategists, rangers (Mohist tribes), monarchs, ministers and businessmen just because he emphasizes his own views. This may not make the country strong, but it may make the country fall into a backward and ignorant situation. Especially when the monarch is a bad king. On the other hand, personally, such an ending is easy to make enemies. Perhaps in the end, Han Fei was framed and killed by Reese and Yao Jia, which was related to his ignorant attitude towards life in Loyalty. Yao Jia killed Han Fei in The Warring States Policy and Qin Ce V, and Tai Shigong also commented that Reese framed Han Fei in Historical Records, Lao Zi and Biography of Shen Buhai, so I won't discuss it further here.
Throughout the whole text, the structure of Wu Zhu is compact and complicated, the writing is sharp and unrestrained, and the argument is exquisite. Despite the above defects, it is still a rare masterpiece as far as the article is concerned. Lack of argument is like playing the lute at random. Although it didn't follow the rules, it also took people away.