The ten thousand things are a part of the Way. One thing is a part of the ten thousand things. A stupid man is a part of one thing. But he thinks that he knows the Way. He really does not know. Shen Tzu22 has insight about following but not about leading. Lao Tzu has insight about bending but not about expansion. Mo Tzu has insight about equality (universal love) but not about inequality (distinction in human relations). And Sung Tzu23 had insight about having few desires but not about having many desires. If there is only insight on following and not on leading [in the case of a ruler], then the multitude will have no direction to go by.24 If there is only insight on bending and not on expansion, then noble stations (corresponding to expansion) and humble stations (corresponding to bending) will not be distinguished. If there is only insight on equality and not on inequality, then governmental measures and orders [which are intended to bring about equality and justice] cannot be carried out. If there is only insight on few desires and not on many, then the multitude cannot be transformed [for there would not be sufficient incentive]. The Book of History says, “Make no special effort to like. Follow the kingly way. Make no special effort to dislike. Follow the kingly path.”25 This is what I mean, (sptk, 11:15b-25b)
Comment. This is one of the best known classical critiques of ancient Chinese philosophers. There are four other critiques. Two are in the Hsün Tzu26 and the other two in the Chuang Tzu27 and the Han Fei Tzu.28 This shows that Hsün Tzu was the most critical of ancient Chinese philosophers. It also shows that a great variety of thought and extensive freedom of discussion existed in ancient China, a situation comparable to that in ancient Greece.29
2. On the Rectification of Names (ch. 22)
. . . When sage-kings instituted names, the names were fixed and actualities distinguished. The sage-kings’ principles were carried out and their wills understood. Then the people were carefully led and unified. Therefore, the practice of splitting terms and arbitrarily creating names to confuse correct names, thus causing much doubt in people’s minds and bringing about much litigation, was called great wickedness. It was a crime, like private manufacturing of credentials and measurements, and therefore the people dared not rely on strange terms created to confuse correct names. Hence the people were honest. Being honest, they were easily employed. Being easily employed, they achieved results. Since the people dared not rely on strange terms created to confuse correct names, they single-mindedly followed the law and carefully obeyed orders. In this way, the traces of their accomplishments spread. The spreading of traces and the achievement of results are the highest point of good government. This is the result of careful abiding by the conventional30 meaning of names.
Now the sage-kings are dead and the guarding of names has become lax, strange terms have arisen, and names and actualities have been confused. As the standard of right and wrong is not clear, even the guardians of law and the teachers of natural principles31 are in a state of confusion. Should a true king appear, he would certainly retain some old names and create new ones. This being the case, [1] the reason for having names, [2] the causes for the similarities and differences in names, and [3] the fundamental principles on which names are instituted, must be clearly understood.
[1] When different forms are separated from the mind and denote each other, and when different things are made mutually identified in name and actuality,32 the distinction between the noble and the humble is not clear and similarities and differences are not discriminated. Under such circumstances, there is bound to be danger that ideas will be misunderstood and work will encounter difficulty or be neglected. Therefore men of wisdom sought to establish distinctions and instituted names to indicate actualities, on the one hand clearly to distinguish the noble and the humble and, on the other, to discriminate between similarities and differences. When the distinctions between the noble and the humble are clear and similarities and differences are discriminated, there will be no danger of ideas being misunderstood and work encountering difficulties or being neglected. This is the reason for having names.
[2] What are the causes for the similarities and differences in names? I say: It is because of the natural organs. The organs of members of the same species with the same feelings perceive things in the same way. Therefore things are compared and those that are seemingly alike are generalized. In this way they share their conventional name as a common meeting ground. Forms, bodies, colors, and patterns (li) are distinctions made by the eye. Clear and unclear sounds, tunes, leading melodies, and unusual sounds are distinctions made by the ear. Sweet, bitter, salty and insipid, peppery and sour, and unusual tastes are distinctions made by the mouth. Fragrant and putrid smells, fresh and spoiled smells, smells of rotten meat, rancid and sour smells, and unusual smells are distinctions made by the nose. Pain and itching, cold and heat, smooth and rough, light and heavy are distinctions made by the body. Enjoying doing a thing and feeling being forced to do a thing, and the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, joy, like, dislike, and desire are distinctions made by the mind.
The mind collects33 the knowledge of the senses. It is because the mind collects knowledge that it is possible to know sound through the ear and form through the eye. But the collection of knowledge must also depend on the natural organs first registering it according to its classification. If the five organs register it without knowing what it is, and the mind collects it without understanding it, then everyone says there is no knowledge. These are the causes for the similarities and differences in names.
[3] Then, accordingly, names are given to things. Similar things are given the same name and different things are given different names. When a simple name (e.g., horse) is sufficient to express the meaning, a simple name is used. When a simple name is insufficient, then a compound name (e.g., white horse) is used. When simple and compound concepts do not conflict, then the general name (e.g., tree in general) may be used. Although it is a general name, it does no harm (to the differentiation of things). Knowing that different actualities should have different names, one should let different actualities always have different names. There should not be any confusion in this respect. And similar actualities should always have similar names. For although the myriad things are innumerable, sometimes we want to speak of them as a whole and so we call them “things.” “Things” is a great general name. We carry the process further and generalize. In generalizing, we find more things to generalize. We go on and will not stop until there is nothing more general. Sometimes we want to speak of one section of things (e.g., animals), and so we call them “animals.” “Animals” is a great particular name. We carry the process further and particularize. In particularizing, we find more things to particularize. We go on and will not stop until there is nothing more particular.
Names have no correctness of their own. The correctness is given by convention. When the convention is established and the custom is formed, they are called correct names. If they are contrary to convention, they are called incorrect names. Names have no corresponding actualities by themselves. The actualities ascribed to them are given by convention. When the convention is established and the custom is formed, they are called names of such-and-such actualities. But some names are felicitous in themselves. When a name is direct, easy to understand, and self-consistent, it is called a felicitous name.
There are things which have the same appearance but are in different places, and there are things which have different appearances but are in the same place (as a person when he is young and when he is old). These can be distinguished. When two things have the same appearance but are in two different places, although they may be grouped together, they are to be called two actualities. When the appearance changes but the actuality is not different, it is called transformation. When there is transformation but no difference in actuality, this is called one actuality. This is the way actualities are examined and their number determined. This is the fundamental principle on which names are instituted. When a latter-day king institutes names, he should cle
arly understand this.
Comment. Hsün Tzu’s latter-day kings are the same as Mencius’ ancient kings, namely, founders of the Chou dynasty, especially the Duke of Chou. The significant difference is that Hsün Tzu has a stronger inclination to look to a later period than other philosophers.
[The Three Fallacies] “It is no disgrace to be insulted.”34 “The sage does not love himself.”35 “To kill a robber is not to kill a man.”36 These are examples of the fallacy of so using names as to confuse names. Examine them in the light of [1] “the reason for having names” and see whether any of these statements is applicable. Then you will be able to stop the confusion.
“Mountains are on the same level as marshes.”37 “The desires seek to be few.”38 “Tender meat adds nothing to sweet taste, and the great bell adds nothing to music.”39 These are examples of the fallacy of so using actualities as to confuse names. Examine them by [2] “the cause for the similarities and differences in names” and see which of these statements are harmonious with them. Then you will be able to stop the confusion.
“Fei-erh-yeh, ying-yu-niu” (wrong but visit-a-superior, pillar has ox). “A [white] horse is not a horse.”40 These are examples of the fallacy of so using names as to confuse actualities. Examine them by [3] the convention of names and see how what they have rejected (a horse) contradicts what they have accepted (a white horse), and you will be able to stop the confusion. . . . (sptk, 160:2b-8b)
Comment. The rectification of names was a common topic of discussion among ancient Chinese philosophical schools. Only in Hsün Tzu, however, did it develop into some sort of systematic logical theory. Whereas in other schools the interest is chiefly social or moral, in Hsün Tzu it is predominantly logical. In fact, this is the nearest approach to logic in ancient Chinese philosophy.
3. The Nature of Man is Evil (ch. 23)
The nature of man is evil; his goodness is the result of his activity.41 Now, man’s inborn nature is to seek for gain. If this tendency is followed, strife and rapacity result and deference and compliance disappear. By inborn nature one is envious and hates others. If these tendencies are followed, injury and destruction result and loyalty and faithfulness disappear. By inborn nature one possesses the desires of ear and eye and likes sound and beauty. If these tendencies are followed, lewdness and licentiousness result, and the pattern and order of propriety and righteousness disappear. Therefore to follow man’s nature and his feelings will inevitably result in strife and rapacity, combine with rebellion and disorder, and end in violence. Therefore there must be the civilizing influence of teachers and laws and the guidance of propriety and righteousness, and then it will result in deference and compliance, combine with pattern and order, and end in discipline. From this point of view, it is clear that the nature of man is evil and that his goodness is the result of activity.
Crooked wood must be heated and bent before it becomes straight. Blunt metal must be ground and whetted before it becomes sharp. Now the nature of man is evil. It must depend on teachers and laws to become correct and achieve propriety and righteousness and then it becomes disciplined. Without teachers and laws, man is unbalanced, off the track, and incorrect. Without propriety and righteousness, there will be rebellion, disorder, and chaos. The sage-kings of antiquity, knowing that the nature of man is evil, and that it is unbalanced, off the track, incorrect, rebellious, disorderly, and undisciplined, created the rules of propriety and righteousness and instituted laws and systems in order to correct man’s feelings, transform them, and direct them so that they all may become disciplined and conform with the Way (Tao). Now people who are influenced by teachers and laws, accumulate literature and knowledge, and follow propriety and righteousness are superior men, whereas those who give rein to their feelings, enjoy indulgence, and violate propriety and righteousness are inferior men. From this point of view, it is clear that the nature of man is evil and that his goodness is the result of his activity.
Comment. In the Hsün Tzu, rules of propriety and law are often spoken of together, giving the impression that, unlike Confucius and Mencius who advocated propriety (li) as inner control, Hsün Tzu advocated it for external control. Thus rules of propriety shifted from being a means of personal moral cultivation to one of social control.
Mencius said, “Man learns because his nature is good.”42 This is not true. He did not know the nature of man and did not understand the distinction between man’s nature and his effort. Man’s nature is the product of Nature; it cannot be learned and cannot be worked for. Propriety and righteousness are produced by the sage. They can be learned by men and can be accomplished through work. What is in man but cannot be learned or worked for is his nature. What is in him and can be learned or accomplished through work is what can be achieved through activity. This is the difference between human nature and human activity. Now by nature man’s eye can see and his ear can hear. But the clarity of vision is not outside his eye and the distinctness of hearing is not outside his ear. It is clear that clear vision and distinct hearing cannot be learned. Mencius said, “The nature of man is good; it [becomes evil] because man destroys his original nature.” This is a mistake. By nature man departs from his primitive character and capacity as soon as he is born, and he is bound to destroy it. From this point of view, it is clear that man’s nature is evil.
By the original goodness of human nature is meant that man does not depart from his primitive character but makes it beautiful, and does not depart from his original capacity but utilizes it, so that beauty being [inherent] in his primitive character and goodness being [inherent] in his will are like clear vision being inherent in the eye and distinct hearing being inherent in the ear. Hence we say that the eye is clear and the ear is sharp. Now by nature man desires repletion when hungry, desires warmth when cold, and desires rest when tired. This is man’s natural feeling. But now when a man is hungry and sees some elders before him, he does not eat ahead of them but yields to them. When he is tired, he dares not seek rest because he wants to take over the work [of elders]. The son yielding to or taking over the work of his father, and the younger brother yielding to or taking over the work of his older brother—these two lines of action are contrary to original nature and violate natural feeling. Nevertheless, the way of filial piety is the pattern and order of propriety and righteousness. If one follows his natural feeling, he will have no deference or compliance. Deference and compliance are opposed to his natural feelings. From this point of view, it is clear that man’s nature is evil and that his goodness is the result of his activity.
Someone may ask, “If man’s nature is evil, whence come propriety and righteousness?” I answer that all propriety and righteousness are results of the activity of sages and not originally produced from man’s nature. The potter pounds the clay and makes the vessel. This being the case, the vessel is the product of the artisan’s activity and not the original product of man’s nature. The artisan hews a piece of wood and makes a vessel. This being the case, the vessel is the product of the artisan’s activity and not the original product of man’s nature. The sages gathered together their ideas and thoughts and became familiar with activity, facts, and principles, and thus produced propriety and righteousness and instituted laws and systems. This being the case, propriety and righteousness, and laws and systems are the products of the activity of the sages and not the original products of man’s nature.
As to the eye desiring color, the ear desiring sound, the mouth desiring flavor, the heart desiring gain, and the body desiring pleasure and ease—all these are products of man’s original nature and feelings. They are natural reactions to stimuli and do not require any work to be produced. But if the reaction is not naturally produced by the stimulus but requires work before it can be produced, then it is the result of activity. Here lies the evidence of the difference between what is produced by man’s nature and what is produced by his effort. Therefore the sages transformed man’s nature and aroused him to activity. As activity was aroused, pro
priety and righteousness were produced, and as propriety and righteousness were produced, laws and systems were instituted. This being the case, propriety, righteousness, laws, and systems are all products of the sages. In his nature, the sage is common with and not different from ordinary people. It is in his effort that he is different from and superior to them.
It is the original nature and feelings of man to love profit and seek gain. Suppose some brothers are to divide their property. If they follow their natural feelings, they will love profit and seek gain, and thus will do violence to each other and grab the property. But if they are transformed by the civilizing influence of the pattern and order of propriety and righteousness, they will even yield to outsiders. Therefore, brothers will quarrel if they follow their original nature and feeling but, if they are transformed by righteousness and propriety, they will yield to outsiders.
People desire to be good because their nature is evil. If one has little, he wants abundance. If he is ugly, he wants good looks. If his circumstances are narrow, he wants them to be broad. If poor, he wants to be rich. And if he is in a low position, he wants a high position. If he does not have it himself, he will seek it outside. If he is rich, he does not desire more wealth, and if he is in a high position, he does not desire more power. If he has it himself, he will not seek it outside. From this point of view, [it is clear that] people desire to be good because their nature is evil.
Now by nature a man does not originally possess propriety and righteousness; hence he makes strong effort to learn and seeks to have them. By nature he does not know propriety and righteousness; hence he thinks and deliberates and seeks to know them. Therefore, by what is inborn alone, man will not have or know propriety and righteousness. There will be disorder if man is without propriety and righteousness. There will be violence if he does not know propriety and righteousness. Consequently by what is inborn alone, disorder and violence are within man himself. From this point of view, it is clear that the nature of man is evil and that his goodness is the result of his activity.
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Page 17
