This is the definitive English translation of the complete philosophical works of Mo Zi. Much of his original texts have been lost over the centuries and Johnston has done an excellent job of filling in the holes, as best he could, based on context and historical references from other writers, such as Mencius, Han Fei, and Mo Zi’s own followers. The book weighs in at just under 1000 pages, so I will attempt to just give a taste of Mo Zi’s philosophy, which stands in stark contrast to his Confucian and Legalist rivals.
Mo Zi begins on the ways of the gentleman, ““It isn’t that there is not a peaceful place to dwell, but that I am not at peace in my heart; it isn’t that there is not enough wealth, but that my heart is not enough.” This is why a gentleman is hard on himself but easy on others, whereas a common man is easy on himself but hard on others. When a gentleman takes office, he does not lose his ideals…. Even if he is mistaken for a common man, he never feels resentment because he has confidence in himself.”
Mo Zi gives advice for governing affairs of the household and of the State. Often, he compares and contrasts the two. “Even a compassionate father will not look kindly on a son without promise. For this reason, a man who occupies a position for which he is not competent is not the man for the position…. Men of great talent are difficult to direct, yet they can serve a ruler and be respected. Great rivers do not resent little streams that fill them because they are what can make them great.”
A theme Mo Zi returns to repeatedly is the need for moderation. “If there is restraint and moderation, then there is prosperity. If there is lack of restraint and moderation, then there is decay…. When there is moderation with regard to men and women, Heaven and earth are in harmony. When there is moderation in the winds and rains, the five grains ripen. When there is moderation in clothes and garments, skin and flesh are in harmony.”
Mo Zi defines virtue by example of the three sages of the past. “The three sages were cautious in their speech, careful in their actions, and meticulous in their planning, searching out the world’s hidden affairs and neglecting personal benefit in order to serve Heaven above, so Heaven took delight in their virtue.” There are three realms that were of import. “Exalting worthiness is of benefit to Heaven, to the ghosts, and to the common people as well as being the foundation of government and affairs.” Mo Zi expands on governance. “If those above and below do not have unity of principles, then rewards and praise are not enough to encourage goodness, and punishments and penalties are not enough to put a stop to evil…. If those above and below do not have unity of principles, then those the ruler rewards will be those the people condemn…. If above and below there is not unity of principles, then those the ruler punishes will be those the people praise…. If those who help his sight and hearing are many, then what he hears and sees is far distant. If those who help his speech are many, then the comfort given by his wise words is far-reaching. If those who help his plans are many, then his schemes and devices are swiftly accomplished. If those who help in his activities are many, then the matters he embarks upon will be swiftly brought to completion.”
Mo Zi probably lived in either the Spring and Autumn period or the time of the Warring States. In either case, the city-states of China were fighting nearly constantly, in an attempt to unify the country. Mo Zi was opposed to all offensive war, especially larger states trying to take advantage of the weaker. “The killing of one person is spoken of as unrighteous and certainly constitutes one capital offense. Reasoning on this basis, killing ten people is ten times as unrighteous, so certainly constitutes ten capital offenses…. But when it comes to what is a great lack of righteousness, that is, attacking states, then they do not know and condemn it. On the contrary, they praise it and call it righteous…. Now suppose there was someone who, when he saw a little bit of black, called it black, but when he saw a lot of black, called it white. We would certainly take this person to be someone who did not know the difference between white and black…. Now when something small is a crime, people know and condemn it. When something great is a crime, like attacking states, then they don’t know and condemn, but go along with it and praise it, calling it righteous…. Nowadays, when kings, dukes and great officers carry out government, with regard to someone killing another person, his own state will try to prevent this because everyone knows that to do this is not righteous. But they are able to kill large numbers of people in a neighboring state and take this to be great righteousness.” Even when ruling within a state, Mo Zi was opposed to aggression. “When there is compliance with Heaven’s intention, there is rule by righteousness. When there is opposition to Heaven’s intention, there is rule by force…. Therefore, the most abhorred name in the world is given to him and he is called a tyrannical king.”
A large part of Mo Zi’s philosophy is constructed in short dialectical dialogue, particularly his thoughts on language, logic, and science. For each pairing the ancient compilers of Mo Zi’s teachings composed a thought described as the canon, followed by a short explanation. Over the years, some have been lost or bastardized. Here is Mo Zi’s take on peace, “C: To be at peace is to know no desire or aversion. E: To be at peace: To be tranquil.” Some of his thoughts come across as aphorisms or little riddles. This is Mo Zi on the difference and absurdity of comparison, “C: Different classes are not comparable. The explanation lies in measurement. E: Difference: Of wood and night, which is longer? Of knowledge and grain, which is greater? Of the four things—rank, family, good conduct and price—which is the most valuable? Of the tailed deer and the crane, which is higher? Of the cicada and the zithern, which is the more mournful?”
Mo Zi often returns to both benevolence and righteousness. “C: To take benevolence as being internal and righteousness as being external is wrong. The explanation lies in matching the face. E: Benevolence: Benevolence equates with love; righteousness equates with benefit. Love and benefit relate to “this” (the self); what is loved and what is benefited relate to “that” (the other). Love and benefit are neither internal nor external; what is loved and what is benefited are neither external nor internal. To say that benevolence is internal and righteousness is external and to conflate love with what is benefited are examples of “wild raising”. It is like the left eye being external and the right eye being internal.”
On criticism, Mo Zi expounds, “C: Whether criticism is admissible or not does not depend on whether it is much or little. The explanation lies in being admissible to negate (deny). E: Criticism: In sorting out whether criticism is admissible or in admissible, if you take the principle as susceptible to criticism, then, even if the criticism is excessive, it is right. If its principle is not susceptible to criticism, even if the criticism is slight, it is wrong. Nowadays, it is said that what is much criticized is not admissible. This is like using the long to discuss the short.”
In the final sections of Mo Zi’s philosophy he returns to singular statements. Here he again discusses the ways of the sage, “The sage dreads disease and decay but does not dread danger and difficulty. He maintains the integrity of his body and the resolve of his heart. [He] desires the people’s benefit; he does not dislike the people’s love. The sage does not consider his own dwelling. The sage does not concern himself with the affairs of his son. The sage’s model (method) is to turn his mind from his parents on their death for the sake of the world.”
Mo Zi was not always modest. Here he praises his own wisdom, “My words are sufficient for use. One who casts aside my words and changes my ideas is like one who casts aside the harvest and picks up grains. To use one’s own words to negate my words is like throwing eggs against a rock. Even if one uses all the eggs in the world, the rock remains as it is and cannot be destroyed.” Mo Zi explains why his words are more important than others who provide more physical sustenance to the people. “I think nothing equals understanding the Way of former kings and seeking their concepts; understanding the words of the sages and examining their statements. Nothing equals spreading these words among kings, dukes and great officers above, and next among the ordinary people. If kings, dukes, and great officers make use of my words, countries will certainly be well ordered. If the ordinary people make use of my words, conduct certainly will be regulated. Therefore, I think that although I do not plough and provide food for the hungry, although I do not weave and provide clothes for the cold, nevertheless my achievement is more worthy than those who do plough and provide food and those who do weave and provide clothes.”
Mo Zi ends by returning to his advice on the basics for an ordered and righteous society, “Whenever one enters a country, one must pick out what is fundamental and devote one’s attention to it. If the country is disordered and confused, then one speaks about exalting worthiness and exalting unity. If the country is poor, then one speaks about moderation in use and moderation in funerals. If the country has a liking for music and depravity, then one speaks about condemnation of music and rejection of Fate. If the country has fallen into licentiousness and lacks propriety, then one speaks about honouring Heaven and serving ghosts. If the country is dedicated to invasion and oppression, then one speaks about universal love and condemning aggression. Therefore I say, pick out what is fundamental and devote one’s attention to it.” Finally, Mo Zi suggests to concern oneself with what is within first, before concerning oneself with others’ opinions. “In the case of those who bring order to the spirit, the multitude do not know of their achievement.”
No comments:
Post a Comment