Mozi (Master Mo) & Moism
Last
time we talked about the debate on human nature between the two most
central Confucians after Confucius. Mencius argues that human nature is
good (love) while Xun Zi argues that human nature is evil (desire).
Today we will focus on Mozi, Master Mo of the Moist School of Chinese
Philosophy, and his arguments for universal love against the Confucians,
and then the two great masters of the School of Names, Hui Shi and
Gongsun Long, who are often called the Sophists or Logicians, the
masters of debate and paradox.
Not
much is known about Master Mo, founder of Moism, one of the four major
schools of the Period of the Hundred Philosophers (along with
Confucianism, Daoism, and Legalism). His disciples collected his
sayings and dialogues to make the Mozi text, just as the disciples of
Confucius and Mencius did. It is believed that Mozi lived sometime
between the death of Confucius in 479 BCE and the birth of Mencius in
372 BCE and that the Moist school was flourishing around the year 400
BCE (the same time as Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece).
One
ancient work says that Mozi studied Confucianism at a Confucian school,
but then became disgusted and developed his philosophy in opposition to
Confucianism. Mozi does frequently quote the Book of Odes and the Book
of History, books that Confucius compiled as textbooks for his
students. We know that Confucianism and Moism were both flourishing and
in competition at the same time from texts like the Daoist text the
Zhuangzi (in which Zhuangzi states that what the Confucians call right
the Moists call wrong and vice versa). Like Confucius, Mozi likely
traveled to schools and noble courts expounding his philosophy and
seeking students and supporters. Nobles and other wealthy individuals
would often put on banquets and debates for education and entertainment.
Because
Mozi was a great critic of the excesses of the powerful and champion of
the common people, some scholars have speculated that Mozi was of the
lower classes. He may have been a craftsman, as he often uses metaphors
such as a compass, carpenter’s square, and plumb lines. Some even say
he could have been an ex-convict and Mo meant tattoo like the sort used
to brand ex-cons as a punishment (thus, Mozi would mean ‘Master Tattoo’
or ‘Master Tat’). These scholars are likely thinking of Zhuangzi’s use
of ex-con teachers countering Confucius while playing the Moists and
Confucians against each other. While Mozi criticized the luxurious
excesses of dancing girls and music of the wealthy, particularly in
light of the suffering of the poor and oppressed as the wealthy spent
vast sums of money on extravagant entertainment, it is unlikely that an
ex-con would have access to the noble courts and fine houses that Mozi
frequented in seeking to expand the influence and membership of his
school of thought. Unlikely, but perhaps his teachings and following
were impressive enough to grant him aristocratic audiences.
How
could Mozi get away with criticizing the powerful? Mozi argued (as did
the Confucians) that it is behavior that makes one a good person and
not high birth, arguing for meritocracy over aristocracy like the
Confucians. As in ancient India, and common in all human cultures
ancient and modern, the top ranks of power are in constant struggle with
the up and coming powers. In India, Buddha, Mahavira and other great
philosophers were second class educated who were critical of the upper
class and older traditions. In ancient China, Moism and Confucianism
(as well as other schools) appealed to the newer and lower nobles and
wealthy who did not have the finest families but surrounded themselves
with the talented and new artists and thinkers. These ‘new rich’
patrons would have found much in Moism, Confucianism, as well as Daoism.
Unfortunately,
it may have been the hard-lining Moist stance against the top levels of
society that ultimately resulted in the downfall of Moism when the Qin
unified China and endorsed the Legalists, followed by the Han who
endorsed the Confucians and Daoists. Moism was neglected for 1,500
years afterwards. It was only in the times of Song Neo-Confucianism,
ironically, that Mozi was reexamined along with Buddhism and put in a
Confucian context.
Like
Xunzi, Mozi was exceptional at examining the validity of beliefs. He
had a system of three tests. First, one should seek the origin of the
belief (remember, the ways of the sage kings were highly valued and used
by most schools of ancient Chinese thought, and Confucians, Moists and
Daoists each argued that the great Sage Kings such as Yao and Shun had
used their own ways in the ancient times of great prosperity and
culture).
Second,
tone should seek he empirical validity of the belief, or how well the
belief corresponds to what we have discovered to be true based on
evidence. Interestingly, Mozi argues that there must certainly be
ghosts, as so many people have reported seeing them. We do know that a
typical symptom of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after engaging
in violence is seeing victims in both waking hallucinations and in
dreams, being haunted by those one has hurt. While most would today
consider this haunting to be psychological, not supernatural, Mozi could
certainly have traveled the globe and found much evidence accross all
cultures that ghosts exist and punish the wicked, which he argued was
the natural morality of the universe.
Third,
one should seek the practicality and applicability of the belief,
identical to the Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill. Mozi was quite a
Utilitarian, arguing that all things, including beliefs, should be used
to maximize happiness and minimize pain for all of society. While he
argued that this was the way of the sage kings, Confucians found many
sympathetic to the counter-argument that such Utilitarianism threatened
to do away with tradition, such as funeral practices and patronizing the
arts. Mozi argued that the belief that ghosts punish the wicked is not
only true based on the evidence, but on its usefulness. If evil people
are afraid of being haunted and persecuted by ghosts for their crimes,
it makes them less likely to commit offenses. For example, if you do
not turn in all of your response essays, my vengeful spirit will haunt
your grade point average until your dying day.
On
the issue of spirits and traditional folk belief, remember that
Confucius was interested in preserving ritual but had not spoken of the
Lord of Heaven but rather the Mandate of Heaven and the Dao, the Way, of
Heaven, much like the Daoists, a move toward abstract philosophical
monism. Mozi saw this as a dangerous departure from the ways of the
ancients, and argued that there was a great and good All God that views
all equally as each individual should strive to view others as equal to
themselves. In the same way, while Confucius said, “You do not know how
to serve humanity, how can you feed ghosts and spirits?”, Mozi argued
that the traditional views of ghosts was correct and important for
social morality. Mozi believed that the agnosticism and monism of the
Confucians was not in line with the practices of the great sage kings,
and that it was corruptive, encouraging the individual to be partial to
themselves rather than serve others.
The
Moists are most famous for their doctrine of universal love, which we
discussed last time in dialog with Mencius. Mozi had the hard task of
trying to convince rulers and common people alike that they should not
only love others as themselves, which the Confucians also teach, but
that they should love other families as they love their own families and
love people of other countries as they love the people of their own
country. Mozi says that universal love was the practice of the sage
kings, is the best practice based on evidence of social behaviour, and
is practical and could be put into practice within a single generation
if enough rulers were convinced that it is in their own best interest as
well as in their people’s best interest.
Paradoxically,
Mozi argues that when we look at things dispassionately, without the
biases of a Confucian for their family or nation, we can see that
compassion for all equally is the best strategy for a healthy individual
and society. Not only does looking at things objectively and with
emotional detachment give us the best mind for seeking truth, it teaches
us about proper emotional conduct. Mozi argues that all problems, both
of individuals and of society, are caused by bias and partiality. Just
as we trust others when we know that they are impartial, judging them
by their words and actions when they can benefit themselves more than
others but do not, we trust our rulers and ourselves when they and we
are impartial. Mozi’s ‘universal love’ is passionate, but it is akin to
Buddhist emptiness, which as openness is compassion but also
detachment.
Mencius
seems terrified by Moism, his major rival in Northeast China at the
time, saying, “The ideas of Yang Chu and Mozi fill the world” (Mencius
3B:9). Yang Chu and Mozi were equal opposite extremes which Mencius
feared would cause individuals to fall from the middle way and balance
of opposites proper to the great cultivated person. Yang Chu, whose
school did not survive the Qin and Han unification of China, taught a
sort of social Darwinism, that it is everyone for themselves, while Mozi
taught universal love, that everyone should care for everyone as they
do for themselves. The Confucians’ doctrine of loving all but having
particular love for one’s family, friends and country was offered as a
middle way between these two extremes. Against Mozi, Mencius argues
that loving everyone as one loves one’s own father is like one has no
father, that loving everyone as one loves one’s own children is like one
has no children. Considering the emphasis that Confucians such as
Mencius put on following one’s father, this would be a great evil.
Recall
that Mencius argues against the Moist Yi Chih, also known as Yizi,
Master Yi, that society began with the burial of the dead. Our early
ancestors began to bury the bodies of those who died because they became
distressed seeing animals and insects consume the bodies. Yi Chih does
not object, and the text seems to present this as Mencius’ argument
going unanswered and thus it being a victory for Mencius. However, why
should Moist Master Yi object? Mencius is implying that the ancestors
buried their family and friends, but it could equally be argued that
they buried those of their community, considering that communities were
much smaller and more intimate in earlier times. Whether or not Yi Chih
is aware of this, he could agree that the ancestors were disturbed at
the sight of others and use this as further support that human beings
naturally care about others as they do themselves.
The
Moists and Confucians seem to be presenting two sides of an issue that
touches all cultures. You can find a good example of the conflict in
the ancient Greek tragedy Antigone. Antigone’s two brothers fight each
other to rule the state, and when one kills the other, he takes the
throne and orders that his brother’s body not be buried (clearly, this
would creep Mencius out). Antigone is torn between obeying her brother,
the state, and burying her other brother as an obligation to her family
members. Antigone argues in court that she must bury her brother, as
one must serve one’s family over the state, and she is condemned to
death. In one passage of Confucius’ Analects (13:18), Confucius sides
with Antigone, arguing that a son who testifies against his father for
stealing a sheep is wrong for not protecting his family from harm (we
can assume that the punishment of the father would injure the family
considerably).
Are
the Moist and Confucian ideas of love incompatible? Is the love one
has for others the origin of the love one has for those one is familiar
with, or is the love one has for those one is familiar with the origin
of the love one has for everyone? There is evidence that some during
the Warring States period regarded them as complementary halves of the
same truth. The Confucians such as Mencius argue as if the Moists wish
to feed everyone a sandwich when they themselves want to eat a sandwich,
which they argue is impractical. The Moists likewise argue as if the
Confucians wish to feed only their families and have no obligation to
anyone else. As a Moist, it is quite reasonable to believe that
universal love allows one to take care of one’s own needs first, as
everyone else should do for themselves, while keeping in mind that one
must make the effort to ensure that all are cared for equally by society
as a whole in addition to attending to one’s own needs. Likewise, as a
Confucian, it is quite reasonable to care about everyone in society and
the prosperity of society as a whole while taking care of one’s own
needs and those of one’s family.
Just
like the monks Hui Neng encountered arguing over the flag and the wind,
the Moists start with universal love and assume it will compliment the
partial, while the Confucians start with partial love and assume it will
compliment the universal. Taking care of the self and those close to
you and taking care of everyone are complimentary and mutually
supportive. It is true, however, that starting with one or leaning
towards the other can create great differences in doctrines and policy.
For example, Mozi wanted limitations on extravagant funerals and
mourning periods (traditionally three years) for family members, as
these benefit one’s own family more than they contribute to the good of
society as a whole. If money is spent on funerals and time on mourning
periods, it can not be spent ensuring the prosperity of everyone.
Confucians believe that one should provide decent funerals and mourning
for one’s family members, as it is an exercise in devotion to those one
shares one’s life with.
The
Moists believed in both debate and warfare, and they excelled in both
logic and military science, but for the purpose of self defense and
defending the weak against the strong. Remember that the period of the
Hundred Schools was also the Warring States Period, a time of
instability when many who were weak were being abused and killed by
local wars and bandits. Today, the Swiss embody this stance on war the
best as they spend a decent amount on defense and bases from which they
launch jets out of mountains but never go on the offensive, staying
neutral in international matters.
Unfortunately
for Mozi and the Moist schools, the unification of China was a time of
great prosperity for aristocrats, artists, entertainers and merchants.
Mozi’s arguments that everyone should share equally and do away with
extravagant entertainment cut against all of these rising groups, a
likely factor in the Han supporting Confucianism and Daoism, but not
Moism. Mozi did believe that art and music were valuable, but denounced
the great productions enjoyed by aristocrats and merchants, arguing
that they should use the money to feed farmers in times of famine and
orphans. While the Confucians and Daoists argue for similar
benevolence, the Daoists in particular suggesting that it is better to
feed the common people then become attached to luxury, Mozi’s focus on
entertainment as a particular target did not win him or his later
schools much patronage.
Additionally,
Mozi’s insistence on retaining popular theism and folk beliefs did not
win him much favor. The philosophical monism of the Confucians and
Daoists, while clearly blended with popular theism and spiritualism in
the traditions, caught on with rising cultures of scholarship and the
new aristocrats who found the new monistic interpretations and
discussions attractive at a time when scholarship and culture were
progressing in leaps and bounds.
I
gave you readings from the Mozi, selections from the chapters Universal
Love, Against Offensive Warfare and Against the Confucians, but I will
be lecturing on more than these sections. The Mozi text is often
edited, as it has three versions of most of the chapters. Scholars
believe that this was due to there being three major competing schools
of Moism around 400 BCE, which would have been thriving in the time of
Mencius as he debates with various Moists. Sometimes the text speaks as
if from the mouth or brush of Mozi himself, while at other times
quoting him in the third person (“Mozi said...”).
In
the section Honoring the Worthy, Mozi argues that the way to lead a
people to prosperity and out of poverty is to employ and promote the
best people. Interestingly, Mozi later argues that it is improper to
take better care of the worthy or to care for them more than the
unworthy, and he claims that Confucians, who also believe in
meritocracy, make this mistake. Mozi sites the example of the sage
emperor Yao selecting Shun as his successor to show that this was the
practice of the great ancient patriarchs.
In
the section Identifying with One’s Superior, Mozi says that before
there were laws and culture in prehistoric times, everyone had different
views and the world was a brutal place without regard for family or
anyone other than the self. Civilization occurred when people subjected
themselves to rulers and their laws. This picture is identical to that
of Xunzi as well as Hobbes, the British political philosopher of the
1600s. Mozi says, like Hobbes, that one must subject one’s own will and
decisions to that of one’s superior, but unlike Hobbes and like
Confucius, Mozi argues that if one’s superior is wrong they should be
told by subordinates. The lowest of people should report all good and
bad to their superiors, but then do what they are told by their
superiors. Mozi argues that the Lord of Heaven (God) will support the
good and dethrone the bad, naturally creating a just society. In spite
of the fact that Mozi believes in radical and nontraditional reforms
(though Mozi argues that they were the ways of the sage kings), he is
critical of Confucianism for supporting rebellions against unjust
rulers.
There
is a bit of a conflict here with his views in Against Offensive
Warfare. Mozi argues that self-defense is always preferable to offense,
and it would seem this includes mounting an offense against one’s own
rulers. However, in order to answer those who say the ancient sage
kings went to war, he makes a distinction between offensive warfare for
gain and punishing an unjust ruler, which he says is what the sage kings
did whenever they went to war. It seems that if you are a ruler it is
alright to use war as punishment against a neighboring unjust ruler, but
not if you are the subject of an unjust ruler.
In
the section Universal Love, Mozi begins by stating that the good person
seeks to promote what is good and reduce what is harmful (identical,
again, to the Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill). He argues that the
greatest harm is powerful states and families attacking the weak states
and families and the strong oppressing the weak. All this comes about
not by love but by hate, not by universality (caring about the whole)
but by partiality (caring about part of the whole as opposed to another
part). Partiality must be, therefore, replaced with universality.
Mozi
uses the example of using a flood to counter a flood (fighting water
with water) or putting out a fire with another flame (fighting fire with
fire). To fight partiality with partiality (such as fighting one army
with another, each wanting exclusive control of a territory) will not
work. The only way to defeat partiality is through universality, just
as the way to fight fire is with water. If rulers and people saw other
cities as they do their own, then they would not attack them but rather
give to them and inspire the others to give back. While many in his
time as well as today would be skeptical of the practicality of this,
Mozi argues that it is not easy but it is the only practical solution to
warfare and poverty. If everyone helps others with their talents,
caring about others and receiving goods from society equally, it will
create the most prosperous society.
Mo
Zi argues that this can be put into practice or even he would be
critical. We naturally trust the universal person with our family and
possessions more than the partial person. He uses the example of a man
going to war, who would trust his family to the universal rather than
the partial man. Therefore, we naturally love and trust the universal
ruler more than the particular ruler. He argues further that if one
cares about one’s parents, caring about others as one cares about one’s
parents would be the best way to take care of one’s parents, as others
would care about one’s parents and provide for them as they do for
themselves. Mozi mentions that critics have replied that universal love
and a universal society is as impossible as picking up Mount T’ai and
leaping over a river with it. Mozi responds that the ancient sage kings
practiced universal love, proving it is possible. Whether or not the
sage kings did love everyone equally, it may be problematic to insist
that their subjects all joined them.
There
is, however, a problem with this view that Mencius mentions: we do in
fact see people naturally loving their own more than their neighbor,
just as we do see people trusting partial rulers rather than universal
ones. Mozi says there are no fools in the world like this, that
everyone knows a universal person is more trustworthy than a partial
person, but experience does show us otherwise. However, he argues that
if the people saw rulers that fed and clothed everyone equally, there
could be radical change in society within a single generation. He
argues that King Ling liked slender waists, so his subjects all went on a
one-meal-a-day diet within a single generation, that King Kou-Chien
liked bravery, so his subjects became brave warriors within a single
generation, and Duke Wen liked course clothes, so his subjects began to
wear coarse clothes within a single generation. If people can change
these ways within one generation, how much more would they benefit from
universal love and care? While it would have problems, it is not
necessarily impossible. Confucius did say that no one, including
himself, is perfect.
In
the section Against Offensive Warfare, Mo Zi says that everyone knows
that it is wrong to steal from one’s neighbors, but that when it is
called warfare, and a people steal from another people, it is praised.
If it is true that killing one person is a crime, then killing a
hundred is far more of a crime. People are truly confused about right
and wrong if they consider warfare to be justice. Mozi argues this is
like calling a large amount of black ‘white’, or calling a large amount
of bitter ‘sweet’. Rulers unjustly use people as a beast uses its claws
and teeth to attack other people, praising those they use this way.
This causes people to lose soldiers who are needed for self-defense,
who die not only from combat but from starvation and disease in times of
war. It also causes the death of people, who are the ones who tend to
the needs of spirits, hurting them as well in the process (Won’t
somebody think of the spirits?). Mozi argues that if people want a
prosperous society, they would do better to flourish through peace than
steal through war.
In
the section The Will of Heaven, Mozi says that people can hide from
their families in another house or their rulers in another land, but
they can not hide from Heaven (the way of things, or reality). If one
does good, then one prospers. If one does evil, one perishes. The Will
of Heaven, the way of things, is “like a compass to a wheelwright or a
square to a carpenter”, giving a model for matching the curved and the
straight.
In
the section Against Confucians, Mo Zi argues that the Confucians are
wrong about degrees and gradations of love based on one’s relationship
to one’s other. Mo Zi argues that it is wrong to love one’s family and
state more than other families and states. He argues that both
Confucius and Confucians are hypocritical and often pay more attention
to matters of ritual than to the deeper underlying problems of society.
He attacks Confucian practices of mourning, weddings, and fatalism and
says they produce contradictions and hypocrisy. He argues that the
ancient ways were once new ways, so why should we honor the ancient
heroes and sage kings for invention, innovation and change by sticking
to the old ways? Mo Zi believes that the Confucians are drawn into
caring about the trivial while at other times supporting the substantial
revolution that society requires. At times, they believe in silence
and deference to authority even when it is wrong, but at other times
they endorse rebellion. It seems that Mozi sees the Confucians as
destroyers of tradition, the same way the Confucians see the Moists.
The Logicians/Sophists of the School of Names: Hui Shi & Gongsun Long
Hui
Shi (380-305 BCE) is famous for his ten paradoxes which are very
similar to those of the ancient Greek thinker Zeno, paradoxes of size,
location and motion. Xunzi accuses of Hui Shi and his fellow School of
Names logician Gongsun Long of abusing names to create chaos throughout
the land. Hui Shi was the chief minister of King Hui of the state of
Wei, and he appears as a friend and fellow philosopher in the Daoist
Zhuangzi text many times, where he is also called Huizi, ‘Master Hui’.
In one passage, while passing the grave of Hui Shi’s grave Zhuangzi
laments that he has no one he can talk to anymore. In another, the two
are walking together by the Hao river dam when Zhuangzi remarks that the
fish love to dart back and forth. Hui Shi replies that he can not know
that, because he is not a fish. Zhuangzi replies that Hui Shi is not
himself, so how does he know he does not know that? Hui Shi maintains
that he can’t know about what fish like, so Zhuangzi points out that Hui
Shi asked him, “How do you know that?”, so Hui Shi assumed that he knew
it already, and as far as ‘how’, he knows it by standing by the Hao
river dam. The two disagree, but they are clearly friends who enjoy
arguing together.
Hui
Shi’s second paradox says that that which has no thickness cannot be
piled up but can be a thousand li (measure of distance) in dimension.
He seems to have a line or surface in mind, which is one or two
dimensional over any length yet lacking second or third dimensional
width.
Hui
Shi’s third paradox says that the heavens are as low as the earth and
mountains and marshes are on the same level. Indeed, at the horizon the
heavens are as low as the earth and mountains must meet the marshland
to rise above it as they do.
His
fourth paradox says that the sun at noon is the sun setting, and the
thing born is the thing dying. The sun does begin setting right at
noon, and as soon as something is born it is transforming and moving
towards its death, thus constantly dying.
His
fifth paradox says that the lesser similarity is that great similarity
is different from small similarity, but the greater similarity is that
all things are similar and different from one another. Consider a bowl
of apples and oranges. All are round, all are fruit, and all are
edible, yet it is easy to see that the apples are more similar to each
other than the oranges. It is easy, and thus it is lesser, to see that
apples are not oranges and oranges are not apples. It is difficult,
obscured by this easy judgement and thus greater, to see that no two
apples or oranges are alike and, at the same time, all contents of the
bowl are alike. It is easier to see the categories of apples and
oranges than it is to see that similarity and difference do not stop at
the categories they create for us, but go clear beyond them to unite
everything in similarity and difference.
When
his seventh paradox says one goes to the state of Yueh today and
arrives there yesterday, this is a famous puzzle that is quite like the
wisdom tales we read in the beginning of the semester. If one crosses
the border of Yueh at the stroke of midnight, then one was in Yueh and
not in Yueh both today and yesterday, so one could say that one was
going there today and arrived yesterday. We can also say that we were
going to Yueh today and yesterday, and arrived there today and
yesterday, but you can select the parts to say that are most
paradoxical. This is very similar to Gongsun Long’s ‘A white horse is
not a horse’ argument.
His
tenth and final paradox reads, “Love all things generously: Heaven and
earth are one body”. It serves as a good end to the list, as the
paradoxes are all examples of how things that are different are also, at
the same time, the same.
Gongsun Long (325-250 BCE) also appears in the Zhuangzi, where he says:
“When
I grew up, I understood the practice of kindness and duty. I united the
same and different, separated hard from white, made so the not-so and
admissible the inadmissible. I confounded the wits of the hundred
schools and exhausted the eloquence of countless speakers. I took myself
to have reached the ultimate.”
Gongsun’s
writings are now lost, but his famous ‘A White Horse Is Not A Horse’
argument lives on. Many say that this argument is faulty, but if we
follow the thinking of the Daoists and Hui Shi we can see that they are
quibbling, and Gongsun is showing us the two types of ‘is’ we saw
earlier in Buddhist Logic and that we will see again with Wittgenstein.
Gongsun does not mean that a white horse is not in any way a horse, but
that in one particular way “a white horse” is not the same thing as “a
horse”. He argues that if one brings a yellow horse, it would not fit
the description “a white horse” but it would do fine for the description
“a horse”. The two are thus different sets and are not identical though
one set is a subset of the other. This means that “a white horse” is
and is not “a horse” (in one way “is” and in another way “is not”), and
so he can truly say that “a white horse is not a horse”, like Hui Shi
saying the parts of the full truth that sound most paradoxical when said
side by side.
Consider
that your finger is you but also is not you. If we use “is” in terms of
strict identity (like Clark Kent is Superman) then your finger is not
you because you are much more than a finger. However, if we use “is” to
mean a part incorporated within a thing (like a tree is green, or trees
are green things) then your finger is you because it is part of you.
Bill Clinton famously tried explaining this with his “that depends what
your definition of ‘is’ is”, which did not gain him much sympathy. Being
an individual human, you are and are not humanity. In fact, you are
only one human out of quadrillions so far, so you are not very much of
humanity at all, but what are you more than a human?
