Whatever they do, Chinese people like to be reasonable.
“Why aren’t you being reasonable?” is a stock phrase of the Chinese.
But here’s the interesting thing: on the very same matter, all sides often believe they are the one who is right.
“Why aren’t you being reasonable?”
“You’re the one who isn’t!”
Everyone is afraid the other side won’t be reasonable, and everyone thinks they themselves are reasonable, and yet everyone is often told they aren’t reasonable. Why on earth is that?
This question troubled me for a long time.
More precisely, it’s that I wanted to be a person who is reasonable. And to be a person who is reasonable, the first question is: what is the correct reason?
This is what the ancients called seeking the Way.
Only by knowing why can you walk in accord with the Way.
I don’t know how much time passed trying to get this straight, but today I think I can give a satisfying answer!
And that answer more than covers the question from the beginning.
First, because reason has different levels.
Heavenly Principle
Heavenly Principle is the principle of nature.
Birth, aging, sickness, death; flourishing, decline, success, failure — all are ordinary principles of nature.
All living things know to reproduce the next generation, and yet today there are many people who choose to be DINKs (dual income, no kids); when people reproach them, that is an appeal to Heavenly Principle.
Human Principle
Human Principle is the principle of how to be a person.
The subtitle of this site includes the line “the Way of Heaven is flawed.” Though the principles of Heaven are all ordinary principles, a human cannot, like a beast, follow his every whim and do whatever he pleases.
For a human to be human, there must be principles one must keep in order to be a person.
Beasts follow the law of the jungle, where the strong prey on the weak, but being a person you can’t.
Beasts may use their strength to bully the weak, but being a person you can’t.
Beasts may refuse to recognize any of their kin, but being a person you can’t.
Beasts may be heartless and faithless, but being a person you can’t.
Beasts may eat their mate and not leave a bone, but being a person you can’t.
Beasts may abandon their wife and children, but being a person you can’t.
……
This is what Mencius meant by “that whereby a human differs from a beast.”
When a person behaves in ways like these, Chinese people will say he is “not a person.” This isn’t name-calling; it’s talking reason — talking Human Principle.
Legal Principle
Legal Principle is the law laid down by those in power.
Society, as a vast human collective, for the needs of rule and governance, prescribes which things citizens may do and which they may not in social life.
Physical Principle
Physical Principle is the principle of how matter moves and changes.
The laws of how matter moves and changes do not shift according to human will.
Broadly speaking, chemistry is the principle of how things change after they come into contact with one another, and it can also be counted within Physical Principle.
Second, these four principles correspond to the four great schools of orthodox Chinese culture.
Dao — Heavenly Principle
Confucianism — Human Principle
Legalism — Legal Principle
Mohism — Physical Principle
Daoism talks about nature.
A note here: “school” (家) and “religion” (教) are very different; the latter is dogmatism, which I won’t go into here. In short, Chinese people in fact believe in schools, not religions. Deep in the blood of every Chinese person there is still a root of the Dao.
Confucianism talks about how to be a person. (Here I mean the Confucianism of the pre-Qin era, the Confucianism of Confucius, not including the corrupt Confucian scholars of the later Manchu Qing; I won’t go into that here.)
Legalism talks about laws and decrees.
Mohism talks about science. (The Mohist classics touch on military science, engineering, mechanics, geometry, optics, and many other scientific fields, and Mohism is called “the forefather of scientists”; I won’t go into that here.)
Daoism follows the Way of nature and holds that people should not act recklessly — nature has its own laws of change, and governing by non-action (wu wei) is the highest form of governance.
Confucianism holds: look, people’s hearts are all in chaos now; anything goes, you do whatever you feel like — this is outrageous, no different from beasts. What’s the use of just saying “don’t”? They go ahead and do it anyway! You have to lay down rules for people and teach them how to be a person.
Legalism holds: teaching alone won’t work either. Some people just won’t comply — what do you do then? Those who do good even end up worse off! So teaching alone isn’t enough; you also have to establish something called law — those who do what’s encouraged are rewarded, those who do what’s forbidden are punished! With rewards and punishments clearly defined, only then do people dare not act recklessly.
Mohism holds: Daoism, you keep talking about Heaven’s retribution, but I’ve never seen it. Confucianism, all that elaborate burial and ritual music you go in for — to me it looks like a waste of money. Legalism, you tie everything to military merit — are the common people supposed to give up on living? I say we should be realistic, develop our Mohist arts, raise the people’s quality of life, and defend the security of the territory.
See — they’ve started arguing again. Look familiar? Isn’t this exactly the question from the beginning of the article?
Third, the reason you can be right and still not get through to anyone is that you’ve overstepped your bounds.
Daoism talks about nature; its boundary is the individual and nature.
Confucianism talks about how to be a person; its boundary is individual and individual, and that includes what a person ought to do, and how to set his aim and go about his work.
Legalism talks about laws and decrees; its boundary is what the individual does.
Mohism talks about science; its boundary is matter itself.
From this we know: how a person gets along with himself and how he gets along with nature — for that, you can consult Daoism.
How people get along with one another, and how to set your aim and go about your work — for that, you can consult Confucianism.
Having aspirations is fine, but there are also things one must not do; for what a person may not do, you can consult Legalism.
Studying the laws of matter — that belongs to Mohism.
If each of us could practice each school’s principle within that school’s own domain, then reason could be talked about.