Yu Sheng (from *Xue Deng*, Issue 7)

Abstract: This paper divides human society into two types: genetically encoded and artificially created. By examining the various schools of thought in China and the philosophical traditions of the East and West, it finds that Chinese society before the Warring States period was mainly a primitive society based on genetic encoding, while Western civilization began as a city-state society composed of free individuals. This difference in social environment has left a profound mark on the corresponding philosophical thinking and cultural traditions, and even had a directional or decisive influence.

Keywords: Primitive society, secondary society, dual-framework structure, superpower, harmony between humanity and nature

Primary society and secondary society [1] [2]

Human societies throughout history can be divided into two categories: genetically encoded societies and artificially created societies. This is a fundamental and therefore very important classification. If we refer to genetically encoded societies as primordial societies and artificially created societies as secondary societies, then examining Eastern and Western cultures through this classification reveals that ancient Chinese civilization was based on a genetically encoded primordial society, while the West adopted the approach of artificially created secondary societies from the very beginning.

From the definitions, we can deduce many fundamental differences between these two types of societies. The genetically encoded primitive society is the society that humans are born into. Human nature is clearly the pillar of harmony and function in this society; human nature itself is sufficient to make it stable. Because it is determined by heredity, there is only one type. Anthropological research shows that this primitive society has about 150 people, based on face-to-face interaction and the principles of equality and reciprocity. Because they live together face-to-face and daily, they have psychological and emotional communication. At a deep level of psychological and emotional consciousness, the primitive society is a unified whole, and each member is a part of this whole. The primitive society is governed by a leader who does not have the ability to force others to accept his intentions. He can only rely on persuasion and compliance with the will of the masses, which is the Daoist principle of non-action. He has no reliable means of punishment for those who disobey the leader.

A secondary society, being a man-made society, possesses goals and direction—its ideological system. Simultaneously, its social structures are adapted to these goals and direction. If we consider the current secondary society as one where wealth accumulation is the goal, then the degree of wealth becomes the measure of social rewards and punishments, thus forming numerous classes and strata marked by wealth. Since a secondary society is a human creation, it naturally has countless possible forms; a society can only choose one form, blocking other possibilities. To prevent members from recklessly seeking other possibilities, legally mandated institutions of force such as the military, police, and courts are indispensable. In a secondary society, imposing predetermined intentions on individuals becomes possible and a necessary means of organizing large-scale social projects. In a secondary society, its members cannot engage in psychological and emotional communication with society. The unity of a secondary society depends on the consensus of all members regarding the society’s predetermined goals and direction.

The difference between primitive society and secondary society is similar to the evolutionary history of fish moving onto land, leading to the later development of birds, reptiles, and mammals. This significant difference determines that primitive and secondary societies do not overlap; a society is either one or the other, and the intermediate form can only be an unstable transitional form. Theoretically, a secondary society can also adopt the intermediate social form as its goal, thus building a stable intermediate society. However, this is essentially a secondary society, only resembling a primitive society in form.

Communist villages scattered around the world are mostly products of modern culture and should be classified as secondary societies. A typical example is the Hutterites society in Canada and the United States. They number in the tens of thousands, divided into village units of about one hundred people each, with no private property and meals eaten in communal dining halls. Communist villages can be secular or religious, but those organized as religious communities are more stable. Unlike prehistoric primitive societies, they have a strong belief system to resist the erosion of modern private ownership culture, making them more like modern religious societies.

The dual structure of ancient Chinese society and its superpower status made primitive social life possible.

From the time of the Yellow Emperor and the Xia Dynasty, China adopted a two-tiered social structure, building upon existing primitive societies to create a new secondary society. This social form only changed during the Warring States period. Furthermore, because China was a superpower in the known world, without any equally powerful external rivals, this leads to an important conclusion: the Chinese people during this period still lived in primitive societies, or in quasi-primitive societies similar to primitive societies. The feasibility of this conclusion will be discussed below.

Primitive societies are genetically encoded societies, and unless influenced by strong external forces, humans have a natural tendency to form primitive societies. The following are the key assumptions established in this paper:

Under the following conditions, a primitive society or quasi-primitive society will automatically form:

1) The number of community members should be within a few hundred. If the number of members is too large, the community has the freedom to split into two.

2) Within the community, people interact face-to-face;

3) They had no contact with the secondary society, nor were they influenced by its culture or ideas;

4) There are no external forces threatening its survival.

This assumption is derived from the definition that primitive societies are genetically encoded societies, and is an inevitable result. The following arguments demonstrate that pre-Warring States period Chinese society could satisfy the four requirements of this assumption. The following is the social model of the entire country during the Three Dynasties period:

The Imperial Family: Quasi-Primitive Society + Scholars

┃

Feudal families, quasi-primitive society, and literati

┃

Village Family Primitive Society

According to the definition in this article, the emperor and feudal lords in the above model diagram should represent a secondary society. However, in reality, they still live in a society that approximates a primitive society because the conditions of the aforementioned important assumptions are met one by one. They are neither influenced by the ideology and culture of a secondary society nor are there any external forces threatening their survival. The following six points provide a detailed explanation:

1) The three levels of families—the emperor, the feudal lords, and the village—all lived in the original social structure.

2) The material living standards of the emperor and feudal families may be higher than those of village families, but the one-tenth tax did not change the leisurely and contented style of village life.

3) Although the emperor and the feudal lords did not live together, they met frequently. The number of the emperor and the feudal lords was within a few hundred, not exceeding a few thousand, forming a quasi-primitive society.

4) Similarly, the feudal lords and the heads of the original societies of their villages formed another level of quasi-original societies;

5) All the above-mentioned original societies and quasi-original societies handle and coordinate their relationships according to the principle of equality and mutual benefit of the original society, and their management is based on the management principles of the original society’s leaders.

6) The ideal is to have near-zero administrative management and military conflict at the secondary social level, which is the Taoist principle of non-action.

The two-tiered structure of such a superpower was first established by the Yellow Emperor. The Records of the Grand Historian begins by stating…

“…The Shennong clan declined, and the feudal lords invaded and attacked each other, tyrannizing the people, and the Shennong clan was unable to subdue them.”

Scholars believe that Shennong likely represents an era rather than a specific ruler. During Shennong’s time, agriculture flourished, and people lived in a relatively peaceful environment. However, towards the end of this era, due to increased local population density or food shortages caused by natural disasters, violent conflicts arose continuously, and no one could stop them. Following the challenge-response logic of British historian Arnold Toynbee, the capable Yellow Emperor emerged to address this challenge. His solution was to build a powerful army, conquer the invading Yan Emperor, and capture and kill the rebellious Chi You, thus winning peace and stability for all nations. The Yellow Emperor’s contribution lies in ushering in a golden age in Chinese history, soon followed by the emergence of figures like Yao, Shun, and Yu, whose virtuous rule and non-interference were widely praised, demonstrating that the Yellow Emperor used force for peace. Yu the Great, through his public works project of flood control, further laid the foundation for the system by which the superpowers of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties maintained peace. This bears a resemblance to the peacekeeping function of the United Nations, whose permanent members are the world’s military powers.

Third, evidence from the pre-Warring States period in my country showing that the primary social level was primitive society.

Due to the characteristics of superpowers and dual-structure societies, my country’s long-term military conflicts have the characteristics of primitive social violent conflicts. When prehistoric humans were threatened with survival, they might also attack their neighbors, which was called small-scale attack, mostly driven by hunger. When two groups had conflicts that could not be resolved by other means, prehistoric humans also decided to fight according to ritual procedures. It allowed both sides to show courage and emotion, and injuries were mostly not serious, rarely resulting in death. Because violence is not a basic human trait, but rather a peripheral potential that humans only show under certain circumstances, hunger and conflict may lead to violent conflict, but are more likely to be resolved peacefully. Such violent conflicts remain at the level of individual phenomena and are constrained by human nature. Therefore, for millions of years of human history, such conflicts have neither escalated nor increased in frequency. Huang Renyu called the wars of my country’s Spring and Autumn Period aristocratic wars, saying: “The chariot warfare of the Spring and Autumn Period was an aristocratic war. Sometimes they regarded each other as competitors. There were certain procedures for the deployment of troops, and there were also recognized principles for the intersection points, which is to say, they were still bound by ritual. Not acting selfishly was the general trend at that time. [3]” In short, their wars were also constrained by human nature. The wars of the Warring States period truly possessed the characteristics of secondary social warfare. These wars were fought to establish a power politics unrelated to human nature, and were political conflicts arising from differing social orientations. Therefore, the fact that Duke Xiang of Song maintained proper etiquette during his war with Chu during the Warring States period was ridiculed.

The social forms in China before the Warring States period were mainly primitive and quasi-primitive societies, which can be verified by the lack of understanding of secondary societies among the various schools of thought in the pre-Qin period. Laozi’s concept of “governing by non-action” is actually a philosophical and idealized representation of the social phenomenon of primitive society where the leader had no authority. Laozi idealized a primitive society with small states and few people, hence his advocacy of governing by non-action. Similarly, Confucianism regarded the era of Yao, Shun, and Yu—a primitive society or a society similar to that of Yao, Shun, and Yu—as its ideal society. Confucius praised Yao, Shun, and Yu on many occasions: “How majestic were Shun and Yu’s rule over the world, yet they did not claim it as their own.” “How great was Yao as a ruler! How majestic! Only Heaven is great, and only Yao followed its example. How boundless! The people could not name him. How majestic! His achievements were magnificent! How splendid! His accomplishments were brilliant!” Confucius also praised Yu’s character: “Yu, I have no fault to find with him. He was frugal in food and drink yet devoted to the spirits; he wore simple clothes yet adorned himself with fine robes; he lived in humble dwellings yet devoted himself to irrigation. Yu, I have no fault to find with him!” In fact, a secondary society is a man-made society, providing a stage for rational human behavior. This behavior can be unrelated to human nature, purely a creation of human culture. For example, the construction of the pyramids in ancient Egypt had little to do with human nature; it was purely the thought and will of the individuals involved. Strictly speaking, the pyramid culture is unique in human history, which sufficiently demonstrates that it was a purely cultural creation.

King Li of Zhou nationalized the mountains, forests, rivers, and lakes, which angered the people living in the capital. They stormed the palace, and King Li abdicated and fled, never to return. This practice of the people deposing their king is a remnant of the primitive society’s custom of deposing chieftains. In primitive societies, chieftains were led based on persuasion and compliance with the will of the people; if their wishes conflicted, they could be replaced. During the Warring States period, Mencius even argued that the monarch’s family had the power to depose and install a replacement. This clearly reflects the traditional customs of the aforementioned two-tiered social structure. In a two-tiered society, the monarch faces the entire nation and is responsible to all the people; their position should be unrelated to their own family. If the monarch should be chosen from among a family, then the ministers should be responsible for his removal and selection.

Confucius and Mencius both spoke many things that are clearly unsuitable for secondary societies, and can only be understood through the lens of headman politics in primitive, face-to-face societies. Confucius said, “Government is about being upright. If you lead with uprightness, who would dare to be unrighteous?” (Analects, Yan Yuan). He also said, “If one’s conduct is upright, one’s orders will be followed without being given; if one’s conduct is not upright, one’s orders will not be followed even if given.” (Analects, Zi Lu). These words are clearly only applicable to headman politics in primitive societies. Leaders in secondary societies need to devise solutions to problems and provide clear guidelines and direction to their subordinates; simply setting an example in everything is not enough. Farmers are idle at least throughout the winter; how to organize them to pursue public good seems to be a concept completely ignored by Confucianism. Organizing the leisure time of the people to pursue material civilization is a Western idea, seemingly outside the purview of ancient Chinese thinkers.

Mencius opposed unifying the world through wars of conquest, believing that as long as benevolent governance was implemented and the hearts of the people were won, the world could be unified. In a dialogue with King Xuan of Qi, Mencius proposed a specific standard that modern scholar Li Shen considers to be the economic ideal of a moderately prosperous society. [4] Mencius said, “The elderly wear silk and eat meat, and the common people are neither hungry nor cold, yet there has never been a king who did not rule the world.” (Mencius, King Hui of Liang, Part 1) It is not difficult to achieve that the common people are not hungry or cold and that the elderly are well cared for. Many countries and regions have reached this standard, yet there has been no unification, nor has war been completely stopped. Only under the conditions of primitive society, when material life is guaranteed, and people are content with a leisurely and comfortable life, can a unified and peaceful situation emerge. In secondary societies, there will always be some people who want to use the labor of others to realize their unlimited ambitions, and secondary societies provide them with this possibility. In addition, Mencius’s idea of ​​ruling the world through benevolent governance requires the free movement of the population, which is only possible under the conditions of primitive society, where there are neither national borders nor the concept of household registration.

It wasn’t until the Warring States period that Xunzi and Han Feizi gained a clear understanding of the two-tiered social structure. They recognized that the order of a two-tiered society could not be maintained solely through moral teachings of benevolence and righteousness; it required the rewards and punishments of rites and laws. However, they both possessed a correct understanding of the original social form, which also suggests that for a long period in my country, the primary level of social life was the original and quasi-original society. For example, Han Feizi stated in “Five Vermin” that Youchao, Suiren, and Yu the Great all ruled the world by solving the people’s livelihood problems; Tang, King Wen, and King Wu ruled the world by practicing benevolence and righteousness and overthrowing Jie and Zhou; while the current Warring States period is an era where military strength determines the rule. Therefore, he said, “In ancient times, people competed in morality; in the middle ages, they pursued wisdom and strategy; and in the present era, they contend with strength.”

Fourth, examine the cultural differences between East and West from the perspectives of primary and secondary societies.

The above explains that due to the dual-structure of a superpower, ancient China was able to live within a primitive and quasi-primitive society. A secondary society composed of free individuals could only emerge slowly, and this situation was not completely broken until the Warring States period. Western civilization originated from Mediterranean civilization, including the Middle East, North Africa, and Greece and Rome. From the outset, it was characterized by commerce and wealth accumulation. Existing family structures were broken down, especially in Mesopotamia and ancient Greece, where free individuals formed city-states located along rivers and coasts, becoming hubs for transportation and commercial exchange. In this context, war was no longer the violent conflict of a primitive society constrained by human nature, nor a way to resolve disputes under conditions of equality; its purpose was the plunder of wealth, resources, and slaves.

When humanity learned how to wage war against its neighbors for additional benefits, the human world began a military competition. The victors were always the most militarized and well-equipped social groups, and the cultures that defied the constraints of human nature. At this point, the challenge facing humanity was neither physical nor social, but rather a constantly growing and escalating hostility within itself—a challenge never before faced by humankind. As Toynbee stated, “Humanity’s chances of survival against a pack of tigers are far greater than its chances of survival against itself.”

William Eckhardt recently proposed a so-called dialectical theory of evolution to explain the evolution of human civilization. He described his theory as follows:

“The dialectical theory of evolution seeks the interrelationship between civilization, empire, and war, such that the interaction between the three leads to positive feedback, causing them to form a spiral motion that is constantly rising and moving forward. Unless negative feedback is established, causing the three to spiral motion in the opposite direction.” [4]

Echoald used the frequency of battles as a measure of war, the area of ​​empires as a measure of empire, and the number of notable figures included in encyclopedias and textbooks as a measure of civilization. Echoald termed these notable figures geniuses, thus the number of geniuses constituted a measure of civilization. Echoald’s research revealed that the world as a whole, throughout its five-thousand-year history of civilization, followed a continuously ascending spiral, with no decline. Within a single region, there were both rises and falls over those five thousand years. When expenditure exceeded income, this spiral reversed, and civilization declined, manifesting as decentralization, feudalization, and invasions by foreign powers. Echoald found that in all examples of civilization’s upward spiral, not only did civilization, empire, and war rise simultaneously, but this also led to the expansion of social inequality, manifested in slavery, the caste system, class differentiation, and social hierarchy. In other words, Echoald discovered a close correlation between civilization, empire, and war, suggesting that they were mutually causal.

Eckald’s theories are based on the analysis of data from around the world, including China. However, his theories are suitable for my country’s Warring States period, but not for the situation before the Warring States period, nor for the world after the establishment of the United Nations.

Echoarde’s theories primarily summarize the historical processes of Mediterranean and European civilizations. This can be corroborated by the ancient Greek scholar Heraclitus (?-540-470 BC), who stated, “War is the father of all things, war is the king of all things. War makes some gods, some men; some slaves, some free men.” Heraclitus’s statement is supported by modern state theory, which posits that the state is a product of irreconcilable class conflict, and violence is the foundation of modern order. Heraclitus lived in a newly emerging two-tiered society and possessed a thorough understanding of its nature before making this statement. He clearly pointed out that war created different classes such as gods, free men, and slaves. In short, war created modern civilization, so calling it a civilization of war is not an exaggeration. In the face of war, everyone is in danger; there is no time to discuss humanity. The social conditions in ancient China that allowed primitive social life to remain viable even after the emergence of the state have never appeared in the history of Western civilization.

Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi are often compared to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, as they all lived in the Axial Age, laying the foundation for future thought, and were founders of both Eastern and Western philosophy. This section briefly discusses the differences between Confucius and Socrates to further illustrate the distinction between primitive society and secondary society.

Socrates was born nine years after Confucius’ death. Both made a living by teaching and left no written records; their works are passed down entirely through the recollections of their students. Due to the passage of time, these recollections are so numerous as to be almost unreliable. Generally speaking, Confucius’ *Analects* and Socrates’ courtroom rebuttals are considered the most credible. This article primarily uses these two texts to discuss their differences.

Confucius’s greatest contribution was his Confucianism, centered on benevolence and righteousness, while Socrates’s greatest contribution was his Socratic method of discernment. The doctrines of benevolence and righteousness were commonly used in early societies facing difficulties and division, though they weren’t necessarily called benevolence and righteousness. Lao Tzu, in Chapter 38 of the *Tao Te Ching*, describes the evolutionary process of the disintegration of early societies, saying, “Therefore, after losing the Tao, comes virtue; after losing virtue, comes benevolence; after losing benevolence, comes righteousness…” Here, “virtue” is not morality in the modern sense, but rather the manifestation of the Tao in real society. In short, Lao Tzu says that when ancient early societies lost the Tao and virtue and faced the danger of disintegration, people first sought help from benevolence, which awakened their deep consciousness, reminding them that they were human beings, members of this society as a whole. As mentioned above, early societies were a unified whole at the level of deep psychological and emotional consciousness. The next step was to seek help from righteousness, which allows members of society to know what is right and what is wrong. Here, right and wrong are not right and wrong in the modern sense, but rather ensure that members’ behavior does not violate basic human nature or the social wholeness of their deep consciousness. According to modern anthropological research, this was also a method used by primitive societies to control separatists. They did not impose the power of social unity on any member, but only reminded people with words such as benevolence and righteousness.

Modern people, having experienced a two-tiered society, have lost the ability to resonate with these words on a psychological and emotional level. The reactions of people in ancient, primitive societies to these words were fundamentally different from ours. A superficially similar situation is this: a two- or three-year-old child is naughty, and after repeated scolding, the parents shout, “Don’t you want Mommy anymore!” The child immediately stops being naughty. In reality, during that period of naughtiness, the child could completely abandon their mother, and the child doesn’t understand what losing their mother means. It is said that a six-month-old baby, when excited about receiving a new toy, will constantly exchange glances with their mother to achieve emotional and psychological communication. The mother represents the child’s deep-seated, holistic social interaction; the child cannot sever ties with her.

Rural life in China most closely resembles the ideal of early Daoist society, and in some areas, clans and clan heads still exist. The clan head no longer has the power to convene clan meetings; instead, he fulfills his role by continuously expressing his opinions through negotiation. When internal conflicts escalate to the point of affecting clan unity, the clan head addresses both sides through relatives and friends. The first instruction is to have a conscience—this is the meaning of Confucian benevolence. If this is ineffective, the second instruction is to be worthy of one’s ancestors. Ancestors represent the entire clan—this is the essence of Confucian righteousness. In short, even without a secondary social management mechanism, people still appeal to human conscience to maintain unity.

Socrates’ most important contribution to Western thought is his method of discernment, or the method of questioning. This method uses a series of questions to help an individual or group of people determine whether a belief or piece of knowledge is tenable. In this process, it continuously eliminates assumptions that seem reasonable but are actually full of flaws. This method is considered the foundation of modern science, which begins with assumptions and seeks truth in this way. Socrates’ method of discernment reflects the pragmatic spirit needed to solve problems in a secondary society as it moves towards its predetermined goals. It also reflects the good intentions of people living in an early secondary society, facing numerous possibilities and an unstable social life, in order to seek ultimate truth.

Confucius’s lifelong pursuit was to restore the original social order, while Socrates’s was to seek truth. A two-tiered society is a social entity pursuing its goal, and China’s two-frame structure social model requires a separation between upper and lower levels. That is, in the aforementioned model, the village families of the original society are separated from the two-tiered society (actually a quasi-original society) represented by feudal lords and the emperor. This is determined by human nature’s inclination towards the original society, because if the two are not separated, there is a danger of a two-tiered society composed of free individuals, and the emergence of such a typical two-tiered society threatens the existence of both the original and quasi-original societies. Lao Tzu advocated that the best government is not perceived by its people (Tao Te Ching, Chapter 17), while Confucius said, “When the Way prevails in the world, the common people do not discuss it” (Analects, Ji Shi). These statements indirectly support the inference of separation between upper and lower levels in the aforementioned social model, and are also the connotation of this social model.

In this hierarchical structure, Confucius belonged to the upper level, where society had a responsibility to help solve problems. Furthermore, in primitive society, everyone had a responsibility to help solve problems. Therefore, when the society in which Confucius lived encountered insurmountable difficulties, Confucius devoted his life to addressing them. Physical labor was not Confucius’s domain. Although he came from a poor background and was skilled in many menial tasks, he clearly looked down on manual labor, earning him the ridicule of being “unskilled in physical labor and ignorant of the five grains.”

Socrates lived in a typical secondary society, where social management was irrelevant to him. He believed his nature was unsuitable for politics. He was divinely ordained as the wisest man, and he used his wisdom to pursue truth. He rigorously examined himself and others, declaring that an unexamined life is not worth living. This attitude was very popular with young people, who always surrounded him. In short, he was a free citizen of the city-state, and after fulfilling his personal civic duties, his life belonged to him. Socrates possessed the pragmatism of modern Westerners; although his main energy was devoted to philosophy and the pursuit of truth, teaching young people, he also participated in several wars, fighting bravely. He was a stonemason; some say he never charged his students, yet still made a living as a stonemason, and some of the stone sculptures in Athens are his work. Socrates’ attitude towards life was vastly different from that of Confucius.

Confucius and Socrates held drastically different attitudes toward religion and deities. Socrates, accused of atheism in his courtroom debates, was in fact a staunch believer. According to Plato’s later account, Socrates’ religious beliefs were more rational than those of the Athenian populace at the time. His concept of God shared similarities with the Daoist Dao and the Confucian concept of Heaven. Confucius, however, adopted a very practical attitude toward religion and deities: respecting spirits and gods but keeping them at a distance, avoiding discussions of supernatural phenomena. Confucius and Socrates were very similar in their understanding of society and human life, their knowledge of religious deities, and their high regard for morality. Their drastically different attitudes toward religion and deities stemmed from the different traditions of their respective societies. Generally speaking, in early societies, religious belief was primarily focused on the individual and family, with societal religious activities playing a secondary role. This relaxed atmosphere in early societies allowed Confucius to adopt a practical approach to religion. Socrates’ unwavering dedication to his faith was entirely a product of a secondary society. While primitive societies might have had instances of funerary sacrifice and divine intervention, this is fundamentally different from Socrates’ conscious commitment to his beliefs. The order of primitive societies stemmed from people’s deep-seated consciousness, while the order of secondary societies is artificial, externally imposed. In early civilizations, people often relied on the authority of the gods, as was the case in ancient Greece. Socrates’ free thought jeopardized divine faith and social stability, thus warranting his execution.

The unity of heaven and man is considered a characteristic of Chinese philosophy. Although Confucius did not speak of the unity of heaven and man, he undoubtedly had an understanding of it. Confucius’s explanation of benevolence became the basis for Mencius’s discussion of the unity of heaven and man based on human nature. According to Mr. Fang Zhaohui’s analysis, there is no essential difference between the Chinese and Western unity of heaven and man. He said, “Almost every traditional Western metaphysician is an advocate and demonstrator of the unity of heaven and man. This is because one of the highest ideals of traditional Western metaphysics is to find the ultimate origin of the world and try to find the highest principle that governs the world. From the first Greek philosophers to Plato, Aristotle, and even modern philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Berkeley, they were all obsessed with this task.” [6] In fact, the first important figure in the West to pursue the unity of heaven and man was Socrates. Because Socrates’s doctrines were all paraphrased by Plato, and it is difficult to distinguish which is Socrates’s thought and which is Plato’s thought, Mr. Fang did not mention Socrates.

I believe that the Chinese concept of the unity of heaven and humanity is based on a primordial society, while the Western concept is based on a secondary society; the two are fundamentally different. In the primordial society and the secondary society, heaven and humanity have different meanings.

The concept of the unity of heaven and humanity lies primarily in the different interpretations of the character “天” (tian, meaning heaven/heaven). Mr. Fang’s article mentions that Feng Youlan analyzed “天” (tian, heaven/heaven) into five meanings, including the material heaven and the heaven of natural operation, both of which can be encompassed by the modern concept of “nature.” Therefore, this article categorizes Feng Youlan’s five meanings of “天” into three types: God, Ideas, and Nature. In primitive societies, without tyranny, the gods they imagined were, as Zhuangzi said, “Yin and Yang are in harmony, and ghosts and gods do not disturb,” meaning that ghosts and gods do not interfere in human affairs. The ideas of primitive societies were limited to human nature and nature, lacking a secondary social system of ideas external to humans. Nature and humanity lived in harmony, and humans had neither the desire nor the ability to conquer nature. In contrast, the gods of Western secondary societies are all-powerful and disruptive, possessing the divine power to kill Socrates; Ideas are a theoretical system external to humans, with the function of guiding people in a predetermined direction; and Nature, if not conquered, is also an object of human work under the guidance of God. Therefore, while both speak of the unity of heaven and humanity, they have little in common. Of course, both Confucianism and Taoism advocate the unity of heaven and humanity, but only the Taoist version of this concept truly reflects the conditions of early society. Confucianism, in its concept of the unity of heaven and humanity, already possesses a two-tiered social system of ideas, although its emphasis on benevolence and righteousness is not far removed from human nature.

The concept of the unity of man and nature also lies in the different meanings of the word “man.” Everyone knows that wolf children raised by wolves are not human in any sense, therefore, humans are products of society and culture. Primitive society is based on natural instincts; people living in primitive society are natural humans, and also humans in the true sense. Secondary society is a man-made society, and the people in it are also man-made. For the sake of elegance, we will call the people in secondary society “man-made humans,” in contrast to natural humans. This “man-made human” is precisely the modern scholar’s understanding of humanity and human nature. The Oxford English Dictionary of Sociology does not have an entry for “man,” but it does have an entry for “human nature,” clearly including the definition of “man” within the definition of “human nature.” This entry, after listing the understandings of human nature from Darwinists to Marx, concludes that “the most influential view in sociology is represented by Max Weber, who sees human nature as the crystallization of history and experience, opposing any predetermined (innate) essence. Indeed, many social theorists recently (including Foucault, social constructivists, and postmodernists) have completely rejected the concept of human nature itself.” [7] The French existentialist Sartre pointed out long ago that modern people have transcended the constraints of human nature and become free people, and that life is the result of their continuous free choices. Like Hitler, who killed countless people, he never married, but after marrying his mistress, they committed suicide together. In any case, Hitler was not a human being in the true sense.

The first section of this article mentions that the transition from the primitive society to the secondary society is like fish emerging from land and becoming various land animals. Once fish crawl onto land and become four-legged beasts, they can no longer be called fish; their ancestors were simply fish. Many people in modern society may be artificial beings, but there are also genuine people existing to varying degrees. This is the reality of the ideal of becoming a genuine person pursued by Daoist figures in real society. (April 10, 2008)

─────────────────────────────────

［1］You-Sheng Li (2005): A New Interpretation of Chinese Taoist Philosophy. London, Canada: Taoist Recovery Centre.

[2] Li Yousheng (2006): A New Interpretation of Chinese Taoism. London, Canada: Taoist Rehabilitation Centre.

[3] Huang Renyu (1989): Talking about history on the banks of the Hudson River. Taipei: Times.

[4] Li Shen (2003): Five Thousand Years of Xiaokang (Moderately Prosperous Society). Southern Weekend, January 19, 2003.

［5］ William Eckhardt(1995): A dialectical evolutionary theory of civilizations, empires, and wars. In: Civilizations world systems studying world-historical change, ed by SK Sanderson. Walnut Creek, USA: AltaMira Press. p75-108.

[6] Fang Zhaohui (2006): A Preliminary Discussion on the Tradition of the Unity of Heaven and Man in the History of Western Thought. http://confucius2000.com

［7］G. Marshall (1994): The concise oxford dictionary of sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

author By Dr. You-Sheng Li

Share