Mencius Theory of Human Nature and Xunzis Theory of Human Nature - Essay Example

155654 Mencius is called the second sage of Chinese philosophy. Those were the days when philosophical theories made great impact on people and good and evil form the basis of philosophy, sociology, religion, politics, law, psychology and culture of any society. China had adopted an ecological way of living, and people preferred to be peace-loving and kind. He is the person who famously said that a great man is he who does not lose his child's heart. Based on the philosophy of human nature from Confucian school of thought, Mencius (c.371 - c.289 B.C) developed his philosophy rooted in the principle that man by nature is good and remains so, as long as his wishes are fulfilled. He said when people follow their original morality, they show exceptional goodness that has been bestowed on them by nature. According to him people are unhappy when others suffer and would like to save them from such sufferings and that is the side of goodness and he showed the example of all people rushing to save the child, which is about to fall into a well. According to him, the original good nature of man gets hit by disappointments and difficulties like trees on mountain slopes being targeted by horrendous winds and he gives examples of once beautiful, now bedraggled trees of Niu Mountain. "Mencius belonged to one of those philosophical schools and all these schools were competing among themselves for disciples and for the favour of rulers which would bring wealth, power and positionsMencius was therefore, in a position that he had to explain more clearly than Confucius why every man should strive to be a 'superior man'" Hwang (1979, p.205). His arguments are termed as too idealistic, far from reality, far removed from real life happenings and he argues a kind of mysticism beyond comprehension and belief. He is also criticized that all people cannot be endowed with such superfluous goodness as he supposed. Funnily, in spite of criticism, Mencius' theory continued to exist and is quite relevant even today. "Mencius, on the other hand, is more truly a mystic. Not only does he believe that a man can attain oneness with the universe by perfecting his own moral nature, but he has absolute faith in the moral purpose of the universe. His great achievement is that he not only successfully defended the teachings of Confucius against the corrosive influence of new ideas but, in the process, added to Confucianism a depth that it did not possess before," Lau (1970, p.46). He stressed upon ethical predispositions of mind and heart. He argued that any budding evil could be controlled by self-reflection and self-cultivation. His ethical ideal was benevolence humaneness. Xunzi lived towards the end of Warring States Period (453-221 BCE) and along with Mencius and Confucius, was one of the three main architects of Confucius school of Philosophy in China. This period saw great philosophical flowering in China that enveloped almost all spheres of life, society, politics, ruling, warfare, defense etc. He lived in a 'cutthroat' age and it is not surprising that his philosophy is based on human evil. He also felt the need of human education and moral training. "Human nature is evil; what is good is artifice. Now, human nature is as follows. At birth there is fondness for profit in it. Following this, contention and robbery arise, and deference and courtesy are destroyed," Goldin (1999, p.6). Xunzi was directly opposite to Mencius in assuming that human nature starts with evil and not with goodness. His thought clashes with that of Mencius on the fundamentals itself. "But it flatly contradicts the view of Mencius, who taught that man is naturally inclined to goodness and in later centuries, when Mencius' view came to be regarded as the orthodox one, it led to an unhappy clouding of Hsun Tzu's entire system of thought," Watson (1967, p.5). He thought man is prone to evil dispositions, and ethical rules of society are invented to prevent this natural process. His philosophy says that Man is naturally an evil, selfish, self-gratifying being and only the ethical and moral rules invented to prevent this harmful nature are preventing him from being so. He was associated with the Confucian school, and his essays were quite critical of other schools like Daoism and Mohism at times. In Discussion of Heaven (tian), He said heaven was just a part of natural world, and he practically pointed out that people should get along with their lives and try to deal with social, political and economic issues, instead of focusing on heavenly kingdom and thus he negates Mecius' idea of heaven. In 'Discussions of Ritual property' (li) he discusses decorum being part of individual's rule in the social sphere and individual's conduct in society. In 'Dispelling Obsessions' he said fanatical and narrow obsessions should be avoided, because focusing only on one obsession might make people lose sight of other important issues. Life should be multi-focal and never single-focal. In 'Proper Use of terms' (Zhengming) he argues that once a term is used in a conventional way, that term should stay as part of social life and should not be tampered with because with regular and sensible usage, that term attains the place of the most appropriate term and it is a kind of sound-to-meaning mapping referring to real objects. He gave importance to rituals as a way of cleansing human nature and later his thought was considered to be slightly outside Confucian philosophy. Still the body of thoughts and ideas show a distinct connectedness to the then prevailing school of philosophical thought. Morality is mostly a personal creative achievement and such achievements could occur only when circumstances are conducive to moral growth. "For Confucius and Mencius, this is a matter of fate (ming), a consequence of one's ethical commitment to ren, yi and li" Cua (1999, p.369). These two philosophers are very frequented compared and contrasted in philosophical field. Xunzi no doubt makes interesting reading, because of his combination of evil and good and how evil could be controlled and how society could take initiative in such control. Mencius makes a rather dull, ethical and slightly too trusting of human nature. Still Mencius is considered to be the real heir of Confucian style of philosophy and hence, the second sage. Xunzi has tried to criticize Mencius' philosophy many times and has countered many of his arguments quite successfully. He has been called 'Aristotle of the East' for his critical way of thinking. He believed in rites and rituals as instruments to show the right way to live on earth and get into heaven after death and he thought that it was the 'unique way' to live. He also has an argument that 'world is not unstructured, but it is over-structured. "That early Confucian thinkers were moved by predominantly practical concerns can be seen from their political endeavors and their devotion to the personal cultivation of themselves and their disciples, and the records we have of their teachings often lack a clear and systematic character, " Shun (1997, p.6). There is no doubt that Mencius, by placing more trust and beautiful faith on human nature creates a serene philosophy which is dignified and sublime. His philosophy is more passive and peaceful and has more elements of Buddhism in it, unlike that of his fellow-philosopher. Xunzi shows more understanding, less peace, but more militancy. In way he shows the militancy and does not forget to show the annihilation of such an evil. There is no doubt that he is a completely revolutionary philosopher. His philosophy is more political based than that of Mencius, whose philosophy is based on Natural Law. Xunzi says all people are born evils and thus creates a warring, vibrant atmosphere; whereas Mencius creates an orderly, fascinating, trusting and peaceful society more akin to a Buddhism community. Still it is difficult not to get the feeling today that Xunzi is relevant to the present society, and Mencius was relevant to the old docile and passive society. X proposed that good governance is the most needed blessing because it would regulate the evil nature of man. He also refused to rely on supernatural to a great extent, but gave further emphasis on the self-creating capability of man. Compared to X, M is more of an idealist and believed in man's inherent quality of self-relliance, kindness and generosity. For him a person could not be a good citizen, unless he is a good man first and usually all people are good. While X thought that the interwoven badness of man should be controlled and curbed by good governance, which would disallow him from going wild, M thought that government should be cultivated by man for certain control, and it would nurture and maintain the already existing goodness in citizens. For X, a stateless person is definitely a wild man, almost similar to cave man; but M seems to have accepted the goodness in men whether they are stateless or state controlled. This ideal philosophy had been questioned by many succeeding philosophers; but it sustained all criticisms by being simple and coherent. Having said that, we also must conclude that this debate was not being conducted from opposite points, because both X and M argued that man should cultivate his goodness, become a good citizen and a valuable member of a disciplined and trusting society. He should develop or maintain his goodness irrespective of its origin, either cultivated or nurtured. Both presumed that living in a state, being governed by a sensible government were necessary and naturally, the State and the governance would be good. Both philosophers agreed that Man has great potential and ability of altering and moving anything in society and he did not believe in a state-policed morality, because he believed that morality comes from the heart of the child which goes on to become a good citizen because the person carries his naivet and simplicity to adulthood, and State does not have any great role to play here. "Mencius appears to have accepted this intimation of the will of Heaven as final. He has a remarkable saying, that Heaven controls the development of a man's faculties and affections, but as there is an adaptation in his nature for these, the superior man does not say - "It is the appointment of Heaven,"" Legge (1875, p.36). X thinks State should be like a strict teacher guarding the citizen from his own evil and that of others. He stressed upon two important rituals, courtesy in interpersonal relations and humility in controlling personal instincts and desires and said without these rituals, human behavior will not only be chaotic, but also irresponsible and wild. His negative view laid more stress on kings and their control, because they are a definite necessity for any human society to provide good and ethical leadership and they should be wise enough to introduce rituals to reform emotional nature and transform the citizens because human desire and morality are incompatible and blind following of nature would induce lawlessness in society. He thought that man is too fond of profit, self-indulgence, lack of courtesy and humility and all these would lead him to conflict and crime. M did not think that ritualistic curbing is necessary for man even though Chinese philosophers considered ritual as State's foundation. When X said man is born with desires and State's role is to discipline it, M said Man is born with goodness that is sufficient to induce ethical way of living. X thought with effective control of such desires State would benefit because desire is not always a disruptive issue, and M was not coherent about benefit of State. Both agree that morality is the key to control desire and it would guide individual away from excessive desire. Perhaps both traveled from different destinations; but the end was the same, China's unity under benevolent kings who cared for their citizens. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Cua, Antonio S. (2005), Human Nature, Ritual and History, Studies in Xunzi and Chinese Philosophy, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 2. Goldin, Paul Rakita (1999), Rituals of the Way, Open Court, Chicago. 3. Hwang, Philip Ho (1979), What is Mencius' Theory of Human Nature Philosophy East and West, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Apr., 1979), pp. 201-209. 4. Legge, James (1875), The Chinese classics, Vol. II, Trubner & Co., London. 5. Lau, D.C. (1970), Mencius, Penguin Books, London. 6. Shun Kwong-loi (1997), Mencius and Early Chinese Thought, Stanford University Press. 7. Watson, Burton (1964), Basic Writings of Mo Tzu, Hsun Tzu, and Han Fei Tzu, Columbia University Press. Read More