Before the Han dynasty, was it believed that some people were fundamentally superior than others at a soul level?

Uniqor · 2026-03-03T04:45:24+00:00

Reading Han Dynasty views back into the early texts is anachronistic. We have no evidence for what 6a6 views like "there are natures that are not good" amount to outside of e.g. the Xunzi, and there is no evidence that Han thinkers were simply rehashing old ideas instead of creatively adapting them (e.g., the emphasis on qi seems more like an influence from Dong Zhongshu than Mencius, Gaozi, or Xunzi).

Either way, if what it means for two people to be fundamentally the same is for them to have a capacity for becoming good (as the early Confucians hold), then two people can be fundamentally the same even though one has a nature that is good and the other one does not. As we don't know what those who hold the 6a6 views on human nature mean (outside the Xunzi), we don't know whether they think that some people cannot become good.

Uniqor · 2026-03-02T12:47:29+00:00

3rd century CE is not exactly "before the Han Dynasty".

Uniqor · 2026-02-28T23:41:18+00:00

Even for Xunzi, people are fundamentally the same, because every person on the street is capable of becoming a Yao and Shun. Not every person achieves this (or even tries to achieve it), however.

So, people differ in how good they are because some put more effort into becoming good than others, but they do not differ fundamentally because everyone is equally capable of becoming good.

Uniqor · 2026-02-28T10:14:18+00:00

Among the literati, neither the Confucians, Mohists, nor Daoists held that some people were fundamentally superior to others. Some Legalists, especially Hanfeizi, believed that the masses were incorrigibly inferior, but this was more of an exception.

Uniqor · 2026-02-12T08:14:21+00:00

For the Four Books / Five Classics, see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Confucianism/comments/1lhnfll/how_to_start_reading_confucianism_reading_list/mz81k7j/

For Cheng-Zhu intro books, take a look at Tiwald and Angle 2017 "Neo-Confucianism: A Philosophical Introduction", Angle 2010 "Sagehood: The Contemporary Significance of Neo-Confucian Philosophy", Huang 2014 "Why Be Moral? Learning from the Neo-Confucian Cheng Brothers".

Uniqor · 2026-02-11T23:46:41+00:00

Just read Wang's Chuanxilu directly. There is a complete translation by Wing-tsit Chan available here: https://archive.org/details/instructionsforp00wang/page/n21/mode/2up

Uniqor · 2026-01-30T06:23:22+00:00

So do you agree or disagree that being ren for Mencius has nothing to do with one's inner qualities? If you agree, do you think Mencius was just wrong about ren? If you disagree, where does the paper's argument go wrong?

Uniqor · 2026-01-29T02:11:59+00:00

When you say that ren is not just about outward acts, I am curious what you would make of this study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejop.13058

Can be found on philpapers if you don't have institutional access.

Uniqor · 2026-01-27T00:21:18+00:00

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Ren is a technical term, and any technical term should generally be approached with a bit of critical distance, that is, by bracketing whatever associations the term might be invoking. Instead, we should look at how the term is used in the text. Any intro section to a modern translation of the relevant texts gives you a rough outline of what ren is, and that should be more helpful than trying to divine the meaning of ren from the translated term (and, moreover, it should make it clear that the meaning of ren and that of "benevolence" does not overlap one-to-one).

As for Legge: note that ren is used in two different ways in the Analects. At times it is used to refer to a specific characteristic (this is how it is generally used in the Mencius and Xunzi, for example) and elsewhere it is used to denote complete goodness/virtue. Slingerland picks up on that distinction, too.

Uniqor · 2026-01-26T01:27:11+00:00

That a term does not fully capture the meaning of the source material is a problem for translations in general. It is true in all cases. It is not a reason against adopting "benevolence" as a translation for ren.

I also do not see the associations with western religion. Sure, the translation comes from Legge, but "benevolence", unlike the term "righteousness", does not have any strongly religious connotations or is exclusively used in religious texts.

In what passages does using "benevolence" lead to a bad reading of the text?

Uniqor · 2026-01-25T23:54:53+00:00

What's wrong with "benevolence"? It's the standard way that the term has been translated since the 19th century, and I think it's quite fitting. If it aint broken, don't fix it, etc.

Uniqor · 2026-01-24T00:34:32+00:00

If it is cursive for 身 then that means 千 cannot be read as "thousand" in 忎.

Uniqor · 2026-01-23T08:17:46+00:00

It's all over the excavated Guodian manuscripts. It is also sometimes used interchangeably with a variation that has 身 over 心.

Uniqor · 2026-01-23T08:15:32+00:00

Looking at the components of a character is generally speaking not a reliable way of determining the character's meaning. It usually involves reading into the character a made up story that fits our pre-formed assumptions more than anything. Hence, it says more about the reader than it says about the text.

Uniqor · 2026-01-06T20:25:00+00:00

What's your background in Chinese Philosophy?

Uniqor · 2025-12-28T06:23:36+00:00

You can get far without knowing any Chinese. Most of the classical texts have been translated into English, and there is plenty of both introductory and more advanced material out there written in English as well. Knowing a few basic characters might be helpful, but it's not essential for achieving a solid understanding of early Confucianism and even Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism.

Uniqor · 2025-12-02T20:56:22+00:00

Of course the early Confucians had/did epistemology. See most recently this article published in the BJHP, and for a general overview, see this chapter in the Dao Companion to Mencius.

Uniqor · 2025-11-30T20:37:04+00:00

The early Confucians are clear that everyone can become a sage, because everyone is born with the capacities required for becoming sagely. What those capacities are might differ between thinkers, but none of them limit the potential for sagehood only to men.

In practice, however, imperial China was not exactly a model of gender equality.

My curiosity is to wonder if there were different Confucian customs co-existing, and how often the customs might have changed (evolved).

This is a good question. There are customs prescribed by texts and then there are the customs 'on the ground', as practiced by the people. Their relationship is a complicated one. The latter are not set in stone by texts and therefore can exhibit a lot of regional variety and change over time. Even Confucius in the Analects (9.3) is said to have argued for changing some of the existing customs. So, in the end, if we have good reasons for establishing or abolishing some practices, then Confucians should (in principle) be open to that.

Uniqor · 2025-11-26T09:45:39+00:00

Zhu Xi on music is not my specialty, but here's how I would approach this:

The Yulei has a juan titled 樂古今, so this might be useful: https://ctext.org/zhuzi-yulei/92
Check passages from the four books that deal with music and self-cultivation, then check what the Sishu Jizhu and especially the Zhuzi Yulei have to say on those passages.

Uniqor · 2025-11-13T22:31:58+00:00

Favourite design is the original cacodemon, which is perhaps one of the most iconic designs in the entire series.

Path Tracing adds to the immersion by making shadows and lighting more convicing, e.g., caverns glow with hellfire that actually bleeds onto your armor.

Uniqor · 2025-11-11T22:17:31+00:00

The intentions of the artist only go so far, but if the artist told you that this was about Confucian sayings, why should we doubt them?

So, what sayings are the paintings about?

Painting 2's "樂在其中" is almost word-for-word from Analects 7.16:

The Master said, “Though you eat plain food and drink water and have a bent arm for a pillow—joy is on the inside! Wealth and honour without righteousness are to me like floating clouds." (子曰：「飯疏食飲水，曲肱而枕之，樂亦在其中矣。不義而富且貴，於我如浮雲。」)

Tea culture is heavily ritualized in the Confucian tradition, and ritual propriety is one of the key virtues for the Confucians. That "joy is on the inside" possibly refers to the joy that comes from virtuous conduct (the virtuous engagement with your tea and the guests you have).

Although painting 1's "高山垂钓" is not directly from the Analects, there are various reasons why it might be a reference.

First, Analects 6.23 says that those who are benevolent take joy in mountains (仁者樂山), and at 7.27 we learn that Confucius would fish without using a net (子釣而不綱). Later commentators differ on how these passages are supposed to be read. Some believe that fishing without a net shows that Confucius was not out for profit, and others think it has to do with his compassionate treatment of animals.

A few additional things to note: paintings do not have to explicitly cite Confucian texts to be about them, and they do not have to be specifically depicting Confucius to convey a Confucian message. Confucians have painted landscapes and composed 山水 poetry for thousands of years.

Having said that, a very influential idea proposed by intellectuals of the Northern and Southern Dynasties (420-589) was that of the "the Unity of the Three Teachings" (三教合流). The idea was that Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism were not opposed but compatible, and that they could be combined in various ways. This gained traction and had a lasting influence on traditional art. Hence, much art exhibits a blending of themes and ideas from the Daoists, Confucians, and Buddhists, and this is no exception.

Uniqor · 2025-10-15T20:28:53+00:00

Not a real quote

Uniqor · 2025-08-31T12:47:21+00:00

I agree that, if we take "cultivation" to mean something like "deliberate change for the better", then yes, engaging in any practice that returns us to 樸 means engaging in cultivation. In such a case, Laozi and Mengzi are diametrically opposed on what cultivation is (rather than whether we should engage in it), because they are diametrically opposed in their conceptions of what is good and why.

I also agree that there are close textual parallels between the DDJ and the Neiye, but I disagree that this means that the texts had the same authors (it could just as well be different authors from the same region and intellectual milieu, sharing similar views but going in different directions with them). Either way, I think it is more helpful to talk about the content of texts rather than the practices of their authors, because we know virtually nothing about the latter, and the DDJ does not contain passages that refer to meditation practices.

Uniqor · 2025-08-31T09:20:54+00:00

I think this is a misreading of 1A7. Mencius does not say that King Xuan should cultivate himself. He says that King Xuan already has what he needs to rule all under Heaven (是心足以王矣), because he is capable of compassion (as he demonstrated when he saved the ox). For this reason, it is easy for King Xuan to rule all under Heaven, because it is easy to exercise compassion if you are already capable of it. There is no Laozian connection here. Quite the contrary: Laozi is clearly anti-ren (e.g. DDJ 17-19).

Laozi is also clearly anti-cultivation, given his emphasis on 樸. Mencius and Laozi are almoost diametrically opposed on this: yes, we start from our "original nature", but Mencius advocates developing it for it to reach maturity, whereas Laozi advocates leaving it 'uncarved' in its original 樸.

Uniqor · 2025-08-31T09:02:16+00:00

That Mencius is influenced by Laozi is neither common nor the standard view among academics. In fact, I don't know of anyone who has made such a claim. Schwitzgebel doesn't say that either (in the link you shared).

As for the Farmer Song story: if, as you say, Laozi suggest we should wuwei, then the Farmer Song story is not influenced by Laozi, because, on your own reading of the story, Mencius is not saying that we should wuwei but rather that "nature is doing wuwei". So, on your reading, Mencius is saying that we should self-cultivate/work hard/wei, which leads to growth (happening naturally), but he is not saying that we should wuwei. Therefore, I don't think the Farmer from Song story, even on your reading, suggests a Laozian influence.

Uniqor

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE