3 May 2016
Confucianism and Daoism: How Divergent Views on Human Nature Can Influence Philosophies on Death, Ethics and Governments
One single difference in opinion, experience, or belief can completely separate two people. The foundation of our beliefs ultimately distinguish each of us as an individual and herein lies the core of this paper. The myriad of philosophies and belief systems originating from ancient China vary significantly from each other; however, many of them also have astounding similarities and essentially build off ideas from their philosophical predecessors.
Confucianism and Daoism, in some aspects, are relatively similar philosophies, yet, they have a distinct feature which sets them worlds apart—their views on human nature. But how can one simple, differing belief about the significance of human nature result in such distinctive philosophical teachings? Is human nature really the core difference between Confucian ideas and Daoist thought? How distinct are the two philosophies when it comes to death, ethics, and government?
In this essay, I will compare the significance of human nature in Confucian and Daoist thought, analyze the various teachings on death, ethics, and government between the two, and discuss how the singular phenomenon—human nature—sets them apart as unique, distinct belief systems.
On Nature. There is very little evidence in the Analects or any other Confucian teachings that Confucius viewed human nature or worldly nature as either definitively good or bad. He spoke very little of the natural or supernatural world, and never explicitly stated his feelings on the matter one way or the other. In the Analects 3.12, “Fan Chi asked about wisdom. The Master said, ‘Devoting yourself to transforming the values of the common people, to serving the ghosts and spirits with reverence and yet keeping them at a distance—this might be called wisdom.’”[1]. From this, we can gather that Confucius regarded the supernatural—and anything beyond humans, including nature— as mostly insignificant and preferred to focus on humans and their ability to good. We know that Confucius believed the “true gentleman”[2] was created by “reforming the self” and “self-cultivation”[3]. Confucius ultimately suggested in his teachings that there is an “intrinsic potential of all human beings and even all ‘things’ in the objective world” to be “good” and achieve the ideal of “perfect self-realization”[4]. Further evidence that Confucius believed human nature is born with the potential for goodness is found in the Analects 17.2, “The Master said, “By xing, ‘nature,’ people are similar; they diverge as the result of xi, ‘practice’”[5]. From this, we can conclude that Confucius believed all humans had the potential to be good, yet self-cultivation was necessary to actually become a true, cultured “gentleman”.
Daoism, on the other hand, maintained starkly contrasting views on nature and human nature. Daoists “believed that Confucians, by insisting on a purely human Way, exaggerated the importance of man and failed to pay attention to the lessons which nature has to offer about time and change, gain and loss, the useful and the useless”[6]. In Chapter 32 of the Daodejing, it states, “Streams and torrents flow into rivers and oceans, Just as the world flows into the Way”[7]. Once again, in contrast to Confucian values, which relied on the cultivation of the self in order to perfect human nature, Daoists relied on nature as the ultimate “Way and believed “everything has its original nature, so a duck’s legs should not be lengthened and a crane’s legs should not be cut off; the same for human nature which should not be modified, even not by benevolence and righteousness” for human nature is already perfect[8].
Ultimately, these two philosophies view human nature, and nature in itself, in completely different ways. Confucianism seems to wholly disregard nature and any supernatural forces, primarily focusing on humans and their ability to reach true perfection through self-cultivation and ritual. The philosophy of Confucian thought also deliberately avoids explicitly regarding human nature as good or bad, but rather, focuses on the potential to reach true perfection. In contrast, Daoism tends to view both nature and human nature as perfect in their untouched state; if either is modified, they are no longer perfect. The differences between the views of Confucianism and Daoism on nature and human nature ultimately effected their teachings and opinions on death, ethics and governments.
On Death. Because Confucius mostly ignored anything beyond what is purely human, he spent very little time emphasizing death or what happens after death. Rather, Confucius preferred to focus on the filial[9] aspect of death—that is, the ritual of funeral. Confucians preferred extravagant funerals that showed respect for the deceased; in addition, a three year mourning period was encouraged by Confucius to show reverence towards the deceased because “A child is completely dependent upon the care of his parents for three years”[10]. The mourning period also had strict rules including: “[finding] no savor in sweet foods, no joy in listening to music, and [finding] no comfort in [a] place of dwelling”[11]. Daoists, among other schools of thought often criticized Confucius and his emphasis on cultivating and ritualizing death as a means of filial piety. The Confucians “will bankrupt their entire house- hold in order to provide a lavish funeral. They wear their mourning garments for three years, and so destroy themselves with mourning practices that they are forced to walk with a cane”, said Han Feizi[12]. Other than the strict forms of ritual Confucius emphasizes in the Analects, he hardly mentions death, its place in life, or its inevitability.
Zhuangzi, and other Daoists, in comparison, refused to focus on the ritual and the cultural formalities of death and instead emphasized its inescapability, often comparing it to the changing of seasons. Daoists believed that death is a natural process, an extension of life, and that we will all return to the earth from which we were made. This thought process is made clear in Chapter 36 of the Zhuangzi:
. . . When Zhuangzi was about to die, [and] his students wanted to bury him lavishly. He said to them, ‘I’ll have Heaven and earth for a casket, the sun and moon for ornaments, the constellations as pall-bearers, and the ten thousand things as mourners. Isn’t everything prepared for the funeral? What could you add?’
‘We’re afraid the crows and kites will eat you.’
‘Above ground I’ll feed the crows and kites. Below I’ll feed the crickets and ants.’ Zhuangzi said. ‘Stealing from one to feed the other would be awfully unfair’[13].
Here, the views of Zhuangzi and other Daoists are made apparent. The funeral, ritual, and customs which Confucians valued are completely thrown to the wayside in Daoist thought. Daoists, rather, choose to accentuate the ebb and flow of life; the fact that death is a natural progression of life. Zhuangzi taught that worrying about death is a waste of the short amount of time we are given to live and that “loving” life more than death is a delusion as we cannot truly know what death is like. In the Zhuangzi, he states, “…what leisure do you have to love life or hate death”[14], accentuating that we should focus on the “Way” rather than agonizing over what we cannot understand. Daoists also tend to reject the notion that death is bad. As Zhuangzi also often emphasized relativism, he argued that we cannot understand what we do not know, so because we are alive and not dead we cannot truly say that death is unfortunate.
In summary, Confucian and Daoist notions of death—and how to handle death—completely diverged from each other at the core. Confucians saw human nature as unkempt and something in need of cultivation. As a result, the emotions and coping processes that come with death were meant to be transformed into ritual in order to show respect, reverence, and grief. On the other hand, Daoists perceived death as completely natural and something not to wallow over, resulting in their nonchalant opinions on death and funerals.
On Ethics. Views on ethics differ vastly between the Confucians and the Daoists. Because Confucius and his disciples believed human nature needed to be perfected through ritual, ethical standard relied heavily on ritual, or the rites. However, Zhuangzi maintained that human nature, much like “Dao”, was perfect in its natural state and focused on the harmony of all things.
Confucian values focus primarily on several values which are nurtured through ritual, such as, virtue (德), humanity(仁), and sympathetic understanding (恕). The Confucian school of thought believed that “…the power of Virtue might be compared to the Pole Star, which simply remains in its place while receiving the homage of the myriad of lesser stars”[15], meaning that virtue, or proper ethical standing, will cause the rest of the universe to fall into place in a state of harmony (和). However, virtue can only be obtained by the “true gentleman” (君子), who has perfected his state of being through strict and rigorous ritual. Confucius said in the Analects 12.1 “Do not look unless it is in accordance with the rites; do not listen unless it is in accordance with the rites; do not speak unless it is in accordance with the rites; do not move unless it is in accordance with the rites”[16].
Confucius was often criticized for his strict deference to the rites, however, because in some cases, the rites led to actions that some believed were immoral. For example, in the Analects 13.18, “The Lord of She said to Kongzi, ‘Among my people there is one we call ‘Upright Gong.’ When his father stole a sheep, he reported him to the authorities’”[17]. In the modern day, as well as in many other philosophies and religions, “Upright Gong” acted in a commendable by by turning his father in to the authorities. However, Confucius firmly disagreed and replied to the Lord of She, “Among my people, those we consider ‘upright’ are different from this: fathers cover up for their sons, and sons cover up for their fathers. This is what it means to be ‘upright’”[18]. Confucius shows in this text that ethical principle depends solely on the rites, such as filial piety.
Daoism, in complete contrast to Confucianism, relies on nature and “the perfect dao” to address ethics, rather than ritual, virtue, and the rites. The famous Daoist thinker, Laozi[19], in clear contrast to Confucian thought on ethics, wrote, “When the Way was lost there was Virtue; When Virtue was lost there was benevolence; When benevolence was lost there was righteousness; When righteousness was lost there were the rites. The rites are the wearing thin of loyalty and trust, and the beginning of chaos. The ability to predict what is to come is an embellishment of the Way, and the beginning of ignorance”[20].
Zhuangzi, and other Daoists, don’t believe in an ethical principle that strictly determines what is “right” and what is “wrong”, as the Confucians did, because as shown in the Analects 13.18, people can have extremely differing views of what it means to be “upright”—the Duke of She believed “Upright Gong” was right in turning his father in for stealing, while Confucius believed that “Upright Gong” showed a lack of ethical principle in turning his own blood in to the authorities. Zhuangzi states, “So we have the rights and wrongs of the Confucians and the Mohists. Each calls right what the other calls wrong and each calls wrong what the other calls right”[21] to show that people can disagree on what is ethical and what is not. In addition to revealing this issue, he also states, “If they are right in a way, they are wrong in away. If they are wrong in a way, they are right in a way. For this reason, the sage does not follow this route but illuminates things with Heaven’s light. He just goes along with things. What is this is also that, and what is that is also this. That is both right and wrong. This is also both right and wrong”[22]. This perfectly illustrates the ways in which Daoists thought there truly was no perfectly “right” actions or perfectly “wrong” actions, and deciding what is right and what is wrong by societal standards is not necessarily valid[23]. Rather, by allowing the unbounded “Way” to embody us and our actions, there is no need for ethical standards and society will become harmonious.
It is clear that neither Confucianism or Daoism follow what we today might consider “universal ethical standards”. Rather, Confucians focused on cultivating human nature with the rites in order to maintain ethical values and standards, while the Daoists emphasized following the natural “Way” to achieve a sort of ambiguous ethical standard.
On Government. How a leader should rule a country and how a government should run were also viewed completely differently by Confucians and Daoists. Confucian thought argued only a “true gentleman” should rule society and while Confucius often supported strict ritual and behavior, he did not encourage strict laws, punishments, and armies. Daoist thought reasoned that an ambiguous and distant government.
According to Confucius a ruler should follow the rituals and rites, be virtuous, and show benevolence and in result, society would fall into place naturally. To Confucius, the rituals which cultivated the self, also created a civilized society. He said:
When the ruler loves ritual propriety, then none among the people will dare to be disrespectful. When the ruler loves rightness, then none among the people will dare not to obey. When the ruler loves trustworthiness, then non among the people will dare not to be honest. The mere existence of such a ruler would cause the people throughout the world to bundle their children on their backs and seek him out[24].
Filial piety also went hand in hand with governing because respect towards one’s father, to Confucians, translated to respect towards ones state. “To serve your family, wherever they go, is the perfection of filial piety. To serve your rulers, whatever they ask, is the height of loyalty”[25]. In concert with his views on ethics, Confucius believed that government and rulers should be cultivated by ritual, not by human nature in its original state, in order to properly rule society.
Daoism takes on a different view of how a government and ruler should lead a country. Through the concept of wu-wei, or non-action, “a ruler [should refrain] from ruling and from forming a political will…[because] it prevents his people from developing ambitions and corresponding ‘political’ means for getting their interest recognized at the cost of others.”[26]. Much like Daoist views towards ethics, they believe the “Way” will ultimately lead society to a harmonious state—not a ruler. This is shown in Chapter 65 of the Laozi: “And so to rule a state with knowledge is to be a detriment to the state. Not to rule a state through knowledge is to be a blessing to the state”[27]. As a result, the support for a leader who rules his state from a distance is often shown the support amongst Daoists for non-action and submission to the “Way”. Ultimately, the Daoists, particularly Laozi and Zhuangzi, believed that human nature and the “Way”, were mean to be untouched and left in their natural state in order to reach a state of universal harmony.
Once again, the differing views on the essence of human nature set Confucianism and Daoism apart. “Although the Confucian leader is, by comparison [to Daoism], more actively involved in leading the people and coordinating institutions and social processes, like the Daoist leader, he avoids coercion. The Confucian leader seeks to transform society through example rather than coercion”[28]. So, despite Confucian and Daoist views differing greatly in their regard to the idea of how much the government should regulate the people, they both seemed to believe that ruling by force wasn’t ideal.
Conclusion. While human nature is perceived in an obviously different manner between the Confucian school of thought and the Daoist school of thought, it is easy to overlook. It would seem that such a small difference amongst two extremely extensive and insightful philosophies could hardly set them apart in other philosophical teachings. However, upon further deliberation, it is clear that their distinct attitudes towards human nature actually lends to the development of the rest of their philosophies.
Confucius rejects humans in their natural state and believes that cultivation of the self is necessary to creating a harmonious society. This, in turn, meant that he believed that: death should be mourned not through natural emotion, but through ritual practice. He believed ethics and how humans should function in society should be influenced by ritual and strict rules. And finally, he believed a government should only rule if they truly embody the values of ritual and rites.
Daoists, in contrast, believed human nature was perfect in its natural state, untouched by culture and ritual. If human chose to follow the “Way”, rather than societal standards, it could be naturally perfect. Daoists thought death and life are a natural, interdependent process and neither should be mourned or celebrated. They believed ethical values could not truly be determined because really, nothing can be perfectly right or perfectly wrong. And finally, Daoists believed a government should rule through non-action and the “Way”, rather than through laws and punishment, because human nature in its perfect form only needs to follow the “Way”.
Ultimately, the two philosophies have a myriad of aspects and core values which set them apart. However, it is not valid to say that their differing views on human nature are the fundamental difference between the two. Rather, while the imperfect nature of humans to Confucians and the unspoiled nature of humans to Daoists are only one of many basic differences between them, it is certain that human nature is one distinguishing belief between these two impressive philosophical schools of thought.
Works Cited
Bloom, Irene. “Introduction to Daoism.” Asia for Educators. Columbia University, 2009, http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1000bce_daoism.htm.
Ivanhoe, Phillip J., and Bryan Van Norden. Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 2005.
Liu, Xiao Gan. Dao Companion to Daoist Philosophy. Netherlands: Springer, 2015.
Shen, Qing Song. Dao Companion to Classical Confucian Philosophy. Netherlands: Springer, 2014.
Footnotes:
[1] Phillip J. Ivanhoe and Bryan W. Van Norden, Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2005), 17.
[2] The “true gentleman” or “Jūnzǐ”(君子)was term for the perfect, cultivated man, used by Confucius and many other Chinese philosophers. See Ivanhoe and Van Norden, page 2 for a detailed description.
[3] Qing Song Shen, Dao Companion to Classical Confucian Philosophy (Netherlands: Springer, 2014), 73.
[4] Shen, 140.
[5] Ivanhoe and Van Norden, 44.
[6] Irene Bloom, “Introduction to Daoism.” Asia for Educators(Columbia University, 2009).
[7] Ivanhoe and Van Norden, 175.
[8] Xiao Gan Liu, “Dao Companion to Daoist Philosophy.”(Netherlands: Springer, 2015), 230.
[9] “Filial piety” is often misconstrued as blind loyalty to one’s superiors. For a more comprehensive explanation, see Ivanhoe and Van Norden page 3, section 1.2 of the Analects, page 5, section 2.7 of the Analects, and page 12, section 4.20 of the Analects.
[10] Ivanhoe and Van Norden, 46.
[11] Ibid, 46.
[12] Ibid, 336.
[13] Ivanhoe and Van Norden, 243.
[14] Ibid, 225.
[15] Ivanhoe and Van Norden, 4.
[16] Ibid, 32.
[17] Ivanhoe and Van Norden, 36.
[18] Ibid,.
[19] Laozi is often considered the founder of Daoism. For more information on Laozi and for an insightful textual analysis of the Laozi, see Liu, Chapter 2 and Chapter 4.
[20] Ibid, 178.
[21] Ivanhoe and Van Norden, 212.
[22] Ibid,.
[23] The concept of “right” and “wrong” in Chinese is called shi/fei (是/非) and often Daoist thinkers were extremely vague when describing the concepts of shi and fei. This ambiguity is further analyzed in the works cited. See Liu, page 184, section 5.2, titled “Contradiction”.
[24] Ivanhoe and Van Norden, 35.
[25] Ibid, 225.
[26] Liu, 58.
[27] Ivanhoe and Van Norden, 192.
[28] Liu, 501.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.