-
Chapter 2 Confucian Humanism
- University of Hawai'i Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
39 C ha P T e R 2 Confucian humanism If one is human, but not humane, how can there be music? —The Analects Conscious humanity in the Analects Confucius said of himself, “I transmit, I do not create” (Analects 7.1).1 This statement is partly true, for Confucius’ ambitions, actions, and achievements all were directed toward the preservation and restoration of the rituals of the Zhou, the same tradition of rites and music discussed in the previous chapter. Legend has it that Confucius preserved, popularized, and gave legitimacy to the ancient classics, rites, and traditional culture in general. He is said to have “revised the Book of Songs and the Book of Documents,” and to have “fixed the rites and music,” in addition to taking on disciples and traveling throughout the various states. Although he may not have succeeded as an official, his influence on society and particularly in intellectual circles was considerable. Neither his detractors nor his advocates, be they Mohists, Daoists, or Legalists, could avoid citing him in their works. Even at the nadir of his popularity, whether during his lifetime or in later generations, his stature as a teacher has never been questioned. And he was never without disciples, even in his most awkward predicaments, as when he met with difficulty in the state of Chen (see Analects 15.2). During the Cultural Revolution, when he was held up to criticism along with Lin Biao, Confucius was still recognized as an important educator. The meaning of “education ,” in his case, referred precisely to the process of making the culture of rites and music self-conscious and “transmitting” it to the younger generation. We need only open the Analects to see clearly displayed how Confucius acted as the propagator and preserver of this tradition. Confucius constantly cites the examples of the Duke of Zhou and the emperors Yao and Shun. And there are 40 The Chinese aesthetic Tradition abundant statements about him such as, “when he entered the ancestral temple, he would ask questions about everything” (Analects 3.15) and “I have had an insatiable desire to learn, and a tireless zeal for teaching” (Analects 7.2). But this is only half the story, and it is the other half that is more important . For Confucius’ work of preservation and transmission was built on the foundation of the new, self-conscious explanation he provided for the tradition of rites and music. This self-conscious explanation is found in his discourse on “humaneness” (ren),2 which constitutes Confucius’ greatest contribution to the history of thought.3 There are over a hundred passages concerning “humaneness” in the Analects , encompassing an infinite variety. Some scholarly trends suggest that the term was actually an aesthetic one, because of its polysemous, flexible, and copious usage.4 This viewpoint is both original and profound, suggesting that, for Confucius, the highest realm of human life was the aesthetic. But this is a separate question and will have to be dealt with later. As for the word, “humaneness” (ren), it bears further analysis. In an earlier work,5 I argued that clan blood relations constitute the concrete social origin of Confucian humanism, while filial piety and fraternal duty are the direct, unmediated expression of that origin . (“Filial piety and fraternal duty—are these not the very root of humanity?” [Analects 1.2]. “The gentleman is generous with his kin, and the people are incited to humaneness” [Analects 8.2].) Both the possibility of filiality and its indispensability are rooted in human psychological emotion. In the context of a discussion of the three-year mourning period prescribed for one’s parents by ritual, Confucius said, “How unhumane Yu is! When a child is born, for three years it does not leave the embrace of its parents. . . . Yu also received three years of his parents’ love” (Analects 17.21). Confucius does not appeal here to the gods, but to human beings; not to external regulations, but to internal emotions. The fact that he looks to a human psychological emotion—the love between parent and child—for the ultimate basis of humaneness, is a simple yet significant observation. For, fundamentally, humaneness is a consciousness of one’s human nature—a nature that is fundamentally biological or animalistic (as expressed in the parent–child relation), and yet distinct from the animal (as expressed in filiality). In this view, these emotions of our human nature are both the ultimate reality and the very essence of what it means to...