Pioneering figures of Legalism, Deng Xi, and representative figure of the School of Names, Gongsun Long
3 Likes
- Background of Famous Schools
Famous schools are a school centered around the debate of name and reality issues, with main representatives such as Hui Shi and Gongsun Long. Hui Zi was actually an atomist, while Gongsun Long was a philosopher focused on logical studies (both slightly later than Democritus). The name and reality issue refers to the relationship between concepts and facts. This was an important topic of debate among various schools during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. During the transition from slavery to feudalism, with the interchange of old and new things, the old “name” could no longer adapt to the new “reality,” leading to situations where the name and reality did not match.
1 Like
- The relationship between the Confucian and the name schools:
The name school believes that rectifying names means maintaining old forms. Confucians argue that recognizing personal freedom and feudal制度 should revert the laws of the emerging landlord class back to the old names (preserving names to confirm), which essentially means returning to the old slave society, a very reactionary stance. It can be said that Confucians, representing the interests of the slave-owning class, cling stubbornly to the old “names” and advocate “preserving names to uphold reality,” aiming to change developed things to fit the old concepts. Their goal is to maintain the old system through “rectifying names.”
The name school sharply criticizes this reactionary viewpoint of Confucians. They believe that concepts should truthfully reflect objective things and propose to “examine the reality of the names and be cautious of their so-called”—that is, to carefully redefine names based on new “realities.” Gongsun Long advocated rectifying “names” according to the changed “realities.” Although he also used the term “rectifying names,” his view was different from Confucians, who prioritize names over realities in the relationship between names and facts. The so-called “rectifying names” that use names to correct “realities” are mutually opposed. 【This method of interpreting old reactionary viewpoints from a completely new perspective is also a technique often used by Legalist landlords and revolutionary working people.】
- The Relationship Between Name and Reality & The Relationship Between Naming and Law:
The issue of adjusting the “name” and “reality” was a focal point of the Hundred Schools of Thought. Almost every school participated in this debate. This was because the frequent slave uprisings at the time severely struck the slave system, and the emergence and development of the new landlord class caused the original relations of production to be drastically disrupted. This transformation progressed even more rapidly towards the end of the Warring States period. It unreservedly cast aside a series of traditional ideas of the slave-owning class. A significant contradiction arose between the old “name” and the new “reality.” Whether advocating reform or insisting on conservatism, both had to adjust the relationship between “name” and “reality,” which was an important ideological preparation. Faced with this social upheaval, division, and reorganization, the declining slave-owning aristocrats were terrified. They deeply hated any social change, considering it “disastrous,” and believed that the “discrepancy between name and reality” seriously violated the teachings of the “Ancient Kings.” They demanded strict regulation and restriction of reality based on the outdated ideas of Western Zhou, aiming to restore the old social order and rebuild the “name” and “reality” on the basis of slavery. The Confucian “rectification of names” (zhengming) reflected the political demands of this reactionary class.
All “reality” must conform to the old “name.” If “reality” advances and contradicts the meaning of the old “name,” it is considered “ritual collapse and music disorder” (礼崩乐坏). Moreover, they proposed a standard for the “rectification of names,” namely “君君” (lord as lord), “臣臣” (minister as minister), “父父” (father as father), “子子” (son as son). This standard strictly stipulated that rulers must always uphold their supreme authority, and fathers must always maintain their dignity. Any breach of this standard was considered “upsetting the order” and a great act of treason. If this reactionary principle was not overturned, any new reform would not be recognized, the new order could not be established, and the emerging landlord class would fail to seize power, preventing the realization of the feudal system. In contrast, the emerging landlord class was delighted by this chaotic era. They demanded that people not cling to old customs, but recognize reality, using the developed reality as a basis, correcting outdated “names,” and transforming them revolutionarily, so that “name” and “reality” could be unified on a new basis. This ideological reflection appeared as Legalist “rectification of names”: “Names are not fixed; they are bound by fate, convention, and customary practice. If they differ from the convention, they are deemed inappropriate. Names are not fixed realities; they are bound by fate, convention, and customary practice, and are called true names.” That is, “name” and “reality” are not fixed. As society develops and things undergo qualitative changes, and people recognize the changes based on reality, a new relationship between “name” and “reality” is established. According to this law, the decline of the slave-owning class means that as long as society recognizes it, it should be called the reactionary class and overthrown. The landlord class represents new productive forces; as long as society recognizes it, it should be called the progressive class, thereby seizing power and becoming the ruling class. This is essentially a progressive view of history.
The arguments of the School of Names (Mingjia) regarding the relationship between “name” and “reality” actually reflect the emerging landlord class’s demand to affirm social change, similar to Legalism. Later, Xun Kuang proposed “systematize names and point to reality” (制名指实), meaning “names” must correspond with “reality” and be “conformed to reality by names,” so it can be said that the views of the School of Names are basically consistent with Xun Kuang.
Gongsun Long said: “Names are the same as reality” — just as predicates express the state or action of the subject, the form of the name is a reflection of objective things. Gongsun Long believed that when using a name to refer to reality, it must conform to its content, neither exceeding nor lacking, or it would be “misplaced,” meaning the “name” and “reality” are not “correct.” Therefore, when things change, the old “name” is no longer applicable, and it should not be used to refer to the new reality.
Gongsun Long said: “Use what is correct to correct what is not correct… The correct part is to correct what is real. Correcting what is real is to correct the name” — his approach is to use correctness to rectify incorrectness. The so-called correctness lies in rectifying the reality; once the reality is corrected, the name is also corrected. In other words, it is about replacing the old names with the names of new, real things. This essentially reflects the relationship between form and content.
The School of Names contains elements of naive materialism, closely related to their political stance leaning towards Legalism. Many representatives of the Legalist and School of Names are known for “the study of names and punishments” (刑名之学) (Xun Kuang and Hui Shi are both considered pioneers of Legalism). Hui Shi once drafted laws for the State of Wei, and Han Fei cited Hui Shi’s views on “reward and punishment”. Therefore, although the School of Names did not formulate a political line for implementing the dictatorship of the emerging landlord class like Legalism, they supported the “rule of law” of the landlord class.
1 Like
- Famous School Philosophy:
The materialist factors in the thought of the School of Names are also prominently reflected in Hui Shi’s view of nature. He abstracted the concepts of “Great One” and “Small One” from the myriad forms of matter, and on this basis proposed the proposition that “All things are the same and different”. “Great One” refers to the boundless universe, encompassing everything, thus having no external; “Small One” is the smallest unit of matter, so small that it is indivisible and has no internal parts. All things are composed of “Small Ones”, so they are “the same”; however, the forms that compose these things are constantly changing, so all things are also “different”—all things have common features but also their own characteristics. Hui Shi’s proposition that “the smallest has no internal parts, called Small One” does not recognize the infinite divisibility of matter. Using dialectical materialism and modern scientific achievements to examine this, he is mistaken. But at that time, believing that the world was composed of tiny particles was an advancement in materialist view compared to the theory of the Five Elements. The ancient Greek materialist philosopher Democritus used the term “atom”, which means “indivisible”, and this is fundamentally consistent with Hui Shi’s views of “Small One” and “no internal parts”.
From this, it can be seen that Hui Shi’s views are very similar to Democritus’s atomic theory; both believe that the world is composed of indivisible exquisite atoms. In this regard, he is as progressive as Democritus, but his limitations are also similar. This also shows that the development of ancient Chinese philosophy was vigorous and the struggle was intense, far from the so-called “philosophical desert” claimed by some bourgeois vulgar historians. Ancient China had a long history of progressive philosophy, which is the true wisdom and wealth left by our ancestors.
2 Likes
- Dialectics:
The famous philosophers also possessed a simple dialectical thought. They believed that contradictions such as the size, height, length, black and white of things, when one side is lost, the other no longer exists. Hui Shi believed that all things are in constant movement and change, and also proposed a view similar to “things are born from being, and die from being.” Of course, it should be pointed out that this type of view contains elements of relativism, but mainly it is materialist.
The representative figure of the Mohist school, Gongsun Long, proposed the topic “White horse is not a horse” in the “White Horse Discourse,” which contains dialectical elements of general and particular, universality and individuality. He suggested: “The concept of ‘horse’ represents the shape of a horse, the concept of ‘white’ represents the color of a horse, indicating the difference in color and shape, so a white horse is not equal to a horse;” “White horse” includes the concepts of “white” and “horse,” while “horse” only indicates the shape, so “white horse” and “horse” cannot be equated. Here, Gongsun Long’s meaning is that the general horse is abstract, and the white horse is concrete, so they cannot be the same. Today, the views of Nazi China and this are completely different. The Zhongxiu group, which is unlearned and malicious, slanders the view of “White horse is not a horse” as sophistry, which is extremely reactionary.
Gongsun Long conducted a relatively in-depth analysis of conceptual theory, emphasizing the distinction between particular and general, and between the concept of “white horse” (specific) and the concept of “horse” (generic), which is a contribution to the history of ancient logic. At the same time, it was a period when the landlord class desperately needed to consolidate its power. Confusing the difference between individuality and universality was beneficial for the reversionist forces of the slave-owning class, allowing them to cover up the fundamental contradiction between slave owners and the emerging landlord class. Therefore, Gongsun Long’s distinction between individuality and universality also had the significance of opposing the slave-owning class and Confucianism.
Unlike the Mohists, Confucianism emphasizes the distinctions of ruler and minister, father and son, opposing the difference between a white horse and a horse. Extending this to the political realm, it can be said that only abstract monarchs exist, and all monarchs are wise. Today, Confucian followers also greatly deny the distinction between universality and individuality to invert black and white. They often promote Mencius’s sayings that the ruler is light and the people are precious, claiming progressiveness. In fact, what he referred to as the people are not ordinary citizens or slaves, but the large slave-owning class. His goal is for the large slave-owning class to regain power and restore slavery.
Gongsun Long’s view essentially states: there are no abstract monarchs in the world, only concrete wise kings, tyrants, and foolish kings. Conducting specific analysis leads to the conclusion that mediocre and foolish kings should not govern, and that talented and virtuous ministers coming to power is reasonable. This completely subverts the Confucian hierarchy and therefore was fiercely attacked by Confucian followers both then and later, who accused him of subverting the way of the sage. Because Gongsun Long denied metaphysics, he was a progressive thinker of the landlord class. Note: As previously mentioned, Confucianism first proposed the rectification of names, and later Gongsun Long proposed revolutionary rectification of names, which was a counterattack against counterrevolutionary philosophy. Additionally, besides Hui Shi and Gongsun Long, other Mohists also proposed some brilliant dialectical topics. For example, someone proposed: “The arrow’s injury sometimes does not stop,” which contains a relatively static view, supplementing and correcting Hui Shi’s “Sun is in the middle of the day.” Others proposed: “A foot-long hammer, taking half of it daily, will never run out,” negating Hui Shi’s “small one” and “no internal” views, recognizing the infinite divisibility of matter, which is the earliest sprout of micro-differential thought.
The reason why elements of materialism and dialectics appear in Mohist thought is also due to their emphasis on examining nature and mastering scientific knowledge, which is in direct opposition to the Confucian attitude of hostility towards science and technology. In fact, Mohists are similar to the Military School (兵家). Because they needed to study warfare and military arts, they developed naive materialist and dialectical ideas through practice, thus tending to be progressive, and eventually allied with the Legalist landlord class.
Furthermore, in light of today’s Zhongxiu society, we can revisit what Confucius and his disciples promoted as the “Name-Rectification” (名实论). He aimed to maintain the eternal order of ruler and minister, father and son, and to “correct” the changed facts (such as sons rebelling against fathers, married women committing domestic violence), which is extremely reactionary. To uphold this system, he demanded that society adhere to the concept of “benevolence” (仁). What is benevolence? Confucius said it involves filial piety, brotherly respect, and obedience to parents and elders. He did not mention many who would rebel; those who dislike rebellion (revolution) are even fewer. Therefore, he explained that filial piety and brotherly respect are the roots of benevolence. Promoting this set of familial and social hierarchy—everyone being filial and respectful—means essentially becoming slaves at home and not offending superiors in society. Would such people dare to revolutionize? It is fundamentally impossible. Turning the laboring masses into obedient servants of the ruling class is the essence of “benevolence.”
2 Likes
- “离坚白"是什么意思？对我们有什么启示？
专家认为，国家如果要稳定，社会要进步，必须坚决镇压复辟派。然而这些人都是奴隶主贵族，深得国君信任。他们之间的关系就像石头和坚白一样密切。而现在出身寒微的法家要像分析坚、白、石一样，劝说国君不要相信奴隶主复辟派，让他们由亲变疏，这就必须冒着生命危险。从韩非借用"离坚白"的论题分析法家和奴隶主贵族斗争的形势来看，在战国末期，刑名学派非常强调"离”，具有重大战略意义。法家的代表人物正是冒着生命危险，运用"离"的策略，使一些具有革新思想的国君疏远奴隶主贵族，转而支持、亲信法家，并进一步打击奴隶主复辟势力，使法制得以更广泛和彻底地推行。由此可见，公孙龙倡导"离坚白"，也像"白马非马"一样，不是为了文字游戏，而是根据时代特点，提出关键问题的有效策略，以反对法家和刑名学派的共同敌人。而与之相对的观点则是坚白。这种只看表面次要部分，只在特定环境中，因为某事就认定某人如何如何，就只能得出错误结论。
这在历史上具有很强的启发性。秦朝为什么二世而亡，法家路线没有坚持下去，其中一个重要原因是奴隶主贵族的后代赵高联合反动势力，反攻地主阶级的革新派。而他之所以能长期在秦始皇身边，甚至担任机要秘书一类的职责，离不开秦始皇作为法家地主的局限——秦始皇没有正确运用"离坚白"的观点，只是凭借投靠依附地主阶级的表象，把赵高当作自己统治集团的一员，这为他后续的复辟活动创造了条件。
在我们的生活中也是如此。许多时候，资产阶级并非以凶恶的面目出现，而像《阿Q正传》中判处阿贵死刑时那样，笑眯眯的胖老爷一样，以平易近人的样子出现。他们也不吝使用各种手段收买人心，比如在劳动者受伤时买创可贴、请劳动者聚餐感谢他们的"辛勤劳动"等。如果因此对资本家感激涕零，那是大错特错的，是自发走上了"离坚白"的邪路。
我们应从生产关系中看出其本质，把资本家从那些我不知道的"善行"中剥离出来，看到他的阶级本质、这些行为的目的，以及他的一切花费，都是剥削劳动者所得。由此可以得出结论：资产阶级个人无论多么"和善"、多么"好说话"，其阶级本性决定了他们必然险恶虚伪。他们也许像胖老爷一样对劳动阶级笑眯眯地示好，但他们随时准备着剥削劳动者，毫不留情。我们必须认识到阶级社会中一个人的根本属性——即其阶级性。
1 Like
- Limitaciones de la escuela de la fama:
En lo militar:
Sin embargo, como representante de la ideología de la clase explotadora en progreso, también hay muchos componentes negativos en el pensamiento de la escuela de la fama, algunos de los cuales son bastante graves. No son completamente contrarios a Confucio, y proponen consignas como “reducir las fuerzas armadas”, que es oponerse a la guerra unificada de la naciente clase feudal, y en las discusiones sobre cuestiones de guerra en ese momento, en realidad se posicionaron del lado confuciano.
En filosofía:
Hui Shi: Hui Shi percibió la relatividad de las diferencias entre las cosas a partir del desarrollo de los fenómenos y la transformación de las contradicciones, pero no prestó atención a las causas y condiciones de la transformación, y a veces llegó a extremos en negar la diferencia cualitativa de las cosas, convirtiéndose en un relativismo absoluto, en la falacia del relativismo. En temas como “hoy es diferente a ayer” y otros, exageró unilateralmente la relatividad del tiempo y el espacio, mostrando tendencias idealistas que negaban la realidad objetiva del tiempo y el espacio.
Gongsun Long: Gongsun Long, al analizar conceptos, consideraba que atributos como el color y la dureza, que originalmente eran propiedades de las cosas, existían de manera independiente y separada de las cosas concretas. De este modo, las cosas se convertían en conjuntos de conceptos independientes como color, dureza, forma, etc. Gongsun Long llamó a estos conceptos independientes “indicadores”. Es decir, todas las cosas en el mundo son manifestaciones de estos “indicadores”; si no existieran estos “indicadores”, las “cosas” no serían tales. Esta perspectiva se opone al materialismo.
1 Like
Because the Legalists and the Mohists have similar demands in philosophy and politics, they formed a “united front.” Deng Xi is a pioneer of the Legalists, while Gongsun Long is a representative of the Mohists.