Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4,...

8/9/2019 Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4, 1_1943!55!65

1/12

Clark tlanta University

The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in HistoryAuthor(s): Myrtle Mae BowersSource: Phylon (1940-1956), Vol. 4, No. 1 (1st Qtr., 1943), pp. 55-65Published by: Clark Atlanta UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/272061 .

Accessed: 23/02/2015 13:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Clark Atlanta University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phylon (1940-

1956).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:04:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cauhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/272061?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/272061?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cau


2/12

By

MYRTLE MAE

BOWERS

The

Chinese

and

Greek

Philosophies

and

Their Place

in

History

THE

age

in which

we

live

is the

age

of our

Western

speculativephil-

osophy;

but

today

we are

near

its end.

The new

age

dawning

s

one

in

which

original speculation

will

cease

and our

thought

will

be

systematized

and

consolidated,

while

our social

and

political

institutions

will

likewise

move

toward

stability, following

one

thought.

The truth of

these bold

statements

s not

obvious,

or

we are

living

too

near

the

events

o

see them

steadily

and

see them

whole. But

the statements

re based

upon

important

historical

precedent

and

this

essay

is an

attempt

o

clarify

that

precedent

in

part.

Vico,

Spinoza,

Descartes,

Hobbes,

Locke,

Montesquieu,

Hegel,

Comte,

Spencer,

Schopenhauer,

Nietzsche,

Marx,

Bergson,

Croce are some of our

great

names

in

philosophy.

There will

probably

be

few others

in

the

future.

Rather the future

will

pay

attention

to eclectics

and

social

political

scientists

who seek

to

weigh

up

the theories

and

to

show

their

application

both

in

past

history,

in

present

fact,

and in future trend.

The work of

Croce

already

indicates

this,

as also does that

of

Spengler,

Pareto,

Orbega,

Sorokin

and,

above

all,

Toynbee.

Nor

are the

great Augustan

and

An-

tonine

statesmen

far

behind,

as

witness

Lenin

and

Wilson.

Since the

seventeenth

century,

when

the

age

now

ending

began,

our

civilized society has been composed of many states competing and fighting

with one

another,

as was

true of the

corresponding

ages

of

great philosophy

in China

and

in

Greece,

the

ages

of

Confucius

and

Socrates.

All three

ages

were

ages

in which new

formulae,

sometimes

old

formulae,

with

philosophic

bases were advocated

or

applied

to

politics

with

the

greatest

idealistic

enthusiasm.

The

philosophers

sought

a

moral

principle

which

would

unite the

people

under an

ideal form

of

government,

and

some

of

the

principles

were

in

fact

applied

in

greater

or

lesser

degree,

with

greater

or lesser

success,

for a shorter

period,

in

many

or

few

places.

The

phil-

osophical controversy became involved with the international rivalry.

Confucius

complained

bitterly

that no

Chinese state

would

adopt

his

[55]


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/12

PHYLON

proposals.

By

contrast,

ome

states of Classical Greecewere almost Pla-

tonic.

Our own

age

has seen

Lockeist,

Marxian and

Spenglerian

states.

But therehas been and is a subtle element of failure, either on the

part

of

the

philosophers

r the

people,

or

of

both. Do

Fascists

today

sin-

cerely

believe that the

Spenglerian

state is the ideal

government?

And

whatdo honest

Russians

oday

think

of

Marxismafter a

quarter

century

of

trying

to

realize it?

And

what

is

the

future of

democracy ,

r,

for that

matter,

what is

democracy ?

If

democracy

s

the ideal

form

of

govern-

ment

for Western

Society,

what is its

program

or

settlement

of the world

after the

present

war is

over? There will be

no

attempt

here

to answer

these

questions;

hey

are

put

only

to

suggest

that

towards

he end

of

the

ageof philosophy,menlosetheirenthusiasmor its formulae,are not satis-

fied,

even

dully,

with its results.

It

is

in

this

phenomenon

hat the subtle

failure

becomesdefinitive.

In

the two historiccases here to be examined-

probably

he

most

important

ases

history

has to

show-military

machines

put

an end to civilization's

struggles.

The cultured

states

of central and

eastern

China,

ike

the

city

states

of

Greece,

fell

before Leviathanswhose

most notablecontribution o civilization

was a

capacity

for

power politics

and the

ability

to

frame

and

enforce

a

rigid

code of

laws.

Yet

the failure

is not

merely

found

in

the

abrupt

conclusion

of

the

struggles

of

the

age

of

philosophy.

It

appears

to

be

implicit

in

the

very

beginning

of such

an

age.

The

philosophies

hemselves

begin

as a

protest

against

ailure.

Thus

in

China he Taoists

represented

break

away

from

the effects of decadence

n

society.

They

preached

a

renunciation

of the

world and

a return

o

primitivesociety.

They

were

opposed

to

all efforts

made

to

propagate

heir

doctrines

broadly,

for

to them such

efforts were

useless

and harmful.

They

were interested

only

in

having

the

sage

himself

seek

the

Tao and

by example

lead men to follow

him.

Organized ociety

was

inherently

vil and

effortsat reform

were useless.

This

was

a rather

exclusive

philosophy,

for

only

the

sage

could

attain the

Tao;

therefore,

it hadlittle appealfor commonmen. The Taoistsheld that activepartici-

pation

n the affairsof mankind

had

no

value;

non-activity

was

preferable

to

benevolent

ctivity,

which

n itself is

an

indicationof the state of

affairs

of that

time.

Their basic

work,

he

Tao Te

Ching,

gives many examples

o

illustrate

the

principle

of

non-activity. According

o this work the value

of

a

bowl

lay

in

the

empty

space

enclosed

by

it,

and

the

utility

of

a

wheel

depended

not on

rims

or

spokes

but on

the

empty

space

enclosed

by

the

hub.

Taoism

was

a

mystical

creed

and

could

be of

service

only

to those

of a

philosophicalnature and at the same time free from all the cares and

human

responsibilities

that are common

to

organized

society.

Those

Chinesewho were

wealthy

or

exceedingly

scholarlymight

have

been

able

56




4/12

CHINESE

AND

GREEK

PHILOSOPHIES

to

renounce

all

earthly

cares

and retire to a

mountain,

but for

the

great

mass

of

people

this

philosophy

had

little to

offer,

for

the

necessity

of ac-

tivity

in

order to obtain

a

livelihood was ever before

them, and little

guidance

came from this

system

of

thought

which

renounced

all

earthly

activity.

Chinesestatesmenand

rulers,

engaged

in the

reorganization

f

society,

likewise

rejected

Taoism,

for it condemned

organized

society

as

evil.

The

Taoist

school

corresponds

ery closely

to

the

Stoic

school which

appeared

about

the same time

in

Greek

hought.

The

way

of life

for

the

Stoics,

as

expressed

by

Marcus

Aurelius,

was

a

simple

life based

on

ac-

tivity

in accordancewith

the laws of nature.

This, too,

was a

system

of

thoughtdesigned

or

only

a

select

group.

The

views

preachedby

Stoicism

were not applicableto all people, for the Stoicsheld that the only way

one could act

according

o nature

was to

have

a

thoroughknowledge

of

the laws of nature and such was

possible

only

for the learned. The

chief

point

of

difference

between

he

two

systems

arises

out of their views

about

society.

Taoism

condemns

ociety

and advocates he

living

of

the

good

life

outside

of

society,

but Stoicism

advocates

he

living

of

the

good

life within the

society

physically

but

withdrawing

nto one's self at

the

same

time.

Perhaps

Stoicism

compromises

with Greek

political philosophy

on

this issue. The

Greeks

had

experienced

many

centuries

of

highly

or-

ganizedcommunitiesand citizenship n a communitywas, perhaps,the

height

of

Greek

ambition. Stoicism

arose

during

the

time of the

break-

downof the Greek

ity

state,

butthe mind

of

Greecewas

still

fundamentally

social;

hence it

was

necessary

or

any

system

of

thoughtexpecting

o suc-

ceed

to include

in its

doctrinesome

stress

on the individual

and his

rela-

tionships

and

obligations

o other

men in an

organized

ociety.

The

polit-

ical conditions which

gave

rise

to these two

schools

were

similar,

for

when Stoicism

developed

Alexander

had

swept

down on the small

Greek

city

states

and

all

ancient

forms of

philosophy

and

religion

relative

to

life in

a

city

were

useless; therefore,

t

was

necessary

or

this

new doctrine

to

develop

deas relative o communities

arger

than theformer

city

states;

hence

in

turnthe

idea

of

universalism

n Stoicism.

Taoism

developed

dur-

ing

the

period

of

the

Warring

States

and all

traditions,

morals,

ancestor

rites and ceremonieswere

forsaken. It

was

necessary,

then,

for both of

these schools

to

develop

new

forms of

behavior

patterns

which

would

be

safe

guides

in a

threatening eriod

of

chaos.

The

one

which

adhered

more

closely

to

the

basic

conceptions

of its

people,

Stoicism,

was to

see the

broader

nfluence,

but

the one which

departed

more

from the

basic views

of its

people,

Taoism,

was

nevertheless

o

have

long

life

and

to

serve

often as a vehiclefor radicalchange.

In

spite

of the

unpractical

dealism

of

Taoism,

its

roots

lay

in one

of

the

outstanding

ualities

of the

Chinese

character,

he

capacity

or

patient

57




5/12

PHYLON

endurance.It

always

appealed

o

the

Chinesedislike for

meticulous

regu-

lation

and

to

the attitude of

contemplative

detachment

with which

the

Chinese end to regardall affairs whichare not of their immediatecon-

cern.

Even

though

Taoism did not meet with

broad success

in

China,

the

desire

for a

system

which

deniedthe value

of

family

ties

and

public

duties

and which

emphasized ontemplation

nd

non-participation

ersisted

after

Taoism

had

long

ceased to be

a school

of

philosophy

and had

become

a

popular

religion.

The

success

met

by

Buddhism

n

China

is

due

to

the

fact

that

Taoismhad

established

he idea of

renunciation

f the world

in

the

Chinese

mind.

Confucius

was

essentially

a

political

philosopher

and

his

entire

teach-

ing was a reactionagainstthe loose spiritof his times, a protestagainst

the

excesses

of the national character

unrestrained

by

moral

inhibitions.

Filial

piety

was

preached

o an

age

when

parricide

was not uncommon.

To the

ambitious

nobles who

sought

o

wrest

kingdoms

rom

the hands of

the

Son of

Heaven,

Confucius

aught oyalty.

Ceremoniesand

rites were

exalted when

men were

neglecting

the

ancient

sacrifices

and

violating

the chivalrous

codes. These

were not exalted for themselves

alone,

but

the

great

sage,

Confucius,

said that

through

the

performance

of

them

inward virtue

was

symbolized.

Strict rules

of

conduct

were

very

neces-

sary,

for

this

was

a

time of sexual

immorality,

and

even

princes

were often

guilty

of incest. The Confucians

ought

the reformationof the world

by

a

returnto the

virtues

of

a

golden

age.

The

only

way

to

put

the world

right

was

to return

o

this virtue

of

antiquity;consequently

he literature

of the

past

was

prized

and

preserved.

They

were

true

reactionaries,

or

they

firmly

believed that

the

past

contained he model

on

which

present

and

all future

society

shouldbe

patterned.

Confuciusadvanced he

theory

of

government

by

virtue

in

opposition

to

the

theory

of

government

by

force

as

advocated

by

the

early

militarists

or

progressive

absolutists. The

Confucians,

proposed

hat the

government

hould not interferewith

com-

petition amongthe commonpeople and stated definitelythat morality

should

be

the basis

of

law.

It

is

easy

to

believe that

Confucian

doctrine

s

based

on a

shrewd

ap-

preciation

of the real

character

of the

Chinese

people,

and

at

the same

time

so stimulates

qualities

which

are

naturally

not well

developed

n

the

Chinese

mind.

Confucius

deplored

the

particularism

of his

countrymen

and

emphasized

he virtues

of filial submission

and

loyalty

which had

almost

ceased

to exist

in his time. Since

the Chinese are

naturally

in-

dulgent

and

kind to children

and

at the sametime

opposed

to

discipline,

Confuciusset up a strict programfor the trainingof the young which

would

seem

harsh o

us, but,

unless

such

a

program

was

stressed,

youth

was

condemned

o

destruction.

Unless

loyalty

and

public

service were

made

58




6/12

CHINESE

AND

GREEKPHILOSOPHIES

the

cardinal virtues

of the

nobleman,

the selfish

interests

of

clan and

family

would

prove

fatal to

the

state.

The Confucianshave

taught

so

well

thatan ideal manis reserved,placid,andself-controlled,hat we areprone

to believe that the

Chinese

character s

really naturally

n

accordancewith

this ideal.

Confucius

attached

mportance

o

these

things,

not

because

hey

were

inherently asy

to all

men,

but because

he saw

on

all

sides

men

cast-

ing away

the

virtues

of

morality.

He cited the virtues of the

past ages

of

Wu and

the

sages

Yao and

Shu

because

he

saw

that

the

social order

was

decaying

and men were

adapting

hemselves o

new

and

less

exalted

ideas

of

conduct

and

morality.

The

position

of

Confucius

n

Chinese

hought

s

in a

measure

similar

to thepositionof Socrates n westernEuropeanhought. In both cases the

system

of

thought

during

the

lifetime of

the

founder

was

not

organized

and

depended

entirely

on

the founder's

personality.

Each

founder

took

unto

him

a

number

of

followers,

and

the later

philosophy,

as

we

have

it,

is

a result of the

systematization

f

Menciuson the

one hand and

Plato on

the

other.

Each school

stimulated

hought

n

its

region

and

gave

rise to

a

numberof

other

schools,

either in

agreement

with or

in

opposition

o

the

basic school.

Perhaps

he later

Chinese

schools

were not

as

dependent

on

Confuciusas

the Greek

schools

were on Socrates.

Platonism,

Aristotelian-

ism, Stoicism,

and

Epicureanism

were

all

partial

derivatives from

the

Socratic radition. Each of theselater Greeksystemshad a different dea

of

the

Good,

but

all

of

them

pointed

to

Socratesas an

example

of

a

good

man.

The

fact

that

Confucian

philosophy

inally

supplanted

all

the

other

Chinese

schools,

while

all these Greek schools

developedalong

side

each

other,

makes a

difference

n the

positions

of the two basic

systems

n

the

two societies.

All these

complicating

actors make

it

difficult

o

point

to

any

one

Western

ystemexactly

comparable

o

Confucianism.

Both

Socrates

and

Confuciusstressed

he union of

ethics

and

politics

as

necessary

to

a

well

organized

state.

The

positive

philosophizing

of

Socrates s exclusivelyof an ethical character exclusivelyan inquiry

into

the nature

of

virtue.

Virtue,

however,

for Socrateswas

knowledge,

wisdom,

insight;

virtue was

no mere

inborn or

mechanically

acquired

power

or

ability;

a

virtuous

act was one

proceeding

rom

a

clearly

con-

scious

perception

of

those

things

to which

it

related;

the

end, means,

and

limitations

by

which

t was conditioned.

This

view

presupposes

he

identity

of

all

virtues,

and the teachableness

f

virtue,

whereby

t

becomes some-

thing

universally

human,

something

which

every

one can

acquire

through

instruction

and

practice.

Virtue for Confucius

lay

in

a return

to the

practicesof ancienttimes. By carryingout all the rites and ceremonies

the

habit of virtuous

iving

was

acquired

and

symbolized.

The

perform-

ance

of

these

rites

kept

the

necessity

of virtue

uppermost

n

the minds

both

59




7/12

PHYLON

of those who

performed

them and

those

who

watched the

performance.

Thus like

Socrates,

Confucius

was of the

opinion

that

virtue could

be cul-

tivatedin all individuals.

Both of

these founders

taught

that

virtue

was

something

common

to

all

men. Inasmuch

as

it

was common o

all,

governments,

ccording

o

Socrates,

should

be

in

the hands of

philosopherkings ,

those who

were

superior

in

wisdom,

for

wisdom

was

virtue.

As a

teacher of

political

morality,

Confucius

emphasizes

hat

government

s

subject

to the

same

ethical

rules

that

apply

to individuals. He does not

separate

ethics

from

politics

and declares hatthe rule

of

virtue

s the safest meansof

achieving

the

good

social life.

Furthermore,

he rule

of

virtue

is the

easiest

means

of achieving he properend of the statebecauseit is closestto man, for

a

government

f virtue s

one

that

approaches erfect

harmony

with human

nature.

Since the rule of

virtue

is

most

natural,

t

is

the most

universal,

for humannature is the

same

in all

peoples,

although

they may possess

different

traditions, culture,

and

temperaments.

This

particular point

comes

out

more

clearly

in

the

systematic

Platonic

thought.

In

the

Republic

Plato outlines

an ideal form of

government

which is

in

the

hands of the

Guardians,

hose

superior

n

wisdom.

Like

Confucius,

Plato

says

that

gov-

ernment

n

accordancewith

virtue is

the ideal

to

which

governments

must

strive,

and

such

a

government

ould admit

of

no

evils,

for no evil

can

come

into a statecomposedof virtuous ndividuals. The ruler for Plato should

be the most

sagacious

person,

and for

Confuciushe

should be

one who

is

skilled in

the

arts

of

performing

he rites

and

ceremonies

hrough

which

he

symbolizes

and

indicates he

nature

of his

character.

The

sacred wor-

shipping

of Heavenwas reserved

or the

Son of

Heaven

and

in

carrying

out

his

duties

n that

capacity

he

inner ife of the ruler was

symbolized.

It

seems rather

strange

that neither

Plato nor Confucius

recognized

the fact

that

the

whole is

more

thanthe sum

of its

parts.

Plato's

contention

in this

matter

s

relatively

clear,

for

his

entire

ideal state

as

set

forth

in

the Republicseems to be based on the (apparently)unconsciousassump-

tion

that the

ethos

of

the state is

simply

a summation

of the ethos

of its

members.

The

Republic

tself

is a

treatise written

or the

purpose

of

de-

veloping

the individual

soul,

of

developing

he

state,

for the

state

is

but

the individual writ

large .

He

puts

forth

in this

doctrine,

that what

is

found

in the state must also be found

in the

individual;

for

how

could

anything

enter the

state

except through

the individual

members

of the

state?

Through

nsistence

on the

performance

f the

symbolic

rites

by

the

king

and

by

individuals,

Confuciandoctrine

reached

much the same

con-

clusion. Confuciusindicated that throughthe cultivation of individual

virtue,

the state would be

bound

accordingly.

The

contentions

of these

masters

on

these

points

are

significant,

but

they

do not

go

far

enough.

60




8/12

CHINESE

AND

GREEKPHILOSOPHIES

They

seem

to

minimize the

importance

of

group

action.

It

is to be

granted

them

that

a state

composed

of

virtuous

individuals

is

more

likely

to

be

a

well-developed state, but, on the other hand, the presence of virtuous indi-

viduals

may

not

necessarily

insure the existence

of such

a state.

There

are

groups

of

individuals

known

to

us

all

who,

when

taken

separately,

are

fine and

noble,

yet

when

all of

them

get together

their

group

activities

are

beyond

recognition.

Individualism in

the

Confucian

and

Platonic

sense

is characteristic

of

less advanced

societies;

so

perhaps

neither the Greek

nor

the Chinese

had

seen

enough

of

human

nature

and

enough

of collective

activity

to

realize

that

collective

activity

is more

than the

total

of indi-

vidual

activity.

Orthodox Confucians reverted to the teaching of Mencius as Greeks

of

several

schools reverted

to

the

teaching

of

Plato. Both of

them

taught

that

man was

inherently

good,

and

only

lapsed

into

evil courses

through

lack

of instruction. Confucian

teaching

with

its

simple

appeal

has

ele-

ments

of

all the

major

Western

systems

in

it,

and

it

has colored

the whole

organization

of Chinese

society;

the state

has

always,

since

the

acceptance

of

Confucianism,

been based

on

a moral

authority,

not

on

military

force

or

legal

sanctions,

and

later

dynasties

did not

deny

that

they

held

authority

by

virtue

of

Heaven's

mandate

which

was

subject

to withdrawal

if

their

virtue

failed. Since

man was

inherently

good,

he needed

only

instruction

to be virtuous and the correct education of

youth

was the first

duty

of

scholars.

The

ruling

class

was not to

be

subject

to

the

indignities

of or-

ganized

bodies of

law,

but instead

such

was

preserved

for the

lowly

and

unlearned.

Confucianism

as a

philosophy

is

twenty-five

centuries

old.

The social

and

political

conditions

of

that

day

were

very

different

from

present

day

conditions;

therefore

many

of

the

ideas of Confucius

and

his

followers

are not

applicable

to

modern

society.

The

fact

remains,

though,

that

Confucianism

has had

immense

influence

in the

shaping

of the

political

organization of the Chinese people as well as in cultivating their political

psychology.

No

matter

how

perfect

the

Western

system

may

be,

the

theoretical

foundations

of

the

new

China

will

necessarily

be drawn

not

so

much

from

the

West

as

from

her

own

resources.

The

Westerners

have

realized

that

their

system

is defective

and

they

are

seeking

for means

of

improvement,

and,

if

China has

anything

to contribute

to

the

world,

Con-

fucianism

will not

be

a

small

part

of

it.

The

school

of

the

Legists

which

was

the

last

to arise

was not

strictly

a

philosophical

school.

It did

not seek

a

moral

basis

for human

conduct

and the reorganization of society, for it accepted the view that man was

by

nature

evil.

The

Legists

represented

a

school

of hard

realists,

statesmen

rather

than

philosophers,

who

endeavored

to

reorganize

society

for

the

61




9/12

express

purpose

of

carrying

on wars

successfully. They

held

that

the

Li' was

not

strong

enough

to

imposediscipline

on

the

growing

Chinese

society. They exaltedthe law as the true principleon whichgovernment

shouldbe based. Law

shouldbe the

arbiterof

the

national

destiny.

When

the

Legist

ministersof

Ch'inhad controlof the

government,hey put

their

theories

nto

practice

and this was fatal to the

learning

of

ancient

China.

There is

no similar

system

of

thoughtexisting

in

ancient

Greece.

The

failure

of

Greek

society

to

develop

such a

system

can best

be

explained

by

contrasting

he

position

of the

family

in the two societies. Chinese

society

had

always,

even

in

attaining

a

high

culture,

relied so

heavily

on

family

solidarity

that most

higher

institutionswere

relatively

primitive;

thus

they

broke down

rather

easily.

In

the

period

of the

Warring

States,

therefore,

the

Legist

were

revolutionaries,

offering

redemption

directly

in

terms

of

those

higher

institutions

o

which the

Chinese

had hitherto

paid

-

in

the

Legists'

view

-

insufficient ttention.

By

contrast,

Greek

society

had

always

relied

directly

and

largely

on law

and

order,

so

that

any

school

of

philosophical

reformers

offering redemption

n such

terms

could

in

no

wise be

revolutionary.

But it was

the

specific

circumstances

f

Greece

which more

obviously

precluded

he

appearance

of such

a

school,

that

is,

before the

ascendancy

of Rome.

Unlike

China,

Greecewas

sur-

rounded

by

other

highly

developed

states

and,

when Greece

fell into

a

decline ikethatof China n thedaysof theWarringStates, hose surround-

ing

states

quickly

conquered

Greece.

There

is,

however,

a

real

comparison

between he

thought

and

policy

of

the

Legists

and the

reliance

of the

Romans

upon

law,

for

the Romans

did

ultimately

play

the

part

of

unifiers

in

the

history

of

the Hellenic

society

which

the

Legist

statesmen

of

Ch'in

played

in

Chinese

society.

The

comparison

s in the

main a contrast.

Perhaps

the

only similarity

between

he

two

is

their

insistence

on the

importance

of law.

Of

course,

the

Chinese

dea

of

law

arose

out

of

theory,

namely

the basic

assumption

on thepartof the Legiststhatman was by natureevil. But the Romans,

appearing

much later

in Western

thought,

resorted to

law

for

purely

practical

purposes,

namely

as a

means

of

unifying

a diverse

empire.

Western

people

have

no such

distaste

or law and

order as the

Chinese;

so

the

Roman

raditionof

law and

order

has been

able

to

permeate

Western

society

in

a more

positive

way

than

has

the

tradition

of

the

Legists

in

Chinese

society.

The

Legists

failed

in

their chief

endeavor,

he

permanent

uppression

of

every

rival

doctrine,

and

in the

end this

school

suffered

he fate

which

it had metedoutto the others. Confucianismwas the ultimatevictor,

but

1A

Chinese

term for

the

Supreme

Ultimate,

which

human

conduct

should

be

modelled.

a

moral

law,

identical with

the standard

upon

PHYLON2




10/12

CHINESE

AND

GREEK

PHILOSOPHIES

the idea of

a

single

orthodox doctrine which was alone

deserving

of

gov-

ernment

patronage

and

support,

developed

later

by

the

Confucians,

is a

remnantfrom the old Legists school.

The Mohist

school,

perhaps

the

least

influential

of

the Chinese

systems,

taught

doctrines

which were

morally

the

most

sublime of all

in the

ancient

Chinese schools. The followers thereof

believed

that the

remedy

for

the

ills of the

world

lay

in

practicing

universal

love;

not

merely

a narrow

clan

love

as

expressed

in feudal

society,

but

an

equal

love

reaching

beyond

family

and

state.

They

condemned war as

the

greatest

of

crimes

and looked

for a

world-wide

kingdom

founded on

love.

This

system, preached

some

five centuries

before

Christ,

contained

practically

all

the distinctive

doc-

trines

of

Christianity except

the idea

of a

savior and the belief in

im-

mortality

for

the blessed

and

eternal damnation

for the wicked.

The conditions

that

gave

rise

to universalism

in

Mohistic doctrine are

similar to those that fostered

the

development

of universalism in

Greece.

In

any

society

when

the

old

loyalties

have

been

swept

away

it

is

necessary

for new

ones

to come

and

take

their

places.

When Alexander the Great

conquered

the

city

states

of

Greece,

the

Stoics

were

faced

with the

job

of

developing

new

loyalties applicable

to the

expanding

Hellenistic

society;

hence

the universal ideal

of Stoicism.

During

the

period

of the

Warring

States

in

China

when

the national states

began

to

crumble,

Mohism

sought

to

develop

in its doctrine some bond of union that extended

beyond

the

narrow

confines

of one clan or

one

state;

hence universalism

in

Chinese

thought.

Mohism

as

a

type

of

religious philosophy

has much in

common

with

a

form

of

mystical

belief associated

with the

name of

Orpheus

in

sixth

century

Greece.

Orphism,

like

Mohism,

was

a free

religion

and

inde-

pendent

of the social

structure

of the civic

community.

In

China,

as

well

as

in

Greece,

the

social

bond,

the

sense

of

solidarity,

had

once

extended

to

the

limits

of

the

group

of

blood-kin;

beyond

were

strangers.

The

rise

of these

systems

of

thought

in the two societies, both

preaching

doctrines

that

transcended

the limits and

minimized

the ties of

kinship

brought

very

definite

social

results. The

preaching

of

a doctrine

that all men

were

brothers

set

the old

sense

of

solidarity

free from

its

old

limits,

and

spread

it to

include

all mankind and

even

all

living

things. Loyalty

to one's

blood

brothers

in

both

societies

came

to

mean love to

all

men.

The old

solidarity

of

the

blood

group

had

entailed

the diffusion

of

responsibility

for

the

actions

of

any

one member

among

all the

other

members

of the

blood

group.

This

practice

remains

to

a certain

degree

in

China,

for

the

position

of the family in China has persisted, whereas in Greece, Christianity, in

preaching

similar

views

to

those

of

Orphism,

has

given

a

different

interpre-

tation

to

the

idea

of collective

responsibility.

63




11/12

It is difficult to

make

a

comparison

of the

importance

of these two

sys-

tems,

for

Orphic

creeds,

coming

very early

in

Greek

history,

have been

lost in almost complete obscurity, while Mohism, coming at a much later

stage

in

Chinese

history represented

a

complete departure

from traditional

Chinese

thought,

and

was lost

in

the turmoil

of the

age.

It

is obvious that

in

an

age

such

as that

of the

Warring

States,

the ideals

of

Mohism

were

no more

likely

to be

put

into effect

than the

doctrines of

Christianity

in

the

Dark

Ages.

The

real

object

of Mohistic

teaching

was

ignored

and

mis-

represented

by

its rivals and

the

system

became discredited as a

visionary

and

fantastic

creed without

practical

application

or

value.

The

Chinese

are

a

practical

race

of

men,

and a

doctrine

which

taught

men to love

strangers

as

they

loved

their own

parents,

and

condemned

war

as the

greatest

of

crimes,

was noble in

itself,

but

contrary

to the normal instincts

of

men. Mohism

never recovered

from the

proscription

of

the schools

and

the

burning

of the books.

In the later

history

of China traces of

it

are

not

obvious.

These

similarities

between

the

development

of

thought

in classical

Greece

and

China cannot

be

pushed

too far.

The idea of

political

liberty

for the citizen

and democratic

government

never

found

a

place

in

Chinese

thought;

therefore,

in

some fundamental

matters the minds of

China and

Greece

do

not meet.

Then, too,

the

Chinese

philosophical

age

was not

supreme

in

every

field of endeavor as was the classical

age

in Greece.

For

instance,

art

and

poetry

reached

its zenith

in classical

Greece,

but

they

did

not reach

perfection

in China

until

many

centuries

later;

the

Greek

culture

flowered

suddenly

and

reached its

height

in

every

field

at

the

same

time

while

the

Chinese civilization

grew

slowly

over

a

long period

of

time,

each

great

period

contributing

something

different

to the

developing

culture.

In

China

the

form

of

political

organization

was never

questioned.

Monarchy

based

on a

patriarchal

relationship

was

accepted

as

the

natural

and inevitable vehicle of

sovereignty.

Aristotle showed a

tendency

toward

patriarchal

government

in his Politics.

He

regarded

the state as

the

com-

plete

development

of the earlier

associations,

the

household and

the

vil-

lage.

At the head

of

these

earlier

institutions was

one

person

who directed

their

activities;

therefore

at the

head of the

state

should be

one individual

whose

interests

were directed

toward

the benefit

of the

community

at

large.

The

point

of contrast

arises out

of the

fact that

the

Chinese

schools

of

philosophy

tended

to

be concerned

more

with the moral

foundations on

which

the

monarchy

should

be based.

This

preoccupation

with moral

prin-

ciples rather than with political forms is characteristic of most Chinese

thought,

and is

in

sharp

contrast

to the

point

of view

adopted

by

Western

peoples,

who

tend

to

devise

forms

first and

adjust

moral

principles

to them

64

PHYLON




12/12

CHINESEAND

GREEK

PHILOSOPHIES

afterwards. The

Chinese

conception

of

monarchy

approached

that which

prevailed

in

medieval

Europe.

The mandate

was

not

a

patent

of

divine

right passed on from generation to generation, but the monarch's descend-

ants

enjoyed

it

only

so

long

as

their virtue

made them

worthy

representa-

tives

of

the

supreme

ancestor.

The

Chinese

idea of a

virtuous

king

is

para-

mount in all

their

political

philosophy.

For

the

Greek

conception

of

liberty,

the

privilege

of the citizen

class,

the Chinese

nobility,

who likewise were

the sole

possessors

of

political

power,

had

loyalty

of

the

son

to his father and

clansmen,

of

the officer

to

his

prince,

of

the

prince

to the Son

of

Heaven.

Law

was

applicable

to

the

commoners

only.

The

prince

forced

the

ambitious nobleman to conform

to his

Li,

but in

the

period

of the

Warring

States

loyalty

became

a

mean-

ingless

term.

Ministers

sought

personal gain

and the

conquering

princes,

by

flouting

the

Son of

Heaven,

set

an

example

of violence

and

unscrupulous

ambition.

In

protest against

this

state of

affairs

the

schools

of

philosophy

arose. In Greece the

philosophers

prospered

as

a

result

of the

triumph

of

free

institutions

in

the

city

states,

but in China the

philosophers

appeared

at

the

same time as

the

decay

of

the

political

systems

and the

spread

of

lawlessness and disorder.

Though

these similarities do

appear

between

these two

ancient

phil-

osophical groups,

there

has not

been

any

attempt

here

to

show

that either

school obtained

anything

from the other. The similarities that do arise

are

created out

of similar

circumstances

that

appear

in the two

societies.

Groups

of men wherever

they

appear

will,

necessarily,

have

the same or

similar

problems

to face

and

the

systems

that

are

generated

to deal

with

them

will,

of

necessity,

be

similar.

This

very

fact alone

seems

to show

that

all

men are

fundamentally

the

same,

and that

differences

are

of

degree

and

not of

kind.

Thus our Western

Society

has

faced

and

is

facing

problems

similar to

those

faced

long ago

by

the

Greeks

and the

Chinese.

Nor

would it be

difficult to show that

our

contemporary

philosophies

re-

produce in essence the ideas of Confucius and Socrates, the Taoists and

the

Stoics,

and

are not our totalitarians

counterparts

of the Chinese

Legists

and the

Roman

imperial

lawyers?

Is

our

philosophy

all sound and

fury,

signifying

nothing,

or

is

it

leading

us

to

that

solution of

society's problems

which the

Chinese

and the Greeks

never

found?

65

Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4,...

Documents

Transcript of Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4,...