Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4,...
-
Upload
the-gathering -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of 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
-
8/9/2019 Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4, 1_1943!55!65
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]
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4, 1_1943!55!65
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4, 1_1943!55!65
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4, 1_1943!55!65
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4, 1_1943!55!65
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4, 1_1943!55!65
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4, 1_1943!55!65
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4, 1_1943!55!65
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4, 1_1943!55!65
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4, 1_1943!55!65
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Bowers, Myrtie Mae_The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History_Phylon, 4, 1_1943!55!65
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