Xun Ziv s Mencius

7/29/2019 Xun Ziv s Mencius

1/20

Xunzi's Systematic Critique of MenciusAuthor(s): Kim-Chong Chong

Reviewed work(s):Source: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Apr., 2003), pp. 215-233Published by: University of Hawai'i PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1400090 .Accessed: 15/10/2012 13:33

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

.

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy

East and West.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1400090?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1400090?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhp


2/20

XUNZI'S SYSTEMATIC CRITIQUE OF MENCIUSKim-ChonghongDepartmentfPhilosophy,ationalniversityf ingaporeIntroductionAccordingo somecommentators,unzi's riticismf Mencius' hesis hathumannaturesgooddependsmore n his egislatinghemeaningfxing'I (nature)hanon substantivergument.'t s also claimed hatnthe ourse f hiscritique unziis committedoacceptingMencius' hesishat uman aturesgood.2 nthis ssay,I offer hat thinks a moreprecise ccount f Xunzi's ritiquef Mencius'posi-tion.The account s basedon an elaborationfthedistinctionhatXunzimakes nthe Xing pian" EX (Naturesevil)between eyi -iIP capacity)ndneng#(ability). hile thers avenotedhis istinction,oonehas ufficientlyppreciatedthe rolethat tplays nmaking unzi's ritique f Menciusmore ystematicndsubstantivehan t susually houghtobe.3Itwillhelpthe reader o understandhe nalysishat ollowsf introduce yreading fXunzi'sposition irst. ccordingoXunzi,Mencius ssumes state fnaturewherein uman eingshave moral esourceshat hey an voluntarilyallupon tany ime. his ssumptions basedon certainrganicnalogies; or xam-ple,thecapacity f theeyesto see at the ametime onstitutesbarringnyacci-dent rinterference)he bilityo see. Xunzidenies he pplicationfthis rganicconstrualo theabilityo actmorallyy makinghedistinctionetween avingcapacity nd being ble to be orto do something.hus, heabilityo be a sagedepends nthefirstlace on thefact hat heres a rationaleomoralityhat anbe learned,s well as thepossession fcognitivend instrumentalapacities hatwould allowsomeone o learn hisrationale. owever, hesedo notnecessarilytranslatento he bilityn thepart fthe ndividualobe a sage.This s becauseshe might otvoluntarilyork n thecapacities hat he possesses, nd neithercan she be forcedo.Furthermore,hisunwillingnessaybe due tocertainual-ities f characterhatmaynotdisposeher o exert erselfoward hegoalofbeinga sage. The transformativeationaleftherites s somethinghat hesages cog-nized and worked t. Theywereable to transformhemselvesnd institutero-cesses to influencethers. venthough rdinary ersons, oo, have the basiccapacities, heydo not have the same abilities s thesages to transformhem-selves,butrequireheforce f nstitutionsocurb heirxcesses nd to mold heircharacters.Talk of the "capacity" o be a sage makesone inclined to think hat Xunzi'sposition is not verydifferentrom hat of Mencius, since Mencius, too, claimsthe necessity fworking t the moral "sprouts"thateveryoneis said to possess.Indeed,Xunzi is aware of thequestionthat f as he claims) nature s "evil," how

PhilosophyEast & West Volume53, Number April 003 215-233 215? 2003 byUniversityfHawai'i Press


3/20

can moralitye instituted?f he ageswere ble to transformhemselvesnd insti-tutemoral rocesses,oes thisnot dmit hat herewere ertain esourceshatheycould use nthe irstlace, nd, n his ense, oesitnotmean hat uman aturesgood?Xunzi'smost irect eplys,"Thepottermolds layto make n earthenwaredish,buthowcouldthe dishbe regardeds part fthepotter'snborn ature?"(Knoblock, unzi, 3.4a). Inotherwords,we shouldnot ssume hat ny productthatwe make ogetherith he onstitutivetructurehatthas must avebelongedto our natureriginally.onversely,t houldnotbe assumed hat he ngredients,capacities,ndprocesseshat o into ny nvention ust ave he ameformalndconstitutivetructures thefinal roduct.Xunzidevelopsthispointwhen he questionsMencius' ssumptionhat hemoral esourcesreready-mader inborn. irst,e adopts deflationarytrategybysayinghat irths in tself process fmovingwayfromnyoriginal,impleorganic tate. n otherwords, here s no suchstate.He also reminds s of cer-tainugly spects f humannature uch as self-interestedendencies ndfeelingsofenvy nd hatred.econd,Xunzi oeson toexpand n therationalefmoralityintermsfthenecessary egulationfpeople'sdesires o as tobringbout ocialorder nd the effectivellocation fscarce resources.n a passagefromhe "Lilunpian"**A (Discourse n ritual rinciples)unzi rgues hat oth heorigi-nal raw materialfnaturexing) nd human rtificewei Ni)aremutuallyeces-sary o bringboutmorality.s we shallsee, thispassagefits erynicelyntocertain ection fthe"Xing pian,"whereXunzigoes on to argue hat itual srequiredocurb ertain esires.Atthe ametime, owever,uchritualsiveriseto theexpressionf, ay, ctsofdeference.nthe"Li lunpian"and the "Yue lunpian" %*A (Discourse n music)Xunzidescribes he rationale fmoralityntermsfconstitutiverocesseshat iverise oritual ehavior.nspellingut heseprocesses, unzi neffect eniesthat hedevelopmentfmoralitys an organicprocess fnurturingertainriginalprouts,venthough emay dmit hat eo-plehavefeelingsf ove andrighteousness.onstitutiverocessesrenotustreg-ulatory;hey ransformawcapacitiesnto efinedensibilities,eelings,ndemo-tions.Mencius'underlyingeliefna simple rganic tate s thereforensufficienttoaccount or henaturefmorality,escribedntermsf he onstitutiveationaleof herites.Once again, t is importanto understandhe nature fthis insufficiency."ContraryoMencius,t s not hefailureo exercise ne's moral bilities hat s inquestion.nstead,heconstitutiveationaleftherites laboratesheearlier oint:just ike he arthenwareish,moral ndritual ules ouldnothaveoriginallyeenpart fhuman ature. ut ntermsf he apacity/abilityistinction,itual rmoralabilitymay etheresultf ertainapacities.tdoesnot ollow, owever,hat itualormoral bility asthe ame tructures the apacitieshat roughthembout, rthat uch structuralbility asoriginallyhere nthefirstlace.And twouldbegthequestionto assume that hecapacities thatgive riseto ritual nd moralabilitymust hemselves e ritual r moralcapacities.

216 Philosophyast& West


4/20

Capacity ersus bilityIn his ection,describe unzi's istinctionetween eyi r"(havinghe) apacity"andneng r"(havinghe) bility."hetermsre discussedntworelatednalogies,inMencius A7 and Xunzi 3.5b.4A descriptionfMencius' nalogy llowsustostate isposition. omparison ithXunzi's nalogynablesus toclarifyhe ogic fhisdistinction.InMencius A7,KingXuanofQi asksfor hedifferenceetween u wei )A.and buneng 5, or between ot ctingndbeing nable.Mencius ites Stridingover heNorth ea withMount ai under our rm" s an example fwhat ne isunable o do.Onthe ther and,f ne claims hat ne isunable o make beisanceto one's elders, ne is actually ot ctingnstead fbeingunable.Theking's otbeing (true) ing oes notbelong o thecategoryf"Stridingver he NortheawithMount ai under our rm"but o thecategoryf not)makingbeisance oone'selders.No person ossesses he trengtho do theformer.incemakingbei-sanceto one's elders ndbeing true ing o notrequirehiskind f trength,nehas both he apacitynd the bilityo do these hings.imilarly,iven hat eingtrue ingndbeing sagerequirehepracticef ompassionateovernment,his sa capacity hat ll persons ave, ccordingoMencius,ndfailingo actcompas-sionatelyssimply otdoing o.KingXuanhad earlier skedwhether e could becomea kingwhois able totend nd protecthepeople.When Menciusreplies hathe can, KingXuanaskshowhe knows his.Mencius eferso an incidentnwhichKingXuanhadspareda sacrificialx because he "cannot ear burenTE) to see it hrinkingith ear,like n innocentmangoing o theplaceofexecution." he term u renrecursn2A6,whereMencius ntroducesis heoryf hefour ermsrsproutsf heheart-mind.AccordingoMencius, ll persons ossess heart-mindhat annot ear hesufferingfothersburenren hixin?TN,)Lk, . Thiswaswhy he Former ingscouldpracticeompassionateovernmentburenren hizheng/T ,ZO). InthesamepassageMenciusgoeson to citetheexample f a child bouttofall ntowell as evidence hat No [person]s devoidofa heart ensitiveo the ufferingfothers."Having heart-mindhat annot ear he ufferingfotherss stated ere s apreconditionf hepracticef ompassionateovernment.fwe take his racticesequivalento thepracticefbeing sage,Menciusssayinghat n act of agelinessis dependentn thecapacity o feelcompassion or thers. nd his claim s thateveryones able to becomesagely, inceeveryone as thecapacity.Menciusre-iterateshe omparison ith trengthhen hekingskshowhe knew hat isheartaccordedwith hat fa (true) ing: feathers not iftedecause one doesnotuseone'sstrengthbuyong i>wA - ,), andone's failure o see a cartload ffirewoodsbecause one does notuse one's eyes buyongming F1 ). Similarly,hepeople arenotprotected ecause one does not use one's kindness bu yongen >FY,). Men-cius concludes that he reason for heking'snotbeinga trueking s thathe does not

Kim-Chonghong 217


5/20

act,not ecausehe sunable. orMencius, herefore,oral ction ssimplymatterofcallinguponresourceshat reentirelyithin ne's control. he samepoint srepeatedn6B2,whereMencius s askedwhetherveryonescapableofbecominga Yao ora Shun i.e., ages).Hisreplysthat here snodifficulty:llonehas to doisact.Theproblems notoneofstrengthut fnot ctingfuwei er4,). Theimpossibilityf"Stridingver heNorthea withMount ai under our rm" husrepresentsstrongontrast ithwhat ne hasthecapacityndtheabilityodo,namely rawingpon hemoral esourcesthand.5ComparehiswithXunzi'snalogy,n23.5b,of ne'sfeet avinghe apacityobianxing ian ia 1i7AFT. shall eavethis ntranslatedor hemoment ecause tisambiguous.heanalogy omes mmediatelyfterhe tatementhat heordinaryperson eyibe a Yu a sage),but t s notnecessarilyhe ase thatheneng e one.Xunzi ddsthat lthoughhebuneng e a sage, his oesnotpreventwuhai4 )her rom avinghe apacity.He goeson: "The feetkeyipian xing ian ia;how-ever, here as never een weichangyou*Jt') onewho hasdone o." Given hecontext, e should nderstandhis ast lause s meaningosay hat oone, hats,noordinaryerson, eng o so.Theambiguityfbianxing ian ia sevidentromcomparisonf wodifferenttranslations:noblock'sacross he width f thewholeworld" ndWatson's toeveryornerf he arth"Watson, sOnTzu,pp.167-168). fwefollow noblock,the nalogymaywellreferoanempiricalossibilityincewalkingcross hewidthof theworld s somethinghat an be achieved, lthough o ordinaryersonhasbeenable to do so. (We shouldnothave the magehere fcircumnavigatingheglobe.)This eavesroom orayinghat nly ertain ersonsikeYuhavebeen abletobe sages.Watson's eading,n the other and, s congruentithMencius' xample fsomethinghat sempiricallympossibleince t sas impossibleo walk o"everycorner" ftheearth s it s to "Stride vertheNorth ea," et cetera.However,thiswouldnotfitXunzi's laim hat omepeople ikeYu areable to be sages.OnWatson's eading,oo,we might aveto interpretunzi's seofkeyias "can" inthe senseofa logicalpossibilityinstead fhaving "capacity").n otherwords,althought sempiricallympossibleo walk oeveryorner f he arth,hiswouldstill e logicallyossible. ut t s doubtfulhathis s whatXunzihad nmind. hus,IproposehatweadoptKnoblock'seadingfbianxing ian ia as "(walking)crossthewidth f theworld."Thismeans hatwhileXunzideniesMencius' laimthateveryones ableto be a sage,he neverthelessoesnotdeny hat veryone asthecapacityo do so.Whathavinghis apacitymeans ssomethinghat e discussesn23.5a,andthereasonswhy heordinaryersonsunable odo so-despitehavingthe apacity-are pelled ut n23.5b.Xunziconcludes23.5b with hefollowingwostatements.irst, aving hecapacityto do something r to be someone (ke yiwei) does notnecessarilymeanbeing able (wei bi neng *%@), and, contrariwise, eing unable does not pre-vent one's havingthe capacity wu hai ke yi wei I~~ila). Second, and moreemphatically, 'Being able or not able' and 'havingthecapacityor not': they re



6/20

far romeing he ame, nd it s clear hathey re not nterchangeable"Nengbuneng hiyuke buke,qi bu tong uanyi,qi bu keyixiangweiming itaT&r2~NI4,P J A,~,,sg?al). Clearly, unzi s assertinghat logicalgapexists etweencapacity"nd"ability."ExplainingheDistinctionLeft nexplained,tmay eempuzzling hat omeonewith hecapacitys unabletodo somethingr be somebody. unziprovidesn explanationn terms ffur-ther equirementsuch s thenecessityf xertingneself n earning,o as tofulfillthecapacity rcapacities hat nehas.This xplanationeadsto thepointhat herationalefmoralitynd the aws s such hat hey equiremuch fforto learn ndtoexercise.notherwords,heknowledgendimplementationf his ationalerenot quivalentothe apacities hatwe all have. nthis ection, e look tXunzi'sexplanationf hedistinction.

Passage 3.5a beginswithhe aying,Anordinaryerson6 eyibecome Yu."At he ame ime,t sasked, What oes thismean?" hequestiononcerns hat sinvolvedor nyone obe a Yuora sage. n23.5bthe uestions raised: How is tpossible or he agetoreach hishigh tate hroughis cumulative]ffort,ut herest f mankindannot?"Knoblock, unzi).7 hisposesthe age against thers,ntermsfwhat he agealone s able to achieve.The paradox s resolved yshowinghat lthough eing sage involves hepossession fcognitivend instrumentalapacities8 orknowingnd acting ntherationaleli ?)9 ofmoralitynd the aws renyifa heng:_itlE) (23.5a),10heordinary erson s either nwillingr cannotbe forced o exertherself espitehavinghese apacities23.5b).Passage 3.5a concludeswith furthertatementfwhat sactually equiredobe a Yu.This nvolves process fxue@ or earningherationalefmoralityndthe aws.This s donethroughoncentratingne's mindandwill, hinkingndinvestigatingver ime,nd inthisway tirelesslyccumulat-inggoodnessji shanf-#) ndtherebychieving spirituallarityshenming'),eventothe extent fformingtriadwithHeaven and Earth. he last entence f23.5a saysthat he age is one whoarrives here he isthroughumulativeffort(suo i erzhiyi9 fAitO). In23.5b it s stated hat heordinaryerson annot emade orforcedbukeshi>fiJ{~) o work tit. notherwords,here s a strongle-ment fvoluntarinesshat etermineshetherrnot nyonemakes he ffort.unziillustratesith hefollowingxample: hemeanorsmallpersonxiaoren %,k) asthecapacity o be a superiorerson, utdoes notwant o be (bu ken7fi) one.Similarly,hesuperiorersonhas thecapacity obe a meanperson, utdoes notwant obe one. Inotherwords, ach can be (like) heotherxiangwei1A), butcannot e forced obe so.

Following hisXunzisays, Gu tuzhi renkeyiwei Yu, e ran;tu hi renneng weiYu, e wei bi ranye. Sui bu nengwei Yu,wu hai keyiwei Yu 2A)Al , ,;"-Aib, , *UMJth.R.S.@ , ,MW1AN,, "Thus, it follows gu ... ze ran)that he rdinaryerson asthe apacityo be a Yu,even hought s notnecessarily

Kim-Chonghong 219


7/20

thecase (ze weibi ran) hat heordinaryersonsable to be a Yu.Althoughtheordinaryersons) unable o be a Yu,thisdoes notprevent erfrom avinghecapacityo be a Yu."Theword u "thus")ndicateshat he tatementollowsponthepreviousne,"(Aperson) as thecapacity ut annot e forcedbukeshi)."This s taken o mplyhat 'Having he apacity' oesnotnecessarily ean able'."On thesurface,hese re two differenthings.hefact hat ne cannot e forcedordoesnotwant odo somethinghouldnot mplyhat nemaybe unable.Xunziis thinkinglongthefollowingines: Theordinaryersonhas thecognitivendinstrumentalapacities o learn herationalefmoralitynd the laws. In otherwords,hebasicconditionsor eing sagearethere. ut he sunable o be a sagebecauseshe does notwork t it, ndnoone can forceher." tmightppear hatXunzihere apses nto hewaythatMencius alks: Peoplehave he apacityobea sage, xcept hathey o notwant o act on it. f hey o act,however,heywouldbe abletobe a sage."ButXunzi's iscussions more omplexn hat e has nmindthedifferentakeupsfdifferenteople.This omesout nthefollowingxample: ugong iangnong u,weichang ukeyixiangwei hiye,ran r weichangneng iangwei hiye TI,-- ,*~l;lIf~iA- ,P-if~t. That s, The rtisan,arpenter,armer,ndtrader:t snot hathey onothave he apacityoperformhework f he ther; evertheless,theyhavenotbeenable toperformhework f theother." his mplieshat achcategoryf worker as both hecognitivend instrumentalapacities hatwouldenablehim r her opickupthe kills f notherategory,s well s the act hat heformndrationalewen i A) of ach skill rethingsvailable oanyone o earn.Nevertheless,his oesnotmean hat ach isabletoperformhework f he ther,presumablyecause followinghe arliernalysis)hey o notwant o exert hem-selves o learn he kills ftheother. heproblem ithXunzi'swayofputtingt sthat,s hesays, they avenotbeen able (weichangneng) operformhework ftheother," ut hismaynotbe true. ne could conceive fthefarmer,ay, akingupthe rainingndthework equiredo be a carpenterndvice versa.Althoughn his xampleXunzipeaks fdoing hework f he therxiangweishi~~ih ), the ineofthoughthave ustofferedpensupanotheronsideration.That s, tmaynotbe possible or netoxiangwei-one may ustnotpossess hetalentsrdistinctiveualitiesf nother.t s n his ense hat he arpenter aynothavethe bilityo be a trader,rtisan,rfarmerespite avinghebasiccognitiveandinstrumentalkills. his s because hemightotpossess omedistinctiveual-itysaythesagacityfa trader)hatwouldenableher o be anyof these hings.Similarly,hemeanpersonmaybe unable o be a superior ersonnd viceversa.Hercharacter aybe suchthat he snotdisposed oexertingerselfndto learn.The uperiorerson,n the ther and,wouldbedisposed operfectingerself.ndistinctlyualitative ay, hemayustbe differentromhemeanperson.Thisexplanationof the distinction etween"capacity"and "ability"reinforcesan earlierargumentn the "Xinge pian." In sayingthat certain ndividualshavecharacters nd temperamentsuch that hey xert hemselves o learn nd applytherationale fmoralitynd the laws,Xunzi is reinforcingheargumenthatmorality



8/20

and the aws do not omein a raworganictate ut nstead equiremuch houghtand effort.DenyingheOrganic onstrualfMoralityInthis ection, shall howhowthe arlier arts f he Xing pian"connectwith23.5a-b. Inparticular,e shall ee how Xunzi ttacksMencius'picturefmoralityas anorganic imple tate hatwe areequippedwith romirth.Inthefirstewpassages fthe"Xing pian" 23.1a-c),Xunzi ssertshat ingornatures "evil" ndthat ites ndrighteousnessliyiW&) aretheresultfhumanartifice.While nature s something e are bornwith, ehaviorccordingo theprinciplesfthe rites ndrighteousnessust e learned. heseprinciples ere nfact reated ythe agesto "straightenut" jiao shi40i) (Knoblock, unzi)peo-ple'scharactersndtosetthemrightzheng E) ibid.).He goesfurther,n23.1d,with diagnosis fthe Mencian dea that nature s good" (xing hanItti) andthat vil s a resultfthe oss ofthisnature. sXunzi ees it, his dea isdue toanunderlyingelief ntheoriginalxistence f a simple tate fthe humanbeing.Presumably,eautysthoughto abide n his riginalimple tatebu iqi puermeizhi iUF-ffiXZ).At the sametime, t s also thoughthat here re beneficialresourcesyingwithin his imple tate bu li qi zi er li zhi yeT iAfJ th).Xunzi s referringo the beneficial esourcesfgoodness.This nseparabilityfgoodness rom heoriginaltate sorganicallyndfunctionallyonstruedbyMen-cius), ust s certain aturalbilitiesreinseparablyinkedwith he enseorgans-for xample, s sightsinseparableromhe yes, ndacuity fhearingsinsepara-blefromhe ars.

Evidently,unzi hinkshathiss a naive nd dealisticicturefhuman ature.He deflatestby ayinghat hemomentne isborn ne hasalreadymoved wayfrom hateverriginalimplicityheremaybe. Thisdeflationarytrategyas nfactalready eenadopted ightrom he tartf he hapter23.1 ),whereXunzi ointstocertain uman endenciesuch s beingbornwith love ofbenefithao li~O9]).He also remindssof he eelingsf nvy nd hatredji wu ,). Later,n23.6a,hehas the mperorhun aying,Man'semotions revery nlovely!"Renqing henbu meik)'lT h). Here,hementionsxamples ike sonwho isno longer ilialonce hehas tartedfamilyfhis wn, ndpeoplewhoare no onger rustworthyrloyal ncethey ave chievedwhatwasdesired.Inmentioninghese endencies unzi s not ssertinghathuman esires ndemotionsre intrinsicallyvil,despite hefact hathe begins hechapterwith hestatementNature s evil" (Xing ). DonaldMunrohas recentlyrgued hatweshouldunderstandhis nthecontextf Xunzi'smacro-concernfhow to matchdesireswith carceresources." funregulatednduncultivated,hedesires fpeo-ple would lead towranglingnd socialdisorder,esultingna very ncommodi-ous situation or ll. Further,n otherchapters,whereMencius is notthetarget fhis criticisms, unzi does seem to allow forfeelings f love forone's own kind,remembrance f and longingfor he deceased, and havinga sense ofyi or right-

Kim-Chonghong 221


9/20

eousness, nd even talks farousing eople'sshanxin#,? orgood heartwhendiscussinghe unctionndrole fmusic.12The admission fthese eelingsoes notundermine unzi's ase againstMen-cius.Thearguments notust hatMencius' icturef noriginaltate f implicityisnaive, ndXunzi oes notust top tprovidingemindersf ertainelf-interestedtendencies. swe have een,he furtherrguesin23.1d)that oodnessndmoralitydo not ome n norganicallyaw tate. his ointsreinforcedhroughis ccountof herationalef heritesnd thenecessityfhumanrtifice,nd t ssubsequentlyhammeredomeby he apacity/abilityistinction.Beforemakinghis istinction,owever, unzimakes related nd importantpoint. irst, e posits heobjection:Aninquirerays:Ritual rinciples, orality,accumulatedffort,ndacquired bilitiesrepart fman'snature, hich swhy hesageswere ble toproduce hem."He replies:Thepottermolds layto make nearthenwareish, uthowcouldthedishbe regardeds part f hepotter'snbornnature?heartisanarveswood to make vessel, uthow ould hewoodenvesselbe regardeds part fthe artisan's ature? hesage'srelationo ritual rinciplesis just ikethat f thepottermoldinglay.Thisbeing o, how could ritual rin-ciples,morality,ccumulatedffort,ndacquired bilities e part fman's riginalnature?"Knoblock, unzi,23.4a).13Xunzi s saying hatritual rinciplesndmoralityorrites nd righteousness)re productshathavea differentorm ndstructureromheoriginal rocessesndingredientshat o into heir onstruction.Given hat heyhave a differentorm nd structure,hey annotbe said to be inone'snatureromhebeginning. e can construe unzi o be pointingo a variantof hegenetic allacy:t sa fallacyoassume hatmoralityrgoodness asthe ameforms what ives ise o them.14 hedistinctionetweencapacity"nd"ability"is an extensionf his rgument.I havementionedhe mportancef he Li unpian" nd the Yue unpian" oXunzi'swhole rgument.nthese hapters,unzi escribesherationale,orm,ndstructurefmoralityndtherites. here sa passagefromhe Li lunpian"thatsrightlyhoughtobelong othe Xing pian."15 ereXunzi tateshat ing r natureis theoriginal awmaterialxing he,benshi cai pu ye , tf,). Weiorhuman rtifice,n theother and, s somethinghat anbe observedn) heflour-ishingf theculturalormnd rationaleweizhe,wen i long hengyeNW, JIMAT)of herites. ach s a necessaryonditionf he ther. s Xunzi ays,withoutxing,wei wouldhavenothingowhich tcan add (wuxing e weizhi wu suo ia,BiUtZfif;D)1). Andwithout ei,xingwouldbe unable obeautifytselfwuweize xing uneng i mei .MAU'Tif A) (ICS19/95/1-2).Thispassagecan neatly ake tsplace justprior o 23.1e (ICS 23/114/2-6),whereXunzi akes heargument stepfurther.e reminds s of certain acts fdesire hat re a prominentart f oursensorynd emotional atureqingxingt14L$),16nd ofwhat we do to curb them n ritualistic ays. Insteadofbeinginsep-arable from r abiding nournature, heseritual racticesmaybe said to defy urnature.Thus,we naturally esireto alleviatethesensory tates fhunger, old, andtiredness.nthepresenceofan elder, however, lthoughwe are hungry e maynot



10/20

eat first utrangA or defer o her nstead. imilarly,lthoughired, e might otseekrest ut nstead elieve thers. his ort fdeferencesspelled ut, ornstance,intherelationshipsetween athernd son and between rothers.n this ense,we have thewayor thedao of thefilial on and thecultural orm nd rationalefritesndrighteousness.fwe simplyollow he ensorynd emotionalspects fournature,n theother and, herewillbe no deference. utgiven hat here sdefer-ence,Xunzi rgues,his hows hatwe aregoing gainst ur ensoryndemotionalnature.While he rules f deferencereregulatory,hey re, t the ametime, onsti-tutive. onstitutiveules create r define ewformsfbehavior.""17nother ords,suchbehavior ouldnot xistwithoutherules hat iverise othem,s opposed otheactivityfsay, ating,which an exist ndependentlyf rules fetiquette.hedetailed ttentionhatXunzigives o therationale f the ritesneffectpellsoutthe onstitutiverocesses herebyoth he ocietyndthe ndividualreculturallytransformedrom raw oa cultivatedtate. rom his erspective,t spart fXun-zi's argumenthatMenciushas ignoredhe ocially onstitutiverocesseshat renecessaryorny ndividualo become moral gent.TheConstitutiveationaleftheRitesInthis ection,we takea closer ook at these onstitutiverocesses s describedinthe Li unpian" nd the Yue unpian." nthe Li unpian"Xunzi escribes heconstitutiverocesses f social distinctions,ierarchy,everence nd deference,harmoniousnteraction,eachersndmodels, esthetic efinement,t cetera. t sconsistent ith his ccount f he onstitutiverocesses f herites nd their atio-nalethat heremay e differentevels fknowledgendunderstandingn thepart findividuals.t s Xunzi's ositionnthe ater arts f he Xing pian" 23.6b,23.7)that ifferenteople maybe differentlynclined,rhave differentevels f ntelli-genceand courage.Cumulativeffortji V) is an essential art f wei or humanartifice.his anreferothe ffortf n individualn pplyingimselfothe earningandunderstandingfvariousspects f herites. ut onsistentlyt an also referothe umulativeffortsf xemplaryeople nd thefosteringfritualrocessesvertime o curb he ndulgencefcertainmotivationaltates,s well as to refinendtransformhem ntomorenoblefeelingsnd emotions. nimportantart f whatitmeans osaythat herites renotustregulatoryut onstitutivesthat hey re,as A. S. Cua aptly uts t, ennobling."18his s, neffect,hatXunzimeanswhenhe identifiesherites r liwithyang, nurturing"r "cultivating"li zhe yangyett~) (ICS 19/90/5-6,19.1b).Itwouldbe impossibleogo into llthedetails hatXunzi rovidesf heratio-nalebehind herites. shallbrieflyummarizeomeof herationalerom readingof ertain assages nthe Li unpian" ndthe Yue lunpian."Thus, obeginwith,there s the need to ensure a social and politicalhierarchy herebyproperrelation-ships are establishedand reverence s instilled orvariousforms f authorityuchas rulers,eachers, amilies, nd ancestors.Thisreverence sextended oheaven and

Kim-Chonghong 223


11/20

earth s thebasisof ife.Whileheaven ndearthndancestorsrovide reverentialsenseof hebeginningsf ife nd a sense frootedness,ulersndteachersrovidea reverentialenseofthe basisoforder.Familieswouldpresumablypanbothcategories.)ICS19/90/20-22,9.2a).Inaddition,he rites avean aestheticationale. unzi peaks f the need forindividualnd socialharmonyndelegant orm hereinhe motionsre lsogivenroom or efinednd balanced xpression.he aesthetic unctionf heriteservestocultivatehedesiresndthe motions,esultingnbeauty rrefinementmei#)of onduct. heword isusuallyranslateds "evil" n he ontextfdiscussionsnhuman ature. ut t houldnotbeforgottenhat t lso means ugly,"he ppositeof "beautiful"r"refined."hus,whenXunzi ays hat man'snaturese," as wehave een,he semphasizinghat herawmaterialf hedesires ndemotions eedsrefinement,ailing hich herewillbe disorderndimpoverishedesourcesor ll.As he says, Rites rimwhat s too long, tretchut what s too short,liminateexcess, emedy eficiency,nd extend ultivatedormshatxpressove ndrespectso that heyncreasendcompletehebeauty fconductccordingo one'sduty"(Knoblock, unzi, 9.5b; CS19/94/8).Inboth ts egulatorynd aestheticenses, heritesrecomplementedymusic:

Musics oy.19eingnessentialartfman's motionalature,he xpressionfoy s,bynecessity,nescapable....utf ts orms not roperlyonducted,hent s mpos-sible hat isorderhould ot rise. heAncientings ateduch isorder.hus heyinstituteds regulationshe oundsf heOdes nd heHymnsoofferuidance.hiswould ause he oundsobesufficientogive xpressiono theoy, utnot ead odissipation....twould ause .. the hythmndmeterf hemusic o be sufficientostirndmove he ood nmen's eartsgan en hi han in,~&, ], and okeepevil ndbase iX sentimentsromindingfootholdhere.Knoblock,unzi,0.1; CS20/98/14-18)Andfurther,music mbodiesharmonieshat an never e altered,ustas ritualembodiesprinciplesf natural rder hatcan neverbe changed.Music oinstogetherhat scommonoall; ritualeparates hat s different.heguiding rin-ciplesof ritualndmusic ctas thepitch ipethat isciplineshe humanheart"(Knoblock,unzi, 0.3; ICS20/100/14-15).Thisrationalef theritess,at thesametime, herationalefmoralityndthe aws.20As mentionedarlier,earningnd imbibinghem nvolvesumulativeeffort.ne mighthink hat his stoohigh standardoset, ince ll thatmayberequiredorhe rdinaryersono begoodor moralsthat e or sheobey herulesofmoralitynd the awswithout ecessarilynderstandingheir ationale. ut nadditionto the need fortraining nd habituation,Xunzi is also speakingof theknowledge nd transformativexperiencethat re involved nbeinga sage. Giventhatthisrequires keen perceptiveness f the rationalebehindmoralitynd thelaws,not veryonewillqualify.We haveseen that, ccording oXunzi,people havean autonomouswill as well as differentualities. nthisrespect, heremaybe dif-ferentevelsofperceptiveness,kills, nd understanding.his is precisely hepoint



12/20

that ssuggestedy he xample fwhat t s to "be another"rxiangwei n23.5b,whichwe have lready iscussed.The Primitiveesponses" rgumentIt s importanto note hatXunzi's isagreementithMenciusdoes not ie atthelevelofdistinguishingon-moralrommoral esponsesndthat, omehow,Xunziisabletoconnect rimitiveesponses ithmoral eelingsndbehaviorhroughninherentesire fhuman eings orharmony.his s, nfact, he nterpretationfDavidWong.21WongcharacterizeshedifferenceetweenMencius nd Xunzi ntermsf an example n Mencius A5. Presumably,nearly imes,hepractice fburial id not xist.Menciushypothesizeshat group fpeoplehavethrownhebodiesoftheir eceasedparentsnto ditch nd later bserve reaturesndflieseating hem.Theybreak nto sweat and hurryomefor padesto bury hem.Referringo this xampleWongstates,Menciusdescribes hecoveringf themas right." ycontrast,unzi denies he Mencian laimthat nnate,hared eac-tions eveal ightnesso us." Xunzi's icturef human aturesconsistent ith thetransformationromelf nterestoa love anddelightnmorality.n this iew,welove itbecause texpresses,hannels,ndstrengthensomeofour natural umanfeelings."22However, escribingheactionof thegroup fpeopleburyingheir arentsas "right"may till otbe adequate o differentiateencius'positionrom unzi's.Mencius' omment nthe xample s that Thesweating as notput nfor thersto see. It was an expressionftheirnnermosteartzhongxin da yumian murI1Anl,,iH)" (Mencius A5).This s a responserobablyavingodo with hefoursproutsf heheart-mind,lthought snot learwhich f hefourMenciusmaybereferringo.Mencius oncludes: [Ifnthis ase]buryinghemsthe hingodo (yanzhicheng hiyeAZA-it), then heburyingf heir wnparentsyfilialons ndrenpersonslso must ave a] dao (ze xiao zi renren hiyanqi qin yibiyoudaoIJfhU$AZMARIf~~ )." Notethat he word"right"-whichmight e con-strued y hereader s yi -nowhere occurs nthis assage.Even f right"ouldbe implied y hementionf the hingo do"23 ndof wayordao, tmay till otbea full-blooded oral otion fright.t ouldbe arguedhathe mphasiss not omuchon the"right"hingodo, as on illustratingshared rcommon rimitiveresponse. hismeans hatMencius' ositionscapableofbeingnterpretedntermsofprimitiveesponsesr nclinationshat eed o bedevelopedntomoral irtues.fthis s possible, hen hedifferenceetweenXunzi ndMenciusremainsnclear,andWong's nalysis ouldfail odissolvehe mpressionhatheir ositionsre notincompatible.ThroughoutisessayWong s troubledythequestion f howone can movefrom eingself-interestedo having delight nmorality. ccording oWong,Xun-zi's solution s given in terms f the fact thatmoralityllows forchannelinganddevelopingsome ofour natural eelings, speciallythedesireforharmony.Againstthis,however, defender fMencius could object that his notionofharmonynd

Kim-Chonghong 225


13/20

naturaleelingssmorallyoaded.Whetherhis bjections validornot,we wouldfind urselves ack ntheolddebate boutwhether unzihasbegged he uestioninhis riticismfMencius. swe have een, t ouldbe held hat hevery rocessfinventing oralityssumes omemoral apacitynthefirstlace.ConclusionI have shown hatXunzi s himselfonscious f thiskind fobjection nd thathiscritiquefMencius oesnotremaint this evelofdebate. nstead,hedistinc-tionbetween capacity"nd "ability" reakshroughhese bjections. ccordingto Xunzi's iagnosis, encius ssumes simple tatewhere,o it eems, avinghenecessaryapacity o know ndacton therationalefmoralityrganicallyrans-lates nto n abilityo act morally. romMencius' ontrastfmorality ith heanalogy f"Stridingver heNorthea withMount ai under our rm,"twouldseem that he moral esourcesrealready ompletewithinach person.He usesphysicalndorganicnalogies uch s liftingfeatherndlooking ith ne'seyesto contrastheready seofmoral esources ithomethinghat s mpossibleo do.Xunzihasastutelyicked his pin23.1d,where e linksMencius' hesis fhumannatures originallyoodwith he bilityf he yetosee andthe ar to hear.Followinghis iagnosis, unzi's emedyonsistsf pecifyingherole fritualprocessesngiving ise o a senseofmorality.swe have een,hespells utwhat"morality"s intermsf a social andpolitical ierarchy,roper elationships,ev-erence or arious ormsfauthority,nd a senseofrootednessndorder.naddi-tion, heresthe ransformativenfluencefaesthetic evices hat iverise o indi-vidual nd socialrefinement,armony,ndculturalorm. llthese hingso notcomerawbuthave o be cultivated.hey reelaborationsn whatXunzimeans yweior humanrtifice.From heperspectivefthe distinctionetween capacity" nd "ability,"heobjectionhatXunzi ssumes n innatemoral apacity henhe insistshatmoralityisbroughtboutbyhumanrtificeither egs he uestionr misses hepoint. hisobjectionbegsthequestion ecause it assumes hat he formalnd constitutivestructurefmorality usthave been there-inhumannature-originally.swehave een, his s, neffect,hepointhatXunzimakesn23.4awith is xample fthe arthenwareish nd thepotter.nd tmisses hepoint,ince,nstead fmerelyassertinghatnatureseviland that oodnesssconstructed,unzihasdiagnosedMencius o havean underlyingeliefn a simple rganictatewhenhe claims hatnatures originallyood.Xunzi rgues hat his annot ccount or henature fmoralitynd the aws,describedntermsf heir onstitutiveationale.Inshort, unzihassystematicallyiagnosed, nalyzed,ndcriticized encius'wholepicturefhumannature s being oonaive, dealistic,nd incomplete.ndoing o,Xunzihas broadenedhediscussionfxing nsteadf egislatinghat tmeans.He does so by giving llowance fordifferencesncharacter,nd an array fdesires and emotions.He argues specifically gainstMenciusthat hese desires ndemotionsdo not come to us ina morally ackagedway,butrequirenurturancend



14/20

guidance hroughherites. hus, ven f here reprimitiveesponsesongenial othedevelopmentfmoralitynthese esires ndemotions,his oes not nsure hatpeopleare able to be moral.We realize his speciallywhenwe come to see theunderlyingationalefmoralityntermsftherites nd thenecessityfmakingcumulativefforto learn nd to practice hisrationale. he lack of effortouldbe due to various actorsuch s will, haracter,ourage,ntelligence,he bsenceofguidance r influenceyteachersnd models, treacherousnvironment,tcetera.24Thiscompletesmy ccount fXunzi's ystematicritiquef Mencius.ButweshouldmentionMozi,too. Commentatorsave noted hat ndiscussingheritesXunzi's argetsMozi,who frownsn the rites s lavish isplay.25 ollowingmyargument,unzihas in mindMencius s well whenhe discusses heconstitutiverationalefthe rites.More ntriguing,owever,s thepossibilityhatXunzi's is-tinctionetween eyi ndnengmay lso betargetedgainstMozi,given he atter'sbeliefn hepossibilityfianai*@, "universalove"or oving veryonequally.26IntheMozi,someone xpresses doubt bout hepracticefuniversalove:Qi kewei ai R-A4U, or"How can itbe done?"The amepersontates hat u ke weiye>TVA5t,or "Itcannot e done," dding hattwouldbe likepickingpMount aiand leaping ver river ith t. nreply,Mozi states hatwhile t s impossibleopickupMount aietcetera,he agekings ad nfact ersonallyracticedniversallove.27 vidently,ozithinkshat niversalove ssomethinghat eoplehaveboththecapacity ndtheabilityopractice. heanalogies f"Stridingver he NorthSea" et cetera nd "Picking pMount ai" et cetera resimilar,ndtheir se bybothMencius nd Mozi could indicate hat heywerecommon nalogies.Thesewereused to stress hatin contrast)hererecertainhingshatwe are abletodo,for xample ctmorallynd love others niversally. e cannotbe surewhetherXunzi lso has Mozi in mindwhen he offershe variationTravelbyfoot crossthewidth f heworld" odistinguishetweencapacity"nd"ability."n ny ase,his riticismfMenciusntermsf hedistinctionscertainlypplicable oMozi aswell.28NotesI dedicate his ssayto Antonio ua,forhisencouragementndhis own work nXunzi,whichhasbeen mostnspiring.Kwong-loihunfirstmpressedn meXunzi'sdistinctionetweenkeyiandneng.Roger mes,Antonioua,John reenwood, . T.Nuyen, eciliaWee,DavidWong, ndtwo nonymousefereesommentedndifferentraftsf his ssay ndcompelledmetobe clearer bout he rguments.. L.Tengavevaluable ugges-tions boutrevisions.o all I amdeeply rateful.The firstraftfthis ssaywas read t a seminarntheDepartmentfPhiloso-phy,NationalUniversityfSingapore,nApril 000. TwoChineseversions ereread in seminarst theChineseThoughtnd Culture tudiesResearchnstitute,

Kim-Chonghong 227


15/20

UniversityfTokyo,nJune 000,and at theDepartmentfPhilosophy,ationalTaiwanUniversity,nMay2001. I thankkedaTomohisa fkWf1X,inYih-jing#&AE, ndcolleaguesnSingapore, okyo,ndTaipei or timulatingiscussions.Passagenumbersuch as 23.5a, 23.5b,et cetera nthis ssayareJohnKno-block's,nhisXunzi:A TranslationndStudyftheCompleteWorks, vols. Stan-ford: tanfordniversityress, 988, 1990, 1994).Other exts onsulted ncludeXunzi:A Concordance o theXunzi, he ChineseUniversityfHong Kong nsti-tuteof ChineseStudiesAncient hineseTextsConcordance eries Hong Kong:Commercialress, 996)-cited as ICS,with hapter/page/lineumber;iDisheng:~f!i, Xunzii shi Tff (Taipei:Xuesheng huju,1994);and BurtonWatson,Hsan Tzu: BasicWritingsNewYork: olumbiaUniversityress, 963).Exceptnsomeof henotes, usehanyu inyinhroughout.1 - DavidNivison tates hatXunziresortso "linguisticegislation"oncerningthe differenceetweenxingand wei j (human rtifice)David Nivison,"Xunzi n HumanNature',"nBryan anNorden, d., TheWays fConfu-cianism:nvestigationsnChinesePhilosophyChicago:Open Court, 996],p. 212).A. C. Graham olds hat t s becauseof "shift"nthe enseofxinginXunzi's Xing pian" hat,althoughts heorys as coherentnterms f tsowndefinitionssMencius'n ermsfhis, it]never uitemakes ontact iththeMencian heory hicht riticises"A.C. Graham,TheBackgroundf heMencian heoryfHumanNature,"nGraham,tudiesnChinese hilosophyand PhilosophicaliteratureSingapore:nstitutef EastAsianPhilosophies,1986],p. 56). PaulRakita oldin greeswithGraham. e locatesXunzi's is-agreementithMenciusnterms ftheformer'stress n wei orhuman rti-ficePaulRakita oldin, itualsf heWay: hePhilosophyfXunziChicago:OpenCourt, 999],pp. 11,13).Goldin efersyanalogyo the policies" sagainsthe resources"fa state: Successorfailureest[s] ith hepolicies;theresourceslaynoappreciable ole nthedeterminationfthe tate's lti-mate ate"p. 16).2 - Graham inds unzi 23.5a)"remarkingncidentallyhatmanhas the quip-ment ywhich emay ecome apableofbenevolencendduty,he tandardand the correct'(1{ltE Z), without oticinghat s Menciususesthe term ing his mountsoadmittinghathumannaturesgood" "Back-ground," p.56-57). D. C. Lauargues hat he apacity f nventingoralitymust elong ohuman ature:Theresnoreasonwhywe shouldnot xtendthename humannature ocover hecapacity f nventionossessed ythemindwhich spart f t" D. C. Lau,"Theoriesf HumanNaturen MenciusandXunzi,"nT. C. Kline IIandPhilip . vanhoe,ds.,Virtue, ature,ndMoralAgency ntheXunzi Indianapolis:HackettPublishing ompany, 000],p. 208; Lau's paper originallyppeared in Bulletin f the School of Orientaland African tudies 15 [1953]: 541-565). Nivison notes that when Xunziargues in23.2b) thatwe desiregoodnessbecause we lack it, Mencian couldreply hat his s evidence of a good humannatureNivison, Xunzi on Human



16/20

Nature'," p. 211-212). (A. S. Cua, however,oes not ee this s centraloXunzi: Allthat ollows romheconceptual oint thatwe desirewhatwelack] sthat iven mandesiring oodness, e lacksgoodnessn some enseto be specified nder certain escription,ut his hrows o light ponthecharacterrnaturef heman." eeA.S. Cua,"TheQuasi-empiricalspect fHsin Tzu's Philosophyf HumanNature," hilosophyast nd West 8 (1)[1978]:4-5).3 - Lau takesXunzito be making distinctionetweenbeing"capable" and"succeeding"Lau, "Theories f HumanNature," p. 204-205). But it isunclearwhy uccess hould ome into hepicture. ivenvarious ontingen-cies, omeonewho s able to beorto dosomething ightot ucceed.Kwong-loi Shun s much learer bout hedistinctionetween capacity" nd "abil-ity"Kwong-loihun,Mencius ndEarly hineseThoughtStanford:tanfordUniversityress, 997]; see inparticularp. 218 and 225). My essayowesmuch o Shun's larification.owever, nless he ignificancef thedistinc-tion s elaborated n intermsfthe wholeargumentnthe"Xing pian,"Shun's ccount s still pen to theobjection hatXunzi dmits hathumannaturesgoodsince t sadmittedhat veryone as the apacityobe good.4 - Allcitationsf heMencius efero thebilingualdition fD. C. Lau,Mencius,2 vols. HongKong: hineseUniversityress, 984).5 - David Nivison nd Kwong-loihunhave noted hesepoints. ee Nivison,"WeaknessofWill in Ancient hinesePhilosophy"nd "MotivationndMoralActionnMencius,"nVanNorden, heWays fConfucianism,p.83-84 and 94-95, respectively,nd see Shun,Menciusand EarlyChineseThought,p.217-218.6 - Tu hiren tiA, renderedyWatson ndKnoblock s "The a) man nthestreet."Ordinaryerson"s lesscumbersome.7 - Knoblockranslatesi as "accumulatedffort"ndWatson s "accumulationfgoodacts."Sometimescumulativeffort" aybe more ppropriate.8 - I take he hiWofthe apacityoknowmoralityndthe aws youkeyizhirenyifazheng hizhi VidV1_1_th&i1EZW)o refero a cognitiveapacity,rulingutthefollowingther ensesfor 3.5a: (1) Some "distinctiveuality,"as in qi zhi feibu meiye ~VT~Th (ICS 1/1/20):nstead fthis,Xunzirequires shared onditionhat onstituteshe apacityo haveknowledgefmoralityndthe aws. 2) Some spect f"character,"s in xisuyizhi, n iuyizhi4i*~, A# (ICS8/34/2),mplyinghat t an bechanged hroughcumulativeffort,ustom,nd habituationKnoblock'ssubstance"n 8.11seems inappropriate)-butunzi s referringo a preconditionf knowingmoralitynd the aws in23.5a. (3) Moralqualitiesof a renperson_KCA (ICS13/65/18) uch as beingloyaland trustworthy:his s ruledout since in 23.5aXunzi is talking f the conditionsforknowing hese qualities instead of thequalitiesthemselves. tseemsfair o conclude thatwhen Xunzisaysthatordi-

Kim-Chonghong 229


17/20

nary ersons avethe zhi thatwould allowthem oknowmoralitynd thelaws,heisreferringoa cognitiveapacity.Xunzi lso says hat veryone oukeyinengrenyifazheng hi u IfIl-itWIEZ. Thetermu _referso the conditions or oing omethingorbeing omeone. See ICS 4/15/13, /37/16.n9/40/18 e have u ju erwang... er ba ... ercun ... erwang WE, , 4%A ,, AL,-it:. LiDishengnotes hat hefirstu inthesepairs eferso u beiA,, "having" r"possessing," hile he econdreferso tiao ian 4"I{ r"conditions.")iventhatXunzihad ustmentioned e yizhi orthecapacity o know s a pre-conditionfbeing sage, twouldbe fairo render oukeyineng... zhi uas "possessinghe onditionf he apacityopractice"-in hort,havingninstrumentalapacity."

9 - Inusing rationale"orA I followA. S. Cua,whosays: I take his assage[23.5a]tomean haten [ren], [yi], ndstandardsfproperonduct anbeunderstoodnterms f heir ationales.notherwords,heyreproper bjectsofknowledge. nunderstandingf heir ationaless a preconditionormoralpractice"A. S. Cua, EthicalArgumentation:Studyn HsOnTzu'sMoralEpistemologyHonolulu: niversityfHawai'iPress, 985],p. 26). ForXunzimoralityndthe awshave rationalehat anbe known ndpracticed:ezhikeneng hi li ih3iaP W. Since he arguesnext hat heordinaryersonsunable obecome sage,we shouldnot laim hat enengheremeans hatpeople ngeneralreactuallybletopracticemoralitynd the aws. nstead,the laim sthatheresa rationale,ndpeoplehave he apacityoknow ndtopracticet.This semphasized ounterfactually:Ifmoralityndthe awsdonothave rationalehat anbe knownndpracticed,hen venYucould notknow ndpracticemoralityndthe aws."

10 - Watson ranslatesenyifa heng s benevolence,ighteousness,roperules,and standardsWatson, sOin zu,p. 166);Knoblocks humaneness, orality,themodel f aw, nd rectitudeKnoblock,unzi, 3.5a). Both akerenyifazheng s foureparatetems.rendert s two:renyi s morality,nd fa hengas the aws. tdoes notmatteromywhole rgumenthich f hesewefollow."Moralityndthe aws" s shorternd makes or less lutteredxposition.iDishengommentshat enyirefersoexternalegulationsnd s ike iyi, itesandrighteousnesswaizaiguifan, ouyan iyi?A~~Q$, Mi-a-V (Li,Xunziishi,p. 552 n.2). It s differentrom onfucius'nd Mencius' enseofrenyi.11 - DonaldJ.Munro,AVillain ntheXunzi,"nPhilip . vanhoe, d., ChineseLanguage,Thought,nd Culture:Nivison nd His CriticsChicago:OpenCourt,1996). Accordingto Munro the core issue is not evil per se but theproblemof how to manage the surfeitf desireswith the scarcity f goodsthrough itual nforcementnd rank-orderingsp. 199).12 - "Love of one's own kind"-ICS 19/96/10 A i; "remembrancend longingfor hedeceased"-19/97/20 ),l; "man's good heart"-20/98/18 KAL,,;



18/20

"righteousness"-9/39/1k... . Nivison eadsyihere s "a senseofduty,"holding hat there s still problem freconcilinghisview withXunzi'sview hathuman atures evil' (Nivison, heWays fConfucianism,.210).Morerecently,owever, e readsyi nthe enseof iyi, s "an institutionalfeaturexhibitedyhumanss a species" seeJames ehuniak,Nivisonndthe Problem'nXunzi's thics,"nd Nivison's esponsenPhilosophyast ndWest 0 [1] [2000]:97-110 and 110-115, respectively).hun hinkshatyi"in thepresentontextsprobably capacityo draw ocialdistinctionsndtoabide andbe transformedy henormsoverninguchdistinctions;tdoesnotinvolve riornclinationsf hekindMencius ighlighted"Shun,Mencius ndEarly hineseThought,. 226). EricHuttonrgues hatyou yi4-* or"hav-ingyi," n9.16a,does nothave to be read s "havingnnately"EricHutton,"Does XunziHavea ConsistentheoryfHumanNature?"nKline nd Ivan-hoe, Virtue, ature,ndMoralAgencyntheXunzi, . 224). See also DavidB. Wong, Xunzi n MoralMotivation,"nd DonaldJ.Munro A VillainntheXunzi,"n vanhoe, hinese anguage, hought,ndCulture,p.215 and198,respectively.13 - Theanalogy fthepotterndthewoodcarverppeared arliern23.2a (ICS23/114/8-10). here,Xunzi ssertshat heir roductsrea resultftheir ,and notborn f heir t.

14 - Ithankneof he nonymousefereesor ointinghis ut.15 - Knoblock, unzi, 9.6.;see vol.3,p.322 n.96. AlsoWatson, sLJnzu,p. 102n. 16.16 - Knoblockranslatesing xing s "essential ualities nherentn hisnature"(Xunzi, 3.1e),Watson s "emotional ature"HsiinTzu,p. 159). Since thecontext efersophysicalensationsuch as hungerndtirednessnstead fjust motions,t s more ppropriateouse"sensoryndemotional ature"orqingxing.17 - John earle,"How to Derive Ought'fromIs'," Philosophical eview73(1964),quoted nA. S. Cua, "BasicConcepts fConfucian thics,"nCua,MoralVisionndTraditionWashington,.C.: CatholicUniversityfAmericaPress, 998),p.295.18 - Cua,"BasicConcepts fConfucianthics,"p.292-295.19 - Music yue) nd oy le)share he amecharacter,.20 - The liA, or rationale fmoralitynd the laws, is intimatelyonnectedwith i&, therites.Wen soften airedwith ias wen i3r, which an be synony-mouswith iyiL, ritesnd righteousness-forxample,when t s statedthat implyollowinghedesires f he enseswouldgiverise oyin uanMAL,dissolute nd wantonbehavior, nd theperishing f li yi wen liMRA (ICS23/113/5).nthe enseof hi*&, rder ndgovernance,iR iscontrasted ithvariousforms fdisorderlinessluan iL). Wen li connotesbeingcultured nd

Kim-Chonghong 231


19/20

actingccordingoreasonableorm;t s this ttentiono culturalormndtherationalef iyi hat nables transformationf haracter.or nstance, unzisays hat hewayof hefilial on s the ulturalormndrationalefrites ndrighteousness,iao zi zhi dao, liyizhi wen iye4#fAZ,&lC~Z1J (23/114/5). imilarly,he agehasthe amenature s themasses utdiffersnhisweifAbecausehe has beentransformedythe cultural ormnd rationalecontainednrites ndrighteousness,ua iyi hiwen it'LJ04Z_? (23/114/17).TangJunyiotes hatwen iRU isthe enseof imostmphasizednthe"Xing pian"andthatt sclosely onnected ith tshomophoneC* (TangJunyi,A ,,4,(E()Z/*-," ;__f 1 (1) 1995).21 - DavidB.Wong, Xunzi n MoralMotivation,"n vanhoe, hinese anguage,Thought,ndCulture,. 215; reprintednKline nd Ivanhoe,Virtue, ature,and MoralAgencyntheXunzi.22 - Wong, Xunzi nMoralMotivation,". 218.

23 - Inanearlier ersion f his rticle,had saidthat avidWong's tatementhatMencius escribeshe ction f hegroup fpeople nburyingheirarentss"right"maynot be accurate. hiswas too strong.ndiscussion,Wonghaspointed utthat lthough ior"right"oes not ccur nthepassage nques-tion, hementionf the hingo do" impliest.24 - See 23.8,the astpassage f Xing pian."25 - See DonaldJ.Munro, A Villain ntheXunzi," nd ScottCook,"Xunzi nRitual ndMusic,"Monumentaerica 5 (1997):1-38.26 - Ithank rofessorkedaTomohisa fTokyoUniversityorhisuggestion.avidNivison nd Kwong-loihun havealso noted he similaritiesetweenMoziandMencius. ee Nivison,WeaknessfWill nAncient hinese hilosophy"and "MotivationndMoralActionnMencius,"n VanNorden, heWays fConfucianism,p. 83-84 and 94-95, respectively,nd Shun,Mencius ndEarly hineseThought,. 217.27 - See Sun Yi-jang ,, Mozi xiangux-Iffii (Beijing: honghua huju,1986),vol.1,p. 111 (MR, -fTM+/A),nd BurtonWatson,Mo Tzu: BasicWritingsNewYork: olumbiaUniversityress, 963),p.44.28 - RogerAmes,who was inthe udiencewhen presentedhis ssay nTaipei,asked whether he ascription f a "naive" positionto Mencius is accurate.DavidWong, n discussion, as also pointed ut that heinterpretationfMencius hatsgiven nthis ssay as Xunzi ees it)neglectstherspects fMencius.nreply, e shouldnote hatheres ndependentupportorXunzi'saccusationhatnhis heoryf human ature, encius elies eavilyn sim-ple, organicpictures. or xample, althoughMenciusdoes talkof thenecessityof the four proutsbeing developed beforetheycan become the virtues fbenevolence, righteousness,itual ropriety,nd wisdom ren,yi, li, and zhi

-, $, , ,) (Mencius2A6), he does not eemtogiveanyconcrete ccountof

232 Philosophyast West


20/20

theprocess fdevelopment.tmost, espeaksmetaphoricallyf henaturefhumanity,s, for xample, nthe accountofOx MountainMencius A8):people, eeing hatt sdeforested,hinkhat his s its riginal ature. his sone indicationfMencius'reliance n thepicturef a simple, rganic tate.But see thepoint fRogerAmes' nd DavidWong'scommentsnd mustmake qualificationere: twouldbe a mistakeoconclude hatMencius stotally aive. show lsewhere hatMenciushasa rich ccount f moral sy-chologynd what t sto be a human eing.Mencius imselfhows capacityforkeenlogicaldistinctionsn his debate withGaozi. Thus,he questionsGaozi's usageof"internal"nd "external,"nd invarious laces inthetextgives more ophisticatedccount fwhathe himself eansby"internal."See my Mengzi n Nei andWai," nAlanChan, d.,Mencius:ContextsndInterpretationsHonolulu:UniversityfHawai'iPress, 002).

Kim-Chonghong 233

Xun Ziv s Mencius

Documents

Transcript of Xun Ziv s Mencius