paper3 eastern

COMPETENCY PROGRAM IN LOGIC & MORAL PHILOSOPHY – Part 2Cagayan State UniversityOffice of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs

EASTERN – PHILOSOPHY-ETHICS

INTRODUCTION TO EASTERN PHILOSOPHY:

An Exploration of Eastern Philosophical Ideas from Laozi to Han Feizi1

ARCHIMEDES CARAG ARTICULO, M.Phil.

Chair, Department of Social Sciences & PhilosophyCollege of Arts & SciencesCagayan State University

[email protected]

Section 1. Introduction

No one knows why philosophy started when it did. However, we have at least a

good idea when and how it started: Philosophy was born when man began to wonder.

The history of Philosophy is the story of man’s struggle to answer his questions, to

satisfy his curiosity. Philosophy, then, is with us long before the time of our

acknowledged first philosophers.

Philosophy, as most teacher of Philosophy correctly claim, often involves a keen

interest in major questions about ourselves, our experience, and our place in the

scheme of things in the cosmos. It should be added, however, that Philosophy is also

reflectively concerned with the methods its practitioners employ in the effort to resolve

such questions. It is not all about wondering but a knowing and reflective activity, critical

and systematic. When doing Philosophy is manifested in this way, the History of

Philosophy formally began.

1 Based on Chapter 2 of Articulo, Archimedes C. The Experience of Philosophy. Manila: REX Publishing, Inc. 2008.

1 | P a g e

mailto:[email protected]


And this is what this paper/ lecture is all about. It contains interesting information

about famous Philosophers, of both biographical and philosophical nature, in roughly

chronoligical order, covering the Eastern tradition.

Section 2. Eastern Philosophy as a Divisions and Tradition of Philosophy

The History of Philosophy is usually divided into Western and Eastern

Philosophy. "Western philosophy" refers solely to the philosophic traditions of

European/American civilizations while "Eastern philosophy" broadly subsumes the

philosophic traditions of all Asia. Both terms group together diverse, even incompatible

schools of thought. These two broad divisions are further sub-divided into Ancient,

Medieval, Modern and Contemporary periods. Again, under these broad divisions are

other sub-divisions representing the dominant themes, under a particular period, in the

long history of philosophical thought in both worlds:

ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY TIMELINE (650-200 BCE)WESTERN PHILOSOPHY EASTERN PHILOSOPHY

650 B.C.E.Thales 624-546; Ionian PhilosopherAnaximander 611-547 Ionian Philosopher

Laozi 610-575 Chinese Philosopher, founder of Daoism

600 B.C.E. Anaximenes 599-524; Ionian PhilosopherPythagoras 570-? Ionian Philosopher

Gautama Buddha 560-480 Indian Philosopher, founder of Buddhism

550 B.C.E.Confucius 551-479 Chinese Philosopher, founder of Confucianism

Heraclitus of Ephesus 540-460 Ionian PhilosopherParmenides 540-? Eleatic Philosopher

500 B.C.E.Anaxagoras 500-428; Pluralist PhilosopherEmpedocles 490-430 Pluralist PhilosopherProtagoras 481-411; Sophist Philosopher SOCRATES 470-399 Mozi 470 – 390, Chinese Philosopher,

founder of MohismDemocritus 460-370; Atomist Philosopher

2 | P a g e


450 B.C.E. Sunzi 450-380, Chinese philosopher, military strategist

PLATO 428-347

400 – 200 B.C.E.

ARISTOTLE 384-322

Mencius 371-288; Chinese and Confucian PhilosopherZhuangzi 369-286 Chinese Philosopher, Daoist

Pyrrho of Elis 365-275; Founder of SkepticismAntiochus 350-? Eclectic PhilosopherEpicurus 342-270; Founder of EpicureanismZeno of Citium 336-264; Stoic Philosopher

Hanfeizi 280-233 Chinese Philosopher, founder, Legalism

Looking closely at the timeline, we could make few interesting observations. And

the most important of which is that the famous Greek philosopher Thales was a

contemporary of the historically obscure, but equally interesting figure, Chinese

philosopher Laozi (both are thought to have been menacing other people about their

peculiar ideas around 600-500 B.C.E.). This means that when Philosophy began to

flourish in ancient Greece (around 600-650 B.C.E.), philosophers in the Eastern world

have also started philosophizing about the nature of things, the meaning of their

existence, and their place in the cosmos.

With this in mind, we now begin our exploration of the Ancient Eastern

Philosophical tradition.

3 | P a g e


SECTION 3. MAJOR EASTERN PHILOSOPHY AND PHILOSOPHERS FROM THE ANCIENT PERIOD

Section 3.1. Laozi: The Harmony of Opposites

When the Milesian philosophers (e.g. Thales, Anaximander, etc.) were busily

arguing about the reality of the universe discoverable through understanding its ultimate

stuff (the water versus the four elements), the Eastern sage Laozi (610-575 B.C.E.),

who once worked as a keeper of the archives at the Chinese imperial court (and

became dissatisfied because of corruption), made a debut in China (he started doing

Philosophy at the age of 80!).

Laozi’s interest lies in the study and teaching of the ultimate reality of the

universe, but discoverable by appreciating the essential nature of the Dao (which

literally means the “Way”), as exemplified in Nature (and so, the philosophical

movement Daoism).

Note that Laozi, like the Milesians, observe nature, but unlike these early Greeks,

he observes nature not to find the ultimate stuff of things, but to discover the way

humans should fit in their lives on how nature truly operates. What he discovered is the

fact that nature is full of opposites (life and death, health and sickness, male and

female, wealth and poverty, hot and cold, etc.) but at the same time, nature operates

harmoniously with these oppositions.

Laozi believed that the harmony of opposites, or Tai Chai, is achieved through a

blend of the yin (feminine force) and the yang (masculine force) and this harmony can

be cultivated through creative quietude, an effortless action whose power maintains

equanimity and balance (he calls it Wu Wei). Consistent to this is the foundation of his

teaching (which were recorded in his book, Daodejing), "the violent die a violent death".

Violence opposes the way of living, and whatever opposes life will soon perish.

4 | P a g e


The East, as represented by Laozi, thus, first began with an interest of the

practical and of the ethical.

Section 3.2. Gautama: Self-Centeredness Makes Humanity Sick

While Daoist philosophy was making waves of following in China, and while

Pythagoras was teaching his philosophy in Greece, a man named Siddhartha Gautama

(560-480 B.C.E.) was preaching another interesting system of thoughts, and was also

attracting huge followers, in India.

Gautama taught for many years and many conservative Hindus regarded most of

his teachings as heretical. For instance, he questioned the authority of the Brahmins or

the priestly caste or class. According to Buddha, each person can and must strive for

enlightenment through his own efforts. Buddha had also no interest in miracles and

rituals. He taught that there was no quick road to salvation or nirvana. Neither god nor

ritual can bestow salvation. Each person through self-discipline, practice, and

meditation must work for his own salvation.

Though he was extremely "philosophical" in his own way, Buddha had no

patience with philosophical systems or metaphysics. What one does, not what one

believes, is important. When asked about eternity of the world and life after death,

Buddha replied that explaining such things would not solve the problem of human

suffering here and now. Buddha's first sermon at Benares contained the essence of his

message. He taught there the "Four Noble Truths":

(1) Life is suffering (dukkha).

(2) The cause of suffering is self-centered craving (tanha).

(3) In order to bring an end to suffering, one must bring an end to self-

centered craving.

5 | P a g e


(4) The way to cease craving is to follow the eightfold way or path.

The fourth in the list includes right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right

livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

There are no simple explanations of the Eightfold Way, but some brief comments

might be of help:

6 | P a g e


(1) Right views: Though Buddha had little interest in complicated theologies

or doctrines, some beliefs are necessary. Quite simply, right belief is

acceptance of the Four Noble Truths.

(2) Right intention: One must dedicate himself wholeheartedly to

overcoming the dislocation of self-centered craving; one must want this

emancipation more than anything else. One must not let his heart wander

from this path.

(3) Right speech: One must stand guard over his speech, avoid lies and

deceptions, cultivate honesty and truthfulness. One must refrain from

unkind speech.

(4) Right action: One must examine his behavior, determine whether each

action is selfish or self-less. One must practice other-centered rather than

self-centered actions. Moreover, one must obey such precepts as: Do not

kill. Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not be unchaste. Do not drink intoxicants

(ibid.)

(5) Right livelihood: One must not engage in any occupation that opposes or

distracts one from the path. For example, since all life is sacred, one may

not become a butcher, etc.

(6) Right effort: One must pursue the path with the right exertion. On the one

hand, one must strive diligently in order to practice the cultivation of

virtues and the curbing of vices. On the other hand, one must not be

"over-zealous" and run the risk of burning oneself out and abandoning the

way altogether.

(7) Right mindfulness: One must elevate his thoughts, to see things as they

really are beyond the haze of moods and emotions. One must clear up his

mind, clean "the dust off of the mirror." One must rid his mind of self-

centered thoughts, thoughts that separate, and replace them with thoughts

that bind together, that see all beings together. One must make his

concentration objective rather than subjective. One must think in terms of

others as well as oneself. And,

7 | P a g e


(8) Right concentration: By so concentrating, all other thoughts and objects

are extinguished. Then, one must extinguish consciousness of even this

one object. In this way, one extinguishes the last flame of grasping

consciousness. This is readiness for nirvana..

Finally, for reasons we previously noted, Buddha did not want to be prayed to or

worshipped, thus it’s a great wonder why the shaven monks pray to Gautama for

salvation. Nevertheless, Sidharta Gautama was the recognized founder of the world’s

third largest religion, Buddhism.

Section 3.3. Confucius: Living the Golden Rule

Sometime after the Buddha has captured the interest of India, Confucius (551-

479 B.C.E.) made his appearance in Chinese Philosophy. Throughout his life,

Confucius was best known as a teacher (he started doing Philosophy at age 30). In fact

he was considered as one among the first professional teachers in the ancient world

(not for any special reasons, but for having the record of the first in Asia to require a

professional fee for teaching his students). Three doctrines of Confucius are particularly

important.

8 | P a g e


The first is benevolence (ren, or jen). Confucius considered benevolence as

something people cultivate within themselves before it can affect their relations with

others. The best way to approach benevolence is in terms of enlightened self-interest,

that is, putting the self in the position of the other and then treating the other

accordingly. Two sayings of Confucius best express this idea: "Do not do to others what

you would not like yourself"; and "Do unto others what you wish to do unto yourself."

(You noted it rightly; Confucius predated Christ’s teaching of the Golden rule for several

couple of centuries). Benevolence means the practice of these two sayings.

The second doctrine concerns the superior man (junzi, or chun-tzu). The superior

man is one who practices benevolence regardless of family background.

Ritual propriety is the third doctrine. Confucius emphasized right behavior in

one's relations; man should act in accordance with propriety. Thus one should behave

ritualistically with the other. Such behavior is called li; it refers to social and aesthetic

norms that guide people in their social relations. Why did Confucius stress the

importance of traditions, customs, and social rituals? Because he believed that they

best provide the social cement that holds the society in tact. Without these practices,

Confucius believe, human societies would dissolve.

Central to the aforesaid doctrines is the doctrine of Confucius concerning Human

nature. He believed that Humans, by nature, are evil: they are egoistic, arrogant,

pleasure-seeker, and glory-seeker. Only through proper education that these nature

could be corrected (and hence, his concept of benevolence could be developed, and

the “superior man” could be molded). The progress of man (in terms of his freedom from

his nature) is the ideals of Confucian theory of “Higher Education”.

9 | P a g e


Section 3.4. Mozi: Love in the way that would do for all

Around the peiod when Socrates was attracting many sons of influential families

in Athens, China gave the world another brilliant philosopher (this new comer shares the

same birthyear with Socrates). His name was Mozi (470 – 390 B.C.E.). He introduced

another way of doing philosophy, which scholars today called Mohism. It was a school

of thought that became a bitter opponent of Confucianism and Daoism.

Mo-zi preached his doctrine of “bo-ai”, which could be translated in English as

“universal Love”, which calls for the impartial or equal care for all people. This implies

that we should not give special amount of care or duty towards our parents and family,

but should treat them the way we treat everybody else. When applied in governance,

his doctrine requires rulers to honor all their subjects equally, without special treatment

to their relatives, to the rich, and the good-looking. Mozi believed that when such a

universal love is followed, the strong will not oppress the weak, the eminent will not lord

it over the humble, and the cunning will not deceive the stupid. In exhorting people to be

virtuous for the good that it would do for all, He said:

"Let him who has strength be alert to heIp others; let him who has wealth endeavor to share it with others: let him who possesses the Way teach others persuasively. With this, the hungry will be fed, the cold will be clothed, the disturbed will have peace.... This is procuring abundant life." (De Barry, 1997)

Unlike Confucius who preached the value of traditions and customs as a

standard for the execution of moral instruction, Mozi advocated judging ideas and

objects through the constant standards of nature and utility. He argued that moral

standards should be measurement-like (e.g. “When X do Y” or “When someone needs

your help, help.”), because it lends itself to reliable application. Traditions are unstable

because they are variable, that is, they differ in different places and times. For instance,

if we don't like its traditions, we can flee from a family, a society, even a kingdom.

10 | P a g e


Another related problem is that tradition is not always morally acceptable,

according to Mozi. For instance, we cannot accept the tradition of a tribe that kills and

eats their first born sons (Ibid.). Compare these with the standards of nature, which we

cannot similarly escape, or we cannot similarly refuse to accept. And how does

standard of nature operates? Mozi points out that it is natural for us to "weigh" benefits

against harms. Thus for Mozi, utility, or the preference for benefit, is a natural and

reliable standard for choosing and interpreting traditional practices (this Mohist idea of

utility predates the core idea of John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism).

Mo-zi has also argued strongly against aggression and war. He claimed that by

not provoking war against other states, a country would be left in peace. Once, a

country is in peace, prosperity follows. Mo-zi believed that war and warfare are mass

murder, they are more of a crime than a single murder. During war the affairs of

government are neglected, the farms lie fallow, and many of the best men are lost.

Mo-zi concludes,

"Such is the injury which warfare inflicts upon men, the harm it brings to the world. And yet the rulers and officials delight in carrying out such expeditions. In effect they are taking delight in the injury and extermination of the people of the world. Are they not perverse?"

Section 3.5. Sunzi: Peace in War

During this period, an immensely influential book on military philosophy, The Art

of War, was published in China. The author was Sunzi, or Sun Tzu (450-380 B.C.E), the

thinker, who is widely considered by Political scholars as the earliest realist in

international relations theory. According to this military-philosopher, knowledge of how

to wage war is of vital importance to the State, “it is a matter of life and death, a road

11 | P a g e


either to safety or to ruin.” Hence it is a subject of inquiry which should not be neglected.

So, how should war be conducted according to Sunzi? First, by understanding the

nature of war. And for Sunzi, all warfare is based on deception:

“…when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him…” (Art of War, trans. Thomas Cleary, 1991)

This makes the leader of armies, “the arbiter of the people's fate, the man on

whom it depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril.”

Sunzi rejects appeals to the supernatural that were becoming popular among

rival groups of philosophers during his time (such as the Daoists and Confucians). For

instance, Sunzi claimed that war is governed by five constant factors, one of which is

“Heaven”. For other thinkers, “Heaven” may imply the supernatural or the divine will –

but for Sunzi, it simply signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons (Ibid.).

His mode of argumentation also moves in the direction of what we recognize

today as "scientific thinking." He avoids unnecessary assumptions, he emphasizes the

importance of observation and proceeds with systematic explanation of his ideas.

3.6. Mencius: The Goodness of Human Nature

Aristotle’s Lyceum had already attracted brilliant minds in and out of Athens

when a disciple of Confucian philosophy became widely known in China. He was

Mencius (371-288 B.C.E.), a philosopher who has been recognized as one of China's

greatest philosophers, second only to Confucius himself. However, unlike Confucius,

12 | P a g e


Mencius strongly believed that Human Nature is good, not evil. In his book, Mencius

(Yes, the book was named after his name), Mencius said:

“When left to follow its natural feelings human nature will do good. This is why I say it is good…The sense of mercy is found in all men; the sense of shame is found in all men; the sense of respect is found in all men; the sense of right and wrong is found in all men. The sense of mercy constitutes humanity; the sense of shame constitutes righteousness; the sense of respect constitutes decorum (li); the sense of right and wrong constitutes wisdom. Humanity, righteousness, decorum, and wisdom are not something instilled into us from without; they are inherent in our nature. Only we give them no thought. Therefore it is said: 'Seek and you will find them, neglect and you will lose them.” (De Barry, 1997)

One might wonder, how come man, in the real world, demonstrates more evil in

his dealings then good? Mencius answers: “If it, referring to human nature, becomes

evil, it is not the fault of man's original capability” (Ibid.). The problem is not in man, but

in his society.

A corrupt society corrupts man; an evil society always produces evil citizens

(remember Plato?). But what makes a society corrupt? The answer, for Mencius, is a

corrupt and evil government.

The government must therefore strive to be good and help its citizens to realize

their potential as good persons. But how if the government, by reducing its subjects in

misery, turns them into evil? For Mencius, the people, who are by nature good, need not

tolerate a corrupt government. He believed that the people are the most important in the

state, and thus, if rulers reduce them to poverty and selfishness, the people always

have the right to depose them. He offers an ideal government which he calls “humane

government” – a government that places men of virtue and ability in positions of

responsibility and works to benefit the people. Mencius believed that a country with

such a government would be at peace and free of troubles.

13 | P a g e


Another original contribution of Mencius was his unique idea of education. Unlike

Confucius, he did not perceive education as something that should aim at “correcting”

the evil nature of man, but to the “strengthening” of the goodness one could find in the

nature of man.

“Some have these virtues (Humanity, righteousness, decorum, and wisdom) to a much greater degree than others—twice, five times, and incalculably more—and that is because those others have not developed to the fullest extent their original capability.” (ibid.)

The development of these virtues to their original capability in man is the true

goal of education. And this leads us to his concept of equality.

Mencius believed that since virtue is inherent in everyone's nature, therefore

everyone is equal to everyone else, “The sense of mercy is found in all men; the sense

of shame is found in all men; the sense of respect is found in all men; the sense of right

and wrong is found in all men.” The natural goodness found in all men makes them all

equal.

Recall that leading philosophers in Greece, during this period, believed that

everyone is not equal to everyone else (Plato, and even Aristotle, adhered to the idea of

slavery). Thus, if you are the type of person who values equality, always remember that

the first voice, which proclaimed that all men are born equal, came from the East.

3.7. Zhuangzi: Seeking the Great Unity of the World

During the period when many Chinese leaders were mesmerized by Mencius’

brilliance, an equally brilliant, but a rival thinker was emerging in the philosophic scene.

Mencius offered equality among all men, his rival offered freedom.

14 | P a g e


His name was Zhuangzi (369-286 B.C.E.) or Chuang-tzu. He was considered,

together with Laozi, the founder of Daoism. Little is known of his life, except that he was

born at Meng in present-day Henan, China. As previously stated, freedom is the

keynote of Zhuangzi's teaching, which stemmed from his unique concept of nature. He

believed that since Dao is the way of nature, which is in constant flux and

transformation (remember Heraclitus?), to be one with nature is to free oneself from all

human bondage and to transcend the phenomenal world. He believed that it is

foolishness to oppose change. One becomes free when we accept change as part of

how things are and drift harmoniously with its tides. This fellow does what he preaches:

when the ruler of Qu offered him premiership, he declined preferring his personal

freedom.

He has also espoused a peculiar idea of how to do philosophy, that is, by not

indulging in too much philosophizing. He thought that knowledge – the object of

Philosophy – is dangerous. He writes,

“There is a limit to our life, but there is no limit to knowledge. To pursue what is unlimited with what is limited is a perilous thing. When, knowing this, we still seek to increase our knowledge, we are simply placing ourselves in peril” (de Bary, 1997).

He also held the view that we cannot decide the truth of our statements with

absolute certainty. This is how he puts his assertion concerning the relativity of truth to

individuals who holds it:

“Suppose that you argue with me. If you beat me, instead of my beating you, are you necessarily right, and am I necessarily wrong? Or, if I beat you and not you me, am I necessarily right, and are you necessarily wrong? Must one of us necessarily be right and the other wrong? Or may we not both be right or both be wrong? You and I cannot come to a mutual and common understanding, and others, of course, are all in the dark. Whom shall I ask to decide this dispute? I may ask someone who

15 | P a g e


agrees with you; but since he agrees with you, how can he decide it? I may ask someone who agrees with me; but since he agrees with me, how can he decide it? I may ask someone who differs with both you and me; but since he differs with both you and me, how can he decide it? I may ask someone who agrees with both you and me; but since he agrees with both you and me, how can he decide it? Thus, you and I and the others all would be unable to come to a mutual and common understanding; shall we wait for still another? (Ibid.)

Like Laozi of Daodejing he also disavowed honor and wealth. Like Parmenides

and the other Eleatics, Zhuangzi also spoke in paradoxical terms and espoused the

concept of a great unity of things through the Tao:

“The possible is possible; the impossible is impossible. The Tao operates and things follow. Things are what they are called…everything is what it is, and can be what it can be. There is nothing that is not something, and there is nothing that cannot be something. Therefore, for instance, a stalk and a pillar, the ugly and the beautiful, the common and the peculiar, the deceitful and the strange—by the Tao this great variety are all brought into a single unity. Division to one is construction to another; construction to one is destruction to another. Whether in construction or in destruction, all things are in the end brought into unity…” (Ibid.)

And like The Buddha, and Western thinkers, like Plato, he believed that we all

live in the realm of mere appearances, illusions, or what he calls a dream:

“Those who dream of a merry drinking party may the next morning wail and weep. Those who dream of wailing and weeping may in the morning go off gaily to hunt. While they dream they do not know that they are dreaming. In their dream, they may even try to interpret their dream. Only when they have awakened do they begin to know that they have dreamed. By and by comes the great awakening, and then we shall know that it has all been a great dream. Yet all the while the fools think that they are awake; this they are sure of. With minute nicety, they discriminate between princes and grooms” (Ibid.).

And playfully, he puts this dream – reality in another version:

16 | P a g e


“Once upon a time, Chuang Chou dreamed that he was a butterfly, a butterfly fluttering about, enjoying itself. It did not know that it was Chuang Chou. Suddenly he awoke with a start and he was Chuang Chou again. But he did not know whether he was Chuang Chou who had dreamed that he was a butterfly, or whether he was a butterfly dreaming that he was Chuang Chou” (Ibid.).

It is important to note that Zhuangzi’s brand of philosophy is directed primarily

against the philosophical tradition started by Confucius (which during his time was the

dominant philosophical thought in China).

Section 3.8. HAN FEIZI: RULE WITH AN IRON FIST

The period was third-century B.C.E. China was experiencing domestic problems

as local feudal nobles grew stronger than the king and as powerful warlords constantly

fought among themselves for wealth and territory. It was during this period when

another school of thought in Chinese Philosophy was born. It was called Legalism. Its

founder was Han Feizi (280-233 B.C.E.).

Like Confucius, Han Feizi believed that the nature of man is evil, and goodness

must be acquired. But unlike Confucius, Han Feizi insisted on the need for a

government to demonstrate concrete results rather than to merely follow customs and

tradition. What should be promoted are fear and obedience rather than benevolence

and ritual piety. The goal of governance, according to Han Feizi, is order, peace and

harmony. And the only way to achieve order, he argued, was through strict laws and

harsh punishments, the suppression of civil rights and democratic institutions, rewarding

the obedient and severely punishing the disobedient, equality of all (including the

ministers) before the law, and for the sovereign to subjugate his public officials under

the rule of able men who follows the law. He preached that only a powerful government

17 | P a g e


could maintain social order, a weak government is doomed to be destroyed. He thus

urged government leaders to use harsh rule as a means of ending social disorder and

restoring peace and harmony.

Han Feizi also argued for extreme censorship to control dangerous ideas or

ideas that are critical of the government. Anyone who espouses dangerous ideas

should be swiftly terminated, and anything that records these dangerous ideas must be

publicly destroyed (when Han Feizi’s philosophy was officially adopted by the Quin

dynasty, this particular principle of extreme censorship led to the burning of books

associated with Daoism and Confucianism).

Equality before the law is central to the philosophy of Han Feizi, as he

himself proclaimed:

“The law does not fawn on the noble; the string does not yield to the crooked. Whatever the law applies to, the wise cannot reject nor can the brave defy. Punishment for fault never skips ministers, reward for good never misses commoners. Therefore, to correct the faults of the high, to rebuke the vices of the low, to suppress disorders, to decide against mistakes, to subdue the arrogant, to straighten the crooked, and to unify the folkways of the masses, nothing could match the law. … Hence to govern the state by law is to praise the right and blame the wrong.” (Liao, 1998)

When Han Feizi’s philosophy was officially adopted by the rulers of the Quin

dynaty, they did what the past dynasties failed to do: to tame the unruly local feudal

nobles and powerful warlords, unite their greatly dismembered nation, and built the

Great Wall of China.

However, with the “crushing” success of Legalism came the demise of doing

philosophy in China.

18 | P a g e


Legalism has effectively contributed to the retardation of the vigor of

philosophical speculation, which has once characterized the Chinese philosophic

thought.

Section 4. THE PASSING OF THE ANCIENT

Both Eastern and Western Philosophy, of course, have continued to march on

with time, as men persisted to wonder and search for answers. But as time has

changed, so was the condition for doing philosophy.

The emerging social and political conditions of the time did little to encourage

philosophical speculations. Men became precoccupied with the necessities of his

material existence, and found comforts in the once forgotten (and now rediscovered)

dogmatism. Thinkers have begun to measure their philosophical speculations against

the requirements of Religious doctrines.

Although many nameless individuals worked to preserve the philosophic

traditions of what had gone before, there were very few genuine philosophical activities

that could be considered as “high” points for a few centuries to come until the

Rennaisance (1304 C.E.). The primary pre-occupations of the educated were

theological controversies and narrow-minded defenses of traditional doctrine and

practice.

This period in the long and windling history of Philosophy is what we call

Medieval Philosophy. Which, due to the limitation imposed by both space and time for

this present work, is reserved for future discussions.

However, it is hoped that the foregoing is more than sufficient to demonstrate

that both Western and Eastern worlds, not only the former, should be considered as the

19 | P a g e


birthplace of Philosophy. Abstract thought about the ultimate nature of the world and of

human life began to appear in cultures in both worlds, as an urge to move beyond

superstition toward explanation.

This is the reason why the common conception that Philosophy is an “exclusive

product of the Western mind”, and the history of Philosophy is solely the “history of

Western Philosophy”, are both wrong.

20 | P a g e

paper3 eastern

Documents