Victor's Pursuit of Serenity Chapter 7

Although this question is not rigorous, it is meaningful, so many people discuss it. One person that the discussants must mention is Mozi. After Julian' death, Mozi was the most influential thinker at that time. The followers of Mohism were spread all over the north and south, and they were organized internally, a bit like a religious group. They were still prosperous until the Warring States Period. The most interesting text in "Mozi" was written during the Warring States Period. A large part of the "Mozi" handed down from generation to generation is a compilation of articles by later scholars, and the author of the other part is still undecided. It may be Mozi himself, or it may still be his later scholars.

Mozi received Confucian education in his early years, but later had different ideas. The common feature of pre-Qin political theories is that their social designs all start from the individual, but they do not return to the individual. The obvious tendency is to say that if everyone is like this, the world will be fine. When Mozi talked about universal love, he showed a strong reasoning ability, but it was still in the fashion of the time. His political theory is naturally important, but it is a bit like another version of Confucianism. The main reason why people today are very interested in "Mozi" lies in another content in the book.

There are several chapters in Mozi, which were completed during the Warring States Period and are collectively called Mojing. Among the pre-Qin philosophers, Mojing is the most difficult to read. Its text is too brief, as is the case with other books, but we are familiar with the background of the arguments, so it is not difficult to read. The background of the arguments in Mojing has long been lost, and the author at the time only roughly wrote down the outline. Thanks to the efforts of the Qing Dynasty scholars and the reflection of modern science, we now know what Mojing is talking about.

There is a sentence in Mozi, "Knowledge is to connect." Knowing means knowledge, and connecting means to meet all things. Compare it with Mencius' attitude of "all things are in me", and you will know the difference. The characteristic of Confucianism is that it is indifferent to the physical world outside of human affairs. Julian at least wanted to "know the names of birds, beasts, plants and trees". His disciples were more diligent than each other when talking about people, and more lazy than each other when talking about things. The style of study of Mohism is debate. After much debate, it is found that most of the annoying differences come from the lack of consistent definitions. An important content of Mojing is to define. The objects of definition include some popular categories at that time, such as benevolence, righteousness, courtesy, wisdom, loyalty and filial piety, etc., as well as abstract concepts such as body, end, long (time), universe (space), exhaustion, end, same, different, etc. There are daily behaviors, such as sleeping, dreaming, benefits and harms, slander and praise, rewards and punishments, and some things in the physical world, such as what is square, what is round, what is the connection between two objects, and what is similar.

The definitions in the book "Mozi" have a tendency to explain some things from a physical perspective, such as "the middle is the same length". More important than these sporadic discoveries is the method of the Mohists. Confucianism is great, but it must be very painful to debate with them, because they neither have nor are used to following simple logical principles. The "Mo Jing" repeatedly emphasizes that different things cannot be put together for analogy. For example, we say that the night is long, and we also say that trees are long, and we also say that wisdom is abundant, and we also say that rice is abundant. Can we compare "which is longer, wood or night, and which is more, wisdom or millet?" Out of the need for debate, logic developed in the Mohists. Unfortunately, however, the logic of the Mohists could not convince those who were illogical, and only made themselves doubly unhappy when debating with the other party.

Such a vibrant school of thought disappeared in the two hundred years between the two great unifications of China, that is, from Qin Shihuang to Emperor Wu of Han. "Mozi" also disappeared from the bookshelves of scholars. Originally, it might have been completely lost, but fortunately, the Taoists mistakenly pulled Mozi into their own camp. Even so, for more than a thousand years, few people have read "Mozi" and no one can understand "Mojing". Han Yu of the Tang Dynasty read it, but as soon as we read his review, we know that he did not understand the essence of "Mozi" at all. Even so, Yu Yue still praised it, saying "Since the Tang Dynasty, except Han Changli, no one can understand Mozi." Because others are not as good as Han Yu.

In the 20th century, the trend changed again. A book that had been forgotten for more than 2,000 years was suddenly brought out to prove that we have "already known many things since ancient times" --- we still have the attitude of "everything is in me". Some parts of "Mo Jing" that are no longer understandable have also been forced to be explained, such as the "儇" article, what does it mean, who knows, it has now been interpreted as the tangent theorem. Is it a blessing or a misfortune for Mohists that science is not popular but Mohism is popular? This is impossible to assert; those who dare to assert that if the abandoners pretend that nothing has happened, they are too thick-skinned. At this time, not reading "Mo Zi" is the best commemoration of Mo Zi.

Don’t read Victor

It was after Wen and Jing in the Han Dynasty that Victor and Ethan were classified as one school. It is a bit strange that Leo Sima also followed the trend and said that Victor's thoughts were based on Ethan and that he was good at attacking Confucianism and Mohism. Given Leo Sima's experience, he should have been filled with emotion when reading Victor and cited him as a pioneer. Why did he say this?

The philosophers of the pre-Qin period, if divided by their standpoints, can be divided into two major groups. The common point of the two groups is that they are dissatisfied with the social reality, and feel that this is not right, that is not right, they are not comfortable, and others are not comfortable, and they are everywhere in the world. The difference is that one group wants to use its own program to transform society, the so-called madmen are enterprising, such as Julian, Mozi, and the later name and legal scholars, all of whom are like this. The other group focuses more on personal feelings and hates power itself, so they do not trust the social theories of the former from the bottom of their hearts, thinking that it is just a reform of evil, at most replacing the vicious power with a better one, not to mention that - as later events have proved - it may not be much better.

Ethan actually belongs to the first school. His discussion on the individual situation inspired Victor, but the two people's goals are different after all. For Victor, it is meaningless to transform society, because society itself is the enemy of individuals. As for politics, "in today's world, it is only possible to avoid punishment." Once involved, it will become a great hatred, and it is impossible to avoid it.

What should a person do when he is in a social environment that he is not satisfied with? This has always been a great puzzle for ancient philosophers. Should he endure silently or stand up to resist? Should he protect his integrity and stay away from right and wrong, or jump into the muddy water to try to turn the boat around? Should he ride alone and not aim for achievements, or should he recruit good people and gather bad people to fight evil with evil? The power of an individual is extremely small, and the collective is filthy. What should he give up and what should he take? A person's obligations to society are unlimited, but where are these limits? Which is more worth striving for, the boring perfection or the vividness of the brokenness? Is it possible for the meaning of life to extend beyond life?