The Philosopher Meh-ti.
The idea of solidarity in China in the 5th century BC
Three Chinese philosophers are generally known to Westerners. The famous Khoung-tse (Confucius), Meng-tse, a disciple (Mencius) and Lao-tse, author of the Tao-te Ching. Chu-hi, the leader of Neo-Confucianism, however, which occupies an important place in Chinese philosophy, already out of the domain knowledge of the educated public to belong to the orientalists ... The thinker for whom I will soon devote a book is still unknown. Not a line has been published on him in French. As for foreign literature, my personal research and the indications that I am the kind of scholar sinologist, Mr Visser, have shown me that it was unimportant.
Meh-ti lived about the fifth century BC; He was a contemporary, or shortly before, Meng-tse, his opponent. We lack serious documents relating to his life. His works were included within the general destruction of books ordered by the Emperor Hoang-ti Thsinchi. Similarly, other writings of philosophers, which have reached us, the books of Meh-ti met again later in hiding places where letters had deposited zealous to preserve to posterity the doctrines of the old masters.
Chinese characters used by Meh-ti as a general title of his teaching are a hand gripping two stalks of wheat. The interpretation given to the Chinese authors the most authoritative is that of "equal love for all, universal love. "This was the title of Philosophy of equal and universal love that I heard for the first time about the system Meh-ti by a scholar from the Far East. This name aroused my interest. I wondered if, against all predictions, he should have seen the doctrine of this master a doctrine of charity in the Christian sense of the word. The hypothesis seemed unlikely, it was then that I attached myself to the idea of studying the work of Meh-ti, and to engage in public the most essential parts. Here I must pay tribute to the caring support that brought me Mr. Senator Stephen Pichon, former Ambassador to Beijing today and Resident General of France in Tunis, which was spontaneously offered to take the necessary steps to my research and has thereby greatly facilitated my task.
The study of the Treaty of Meh-ti was fully confirmed my first opinion. It was not, in fact, love of neighbor, of humanity ... Love, with all that, this term we mean impetuous passion, drive irrational, unreasonable and often, preached that the old Chinese philosopher, but a more mundane sense, gasoline purely social utility rule for the order in the state, safety and welfare of the public, a precept wise foresight bearing fruit by itself and not an abstract virtue. In a word, the "Universal Love" Meh-ti I found the idea of our modern Solidarity.
Thought of the Chinese Master is expressed with a simplicity and candor that infatuated the minds of philosophies plume probably find poor, and even, perhaps low and trivial in the end, frankly confessed, we propose the basic tenet: "Love your neighbor as yourself for your greater mutual benefit. It is no question here of speculative sentiment: love for our philosopher means performing good deeds for others. In his speech he did not linger to discuss the moral value or merits of mutual love he advocates, but considering its results. The reason should lead us to love one another, or rather, to act toward each other like people challenging each other for the kind sentiments, is that each of us to find a benefit tangible. The feeling is interesting that by its fruits. Meh-li based on the most common case where the material acts based mental dispositions of the individual, urged his followers to cultivate in them the feelings of goodwill to get them to behave as benevolent men, but one can easily imagine the theories of this Master adopted by men, removing the practice of reciprocal mutual aid any descent into a moral law strictly material interest to ensure the safety and happiness of each Society members.
The character equality that seems to have universal love preached by Meh-ti cons it stirred up a considerable party of Letters:
"The sect Meh, said Meng-tse, loves everyone without distinction, ; points it recognizes parents. Not recognizing parents it be as raw and wild beasts. "
(Meng-tse, 1 livreVI, 9).
The logic seems to require, in effect, that the principle of universal love has equal love. Assuming we give the indifferent - we are now likely to harm the interests to our benefit or that of our loved ones - a share in our affection, not equal one small part that we give to our loved ones Their situation will hardly change. Instead of the indifferent we liked least that many opportunities remain, as before the sacrifice.
Meng-tse and other critics of Meh-ti had not breached the principle of pushing up its tougher consequences and take the opportunity to excite the anger of the Chinese against the reckless able to dare to suggest, on the classic land of Filial Piety, which should be love, equal love, his father, his son and the passing stranger that you meet on the street.
remains whether Meh-ti, and pushed his ideas to the extreme, or if, like most philosophers, will not make the time necessary to make them more readily acceptable. Nowhere do we see deny or attack the family feelings. Instead, we often hear described as "disorder" where filial piety, paternal and fraternal love are offended. It accepts whole moral law duties of children towards their parents and placed on the same line, as also the designing requirements, duties of parents towards their children. These duties, Meh-ti, without dwelling on questions of feelings, the door immediately on the positive territory in which he moves usual. The mutual aid mutual caring in critical circumstances, the material well-being assured his friends by all means are available, this is what is our philosophy in the context of family relations is what that He dreams of extending the large family comprising the whole of China.
By a strange coincidence, Meh-ti occurs with the Gospel in the summary table he draws, works of him who has adopted the principle of "Universal Love".
"Whoever adheres to the principle of distinction, says: How could I be for someone like my like my own person and for my parents as similar to my own parents? Reasoning in this way he can see his like being hungry and not feed him, cold and not clothe him, be patient and do not care, dead and not bury it. The language and conduct "of those who adhere to the principle of Love Universal are different. The latter said: "I realized that whoever wants to play a role higher among men must treat the person as similar to his own person, like his parents like his own parents. Only thus can he achieve that rank. Reasoning along these lines when he sees it. its like being hungry, he eats; being cold, he dresses; be sick, he heals, died, he buried him (1). "
is precisely based on the materiality of its wishes that Meh-ti comes to reconcile, to some extent with ingenuity and appealing the doctrine of love "equal for all and. attachments specific blood relationship or friendship. As always he appeals to our interest:
"... Those who condemn the principle of Universal Love say
- II (universal love) is not beneficial to the entire devotion prescribed to us (to our parents) it offends the Filial Piety.
Our Master says (2).
- A son of filial piety has penetrated to heart the happiness of his parents. He plans how it can be ensured. In this vein it is desirable that men love their parents and give them the satisfaction. Obviously he wants. What should he do himself in order to achieve this goal? He must be exercised to love what other parents and provide them with rewards so that we
"behave the same to his own ... "
The philosopher wants us to understand that harms the interests of parents and friends of others, our parents or our friends are in danger of suffering the effects of retaliation. This mode of conduct, he adds, should not be considered applicable only in a few isolated cases. It may, it must extend to become a general rule because it is in perfect agreement with the natural meaning. And he ends by quoting a verse of the ancient Book of Kings:
"Every word finds its answer
" Every action reward
"It gives me a fishing
" I give a plum. "
This principle of universal love, "said Meh-ti, the lot or the mock fight and yet, in practice, Is it not to him, to his followers that one turns:
"Here an officer wearing his coat of mail, his collar up, of his helmet. He is about to take part, as a combatant in a battle in what will be, for him, the outcome: life or death? ... We can not predict ... Or here is an officer about to be loaded "on an expedition to a distant land: the end of the trip, go back are full of uncertainties. In these two assumptions, that this officer confided he surveillance of his house, custody of his parents, the care of his wife and children? I think there not in heaven, a man, a woman stupid enough - it condemns the principle of Universal Love keep his faith to the end (giving her confidence to an egoist who has no respect for the interests of others) ... It is words that they condemn the principle of universal love and when comes the opportunity to choose between him and the opposite principle, that we give him the preference. The words and conduct are here at odds ... "
Meh-ti then turns against those who, while admiring his theories, reported impassable, the love of" self "speaking too loud in everyone. The power of selfishness, fear caused by suffering, passionate ardor that one brings to the search for pleasure, the Chinese thinker does not ignore them, but his calm philosophical point is not disturbed. - Things have been harder performed by men, "he says. They were able to repeatedly overcome their selfishness, voluntarily suffer pain, to renounce the joys of life, sometimes life itself and that, often, for a ridiculous goal, an ambition grotesque, absurd prejudices. Then he immediately sought to confirm its claims with examples from the history of his country
"Prince Ling Ghing a.imait many thin men. In his day, the officers themselves reduced their food until the value of a single handful of rice (so as not to fertilize). They uttered the same zeal so far that some had become so weak they could not walk without the aid of a cane and, during their walks, had to rely on the walls (to support ). "
A brief sentence, a quiet shrug before this manifestation of human folly, is the conclusion of any philosopher
"It should not be more than a generation to change the habits of the people, so great is his desire to emulate those of his own" his superiors. "
Another example succeeds it. Twice we find in the book of Meh-ti, is the trait that relates to China was very popular at the time of our author, is that it should find the particular characteristic, it seems to me, indeed.
"Kau-chien, King of Yueh passionately admired bravery. He spent three years to exercise any of its officers, then, not knowing if it had happened to make them truly intrepid he set fire to a ship on which they were gathered. So striking a drum, he began to beat him with his own hands, urging them to enter the fire. When they heard the drum, the officers rushed to the environment among the flames, the last ranks marching over the bodies of those who preceded them, and they trampled the fire. One hundred "and perished, either in the flames or drowned, but the survivors withdrew when the sovereign beat the drum again to remember ... "
Make the sacrifice of his life, endure death in flames is difficult, they found themselves able to accomplish it because they "wanted to please their sovereign ... "
philosopher dropped his examples, but it does not conclude, as might be expected, vehement words. Determinism which is the placid depths of Asian wisdom, otherwise: Men are such that they can be. The Thinker, perhaps more for his own satisfaction in the hope of transforming them, drawing attention to driving errors that cause their pain and if the crowd he is addressing, can not understand, he is irritated point.
Why then is it rational, then it not only meets our feelings ideals of humanity, of generosity, but also satisfies our material interests, why the doctrine of Universal Love and solidarity Is it not better received? ...
"She does not like the great, the 'leaders' answers Meh-ti.
Should we seek, in these words, an ulterior motive of revolt, an expression of militant socialism? ... We would experience easy temptation but it should, I believe, to keep it.
Why the "big" they reject the doctrine of Universal Love and they hinder its spread? - Do they think that the disunity of small, their struggles among themselves are the best safeguard the privileged position they enjoy? Do they think that the favor of dissension between the popular elements, their authority, their tyranny, their atrocities carried more easily? ... Maybe Meh-ti-he thinks, but he does not say, and seems even more, given the hostility of the "big" a lack of intelligence, understanding from them: "They understand the little things, not great" (which is to establish a good government). So we might disguise his thoughts in embarking on the path slightly too risky inferences based.
What Meh-ti has in any case not thought of attack is the principle of hierarchy. Upper and Lower, the noble and the base - following expressions very characteristic of Chinese writers - the governors and the governed are a social duality which he contests any time the legitimacy and necessity high.
The ideal of Meh-ti is a government strong: "I must strongly governs the top and working down sharply, then peace will reign ... "
After almost see, our philosopher, revolutionary, do not hurry, on a sentence, as the last, to consider support of despotism and autocracy. This shook wander more widely still:
"This system (the one exposed by Meh-ti) is not to govern the people by the omnipotence of one whose authority is exercised over all. .. "
leaders, the rulers will be those who are capable of governing: the intelligent, wise. The governed are the mediocre minds incapable of enlightened views, ignorance should be held in trusteeship. But the top and bottom boundaries are so transient, depending on the individual value and only momentary.
"... Officials have no definite nobility, the people has no meanness irretrievable ... "
" ... It raises the capable people, be they workers or farmers, they are given high positions with big salaries ... "
Meh-ti was not to believe that the function could contain in itself the elements of demoralization that is attributed, often, only to evil inclinations of man who is invested. It advocates the establishment of close solidarity uniting all levels of the hierarchy, each endeavoring by his faculties for the common good, each occupying the place that suits his natural abilities and be content.
"Then a lot of crime (followed) of severe punishment, with these two things one is troubled kingdom. "
" We would like to no avail, then there is no unrest, it is not possible. "
The major virtue of the individual in the state is its usefulness, the family feelings, themselves, can not accept being useless
" A father, even if he has a tender heart, does not like a useless son. "
We must give of oneself to others and receive from him the avaricious, the lonely are the enemies of public happiness.
"He who has riches without wanting to share with others what is not worthy that one is his friend. "
And the riches are not only gold, land and its products, they are also the wealth of intelligence, physical abilities as we see in the following precepts whose observance makes man wise:
"He who has the strength to help the man who has wealth should be shared with man, and whoever has the doctrine (that that is to say who is educated) must teach the man. "
I can not dwell benefit without exceeding the limits of a bill of this kind. In Volume I intend to devote Meh-ti I can follow this author in the many developments in which he tries to show us that in all areas of solidarity is a producer of order, harmony, happiness, morale and equipment. To give more weight to his assertions, the Chinese philosopher is not lacking, according to the invariable custom of his country, we represent the principle of "Universal Love" as directly inspired by the example of Heaven, "whose generous donations have no bias "that provides all useful things,"
etc. .. 11 also invokes the ancient world, this heroic era of Chinese history, inhabited by Yao, Chun and other holy kings who are said to have been the model of all wisdom. For many features borrowed from the old chronicles it shows them practicing the principle of "Universal Love", but in the midst of these speeches - concession, perhaps, to contemporary morality - Meh-ti does not abandon his main argument and still is very utilitarian: "Love one another for your mutual benefit" that comes as The final reason to take our commitment to the principle of solidarity.
Thus, despite the 25 centuries that separate them, the old Chinese thinker and our modern sociologists can meet on common ground of practical wisdom, doubly wise, that trying to generalize from the point human virtues exceptional and abnormal, but taking man as he is, based on his instinctive and legitimate selfishness, trying to show him that the best interests of this selfishness must raise it to that respect the selfishness of others without which there can be no security, no order or social happiness.
High, Noble, despite the superiority brings knowledge and intelligence should not be content to govern with a contemptuous benevolence Netherlands, VII, and it must be the leader penetrates mentality directed and between both there is "exchange of thoughts":
"The ancient saints kings realized that they must appoint heads in agreement with the people, then, between Upper and Lower, there will be exchange of thoughts. "
Monarchs and officials, anyone who has lead the masses, can do so with fairness and for the good of the country that they came to get in the way the people see, understand how it plans things:
"What determines the peace between Upper and Lower. Is that the monarchs assimilate the feelings of the Netherlands. Then peace prevails, otherwise it's trouble. "
" When rulers have mastered the feelings of the Netherlands, by the fact they understand what is right and what is wrong with the people. "
"When rulers have not understood the feelings of the people, they do not understand good and bad people. While punishment and rewards they distribute are not consistent with justice and the Kingdom is disturbed. So when should reward or punish, if one has not yet absorbed the feelings of the Netherlands it is imperative to engage in a screening. "
That is to say be aware of the feelings from which the people judge and act.
"How is it today that those who are above can not govern those in Holland and those in the Netherlands can not serve those who are high? "
" Because the Upper and Lower despise each other. "
" Why? Because their view is different. "
The need for solidarity was made a thousand different ways in the work of Meh-ti, it is envisaged in the material sphere, or in the intellectual domain. He does not lack affirm the close relationship between facts material and moral consequences they generate.
The misery of the people is the largest source of public disorder, luxury outraged Upper classes inevitably depravity and rebellion among those in the Netherlands:
"... Thus the rich live in luxury and people suffering cold and hunger. "
1) Compare Gospel of Matthew, Ch. XXV, verse 34 et seq.
2) Like similar works, the treaty containing the doctrines of Meh-ti was written by one or some of his followers, hence the form used: "Our Master said ... "
0 comments:
Post a Comment