[somechineseperson]

(To the moderators: I know there were previous threads on Mohism in this sub-forum, but please do not merge this with those ones)

The Mohist school of thought (founded by Mozi 470 - 391 BC) is arguably the most rationalist of all of schools of thought in classical Chinese philosophy. (Chinese philosophy during the classical period, 500 BC to 200 BC) In Mohism there is neither the absolute faith in tradition of Confucianism nor the fuzzy relativism of Daoism. Mohists believe in something not simply because "it just the way it is" (e.g. Confucian tradition) or because of some sort of mystical insight (as in Daoism), rather they believe in something primarily because it is shown to be good and right (in Chinese "shi" 是 - note that in classical Chinese philosophy just as the mind and heart are not really seperated, the sense of rational truth and the sense of moral goodness are not really seperated either - "shi" represents both "true" and "good") by rational argument. They have a developed epistemology (the first school of thought - and perhaps the only one, to develop such in classical China) which can tell them whether anything is "shi" 是 (good/true) or "fei" 非 (evil/false).

As the scholar of ancient Chinese philosophy A. C. Graham states in his book Disputers of the Tao - Philosopohical Argument in Ancient China:

"It is in Mozi [The foundational text of Mohism] that we first meet the word bian 辩 "argue out alternatives", [Note: I am not sure if this is actually the case, this word might have existed in The Analects of Confucius too - but at any rate it is Mozi who really utilises "bian" for the first time in Chinese philosophy] cognate with bian 辨 "distinguish", which was to become the established term for rational discourse. It is the distinguishing of the right alternative, the one which "is this" (shi 是) from the wrong alternative, the one which "is not" (fei非). We find also in Mozi a recognition that the soundness of a thought has nothing to do with who thinks it."

... ...

"Except when casting an argument in dialogue form the Mohists do not name the author of a thesis; they discuss it on its own merits. This is not at all in the style of the Confucians, who expect a thinker to exemplify as well as talk about the Way. The Confucius so vividly presented in the Analects teaches above all by being the man he is; Mozi on the other hand, like most Western philosophers, is a nonentity, whose name even for his own school is no more than a label for his thoughts."

Mohism is also one of the most developed philosophies in classical China (500 - 200 BC), for it touches on a wide range of issues. Let us focus on five general areas of Mohist philosophy: Epistemology, Theology, Ethics, Political Philosophy and Natural Philosophy/Science.

Mohist Epistemology:

According to Mohism our supposed knowledge of things is good/true ("shi" 是 - remember that in classical Chinese philosophy, the moral "good" and the rational "true" are united as one) - and therefore count as justified real knowledge if it passes all of the following three criteria:

1. Testimony, based on the opinions of the wise sages of the past. Like the Confucians, Mohists have great reverence for the great ancient sage-kings of Chinese antiquity. However, for the Mohists they are to be revered not simply because they are "former kings" and ancestors, but because they are good and wise. Likewise we should trust in the testimony of ancient sage-kings not because they were ancient, but because they were sage-kings.

2. Empiricism, based on the perceptual experiences of the general populace. If many people have seen X and have heard X, then X exists. But what if different people give different accounts? Mozi does not answer this directly, but judging from his ideas in other contexts, the Mohist approach would probably be to apply a numerical/quantitative comparison, if a people said X doesn't exist, and a+1 people said X does exist, then X does exist and vice versa.

3. Utilitarianism, i.e. is it beneficial? If it is beneficial, then it is good/true, if not, then it is evil/false. Beneficial for what/whom? Since Mohist ethics is fundamentally based on the idea of Jian Ai 兼爱 (Concern for All or "Universal Love"), it should be beneficial for all the people or if that were not possible, for the largest number of people.

Mohist Theology:

For Mohists it is absolutely clear that Tian is a personal Supreme Deity, therefore I shall translate it as God rather than Heaven (which is the standard translation for the Confucian Tian). Mohists therefore are the most faithful heirs of the theistic tradition in Chinese antiquity (Xia, Shang and early Zhou). The God Mohists believe in is the God of the ancient Chinese classics (technically speaking not just Confucian classics for many different schools of thought refer to them), such as Shu Jing 书经(The Book of Ancient History) and Shi Jing 诗经 (The Book of Songs). God is Supreme, the "parent of mankind", and Good. He is the Ultimate Source of Universal Morality. As A. C. Graham states in his book:

"...he [Mozi] is driven in the same direction as the great Middle-Eastern religions, with their universal moralities ordained by a personal God who will judge the mighty as they deserve."

Some passages regarding God from the text Mozi:

"What then does God desire and dislike? God desires us to do the right and dislikes us doing wrong...if we do what God desires, God will likewise do what we desire."

"How then do we know that God desires us to do the right and dislikes us doing wrong? When there is rightdoing in the world we live, without it we die; with it we are rich, without it poor; with it we are orderly, without it disorderly...Those who accord with God's thought are concerned for each one of each other, reciprocate by benefiting each other and are sure to be rewarded; those who go counter to God's thought hate each other seperately, reciprocate by plundering each other, and are sure to be punished."

"Who then has been rewarded for according with God's thought?" [Answer, the sage founders of the Three Dynasties.] "Who was punished for going counter to God's thought?" [Answer, the tyrants Jie and Zhou, Yu and Li.]

"Master Mozi pronounces: by way of illustration, we have God's Intent as the wheelwright has the compasses and the carpenter the L-square. Wheelwrights and carpenters take up compasses and L-square to measure the round and the square throughout the world, and say 'What coincides is this, [i.e. [i]Shi[/i] 是] what does not coincide is not [i.e. [i]Fei[/i] 非].'"

Mohist theology is however not completely monotheistic, for although there is a Supreme Deity (Tian) in Mohism, there also exists lesser spirits, essentially the spirits of ancestors and of the "natural" world. (E.g. mountains, rivers etc)

Mohist theology is rationalist instead of mystical. Mohists believe in God because the existence of God can be justified by the three criteria of Mohist epistemology given above, not because of some sort of mystical insight (as might be the case for the Daoists).

It must be said, however, that the Mohist view of the after-life is not really developed when compared to other religious systems such as Buddhism. There is no notion of another realm beyond this one. There is only one Tiandi 天地 (Heaven and Earth, term in Chinese philosophy for "everything there is", corresponds to the English term "the universe"), and that's all there is in reality. Ghosts will simply roam around Heaven and Earth, inhabiting the same realm as living people.

Mohist Ethics:

The basis of Mohist ethics is both theistic and utilitarian. The two in fact merges as one in Mohism. The meta-ethical basis in Mohism is God(Tian 天 - again I stress it is absolutely clear that for Mozi Tian is a personal God) We should love all people equally and love other people as our selves because such is the Will of God (Tian zhi 天志) and because such a behaviour would be logically sound in a utilitarian sense - as the highest number of people will receive the highest amount of benefit if we all love one another as ourselves. For the Mohists the Will of God is also an utilitarian one - God loves everyone equally in the utilitarian sense - by providing people with useful benefits, so we should also do the same.

The Golden Rule of ethics - the idea of "loving another as oneself" was already proposed by Confucius before Mozi. However, the Mohists extended this idea: Just as one should love another person as oneself, ethically speaking one family should also love another family as itself, and one nation should love another nation as itself. One of the general attacks on Mohism is therefore that it proposes "one should love a stranger as much as one's parents". However, a closer look at Mohist ethics will reveal that it is actually more sophisticated than this claim seems to suggest:

"Yizi [a Mohist philosopher] said: 'According to the Way of the Ru 儒 (Confucians), the men of old [refering to the ancient sage-kings of Chinese antiquity] were "as though protecting a baby" [i.e. that's how benevolent rulers should treat the people]. What does this saying mean? As for us, we think that there are no degrees of concern, [everyone should be loved equally] but the application starts from the nearer.'"

So it seems Mohist ethics seperates what should be done in principle from what should be done in practice. In principle everyone should be loved equally, but in practice one should start from those closest to him. (I.e. his family and friends) What is done in practice is a pragmatic means to the end of what should be done in principle. We can only begin to achieve universal love by firstly love those who are closest to us. One can argue that this idea echos with Christian ethics, for Jesus said: love your neighbour as yourself.

Mohists do not blindly follow traditions, rather they put traditional ethics to the test using their rational utilitarian standard. One of their arguments against using tradition as the basis of ethics is that in different cultures traditions can differ greatly. As this following passage from Mozi against the Confucian ritual of three years of mourning by the son after his father passes away shows:

"If elaborate funerals and prolonged mourning can really enrich the poor, increase population, secure the endangered and order the disordered, they are benevolence, the right, the service of a filial son"

[If however they do not,] "they are not benevolence, not the right, not the service of a filial son."

"The upholders today of elaborate funerals and prolonged mourning pronounce: 'If really these are not the Way of the sage kings, how to explain why the gentlemen of the central states perform them without fail, cling to them instead of doing away with them?' Master Mozi says: this is what one calls getting used to the familiar and taking the customary for the right. Formerly east of Yueh there was the country of Shai-shu; at the birth of the first son they dismembered and ate him, calling it an obligation to his younger brothers. When a grandfather died they carried away the grandmother and abandoned her, saying 'It is impermissible to live with the wife of a ghost'. This was recognised policy above and recognised custom below, performed without fail, clung to instead of done away with; but is it really the Way of the benevolent and the right?"

Here is another Mohist critique of a Confucian idea based on rational arguments:

"They [the Confucians] say too: 'The gentleman follows and does not originate.' We answer: in ancient times Yi originated the bow, Chu armour, Hsi Chung the carriage, Ch'iao Ch'ui the boat. Does it follow that the armourers and wheelwrights of today are all gentlemen, and the four originators all vulgar men? Moreover whatever they now follow someone must have originated, so everything they follow is the Way of the vulgar man."

However, I do not think that Confucian philosophy is really against innovation. Perhaps the Mohists have exaggerated a particular point in order to attack the Confucian position in general.

It is unsurprising that Mohists are pacifists. But they are not absolute pacifists, for Mohists are supporters of defensive warfare and indeed are specialists in this art. Their pacifism, like much of their ethics, is based on utilitarian principles. In the Mozi it is said:

"If you consider the motive for conquest, it can be put to no use; if you consider his gains, they are less than his losses...Of lands there is a surplus, of the king's subjects a shortage. Now if you expend the lives of the king's subjects, and aggravate misery both above and below, to fight over an empty city, this is to throw away something you are short of for something you have more than enough of."

"Even if in four or five cases states have gained benefit from it one still calls it failure to practice the Way." [It is as though a physician had a medicine which cured four or five men in 10,000]: "one would still calls it failure to practice medicine."

Mohists believe in human free will and reject the concept of Ming 命 (Destiny). According to them destiny does not exist because it does not pass their three epistemological criteria. But most importantly to them the concept of destiny is false/wrong because it is not beneficial in an utilitarian sense. In the Mozi it is said:

"The fatalists pronounced: 'If destined to be rich we shall be rich, to be poor poor; if destined to be numerous we shall be numerous, to be few few; if destined to be orderly we shall be orderly, to be disorderly disorderly; if destined to live long we shall live long, to die young die young. What advantage is there in making efforts?"

"How then do we know that fatalism is the Way of the tyrants? Formerly the poor people of past ages were greedy for food and drink and idle in doing their work, so that resources of food and clothing were insufficient and worries about cold and hunger came to them. They didn't know how to say 'I haven't tried hard enough, have lagged at work', they were sure to say 'It is my inevitable destiny that I shall be poor'. Formerly the tyrant kings of past ages did not restrain the indulgences of eye and ear and vicious intents of their hearts, would not take advice from near or far kin, and so lost the throne and overturned the altars of the state; they did not say 'I haven't tried hard enough, I have governed badly', they were sure to say 'It was my inevitable destiny to lose it.'"

(To be continued...)

This post has been edited by somechineseperson: 01 February 2006 - 10:11 PM

[somechineseperson]

Mohist Political Philosophy:

Mohists welcomed the political trend during the Warring States Period in China where there was increasing centralisation and bureaucratisation, for such a political system offers a higher degree of social mobility, something the Mohists favor for they believed in pure meritocracy and are against hereditary succession in government offices. In this sense too they are the most faithful heirs among Chinese philosophical schools of the ancient "succession by virtue" system of the sage-kings Yao and Shun that operated before the Xia Dynasty.

In the Mozi it is said:

"Even among peasants, or among craftsmen and traders, if someone had ability they [i.e. the great sage-kings of Chinese antiquity] appointed him, and gave him a high title, ample salary, full responsibility for the work and full power to command."

"Therefore no one in office was irreversibly noble, no one among the people was irrevocably base; if someone had ability they appointed him, if not, degraded him."

Although Mohists believed in "universal love", they were certainly neither democrats nor anarchists. and they, like the Confucians, supported the existence of social hierarchies and central monarchial control in politics. It is just that the Mohists believe that hierarchy and probably also monarchy should be determined by meritocracy instead of hereditary succession, but the "abstract" monarchial, hierarchial system, if you like, should still be in place even in a meritocratic system.

According to Mohist political philosophy, the purpose of a good government is to "unify moralities" (Yi 义). A good government is therefore essential because otherwise every person would have his or her own ideas of morality and therefore the world will turn into an "all against all" style disorderly and chaotic situation.

The Mohists completely dismiss the Daoist political idea of the small, stateless, primitive societies as the ideal. The Mozi says:

"In ancient times when the people originated, in the period before there was punishment and administration, the saying went: 'Everyone in the world has a different morality.' Hence for one man there was one morality, for two men two, for ten men ten; with the multiplication of men what they called morality multiplied too. Consequently a man judged his own morality to be morality and other men's not, so they all judged each other immoral. Hence within the family father and son, elder brother and younger, fell into resentment and hatred, became alienated and incapable of co-operating harmoniously. The Hundred Clans throughout the world all by water, fire and poison deprived and injured each other, even having excess of strength were incapable of working for each other, left excess resources to rot and refused to teach it to each other. Throughout the world they were as disordered as the beasts and birds.

"It was clear that the reason why everywhere under Heaven there was disorder derived from having no head of government. Therefore they chose the worthiest and most acceptable man under Heaven and established him as Son of Heaven."

Strictly speaking Mohist political philosophy is not just a meritocracy but a theo-meritocracy. Because for the Mohists the real head of govenment is not the Son of Heaven, but the God of Heaven Himself. God is really at the apex of the Mohist politico-social hierarchy. The importance of Heaven/God in Mohist political philosophy is suggested in this passage from the Mozi:

"If the Hundred Clans everywhere under Heaven conform upward to the Son of Heaven but not to Heaven, calamity will still not be escaped. Now if whirlwinds and rainstorms come over and over again, this is how Heaven punishes the Hundred Clans for not conforming upward to Heaven."

Mohist Natural Philosophy:

The Later Mohists (after Mozi) developed a theoretical foundational for scientific thought. As this excerpt from The Shorter Science and Civilisation in China (An abridgement by Colin A. Ronan of Joseph Needham's orginal text) shows:

"...when we come to examine the Canons and Expositions in the Mozi (Book of Master Mo), we realise how far the later Mohists went in their efforts to establish a thought-system on which experimental science could be based. Some selected examples may make this clear (C=Canon, CS=Exposition):

C: An attribute [literally a "side"] may be [added on to or] taken away from [something] without involving increase or reduction...
CS: Both are the same one thing and no change has occurred.

This refers to subjective judgements like a "beautiful" flower, which remains the same flower, whether thought beautiful or not.

C: Fire is hot...
CS: Fire: when one says fire is hot, this is not [only] on account of the heat of the fire; it is [because] I make the assimilation [or correlation] [of the visual sensation of] light [and the tactile sensation of heat].

The work of the mind in sorting and ordering sensations and perceptions was much discussed by the Mohists. Perception has for its object the world which the sense organs, the "five roads", apprehend; their data are then subject to reflection, and it is through this that conceptual or interpretative knowledge (Zhi 知) is attained. It is interesting that this character was apparently invented by the Mohists as a technical term, and has long since disappeared from dictionaries.
We turn now to "models" or "methods" of nature:

C: The mutual sameness of things of one fa 法 (model or method) extends to all things in that class. Thus squares are the same, one to another...
CS: All square things have the same fa, though [themselves] different, some being of wood, some of stone. This does not prevent their squareness mutually corresponding. They are all of the same kind, being all squares. Things are all like this.

and next to causation:

C: A cause is that with the obtaining of which something becomes [comes into existence].
CS: Causes: a minor cause is one with which something may not necessarily be so, but without which it will never be so. For example, a point in a line. A major cause is one with which something will of necessity be so [and without which it will never be so]. As in the case of the act of seeing which results in sight.

The minor cause here is what we should call a necessary condition rather than a cause, but there is no doubt that in a passage like this we find ourselves in the very engine-room of scientific thinking. So too with the question of what constitutes knowledge:

C: Knowing comprises hearing about something, making an inference from it or an exposition of it, experiencing it personally, harmonising names with actualities, and then action...
CS: Receiving something transmitted is hearsay knowledge. [Classifying] unhindered by position in space [because the things concerned may be far apart] is inference or exposition. What is observed by one's own body is personal experience. What designate are names, what are designated are actualities; when names and actualities are yoked together like a plough-team, that is [the required] harmony. So also will mated to movement is action.

There is absence here of any prejudice against action (Wei 为), so characteristic of the Daoists.

C: When one hears that what is not known is like what is known, then both are known...
CS: What is outside is known. Then someone says, "The colour inside the room is like this colour [outside]." Thus what is not known is like what is known...Names serve, by what is understood, to make certain what was not previously known. They do not use the unknown to conjecture at what is understood. It is like using a metre rule to measure an unknown length.

Then there is an important passage on "knowledge and practice":

C: If one has a general idea which one does not as yet understand [what to do about it?]...
CS: A last, a hammer and an awl, are all things used for making shoes. The ornamentation may be put on before the shoe is hammered, or afterwards. The process takes its course; the exact order of the operations may be a matter of chance [the precedence may be equivalent].

Only by practice can essentials and non-essentials be distinguished. Rational argument was recommended:

C: To hold that all speech is perverse, is perverseness...
CS: To hold that all speech is perverse is not permissible. If the speech of the man [who urges this doctrine] is permissible, then speech is not perverse. But if his speech is permissible, it is not necessarily correct.

This quotation is more than a recommendation, however; it is an attack on the Daoist mistrust of reasoned argument. But not all Taoist ideas were contrary to Mohist teaching; the Mohists agreed, for instance, on the peace, the liberation from fear, that can be obtained by a study of nature:

C: Calmness of mind is [the acquirement of] knowledge without preferences or attractions and without prejudices or repulsions.
CS: Calmness of mind: tranquility [in the acceptance of] the thus-ness of things.

These quotations show that, in spite of some similarities, we are in a different world from the Taoists. There is nothing of the Taoist poetry and vision, and there is less interest in life phenomena as such, although the Mohists recognised change, and in particular biological change. Yet even though we have to see their work through the dark glasses of corrupted texts and ingenious emendations, the broad sweep of their understanding, the way they sketched out what amounts to a complete theory of scientific method, is what matters; and this shines through even the distorted records. They discussed sensation and perception, causality and classification, agreement and difference, and the relations of parts and wholes. They recognised the social element in fixing a terminology, and distinguished between first-hand and second-hand evidence. Yet unfortunately they never proposed a general theory of natural phenomena more satisfactory than the Five-Element theory [more accurately Wu Xing 五行 should be translated as "Five Phases"]: they criticised the doctrine in detail, but that seems to have been as far as they could go.

The Mohists tried to define various forms of scientific reasoning, and even though the texts are somewhat uncertain, it seems reasonably established that they reached the two important and basic principles of deduction and induction. The first is to be seen, for instance, in a passage about the use of mental "models":

'"Model-thinking" consists in following the methods [of nature]. What is followed in "model-thinking" are the methods. Therefore if the methods are truly followed by the "model-thinking" [literally: hit it in the middle], the reasoning will be correct. But if the methods are not truly followed by the "model-thinking", the reasoning will be wrong.'

In other words, if one correctly recognises the causes (by formulating a 'model') then one arrives at the correct answer, and since in nature these causes will be far fewer in number than the effects being considered, determining the causes can only be by a process of deduction.

Again, for induction, for reasoning from the particular to the general, the following passage is valuable:

"Extension is considering that that which one has not yet received [i.e. a new phenomenon] is identical [from the point of view of classification] with those which one has already received, and admitting it."

Here, indeed, we have a generalisation being formed from a limited number of instances.

With their conceptual models, their deduction and induction, the Mohists, like the Greeks, reached the very threshold of the theory of science. Indeed, it is tempting to think that if Mohist logic and Daoist naturalist insight could only have been combined, the Chinese might have crossed that threshold. The tragedy of Chinese science is that this never happened."

This post has been edited by somechineseperson: 01 February 2006 - 11:04 PM

[LYY]

Quote

In Mohism there is neither the absolute faith in tradition of Confucianism nor the fuzzy relativism of Daoism. Mohists believe in something not simply because "it just the way it is" (e.g. Confucian tradition) or because of some sort of mystical insight (as in Daoism), rather they believe in something primarily because it is shown to be good and right (in Chinese "shi" 是 - note that in classical Chinese philosophy just as the mind and heart are not really seperated, the sense of rational truth and the sense of moral goodness are not really seperated either - "shi" represents both "true" and "good") by rational argument. They have a developed epistemology (the first school of thought - and perhaps the only one, to develop such in classical China) which can tell them whether anything is "shi" 是 (good/true) or "fei" 非 (evil/false).

In the nutshell:

是(true) / 非(false) - digital

"it just the way it is" - analog

It is a matter of quality refinement ...

[LYY]

Quote

Mohists believe in human free will and reject the concept of Ming 命 (Destiny). According to them destiny does not exist because it does not pass their three epistemological criteria. But most importantly to them the concept of destiny is false/wrong because it is not beneficial in an utilitarian sense.

Quote

Mohist Epistemology:

According to Mohism our supposed knowledge of things is good/true ("shi" 是 - remember that in classical Chinese philosophy, the moral "good" and the rational "true" are united as one) - and therefore count as justified real knowledge if it passes all of the following three criteria:

1. Testimony, based on the opinions of the wise sages of the past. Like the Confucians, Mohists have great reverence for the great ancient sage-kings of Chinese antiquity. However, for the Mohists they are to be revered not simply because they are "former kings" and ancestors, but because they are good and wise. Likewise we should trust in the testimony of ancient sage-kings not because they were ancient, but because they were sage-kings.

2. Empiricism, based on the perceptual experiences of the general populace. If many people have seen X and have heard X, then X exists. But what if different people give different accounts? Mozi does not answer this directly, but judging from his ideas in other contexts, the Mohist approach would probably be to apply a numerical/quantitative comparison, if a people said X doesn't exist, and a+1 people said X does exist, then X does exist and vice versa.

3. Utilitarianism, i.e. is it beneficial? If it is beneficial, then it is good/true, if not, then it is evil/false. Beneficial for what/whom? Since Mohist ethics is fundamentally based on the idea of Jian Ai 兼爱 (Concern for All or "Universal Love"), it should be beneficial for all the people or if that were not possible, for the largest number of people.

How to change your Destiny(命) by Mozi?

Testimony - A reference for advice and guidance

Empiricism - if you mix with a group of positive people, chances are you will be positive reinforced and vice versa.

Utilitarianism - use your commonsense and intuition!

[Yun]

I will respect SCP's wishes, and merely point out that an earlier thread on Mohism can be found here: http://www.chinahist...?showtopic=7156

[jwrevak]

somechineseperson, on Feb 1 2006, 06:55 PM, said:

For Mohists it is absolutely clear that Tian is a personal Supreme Deity, therefore I shall translate it as God rather than Heaven (which is the standard translation for the Confucian Tian). Mohists therefore are the most faithful heirs of the theistic tradition in Chinese antiquity (Xia, Shang and early Zhou). The God Mohists believe in is the God of the ancient Chinese classics (technically speaking not just Confucian classics for many different schools of thought refer to them), such as Shu Jing 书经(The Book of Ancient History) and Shi Jing 诗经 (The Book of Songs). God is Supreme, the "parent of mankind", and Good. He is the Ultimate Source of Universal Morality. As A. C. Graham states in his book:

"...he [Mozi] is driven in the same direction as the great Middle-Eastern religions, with their universal moralities ordained by a personal God who will judge the mighty as they deserve."

Is it indeed "absolutely clear" that, for Moists, Tian 天 = "a personal Supreme Deity" and the Moist Tian should be translated as "God"? I wonder.

Even Graham, in his Disputers of the Tao, typically translates the the Moist Tian as "Heaven". He also acknowledges that Moists believed in and honored numerous gods (including those of mountains and rivers) and ghosts. Thus, Moists differ signficantly from, say, the Biblical Hebrews. Further, Graham notes with reference to Moists, ". . . there is little evidence of a spiritual dimension deeper than a guilty fear of ghosts. The Mohists are in a sense less religious than some they would denounce as sceptics."

Similar to Graham, Wing-Tsit Chan's well-known anthology of Chinese philosophical writings, A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy, typically translates the Moist Tian as "Heaven". Further, Chan notes, "Modern interest in Moism arose in China because of its ultilitarian spirit, and in the West because of its superficial resemblance to the Christain teachings of the will of God and universal love."

Fung Yu-Lan, in his A Short History of Chinese Philosophy, sometimes refers to the Moist Tian as "Heaven" and sometimes as "God". He summarizes Moist beliefs about the "Will of Heaven" and spirits, by noting, in part: ". . . we read that God exists; that He loves mankind; and that His Will is that all men should love one another. . . . Besides God, there are also numerous lesser spirits who likewise reward men who practice all-embracing love, and punish those who practice 'discrimination' ."

Clearly significant differences exist between the Moist Tian and common Western conceptions of God. In fact, Schwartz, who, in his The World of Thought in Ancient China, typically translates the Moist Tian as Heaven, notes: ". . . Mo-tzu's Heaven plays a far smaller role in human affairs than does the Heaven of the contemporary Confucianists with whom he was in contact. Mo-tzu does not attempt to descry any future trajectory of history. While Mo-tzu's 'theism' has been compared to that of the Bible, the subtle mysterious dialectic of the interplay between divine plan and human action which we find in the Hebrew bible cannot be found here."

So what are we to make of this? Personally, I think that it is fair to say that the Moist Tian is a personal and supreme deity. However, it's probably very misleading to translate the Moist Tian as "God". The English term carries so much theological and historical baggage! God (with a capital G) is usually construed as the monotheistic God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And say what you will, there are significant differences between the Mohist Tian and monotheistic God. To me, it makes little sense to simplistically suggest that the Mohist Tian is obviously and self-evidently equivalent to "God".

[somechineseperson]

jwrevak, on Feb 5 2006, 10:09 PM, said:

Is it indeed "absolutely clear" that, for Mohists, Tian 天 = "a personal Supreme Deity" and the Mohnist Tian should be translated as "God"? I wonder.

Even Graham, in his Disputers of the Tao, typically translates the the Mohist Tian as "Heaven". He also acknowledges that Mohists believed in and honored numerous gods (including those of mountains and rivers) and ghosts. Thus, Mohists differ signficantly from, say, the Biblical Hebrews.

The Mohist Tian is clearly personal. I did say also that the Mohists are not absolute monotheists for they believe in the existence of other spirits. However, it is clear that Tian is the Supreme Spirit. Note that even for the Hebrews, God is not the only Spirit, there are angels as well.

Quote

Further, Graham notes with reference to Mohists, ". . . there is little evidence of a spiritual dimension deeper than a guilty fear of ghosts. The Mohists are in a sense less religious than some they would denounce as sceptics."

I don't agree with all of Graham's points. It seems to me that this is just a value judgement. I don't think it is really true either. There is another element in Mohist theism as they believe in "Conforming Upwards", and see Tian as the most noble figure and the Supreme Authority in their political philosophy. For Mozi said: "Tian is the most noble...nothing can surpass Him." Therefore it is not just a guilty fear of Tian and other spirits. Also, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, a significant part of spirituality is also based on the guilt of sin. This cannot be taken as a piece of evidence for being less religious.

Quote

Similar to Graham, Wing-Tsit Chan's well-known anthology of Chinese philosophical writings, A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy typically translates the Mohist Tian as "Heaven". Further, Chan notes, "Modern interest in Moism arose in China because of its ultilitarian spirit, and in the West because of its superficial resemblance to the Christain teachings of the will of God and universal love."

Modern mainland China is officially atheist. It is not surprising at all that they don't really emphasise on the spiritual dimensions of Mohism.

The resemblance is not just "superficial" either.

Quote

Clearly significant differences exist between the Mohist Tian and common Western conceptions of God. In fact, Schwartz, who, in his The World of Thought in Ancient China, typically translates the Mohist Tian as Heaven, notes: ". . . Mo-tzu's Heaven plays a far smaller role in human affairs than does the Heaven of the contemporary Confucianists with whom he was in contact. Mo-tzu does not attempt to descry any future trajectory of history. While Mo-tzu's 'theism' has been compared to that of the Bible, but the subtle mysterious dialectic of the interplay between divine plan and human action which we find in the Hebrew bible cannot be found here."

It is true that Mohism does not believe in destiny. This is why I think if certain Mencian Confucian and Mohist elements are combined, there would be a theism that is very similar to the one in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Quote

So what are we to make of this? Personally, I think that it is fair to say that the Mohist Tian is a personal and supreme deity. However, it's probably very misleading to translate the Mohist Tian as "God". The English term carries so much theological and historical baggage! God (with a capital G) is usually construed as the monotheistic God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And say what you will, there are significant differences between the Mohist Tian and monotheistic God. To me, it makes little sense to simplistically suggest that the Mohist Tian is obviously and self-evidently equivalent to "God".

Note that by translating the Mohist Tian as God I am not suggesting that Tian is exactly the same as the Judaic God. But nevertheless they are very similar.

Let's have an analogy here. The Hundred Schools of Thought are typically referred to as philosophy. But the word "philosophy" is originally from the ancient Greek context and is not exactly the same as the Hundred Schools of Thought. However, we don't really seem to have any problems with the term "classical Chinese philosophy", even though the term "philosophy" also carries much historical and cultural baggage in the West. If there is no problem with the usage of the term "philosophy", there is no problem with using the term God either.

In addition, the God of classical Greek philosophy, of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, is not the same as the Judeo-Christian God either, yet people seem to use the term God without any complaints. Why the double standard?

This post has been edited by somechineseperson: 05 February 2006 - 06:08 PM

[jwrevak]

somechineseperson, on Feb 1 2006, 06:55 PM, said:

(To the moderators: I know there were previous threads on Mohism in this sub-forum, but please do not merge this with those ones)

The Mohist school of thought (founded by Mozi 470 - 391 BC) is arguably the most rationalist of all of schools of thought in classical Chinese philosophy.

Really?

Quote

(Chinese philosophy during the classical period, 500 BC to 200 BC) In Mohism there is neither the absolute faith in tradition of Confucianism nor the fuzzy relativism of Daoism. Mohists believe in something not simply because "it just the way it is" (e.g. Confucian tradition) or because of some sort of mystical insight (as in Daoism), rather they believe in something primarily because it is shown to be good and right

So why did they believe in ghosts?

Quote

<snipped for brevity>

For Mohists it is absolutely clear that Tian is a personal Supreme Deity, therefore I shall translate it as God rather than Heaven (which is the standard translation for the Confucian Tian). Mohists therefore are the most faithful heirs of the theistic tradition in Chinese antiquity (Xia, Shang and early Zhou).

Precisely why?

Quote

The God Mohists believe in is the God of the ancient Chinese classics (technically speaking not just Confucian classics for many different schools of thought refer to them), such as Shu Jing 书经(The Book of Ancient History) and Shi Jing 诗经 (The Book of Songs).

So. The Heaven ("God") Confucius believed in is the Heaven of the classics too.

Quote

God is Supreme, the "parent of mankind", and Good. He is the Ultimate Source of Universal Morality.

Confucius would have probably agreed with these sentiments (assuming "God" = Tian 天). This is especially true to the extent that such sentiments are found in the classics. I see no reason to privelege Mo-tzu's conception of Heaven over that of Confucius. Likewise, I see no reason to conclude that Mohists "are the most faithful heirs of the theistic tradition in Chinese antiquity". Why do you say that?

[somechineseperson]

jwrevak, on Feb 7 2006, 12:47 AM, said:

Really?

The Mohists emphasised "bian" (arguing out alternatives). The Later Mohists developed a level of logical sophistication unparallelled in all of classical Chinese philosophy. The Sophist school of classical Chinese philosophy originally branched off from the Mohists.

Quote

So why did they believe in ghosts?

Because they believe there is empirical evidence for the existence of ghosts.

Quote

Precisely why?

So. The Heaven ("God") Confucius believed in is the Heaven of the classics too.

Confucius would have probably agreed with these sentiments (assuming "God" = Tian 天). This is especially true to the extent that such sentiments are found in the classics. I see no reason to privelege Mo-tzu's conception of Heaven over that of Confucius. Likewise, I see no reason to conclude that Mohists "are the most faithful heirs of the theistic tradition in Chinese antiquity". Why do you say that?

Note that I never said Mozi believed more in a personal Tian compared with Confucius. Both Confucius and Mencius also believed in a personal Tian, certainly no less than Mozi. However, as a whole the Mohists are more theistic than the Confucians because it is an important part of their doctrines, one cannot be a Mohist without believing in Tian, whereas such is not the case for Confucianists, especially after the ideas of Xunzi.

[jwrevak]

somechineseperson, on Feb 9 2006, 06:06 PM, said:

Note that I never said Mozi believed more in a personal Tian compared with Confucius. Both Confucius and Mencius also believed in a personal Tian, certainly no less than Mozi. However, as a whole the Mohists are more theistic than the Confucians because it is an important part of their doctrines, one cannot be a Mohist without believing in Tian, whereas such is not the case for Confucianists, especially after the ideas of Xunzi.

Having thought things over and done some re-reading, I agree. The typical Moist probably was more of a "theist" than the typical Confucianist. Furthermore, the typical Moist's beliefs probably harkened back to the ancient notion of Shang Di more than that of the typical Confucianist.

[LYY]

Quote

The Mohists tried to define various forms of scientific reasoning, and even though the texts are somewhat uncertain, it seems reasonably established that they reached the two important and basic principles of deduction and induction. The first is to be seen, for instance, in a passage about the use of mental "models":

'"Model-thinking" consists in following the methods [of nature]. What is followed in "model-thinking" are the methods. Therefore if the methods are truly followed by the "model-thinking" [literally: hit it in the middle], the reasoning will be correct. But if the methods are not truly followed by the "model-thinking", the reasoning will be wrong.'

In other words, if one correctly recognises the causes (by formulating a 'model') then one arrives at the correct answer, and since in nature these causes will be far fewer in number than the effects being considered, determining the causes can only be by a process of deduction.

是(true) / 非(false) => (logical approach) => XOR

Quote

Again, for induction, for reasoning from the particular to the general, the following passage is valuable:

"Extension is considering that that which one has not yet received [i.e. a new phenomenon]is identical [from the point of view of classification] with those which one has already received, and admitting it."

Here, indeed, we have a generalisation being formed from a limited number of instances.

total picture from observation of overall facts => AND

Quote

With their conceptual models, their deduction and induction, the Mohists, like the Greeks, reached the very threshold of the theory of science. Indeed, it is tempting to think that if Mohist logic and Daoist naturalist insight could only have been combined,

A good learning model allows for grounding in the generic (AND) and then comes specialisation (XOR) (and so awareness of 'other ways' as on specialises).

Quote

... the Chinese might have crossed that threshold. The tragedy of Chinese science is that this never happened."

The Chinese perspective starts with a generic perspective and so is aware of the alternative...

[Adiroth]

Quote

The Mohist Tian is clearly personal. I did say also that the Mohists are not absolute monotheists for they believe in the existence of other spirits. However, it is clear that Tian is the Supreme Spirit. Note that even for the Hebrews, God is not the only Spirit, there are angels as well.

Isn't it possible that Tian is considered as the collective will, or the consensus agreement of the spirits/gods?

Throughout history, the Chinese have often depicted the heaven to be run like an earthly government bureaucracy. Isn't it possible then, for "Tian" of "Heavens" to be addressed as a psuedo-individual, like a country or a company?

[General_Zhaoyun]

Actually, for Mohism, "Heaven" = god.. there are some theological aspect in Mohism. The will of heaven is somewhat like the "mandate of heaven" used for ruling China.