Author丨Russell.
As for the main difference between the Chinese and us, if I want to sum it up, I should say that their purpose is pleasure, and ours is authority. We look up to power over others and power over nature. The Chinese are too indifferent, too gentle, and not suitable for such a chase.
You all know Wells's "Time Machine", the owner of the machine can travel through the long river of time, or go backwards, or forward, and see the past and the future. However, it is not always possible to recognize that today, the world of travel has access to a wealth of benefits from Wells instruments. Europeans who go to New York and Chicago see a future that is likely to come if Europe survives economic catastrophe. On the other hand, when he went to Asia, he saw the past. I heard that you can see the Middle Ages in India and the 18th century in China. If George Washington were to rise from the dead, he would have created a country that would bewilder and shock him. In the UK, there is less of a strangeness, and in France even less;However, a true sense of home can only be found in China. There, in his ghostly wanderings, he will find for the first time those who still believe in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," ideas that they did in the same way as Americans during the Revolutionary War. I am convinced that he will soon become the ** of this republic.
Western civilization includes North and South America, not counting Europe, and the Autonomous Kingdom of Great Britain. The United States is the forerunner of this civilization;All the differences between East and West are most marked by the United States and have been most profoundly developed. We are accustomed to taking progress for granted;It is not hesitant to claim that all the changes of the 19th century have been perfected day by day, and that more perfect changes will follow indefinitely. On the European continent, the war and its consequences have shaken this belief, and people have begun to look back at the era before 1914 as the first era, as if it had not been seen in a century. Optimism has been hit much less in England and even less in the United States. For those of us who take progress for granted, it is interesting to visit a country like China, which is still hovering a century and a half ago in our time, and makes us ask ourselves whether the changes we have experienced have brought about real development.
As we all know, the origin of Chinese civilization is the teachings of Confucius, which prevailed in 500 BC. He, like the Greeks and Romans, did not believe that human society was naturally progressive;On the contrary, he was convinced that the rulers of ancient times were extremely virtuous and that people lived happily ever after, which is beyond the reach of the fallen present. Of course, this is just fantasy. But the practical result was that, like other sages, Confucius's purpose was to build a stable society and maintain a certain level of affluence, not to chase fame non-stop. In this he is more outstanding than any sage of all time. From ancient times to the present, Chinese civilization has left the imprint of his personality. At the time of Confucius, China's territory was only a part of present-day China, divided into many warring kingdoms. For the next 300 years, they settled within what is now strictly the borders of China, creating a unified empire that, until the last 50 years, surpassed any other empire in land and population. Despite barbarian invasions, Mongol and Manchu dynasties, and occasional periods of chaos and civil war, Confucius's ideology survived, creating art, literature, and a civilized way of life. It is only today, in contact with the West and Westernized Japan, that the system begins to crumble.
A system with such a strong vitality must have no shortage of strengths and deserve our respect and care. It is not a religion, it has nothing to do with supernatural beliefs or mystical beliefs. It is a pure ethical system, and its ethics are different from ** religion, and it is not unattainable. In essence, Confucius's teachings resemble the old-fashioned notion of a "gentleman" in the 18th century. This is illustrated by one of his proverbs (quoted in Lionel Giles's Analects of Confucius):
A true gentleman is by no means aggressive. If the spirit of competition is inevitable, it is only when the arrows are compared. Even then, before taking his position, he greeted his opponent politely, and if he failed, he stepped back and drank the penalty wine. In this way, even if he competes in martial arts, he does not lose his gentlemanly demeanor.
He earnestly teaches us things like responsibility, virtue, and so on, which is inevitable as a moral teacher, and yet he never demands anything that is contrary to nature or natural feelings. The following conversation is proof of this:
The Duke of She said to Confucius: There is an upright man in our country. He testified that his father had stolen a sheep. - Confucius replied, in our country, integrity is very different from this. The father conceals the sins of the son, and the son hides the sins of the father. This line is really straight.
Confucius advocated moderation in all things, even virtue. He does not believe that we should repay evil with good. Once, someone asked him, "What do you think of the principle of repaying evil with good?"He replied, "How, then, do you repay what is good?"Rather, you should repay the unjust with justice, and repay the good with the good. "In China in the time of Confucius, the principle of repaying evil with good was preached by Taoism, and the doctrine of Taoism was closer to the doctrine of Confucianism than that of Confucianism. Lao Tzu, the founder of Taoism (estimated to be a little earlier than Confucius), said, "I repay kindness to goodness."And I will repay the bad for the good, so that the evil will be forsaken and the good will be turned away. For loyalty, I will be loyal;To disloyalty, We will also repay loyalty and return it to loyalty. How can a wicked man forsake him for good?Repay the hurt with kindness. Some of Lao Tzu's proverbs are very similar to "sermons on the mountain." For example, he said that the humble would be cared for. Those who bend will hold their heads high. Those who are humble will fill their hearts. Those who are exhausted will be given a new lease of life. The poor will be successful. Those who are rich will go astray.
It is recognized that the national sage is Confucius, not Lao Tzu, and this is the characteristic of China. Taoism has been handed down, but mainly as magic among the ignorant people. In the eyes of the pragmatists who ruled the empire, the teachings of Taoism were illusory, while the teachings of Confucius were clearly carefully planned to avoid overturning. Lao Tzu preached the doctrine of non-action, he said: "Ignore it and go with the flow, which is the way to govern the country." Working all day long is not the way to govern the country. However, China's rulers naturally favored the maxims of Confucius: temperance, benevolence, and etiquette, and seemed to greatly advocate the benevolence that a virtuous person could administer. The Chinese have never had a theoretical ethical system and a practical ethical system like all modern Caucasian peoples. I'm not saying that they will always follow their theories;I mean, they try to do it, and people expect them to do it;As everyone knows, the ethics of **religion are mostly too perfect for this **world.
In fact, we have two kinds of morality: one is the morality that we preach but do not practice;The second is the morality that we practice but seldom preach. With the exception of Mormonism, **Christianity, like all religions, originated in Asia;The early ** religion promoted individuality and the idea of the afterlife with the characteristics of Asian mysticism. From this, we can see that the doctrine of non-resistance is understandable. But once Christianity became the dominant religion of the energetic princes and nobles of Europe, it was necessary to declare that some were not to be taken literally, while others, such as "the return of Caesar's property to Caesar," were widely accepted. In our time, where competitive industrialism prevails, the slightest lack of resistance is met with contempt, and people have high expectations to face up to the difficulties without changing their faces. In fact, our effective morality is to strive for material success;This applies to countries as well as to individuals. Everything else seems to us to be weak and stupid.
The Chinese reject our theoretical ethics and our practical ethics. They admit that in theory there is a moment when it should be fought, but in practice such moments are extremely rare;And we are convinced that in theory there is no such moment to fight, but in practice such moments are not uncommon. The Chinese also sometimes fight, but they are not an aggressive people, nor do they worship much victory in war or success in business. Traditionally, they have revered learning above all;Secondly, there is the gentleness and etiquette that are closely associated with it. In old times, administrative positions in China were awarded based on the results of imperial examinations. For 2,000 years, there had been no hereditary aristocracy – the only exception being the family of Confucius, whose head was a duke – and scholarship won not only the respect enjoyed by the powerful aristocrats of feudal Europe, but also the admiration aroused by the knowledge itself. Ancient scholarship was narrow, and it was only a nonchalant reading of Chinese classics, as well as the works of famous commentators. Under the influence of the West, they came to realize that geography, economics, geology, chemistry, etc., were more practical than moral explanations. Young China – i.e., European-educated students – recognized the needs of modernity and did not respect ancient traditions enough.
However, even the most modern of the people maintained the traditional virtues of moderation, gentleness, and modesty, with a few exceptions. It is perhaps doubtful that these virtues will survive for another few decades under the teachings of the West and Japan.
As for the main difference between the Chinese and us, if I want to say it in one word, I should sayTheir purpose is pleasure, and ours is authority. We look up to power over others and power over nature. We have created a strong state with the former, and science with the latter. The Chinese are too indifferent, too gentle, and not suitable for such a chase. However, to say that they are lazy is only true in a certain sense. They are not as lazy as **people, that is, they will work hard in order to live. Employers find them extremely industrious. However, they do not work like Americans and Europeans simply because not working bores them, and they do not like to toil. With enough to make ends meet in one day, they make a living from it, and no longer have to work to improve their lives. They have a lot of leisure and elegance – visiting the cinema, chatting at the café, admiring ancient Chinese art or strolling through the beautiful places. The way we think about it, such a way of life is too gentle;We admire a person who goes to the office every day, even if everything he does in the office is harmful.
Living in the East may corrupt a white race, but I must admit that since I have known China, I have regarded laziness as the best endowment that all living beings can attain. We have toiled all day long, and we have indeed gained, but let us ask, in comparison, is what we have gained really worth?Our manufacturing skills are excellent, and some of them are used to build ships, automobiles, and other things that enjoy a luxurious life in a highly stressful jobThe other part was used to make guns, poison gas, and planes for mass killing. We have a first-class management system and a tax system, some of which is used for education, sanitation and the like and so on, and the rest is put into the war. In today's Britain, much of the national income is spent on past and future wars, and the remainder is used for beneficial facilities. Much of the European continent is faring even worse. We have a police system that is unprecedented in efficiency, partly for the detection and prevention of crime, and partly for the imprison of any person with constructive political views. In China, until now, they have no such thing. Too backward industry can't make cars and bombs;Backward countries are unable to educate their nationals or kill the citizens of other countries;Incompetent police could not catch bandits or Bolsheviks. As a result, compared to other Caucasian countries, China enjoys freedom for all, and there is a kind of happiness that is shared by all, because it is amazing that all but a few people share poverty.
There are two striking differences in the vision of the average Chinese compared with that of the average Westerner: First, the Chinese do not respect activity unless it serves a beneficial purpose;Second, they don't see morality as the urge to curb instincts, the urge to interfere with others. The former we have already discussed, and the latter is perhaps just as important. The famous sinologist Professor Gales concluded his speech "Confucianism and Its Rivals" at Gifort by declaring that the main obstacle to the success of the religion in China was the doctrine of original sin. The traditional teachings of the Orthodox Church—one in the Far East, still preached by the majority of missionaries—declare that we are all born sinful, that our sins are so great that we deserve eternal punishment. If this doctrine were only applicable to the white race, the Chinese would be very acceptable, but when they learned that their parents and grandparents were suffering in the flames of hell, they were furious. Confucius earnestly taught that at the beginning of human beings, nature is good, and if you follow evil, you are also influenced by the example and decadent ways. This is different from traditional Western Orthodoxy and has had a profound impact on the vision of the Chinese.
Among us, the accepted moral exemplars are those who reject ordinary pleasures, those who interfere with the pleasures of others in order to be self-sufficient. There is an element of nosy in our conception of virtue: if a person does not make many people think that he is a nuisance, we think that he must not be a very good person. This thinking stems from our sense of original sin. It tempts us to intervene in freedom, to be sanctimonious, because traditional standards are unattainable for most people. This is not the case in China. The precepts of morality are positive, not negative. It expects people to respect the elderly, love the young, be charitable and courteous. This is not an unattainable tribute, which most people can actually achieve, and the result may be better than our lofty standards, which most people cannot reach.
Without a sense of original sin, another consequence is that they are more willing than Westerners to subordinate disagreements to reason and reason. Among us, disagreement quickly becomes a matter of "principle": one side always takes the other as the other, and any concession means participation in evil. This exacerbates the intensity of the dispute, which, in fact, conceals the threat of readiness to use force. In China, soldiers are ready to use force, but no one is alert, not even their own soldiers. They fought almost bloodlessly, and the losses they inflicted in the fierce conflict were really insignificant compared to the experience of the West. The vast majority of the population, including the civil administration, went their own way, as if these generals and soldiers did not exist at all. In daily life, disputes are often mediated and settled by a friendly third party. Reconciliation is a universally recognized principle, as it is necessary to save the face of both sides. In some forms, although it makes foreigners feel funny, it is an extremely valuable national style, making the social and political life of the Chinese far less cruel than ours.
There is only one flaw in the Chinese system, and that is that it does not defend China against a more belligerent nation. If the whole world were like China, the whole world would be happy;However, as long as other countries are still militant and energetic, and China will no longer be independent, if it wants to maintain its national independence, it will have to attack our sins to some extent. But let's not compliment ourselves by saying that this imitation will be progress.
Written by Russell, translated by Zhang Hansun, the article is selected from "Russell's Thought Essays".