A Comparative Study between Confucius and Laotse with regard to Morality and Rule by Proprieties

• Main Authors: Pi-Linng Chen, 陳碧苓
• Other Authors: Chih-Ming Cheng
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2011
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/00822452970918768143

博士 === 中國文化大學 === 哲學系 === 99 === The thought in the Confucian Analects and Laotse’s Dao De Jing originated with Zhou culture. However, there are many discrepancies between the two when it comes to understanding morality and the rule by proprieties. This is obvious from such passages as Chapter 19 in the Dao De Jing that reads: “Eliminate benevolence 〈仁〉and get rid of righteousness〈義〉 and people will return to filial piety 〈孝〉and parental affection.〈慈〉Eliminate wisdom〈聖〉and get rid of knowledge 〈知〉and the benefit to the people will be a hundredfold.” Creature came to be with orders birth by Confucius who saw the need for names in the interaction between the people and sage leader, while Laotse came to Dao and the Master himself does not carve that need for the simplicity of no names gives two meanings of the metaphysical Dao. Education and standards could cause more harm than good according to Laotse, as they go contrary to the Dao. This is why Laotse criticizes Confucius’ ideas of humanity and righteousness, as they are names connote an inflexible approach. Laotse offers the insight “when the Dao is in decline then there is a need for benevolence and righteousness,” which is a biting rebuke of the Confucian Morality and Rule by Proprieties. The concept of rule of propriety is a compound noun, not seen in ancient classic texts. We see commentaries on the separate concepts, Dao, De, Li, Zhi that make up the compound concept. These commentaries can be seen in classics such as the Analects, the Dao De Jing, Book of Zhou, the Book of Poems and the Book of History that subsequent scholars used for reference. These concepts were then taken collectively to form a new idea of “rule by proprieties.” This thesis looks at the thought of three Neo-Confucian thinkers Mou Zong-san, Tang Jun-yi and Xu Fu-guan as well as three non Neo-Confucian thinkers, Feng You-lan, Fang Dong-mei and Hu Shi in conducting a comparative analysis and interpretation of modern-day proponents and detractors of the rule by proprieties. It also offers a new discovery of the possible source of the difference between Laotse and Confucius’ thought in chapter 38 of the Dao De Jing: “Propriety is the thinnest veneer of loyalty and honesty and the first sign of trouble.” I look at the later systemization of Dao〈道〉, De〈德〉, Li〈禮〉 and Zhi 〈治〉as a major point of the thesis as well as an initial attempt to form a comprehensive comparative study. In conclusion, I offer a final look at the similarities and differences of what the rule of propriety could have meant to Laotse and Confucius as well as the contribution the two thinkers’ philosophy have made to modern culture. I also offer simultaneously a look at the limitations of the thesis and offer possible direction for further research.