Three Chinese Philosophies: Confucianism, Daoism and Legalism

Isn’t it odd how great leaps in intellectual thought are often conceived as a result of some unholy union between social and civil unrest? Could this possibly be attributed to a movement toward philosophical reflection caused by the uncertainty that such instability creates? Three of the great Eastern schools of thought were borne during the time when the Chou Dynasty in China was being torn asunder due to feudal rivalry. Perhaps the most impressive period of growth in Chinese history-at least up that time-was disturbed during this warfare. Perhaps that is what spurred the drive toward restoring a sense of balance and order to society.

The first, and doublessly most prominent, of these schools of philosophy was Confucianism. Concerning itself mostly with ethics and morality as a path toward establishing order, Confucianism was founded by K’ung Fu Tzu. Confucianism is a philosophy that seeks out what is best for society rather than what is best for the individual. It is a philosophy that views respecting authority and equitable standards of moral behavior as foundations for order in a society. The most efficient method of achieving this utilitarian objective is by establishing a formal social hierarchy whereby each person has, knows, and accepts his place within the order.

Obviously, in theory this sounds perfectly reasonable, but putting it into practice requires the key point of acceptance of a rigid social system by individuals. Since Confucianism ultimately became the dogma of Chinese philosophy for almost two-thousand years-until the Communist revolution successfully toppled the established societal hierarchy that essentially predetermined the existence of everyone born there-obviously K’ung Fu Tzu was successful in discovering this key. How? He did so by convincing his followers that accepting their role in the society’s order was the portal toward achieving “humaneness.” And what does that mean? It means that that if a person accepts one’s responsibility in life with loyalty and kindness, not only will it to be the benefit of society, but the individual ultimately benefits as well by achieving this “humaneness.”

Many believe that Daoism has no single founder and is based on the collected writings of several people, but those writings traditionally are attributed to just one man, Lao Tzu. Daoism is often looked at as being the mystical flip side of Confucianism, concerned more with the personal qualities of the individual. Daoists, like Confucianists, believe that two forces, lightness and darkness, must be brought into harmony in order for the universe to achieve balance. (You suppose George Lucas might have read Lao Tzu?) Where the Daoists differ is in their insistence that order cannot be enforced through strict conformity to societal authority, insisting that the key to harmony is spontaneity. Clearly, it is the anti-authoritarian qualities that turned Daoism into what might be termed an underground alternative to the more rigid, state-mandated Confucianism.

Confucianism and Daoism are both based upon the concept that human nature is essentially good. In order to unify a China rent by the feudal rivalries, however, what was needed was a philosophy that cared more about authority and order than humaneness or the individual. Ultimately, order and unity was restored to China only through the exercise of Legalism, a philosophy founded by Han Feizi. Order was made possible in part because the philosophy of Legalism made the written law-and the ruler who administered the law-all-important, but mostly because its tenets were applied ruthlessly. Because there was no allowance for mitigating circumstances, and punishments for transgressions were equally severe regardless of the crime, there can be little surprise that it spawned a rebellion after Han Feizi’s death, paving the way for its replacement by the significantly less harsh, but equally authoritarian Confucianism.