Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2009
Although there is no detailed definitive Chinese Communist interpretation of the thinkers of the 100 Schools Period, this does not mean that one cannot isolate certain constants from which deviation is not permitted. The sayings of Marx-Engels and Mao Tse-tung which are directly relevant to the early thinkers, if not strictly about them, have obviously been the primary guidelines for the scholar in Communist China. Especially in the material produced since 1957, when relatively intensive study of the period began, one becomes aware of more specific trends in interpretation. With the basic tenets of Marx and Engels as tools for interpretation, it is axiomatic that understanding the class struggle of a given time is the key to understanding the thought of that time. The “contention” among the 100 Schools is taken to be a reflection of the intensity of class struggle in the Warring States Period. It is also axiomatic that the history of the struggle between progressive and reactionary forces is reflected in the enduring philosophical struggle between materialism and idealism. But the philosophical concepts associated with materialism and idealism are not native to China; nor are their Marxist definitions universally accepted in the history of Western philosophy. Therefore, in interpreting the thought of the 100 Schools Period, scholars most frequently cite Marx-Engels definitions as support for their own interpretations or to criticise those of others. Engels states that all those who take spirit as prior to the existence of the natural world and thus in the last analysis admit a creator (Old Testament variety or the more sophisticated Absolute Spirit of Hegel) belong in the idealist camp.
1 In the selection of works to be read for a study of this kind, one is necessarily guided in port by subjective factors. One gets the feeling from repeated exposure to articles and books on the 100 Schools Period that certain authors are the most widely discussed among their peers. Their names continually crop up in the works of other scholars, and their articles are regularly included in compilations of selected pieces on a specific topic. I have tried to concentrate on men of this calibre. But in addition to my “impressions” I had tile advantage of very helpful advice from Professor Wing-tsit Chan, of Dartmouth College. Strictly speaking, the term “100 Scholars” refers to the numerous philosophical doctrines which flourished during the Warring States Period (475–221 B.C.), i.e., after the time of Confucius and Mo Tzu.
2 As stated in Engels, , Fei-erh-pa-ha yu Te-kuo Ku-tien Che-hsueh ti Chung-chieh (Feuerbach and the Outcome of German Classical Philosophy) (Shanghai: Jen-min Ch'u-pan She, 1955), pp. 19–20Google Scholar. Since the time of Engels there has been a confusion in Marxist thought between the definition of “materialism” as a belief in “the primacy of Nature over Spirit” (i.e., the denial of a creator God and treatment of mind as a function of matter) and as a belief in objective reality independent of consciousness and sensation (“realism” in Western terminology). In each case “idealism” is defined as the reverse and includes the most diverse of creeds from Hegel's absolute idealism to agnosticism and scepticism. See Wetter, Gustav A., Dialectical Materialism (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1958), pp. 28–296Google Scholar.
3 Mao Tse-tung Hsuan-chi (Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung) (Harbin: Tung-ped Shu-chu, 1948), p. 989Google Scholar, quoted in Shen-yu, Dai, Mao Tse-tung and Confucianism (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, 1952), pp. 150–151Google Scholar.
4 Mao Tse-tung Hsuan-chi, pp. 973, 989, quoted in Dai, p. 163. Both remarks of Mao are frequently cited by recent commentators.
5 Shih-po, Chin and Fu-heng, Wu (trans.), On Communist Morality (Hankow: Hsin-hua Book Co., 1950), p. 7Google Scholar, quoted in Dai, p. 160.
6 For example, see Kuang-ming Jih-pao (Kuang-ming Daily), August 17–18, 1963.
7 Dewitt, Norman W., Epicurus and His Philosophy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954), p. 179Google Scholar.
8 The so-called “Rationalistic School,” one of the two major schools of Confucian thought which nourished in the Sung (A.D. 960–1279) and subsequent dynasties.
9 See the criticism of him in Kuang-ming Jih-pao, November 10, 1963.
10 Jen-min Jih-pao (People's Daily), June 18, 1963.
11 “Marxist Theory of Class Struggle Must Be Employed in the Study of History,” Survey of China Mainland Press (SCMP) (Hong Kong: U.S. Consulate General), No. 3128Google Scholar.
12 Fung Yu-lan, whose name is most associated with Chinese philosophical studies in the West, no longer seems to me to be the dominant figure in Chinese philosophy. His place seems to have been taken by Kuan Feng, whose name is frequently associated with the activities of the Research Institute of Philosophy of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and who was elected a deputy from Shantung to the Third National People's Congress. Kuan Feng often writes jointly with Lin Yu-shih of the same Institute, who has been connected with the Editor's Office of People's Daily.
13 Yu-lan, Fung, “Lun K'ung-tzu kuan-yu ‘jen’ ti ssu-hsiang” (“On Confucius's Thought Concerning ‘Jen’“), Che-hsueh Yen-chiu (Philosophical Research), No. 5, 09 1961, p. 67Google Scholar.
14 Confucius, , Analects, xii.22.1Google Scholar.
15 Ibid., xii.2.
16 Kuang-ming Jih-pao, November 25, 1963.
17 Tse-tung, Mao, On People's Democratic Dictatorship (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1961), p. 11Google Scholar; referred to in the critique of Chieh, Liu appearing in SCMP, No. 3128Google Scholar.
18 Kuang-ming Jih-pao, November 25, 1963, and Fang-ming, Tung, “Che-hsueh shih kung-tso-chung ti i chung chi yu-hai ti fang-fa” (“An Extremely Harmful Method in the Task of Studying the History of Philosophy”), Che-hsueh Yen-chiu, No. 1, 01 25, 1963, pp. 33–34Google Scholar.
19 Feng, Kuan and Yu-shih, Lin, “Tsai Iun K'ung-tzu” (“Second Dscussion on Confucius”), K'ung-tzu Che-hsueh T'ao-lun Chi (Collected Discussions on the Philosophy of Confucius) (Peking: Chung-hua Shu-chu, 1963), p. 306Google Scholar. The article first appeared in Hsin Chien-she (New Construction), No. 11, 1961Google Scholar.
20 Ibid. p. 307.
21 Feng, Kuan, “Chuamg-tzu che-hsueh p'i-p'an” (“Critique of Chuang-tzu's Philosophy”), Chuang-tzu Che-hsueh T'ao-lun Chi (Collected Discussions on the Philosophy of Chuang-tzu) (Peking: Chung-hua Shu-chu, 1962), p. 12Google Scholar. The article first appeared in Che-hsueh Yen-chiu, Nos. 7–8, 1960Google Scholar.
22 Teth-yung, Li, “Hsun-tzu ti ssu-hsiang” (“Hsun-tzu's Thought”), Chung-kuo Ku-tai Che-hsueh Lun-ts'ung (Discussions on Ancient Chinese Philosophy) (Peking: Chunghua Shu-chu, 1957), pp. 89–91Google Scholar.
23 Ibid. p. 94.
24 Sung K'eng and Yin Wen are early Taoists mentioned in the Chuang-tzu, T'ten Hsia P'ien.
25 Kuan, , “Chuang-tzu che-hsueh p'i-p'an,” op. dt., p. 16Google Scholar; Chi-yu, Jen, “Chuangtzu ti wei-wu-chu-i chih-chieh kuan” (“Chuang-tzu's Materialistic World View”), Chuang-tzu Che-hsueh, pp. 160–161Google Scholar. The article first appeared in Hsin Chienshe, No. 1, 1957Google Scholar. Kuan Feng seems to see the evil in early Taoist thought as stemming from such class ties. Jen Chi-yu on the other hand sees no ill effect on Chuang Tzu of his belonging to the slave-master class; he finds him realistic regarding the impossibility of reverting to the old order, not seeking escape into religion, and as taking a materialistic view of things.
26 Chi-yu, Jen, “Lun Lao-tzu che-hsueh ti wei-wu-chu-i pen-chih” (“On the Materialistic Essence of Lao-tzu's Philosophy”), Lao-tzu Che-hsueh T'ao-lun Chi (Collected Discussions on Lao-tzu's Philosophy) (Peking: Chung-hua Shu-chu, 1959), p. 45Google Scholar. The article first appeared in Che-hsueh Yen-chiu, No. 7, 1959Google Scholar. The article constitutes a reply to Kuan Feng and Lin Yu-shih.
27 Feng, Kuan and Yu-shih, Lin, “Lun Lao-tzu che-hsueh t'i-hsi ti wei-hsin-chu-i pen-shin” (“On the Idealistic Essence of Lao-tzu's Philosophy”), Lao-tzu Che-hsueh. p. 227Google Scholar. The article first appeared in Che-hsueh Yen-chiu, No. 6, 1959Google Scholar.
28 Kuan, , “Chuang-tzu che-hsueh p'i-p'an,” op.cit., pp. 34–35Google Scholar.
29 Kuang-ming Jih-pao, November 12, 1962.
30 See the reference to the article by Shih-ching, Wang, “The Present Must Not be Confused with the Past,” in Selections from China Mainland Magazines (SCMM) (Hong Kong: U.S. Consulate General), No. 405Google Scholar. The author's reference is primarily to the “classical literary legacy.”.
31 Jung-kuo, Yang, “Lun K'ung-tzu ssu-hsiang” (“On the Thought of Confucius”), K'ung-tzu Che-hsueh, p. 396Google Scholar. Article originally appeared in Hsueh-shu Yen-chtu (Academic Research), No. 1, 1962Google Scholar.
32 Yu-lan, Fung, “Lun K'ung-tzu” (“On Confucius”), K'ung-tzu Che-hsueh, pp. 85–90Google Scholar. Article first appeared in Kuang-ming Jth-pao, July 22 and 29, 1960.
33 Kuan, and Lin, , “Tsai lun K'ung-tzu,” pp.319–321Google Scholar.
34 An Tso-chang, , “Kuan-yu K'ung-tzu di ‘li’ ho ‘jen’ ti hsueh-shuo” (“On Confucdus's Theories of ‘li’ and ‘jen’”), K'ung-tzu Che-hsueh, pp. 97–98Google Scholar. Kuan Feng and Lin Yu-shih oppose this tendency to attribute a new content to li. See Kuan, and Lin, , “Tsai lun K'ung-tzu,” pp. 321–323Google Scholar. By and large such men as Kuan Feng, Lin Yu-shih and Jen Chi-yu emphasise the reactionary nature of the concepts of jen and li in the thought of Confucius; Kao Heng, Chung Chao-p'eng, An Tso-chang and in some respects Fung Yu-lan stress the progressive nature. But it must be emphasised that progressive elements are often found in a largely reactionary doctrine and vice versa.
35 Yu-lan, Fung, “Mao Tse-tung's On Practice and Chinese Philosophy,” SCMP, No. 224Google Scholar.
36 Feng, Kuan and Yu-shih, Lin, “Lun K'ung-tzu” (“On Confucius”), K'ung-tzu Che-hsueh, p. 226Google Scholar. The article originally appeared in Che-hsueh Yen-chiu, No. 4, 1961Google Scholar.
37 Yang, , “Lun K'ung-tzu ssu-hsiang,” p. 396Google Scholar. See also Kuang-ming Jih-pao, August 5, 1960.
38 Analects, xvii.19.3.
39 Chi-yu, Jen, “Kung-tzu Cheng-chih-shang ti pao-shou li-ch'ang bo che-hsueh-shang ti wei-hsin-chu-i” (“Confucius's Conservative Political Standpoint and Philosophical Idealism”), K'ung-tzu Che-hsueh, p. 156Google Scholar. The article originally appeared in Pei-ching Jih-pao (Peking Daily), July 27, 1961. See also Wai-lu, Hou, Chung-kuo Ssu-hsiang T'ung-shih (General History of Chinese Thought), I, p. 154Google Scholar.
40 For example, see Kuan, and Lin, , “Lun K'ung-tzu,” pp. 253–255Google Scholar, and Jung-kuo, Yang, ”Lun K'ung-tzu ssu-hsiang,” pp. 393–395Google Scholar.
41 Jung-kuo, Yang, Chung-kuo Ku-tai Ssu-hsiang Shih (History of Early Chinese Thought) (Hong Kong: San Lien Shu-tien, 1962, p. 112Google Scholar.
42 Ibid. p. 144.
43 Ibid. p. 116.
44 Ibid. p. 136.
45 Mo-jo, Kuo, Shih P'i-p'an Shu (Ten Critiques) (Chungking: Chung-i Ch'u-pan She, 1945), pp. 92–108Google Scholar.
46 For example, see the discussion of the meeting of historians of Central South Region in Kuang-ming Jih-pao, 05 19, 1961Google Scholar, translated in SCMP, No. 2514.
47 Hou, , Chung-kuo Ssu-hsiang T'ung-shih, I, p. 397Google Scholar.
48 Kuan, , “Ch'uang-tzu che-hsueh p'i-p'an,” pp. 4–5Google Scholar.
49 SCMM, No. 405.
50 Li, , “Hsun-tzu ti ssu-hsiang,” pp. 76–77Google Scholar.
51 Ibid. p. 78.
52 Yang, , “Lun K'ung-tzu ssu-hsiang,” p. 399Google Scholar.
53 Li, , “Hsun-tzu ti ssu-hsiang,” pp. 83–85Google Scholar.
54 Chi-yu, Jen, “Han Fei-tzu ti she-hui cheng-chih ssu-hsiang ti chi-ko wen-t'i” (“Some Questions Concerning Han Fei-tzu's Social and Political Thought”), Chung-kuo Ku-tai Che-hsueh Lun-ts'ung, p. 141Google Scholar. The article originally appeared in Wen Shih Che, April 1955. See also Kuang-ming Jih-pao, August 25, 1961.
55 Yang, , “Lun K'ung-tzu ssu-hsiang,” p. 398Google Scholar.
56 Li, , “Hsun-tzu ti ssu-hsiang,” p. 72Google Scholar.
57 Chi-yu, Jen and Ching-yuan, Feng, “Lao-tzu ti che-hsueh” (“Lao-tzu's Philosophy”), Lao-tzu Che-hsueh, pp. 15–16Google Scholar; Jung-kuo, Yang, “Kuan yu ‘Wu-ch'ien yen’ Lao-tzu ti Ssu-hsiang” (“On the Thought of the Tao Teh Ching Lao-tzu”), Lao-tzu Che-hsueh, pp. 295–296Google Scholar. The article originally appeared in Shang Yu, No. 13, 1959Google Scholar.
58 Kuan, and Lin, , “Lun Lao-tzu ohe-hsueh,” p. 212Google Scholar.
59 Jen, and Feng, , “Lao-tzu ti che-hsueh,” pp. 19–21Google Scholar. See also Chien-feng, Chan, “Lao-tzu ti ‘Tao’ chi shin chueh-tui ching-shen ma?” (“Is Lao-tzu's ‘Tao’ Really Absolute Spirit?”), Lao-tzu Che-hsueh, p. 159Google Scholar. The article originally appeared in Li-lun Chan-hsien (Theoretical Front), No. 8, 1959Google Scholar. It is a rebuttal of the interpretations of Kuan Feng and Lin Yu-shih.
60 Jen, , “Lun Lao-tzu che-hsueh,” p.31Google Scholar. Even those who regard Lao-tzu as an idealist see incipient “materialistic factors” in his denial of anthropomorphic spirits and view of the Heavenly Way; see Kuan, and Lin, , “Lao-tzu che-hsueh,” p. 176Google Scholar.
61 Kuan, and Lin, , “Chuang-tzu che-hsueh p'i-p'an,” pp. 4–5Google Scholar.
62 Chi-yu, Jen, “Chuang-tzu wei-wu-chu-i shih-chieh-kuan” (“Chuang-tzu's Materialistic World View”), Chuang-tzu Che-hsueh, p. 162Google Scholar.
63 Kuan, and Lin, , “Chuang-tzu che-hsueh p'i-p'an,” p. 21Google Scholar.
64 Kuan, and Lin, , “Lun Lao-tzu che-hsueh,” p. 205Google Scholar. Also Yang, , “Kuan yu ‘Wu-ch'ien Yen’,” p. [297Google Scholar. Also Kuan, , “Chuang-tzu che-hsueh p'i-p'an,” p. 60Google Scholar.
65 Li, , “Hsun-tzu ti ssu-hsiang,” p. 96Google Scholar.
66 Jen, , “Han Fei ti she-hui,” p. 139Google Scholar. Also SCMP, No. 224.
67 Jen, , “Han Fei ti she-hui,” p. 141Google Scholar. Also Kuang-ming Jih-pao, August 25, 1961.
68 Jen, , “Han Fei ti she-hui,” pp. 147–149Google Scholar.
69 Jung-kuo, Yang, in Kuang-ming Jih-pao, 11 10, 1963Google Scholar, translated in Joint Publications Research Service (JPRS) (U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technical Services), No. 22, 391Google Scholar.
70 Kuang-ming Jih-pao, November 7, 1961. Also Kuan, and Lin, , “Lun K'ung-tzu,” p. 141Google Scholar.
71 Kuan, and Lin, , “Tsai lun K'ung-tzu,” p. 324Google Scholar.
72 See Feng, Kuan and Yu-shih, Lin, “Lun Sung Yin hsueh-p'ai” (“On the Sung-Yin School”), Che-hsueh Yen-chiu, No. 5, 1959, pp. 28–45Google Scholar. The material for the study of these early Taoists comes mainly from the text Kuan Tzu, possibly first century B.C., based on earlier materials. Fung Yu-lan and Hou Wai-lu dispute this attribution of materialism to the Sung/Yin School.
73 Jen, , “Lun Lao-tzu che-hsueh,” pp. 33–35Google Scholar.
74 JPRS, No. 22, 391. Also see Li, , “Hsun-tzu ti Ssu-hsiang,” p. 78Google Scholar.
75 Jen, , “Han Fei ti she-hui,” p. 146Google Scholar.
76 Kuan, and Lin, , “Tsai lun K'ung-tzu,” p. 324Google Scholar.
77 Jen, , “K'ung-tzu cheng-chih-shang,” p. 159Google Scholar.
78 Heng, Kao, “Mo Ching-chung i-ko lo-chi kuei-lu—‘T'ung I Chiao-te’” (“A Logical Rule in the Mohist Canon— ‘The Mutual Dependency of Sameness and Difference’”), Chung-kuo Ku-tai Che-hsueh Lun-ts'ung, pp. 69–70Google Scholar.
79 Kuan, and Lin, , “Lun K'ung-tzu,” p. 225Google Scholar.
80 Ibid pp. 244–245. Also see Wai-lu, Hou, A Short History of Chinese Philosophy (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1959), p. 6Google Scholar.
81 Kuan, and Lin, , “Lun Lao-tzu che-hsueh,” pp. 206–208Google Scholar. Lu Chen-yu takes a similar position.
82 e.g., see Fung, , “Lao-tzu ti che-hsueh,” p. 11Google Scholar, and Chen-yu, Lu, Chung-kuo Cheng-chih Ssu-hsiang Shih (History of Chinese Political Thought) (Peking: Jen-min Ch'u-pan She, 1961), pp. 57–59Google Scholar; Yang, , “Kuan-yu ‘Wu-ch'ien Yen’,” p. 297Google Scholar.
83 Jen, , “Chuang-tzu ti wei-wu-chu-i,” p. 171Google Scholar.
84 Yu-lan, Fung, “Lun Chuang-tzu (“On Chuang-tzu”), Chuang-tzu Che-hsueh, p. 126Google Scholar. The article originally appeared in People's Daily, February 26, 1961.
85 Jen, , “Chuang-tzu ti wei-wu-chu-i,” p. 171Google Scholar; Kuan, , “Chuang-tzu che-hsueh p'i-p'an,” p. 21Google Scholar.
86 Kao, , “Mo Ching-chung,” p. 57Google Scholar.
87 Hsin Ch'ing-nien (New Youth), Vol. V, 4 (10 15, 1918)Google Scholar, quoted in Tsetsung, Chow, The May Fourth Movement (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), p. 289Google Scholar.
88 Ah Q is the central character in “The True Story of Ah Q,” by Hsun, Lu (Chou Shu-jen, 1881–1936)Google Scholar. He claims “spiritual victories” when beaten and beats those weaker than himself when he can. He was a symbol of a national defect, manifested most clearly in China's behaviour towards the other nations which threatened her.
89 Kuan, , “Chuang-tzu che-hsueh p'i-p'an,” pp. 4–5Google Scholar.
90 Fung, , “Lun Chuang-tzu,” p. 126Google Scholar.
91 Ibid..
92 JPRS, No. 22, 391.
93 Kuang-ming Jih-pao, November 10, 1964.
94 Numerous articles appeared on the matter in the Press. See, for example, People's Daily, July 17 and 19 and August 14 and 31, 1964. Also China News Analysis (Hong Kong), No. 535.
95 The doctrines of Edward Bernstein (1850–1932), advocating peaceful parliamentary means for attaining the workers' goals and socialism, were attacked by Lenin. Lenin stressed class struggle and proletarian dictatorship.
96 A Hung Ch'i (Red Flag) editorial has this to say about compromise: “Moreover, the modern revisionists give voice to pure inventions such as that the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, whom they call ‘dogmatists,’ ‘reject’ certain necessary compromises. We would like to tell these modern revisionists that no serious-minded Marxist-Leninist rejects compromises indiscriminately. In the course of our protracted revolutionary struggle, we Chinese Communists had reached compromises on many occasions with our enemies, internal and external. For example, we came to a compromise with the reactionary Chiang Kai-shek clique. We came to a compromise, too, with the U.S. imperialists, in the struggle to aid Korea and resist U.S. aggression. For Marxist-Leninists, the question is what kind of a compromise to arrive at, the nature of the compromise, and home to bring about a compromise. … It is precisely in accordance with Lenin's teaching that we Chinese Communists distinguish between different kinds of compromise, favouring compromises which are in the interests of the people's cause and of world peace, and opposing compromises that are in the nature of treachery. It is perfectly clear that only those guilty now of adventurism, now of capitulation, are the ones whose ideology is Trotskyism, or Trotskyism in a new guise”: Red Flag, No. 1, 1963Google ScholarPubMed, reprinted as Leninism and Modern Revisionism (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1963), pp. 9–10.
97 (Peking: Chung-hua Shu-chu, 1961.)
98 e.g., Chieh-kang, Ku, “Shang-shu ‘Ta Kao’ Chin shin” (“Modern Explanation of the Ta Kao Chapter of The Book of History”), Li-shih Yen-chiu, No. 4, 1962 pp. 26–51Google Scholar.
99 In the chapter “Shih ‘jen’ ‘min’.” (“Explaining ‘jen’ and ‘min’,”), in Chi-pin, Chao, Lun-yu Hsin T'an (A New Study of the Analects) (Peking: Jen-min Ch'u-pan She, 1962)Google Scholar.
100 Meng-chia, Ch'en, Yin-hsu Pu-tz'u Tsung-shu (An Account of the Oracle Bone Graphs from the Yin Wastes) (Peking: K'o-hsueh Ch'u-pan She, 1956), pp. 610–616Google Scholar and 640. Although his historical interpretations sometimes reflect a Marxist viewpoint, Ch'en himself has never been identified closely with the Party and in 1957 was declared “right-wing.”
101 There is a nice summary of the arguments in Ta, Ch'i, “Chia-ku-wen-chung ti ‘chung’ shih-pu-shih nu-li” (“Does the Oracle Bone Graph ‘chung’ Denote a Slave?”), Hsueh-shu Yueh-k'an (Academic Monthly), No. 1 (1957), p. 18Google Scholar.
102 Jung-kuo, Yaag, “Chuang-tzu Ssu-hsiang t'an-wei” (“A Close Examination of Chuang-tzu's Thought”), Chuang-tzu Che-hsueh, pp. 289Google Scholar and 291. The article first appeared in Che-hsueh Yen-chiu, No. 5, 1961Google Scholar. See also Jen, , “Chuang-tzu ti wei-wu-chu-i,” p. 174Google Scholar, and Kuan, , “Chuang-tzu che-hsueh p'i-p'an,” p. 6Google Scholar.
