It should be "if you are successful, you can help the world; if you are poor, you can only benefit yourself". Indeed, "Mencius" originally said: "If you are poor, you can be good for yourself. If you are rich, you can be good for the world." Later generations used to "reach" first and then "poor" and changed "Jianshan" to "Jianji" without losing the original meaning of Mencius.

But I do think that if a person really wants to "be good to himself" and "benefit the world", then he should change the title of this article to "if you are poor, you can help the world, and if you are rich, you can be good for yourself" good.

A popular view in the history of thought is that "If you are strong, you will benefit the world, and if you are poor, you will be alone" is the embodiment of the "complementarity of Confucianism and Taoism" as the essence of Chinese

culture: the first half of the sentence expresses Confucian idealism and worldly spirit,

The second half of the sentence shows Taoism's open-minded attitude and worldly realm. However, from the perspective of "text history", this statement has obvious flaws: as mentioned above, the entire sentence originally came from "Mencius" and has nothing to do with Taoism

< p>Off. However, neither Taoist nor Lao or Zhuang seems to have said anything like "the body is good (whether it is good alone or both)".

On the contrary, Taoism in the original sense advocates the deconstruction of morality by "absolutely benevolent and abandoning righteousness" and pursues a "free and happy" state of no right and wrong, no good and evil. It does not emphasize personal moral cultivation. It seems difficult to convince people that the first half of the sentence is Confucianism and the second half is Taoism.

But if we remove the moral meaning of "helping the world" and "taking care of ourselves" and only understand them as "doing something" and "doing nothing", then this sentence (Not just the second half of the sentence) has become pure Taoist thought.

People often regard "inaction" as a Taoist proposition. In fact, at least Zhuang Zhou, the Taoist master, also pursued "action". In "Zhuangzi·Outer Chapter·Mountain Trees", Zhuangzhou once compared himself to a "Teng Yuan": "It has

Nanzi Yuzhang Ye, the branches of the vine are stretched out, and the king grows among them. Although Yi and Peng are Meng can't look at him, and he has thorns and wolfberry.

He looks sideways and vibrates. The muscles and bones are neither quick nor soft, and the position is inconvenient and not enough.

It’s just a matter of showing off what you can do.” The monkey clung to the noble tree and became determined to rule the roost. And once he falls into the thorn bush, he will tuck his tail between his legs and become a grandson, "walking dangerously and looking sideways, shaking his chest in mourning". In other words, in Zhuang Zhou's view, people are "doing something" when they are in power. The so-called "inaction

" refers to the way of survival when "the situation is inconvenient and it is not enough to perform one's abilities": "I am now in the midst of confusion and chaos.

My desire is endless, can I get evil by ridicule?"

As we all know, Taoism advocates "inaction" in both knowledge and action. Just talking about "inaction" does not matter whether it is right or wrong. The strong's "inaction" towards the weak can be understood as tolerance, while the weak's "inaction" towards the strong can be understood as being indifferent. The "inaction" of power to rights means freedom, and the "inaction" of rights to power means slavery. Some people in the history of thought (such as Tan Sitong in the late Qing Dynasty who praised Zhuang Xue's deconstruction of monarchy)

argued inaction in the former sense. But in tradition, practicing "inaction" in the latter sense is undoubtedly the mainstream. The problem is: the so-called inaction of Taoism is precisely a kind of "nobility and softness" doctrine mainly oriented to the weak. Isn't it just that the weak are just tolerating the "inaction" of the strong?

It is not responsible to just settle down and do it out of helplessness. But Zhuang Zhou's stubbornness was not because he was helpless, but because he regarded it as a noble state. In this realm, truth and falsehood, existence and non-existence, right and wrong, good and evil can all be indistinguishable, or rather indivisible. "There is nothing other than that, and nothing is other than what it is." "That comes from what is, and what is is." Because of that. ""It is right and wrong." "It is right and wrong because it is not." "It is also right and wrong." p>

This is also right and wrong. Is it true that there is no such thing? Otherwise. ...Nothing is not the same, nothing is impossible. ...It is strange and strange, and the Tao is unified.

" This passage in "Zhuangzi Nei Pian·Qi Wu Lun" has always been regarded by commentators. It is the essence of Taoist thought.

Indeed, one of the major shortcomings of our country's traditional era is the inconsistency between words and deeds. The Confucian set of benevolence and righteousness only talks but does not act, while the Legalist set of "laws and techniques" The thick black theory of "doing but not speaking, and influencing" is also the so-called "Confucianism is expressed in the law".

The above-mentioned sophistry of Taoism provides a key glue for the originally difficult to compatibility between "Confucianism and Philosophy" and "Fali". Effective lubricants are added to the surface and the domineering side: Legalists say that a deer is a horse, and Confucians say that this is not a horse, so it is a trap; if it is said to be a horse, it is not a Confucian. And Zhuangzi said: A horse is also a deer, and a deer is also a horse, which is the so-called "all things are unified". Therefore, one who refers to a deer as a deer is a Confucian; and one who refers to a deer as a horse is especially a Confucian.

Who says "big"? It is said that he transcends the common views of right and wrong, and is called a "real person" and a "perfect person".

Therefore, it is said: Legalism is Confucianism, and Confucianism is law. As for Confucianism, he is the greatest Confucian in the world! ——Zhuang Zhou

’s logic is sufficient to demonstrate such “noble shamelessness”!

Essentially, using the Taoist view of "If you are great, you can do something, if you are poor, you can do nothing" to interpret "If you are great, you can help the world, but if you are poor, you can be good at yourself". In fact, it means gaining power. He will be king and hegemony, and when he loses power, he will be servile. This is naturally

goes against Mencius’ original intention. The original words of "Mencius: Devoting the Heart" are:

"Mencius said to Song Jujian: 'Do you like to travel? I talk about Ziyou. People know it and they are noisy; people don't know it,

Yi Xiaoxiao. 'How can one be so clamorous?' Said: 'If one respects virtue and enjoys righteousness, he can be clamorous.

A scholar who is poor will not lose his righteousness, and he will not be separated if he achieves it. Tao. If you are poor, you will not lose your righteousness, so you will gain yourself; if you achieve the goal, you will not be disappointed.

In ancient times, if you have ambitions, you will benefit the people; if you don't have ambitions, you will be poor. If you are good at yourself, you will be good at the world. '"

This obviously expresses an idealistic spirit: if I succeed, I will benefit the people of the world. Even if

I fail, I will keep myself clean and never collude with corrupt forces. The so-called "self-improvement" here

means "being poor is not unworthy of justice", but it is not about "taking care of oneself"; it is "cultivating oneself to see the world", but not

being "born into the world". This second half of the sentence does not contain the kind of confused and cynical attitude advocated by Taoists.

Taoism advocates "letting nature take its course", treating the world with a "free and easy" attitude, "not condemning right and wrong, living in harmony with the world", and resolving all contradictions into Nothingness is resolved in Zhuang Sheng's dream of butterflies, butterfly's dream of Zhuang Sheng, paradox, paradox, paradox, which is by no means the same thing as "being alone".

In short, if this sentence is based on its original meaning, the entire sentence reflects Confucian idealism; if

its ideal color is removed, the entire sentence reflects Taoism. cynicism. But in either case, it seems difficult to say that the first half of the sentence is idealism and the second half is cynicism (the complimentary term is called "realism").

However, in the reality of the authoritarian era, although these two meanings are not the same as the front and back of the sentence, they may

become the difference between the outside and the inside: the "verbal confession" If you succeed, you will benefit the people of the world. If you fail, you will clean yourself and resist corruption." In fact, it often turns out that "when you gain power, you will be king and hegemony, but when you lose power, you will be servile and servile." Verbal

Idealism, behavioral authoritarianism and cynicism. As a result, over the past two thousand years, the meaning of the idiom "to be kind to oneself

" has changed from Mencius' rather tragic "poor but unjust" person to Zhu

Mr. Ziqing's comedy-drama "a smart man who knows what he can't do but doesn't do it and takes care of himself"! Poor Confucianism, which is said to have been "monopolized" for more than two thousand years, is being squeezed by both the "officialization of Confucianism" and the "ruffianization of Confucianism"

It's not "Confucianism is outside the Dharma" is "Confucianism is outside the Tao". How can there be any true Confucianism?

2

So, in terms of its original meaning, "If you are successful, you can help the world; if you are poor, you can be alone"; as an intellectual

the ideal personality is What are the flaws? Can it be avoided from being distorted and "Taoist"?

Undoubtedly, the ideal ambition of "helping the world" and the personal cultivation of "benefiting oneself" are both very worthy of pursuit

However, there are indeed problems with "being rich and doing well" and "poor being good alone", and it is not accidental that they are distorted.

The key point is that the sentence "Advantage can benefit the world" has a bit of "Do to others what you want to do to others", which embodies the spirit of moral discipline, but The principles of limited power, self-discipline of power, and discipline were not considered. In this regard, Confucius said long ago: "Restrain oneself and return to propriety, and the world will return to benevolence." What he said was "self-denial" and not "denial of others", that's what he said! To restrain oneself and restore etiquette is good; to restrain others and restore etiquette is hypocrisy; to restrain others and indulge oneself is called restoration of propriety, which is especially false, evil and ugly. If you follow the example of others and achieve it, if you achieve it, "the king will live long in the world". If you pretend to be both helpful and helpful, you will bring disaster to the world. I don’t dare to benefit myself, and regard my selfishness as the most important thing in the world.” "Absolute benevolence and abandoning righteousness", Dharma and Tao complement each other, nothing more. Therefore, if you want to be true and benevolent, you must first control those who can subjugate others. This is what this person did not say but a common man dared to add.

Therefore, for "a person who can defeat others", the first thing he should consider is "to be able to be alone".

"Being kind to oneself" is what everyone should do, but for "people who can defeat others", "being kind to oneself" is what he

must do. Not only must he do it himself, but more importantly, others and the public should also help him do this through institutional arrangements that supervise, check and balance power, and constrain power.

In modern civilized society, public figures, including

powerful "advocates", have less privacy rights in their private lives than ordinary citizens. For example, the media

hyping up the "scandal" between Clinton and Lewinsky would constitute an invasion of privacy for ordinary people, but for the president, even if the media exaggerates, you have What can be done? In order to safeguard civil rights, the modern judicial system must implement the principle of "presumption of innocence". Judicial authorities must bear the burden of proving guilt. If they cannot prove that you are guilty, you will be considered guilty. Not guilty. In order to restrain power, the public opinion supervision of those who "reach" actually implements the principle of "presumption of error". Those who "reach" must bear the burden of proving that there is no mistake. If you cannot prove that you

>

If there is nothing wrong, then you are considered to be at fault. Isn't this just "Da Ze takes care of himself"?

As for "benefiting the world", Mencius' original words were "benefiting the world", which naturally includes two aspects: "benefiting oneself" and "being good to others". But Confucius said it best here: He said: "Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you"; he did not say "Do to others what you want to do to others". Of course, Confucius also said: "A man of ren

those who want to establish themselves can help others; if they want to achieve themselves, they can help others." As the holder of public power, he must "do what he wants< /p>

It is natural that the ideals and country-governing plans should be applied to others to realize the ambition of "benefiting the world". But

There are conditions for establishing people, promoting people, benefiting others and even benefiting the world, that is, obtaining the consent of the person being "established" and "achieved"

and obtaining " The authorization of the citizens of "Tianxia". If you want what others want, you should give it to yourself. If I get what I want but others don’t want it and force it upon me, it’s also like what I don’t want but others force it upon me. Isn’t that what I want? If I don't want to do it to others, then where can I put the holy way! Therefore, it is said: You can't do what you want to others, but you can't do it; you can't help others by establishing others, but you can't be strong. To help the world, you must first ask the world. In other words, "Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you" is absolute, while "Do to others what you want to do to others" is relative; "Benefit the world" is conditional, "Do good to yourself alone" Yes

Unconditionally. Therefore, we should advocate "Taking care of oneself alone".

"Taking care of oneself" means that when you have great power, you must pay special attention to the self-discipline of power, and you cannot rely on power

to use your own ideals, even sincere ones, to discipline people without limit. Here we should pay attention to the "inaction" of the strong against the weak, the "inaction" of power against the rights, and the "inaction" of the powerful against the rights. We should pay attention to tolerance and freedom, and we must not use "both economics" In the name of abuse of coercion against "the world", we must remember: no matter how noble a person is, his power must be restricted; no matter how mediocre a person is, his rights should also be protected. Only in this way can we truly achieve "doing nothing but doing everything" in a positive sense and truly bring happiness to the people of the "world".

3

As for "If you are poor, you should be alone", its flaw is that it only emphasizes the moral self-discipline of the powerless without considering

the need to strive for and maintain " The rights of the powerless”. One might think that such rights only concern individuals

. In a developed modern civil society, it may not be a big deal to think so, because under the condition that citizenship rights have been guaranteed, they have the right to care about and participate in public affairs, but society does not have the right They are required to "help the world at the same time".

But if the rights have yet to be fought for, the situation is different from protecting the existing rights without losing them.

Originally, the "planned economy" requires profound "science" to provide artificial "optimal solutions" for the economic process

, while the free economy only requires not "stealing" or " "Robbing", fair transactions will "let nature take its course"; "ideal politics" requires that everyone be a sage, while liberal politicians only require that people do not commit crimes. In short, "freedom"

is originally a low-key "ism", which recognizes that everyone has the right to be "selfish". However, on the other hand, "

Freedom" itself is the most "public item" in nature. A sum of money earned by a person's hard work cannot be shared by others; the fame and honor gained through hard work cannot be shared by others; even the "country and country" gained through bloodshed can't be shared by others. "No one else can get involved. Only "freedom", once realized

is highly fair and liberal. If someone makes sacrifices to gain a free system, then everyone will be there

Freedom is "free" in the system; if the person is unhappy with it and demands more

"freedom" for himself than others (or conversely demands less "freedom" from others), Then the request itself destroyed what he was trying to win.

If this person saw this from the beginning and asked everyone to pay the price for freedom as he did, then he would have destroyed liberalism from the beginning - because of this< /p>

The basis of socialism is respecting personal choices and recognizing rational self-interest. As a result, liberalism will fall into what Westerners call "free riding" and what we call "three monks with no food to eat". It should be said that in the vast majority of cases liberalism faces this kind of "behavioral dilemma" rather than any "cultural dilemma"

Obviously, to get out of this dilemma, what people must face is not a theoretical issue, but a practical issue:

Theoretically, when a person fights for his own human rights, He was also fighting for the rights of all people. In other words

In other words, he is "helping the world" and not just "taking care of himself". But the price of doing so is

he must bear it himself. On the other hand, if someone else does this, he may obtain the rights without paying any price.

Therefore, in the face of the oppression of the powerful, if people keep their own selfish motives and remain silent, they will not be able to break through the oppression and achieve freedom.

Therefore, "negative" freedom must be fought for with a positive attitude, and a low-key system must be established with a high-profile personality. In order to realize a society that recognizes that everyone has the right to "selfishness", we must The era of making selfless sacrifices and fighting for secular liberalism requires a spirit of "martyrdom" that transcends the secular world.

And this is much more important than the construction of the academic liberal system. In other words, if no one among the powerless

that is, the "poor" uses the spirit of self-sacrifice to "help the world", then it will be difficult for everyone to "

be alone. ".

There are such people in the struggle for freedom of many nations, such as Gandhi, Havel, Mandela, etc.

They have not made much academic contribution to liberalism, and even their own thoughts may not be considered "liberal." However, their contribution to freedom is unparalleled, not just in their words but in their actions: First, they dare to stand up for justice in the face of oppression and resist tyranny instead of just "keeping to themselves"

", thus jumping out of the paradox of "negative freedom"; secondly, they treat the world tolerantly and do not engage in moral autocracy of "doing to others what they want

", nor do they think they have the right to enjoy Have more freedom than others, thereby jumping out of the trap of "positive freedom". It should be said that whether a nation can achieve freedom does not depend on whether it has free theorists, but on whether it has such free practitioners. Even if we cannot write a theoretical masterpiece of the level of Rawls and Hayek, we can still practice "use doctrine"; but if we cannot do it, Gandhi, What Javier and others have done, no one will ever do for us.

Therefore, "If you are poor, you can help the world" should become another principle of ideal personality. If we say that this principle may not be important in the

free era - what people need more at that time is a sage king who restrains "the good and the good of the world"

But in the era of fighting for freedom, we cannot do without the Mahatma who "helps the world when he is poor". When they are powerless people, that is, "poor" people, there is naturally no problem of abusing power. If they become "Da" people in the future

, then it will be a matter of "Taking care of themselves". Those who can simultaneously practice "If you are poor, you can help the world, and if you are prosperous, you can be good alone" will have the personality of a mahatma. A Mahatma is higher than a Holy King, because the latter will turn into a tyrant if he "does to others what he wants". A Mahatma who is poor is higher than a Holy Hermit, because if the latter just "knows that it is impossible but does not do it", he is nothing more than a cynic. And the Mahatma, who is poor, helps the world at the same time, knows that it is impossible to do it, sacrifices what others do not want, and does it to himself. This is not just "don't do to others what you don't want to do to yourself"! Da Ze

Be kind to yourself alone, ask others for what you want, and then give it to the world. It is true that "the great road leads the world to the common good"

The personality of the Mahatma is the best among saints. China, a country that worships saints, etiquette and virtuous people, has a long-standing Confucianism style, and people have a heart of benevolence, righteousness and morality. We will not let him be as beautiful as India, the West and South Africa. .

Four

In short, Confucian moral ideals, whether "helping the world" or "benefiting oneself", can

be consistent with modern human rights, freedom, democratic principles. Only by combining these principles can "benefiting the world" and "benefiting one's body" be truly realized. The basis of this combination is that "if you are poor, you can help the world, and if you are rich, you can benefit yourself." If the "poor" people have more of the Mahatma spirit of "helping the world", then they can "use my greatness to win over the small interests of the people in the world" and achieve "the benefit of the people" The way of the sages to benefit them.

If

if the "da" ones are more restrained by the sage-king system so that they can "take care of themselves", then it will eliminate the idea of ??"taking my greatness

privately as the great public of the world" After thousands of years of calamity, we can truly realize the principle of "restraining oneself and returning to propriety, and the world will return to benevolence." Therefore, we

should make the "poor" people more aware of their rights, and the "advantaged" people less superstitious about power. Those who are "poor" must be able to "do something but not do anything", and those who are "adult" must be good at "doing nothing but not doing anything". Only in this way can this ancient civilization of ours break out of the vicious circle of "complementarity between laws and Taoism" due to "advantage and poverty", and Confucianism itself can get rid of " Only through the double alienation of "Confucianism outside the law" and "Confucianism outside the Taoism" and resistance to the two-sided attack of power philosophy and dog

Confucian philosophy can it be possible to realize "the old inner sage creates a new outer king". The development of modern Chinese civilization

has a unique bottom line: starting from this foundation, it is possible for us to pursue the individual Confucian sages

Moral perfection and the world are for the common good. The ideal of pursuing Western liberal ideals of freedom, human rights, and the rule of law, and pursuing the ideal of socialist democracy, fairness, and union of free people in the original sense - of course, only in this way

< p>On the basis of the bottom line, we can further discuss the differences between Chinese and Western "cultures" and the differences between left and right "isms"

and make "cultural" choices and "isms" that can reflect our individuality. "choose. Instead of talking about the advantages and disadvantages of "Civilization A" and "Civilization B" in a "barbaric" environment; The level of "ism" and B's "ism". In a word, whether the differences between Chinese and Western "cultures" or the differences between left and right "isms" must be based on basic humanity. Above "Chinese and Western" and "left and right"

There is a more important difference between humanity and anti-humanity. We Chinese, who have a long history and culture, should

make our own contributions on the basis of human civilization.