First, the central concept discussed by Plato in the Republic is justice, and through the so-called truth "midwifery" method, the incomplete definition of justice is put forward first, and then the true meaning of justice is found through induction and abstraction. The incomplete definition was put forward by Glaucon, Simonides, Polje Máthōs and Máthōs, and the complete definition was obtained by Socrates. In the first volume of the Republic, they successively discussed the views that "paying debts is justice", "justice is to give everyone a proper reward", "justice is good for friends and bad for enemies" and "justice is the interests of the strong".
Secondly, in the Republic, Plato mainly discusses the justice of the city-state and thinks that justice is the principle of the ideal city-state. This principle of justice is: "Everyone must perform a duty that is most suitable for his own nature in the country" or "Everyone does his duty as a person and does not interfere with the duties of others", that is, he keeps his duty and does his duty. Of course, Plato's polis is hierarchical, that is, the polis is divided into rulers, soldiers and laborers. The so-called "doing one's duty, doing one's duty" means that rulers, soldiers and laborers perform their duties and do not overstep each other. At the same time, there is the idea of harmonious division of labor and mutual assistance and cooperation.
Thirdly, he analogously deduced personal justice from the justice of the city-state, and thought it was the relationship between "big" and "small" or "outside" and "inside". In his view, individual justice means that "just people do not allow all parts of their souls to interfere with each other and play the role of other parts." If he wants to arrange his own affairs, he must first dominate himself, be orderly and be friendly to himself. At the same time, it is also a kind of good and just move to maintain and conform to the harmonious state in "making money for health" or "some political or private affairs". Otherwise, it is unjust.
Fourth, a country has both just and unjust regimes. Monarchy or aristocracy is the best, and the other three are oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. However, these are not more in line with justice than the wisdom king regime with the philosophy king as the ruler.
Fifth, just people are smart and kind, while unjust people are stupid and bad. Justice is the virtue of the mind, and injustice is the evil of the mind. Just people live well, but unjust people live badly. Just people are happy, but unjust people are miserable.
Then, let's take a look at the central theme of The Analects of Confucius, "Benevolence". The appearance of "benevolent man" in the Analects of Confucius is given by teaching, that is, students ask questions and Confucius answers them. Confucius appeared with omniscient wisdom. The solution is not to acquire knowledge about benevolence, but to acquire the standard of being a benevolent person. In the process of seeking benevolence, the methods adopted are:
(2) Exclusion method: If Meng asked, "Is Luz benevolent?" Confucius said, "I don't know." Ask again. Confucius said, "A monarch is a thousand times the country, so you can rule it without knowing its benevolence." For another example, Confucius said, "Clever words, good gifts, full respect, shame on Zuo Qiuming, shame on Qiu. If you hide grievances and make friends with others, Zuo Qiuming is ashamed and autumn is ashamed. "
(3) Classification analysis: In The Analects of Confucius, Confucius explained benevolence by discussing its various manifestations: loyalty, filial piety, loyalty and forgiveness. For example, in the Book of Learning, Confucius' students said: "A gentleman should be a teacher and a man should be a teacher. Filial piety is also the foundation of benevolence! " Regarding loyalty, for example, in Bashu, Ding Gong asked, "Do you make envoys, or do I care for you?" Confucius said, "The monarch makes the minister polite, and the minister is loyal to the monarch." In Learning to Learn, Xia Zi said, "A gentleman can lead to health." Besides, Confucius said, "Be loyal to the monarch" and "A gentleman … is loyal to the monarch". Regarding filial piety, Confucius said: "Respect without violating, work without complaining." "Life, things follow the ceremony, death, burial follow the ceremony, and sacrifice follows the ceremony."
(4) For example, in Forever Night, Zi Gong said, "What if you can give to the people and help them?" Can you call it a benevolent person? Confucius said, "What is benevolence? Will be holy! Yao Shun is still sick! In addition, Confucius actually illustrates the benevolent through the images of Yao, Yu, Shun, Bo Yi, Shu Qi and Yan Hui.
(5) Contrast method: Confucius explained the difference between them and benevolent people by discussing gentlemen, wise men, sages, good people, clean people, filial piety, loyalty, courage, rigidity and eagerness to learn, and at the same time explained the lofty image of benevolent people. In fact, Benevolent Man not only has the advantages of these images, but also combines the advantages of these images.
The most talked about in The Analects is the "gentleman". Through the discussion of "gentleman", we can get Confucius' comprehensive image of "benevolent man", so we won't list the other images one by one. Let's use the phrase "gentleman" in The Analects of Confucius to illustrate this point. Confucius said in the Book of Learning: "A gentleman doesn't think about having enough to eat and peace of mind. If he is sensitive and cautious about what he says, he will have a proper way and be honest. It can be said that he is eager to learn. " Ceng Zi also said, "I have to ask myself three times a day: Are you unfaithful to others? Don't believe in making friends? Can't you learn? " Confucius added, "Ignorance and dissatisfaction are not gentlemen?" He added: "A gentleman is not strong if he is not heavy." Politically, it is said that "a gentleman is not a tool", "follow his words first", "a gentleman can't compare with others, and a villain can't compare with others", while in Bashu, it is said that "a gentleman does not dispute". Will shoot! Give up and drink. Its struggle is also a gentleman. " In "Establishing Man", it is said: "Is it evil for a gentleman to become famous by removing benevolence? Gentlemen violate benevolence all day long, and making mistakes is a must. " "The gentleman is also in the world, without comfort, without Mo Ye, righteousness and comparison." "Gentleman with game, villain with soil flavor; The gentleman is pregnant with punishment, and the villain is pregnant. " "A gentleman is figurative, and a villain is figurative." "A gentleman talks but doesn't do it." Gongye Chang directly points out that there are four ways for a gentleman: respect him with his way; Also respectful; It also benefits the people; It makes people just. " "Ye Yi" said: "Quality is better than literature, and it is wild; Literature is superior to quality and history. Gentleness is a gentleman. " "A gentleman is knowledgeable in literature, either as a gift or as a husband." Shure said, "an upright man is open and poised, I am worried." In Taber, Ceng Zi also said: "You can entrust six-foot orphans, and you can send a hundred miles of life, and the big festival cannot be taken away. Gentlemen and men? A gentleman is also a human being. " "Yanyuan" said: "A gentleman is not worried or afraid." "A gentleman's adult beauty is not an adult's evil. The villain is the opposite. " "A gentleman takes literature as his friend and benevolence as his help." Lutz has a saying: "Gentlemen are harmonious but different, while villains are at odds." "A gentleman is easy to say, but a villain is hard to say. Don't say it; It also allows people, this device. It's easy for the villain to say something difficult. Although it doesn't matter, it is also said; It also makes people want to be prepared. " "A gentleman is Thai but not arrogant, and a villain is arrogant but not Thai." "Xian Wen" said: "The gentleman reaches the top, and the villain gives orders." A gentleman "is not in his place and does not seek his own politics." "A gentleman is ashamed of his words, but he does not stop." He also said: "Cultivate yourself and respect yourself." Wei Linggong said, "A gentleman is poor, but a villain is poor." "The gentleman's righteousness, courtesy, sun, letter. Gentleman! " "The gentleman is sick and incompetent, and the patient does not know." "A gentleman is ill and nameless." "A gentleman seeks for himself, and a villain seeks for others." "A gentleman is proud and does not fight, but a group is not a party." "A gentleman doesn't attract people with words, and he doesn't waste words with others." "Rhetoric disorderly DE. If you can't bear it, make a great plan. " "The gentleman seeks the Tao without seeking food. Farming is also awkward; Learn, and Lu is among them. A gentleman is not poor. " "A gentleman cannot be ignorant and can be greatly affected; The villain cannot be greatly affected, but he can know it. " "A gentleman is sincere and unforgivable." "Ji Shi" said that "a gentleman has three precepts: when he is young, his blood gas is uncertain and he is cautious; In his prime, he is covered in blood, and he is fighting against it; I am also old, my blood gas is declining, and I have to quit. " He also said: "A gentleman has three fears: fear of life, fear of adults, and fear of the words of saints. I don't know my fate, but I'm not afraid of it. I am insulting adults and saints. " "A gentleman has Jiu Si: he sees clearly, listens attentively, thinks enthusiastically, looks respectfully, speaks loyally, thinks respectfully, asks questions, thinks hard and sees clearly." In Yang Huo, he said, "A gentleman is righteous." The gentleman "has evil, evil means human evil, evil lives in a dirty place, evil is brave and rude, and the consequences dare to be curbed." In Yao Yue, Confucius said, "If you don't know your fate, you don't think you are a gentleman." : I don't know the courtesy, I can't stand it; You can't know people if you don't know what to say. "Based on these discussions, we not only know what a gentleman is, but also clearly know what a benevolent person is, and even what a saint is. At the same time, we can know roughly what the highest moral standard "benevolence" pursued by Confucius is.
Of course, The Analects not only establishes the image of "benevolent", but also expounds the methods of "benevolence", mainly "self-cultivation", which requires three aspects: First, perseverance. "The three armies can win the handsome, but the ordinary man can't win the ambition." The second is: sensitive to benevolence. "Speak slowly and act quickly." The third is: never tire of learning. "Kindness is not easy to learn, and its cover is also stupid." If you want a threesome, you must learn from me. It also shows that the purpose of "benevolence" is to "cultivate and protect people" and "cultivate and protect people"
The Analects of Confucius also has the general plan of governing the country, that is, "courtesy for the country", "virtue for politics" and "benevolence for politics" (1) Establish the ruling order with "courtesy". "The use of courtesy, harmony is precious, Wang Zhidao comes first, Sri Lanka is beautiful, and small is big." (2) Morality is the main punishment and the auxiliary punishment: "The Tao is the government, and the punishment is made by punishment, and the people are free from shame. Tao is virtue, courtesy, shame and dignity. " (3) "cultivate one's morality" and "be calm": "He is honest and has no orders to do things; His body is not right, although he does not obey. " Wait a minute. But on the whole, the specific concept of the state is not discussed.
Having finished the general argumentation methods and contents of The Republic and The Analects of Confucius, we should discuss their similarities and differences in detail. Second, let's briefly discuss the comparability of the two before comparison. In principle, any two different things are comparable, and we can find out their similarities and differences. Of course, whether the comparison results are meaningful is another matter. We say that it is of great practical significance to compare the Republic with the Analects of Confucius, because it can tell us "Do you want to learn from the West?" "What should we learn from the West?" At the same time, the comparability of the two lies in: (1) both of them are in the position of cultural origin, roughly in the same era. (2) Both of them have influenced the trend of this culture and played a decisive role in its occurrence and development. It is an indisputable fact that they belong to the classics of eastern and western philosophy and culture. (3) Both of them belong to a dialogue set, which records the words and deeds of the sages. Moreover, both of them were works created by many people at that time, the crystallization of collective wisdom, and they belonged to outstanding cultural achievements recognized locally at that time. (4) Both of them are generally works integrating philosophy, political theory and ethics. Although the views are different, they can still be compared together. In short, the two can be completely compared, and when comparing, we start from two aspects: First, from the way of thinking. Second, from the content.
Their thinking methods of studying problems are quite different. First of all, the logical thinking methods used are different. Generally speaking, the Republic uses reduction to absurdity to express its theme. That is to say, list all the propositions that come to mind first, then assume that the propositions are correct, and use known examples or reasons to deduce contradictions through syllogism reasoning. Thereby proving the error of the preset proposition. This is the origin of Socrates' so-called "midwifery". This method is obviously related to the early development of ancient Greek logic. Because when Socrates argued with people or Plato wrote "The Republic", several Reed's geometries had been produced, and when demonstrating geometric propositions, quite strict logical reasoning must be used. Without considerable logical knowledge, its geometric proof is almost impossible. No wonder some people say that on the porch of Plato's Academy, "If you don't know geometry, don't enter this door". This shows that in the Republic, Plato deliberately used the method of logical reasoning to study this problem. In contrast, the logical proof of The Analects is relatively lacking. Of course, you can say that The Analects of Confucius is not to prove the truth of a proposition at all. However, we should know that the center of The Analects is to advocate the truth of being a man and establish a great image of "benevolent people". If its logic is too poor and there is no theoretical basis at all, it is not convincing. After careful analysis, the Analects of Confucius still uses some logical proof methods, such as analogy and classification analysis mentioned above, but if we consider it comprehensively, although the Analects of Confucius is centered around a central "benevolence", there is no intentional demonstration method. At the same time, it is very obvious that famous aphorisms and figurative metaphors are indeed used a lot, but these should not be said to be rigorous arguments. Because in logic, a common sense we know is that examples or incomplete induction is extremely unreliable.
Secondly, the methods of writing are quite different. Although both of them mainly record a person's words and deeds, their writing methods and purposes are quite different. The Republic, under the guise of recording Socrates' words and deeds, mainly seeks the truth of justice. The whole article aims at seeking knowledge of truth and justice. There are not only stories, but also logical clues and the process of proving the truth. So the Republic just sets a scene, a fragment of life, as long as it explains the problem. The Analects of Confucius is quite different. Although the Analects of Confucius also wants to guide the whole article with a center, it is mainly a collection of words and deeds of Confucius' life, with scattered structure and inconspicuous theme. Moreover, propositions or famous aphorisms do give a lot, but there are not many proofs that are truly logical. In this way, the Analects of Confucius is just convincing. If you believe it, it can be used as your code of conduct. On the contrary, if you don't believe it, it will have no effect at all. Because it has no truth in itself; Because, in fact, truth should be a process and should be included in the step-by-step proof process.
Third, different writing purposes set different horizons. The writing purpose of The Republic is to pursue the "just" knowledge of truth. Relatively speaking, it is objective, and its vision is outward, that is, taking "justice" as an object of study, making an objective analysis to find out its various components, its scope of application, its effect and its purpose. The Analects of Confucius is different. Its main purpose is not to pursue the knowledge of truth, but to teach people's thoughts and behaviors and make them behave like "benevolent people". As for why they do this, what are the reasons for doing this, and what are the consequences of not doing this, The Analects will not care. Therefore, the content of The Analects is subjective, so when it is used in real life, it often needs external power constraints. Therefore, China's study of The Analects of Confucius and his belief in Confucianism for thousands of years, in addition to the long history of infiltration in China folk customs, are often used, dominated and advocated by the imperial power.
Based on the different ways of thinking and the different themes of argument, the contents of these two books are also very different. But as we said before, these two books are comparable in content, because the themes of these two books generally belong to the scope of philosophy, ethics and political science research. Then, let's talk about the difference in content between the two.
First, the theme is different. It should be said that this is very obvious, needless to say, but I still have to point out one thing. In other words, the concept of "justice" shown in The Republic is twofold. It is both personal justice and national justice. Especially with regard to the justice of the state, The Republic regards the state as an object that can be studied, thus deducing the theory of a pluralistic state, which is much broader than the theory of The Analects. This shows that ancient Greece really had political science at this time, and had the knowledge of comparing the advantages and disadvantages of various regimes, but the Analects did not involve the issue of regimes at all. Even a big country like China has only had one form of government for 5,000 years.
Second, the scope is different. Although both of them belong to ethics and politics, The Republic pays more attention to politics and philosophy, and less moralizing. The Analects of Confucius is basically a moral dogma, and there are not many really enlightening academic arguments.
Third, The Republic seems to have more rational content, while The Analects seems to have more emotional things. Reasoning and proof, induction and deduction are the strengths of westerners, so westerners always like to give full play to objective and rational proof, while China people don't like tedious deductive proof from the beginning, so they always like to act on their feelings and make a lot of vague things that can only be understood but not expressed. No wonder there are so many annotated versions of The Analects, and each version is different.
Fourthly, the writing of The Republic has a philosophical basis, which is Plato's idealism. It is hard to say that the content of The Analects of Confucius is guided by that philosophical method. Perhaps the philosophy of life is its general guiding ideology. Perhaps this is the fundamental difference between China culture and western culture: others pursue truth, while we pursue goodness.
So much for the difference between the two. Let's talk about it below. By comparing these two classic works, we have come to those conclusions:
First, what do we lack compared with the west? Can give an exact answer: that is the spirit of scientific rationality. If we don't make up this lesson, or talk about the great rejuvenation of Chinese culture in the world before this lesson is made up, people will not admit it, and our arrogance is empty. Especially at present, we are far from learning other people's scientific rationality or advanced technology. It is a waste of time to talk about how to revive China's ancient culture. Of course, this does not mean that everything in the west is good. The west lacks a non-theological humanistic care spirit, which is exactly what we have.
Third, what is our current attitude? It is the fusion and intersection of Chinese and western cultures. Really learn western science and technology, and earnestly maintain their own fine traditions. Moreover, there is a very important argument here, which is aimed at our specific national psychology: we find that those scholars who really understand Chinese and Western cultures can see that Chinese and Western cultures can be completely integrated. However, this is by no means the former model of "Chinese style and western use". What is it like? We need people with lofty ideals to explore together!