Zhuangzi's view of right and wrong
As far as Zhuangzi is concerned, there is no need to argue about the right and wrong of Confucianism and Mohism. "There is nothing better than eliminating right and wrong and shining right and wrong into the sky." And Zhuangzi's view of right and wrong in solving the dispute between Confucianism and Mohism mainly includes the following points:
A, as far as the level of famous sayings is concerned, right and wrong are relative concepts. Where there is right and wrong, there is right and wrong, and there is no absolute right and there is no absolute right. Moreover, the concept of right and wrong is exclusive, and there is no right or wrong.
B, the judgment of right or wrong comes from the individual himself. What suits me is right, what doesn't suit me is right or wrong, and there is no open right or wrong.
Arbitration of right and wrong is impossible. What's the point if it's my fault and I can't arbitrate?
D, stop judging right and wrong, "rest in peace", and remove the dispute between right and wrong from the root.
The following explains Zhuangzi's views one by one.
On the level of famous sayings.
Right and wrong are a pair of relative concepts at the level of famous sayings, that is, at the level of language. Zhuang Ziyun, "Cause is wrong, non-cause is right". The concept of human language is based on drawing lines, which makes the connotation and extension of the concept. Under the continuous line drawing, concepts are distinguished from each other, which is the limitation of human language. Therefore, when we draw a "yes" line, we also draw a "no" line. Beyond the boundary of "yes", it is the field of "no" The difference is that on the one hand, the concept of "yes" is realized by actively drawing a line, on the other hand, the concept of "no" is realized by passively drawing a line, that is, the so-called "cause is cause". On the other hand, when you draw the line of "no", you also draw the line of "yes", which is called "cause is not cause".
Cheng Yue said, "Because something is not done, there is nothing." Because specious, is nothing more than out of thin air. "("Zhuangzi Jishi "on page 67) Cheng further concluded that" yes "is the judgment of" yes ",because" no ",there is no real" yes ". Similarly, "Fei" has reached the judgment of "Fei" because of "Yes", so there is no real "Fei". Without truth, the dispute between Confucianism and Mohism is meaningless.
2. 1.a Or, in terms of the content of right and wrong, there is also an intersection between right and wrong, which is not a complete dichotomy at the language level. In this regard, we can use the ideal type model of German social philosopher Max Weber to solve the puzzle. For example, as far as the dispute between Confucianism and Mohism is concerned, the arguments can be separated and overlapped, and eventually the debate will return to the source of the ideological system. Mohism advocates that there is no difference between love and goodness, and Confucianism advocates that love should be different. In this case, the dispute between Confucianism and Mohism becomes a debate between right and wrong.
2. The concept of1.b language has realized the connotation and extension of this concept, that is, the concept itself, under the constant drawing of boundaries. According to [david hume's] empirical route or Kant's transcendental philosophy, the activity of drawing boundaries is actually a homing activity, homing [sensory data] to different subjects or different parts of the same subject.
It is a judgment of right and wrong.
Zhuang Ziyun, "Yes, you can't." Guo Xiang note cloud, "if you can in yourself, is it. If you can't do it yourself, you can't do it. " (Zhuangzi Ji Jie, p. 70) Discusses the judgment of right and wrong, which is the basis for drawing the line between right and wrong. Right and wrong all come from me, but I didn't draw them, that is, I drew them by drawing lines. In other words, the judgment of right and wrong lies with me personally. I think what is right is "yes" and what is wrong is "no".
By extension, I have right and wrong, and everyone has right and wrong. If so, everyone's life experience is different and their value system is different, then right and wrong is only subjective, not objective. Since there is no right or wrong, what is there to argue between Confucianism and Mohism?
From the perspective of arbitration
ZhuangZiYun, "who did I provoke? If the same thing is true, if the same thing is true, and evil energy is true? Make me right, both with me, evil can be right. If you are different from me and correct, you are different from me and correct, and evil can be right? " If a third party is introduced to arbitrate, Zhuangzi enumerates four possibilities for the third party's right and wrong position. First, there are different viewpoints; second, there are different viewpoints; third, there are different viewpoints; fourth, there are different viewpoints.
The first two, only the same, are still caught in the original situation of right and wrong. The third difference is that both parties agree, so there is no arbitration, so the dispute between right and wrong remains unchanged. The fourth difference makes the dispute between right and wrong change from two to three, which still does not help to solve the dispute between right and wrong. If so, it is not feasible to introduce a third party to arbitrate and solve the dispute between right and wrong.