Clark Atlanta University

The Chinese and Greek Philosophies and Their Place in History

Author(s): Myrtle Mae Bowers
Source: Phylon (1940-1956), Vol. 4, No. 1 (1st Qtr., 1943), pp. 55-65
Published by: Clark Atlanta University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/272061 .
Accessed: 23/02/2015 13:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Clark Atlanta University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phylon (19401956).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:04:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

By MYRTLE MAE BOWERS

The Chinese and Greek Philosophies

and Their Place in History
THEage in which we live is the age of our Westernspeculativephilosophy; but today we are near its end. The new age dawningis one in
whichoriginalspeculationwill cease and our thoughtwill be systematized
and consolidated,while our social and political institutionswill likewise
move toward stability, following one thought. The truth of these bold
statementsis not obvious,for we are living too near the eventsto see them
steadilyand see themwhole. But the statementsare basedupon important
historicalprecedentand this essay is an attemptto clarify that precedent
in part.
Vico, Spinoza,Descartes,Hobbes,Locke,Montesquieu,Hegel, Comte,

Spencer, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx, Bergson, Croce are some of our

great names in philosophy. There will probably be few others in the
future. Rather the future will pay attention to eclectics and social political
scientists who seek to weigh up the theories and to show their application
both in past history, in present fact, and in future trend. The work of Croce
already indicates this, as also does that of Spengler, Pareto, Orbega,
Sorokin and, above all, Toynbee. Nor are the great Augustan and Antonine statesmen far behind, as witness Lenin and Wilson.
Since the seventeenth century, when the age now ending began, our
civilized society has been composed of many states competing and fighting
with one another, as was true of the corresponding ages of great philosophy
in China and in Greece, the ages of Confucius and Socrates. All three
ages were ages in which new formulae, sometimes old formulae, with
philosophic bases were advocated or applied to politics with the greatest
idealistic enthusiasm. The philosophers sought a moral principle which
would unite the people under an ideal form of government, and some of
the principles were in fact applied in greater or lesser degree, with greater
or lesser success, for a shorter period, in many or few places. The philosophical controversy became involved with the international rivalry.
Confucius complained bitterly that no Chinese state would adopt his
[55]

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:04:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

56

PHYLON

proposals. By contrast,some states of ClassicalGreecewere almost Platonic. Our own age has seen Lockeist,Marxianand Spenglerianstates.
But there has been and is a subtle element of failure, either on the
part of the philosophersor the people, or of both. Do Fasciststoday sincerely believe that the Spenglerianstate is the ideal government? And
whatdo honestRussianstodaythinkof Marxismafter a quartercenturyof
trying to realize it? And what is the future of "democracy",or, for that
matter,whatis "democracy"?If democracyis the ideal form of governmentfor WesternSociety,whatis its programfor settlementof the world
after the presentwar is over? There will be no attempthere to answer
these questions;they are put only to suggestthat towardsthe end of the
age of philosophy,menlose theirenthusiasmfor its formulae,are not satisfied, even dully, with its results. It is in this phenomenonthat the subtle
failure becomesdefinitive. In the twohistoriccases here to be examinedprobablythe mostimportantcaseshistoryhas to show-military machines
put an end to civilization'sstruggles. The culturedstates of central and
easternChina,like the city states of Greece,fell before Leviathanswhose
most notablecontributionto civilizationwas a capacityfor powerpolitics
and the ability to frame and enforce a rigid code of laws.
Yet the failure is not merely found in the abrupt conclusionof the
strugglesof the age of philosophy. It appearsto be implicit in the very
beginningof such an age. The philosophiesthemselvesbegin as a protest
againstfailure. Thus in Chinathe Taoistsrepresenteda breakaway from
the effects of decadencein society. They preacheda renunciationof the
world and a returnto primitivesociety. They were opposedto all efforts
made to propagatetheir doctrinesbroadly,for to them such efforts were
useless andharmful. Theywere interestedonly in havingthe sage himself
seek the Tao and by example lead men to follow him. Organizedsociety
was inherentlyevil and effortsat reformwere useless. This was a rather
exclusive philosophy,for only the sage could attain the Tao; therefore,
it had little appealfor commonmen. The Taoistsheld that active participationin the affairsof mankindhad no value; non-activitywas preferable
to benevolentactivity,whichin itself is an indicationof the state of affairs
of thattime. Theirbasic work,the Tao Te Ching,gives many examplesto
illustratethe principle of non-activity. Accordingto this work the value
of a bowl lay in the emptyspace enclosedby it, and the utility of a wheel
dependednot on rims or spokes but on the empty space enclosed by the
hub.
Taoismwas a mysticalcreed and could be of serviceonly to those of a
philosophicalnature and at the same time free from all the cares and
human responsibilitiesthat are common to organized society. Those
Chinesewho were wealthyor exceedinglyscholarlymight have been able

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:04:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHINESEAND GREEKPHILOSOPHIES

57

to renounceall earthly cares and retire to a mountain,but for the great

mass of people this philosophyhad little to offer, for the necessity of activity in order to obtain a livelihood was ever before them, and little
guidancecame from this system of thoughtwhich renouncedall earthly
activity. Chinesestatesmenand rulers, engaged in the reorganizationof
society, likewise rejectedTaoism, for it condemnedorganizedsociety as
evil.
The Taoist school correspondsvery closely to the Stoic school which
appearedaboutthe same time in Greekthought. The way of life for the
Stoics, as expressedby MarcusAurelius, was a simple life based on activity in accordancewith the laws of nature. This, too, was a system of
thoughtdesignedfor only a select group. The views preachedby Stoicism
were not applicableto all people, for the Stoics held that the only way
one could act accordingto naturewas to have a thoroughknowledgeof
the laws of nature and such was possible only for the learned. The
chief point of differencebetweenthe two systemsarises out of their views
about society. Taoism condemnssociety and advocatesthe living of the
good life outsideof society, but Stoicismadvocatesthe living of the good
life within the society physically but withdrawinginto one's self at the
sametime. PerhapsStoicismcompromiseswith Greekpoliticalphilosophy
on this issue. The Greekshad experiencedmany centuriesof highly organized communitiesand citizenshipin a communitywas, perhaps, the
height of Greek ambition. Stoicism arose during the time of the breakdownof the Greekcity state,butthemindof Greecewas still fundamentally
social; hence it was necessaryfor any systemof thoughtexpectingto succeed to include in its doctrinesome stress on the individualand his relationshipsand obligationsto othermen in an organizedsociety. The political conditionswhich gave rise to these two schools were similar, for
when StoicismdevelopedAlexanderhad swept down on the small Greek
city states and all ancient forms of philosophy and religion relative to
life in a city were useless; therefore,it was necessaryfor this new doctrine
to developideas relativeto communitieslargerthanthe formercity states;
hencein turnthe idea of universalismin Stoicism. Taoismdevelopedduring the period of the WarringStates and all traditions,morals, ancestor
rites and ceremonieswere forsaken. It was necessary,then, for both of
these schoolsto develop new forms of behaviorpatternswhich would be
safe guidesin a threateningperiodof chaos. The one whichadheredmore
closely to the basic conceptionsof its people, Stoicism, was to see the
broaderinfluence,but the one which departedmore from the basic views
of its people, Taoism, was neverthelessto have long life and to serve
often as a vehicle for radicalchange.
In spite of the unpracticalidealism of Taoism, its roots lay in one of
the outstandingqualitiesof the Chinesecharacter,the capacityfor patient

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:04:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

58

PHYLON

endurance.It always appealedto the Chinesedislike for meticulousregulation and to the attitude of contemplativedetachmentwith which the
Chinesetend to regard all affairs which are not of their immediateconcern. Even thoughTaoism did not meet with broad success in China,the
desirefor a systemwhichdeniedthe value of family ties and public duties
and whichemphasizedcontemplationand non-participation
persistedafter
Taoismhad long ceased to be a school of philosophyand had become a
popular religion. The success met by Buddhismin China is due to the
fact that Taoismhad establishedthe idea of renunciationof the world in
the Chinesemind.
Confuciuswas essentiallya political philosopherand his entire teaching was a reactionagainstthe loose spirit of his times, a protest against
the excesses of the national characterunrestrainedby moral inhibitions.
Filial piety was preachedto an age when parricidewas not uncommon.
To the ambitiousnobles who soughtto wrest kingdomsfrom the hands of
the Son of Heaven,Confuciustaughtloyalty. Ceremoniesand rites were
exalted when men were neglecting the ancient sacrifices and violating
the chivalrouscodes. These were not exalted for themselvesalone, but
the great sage, Confucius,said that throughthe performanceof them
inwardvirtue was symbolized. Strict rules of conductwere very necessary,for this was a time of sexual immorality,and evenprinceswere often
guilty of incest. The Confucianssoughtthe reformationof the world by
a returnto the virtues of a golden age. The only way to put the world
right was to returnto this virtue of antiquity;consequentlythe literature
of the past was prized and preserved. They were true reactionaries,for
they firmly believed that the past containedthe model on which present
and all futuresociety shouldbe patterned.Confuciusadvancedthe theory
of governmentby virtue in oppositionto the theory of governmentby
force as advocatedby the early militaristsor progressiveabsolutists. The
Confucians,proposedthat the governmentshould not interferewith competition among the common people and stated definitely that morality
shouldbe the basis of law.
It is easy to believe that Confuciandoctrineis based on a shrewdappreciationof the real characterof the Chinesepeople, and at the same
time so stimulatesqualitieswhich are naturallynot well developedin the
Chinesemind. Confuciusdeploredthe particularismof his countrymen
and emphasizedthe virtues of filial submissionand loyalty which had
almost ceased to exist in his time. Since the Chinese are naturally indulgentand kind to childrenand at the same time opposedto discipline,
Confuciusset up a strict programfor the training of the young which
wouldseemharshto us, but, unlesssucha programwas stressed,youthwas
condemnedto destruction. Unless loyalty and public service were made

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:04:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHINESEAND GREEKPHILOSOPHIES

59

the cardinal virtues of the nobleman,the selfish interests of clan and

family would provefatal to the state. The Confucianshave taughtso well
thatan ideal manis reserved,placid, and self-controlled,thatwe are prone
to believe thatthe Chinesecharacteris really naturallyin accordancewith
this ideal. Confuciusattachedimportanceto thesethings,not becausethey
were inherentlyeasy to all men, but becausehe saw on all sides men casting away the virtuesof morality. He cited the virtues of the past ages of
Wu and the sages Yao and Shu becausehe saw that the social order was
decayingand men were adaptingthemselvesto new and less exalted ideas
of conductand morality.
The positionof Confuciusin Chinesethoughtis in a measuresimilar
to the positionof Socratesin westernEuropeanthought. In both cases the
system of thoughtduringthe lifetime of the founder was not organized
and dependedentirely on the founder's personality. Each founder took
unto him a numberof followers, and the later philosophy,as we have it,
is a resultof the systematizationof Menciuson the one hand and Plato on
the other. Each school stimulatedthoughtin its region and gave rise to
a numberof otherschools,eitherin agreementwith or in oppositionto the
basic school. Perhapsthe later Chineseschoolswere not as dependenton
Confuciusas the Greekschoolswere on Socrates. Platonism,Aristotelianism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism were all partial derivatives from the

Socratictradition. Each of these later Greeksystemshad a differentidea

of the Good,but all of them pointedto Socratesas an example of a good
man. The fact that Confucianphilosophyfinally supplantedall the other
Chineseschools,while all these Greekschools developedalong side each
other, makes a differencein the positionsof the two basic systemsin the
two societies. All these complicatingfactors make it difficultto point to
any one Westernsystemexactlycomparableto Confucianism.
Both Socratesand Confuciusstressedthe union of ethics and politics
as necessary to a well organizedstate. The positive philosophizingof
Socratesis exclusively of an ethical character- exclusively an inquiry
into the nature of virtue. Virtue, however,for Socrateswas knowledge,
wisdom, insight; virtue was no mere inborn or mechanically acquired
power or ability; a virtuousact was one proceedingfrom a clearly conscious perceptionof those thingsto which it related; the end, means, and
limitationsby whichit was conditioned.This view presupposesthe identity
of all virtues,and the teachablenessof virtue, wherebyit becomessomething universallyhuman,somethingwhich every one can acquirethrough
instructionand practice. Virtue for Confucius lay in a return to the
practicesof ancienttimes. By carryingout all the rites and ceremonies
the habit of virtuousliving was acquiredand symbolized. The performance of theseriteskeptthe necessityof virtueuppermostin the mindsboth

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:04:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

60

PHYLON

of those who performedthem and those who watchedthe performance.

Thus like Socrates,Confuciuswas of the opinionthat virtue could be cultivated in all individuals.
Both of these founders taughtthat virtue was somethingcommonto
all men. Inasmuchas it was commonto all, governments,accordingto
Socrates,should be in the hands of "philosopherkings", those who were
superior in wisdom, for wisdom was virtue. As a teacher of political
morality, Confuciusemphasizesthat governmentis subject to the same
ethical rules that apply to individuals. He does not separateethics from
politics and declaresthatthe rule of virtueis the safest meansof achieving
the good social life. Furthermore,the rule of virtue is the easiest means
of achievingthe properend of the state becauseit is closest to man, for
a governmentof virtueis one thatapproachesperfectharmonywith human
nature. Since the rule of virtue is most natural,it is the most universal,
for humannature is the same in all peoples, althoughthey may possess
different traditions, culture, and temperaments. This particular point
comesout moreclearly in the systematicPlatonicthought. In the Republic
Plato outlines an ideal form of governmentwhich is in the hands of the
Guardians,thosesuperiorin wisdom. Like Confucius,Plato says that governmentin accordancewith virtue is the ideal to which governmentsmust
strive,and sucha governmentwouldadmitof no evils, for no evil can come
into a state composedof virtuousindividuals. The ruler for Plato should
be the most sagaciousperson, and for Confuciushe should be one who
is skilled in the arts of performingthe rites and ceremoniesthroughwhich
he symbolizesand indicatesthe natureof his character. The sacredworshippingof Heavenwas reservedfor the Son of Heaven and in carrying
out his dutiesin thatcapacitythe innerlife of the rulerwas symbolized.
It seems rather strangethat neither Plato nor Confuciusrecognized
the fact thatthe wholeis morethanthe sum of its parts. Plato'scontention
in this matteris relatively clear, for his entire ideal state as set forth in
the Republicseems to be based on the (apparently) unconsciousassumption that the ethos of the state is simply a summationof the ethos of its
members. The Republicitself is a treatisewrittenfor the purposeof developingthe individualsoul, of developingthe state, for the state is but
the individual"writ large". He puts forth in this doctrine,that what is
found in the state must also be found in the individual; for how could
anything enter the state except throughthe individual membersof the
state? Throughinsistenceon the performanceof the symbolicrites by the
king and by individuals,Confuciandoctrinereachedmuch the same conclusion. Confuciusindicated that throughthe cultivationof individual
virtue, the state would be bound accordingly. The contentionsof these
masters on these points are significant,but they do not go far enough.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:04:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHINESEAND GREEKPHILOSOPHIES

61

They seem to minimize the importance of group action. It is to be granted

them that a state composed of virtuous individuals is more likely to be a
well-developed state, but, on the other hand, the presence of virtuous individuals may not necessarily insure the existence of such a state. There
are groups of individuals known to us all who, when taken separately, are
fine and noble, yet when all of them get together their group activities are
beyond recognition. Individualism in the Confucian and Platonic sense
is characteristic of less advanced societies; so perhaps neither the Greek
nor the Chinese had seen enough of human nature and enough of collective
activity to realize that collective activity is more than the total of individual activity.
Orthodox Confucians reverted to the teaching of Mencius as Greeks
of several schools reverted to the teaching of Plato. Both of them taught
that man was inherently good, and only lapsed into evil courses through
lack of instruction. Confucian teaching with its simple appeal has elements of all the major Western systems in it, and it has colored the whole
organization of Chinese society; the state has always, since the acceptance
of Confucianism, been based on a moral authority, not on military force
or legal sanctions, and later dynasties did not deny that they held authority
by virtue of Heaven's mandate which was subject to withdrawal if their
virtue failed. Since man was inherently good, he needed only instruction
to be virtuous and the correct education of youth was the first duty of
scholars. The ruling class was not to be subject to the indignities of organized bodies of law, but instead such was preserved for the lowly and
unlearned.
Confucianism as a philosophy is twenty-five centuries old. The social
and political conditions of that day were very different from present day
conditions; therefore many of the ideas of Confucius and his followers
are not applicable to modern society. The fact remains, though, that
Confucianism has had immense influence in the shaping of the political
organization of the Chinese people as well as in cultivating their political
psychology. No matter how perfect the Western system may be, the
theoretical foundations of the new China will necessarily be drawn not
so much from the West as from her own resources. The Westerners have
realized that their system is defective and they are seeking for means of
improvement, and, if China has anything to contribute to the world, Confucianism will not be a small part of it.
The school of the Legists which was the last to arise was not strictly
a philosophical school. It did not seek a moral basis for human conduct
and the reorganization of society, for it accepted the view that man was
by nature evil. The Legists represented a school of hard realists, statesmen
rather than philosophers, who endeavored to reorganize society for the

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:04:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

62

PHYLON

express purpose of carrying on wars successfully. They held that the

Li' was not strong enough to impose discipline on the growing Chinese
society. They exalted the law as the true principle on which government
shouldbe based. Law shouldbe the arbiterof the nationaldestiny. When
the Legistministersof Ch'inhad controlof the government,they put their
theoriesinto practiceandthis was fatal to the learningof ancientChina.
Thereis no similar systemof thoughtexisting in ancientGreece. The
failure of Greeksociety to develop such a system can best be explained
by contrastingthe position of the family in the two societies. Chinese
society had always, even in attaininga high culture,relied so heavily on
family solidaritythat most higher institutionswere relatively primitive;
thus they broke downrathereasily. In the period of the WarringStates,
therefore, the Legist were revolutionaries,offering redemptiondirectly
in terms of those higher institutionsto which the Chinese had hitherto
paid - in the Legists' view - insufficientattention. By contrast,Greek
society had always relied directly and largely on law and order, so that
any school of philosophicalreformersoffering redemptionin such terms
could in no wise be revolutionary.But it was the specificcircumstancesof
Greecewhichmore obviouslyprecludedthe appearanceof such a school,
that is, before the ascendancyof Rome. Unlike China, Greecewas surroundedby other highly developed states and, when Greece fell into a
declinelike thatof Chinain the days of the WarringStates,thosesurrounding statesquicklyconqueredGreece.
There is, however,a real comparisonbetweenthe thoughtand policy
of the Legists and the reliance of the Romansupon law, for the Romans
did ultimately play the part of unifiers in the history of the Hellenic
society which the Legist statesmenof Ch'in played in Chinese society.
The comparisonis in the main a contrast. Perhaps the only similarity
betweenthe two is their insistenceon the importanceof law. Of course,
the Chineseidea of law arose out of theory,namely the basic assumption
on the part of the Legiststhat man was by nature evil. But the Romans,
appearing much later in Western thought, resorted to law for purely
practical purposes, namely as a means of unifying a diverse empire.
Westernpeoplehave no suchdistastefor law and orderas the Chinese;so
the Romantraditionof law and orderhas been able to permeateWestern
society in a more positive way than has the traditionof the Legists in
Chinesesociety.
The Legistsfailed in their chief endeavor,the permanentsuppression
of every rival doctrine,and in the end this school sufferedthe fate which
it had meted out to the others. Confucianismwas the ultimatevictor, but
1A Chinese term for the SupremeUltimate,
a moral law, identical with the standardupon

which humanconductshould be modelled.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:04:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHINESEAND GREEKPHILOSOPHIES

63

the idea of a single orthodox doctrine which was alone deserving of government patronage and support, developed later by the Confucians, is a
remnant from the old Legists school.
The Mohist school, perhaps the least influential of the Chinese systems,
taught doctrines which were morally the most sublime of all in the ancient
Chinese schools. The followers thereof believed that the remedy for the
ills of the world lay in practicing universal love; not merely a narrow
clan love as expressed in feudal society, but an equal love reaching beyond
family and state. They condemned war as the greatest of crimes and looked
for a world-wide kingdom founded on love. This system, preached some
five centuries before Christ, contained practically all the distinctive doctrines of Christianity except the idea of a savior and the belief in immortality for the blessed and eternal damnation for the wicked.
The conditions that gave rise to universalism in Mohistic doctrine are
similar to those that fostered the development of universalism in Greece.
In any society when the old loyalties have been swept away it is necessary
for new ones to come and take their places. When Alexander the Great
conquered the city states of Greece, the Stoics were faced with the job of
developing new loyalties applicable to the expanding Hellenistic society;
hence the universal ideal of Stoicism. During the period of the Warring
States in China when the national states began to crumble, Mohism sought
to develop in its doctrine some bond of union that extended beyond the
narrow confines of one clan or one state; hence universalism in Chinese
thought.
Mohism as a type of religious philosophy has much in common with
a form of mystical belief associated with the name of Orpheus in sixth
century Greece. Orphism, like Mohism, was a free religion and independent of the social structure of the civic community. In China, as well
as in Greece, the social bond, the sense of solidarity, had once extended
to the limits of the group of blood-kin; beyond were strangers. The rise
of these systems of thought in the two societies, both preaching doctrines
that transcended the limits and minimized the ties of kinship brought very
definite social results. The preaching of a doctrine that all men were
brothers set the old sense of solidarity free from its old limits, and spread
it to include all mankind and even all living things. Loyalty to one's blood
brothers in both societies came to mean love to all men. The old solidarity
of the blood group had entailed the diffusion of responsibility for the
actions of any one member among all the other members of the blood
group. This practice remains to a certain degree in China, for the position
of the family in China has persisted, whereas in Greece, Christianity, in
preaching similar views to those of Orphism, has given a different interpretation to the idea of collective responsibility.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:04:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

64

PHYLON

It is difficultto make a comparison of the importance of these two systems, for Orphic creeds, coming very early in Greek history, have been
lost in almost complete obscurity, while Mohism, coming at a much later
stage in Chinese history represented a complete departure from traditional
Chinese thought, and was lost in the turmoil of the age. It is obvious that
in an age such as that of the Warring States, the ideals of Mohism were
no more likely to be put into effect than the doctrines of Christianity in
the Dark Ages. The real object of Mohistic teaching was ignored and misrepresented by its rivals and the system became discredited as a visionary
and fantastic creed without practical application or value. The Chinese
are a practical race of men, and a doctrine which taught men to love
strangers as they loved their own parents, and condemned war as the
greatest of crimes, was noble in itself, but contrary to the normal instincts
of men. Mohism never recovered from the proscription of the schools and
the burning of the books. In the later history of China traces of it are
not obvious.
These similarities between the development of thought in classical
Greece and China cannot be pushed too far. The idea of political liberty
for the citizen and democratic government never found a place in Chinese
thought; therefore, in some fundamental matters the minds of China and
Greece do not meet. Then, too, the Chinese philosophical age was not
supreme in every field of endeavor as was the classical age in Greece.
For instance, art and poetry reached its zenith in classical Greece, but they
did not reach perfection in China until many centuries later; the Greek
culture flowered suddenly and reached its height in every field at the same
time while the Chinese civilization grew slowly over a long period of
time, each great period contributing something different to the developing
culture.
In China the form of political organization was never questioned.
Monarchy based on a patriarchal relationship was accepted as the natural
and inevitable vehicle of sovereignty. Aristotle showed a tendency toward
patriarchal government in his Politics. He regarded the state as the complete development of the earlier associations, the household and the village. At the head of these earlier institutions was one person who directed
their activities; therefore at the head of the state should be one individual
whose interests were directed toward the benefit of the community at large.
The point of contrast arises out of the fact that the Chinese schools of
philosophy tended to be concerned more with the moral foundations on
which the monarchy should be based. This preoccupation with moral principles rather than with political forms is characteristic of most Chinese
thought, and is in sharp contrast to the point of view adopted by Western
peoples, who tend to devise forms first and adjust moral principles to them

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:04:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHINESEAND GREEKPHILOSOPHIES

65

afterwards. The Chinese conception of monarchy approached that which

prevailed in medieval Europe. The mandate was not a patent of divine
right passed on from generation to generation, but the monarch's descendants enjoyed it only so long as their virtue made them worthy representatives of the supreme ancestor. The Chinese idea of a virtuous king is paramount in all their political philosophy.
For the Greek conception of liberty, the privilege of the citizen class,
the Chinese nobility, who likewise were the sole possessors of political
power, had loyalty of the son to his father and clansmen, of the officer to
his prince, of the prince to the Son of Heaven. Law was applicable to
the commonersonly. The prince forced the ambitious nobleman to conform
to his Li, but in the period of the Warring States loyalty became a meaningless term. Ministers sought personal gain and the conquering princes,
by flouting the Son of Heaven, set an example of violence and unscrupulous
ambition. In protest against this state of affairs the schools of philosophy
arose. In Greece the philosophers prospered as a result of the triumph of
free institutions in the city states, but in China the philosophers appeared
at the same time as the decay of the political systems and the spread of
lawlessness and disorder.
Though these similarities do appear between these two ancient philosophical groups, there has not been any attempt here to show that either
school obtained anything from the other. The similarities that do arise
are created out of similar circumstances that appear in the two societies.
Groups of men wherever they appear will, necessarily, have the same or
similar problems to face and the systems that are generated to deal with
them will, of necessity, be similar. This very fact alone seems to show
that all men are fundamentally the same, and that differences are of
degree and not of kind. Thus our Western Society has faced and is facing
problems similar to those faced long ago by the Greeks and the Chinese.
Nor would it be difficult to show that our contemporary philosophies reproduce in essence the ideas of Confucius and Socrates, the Taoists and
the Stoics, and are not our totalitarians counterparts of the Chinese Legists
and the Roman imperial lawyers? Is our philosophy all sound and fury,
signifying nothing, or is it leading us to that solution of society's problems
which the Chinese and the Greeks never found?

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:04:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions