The Asian Economist

Oh yes, I am so enthusiastic to be Chinese, I love conforming, being Communist, screwing minorities where it hurts, and not figuring out what I want to do in this world like Westerners…who sort of do the same thing, just in a different fashion and not so secretly. From one side to the other everyone criticizes everyone. People say “Chinese are like this because…”, “Americans are like this because…”, “British are like this because…”, “The French are like this because…”, and so on and so forth, and eventually the argument leaves culture and extends into history and philosophy. People blame people and it extends in a big cycle thats really just (to quote a famous comedian who died recently) ‘one big strokejob’, except this is one where we blame each other so much it satisfies both parties. Its an international stroking/strokejob competition.Soon someones bound to go because everyone’s stroking each other just short of a truly Babylonian orgy.

We need to look at the history and dominating philosophies within different countries before pointing fingers. This extends to all countries. Recently, China has come under a lot of pointed fingers for issues such as human rights, Tibet, etc. However, most finger pointers are slightly hypocritical, and do not have a grasp of Chinese history and philosophy. People then begin the stereotyping process whereby all Chinese are the same and therefore have no true individuality and that they are simply yellow skinned, communist-led-minority bashing robots. Then facets of China are criticized for being morally wrong, with people coming in from an existentialist-individualist path. Its like two people arguing. One is on a ladder looking arguing with the person inside the house and the other is inside the house and arguing at the person standing on the ladder. Its two different viewpoints based on different premises.  These two people continuously stroke each other satisfying the other psychologically until one of the two reaches a climax and declares war by bonking the other over the head with a tire iron or a wrench. Either way, this happens on a global scale now, so we can call it the International Psychological Mutual Masturbation competition, or in short, The International Strokathon.

Thus, I will begin a series of articles criticizing in detail every country that points fingers at the other, and since we have just ended the Olympics, I will start with China, and one of its most influential ideology; Confucianism. I will compare it with the Western philosophy of existentialism and nihilism.

For several centuries, Confucianism has influenced the structure, thinking and in some ways, moral’s of Chinese society. Confucius’s teachings of a society in which all people knew their place and functioned according and not out of that purpose created a society that was conformist, family oriented and centred around authoritarianism. All in all, Confucianism worked for China in the past and still continues to influence Chinese society today. However, my research and analysis of Confucianism has revealed a huge problem within its logic. I argue that the human being has a purpose to determine the reality of his/her existence, or state of being, before contributing to society, and even then, they should continue to evaluate the value of their existence and the state of existence that they belong in in order to live a truly individual life. People should not simply accept their state of being as an ‘is’, they should instead question its very existence to reason out  and find out their real identity and then continue on to questioning their purpose in life.
In proposing an existentialist-nihilist argument for individuality, I will closely examine two key Western philosophers,  Martin Heidegger, and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Friedrich Nietzsche was a key Western philosopher who concerned himself with the value of existence, and as a result, questioned the validity of Christian morals, arguing that people should question the validity of their society and concern themselves with what existed on the physical plain rather than the metaphysical realm that “God” existed in. Prior to writing two seminal works of his, “The Birth of Tragedy” (1872), and “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” (1883-85) Nietzsche’s beliefs were influenced by philology (the study of language in philosophy), and metaphysical philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer. In particular, Schopenhauer’s 1818 work, “The World as Will and Representation”, helped to ground Nietzsche’s  existentialist beliefs. Nietzsche’s first work the 1872 “The Birth of Tragedy”, argued for the value of art and music in human existence. Taking this streak further, 1883-85’s “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” argued that humans should strive to live their lives as individuals, challenging and questioning the status quo when they chanced upon it. Nietzsche believed that the greatest value that humans possessed was the ability to create their own values ex nihilo, and live by them. Therefore, Nietzsche’s famous quote, spoken through the character Zarathustra during his travels in the novel “God is Dead” refers to the fact that due to the advancement of human technology, the need for comfort and the main base for so many value systems, was unnecessary since science, art and music had evolved, and with these successive evolutions, the concept of a supreme being as the base for values lost its value as people created, and lived by, their own values. God was dead because he was not needed for the foundations of society anymore.  Nietzsche argued not what people should think, but rather, proposed a process whereby people should not follow him, but learn how to think for themselves. Nietzsche wanted thinkers, not mindless drones, that could contribute what they could in their own way, and not the way society dictated.

To answer any counterarguments from conformist philosophers, most significantly counterarguments relating to the concept of morality, Nietzsche also proposed his existentialist arguments on the issue of morality. If people lived an individualistic life, that could have lead to the downfall of society, as selfishness could have taken hold, and thus, existentialism was a destructive philosophy. In 1886, Nietzsche released “Between Good and Evil”, his existentialist attack on the question of morality. Nietzsche argued for the individual utilization of their will to power, and what was moral depended on the individuals opinion and how much power that individual had. Power was defined as the outpouring of life energy from and individual. Thus a legitimate action depended upon the kind of person that would execute the action- which continues the existentialist (and pro-individualistic) streak that Nietzsche argues for. To further this argument on morality, Nietzsche released “On the Genealogy of Morals, a Polemic” in 1887, arguing that the conformist moral argument of Christianity was founded on negative emotions, whilst the existentialist one argued on a base of positive emotions, helping people to choose their own path. The end conclusion of this existentialist argument would be that the concluding scenario would be a “society of individuals”. As comical as it may seem, this “society of individuals” would exist with each individual questioning and constantly changing themselves to live a life of a true individual. As conformist as it may seem, this society of individuals would not conform to any ideology, but each to his/her own. Individuality is a relativistic philosophical approach to life, and Nietzsche argued that an existentialist approach by people would result in individuality- philosophical freedom- allowing them to achieve their true purpose.  Individuals would be free to engage with others on a daily basis, though up to the point that they could get the answers or actions to their requests.

Following this individualist philosophy, I will now examine Martin Heidegger. Martin Heidegger was an existentialist-phenomenologist philosopher who influenced several major existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre. He was influenced by the philosopher-mathematician Karl Husserl, who approached philosophy from an ontological-phenomenological standpoint, eventually touching on the concepts of singular existence through the concept of the science of consciousness to create a pure platform for himself as true observer. Heidegger’s encounter with and study under Husserl at university resulted in Heidegger’s development of his viewpoint on existence. Heidegger questioned  the state of being of ones existence and the state of being of that being of existence. Heidegger argued that an individual should question their state of existence before questioning the validity of other things such as their purpose in life, and the probable existence of anything else around them. He questioned whether or not things really were there- what was, was- is, is. As much as people thought they understood the question of existence and existing as an individual, Heidegger’s questions points to his observation that people took for-granted the concept of being, and that as they thought they understood it, the more they did, the more ignorant they became, and the understanding of being became increasingly confused . Heidegger argued that the concept of “Being” needed to be restarted to clear up things, and started with this through looking at the entity of the human being, and he gave this entity, the title of “Dasein.” Heidegger stated in his 1926 book, “Time and Being“ that “Dasein is not only close to us-even that which was closest: we are it, each of us, we ourselves”. People could turn away from this, and as a result, lose themselves in conformity, and therefore, lose their humanity. As much as reason could lead to the advancement of society, it only increased in reducing the openness of individuals towards the closest thing- themselves.

Heidegger differed slightly from Nietzsche in that he ignored the attack on Christianity, and went straight to an almost metaphysical analysis of defining oneself as an individual. Heidegger even went so far as to argue that the evolution of Western Philosophy hit a dead end with Nietzsche’s philosophies and the other ideas that occurred during his [Nietzsche’s] lifetime. Heidegger’s difference from Nietzsche comes from the concept of openness. Whilst Nietzsche argued for a constant examination of the self to change the status quo, Heidegger argued that people should be more open to their state of being, and then from there, find themselves, and then their purpose.  What both Heidegger and Nietzsche have in common is their analysis of what it is to be an individual, and the how and why of why the concept of existence as an individual, not as a drone of conformist society is so important.

On the other hand, Confucianism, as a philosophy argued from an ontological point of view that people existed to fulfill their obligations to society. From filial respect within the family to the elders and ancestors, through to the larger concepts of obedience to the Emperor and the state, Confucius argued that people existed to fulfill various purposes within this society.  Confucius argued that the highest purpose in society was the emulation and transformation of an individual into the ‘sages’ of the past. Confucius argued that this would preserve the traditional order, and eventually, restore and enforce the moral integrity of the state. Confucius’ theories were eventually collected into a series of texts called “The Analects”, in which his ideas can be divided into four groups. These are Theodicy, Harmonius Order, Moral Force, and Self Cultivation.
Through Theodicy, Confucius argued that the social hierarchy was set through the execution and conclusion of religious rituals. People were arranged so that a centralized hierarchy was set up, and this influenced the actions of the society afterwards. Through Harmonius Order, Confucius believed that the stability of the society came through three interconnected concepts. These concepts were aesthetic, moral, and social order. These concepts interacted with each other creating an ordered, stable society, the hierarchy of which was reinforced through the execution of religious rituals. Religious rituals saw to promoting aesthetic, and moral order, whilst the concept of a Harmonious order saw to reinforcing the image of a stable society through the social order promoted by the religious rituals during their execution. The third concept, Moral Force, was not so much a concept, as it was a quality that Confucius argued, should be the basis for the legitimate rule of a government. The quality of Moral force, under the character “de”, was a quality of the perfect ruler. A society ruled by a king/emperor possessing the quality of “de”, would be a stable one in that the king, with “de”, would enforce the aesthetic, moral, and social order. Confucius’ fourth idea of Self Cultivation was one where the way in which an individual would help preserve the status quo was through comparing himself with the aesthetic, moral and social rules placed by the traditional government. Confucius argued that an individual was more developed if their actions and thoughts were more in line with the rules of the government- helping to enforce stability in their society.
Comparing both philosophies, on one hand, Existentialism, and on the other, Confucianism, the difference can be seen. Existentialism takes an open, yet analytical, approach to the question of how people could live their lives, and the potential within that, whilst Confucianism argues that people should live their lives according to the guidelines of previous philosophers, to maintain stability. Existentialism poses the question and answer of “How could you live life? What is your purpose?…Here, try this, it may just help, and help you achieve your true potential and purpose, whatever that may be.” Confucianism argues the superiority of education and maintenance of the previous order, saying “You exist for this specific purpose in the preservation of the status quo based on these pre-existent values.”
Existentialism argues that people can create a livable society by acting and engaging with each other as individuals, each with their own purpose. Stability would be ensured by the extent to which an individual would use his qualities to allow or disallow another individuals actions. Confucianism argues that people cannot create a livable society as individuals, and thus, people should be subordinated to preserve the current order through moral order, self cultivation (through serious study of texts), harmonious order and theodicy.

However, Confucianism’s absolutism has revealed a flaw- that Confucius never studied the real purpose of a human being, or researched the question of his existence. Confucius’ absolutism is summed up in his Analects “The profound person understands what is moral. The small person understands what is profitable.”  This quote demonstrates that Confucius believed that people could not achieve their own potential, and must be bent to the will of the state to give them a purpose and fulfill their potential by fulfilling that purpose to its full extent. Yet, at the same time, Confucius did not question or examine the closest thing that could be examined- himself. He did live life as an individual, but did not examine himself to seek his real potential and purpose out.  As a result, the dynasties succeeding the Zhou Dynasty that Confucius lived in, created a system of conformism, in which one of the highest achievement was to gain a government position- a position achieved through the passing of Imperial exams. These exams were based on Confucian Analects, and thus helped maintain the system of conformity. People did not question themselves, or attempt to change their views of society, and if they did, it was usually a variation of Confucian philosophy, or a new religion/philosophy, entering in from outside of China. Good examples would be Islam, and Buddhism, and these were few in number. Thus, Confucius is a hypocritical individual.

Another flaw of Confucianism would be that the Confucian political system set up by the dynasties following the end of the Zhou dynasty, created a system preventing people from fulfilling their true potential and finding their real purpose in life. As a result, this stagnation in philosophical, then political progress weakened the successive governments, leading to the defeat of the Qing dynasty in the military, economic and political areas. Defeat in each arena was demonstrated with rebellions and wars and eventually, the Qing fell in 1911. Afterwards, China was divided up under various political entities- consisting of Chinese, Japanese, and European powers. This division of China was caused by the conformist political system set up by Confucius, weakening the Chinese people. By the 1930’s, China was weakened to the extent that major sections had been colonized by various foreign countries. A notable example is Japan which took areas of Northeastern China (Shaanxi, Jiangsu, Manchuria) for itself, eventually declaring war on China. Following this was the eventual massacre of many Chinese. Thus, Confucianism’s flaw in not allowing people to find and achieve their true purpose and potential resulted in long term defeats for the Chinese people. If people had been allowed to find their purpose and fulfill their potential from the start, without forced conformity to the current regime to maintain the issue of stability, then maybe things could have been changed. Had they been allowed to execute these philosophical actions, there may have been a propagation of various philosophies that could have strengthened the Chinese state, instead of weakening it in the long term.
On the other hand, it could be argued that even though Confucianism has several flaws that created heavy consequences for the Chinese people, the Existentialist-Nihilist argument proposed by the German philosophers, Heidegger, and Nietzsche have disadvantages.
First and foremost, Heidegger and Nietzsche are categorized in philosophy as relativists. Relativism as opposed to absolutism is a teleological approach whereby the actions taken by an individual are valid so long as the goal is achieved- the goal determines the action. Absolutism is a deontological approach whereby it is the actions matter more-thus actions determine the validity of the goal. Here the problem makes itself evident. If the actions taken by an individual are valid just so long as a goal can be achieved this makes room for “corrupt” actions to be executed and justified as being valid. History has demonstrated this major weakness of relativism several times over.  One big example can be seen in the years 1933 to 1945. The reign of Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945, World War II, and the millions of people who died because the ends justified the means demonstrates the weakness of relativism. Since the goal was the German-Japanese domination of the world, the concentration camps, massacres, colossal battles, were all valid so long as the Germans and Japanese achieved that goal.  Hitler’s philosophy of National Socialism was a teleological philosophy that forced this goal, but being self destructive, destroyed Germany in the process.  Furthermore, it just so happened that Hitler used the existentialist-nihilist philosophy of Nietzsche in justifying his arguments for the superhuman.

However, the arguments against existentialist-nihilism can be opposed in that Hitler’s regime was propelled to power on a platform of negative emotion. Before the elections in 1933, the German people had become scared of the current situation.  Germany was weak- militarily-through restrictions placed by the Allied powers, and economically, through the handing over of important economic production facilities such as the Saar and Rhineland that supplied much of Germany’s materials. Added to this was Germany’s decline into hyperinflation caused by the Wall Street Crash in October 1929, reducing consumer power and weakening the economy- food prices climbed, and uncertainty was rampant. Furthermore, Germany was under attack from the inside with various political parties vying for control of the Reichstag. Even if people could have been individuals at this point, fear and doubt are contagious emotions spreading quickly. Hitler’s quick action to blame the March 1933 Reichstag fire on the Comintern through the actions of Marius van der Lubbe who supposedly started it, reinforced this. Hitler promised political, economical, military and social stability, growth, and prosperity. This quick action caused the German voting majority to swing to the right, voting the Nazi party into the Reichstag with a huge majority, giving Hitler the flexibility he needed to pass the laws assuring the absolute supremacy of the Nazi party. The policies of the Nazi party were then implemented, with Hitler utilizing the Nietzschean concept of the superhuman to validate the supremacy of the Aryan nation. This resulted in the eventual beginning of World War II. It is hard to be an individual in conditions that don’t permit it- thus, survival comes before the will to be different and question the values of the status quo. The German people could have chosen to do their own thing in 1933, but due to the conditions beforehand, did things en masse hoping for stability but not knowing the long term future consequences. Martin Heidegger himself upon becoming Rector of Philosophy at the university he lectured at, delivered his opening address praising the ideology of Nazism in 1933. As unrealistic as it seems, even if people are not that foresighted enough to see any probable future consequences, had they acted as individuals based on any analysis of the policies held by the Nazi party prior to the 1933 elections, then they could have acted as individuals, utilizing their will to power to its full extent. Having acted as individuals, they may not have been able to change the outcome, but they could have delayed the possible consequences, allowing time for other elements to enter the fray and change the outcome. Yet acting as a conformist mass, due to fear, they caused negative long term consequences for themselves- which not only included military defeat, but disunification the next forty years. One could compare this to the long term consequences caused by Confucianism to the Chinese people.

In conclusion, Confucianism’s argument for a stable society through conformism falls badly against the Existentialist-nihilist argument proposed by Nietzsche and Heidegger. Although an argument for stability based on conformism may create a stable society for a while, it will inevitably fail due to its slow conversion to hard line traditionalism, creating a narrow viewpoint that prevents the proliferation of other ideas and opportunities for change. This narrow mindedness will eventually cause the fall of whatever society holds it. An individualist society- whereby people question who they are, their purpose in life, and their potential before beginning to act on anything else might work better. That people find out who they are and the meaning of their existence and continue to define that everyday by questioning existent values around them would create a more stable and open environment.

As a “Meiguo  huaren”- American Born Chinese majoring in History and Chinese studies, I believe there is a need for each country to critique itself and that is why I am starting with China. As much as I love my country constructive criticism is needed for a better future. I understand that I may not have described, analysed and critiqued the respective philosophies as accurate as I would like, however, this can improve in future since this is just  a quick look.