The end of the Spring and Autumn period is the beginning of the “Warring States” period. If the Zhou fell from the being the only power to being the dominant power during the former period, they fell to being merely one of the powers during the latter period. As the name implies, the Warring States period was characterized by warfare, and by advances in warfare. Iron replaced bronze in weaponry. Infantry and cavalry replaced chariot battles. Beyond the advance in technology, this change in warfare affect society. Some Chinese kingdoms adopted conscription – the “draft” – and warfare required the cooperation of the entire population. It was no longer merely an aristocratic contest. By the end of this era, 256 B.C., the Zhou dynasty and its internal sub-groups were pretty much powerless and taken over by the Qin dynasty. The kingdoms which had competed with the Zhou were weakened, having exhausted themselves in warfare, and they would fall around 221 B.C., soon after the end of the Warring States period.
Having defined the Spring and Autumn period, and the Warring States period, one might ask why so many great philosophers, including Confucius and Mencius, emerged in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Periods. The answer might be found in the types of philosophy propounded by these philosophers. They were concerned with social questions. The tumult during these eras forced such questions into the consciousness of those living through them. By contrast, other styles of philosophy, concerned with questions about time and space, or with questions about cause and effect, were not flourishing during this time.
In an era of upheaval, of significant changes in government or society, ethical questions naturally make themselves felt in those inclined toward philosophical reflection. In an era of stability, e.g. during the Han or Tang dynasties, moral philosophies might be studied and preserved, but more as a matter of academic tradition, and less as a matter of intellectual insight and creativity in response to social conditions. Greece might offer us a parallel: during its era of social crisis (after the Peloponnesian War), its noted political philosophers arose (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle); during its era of stability, other philosophers were more prone to explore those areas of philosophy (e.g., the nature of time and space) which did not directly address the issues of human society.
Confucius did most of his work during the late sixth and early fifth centuries. In an interesting parallel, Aristotle, who did most of his work during the fourth century, drew a number of the same conclusions. Both of them analyzed human society into ‘atomic’ or basic units. Aristotle saw society as a complex structure built from three simple relationships: husband to wife, employer to employee, and parent to child. Confucius had already concluded that society was a complex composed of simples, but posited five fundamental relationships. To Aristotle’s three, Confucius added older brother to younger brother, and friend to friend. Historians Patricia Buckley Ebrey, Anne Walthall, and James Palais write that Confucius (born 551 B.C., died 479 B.C.)
was the first and most important of the men of ideas seeking to influence the rulers of the day. As a young man, Confucius served in the court of his home state of Lu without gaining much influence. After leaving Lu, he wandered through neighboring states with a small group of students.
Confucius searched “for a ruler who would follow his advice,” and idealized the early Zhou dynasty “as a perfect society.” By implication, Confucius must have thought that the society of his era was deficient. His description of the Zhou was his prescription for his own time: people should devote “themselves to fulfilling their roles.” Apparently he believed that many people were not so devoting themselves. Confucius gathered a following, meaning that others saw things as he did, or came to do so after hearing him. The competing regional monarchies provided a larger audience, inasmuch as Confucius was addressing himself often to rulers and bureaucrats.
Mencius, like Confucius, “traveled around offering advice to rulers of various states.” Had China been unified under a solid dynasty, his potential customer base would have been much smaller. Because these states were in competition, there would have been some motive to at least review Mencius’s presentations, so that no opportunity to surpass a rival state would be overlooked. Under a monolithic dynasty, not only would the audience be smaller, but the audience would be less motivated to consider input regarding its governing style.
To the extent that Mencius is considered a Confucian, one may treat Mencius and Confucius together. To the extent that Mencius innovated beyond Confucius, one may contrast the two.
Both of them were interested in advising rulers about how to govern well; both were interested in discovering the truths about society which could inform men about how to best structure their communities. Both of them saw that the imperative for ideal behavior rested upon all social classes, and individuals from all classes needed to live properly in order for the kingdom as a whole to enjoy the benefits of wisdom. Mencius identifies empire, state, feudal lord, high official, and common person in one aphorism; empire, state, family, and person in another. He is not describing an exact taxonomy, so that the reader need not see a conflict between the two listings; rather, his point is that all levels of society are necessary if the whole is to flourish. Confucius structured his view of society around five pivotal relationships: father/son, husband/wife, ruler/subject, older brother/younger brother, and friend/friend; he saw each of these roles as important, and all of them need to be fulfilled well in order for a civilization to prosper.
Mencius and Confucius identify loyalty as a key virtue: the former writes that “never has a person given to true goodness abandoned those close to him” and the latter said that a son might even be justified in committing perjury out of filial loyalty. (Mencius is known to us largely from a collection of aphorisms and quotes called The Mencius. This book, of unclear authorship, is available in an edition by Daniel Gardner.)
Both Confucius and Mencius see the gaining of knowledge as a form of self-cultivation which leads to wisdom. The former sees learning as the first step, leading in a chain reaction to true intentions, a right mindset, a cultivated personality, harmonious households, a well-governed state, and finally a tranquil empire; the latter casts himself as an example, writing that one of his strengths is to “understand words” and to be “nurturing” his “vast, flowing qi … partner of righteousness.” Clearly, qi is a central term for Mencius, but it suffices to make the point at hand to note that, whatever it is, Mencius is advocating a form of self-cultivation.
In passing, for the purposes of the present discussion, Mencius and Confucius are very similar. For other purposes, certain divergences are detectable: while Confucius contemplated a variety of social spheres – family, friendship, government – Mencius clearly places more emphasis on government and less on the other two. When Mencius does mention the other two, he is viewing them in terms of their impact on government, and not for their own sakes. On the other hand, when compared with Zhu Xi and the neo-Confucians, Mencius is still very close to the original Confucius.
Another key Confucian concept is ritual. This points to the concreteness of Confucius, as opposed to the abstractness of some later neo-Confucians. ‘Ritual’ is physical for Confucius – he is concerned about the mats on the floor, and the precise circumstances in which one should prostrate one’s self. He is concerned that the funereal and burial rituals for his newly-dead friends be carried out correctly. He is not an other-worldly person.
Humility is important, and more so in a ruler. A ruler who self-corrects not only models humility for his subjects, but inspires them by his earnestness.
The correct use of terminology is central to Confucius, because it helps one both to avoid hypocrisy and to be precise and careful in one’s speaking and thinking. Attention to usages and definitions are the mark both of the scholar and of the honorable ruler. On this question, the most impractical and the most practical converge. The academic philosopher may spend great effort examining the definition of a word like ‘time’ or some other concept. A ruler may be careful in using terms like ‘tax’ and ‘penalty’ and ‘fine’ precisely (as a recent U.S. Supreme Court case has shown!). Both fall under Confucius’s injunction to ‘rectify names.’
In sum, Confucius has a number of points – largely echoed by Mencius – about how a human society should be organized and how it should function. Those points may be gathered under the broad headings of ‘scholarship’ and ‘physicality’ as follows: Confucius was concerned with reading, studying, investigating, and learning (those four verbs occur often in the Analects), and much of his scholarship had as its subject matter texts, people, dynasties, empires, and events from the past. His emphasis upon studying concrete things is expressed in his preference for ‘studying’ over ‘thinking’ and he did not spend time meditating upon abstractions. His preference for ritual carries his concreteness from his study of the past into his actions in the present.
