This is a question raised by netizens some time ago.
This question is tendentious, which makes it clear that the Book of Shangjun and other Legalist books need to be whitewashed.
In fact, Shang Martin's "Book of Shang Jun" and Han Fei's "Han Feizi" are works that combine the fa, the technique, and the potential, representing the main ideological achievements of the fa, and a series of techniques for taming the people derived from them, which have been circulated for two thousand years to the present.
The "Treatise on Officials" is only Su Qi's instruction to Yuwen Tai to use corrupt officials, rule corrupt officials, and abandon corrupt officials, and the difference between them is very big. The law is strict and the law is to control the people, and Yuwen Tai is to control the officials, of course, in the eyes of today's democratic and free people, they are all dark and cunning official laws.
Knowing this, we know the meaning of the subject, and we want to use dialectics to justify the Fa. As for the "Treatise on Officials", we do not need to discuss it, it is indeed a conspiracy and trickery, using the greed of human nature to control the thick black technique of the official. There's nothing to whitewash in this one.
The Dharma thinks differently. Although the idea of the Dharma is harsh, brutal, and impersonal under the Confucian theory of benevolence and righteousness, it is efficient, concentrated, and fruitful. In the end, Qin Shi Huang unified the world, and the legalist ideology was indispensable, and after the Han Dynasty, the mainstream Confucianism in the official field also had to compromise with the legalists, and finally evolved a set of official rules of "Confucianism and Law" for the Chinese national officialdom, which lasted for a thousand years.
That is to say, the Dharma does have its merits.
So what is dialectics?
Dialectics is a method of seeking knowledge through criticism and a tool of thinking.
Let's briefly explain how to use dialectics to solve the problem of the subject.
As a tool of thought, when confronted with this problem, dialectics should lead us to think in this way:
The first step is to observe this phenomenon and draw a judgment, which is called "the right topic". So what can we get from the main question? That is to say, the dharma's thinking is black (the Treatise on the Officialdom is only a part of the Dharma's courtiers). What supports this theory? It is nothing more than strict regulations, no warmth, the weak people to strengthen the country, the expropriation of tyranny, giving birth to tyranny. This is true, and it is also the reason why other ideological streams reject the Dharma.
The second step is to put forward a reverse proposition and draw a negative judgment, which is called "reverse question". What is the content of the counter-topic? That is, the Dharma's thinking is white. Why? Because although it weakens the people and is not good for the people, it is indeed a shortcut to the rise of the country, a rich country and a strong army, and the effect is rapid. In the past few generations, the State of Qin has grown rapidly from a despised frontier state to unifying the Central Plains, which is the role of the Legalists.
Later, different schools of thought had to accept this fact, and in order to be accepted by the ruling class, the Taoists regarded the Fa's method of conforming to heavenly reason as a "law of doing things" and became the "Huang Lao Zhi Xue", which was used by the ruling class in the early Western Han Dynasty. Instead, Han Confucianism also recognized the "Chengfa" and adjusted his thinking of ruling the world with "benevolence and righteousness" to "divine right of kings" and "three principles and five constants", and finally let Emperor Wudi of Han accept this Confucian revisionism as a face, and continued to use the method of legal rule under the "Huang LaozhiXue" as a lizi, "deposing hundreds of families and respecting Confucianism alone." ”
The third step, based on two conclusions, comprehensive consideration, comprehensive weighing, to come up with a final judgment, which is called "fit the topic". Confucius said that "clinging to both ends of it, get it in it", is in line with the dialectical mode of thinking. This is simply the path of neutralization of the Dharma. Because of their notoriety, the Dharma was not acceptable to the benevolent kings, so through the "Huang LaoZhi Xue" and "Han Confucianism", the ideas were able to continue for thousands of years and played a positive role.
The Dharma doesn't want face, but Lizi is always running. As classics of the Fa, the Book of Shang Jun and Han Feizi, including the Treatise on Officials, even if they are verbally despised by the emperor, they are only excessive in their implementation, and there is nothing that is not enough.
If we want to overturn the case for them, we only need to change our perspective, turn ourselves into vested interests, rulers, and look at them with a dialectical eye, and naturally we will regard these weak people, hurt the people, and the theory of strengthening the country as a treasure book for governing the country.
By the way, as a method of thinking, dialectics sounds logically clear, not only completely innocent, but also the supreme truth.
But as a methodology, dialectics is useless. In real life, the conclusions reached by dialectics are meaningless. Because almost everything has a contradictory, mixed-headed nature. The conclusion you need to come to is from your own perspective on the matter, and from which angle it is most beneficial to you.
But that's it.