Lü Miaojun | seven interpretations of Xunzi's theory of human nature

Xun Zi was the master of the Hundred Sons of the Pre-Qin Period, and Guo Moruo called him "the last master among the Sons of the Pre-Qin Dynasty, who not only collected the Dacheng of Confucianism, but also the Dacheng of the Hundred Families" The theory of human nature has been an issue that has been discussed and debated in Chinese history. Among the many theories of human nature, Mencius's theory of sexual goodness and Xunzi's theory of sexual evil are the most famous and have the greatest impact on future generations. The academic community's understanding and research on Xunzi's theory of human nature has a process from shallow to deep, from one-sided to comprehensive. In the past, the study of Xunzi's theory of human nature mainly focused on its theory of sexual evil, and most scholars at present tend to believe that xunzi's theory of sexual evil is not the whole content of xunzi's theory of human nature, and the traditional view that sexual evil is the central or basic theory of Xunzi theory has also been challenged. Based on the research status of Xunzi's theory of human nature at home and abroad, so far there are roughly the following views.

The first is the Xunzi theory that human nature is inherently evil. This is one of the most influential theories in history. Today, many scholars still believe that Xunzi's "human nature is evil" is "human nature is inherently evil." This statement is also an important reason why Xunzi has been criticized in the history of Chinese thought, especially the Song Ming Confucians have vigorously denigrated Xunzi, resulting in the obliteration of Xunzi's theory. Lu Debin believes that Xunzi's so-called "sex" does not have the meaning of "why people are human", and its so-called "human nature is evil" does not mean that human nature is evil, and there are many misunderstandings and misunderstandings surrounding Xunzi's "sexual evil" theory. Xunzi's so-called "human nature is evil" is neither saying that "human nature is evil" nor "lust itself is evil" (Lu Debin, "Xunzi and Confucian Philosophy", Qilu Book Society, 2010).

The second is the Xunzi human nature to evil. The American sinologist De Xiaoqian believes that the doctrine of xunzi sexual evil does not mean that human nature is completely evil and hopeless to become good; on the contrary, xunzi means that human nature tends to be evil, so everyone must make extra efforts to develop its nature in order to tend to good; human nature is only inclined to evil and has unlimited ability to develop in the direction of good (Homer H. Dubs, Hsuntze: The Moulder of Ancient Confucianism, London: Arthur Probsthain, 1927）。 Chen Daqi also believes that Xunzi only advocates that sex tends to evil, and does not deny that it may change to good, and it is not an exaggeration to call his views sexual evil (Chen Daqi, "The Theory of Xunzi", Huagang Publishing Co., Ltd., 1971).

The third is the Neutral Theory of Xunzi Human Nature. The scholars who hold this view mainly include Xu Fuguan, Bao Guoshun, Wei Zhengtong, and Li Zhexian. Xu Fuguan believes that Xunzi's so-called sex includes the ability of functions and the desires that occur from functions, and the human nature defined by Xunzi is close to the "nature of birth" mentioned by The Confession. Xun Zi gives full play to the meaning of "eating color, sex also" and supplements the meaning of "eyes and ears", which is more thoughtful than that of The Confessor. Xunzi advocated sexual evil, and Gai was an illustration of sexual evil from the evil of functional desires. Xunzi's claim of sexual evil is only based on the aspect of functional desire, which cannot be described as evil in itself, but evil is caused by desire. The problem lies in the word "Shun is" (Xu Fuguan, "The History of Chinese Sex: Pre-Qin", East China Normal University Press, 2005). Wei Zhengtong also believes that the nature of nature that Xunzi said does not contain the meaning of value judgment, that is, there is no such thing as good and evil, it is only nature; Xunzi advocates that sexual evil, the key to evil caused by natural nature, is all seen by "shun is". Bao Guoshun also said that the sex mentioned by XunZi was originally a pure but innocent psychological activity without good or evil, which was "natural nature" and had no value component of good and evil, which was the same as the meaning of sex as that of The Confession. Human nature originally contained the effect of desire (good profit, evil, the desire of the eyes and ears, etc.), and the reason for the change from "natural nature" to "malignancy" was that it was produced by the desire to follow this nature (shun is) and did not give way (Bao Guoshun, "Analysis of the Xunzi Theory", Huazheng Bookstore, 1982).

The fourth is the simple theory of Xunzi sex. The earliest proposer of this theory was the Japanese scholar Kodama Rokuro, who believed that Xunzi's concept of human nature was innate "sexual simplicity" and acquired "sexual goodness" and "sexual evil", and the core was "sexual simplicity" rather than "sexual evil" (Kodama Rokuro: "The Rise of Xunzi Sexual Simplicity", Japan Chinese Society Newspaper, Vol. 27, 1974). The emergence of the theory of sexual simplicity is inseparable from the comparative study of the articles of "Sexual Evil", "Etiquette", and "Correct Name" by scholars. Lin Guihao and others also insisted on this statement.

The fifth is the Xunzi sexual goodness theory. Jiang Zhongkui, a taiwanese scholar on the mainland, believes that Xunzi's concept of human nature is actually "subjective goodness." He also cites 22 materials on Xunzi's theory of human nature to prove it (Jiang Zhongkui: "Xunzi Sexual Good Evidence", Yan Lingfeng, editor-in-chief of "No Requirement for Preparation" Xunzi Integration, vol. 38, Chengwen Publishing House, 1977). This statement is mostly subjective inference and is difficult to convince. Yan Shi'an believes that Xunzi said "Kai Nei" and "Sai Erzhi Tong", so it cannot be thought that Xunzi is the main goodness, but there is a knowledge of his view of human nature that is close to sexual goodness.

The sixth is that Xunzi defines human nature by lust and affirms lust. This is a new view of Xunzi humanity proposed by Yan Shi'an. Yan Shi'an believes that among the 32 articles of "Xunzi", only the "Sexual Evil" article says "human sexual evil", declaring that lust is evil, and opposing lust to etiquette, while the other articles are more about affirming lust. "Sexual Evil" expresses that there are two basic views of human nature evil: one is that people are born with lust, and lust is negative and dangerous; second, it is necessary to correct human nature with etiquette and righteousness, so that people can be good. "Sexual Evil" is not mentioned in any of the articles other than "Sexual Evil", but there are statements close to the above views (Yan Shi'an: "Xunzi's Concept of Human Nature Is Not "Sexual Evil""", Historical Research, No. 6, 2013). He believes that Xunzi's view of human nature mainly has two views, one is that on the issue of character formation, nature is not important, and acquired behavior plays a decisive role; second, on the issue of etiquette, righteousness, politics, and religion, people take "born with desires" as the basis of the concept of human nature. Defining human nature with lust and affirming lust positively shows Xunzi's extraordinary insight. "Sexual Evil" is a late partial door in Xunxue and does not represent the original view of Xunxue. This article was not written by Xun Zi himself, but was written by later scholars to fight for the influence of Xun Xue (Yan Shi'an, "Affirming Lust: The Significance of Xunzi's View of Human Nature in the History of Confucianism", Journal of Nanjing University, No. 1, 2015).

The seventh is the Xunzi sexual disgusting good theory. Tang Duanzheng believes that the title of the "Sexual Evil" section is "the nature of man is evil, and the good is also false", and "sexual evil" and "good and false" are what "Sexual Evil" wants to prove at the same time, but throughout the "Xunzi" book, what it can prove and wants to prove is not sexual evil but good and false. Therefore, rather than saying that Xunzi is a sexual evil theorist, it is better to say that he is a good and hypocrite or a sexual no good and no evil (Tang Duanzheng: "The Knowledge Problem Demonstrated by Xunzi's Good and False Theory", Chinese Scholars, No. 6, 1977). Mainland Taiwan scholar Chen Lizhang believes that in the proposition of "human nature is evil, and its good is also false", "human nature evil" is not dominant, but only used to set off "its good and false", and Xunzi only uses the fact that natural human nature tends to "evil" to highlight "goodness" (Chen Lizhang: "Xunzi Human Nature Theory and Its Practice Research", Institute of Chinese Literature, National Taiwan Normal University, 2008 doctoral dissertation). On the basis of the above viewpoints, Liang Tao put forward the theory of xunzi sexual disgust and goodness, holding that Xunzi's "human nature evil" is mainly implemented in "good profit", "disease and evil", and "good voice", these are evil causes or evil ends, cruelty, fornication, and rape are evil consequences, "human nature evil" can be understood as sexual evil ends can be evil theory, Xunzi's so-called sex is not without evil; "good is false", and good comes from the actions of the heart. The so-called goodness of the heart actually means that the mind tends to be good and can know the good. "Sexual Evil" reveals two forces in life: the downward fallen force represented by "sex", the upward ascension force represented by "heart", and the investigation of human nature through the confrontation of good and evil, which actually puts forward the theory of sexual disgust and goodness, which is the idea repeatedly expressed in "Sexual Evil" "Human Nature Is Evil, and Its Good is False" (Liang Tao: "Xunzi Human Nature Theory Corrects- On Xunzi's Sexual Evil and Mental Goodness", Philosophical Research, No. 5, 2015).

In summary, there is much controversy in the academic circles about the basic content of Xunzi's theory of human nature, and most scholars believe that human nature is evil and not all its contents. The final solution to this difficult problem needs to be explored by researchers.

(This article is the phased result of the 2016 Hebei Provincial Social Science Foundation "Xunzi Thought on Governing the Country and Governing the Government on Contemporary China" (HB16ZX001)) (Author Affilications: Xunzi College, Handan University)

Lü Miaojun, "Seven Interpretations of Xunzi's Theory of Human Nature," China Social Science Daily, February 6, 2017, 4th edition.