Mozi's moral teachings emphasized introspection, self-reflection, and authenticity, rather than obedience to rituals. He observed that people often learned about the world through adversity.[7] By reflecting on one's own successes and failures, one attains true self-knowledge rather than mere conformity to ritual.[8] Mozi exhorted people to lead a life of asceticism and self-restraint, renouncing both material and spiritual extravagance.
Like Confucius, Mozi idealized the Xia dynasty and the ancients of Chinese mythology, but he also criticized the Confucian belief that modern life should be patterned on the ways of the ancients. Mozi argued that what is thought of as "ancient" was actually innovative in its time, and thus should not be used to hinder present-day innovation.[9] Though Mozi did not believe that history necessarily progresses, as did Han Fei Zi, he shared the latter's critique of fate (命, mìng). Mozi believed that people were capable of changing their circumstances and directing their own lives, which could be achieved by applying one's senses to observing the world, as well as judging objects and events by their causes, functions, and historical bases.[10] This was the "three-prong method" Mozi recommended for testing the truth or falsehood of statements. His students later expanded upon this theory to form the School of Names.
Mozi tried to replace what he considered to be the long-entrenched Chinese ideal of strong attachments to family and clan structures with the concept of "impartial caring" or "universal love" (兼愛, jiān ài). He argued directly against Confucians, who had philosophized that it was natural and correct for people to care about different people in different degrees. Mozi, in contrast, argued that people in principle should care for all people equally, a notion that philosophers in other schools found absurd, as they interpreted this notion as implying no special amount of care or duty towards one's parents and family.
Overlooked by those critics, however, was a passage in the chapter on "Self-Cultivation" which stated, "When people near-by are not befriended, there is no use endeavoring to attract those at a distance."[11] This point was also precisely articulated by a Mohist in a debate with Mencius (in the Mengzi), where the Mohist argued, in relation to carrying out universal love, that "we begin with what is near." Also, in the first chapter in the Mozi on the topic of universal love, Mozi argued that the best way of being filial to one's parents is to be filial to the parents of others. The foundational principle was therefore that benevolence, as well as malevolence, is requited, and that one would be treated by others as one treats others. Mozi quoted a popular passage from the Book of Odes to bring home this point: "When one throws to me a peach, I return to him a plum." One's parents will be treated by others as one treats the parents of others. Mozi also differentiated between "intention" and "actuality", thereby placing a central importance on the will to love, even though in practice it might very well be impossible to bring benefit to everyone.
In addition, Mozi argued that benevolence comes to human beings "as naturally as fire turns upward or water turns downward", provided that persons in positions of authority illustrate benevolence in their own lives. In differentiating between the ideas of "universal" (jian) and "differential" (bie), Mozi said that "universal" originated from righteousness while "differential" entailed human effort.
Mozi also held a belief in the power of ghosts and spirits, although he is often thought to have only worshipped them pragmatically. In fact, in his discussion on ghosts and spirits, he remarked that, even if they did not exist, communal gatherings for the sake of making sacrificial offering would play a role in strengthening social bonds. Furthermore, for Mozi the will of Heaven (天, tiān) was that people should love one another, and that mutual love by all would bring benefit to all. Therefore, it was in everyone's interest that they would love others "as they love themselves". According to Mozi, Heaven should be respected because failing to do so would subject one to punishment. For Mozi, Heaven was not the "amoral", mystical nature of the Daoists; rather, it was a benevolent, moral force that rewarded good and punished evil. Similar in some ways to the beliefs systems found in the Abrahamic religions, Mozi believed that all living things lived in a realm ruled by Heaven, and Heaven possessed a will which was independent from, and higher than, the will of people. Thus Mozi wrote that "Universal love is the Way of Heaven", since "Heaven nourishes and sustains all life without regard to status."[12] Mozi's ideal of government, which advocated a meritocracy based on talent rather than background, also followed his idea of Heaven.
Mozi opposed the Confucian idea of "Destiny",[13] promoting instead an idea of "anti-fatalism" (非命). Where the Confucian philosophy held that a person's life, death, wealth, poverty, and social status were entirely dependent upon destiny and therefore could not be changed, Mozi argued that hard work and virtuous acts could change one's position in life.
The crazy part? Mo Zi is credited as the founder of the Mo Pai school of Nei Gong (which I’ve posted about a fair bit, mostly over in c/HumanPotential - for anyone interested check the video stickied to the top of that page)
Mozi tried to replace what he considered to be the long-entrenched Chinese ideal of strong attachments to family and clan structures with the concept of "impartial caring" or "universal love" (兼愛, jiān ài). He argued directly against Confucians, who had philosophized that it was natural and correct for people to care about different people in different degrees.
Overlooked by those critics, however, was a passage in the chapter on "Self-Cultivation" which stated, "When people near-by are not befriended, there is no use endeavoring to attract those at a distance."[11] This point was also precisely articulated by a Mohist in a debate with Mencius (in the Mengzi), where the Mohist argued, in relation to carrying out universal love, that "we begin with what is near." …. Mozi also differentiated between "intention" and "actuality", thereby placing a central importance on the will to love, even though in practice it might very well be impossible to bring benefit to everyone.
Yeah, I read that, so basically it isn't even internally self-consistent.
Clearly, the people nearby should be befriended first and if there is a conflict the people nearby take priority. There is a hierarchy of who to care about.
So how do you square that with the idea of loving everyone equally? You still slaughter them and despoil their lands but, what, feel bad about it later?
did not believe that history necessarily progresses
To believe implies storing what process necessitates...resisting the temptation to hold onto.
Others suggest "history" to tempt ones "belief" to hold onto it.
Mozi's moral teachings emphasized introspection, self-reflection, and authenticity, rather than obedience to rituals + Mo Zi is credited as the founder of...
Taking the credit/creed/belief of others to be a founder contradicts introspection, self-reflection, and authenticity.
Taking the credit/creed/belief of others to be a founder contradicts introspection, self-reflection, and authenticity.
True, and wise - to clarify my thoughts, I see Mo Zi and the school(s) he established as exemplars of the innate process(es) available to everyone (or, perhaps just every man, there is logic pointing in both directions). While these processes are available to every-one, rare are the ones who follow the path steadfastly. These are the Christs, the Buddhas, the Immortals (though a more accurate name is perhaps “those who choose the time of their death”), they have been known by as many names as there have been congregations of humans. In fact, a few years ago i came across a new name which I believe finds its source in this vein, a very interesting name indeed, u/free-will-of-choice
Often, and increasingly so as the congregation grows, people come to mistake the teacher for the lesson they came to teach. I think that’s one of the main impediments to our forward momentum vis a vis this subject
Innate implies potential born (nasci) within (in) process, hence inception towards death procession giving potential life to "each" one.
One process for each potential within aka one cause for each effect within aka one action for each reaction within etc.
Others make pluralism available to distract one from singularity, and thereby self discernment aka "introspection, self-reflection, and authenticity".
there is logic pointing in both directions
Logic implies circular thinking aka two sides pointing at each other (conflict of reason). Direction aka directed by action implies linear progression.
Only within linear can circular be shaped...logic tempts one to hold onto the shape.
"One way or another...I'm gonna get you". One way implies the natural way aka one direction (inception towards death) for each one (life) within. The other (circular logic) is where I'm (suggestion) gonna get ya (consent).
processes are available
Only within singularity can plurality be made available to each separated unit by few suggesting many to join together.
rare are the ones who follow the path
a) What's rarer than being one within all? Simultaneously...what's more common than being one among one another within all?
Self discernment implies rare; common consensus diminishes that rarity.
b) If there's only one path (inception towards death) for each one (life) within, then following it implies what? If others suggest plurality and one follows many different path within the confines of circular logic, then what does that imply?
Following the path like a hamster in a wheel...
those who choose the time of their death
Aka wasting potential (life) by taking measurements, while ignoring that only process gives (inception) and takes (death).
Taking implies giving self up...giving implies tempting others to take. The narrow path...letting go of what was given, while resisting the temptation to take.
congregations of humans
a) Human aka hue of man implies color aka spectrum of light separating each ray within from one another.
Only within animation (animal) can a hue of man (human) bring differences to each beings sight.
b) Con (together) gregare (to collect)...one can only artificially collect together what nature separates apart.
as the congregation grows
Procession (inception towards death) grows division of potential (life)...congregation grows indigestion within potential.
to mistake the teacher for the lesson
Taking implies missing given. Teaching implies responding to given while learning, and vice versa. Lesson/less/loss cannot be taken without giving up growth.
impediments to our forward momentum
Forward momentum (inception towards death) forwards matter (life)...impediment implies mentally ignoring physical momentum. "Our" implies collective consciousness tempting singular mind to take possession during a given process.
Impeding ones mind doesn't prevent ones body from being moved forwards.
one of the main
One (perception) of the main (perceivable)...any suggestion is minor to it. Ones consent to any suggestion impedes ones mind with the suggested into becoming one of the minor aka those who under-stand.
what literature do we have for a solid moral/spiritual doctrine prechristianity?
Mo Zi (aka Mo Tzu, ala Lao Tzu or Sun Tzu) was a pre-Christian chinaman with quite a revolutionary philosophy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozi
Here’s the wiki overview:
The crazy part? Mo Zi is credited as the founder of the Mo Pai school of Nei Gong (which I’ve posted about a fair bit, mostly over in c/HumanPotential - for anyone interested check the video stickied to the top of that page)
Hard pass
u/redkrab also (responding to both comments here)
can you give me your interpretation of it?
Yeah, I read that, so basically it isn't even internally self-consistent.
Clearly, the people nearby should be befriended first and if there is a conflict the people nearby take priority. There is a hierarchy of who to care about.
So how do you square that with the idea of loving everyone equally? You still slaughter them and despoil their lands but, what, feel bad about it later?
very very cool.
i agree in parts. i see that his phylosophy would only work in a homogenous society for starters.
this universal love thing is almost impossible when we have meltings pots instead of natural communities
To believe implies storing what process necessitates...resisting the temptation to hold onto.
Others suggest "history" to tempt ones "belief" to hold onto it.
Taking the credit/creed/belief of others to be a founder contradicts introspection, self-reflection, and authenticity.
True, and wise - to clarify my thoughts, I see Mo Zi and the school(s) he established as exemplars of the innate process(es) available to everyone (or, perhaps just every man, there is logic pointing in both directions). While these processes are available to every-one, rare are the ones who follow the path steadfastly. These are the Christs, the Buddhas, the Immortals (though a more accurate name is perhaps “those who choose the time of their death”), they have been known by as many names as there have been congregations of humans. In fact, a few years ago i came across a new name which I believe finds its source in this vein, a very interesting name indeed, u/free-will-of-choice
Often, and increasingly so as the congregation grows, people come to mistake the teacher for the lesson they came to teach. I think that’s one of the main impediments to our forward momentum vis a vis this subject
Innate implies potential born (nasci) within (in) process, hence inception towards death procession giving potential life to "each" one.
One process for each potential within aka one cause for each effect within aka one action for each reaction within etc.
Others make pluralism available to distract one from singularity, and thereby self discernment aka "introspection, self-reflection, and authenticity".
Logic implies circular thinking aka two sides pointing at each other (conflict of reason). Direction aka directed by action implies linear progression.
Only within linear can circular be shaped...logic tempts one to hold onto the shape.
Here's a modern sleight of hand for it... https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/onedirection/onewayoranotherteenagekicks.html
"One way or another...I'm gonna get you". One way implies the natural way aka one direction (inception towards death) for each one (life) within. The other (circular logic) is where I'm (suggestion) gonna get ya (consent).
Only within singularity can plurality be made available to each separated unit by few suggesting many to join together.
a) What's rarer than being one within all? Simultaneously...what's more common than being one among one another within all?
Self discernment implies rare; common consensus diminishes that rarity.
b) If there's only one path (inception towards death) for each one (life) within, then following it implies what? If others suggest plurality and one follows many different path within the confines of circular logic, then what does that imply?
Following the path like a hamster in a wheel...
Aka wasting potential (life) by taking measurements, while ignoring that only process gives (inception) and takes (death).
Taking implies giving self up...giving implies tempting others to take. The narrow path...letting go of what was given, while resisting the temptation to take.
a) Human aka hue of man implies color aka spectrum of light separating each ray within from one another.
Only within animation (animal) can a hue of man (human) bring differences to each beings sight.
b) Con (together) gregare (to collect)...one can only artificially collect together what nature separates apart.
Procession (inception towards death) grows division of potential (life)...congregation grows indigestion within potential.
Taking implies missing given. Teaching implies responding to given while learning, and vice versa. Lesson/less/loss cannot be taken without giving up growth.
Forward momentum (inception towards death) forwards matter (life)...impediment implies mentally ignoring physical momentum. "Our" implies collective consciousness tempting singular mind to take possession during a given process.
Impeding ones mind doesn't prevent ones body from being moved forwards.
One (perception) of the main (perceivable)...any suggestion is minor to it. Ones consent to any suggestion impedes ones mind with the suggested into becoming one of the minor aka those who under-stand.