Mohism

Context

Jack Qiu:

“The following discussion demonstrates that within classic Chinese philosophy there are divergent civilizational roots opposing Confucianism; that new critical thinking and radical praxis can germinate from these roots unconstrained by paternalism or authoritarianism. Foremost among these implications is the capacity of alternative Chinese paradigms like Mohism to illuminate pathways towards digital futures that are more egalitarian, peaceful, and sustainable — an antidote to digital capitalism as well as actually existing socialism. Chinese rulers and intelligentsia have consigned Mohism to oblivion for more than two millennia, making it arguably the most subjugated among Chinese philosophies. Yet, the naming of the Micius satellite makes one wonder: Are these quantum scientists attempting to edify us in the ongoing debate about “the China model”, within the realm of digital media and communication scholarship?”

Discussion

Henry Tam:

Confucius "was not the only moral teacher to have a lasting impact on China, and his ideas did not go unchallenged. For a start, we should take a closer look at Mo Tze (c. 479-399 BC), who studied under Confucian scholars but came to the conclusion that their philosophy was fundamentally flawed. People – and for him, that term denoted the general population, not the privileged few – did not have a better life when they meekly carried out the roles laid down by the powerful: the ruler over the ruled, husbands over wives, fathers over children, masters over servants. On the contrary, lives improved only in so far as people genuinely cared for others as they would wish others to care for them. He explained that, for example, if we wanted other people to help look out for our parents or children when our abilities to do so were limited by circumstances beyond our control, we needed to be ready to offer our support to other people’s parents and children.

Mo Tze’s doctrine of Universal Love was not an idealistic entreaty to give the same care and attention to everyone when no one could afford to stretch one’s time and resources in such a manner, but a pragmatic proposal to promote social solidarity so that together people could be confident of attaining a decent quality of life which would be denied to many if they were left to struggle on their own.

Unlike Confucius who looked exclusively to ancient aristocratic texts he favoured to justify his ideas, Mo Tze maintained that any policy proposition should be subject to three tests. First came the test of past experience. He found that many of the proposals on elaborate rituals championed by the Confucians were not in fact always valued. For example, the people of the earlier age of Hsia recorded favourable accounts of much simpler rites which allowed people to show respect without having to use up scarce resources, especially amongst the poor, on showy ceremony. The second test consisted of current testimony. What people said, regardless of their social background, should be considered in deciding if any proposal was beneficial or not overall. To allow someone to declare any policy or custom as indisputable solely on account of their status would distort the truth. Finally, the third test built in checks from future experience. Even if past records and current testimony suggested that a particular policy or practice would deliver improvements for people, it still would not rule it out from being changed if its impact in the future should prove to be negative. For Mo Tze, policies must be adaptable in the light of their actual consequences.

Within a single generation, Mo Tze’s school had become the main rival to the Confucians. Mohist adherents travelled extensively in China to spread their reform message. The Confucians detested them for suggesting the needs of all should be responded to with equal respect, instead of bowing down to the hierarchical establishment. Leaders of competing states found much to irritate them in the Mohist practice of providing armed protection where necessary to defend the weak from attempted invasions by the strong.

In time, Mo Tze was acknowledged even by his Confucian critics as someone who was honourably dedicated to pursuing the goal of a better life for all. They admired his courage in standing up to princes and their armies, and recognised the potency of his arguments – even if they ultimately disagreed with them. Mo Tze’s teachings have remained alongside Confucianism in Chinese intellectual and political history. Dissuading people from wasting resources so that none would be deprived. Reining in the powerful so the weak would not be at their mercy. Exposing the selfish so that real cooperation could be promoted for the common good. These are Mohist motifs which have been weaved into China’s heritage. To understand China, you need to appreciate Mo Tze’s place in it."

(http://henry-tam.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/in-praise-of-mo-tze.html)

More information

See also: Mozi

* Article: Learning From Mohism:Impartial Concern, Aggressive Pacifism, and Use Value Amid Digital Disorders. ByJack Linchuan Qiu. Unpublished draft , 12 August 2023.

URL = draft

“This article is a selective (re)interpretation of Mohism for colleagues working in digital media, communication, and science and technology studies.”

“Mozi is a long-suppressed philosopher, technologist, and radical pacifist in ancient China.

This article introduces him, his historical context, and his school of thought Mohism, focusing on three key concepts:

(a) jian’ai or impartial concern,

(b) feigong, non-aggression, and

(c) jieyong, moderation in use.

A philosophy of egalitarianism, utilitarianism, and pacifism, Mohism argues against Confucianism, warfare, and waste. It promotes peace, public welfare, and the provision of use value through both argumentation and organized praxis. It sheds new light on the heterogenous civilizational roots of “the Chinese model” as well as alternative views on ethics, social order, and the use of technology, including instruments of digital communication nowadays, within nations and globally. The limitations and implications of Mohism are discussed along with its contemporary relevance for our troubled world amid digital disorders.”

(draft)