Life and Deeds
Manner and Attitudes
Style and Methods
Content and Topics
Theory-Practice Correlation
Influence on Followers
This chapter has been published in the book CONFUCIUS AND SOCRATES Teaching Wisdom. For ordering information, please click here.
Having examined the details of the lives and educational work of Confucius and Socrates, let us now summarize the main points of each chapter and examine the similarities and differences between them.
Both Confucius and Socrates lived in cultures where hereditary
privilege was the main factor in social status. Neither of them
was extremely high-born, but they certainly were not peasants
either. Confucius as one of the many lower aristocrats was just
high enough where he would be considered as a possible official
in the government, but not high enough so that he was automatically
given a position. Due to his economic circumstances he spent some
time working with his hands and in business. Socrates was a citizen,
but neither was he related to a ruling family. He probably worked
as a stone-mason; he fought in battle not as an officer, but as
a citizen soldier. Both apparently received an education as they
became very familiar with the literature and music of their cultures.
It is doubtful they could have become the educators they did,
if they had not been born in circumstances where they could be
educated. Neither one seemed to have an especially significant
teacher, but they both related to an ideal pattern, sometimes
exemplified by the ancients. Their admiration for the classical
writings of their cultures and their extensive knowledge of them
indicates deep and prolonged study. Confucius spent some time
playing music, and Socrates set some fables to music while in
prison due to guidance from a dream.
Their not having been in the highest class probably was a major
factor in preventing an active and powerful political life. Socrates
intentionally stayed out of politics due to his spiritual guidance,
but did become an advisor and teacher to some who did engage in
political leadership. Similarly Confucius although he tried to
become politically effective, served mainly as an advisor and
educator of politicians. However, his efforts in this area did
make Confucius more involved in government than Socrates' incidental
services as a citizen.
Both men were attracted to the human culture of city life, although
Confucius did travel around, while Socrates did not. They both
were most interested in relating with people. We know very little
about the younger years of either of them, but by middle age they
each had attracted a group of students around them. Socrates claims
he never accepted money; but either he must have accepted minimal
gifts to live on or he had an independent income, because he spent
all his days in conversation. Confucius accepted gifts and had
a group of regular students, but there is no indication that he
used his teaching to become wealthy. In fact both of them were
open to discussing ideas with any one who bothered to come to
them. Both of them appeared to be inexhaustible in their efforts
to pursue wisdom; there is no record of anyone outlasting them
in this persistence.
Perhaps the key event in both their lives was when they realized
their divine mission. Confucius said he was fifty when he knew
the will of Heaven. Socrates does not say when the Delphic oracle
made its famous pronouncement which stimulated his quest for a
wise man, but it is likely that it was in his forties. In both
cases, most of what we know about these two men occurred after
this turning point in their lives. This sense of their mission
and divine-appointed destiny must have strengthened their purpose
considerably. Because of this relationship with the divine or
a higher power, neither of them seemed to have any fear of death
or anything else. Neither Confucius nor Socrates would do something
they considered to be unjust even if they were being intimidated
by threats. Their actions were strictly regulated by their rational
or intuitive evaluation of what was right. Confucius died a natural
death at seventy-two, while Socrates was martyred at seventy,
but both accepted death calmly.
Confucius was polite, cordial, and deferential. His humility
was sincere, and most people seemed to get along with him rather
easily. He was friendly and had a good sense of humor. Socrates
also was friendly and perhaps even more humorous. However, his
attitude of modesty was perceived as being ironic by most people
who probably felt the power of his ego even though he tried to
be self-effacing. Confucius made courtesy a fine art in his respect
for human beings, whereas Socrates was only able to temper his
straightforwardness by means of the irony. Neither one claimed
to be wise.
Although Confucius was temperate and self-disciplined, Socrates
took these qualities farther into a more ascetic life-style. However,
they both loved relating with people and delighted in company.
They both were very open to all types of people and expressed
a deep concern for individuals and for humanity.
It would be hard to find anyone who loved to learn more than Confucius
and Socrates. They turned every situation in which they found
themselves into an exploration of some topic. Their perseverance
in pursing wisdom and education seemed continual and enduring.
They were always open to questions and examined any idea which
would arise; they did not allow any belief which they may have
had to dogmatically block them from considering another idea.
Along with this openness, they were also scrupulously honest in
presenting their own ideas. They certainly were not afraid of
speaking their criticisms to others.
Although they both were cheerful and friendly, they were remarkably
unemotional. Neither one of them allowed himself to become a victim
of fear or anger or jealousy or resentment. Somehow, perhaps due
to their philosophic minds, they were able to handle criticism,
threats, mockery, and abuse with such understanding that they
were not perturbed by it at all. Their attitudes remained remarkably
positive. Even though they were often judged to be failures by
the world, neither one of them ever was known to become depressed
or unhappy. There always seemed to be a joy and enthusiasm with
Confucius and an even-temperedness with Socrates. Even when criticizing
what they did not like, their attitudes seemed to remain neutral.
Although they both were humanistic in their concern to help people
improve themselves, they both based their purpose on faith in
a higher power. This even takes on a mystical quality as they
felt that their work was fulfilling the will of Heaven in the
case of Confucius, and serving God in the case of Socrates. Their
sense of divine mission gave them each an inner strength which
was unshakable. They both also believed in various ways of communicating
with the divine or higher intelligence. Confucius used the oracle
of Changes, and Socrates based his mission on the oracle of Apollo.
Both felt they gained useful communication from their dreams,
and they were aware of natural portents. Socrates related very
closely with the other world and the legendary heroes, while Confucius
based his cultural ideals on the ancient pattern and especially
the Duke of Zhou. Socrates' guiding spirit was a communication
developed to a rather unique level, but they both believed in
the power and importance of prayer. The reason why neither one
claimed to be wise probably was because they both knew the divine
wisdom was far greater than theirs.
Neither one cared much for pretense as each one was offered a
better suit of clothes to die in by one of their disciples, but
they both politely refused to change their life-style at that
point. Neither of them was afraid of death, as they both peacefully
accepted it.
Both Confucius and Socrates taught rather informally and used
primarily a conversational method. They both were open to listening
to anyone, but often they would advise the person to seek out
someone with more expertise in a particular area such as farming
or gardening.
Socrates often began with a prayer for divine guidance and occasionally
found himself inspired. Confucius was willing to accept anyone
who purified himself before he came to him.
Confucius expected his students to make some effort if he was
to help them. Socrates usually only required that they answer
his questions. Naturally both of them were more enthusiastic when
dealing with those who were more intelligent. They both encouraged
everyone to learn and work on improving themselves and presented
various reasons and arguments to exhort them in this direction.
Both Confucius and Socrates maintained an atmosphere of friendship
and even camaraderie. Their cheerfulness, enthusiasm, and humor
gave the discussions a positive feeling that was uplifting. They
demonstrated not only intellectual subtlety but also sensitivity
toward the feelings of others. They both were good listeners.
It was natural that they would individualize their instruction,
since rarely if ever did they have a large group. Many of their
conversations with a single person were counseling sessions on
personal problems or specific goals of the person. Often Confucius
and Socrates were not concerned with formulating a universal truth
but rather were attempting to help a person find an answer which
was suitable to him. Different personalities called for different
approaches. Socrates with his method of questioning was particularly
successful at drawing out people and revealing to them their particular
internal contradictions or weaknesses which needed correction
or improvement. Confucius often would merely point it out directly;
however, he would usually do it in a way which would stimulate
the positive direction. Neither one was afraid to be candid in
his criticism.
Confucius would often enlighten his students by his answers to
their questions. Occasionally he would stimulate their thinking
by asking open-ended questions so they could discuss with each
other various individuals' answers. Socrates, on the other hand,
rarely asked open-ended questions, and unless requested to do
so did not really prefer to have to answer questions put to him.
His chief method, of course, was to ask a series of questions
in such as way as to thoroughly test the person's knowledge of
the subject. In this way he did not have to preach or lecture,
but could examine the person's awareness itself. This gave the
answerer freedom of choice and enabled him to be active rather
than passive in the discussion, although it is not as free and
active as open-ended questioning. Yet Socrates could work very
specifically on clarifying the person's responses. This philosophical
midwifery was designed to assist the person in bringing forth
their own understanding and knowledge. If their understanding
was not clear and organized in their mind, this process of testing
would reveal the errors to them. In the refutation and dialectical
methods Socrates surpasses Confucius in his ability to reason.
Confucius seemed to rely almost exclusively on his intuition.
However, most of his intuitions were so perceptive that they proved
to be accurate and workable for many people.
Neither Confucius nor Socrates were poets, but they both used
metaphors and analogies as pedagogical tools to make their points
more understandable. Confucius would use the imagery of Nature,
and he often quoted from the classical poems or referred to legend
and history. Confucius and Socrates were similar in that they
both used these metaphors and examples primarily to elucidate
a moral or ethical point. For them poetry and literature were
important as stimulation toward a virtuous life. Socrates often
used examples from everyday life to show his listener the simplicity
of his meaning in a way he could easily understand. Again Socrates
seems to have gone beyond Confucius in the elaborate allegories
he told to illustrate higher levels of meaning and experience.
He also showed complex relationships by means of analogy and ratios
or proportions. They both mentioned incidents from history or
legend in order to illustrate a point, often in relation to politics.
Although Confucius was concerned about the correct use of language
and he did work on defining certain terms, Socrates took the quest
for clear definitions into a more comprehensive examination. Occasionally
Confucius would ask someone to clarify his meaning, but usually
he was giving his own intuitive understanding of the concepts
his students were asking about. Confucius was very concerned that
communication be honest and that one's actions match one's words.
Confucius was not interested in mere verbal education but actual
self-improvement. However, he did recognize the possible misuses
of language, and therefore was very concerned that words were
used correctly.
Socrates was also wary of sophistical games, and was continually
attempting to clarify what a person meant by a certain word. His
pursuit of the meaning of abstract ideas has been considered one
of his main contributions to philosophy. The purpose of his dialectical
method was to come to some agreement on the essential principles
of life. Socrates attempted to gain these understandings by asking
the appropriate questions. Confucius, after studying and pondering,
would present his intuitive understandings in proverbial sayings
which his disciples could contemplate upon and use as guides for
conduct.
Confucius and Socrates relied on others to provide the traditional
education which involved reading and writing, music, and physical
training or sports. Confucius placed emphasis on studying the
classical literature, whereas Socrates probably did not need to
since the educated were probably expected to know Homer and other
poets and myths. Part of Confucius' work may have been to edit
the classics and make them available to more people. Socrates
knew the poetry and myths of his culture, but used them as references
rather than as subjects for their own sake. Confucius, however,
loved to study the odes with his students, although, like Socrates,
he did emphasize their moral lessons. Socrates found that poetry
was more related to inspiration than to wisdom, and according
to Plato he was especially concerned about the moral influence
of this imitative art. Both of them considered it important to
classify the different types of music and their effect.
Although Confucius and Socrates prepared many men for politics
which required the ability to speak well, they both were wary
of clever talk and the art of rhetoric. Rather their main concern
was that their disciples have a good understanding of justice
as the single most important factor of political life. Much of
their time and energy was spent in the study of right and wrong
and what constitutes the good society. They both observed and
utilized the analogy between the family and state in describing
rulership and human relations. Both stressed the value and importance
of ideals and portrayed the ideal state in the midst of various
prevailing governments which were far from perfect. They criticized
their unjust practices and diagnosed their problems. Socrates
seemed to go into more detail in delineating the different types
of government.
Confucius taught propriety which is perhaps a more socially-oriented
equivalent of temperance and self-control. For Confucius the rules
of propriety were the social controls for the proper behavior
of a gentleman. They maintained the social graces and guaranteed
appropriate refinement in manners and conduct. For Socrates and
the Greeks personal behavior was focused more on the individual
as his own responsibility of self-discipline and did not extend
so strongly into the social milieu. The rules of propriety were
designed to bring harmony in relationships, while temperance is
concerned with the harmony within the individual. In the negative,
the difference might be between shame and guilt. In both cases,
desires and pleasures were the things to watch out for, and Confucius
and Socrates cautioned their disciples and encouraged them to
seek wisdom along with the more refined pleasures.
Religion was serious and important to both Confucius and Socrates.
Yet as humanists neither wasted his time discussing the supernatural
or speculative if it did not have some practical value. They were
more concerned with understanding human beings
and how we can improve ourselves than in attempting to understand
the nature of the universe. Although they both recognized and
obeyed a transcendental reality, their concern was for man. How
could people practice the Way of piety or holiness? They believed
that by study and investigation they could discover how to act
so as to serve Heaven or the gods. Yet they also were aware that
some questions were beyond man's reasoning abilities, and in these
cases they recommended consulting the divine through oracles,
portents, or other rituals. They realized that there is a higher
intelligence than human wisdom.
The main idea of education for both Confucius and Socrates was
virtue and self-improvement. Here we begin to find even more of
a remarkable similarity in the teachings of these two men. What
is the true function or excellence of a man, and how can he develop
this quality? Confucius, like Socrates, knew that the human tendency
was to love beauty more than virtue, but they both endeavored
to show that by becoming more virtuous, everything in a person's
life could improve. In fact virtue is the way to happiness, even
if few follow it. Socrates believed that it is due to ignorance
of what is really good for a person, because everyone does what
they believe is good. Confucius likewise took an educational approach
to lead people toward the good life. Both men pointed out the
errors and suffering caused by various vices, and showed how acting
virtuously leads to success.
The specific virtues they discussed are again amazingly similar.
A traditional virtue in both cultures was courage, but it was
only a necessary part of virtue and had to be tempered to avoid
rashness. However, the courage to do the right thing is indispensable
to the good life.
The key virtue which could be developed through learning is wisdom.
Both particularly emphasized self-knowledge as the most significant.
This included knowing what one knows and knowing what one does
not know. This higher recognition enables one to use his knowledge
correctly and avoid mistakes in the areas of his ignorance. As
educators these two men constantly focused the attention of people
on themselves so they could turn inward and examine their own
character, concepts, goals, methods, attitudes, etc. After having
looked at these things with their assistance, Confucius and Socrates
would often suggest ways they could improve themselves.
For Confucius and Socrates learning and wisdom were what integrated
and related the other virtues and areas of study into a coherent
whole. Wisdom gained through learning and investigation or recognized
intuitively is the guide for all action along with the good.
For Confucius human-heartedness or goodness is a personal quality
innate within each person but rarely realized in its full potential.
Goodness is the correct loving relationship between people, and
the source of the virtues and all values. For Socrates love is
the energy which moves us toward the good which is the divine
reality and center of the spiritual world. The proper human relationship
is friendship, and the good is the transcendental reality which
is the source of the ideals and what should be our guide in every
action. Both men lived and taught in a spirit of friendliness
and continually focused their energy on the good in each situation.
They first worked on improving themselves and then worked to assist
others toward a better life.
In addition to setting a personal example they also discussed
the ideal person or gentleman and what his characteristics are
so that their disciples would have an abstract model to follow.
This way they could strive for the ideal in their own way without
trying to copy the personalities of their teachers. The gentleman
or superior man of Confucius and the gentleman or good and beautiful
man of Socrates both had tremendous impact in changing their culture's
values from the nobility of birth to the nobility of good character.
Above all, the gentleman is ethical and fair to everyone. He is
friendly and always maintains a dignified courtesy toward people.
He exemplifies the virtues although he may not yet be a divine
sage or philosopher king. These higher ideals discussed by Confucius
and Socrates could not be found in their societies, but are presented
as a goal and future hope for mankind.
In his discussions of the immortality of the soul and its journeys
to the other worlds Socrates goes beyond the knowledge we have
of Confucius. The transcendental teachings of Chinese culture
were brought forward more by the Daoists than by Confucius. Socrates
appears to demonstrate more of an ability than Confucius did in
uniting the human with the divine.
Although both Confucius and Socrates used the discussion method,
they both were very conscientious about acting according to their
ideas. This is most noticeable in their concern for justice. Confucius
would not serve in a government that was not fair to the people
even though he seemed rather ambitious for political position
and power. As an ethical teacher he did not allow himself to engage
in actions which he believed were not right. Socrates knew intuitively
that it would be far too dangerous for him to bring his ethical
standards into the realm of politics in his time. He did not choose
to throw his life away in attempting immediate political reform.
Even in living a private life, he showed integrity and justice
in his occasional dealings with the state, and he did end up sacrificing
his life for the sake of justice. Both men were able to accept
lack of recognition and even ridicule, exemplifying that they
did not need others' approval to validate their own wisdom. They
demonstrated exceptional equanimity.
Confucius continually emphasized that wisdom consists of both
knowledge and action. They could discuss what was wise, but it
is the actions of the person which demonstrated whether he is
actually wise or not. For Socrates also true knowledge or wisdom
or virtue was verified by deeds; the person who does not act correctly
does not truly know what is right. Only in this strong sense that
knowledge is also right action does Socrates mean that virtue
is knowledge.
Neither Confucius nor Socrates left any major writings like
so many other philosophers have done, but like Buddha and Jesus,
they had devoted disciples who passed along their message. The
teachings of Confucius became not only the dominant philosophy
of China but its major religion as well. Somehow the disciples
managed to write down the conversations and keep the different
schools and tendencies among the disciples unified.
In Socrates' case, his open and non-dogmatic style and his emphasis
on what the other person thought rather than on his own ideas
led to several individual disciples going their separate ways.
The result was several prominent schools with the most influential
being the Platonic philosophy. Although the various schools were
called Socratic, Socrates became the stimulator rather than the
founder of a great philosophy.
Many of the students of Confucius and Socrates became active in
politics and had some degree of success. However, in both cases
some of the activities of their former students were not quite
as they had hoped they would be. As these examples indicate, their
ability to transform their listeners into men of virtue was far
from perfect. There is evidence though that many men were able
to improve themselves to some degree under the influence of Confucius'
and Socrates' education.
Now let us see what our exposure to these two men might be able
to do for us.
Having described the life and teachings of Confucius and Socrates
and summarized their similarities, let us now see if we can analyze
and explain this process of pursuing wisdom and the good life
through learning so as to account for what they did and what others
might be able to do as well.
The goal of the educator is for others to learn. Therefore it
may be more useful and simpler to begin by focusing on the learner
rather than on the teacher. For the most part the students or
listeners of Confucius and Socrates were grown men. Although some
were youths, we are primarily concerned here with higher education
or adult learning. Thus the problems of children and compulsory
education are beyond the limitations of this discussion. The students
and followers of Confucius and Socrates freely chose to listen
to them; even those who just happened to find themselves encountering
these men still had the choice to disregard what they heard. Confucius
expected his students to be motivated enough to make effort. However,
motivations varied; some sought a higher salary more than they
sought wisdom. Socrates also had to contend with ambition as a
motivation.
How did they attract the learners' attention toward wisdom and
the good life? One way is through personal example or modeling.
By diligently seeking wisdom themselves Confucius and Socrates
stimulated others who observed them to emulate their quest. However,
this does not explain why the learner should follow them, except
that he intuits it will be successful or he merely desires to
be like this person. Although these are not rational grounds,
this probably does occur.
How did they use reasoning? Confucius and Socrates both used conversation,
which is still available today and can even be broadcast on radio
or television. There are many other methods such as literature,
art, drama, group processes, etc. Certainly conversation or dialectic
is not the only method, but it is the one we are dealing with
here. How does conversation motivate the learner to pursue wisdom?
Both Confucius and Socrates encouraged others to search for wisdom
and goodness by means of exhortations. The exhortation is designed
to communicate to the learner that virtue or wisdom or goodness
are worth pursuing. They might demonstrate to an ambitious Alcibiades
or Zilu that the proper education is a means whereby they would
be able to achieve their goals. Whatever the goal might be, whether
to win a lover, end a quarrel, command an army, or become a minister
in the government, they would emphasize that virtue, justice,
and self-control or propriety were what was needed to attain it
in a successful way. By reasoning, or question and answer step
by step, or by mentioning the process and its consequences aphoristically,
the exhortation is a technique of transmuting values.
What does transmuting values mean? The most abstract or greatest
value is the good or goodness. As Socrates believed, everyone
does what he thinks or feels or believes to be good; no one intentionally
does evil, for such would be a contradiction of human motivation.
The pragmatic verification of this is simply that whatever a person
consciously does indicates what that person believed was good.
Of course, many actions are judged by others or even by the same
person later as having been bad in that they might have been better.
This difference of opinion implies a difference in what was valued
in the situation, and it may or may not imply a greater awareness.
For Socrates, knowledge of what is virtuous or truly good is accompanied
by the corresponding action, or it is not knowledge at all. Knowledge
does not err, and not to do what is good would be an error. Therefore
to know what is good and not do it is a contradiction. The implication
is that the good life depends on knowledge. If knowledge of the
good, which might be called wisdom, is attained, then the actions
will be good also.
The educational question then is: How can we learn to know the
good? Confucius substantially agrees. His concept jen can mean
goodness or humanity of human-heartedness, and coupled with wisdom
seems to be the goal of his educational pursuits. For Confucius
this is the true essence of what it means to be human in the best
way. Although he seems to believe that it is an innate quality,
the manifestation of it is rare indeed. In Xenophon, Socrates
describes the good as what is useful or helpful in any situation,
and in Plato it is an absolute essence which lights the intelligible
world, the guide for all action.
Everyone has their opinion of what is good in each situation,
but people often choose lesser goods due to their ignorance of
a greater good. What techniques can be used to lead people into
a greater awareness of what is truly good? One method is through
divine inspiration. God or Heaven is usually defined as certainly
knowing the good, if not in fact being the good. In the transcendental
approach which usually bypasses the reason, the attempt is to
align the individual will with the divine will or the order of
Heaven. Confucius refers to the sage who follows the Way intuitively.
Again this is a rare case, but Confucius himself felt that he
had attained the mandate of Heaven. Socrates also in his mission
sought to obey the will of God. In the Meno when they are
not able to find any rational teachers of virtue, he suggests
that people may be virtuous due to divine inspiration. However,
for Socrates such inspiration did not imply knowledge but merely
right opinion. Socrates held that knowledge or wisdom also includes
the ability to defend one's ideas through reasoning. Thus the
transcendental method was not sufficient for Socrates. Although
inspiration is one approach, it seems that it must be verified
either by reasoning or by pragmatic results in order not to confuse
it with religious fraud or self-deception.
We turn now to the main focus of both these teachers, and that
is self-knowledge. Since it is the people who act, and people
who reap the results of their actions, if they could know themselves
as active beings, half the problem might be solved. The other
half would involve knowledge of others and the world with which
we interact. What is the self? Socrates uses the term "soul"
(psyche) by which he often comes close to the meaning of consciousness,
except that it also includes being. For Socrates the soul has
the divine attributes of intelligence and immortality and can
live in other worlds beyond the physical body. When in the divine
realms the soul has knowledge of the good and other essences,
but when it comes into the body it forgets these things until
they are reawakened through experience. Such a theory is difficult
for many people, because it deals with the transcendental and
invisible realities. Although it may seem weird, it does explain
the phenomena of consciousness which is active, alive, vitalizing,
and most important here, which can learn. Obviously dead bodies
do not learn. Confucius also believed in the invisible spirits
who had been in the bodies of the ancestors. What does this have
to do with self-knowledge? Essentially it means that both these
men recognized or believed in man as a spiritual being that transcends
the life of the body. Are these doctrines necessary to the pursuit
of wisdom and the good life? Maybe not, but they do explain how
man's nature is related to the spiritual nature of the divine,
why man has the ability to learn, and why wisdom and ethics are
important beyond the consequences of a single lifetime. Again
these spiritual aspects may not be necessary for someone to become
wiser, and there is no way to prove them (or disprove them) except
to indicate that they do explain the phenomena.
In regard to social relations Confucius and Socrates discussed
the ideal person or gentleman and his qualities. Here we find
a more useful intermediary between divine perfection and the various
opinions of the learners. Here reason can be used to show how
virtuous actions lead to good results. Virtues such as courage
and self-control or propriety can be investigated or described
as guideline values which may be superior to the desires, ambitions,
emotions, and notions of the learners. Confucius would explain
to this students how virtuous actions bring success and happiness
for everyone. He could back this up and make it clearer by referring
to poetry or history or current events. By general discussion
various views of people present could be compared to see which
were better. This process uses both reasoning and intuition, and
requires some thought by the listener.
Socrates also investigated the virtues, but usually did it in
such a way as to uncover the opinions of the other person in order
to show him their limitations and contradictions. Reasoning is
used extensively and intuition could be helpful in calling forth
answers. Whereas Confucius tended to present the answer, Socrates
usually only stimulated others to think to find the answer themselves.
This difference in emphasis may be why the teachings of Confucius
became a dogmatic and traditional religion, while Socrates stimulated
various schools of philosophy or seekers of wisdom.
In either case the purpose is to transmute the values of the person
to a higher level: to show the ambitious, aspiring politician
that justice for all is better for everyone including him than
personal power without wisdom; to demonstrate that wisdom is more
helpful in finding happiness than the gratification of desires
and pleasure. Although some pleasures seem better because they
are more immediate, in the overall situation there may be a wiser
course of action which will result in less pain. In examining
one's personal life, self-control of desires becomes a key virtue.
In social relationships justice and the principles of propriety
are what will work best in the long run for everybody. Thus the
wider more universal understanding is shared with the learners
by the various methods so they can gain the perspective to see
these things in their own lives. If they can recognize the value
of the virtue, then they can apply it and improve the quality
of their lives.
Let us examine more closely what is meant here by virtue and how
it relates to the good, learning, and the specific virtues. We
are using virtue here in the broad meaning of its ancient usage
rather than in the Christian sense of chastity or of the theological
virtues such as faith, hope, and charity. Confucius' word teh
translated as virtue could mean spiritual power or moral force,
and Socrates' concept of arete meant excellence. In both
cases the implication is of the human ability to do or be good,
or to function in the best way. Although the definition that virtue
is the ability to attain what is good seems to have been refuted
by Socrates in the Meno, his argument can be shown to be fallacious.
His argument that a man may attain a good thing by unjust means
assumes that the man's opinion of what is good is correct, and
it neglects to recognize that an unjust action is not good. (See
"What Socrates Taught" note 67.) Thus virtue can be
understood as what enables one to live the good life. Vice, its
opposite, is not good, but is usually defined as evil. Also it
is generally recognized that the virtuous person leads a good
life. Let us assume these common definitions and see if we can
discover the necessary and sufficient conditions of virtue which
lead to the good life.
Let us examine wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, and piety
(holiness), which were discussed explicitly by Socrates and implicitly
by Confucius. Wisdom in relation to virtue was often used broadly
to imply that whoever was wise would also be virtuous, because
he would know how to be just, temperate, courageous, and pious.
Wisdom also includes self-knowledge, for without self-knowledge
one makes mistakes, but the wise certainly do not make mistakes.
Therefore the wise know themselves, and to become wise it is necessary
to learn about ourselves. However, a mere intellectual knowledge
of ourselves may not be sufficient to the complete wisdom. If
we take wisdom in this larger sense, then we must analyze the
parts played by justice, temperance, courage, and piety. If each
of these are necessary conditions for virtue, and if they are
different, then the lack of any of them will not be sufficient
for wisdom or virtue. What are they, and how are they each necessary?
Courage is what enables us to do what we know is right, for the
failure to do what we know is right is cowardice, its opposite.
Wisdom and courage have a close relationship. Courage is doing
what is good, and wisdom is knowing what is good and knowing to
do it. Thus courage depends on wisdom as its guide, but it is
also a necessary part of wisdom and virtue. Without courage wisdom
and virtue would be ineffective and hypocritical. However, wisdom
and virtue are effective and do have integrity, because courage
is a necessary part of them.
Temperance is controlling one's own desires, appetites, and passions
so as to handle oneself in the best way. Whereas courage enable
us to act, temperance is the ability to restrain ourselves. Knowledge
of our passions and indulgences is helpful but not sufficient
for virtue or for complete wisdom. We must also know how to control
and discipline negative traits and also actually do it. Thus temperance
also has a close relationship with wisdom and virtue, and is a
necessary part of them.
Justice simply means what is right or fair, but how is this decided?
For Confucius it was the golden rule of not doing to others what
you do not wish them to do to you. Justice was to be practiced
according to the rules of propriety. For Socrates it is following
the laws or covenants of the society and also the divine or universal
laws. Both referred to the punishments and recompense for injustice.
Justice involves social relations and principles which may have
been ordained by God and which are agreed upon by people. However,
laws that are not universally agreed upon as being good for the
whole society may not be just. Injustice usually involves some
injury to another person. Punishment and reward imply that somehow
actions are balanced in terms of good and evil. The just person
therefore does not harm people, and justice itself maintains the
balance even if it means punishment. Although punishment may seem
like hurt, Socrates explains that it is better for the soul to
receive correction; it is ultimately more harmful for the soul
not to receive the needed punishment. Socially justice is essential
for the good life and therefore is essential to wisdom and virtue.
Again wisdom is necessary in order to know what is right.
Piety or holiness is the virtue of having a good relationship
with God or spiritual things. For Confucius it meant the proper
worship of the spirits including the ancestors and the proper
human relationships. Socrates looked at holiness (in Xenophon)
as obeying the laws of God as justice is obeying the laws of man.
For those who believe in God or a higher reality, holiness is
a necessary part of wisdom and virtue for the good life in this
world and the next, because it keeps man in the proper relationship
with the divine. It may also bring the inspiration helpful to
wisdom and a knowledge of what is good. If the divine laws and
principles are good, the person who understands them may have
the best guidelines for the good life. For the atheist and agnostic,
holiness may not seem to be necessary to wisdom or virtue and
the good life on earth at all. A person may still be courageous,
temperate, just, and even wise in this world without pursuing
piety. However, it might be argued that such a person is following
divine law and is pious without knowing it; he is only lacking
the understanding of the divine connection. From this viewpoint
holiness is helpful and necessary to complete wisdom and to the
good life which extends beyond this physical world.
Thus we have analyzed the necessary conditions of wisdom and virtue
which lead to the good life. Is there a difference between wisdom
and virtue? Virtue is a general term which usually includes wisdom,
while wisdom more specifically implies knowledge. Yet we have
seen a close relationship between wisdom and the other virtues
which enable the one who knows what is good to do it. Courage,
temperance, and justice are definitely necessary to virtue, and
wisdom is not only necessary to virtue but it is necessary to
courage, temperance, and justice. Thus we might say that wisdom
is the key to all of virtue. This is especially significant, because
wisdom is the virtue closest and most accessible to learning,
since it deals with knowledge.
Learning concerns not only knowledge but opinions as well. The
purpose of this type of education is somehow to teach or awaken
in the student the knowledge of what is good and the awareness
that he ought to practice it as well. This process of enlightenment
changes opinions to knowledge and what we called transmuting values
from selfish and limited notions to universal and beneficial truths.
This is what Confucius and Socrates were attempting to do. Confucius
primarily used a positive and intuitive approach as he tried to
get his students to see and recognize the value of these truths.
Socrates usually employed a negative and reasoning method as he
would refute all of their false opinions and stimulate them to
think about the truth of these essential concepts with the underlying
assumption that the soul would be able to recognize them once
the errors they had been holding to were pointed out.
Neither Confucius nor Socrates were completely successful in the
process. Therefore it is clear that their methods were not sufficient
to attain the good life. They probably are not even necessary,
for some may be born and grow up to naturally demonstrate these
abilities or virtues. Yet they both had some degree of success
as indicated by the lasting influence they had on their respective
cultures. It is impossible to measure the subtle improvements
in the lives of millions who have been exposed to their teachings.
If we can recognize that wisdom and virtue lead to the good life,
and since everyone desires the good life, then whatever methods
which are successful in the pursuit of wisdom may be helpful to
us. Although many of the techniques and ideas of Socrates and
Confucius may seem simple and commonplace, teachers and students
of wisdom may not be practicing them as well as we might. There
is no reason why the conversational method cannot be applied today
with the help of these guidelines either formally or informally.
It is to stimulate and encourage this pursuit of wisdom that this
comprehensive study of the lives and teachings of Confucius and
Socrates has been written.
What have we learned about educating for wisdom? What did Confucius
and Socrates do which has not only given them a reputation as
two of the wisest men but also as great educators? What principles
and techniques stand out which we could apply today?
The first thing that really stands out is their tremendous love
of learning and their continual and life-long efforts to improve
themselves. If we truly desire to become wiser, and perhaps in
addition to assist others in this process, then we must be open
to learning as much as we can from everyone with whom we interact.
Our purpose in each situation ought to be to learn from the experience.
It is obvious that we can only help others to the extent of our
own wisdom. Therefore our first goal ought to be to learn to be
as wise as we can. This requires desire or love of learning, effort,
persistence, endurance, patience, etc.
Also wisdom for Confucius and Socrates meant goodness, correct
human relations, friendship, justice, self-control, and propriety.
Thus our attitude toward other people and how we treat them is
very important. Love of learning in the greater sense is not mere
mental exercise but practice in good living, practice in human
association, practice in self-discipline, practice in self-examination.
We must know ourselves, and to do that we must look at our faults
and weaknesses and negative tendencies. Once we begin to see these,
then we can work on correcting them. As we observe our own actions
and make effort to improve their quality as beneficial, then we
refine out many of the unneeded attributes and develop our positive
characteristics. As Confucius and Socrates advised, we notice
that the company we keep is a significant factor in our personal
growth. By associating with other people who are working on improving
themselves we can gain more insights not only about ourselves
but about people in general. Confucius said that wisdom is to
know people, and goodness is to love people. Through loving relationships
we can practice and experience being beneficial to each other.
We can also use the guidelines which Confucius and Socrates independently
discovered. The foremost guideline in every action is the good
which as a spiritual reality can be the focus of our attention.
The intuitive perception of what is good in any situation so it
can be acted on is the goal of the philosopher and the sage. In
the development of human personality the virtues give us valuable
reference points for character. Are we disciplining our lower
desires and pleasures so that our actions will be more beneficial?
Are we acting courageously based upon our higher values? Is this
action just and fair to everyone? Is it wise and beneficial? Another
key is to focus our attention on the divine or Heavenly Way of
doing things; this can give us insight into how we can serve the
greater good of all.
Now, assuming that we are practicing these things and making some
progress, what can we do to stimulate others in the pursuit of
wisdom and the good life? Of course, our personal example will
probably speak loudest, but what else? We can be open and loving
with people to facilitate communication. We can pursue the quest
for wisdom together and inquire into the nature of the good life.
We can test and question each other in order to reveal where our
knowledge is well-founded and where we are still ignorant or confused.
We can study the lessons of history and literature and of current
events and how these may apply to our own lives. As we gain more
self-knowledge we will probably become more aware of the life
of our immediate community and how that can be improved. Eventually
we can look at the problems of society as a whole; and if our
own personal lives are working well, we can consider what contributions
we could offer in whatever area of responsibility we choose. Human
life on this earth is not nearly as happy and fulfilling as it
could be - individually and collectively. Therefore whatever efforts
we make to improve ourselves and society would certainly be worthwhile.
Chan, Wing-tsit A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy.
Creel, H. G. Confucius: The Man and the Myth.
Do-Dinh, Pierre Confucius and Chinese Humanism.
Hsu, Cho-yun Ancient China in Transition.
Hughes, E. R. The Great Learning & The Mean-In-Action.
Legge, James Confucius: Confucian Analects, The Great Learning
and the Doctrine of the Mean.
Lin Yutang, The Wisdom of Confucius
Mote, Frederick W. Intellectual Foundations of China.
Pound, Ezra Confucius: The Unwobbling Pivot, The Great Digest,
The Analects.
Waley, Arthur, The Analects of Confucius.
Ware, James R. The Sayings of Confucius.
Wilhelm, Richard Confucius and Confucianism.
Wilhelm, Richard and Baynes, Cary F. The I Ching or Book of
Changes.
Aristophanes The Clouds tr. Benjamin Bickley Rogers.
Aristotle Metaphysics tr. W. D. Ross.
Aristotle Nicomachaean Ethics tr. W. D. Ross.
Aristotle Politics tr. Benjamin Jowett.
Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosophers in two
volumes tr. R. D. Hicks.
Field, G. C. Plato and His Contemporaries.
Guthrie, W. K. C. Socrates.
Jaeger, Werner Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture.
Plato, The Collected Dialogues of ed. Edith Hamilton and
Huntington Cairns.
Plato, The Dialogues of tr. Benjamin Jowett.
Plato in twelve volumes Loeb Classical Library.
Plutarch "On the Sign of Socrates" tr. Phillip H. De
Lacy and Benedict Einarson.
Strauss, Leo Xenophon's Socrates.
Strauss, Leo Xenophon's Socratic Discourse: An Interpretation
of the Oeconomicus.
Taylor, A. E. Socrates: The Man and His Thought.
Vlastos, Gregory (ed.) The Philosophy of Socrates: A Collection
of Critical Essays.
Xenophon Memorabilia and Oeconomicus tr. E. C. Marchant;
Symposium and Apology tr. O. J. Todd.
Zeller, E. Socrates and the Socratic Schools.
This chapter has been published in the book CONFUCIUS AND SOCRATES Teaching Wisdom. For ordering information, please click here.
CONFUCIUS
|
AND SOCRATES:
|
Confucius, Mencius and Xun-zi
Socrates, Xenophon, and Plato