In response to UINC’s question.
Questions in ethics and morality are very difficult to discuss. As Teacher Cheng said, many great philosophers only expressed opinions on ethical questions in the later period of their academic lives, when their entire philosophical systems had reached maturity. For the likes of us, insignificant nobodies, it is even less realistic to expect to have anything like definite views on ethical questions very early on—especially since many questions are never something one can gain deep insight into while still young. Young people will always be confused; if one is not confused at all, that in itself is abnormal. Confucius said that at thirty he stood firm, at forty he had no doubts, at fifty he knew the Mandate of Heaven, at sixty his ear was obedient, and at seventy he could follow his heart’s desire without overstepping the bounds—that is the realm of a sage. If we ordinary mortals imagine that at twenty-something we can already be free of confusion and distress, or even hope that when doing good we never hesitate (which is Confucius’s seventy-year-old state), then we are truly ignorant of the immensity of the world and our own insignificance! So my first reply to UINC is this: your confusion or distress is perfectly natural, and I am no better off than you. If there is no confusion and no distress, that can only mean one lacks reflection on life.
Conversely, if some youngster puts on an air of seeing through ethics and morality completely, then I have reason to judge him immature, for a very simple and very domineering reason—he is not old enough! Because ethics and morality are not merely words on a page; even if it is the same sentence, what it means when spoken by a carefree young person and what it means when spoken by an old person weathered by the vicissitudes of life may be completely different.
The maturity of one’s moral outlook is related to age. Of course, this is by no means to say that the elderly are necessarily more mature than the young. Some people’s lives are monotonous and repetitive, and they are too lazy to reflect, knowing only how to drift along in a dazed, half-understood way; in that case, even if they live a few dozen years longer, they may not become all that mature.
If one were to say that value systems can be ranked as high and low, then it would be a distinction between maturity and immaturity. To put it simply, if the amount of pondering and reflection is the same, then the person with more life experience is certainly “higher”; if the amount of life experience is similar, then the person who thinks and reflects more is “higher.” That is roughly how it works.
However, the distinction between “high” and “low” in value systems is not the same as the distinction between “right” and “wrong,” “correct” and “erroneous.” If the standard for judging whether an action is right or wrong is precisely the value system itself, then what is the standard for judging whether a value system is right or wrong? This question is actually impossible to make clear. UINC did not explicitly ask this question, so I shall temporarily avoid it. According to my pluralism, value systems can be high or low, noble or base, but not right or wrong. The meaning of the high-low distinction is this: those above have the right to look down from above; immature youth should listen to the teachings of their elders with humility and respect. When we say “one should revere,” we do not mean “one should obey”; likewise, when I say one should be free and self-disciplined, I do not mean one should not revere. This issue is the same when discussing the question of “revering nature,” so I shall not dwell on it here.
The distinction between noble and base may be more or less the same as the distinction between high and low, but there may also be some difference. The distinction between noble and base is originally already a question involving value systems. In hierarchical social cultures, “noble,” aristocracy, of course, means excellent. But in an age of common people, an age when grassroots culture has risen and become mainstream, the distinction between noble and base often not only has nothing to do with morality, but sometimes the more “base” the better; notions like aristocracy and elite instead become pejorative. As for me personally, I do not like this age of the common people. Aristocracy as a social system is indeed long out of date, but I still aspire to be an “aristocrat” in thought and culture, and I admire those “cultural aristocrats” who keep their distance from vulgar trends. If one were to say that value systems have a distinction between noble and base, then the value systems of those who champion so-called “base culture” are unquestionably “base.” This is not a reproach of them; it is they themselves who like being “base,” and I can do nothing about that.
The distinctions of high and low, noble and base, are not distinctions of right and wrong, but even if one cannot distinguish right from wrong, one can still distinguish whether a value system “exists” at all and whether it is internally coherent. Some people merely exist like animals, knowing only how to seek survival and pleasure, and are too lazy to reflect; in their hearts there may not be anything called a “value system” at all. Of course, their actions are often also guided by some sort of value system, but that value system does not belong to them; it is the “default configuration” of the age and society. Of course, it is also hard to say that “default configuration” is necessarily wrong. But if one has never examined it, if one has no idea what sort of value system governs oneself, then such a life, as Socrates said, is not worth living.
The question of whether a value system is “internally coherent” can again be divided into several levels. First is the systemic nature of the value system itself: one does not need to demand great logical rigor, but at the very least there should not be too many self-contradictory places. Second is the consistency of the value system with other ideas—for example, its compatibility with one’s worldview. This is actually extremely difficult to achieve, especially under a mechanistic picture of the world, where it is hard to place “meaning” properly. Then perhaps even more important is the consistency between words and deeds, between what is in the heart and what is on the tongue; in this respect it is even harder to achieve perfection. But if one cannot achieve absolute consistency between heart and mouth, between words and deeds, does that mean one is not qualified to speak about morality? Such talk is ridiculous! I once wrote “better to be a hypocrite than a true villain,” expressing a related view.
Of course, as for the word “value” itself, I do not like it. I mentioned this in both of my previous ethics-themed assignments, and may discuss it again in the future; for now I shall not say more. The words I prefer are virtue, nobility, and so on. This brings us to UINC’s second question; let us discuss that in a few days.
April 18, 2007, 11:22 a.m.
Latest Comments
- unic
2007-04-20 15:41:08 Anonymous 222.82.226.29
This made me think of another question I’ve long wanted to ask. How can you prove the validity of thinking itself?
Because I think all your views only hold on the premise that thinking itself is valid, or rather meaningful.
Looking forward to your answer to the third question. Because that may get closer to what I truly want to know.
I’ll think carefully about what you said.
Many thanks.
Don’t rush; you’re busy, so we can talk later when you have time.
I’ll phrase the questions more specifically in the future, so it’ll be easier for you to answer. - Gu Chu
2007-04-20 16:53:11
Why does one need to prove “the validity of thinking itself”? It seems this question first requires thinking… Whatever the answer may be, without thinking, I know nothing. Without thinking, we can neither assert that thinking is meaningful nor claim that thinking is meaningless. Even if my final conclusion is that thinking is utterly meaningless, that conclusion itself is reached through thinking. Whether thinking has meaning is not really a question at all; the fact is, thinking is the precondition for questions of meaning.
A person who utterly rejects thinking is of course an “unreasonable” person—but this is not a reproach. He himself rejects being “reasoned with,” and I can do nothing about that. I do not need to try to argue him into the meaning of thinking at all, because for him “argument” is itself meaningless. Why would I waste so many words? Of course, I might try to enlighten him, to persuade him, to move him with profound and captivating thought, but I would never try to reason him into agreement or talk him into being convinced. That is neither necessary nor possible.
Thoroughgoing nihilism (or thoroughgoing skepticism, anti-rationalism) is unrefutable. If anyone thinks it can be refuted, I can even provide a defense for nihilism. I have always advocated that thinkers should choose their opponents wisely, and not waste their spirit struggling in self-imposed quagmires with opponents they cannot possibly defeat.
Validity and meaning are questions on different levels. The question of validity presupposes meaning. For example, when we say A is valid, what is definitely meant is that A is valid for helping us promote or obtain B, that with A we can better realize B, and so on. What counts as a good effect—that is the question of meaning. If nothing is meaningful, then there can be no talk of validity.
I’ll have to find some time to reread the article for the third question. Back then I muddled through Chinese class and can’t remember clearly; I haven’t found the electronic version for the moment, and the internet is full of lesson plans… - Gu Chu
2007-04-20 17:14:11
There’s no need to make the questions more detailed, actually. The key is that you might as well clarify what kind of questions they are. First, questions directed at my views that you don’t understand or disagree with, where you point out the problem; second, specific questions you yourself are confused about; third, topics or themes you are interested in and want me to talk about; fourth, you write out your own thoughts and let me comment.
I understood your previous few questions as the third kind: you raised a few “topics” for me, and my response was simply to elaborate around those topics. - Gu Chu
2007-04-20 23:15:12
Let me add a bit more:
Any discussion or debate needs to be premised on some degree of “common language.” If one side persuades the other, then we can be sure that they already had some of the most basic points of agreement in common. If two sides stand from the outset in completely different paradigms, with no common basis at all, there can be no result. Just as a match must have some commonly recognized rules in order to determine a winner, there must be some premises that already exist before the game begins. Of course, during the course of the game, the rules may keep being modified (these are all metaphors Wittgenstein used), but there is no such thing as a game without rules.
If thinking, argument, and debate are all certain kinds of “games,” then there are always some game rules. These game rules are the preconditions for the game to unfold, and why these preconditions hold cannot be argued for from within the players’ own game activity.
Why do we say, “The unexamined life is not worth living”? Because if there is no scrutiny, thinking, and reflection on life, how are we to know what “worth” means? If you are indifferent to the question of what is worth living for, then of course you will not care whether others say your life is worth living or not worth living. If you want to say that your life is worth living, then you must tell us what exactly “worth” means, and without thinking, one knows nothing at all about that. - Yi Wu
2007-04-22 02:34:21
I’ll come back to look at this article from time to time. Many thanks to you.
The content and the threads of thought… alas, how should I put it… maybe I should just forget it? Or keep thinking?
I have a newer post. - Gu Chu
2007-04-22 10:28:07
I just wrote this article casually, so there’s no need to take it too seriously. If you have questions, bring them up quickly. If you don’t express them, the problems sink deeper and deeper into your head, tangled more and more chaotically, until in the end you think yourself into a state from which there is no escape—that wouldn’t be good.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply