Yang Zhu’s a praise of everyday life and condemnation of ‘fame’ (ming 名): The relation of ‘name’ (ming 名) and ‘reality’ (shi 實)

Abstract

As an introduction, the paper examines the authenticity of Yang Zhu’s figure and the Yang Zhu. Speaking about Mozi and Yang Zhu, Mengzi says that their ‘evil doctrines will dupe the people and obstruct humanness [ren 仁] and righteousness [yi 義]’ and that ‘Yang Zhu is “for oneself” [weiwo 為我]’ (Mengzi IIIB14, Van Norden’s translation slightly altered). The Chinese tradition is against Yang Zhu based on this statement. The key term of weiwo 為我 that appears in solely one part of the Mengzi linked with Yang Zhu’s figure is generally labelled in Sinology as ‘egoistic’, ‘selfish’, or ‘hedonistic’—concepts that are not applicable in the examination of Chinese thought. While Yang Zhu showed none of the mentioned characteristics, it was a major novelty in the history of Chinese thought that he ‘discovered the body (shen 身)’ and advocated that man is a person (shen 身) and thus can decide about himself. His teachings are attacked with good reason by both Confucians and Mohists, as well as later by the Legalists, since similarly to Zhuangzi he considered governing the ‘realm below heaven’ superfluous and thus unnecessary, as life is worth living in its everyday-like nature. He held the view that in reality, the sphere of small-community, family life, and everyday life must have priority. For that reason, all Confucian and Mohist benchmarks are basically incorrect in terms of one’s own needs. A central idea/suggestion of the Yang Zhu is to lead a life that one wishes to lead, where life is, as he advocated, irreconcilable with ‘fame’ (ming 名). Concerning the central importance of ‘fame’ for the elite, Yang Zhu’s standpoint strongly opposed that of Confucians as he considered it particularly undesirable.

Based on original sources, I argue that an intellectual current of ‘Yangism’ did not exist and that such interpretations stem from misunderstandings of modern Chinese approaches and European Sinology. In reality, Yang Zhu was a lone thinker of ancient Chinese thought. He opposed both Confucians, grounding their views in the elite and Mohists trying to involve commoners in organising society by criticising both ideological approaches, considering as decisive the basic given features of human life. This ‘model’ of leading one’s life that, unlike other streams of thought, did not produce a systematic teaching could not have had a long-lasting effect on ancient Chinese thought.