Ma Jun

Abstract： Martin Bubers relational philosophy has a lot in common with Confuciuss ren learning. Approaching Confuciuss ren with relational philosophy sheds light on the long-obscured relational structure of human Dasein. Confuciuss ren learning has three dimensions： “self–self，” “self–other，” and “self–Heaven and Earth.” The three dimensions are balanced and form an organic whole， a complete system determining the meaning and values of the human qua human. Over two thousand years， Confucian philosophy developed along these three dimensions. Zhu Xi was the first synthesizer to push ren learning to new heights in ancient China. Chen Lais ontology of ren represents a new development in ren learning by modern scholars.

Keywords： Martin Buber， Confuciuss ren learning， relational philosophy， ontology of ren， three dimensions in one

Martin Buber （1878–1965） was a famous German–Jewish philosopher. He is often regarded as a forerunner of existentialism and one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century. Buber is best known for his relational philosophy， romantic theology， and philosophy of dialogue. His thought has a lot in common with Confuciuss ren 仁， which has been variously translated as benevolence， humanity， and human-heartedness. These similarities have drawn researchers attention， but no serious study into this subject has yet appeared.

Martin Bubers Relational Ontology [Refer to page 34 for Chinese. Similarly hereinafter]

Martin Bubers philosophy finds its most concentrated expression in Ich und Du [I and Thou]. In this book， Buber proposes a relational ontology which is theological and in contradistinction to the Western metaphysical tradition. According to Buber， that which assumes the ontological status is neither material nor spiritual， neither a subject nor an object; what assumes the ontological status is the relation between subject and object. He distinguishes between two primary， almost primordial， words， namely “I–It” and “I–Thou，” which mean respectively the I–It relation and the I–Thou relation. These two kinds of relations disclose two fundamental ways of the subject relating to the object， the I–It relation establishing “the world of experience” （the world to be used） and the I–Thou relation establishing “the world of relation” （the world to be met）. “I–It” is a typical subject-centered relation， and “I–Thou” is more authentic and fundamental.

The brilliance of Bubers philosophy lies in breaking the conventional thought pattern of subject–object dichotomy， replacing entity， a concept originating from Aristotle， with relation， and breaking through the Western metaphysical tradition that ever since Descartes has been characterized by the subject–object dichotomy. Buber contends that the subject established by Descartess “Cogito ergo sum” （I think， therefore I am） is an illusion， and that the existence of the self is actually dependent on the interaction and mutual influence between “I” and “Thou，” so compared with the “cogito，” this relation is of primary importance.

Buber regards the I–Thou relation as the most basic mode of existence， thus humanizing inanimate objects and holding a position similar to Chinese philosophy. For this reason， Zhang Shiying 張世英 asserted that the I–Thou relation is essentially “an intersubjective attitude of love and reciprocity， or， to borrow the words of Chinese philosophy， an attitude of ‘treating all people as my brothers and all things as my kind.” In short， the important implication Bubers philosophy has for Confuciuss ren learning is that human Dasein is relational. This relational structure opens up opportunities for constructive dialogue between Buber and Confucianism. In fact， Confuciuss ren learning approaches people and the world from the perspective of relationality.

The Three Dimensions of Confuciuss Ren Learning [36]

Ren is at the core of Confuciuss thought. Confuciuss ren learning includes three dimensions： “self–self，” “self–other，” and “self–Heaven and Earth.” Self–self addresses the relation between humanity and itself， self–other addresses the relation between the self and others， and self–Heaven and Earth addresses the relation between humanity and the cosmos.

The ‘Self–Self Dimension [36]

The self–self dimension of ren concerns the question of the human mind， or rather that of the human body and mind. In this respect， Confuciuss discussions of ren chiefly revolve around four categories： feeling， will， value， and moral praxis.

First， ren is rooted in feeling， and includes peoples real feelings and emotions. Confucius says， “What does a person devoid of ren have to do with ritual propriety？ What does a person devoid of ren have to do with music？” （Analects， 3：3）. Sacrificial ceremonies， rites and music are formal processes on the surface; however， the foundation of these institutions is humanitys inner feelings. According to Confucius， without humanitys real moral feelings， the processes of rites and music are formalized and hence meaningless. As an emotion， ren is， in essence， love， specifically love toward others instead of oneself and love manifested in the daily functioning of human relations. In this connection， Confucius instructs， “My young fellows： when at home， be filial， and when going out， be respectful to elders. Be earnest and trustworthy， love the multitude broadly， and seek close association with those who are ren” （1：6）. It can be seen that Confuciuss ren learning always starts from peoples natural feelings and harmonizes with the ethical rules of society， constituting a unity of internal feelings and external ethics. So from the very beginning， ren is related to the living conditions of human Dasein; it is not merely an abstract concept formulated by reason.

Second， ren inherently entails the human will. Concerning this point， there are three implications. To begin with， ren arises from the human will. Confucius says， “I want to be ren， and there comes ren” （7：30）. A persons wanting to be ren is a prerequisite for the coming of ren， so it can be said that ren is motivated by a desire， by the human will. Confucius also says， “Having aspired after ren， you will be free from mean conduct” （4：4）. If people truly aspire after ren， they can eliminate evil in themselves. Peoples aspiration or will is still the crux of the matter， so the will is an inherent part of ren. Furthermore， ren is a moral will. As a moral will， ren lays down the emotional basis for making reasonable choices. To stress the will of ren， Confucius says， “The three armies may be deprived of their commander， but even a common man cannot be deprived of his will” （9：26）; “Superior men do not， even for the space of a single meal， go against ren. In moments of haste， they are with it. In times of distress， they are with it” （4：5）. As is demonstrated by the quotes above， ren as a moral will is thorough and absolute， leaving no room for moral relativism. Finally， as a moral will， ren is completely free. Confucius does not speak explicitly of free will， but some of his remarks seem to imply this idea. For example， “To be ren is dependent on oneself. How can it be dependent on others？” （12：1）. An action that is ren is based on a persons free choice， independent of other people and external factors.

Third， ren embodies the value of life. In the view of Confucius， ren results from rational choice and represents the value of life， so it is higher than life. Confucius says， “People with lofty ideals will never seek to live at the expense of ren. Rather， they might sacrifice their lives to accomplish ren” （15：9）. Confucius thinks that as the highest value， ren cannot be compromised. He says，

I have never seen a person who loves ren， or one who loathes the contrary to it. One who loves ren places nothing above it. One who loathes the contrary to it would never let anything contrary to it attach to his person. Is anyone able， for a single day， to make efforts at ren？ I have never seen a person whose strength would be insufficient. There might be such people， but I have yet to see any. （4：6）

As the highest standard of human action， ren is the culmination and condensed form of human reason. For this， it is argued that Confuciuss ren learning，

Turns propriety and rituals from external norms and constraints into internal requirements of humanity， elevates originally rigid rules and regulations into self-conscious ideas of life， and transforms something religious and mysterious into the constancy of human feelings in everyday life， unifying ethical rules and psychological desires into an organic whole.

Although the ren of rational nature is acquired， it plays a very significant role.

Fourth， ren entails praxis. Confucius speaks of many ways to put ren into practice， for example，

Wholehearted devotion and reciprocity. （4：15）

When positioning yourself， be respectful; when conducting business， be reverent; in treating others， be wholeheartedly devoted. （13：19）

To aspire after the Way， hold firm to virtue， lean upon ren， and wander in the arts. （7：6）

Remarks like these are many in the Analects， and they can be summarized into one phrase： “restrain oneself and return to ritual propriety.” When it comes to Neo-Confucianism， the praxis of ren means gongfu， or spending time and effort in cultivating oneself. The commitment to gongfu not only paves the way to achieving ren but also constitutes the goal of ren in and of itself. With ones gongfu， there comes a higher sphere of life. Confucius does not speak explicitly of this higher life， but merely refers to a “joy of Confucius and Yan Hui.” Confucius says， “With only coarse food to eat， plain water to drink， and my bended arms for a pillow， joy can be found in the midst of these. Wealth and prestige acquired in inappropriate ways are no more than floating clouds to me” （7：16）. This Confucian joy originally only meant being contented with poverty and finding joy in the Way， but with the Neo-Confucian interpretation， it was usually understood as a lofty spiritual plane. In sum， ren is not merely some abstract value above peoples quotidian existence; it is attainable by their constant self-cultivation in performing common tasks. Understood from the perspective of gongfu， an important function of ren is to unite the physical and the metaphysical realms. In the Western philosophical tradition， the physical and the metaphysical are usually separated; Chinese philosophy however strives for their fusion， as in the claim that “it is not divorced from daily regular activity， yet it goes directly to that which was before the heavens.” The unique perspective of gongfu is what allows Chinese philosophy to be both physical and metaphysical.

The ‘Self–Other Dimension [38]

The self–other dimension of ren mainly deals with the relation between self and others， and between human beings and society. Confucius approached this issue mainly from the perspective of social morality. According to Confucius， ren is the general principle addressing all kinds of social relations. Ethically， ren means loving people， as in， “A benevolent （ren） man loves people” （Mencius， 4B：28）， and “love the multitude broadly， and seek close association with those who are ren” （Analects， 1：6）. A sense of responsibility for oneself naturally leads to a sense of responsibility for others. Confucius believed that all kinds of social norms conforming to ren can be developed from the principle of loving people; therefore， the ideal society is one of love and benevolence. It should be noted that Confuciuss love was graded love， which is different from the Neo-Confucian love that regarded “the myriad things as one body.” In the society envisioned by Confucius， people love each other and live together harmoniously. Human society is a community within which members， though vastly different from each other， are interconnected and have a shared future. In addition， Confucius applied the principle of ren to his political theory. However， he mainly talked about ren in terms of inner sageliness; as for outer kingliness， Confucius talked a lot about dezheng 德政 or virtuous government， but did not propose the concept of renzheng 仁政 or benevolent government.

The ‘Self–Heaven and Earth Dimension [38]

The “self–Heaven and Earth” dimension of ren mainly deals with the relation between humanity and nature， or between humanity and the cosmos. This part is often viewed as the Confucian ontology and cosmology. Ontologically， ren as the substance pertains to the question of “inherent nature and the Way of Heaven” in Confucian philosophy. Although Confucius was the first to speak of the philosophy of mind and inherent nature， his remarks are few. There is only one sentence directly related to the topic， which says： “By nature， humans are similar; through habitual conduct， they diverge widely” （17：2）， words that are open to various interpretations. Confuciuss disciple Zigong 子貢 （520–456 BCE） said， “The Masters manifestation of culture is something that may be heard. His discourses about the inherent nature [of human beings or things] and the Way of Heaven， however， are things that cannot be heard” （5：13）. Although Confuciuss words on inherent nature and the Way of Heaven are meager and fragmentary， they point to the metaphysical realm in Confucianism. It was on this basis that later generations of Confucians gave ren an ontological development. In Neo-Confucianism， the Way of ren means not only ethical guidance for the individual as well as groups of individuals， but also the fundamental principle ensuring that all things go smoothly in the world. It is both the basic moral law and the life-giving principle of transformation and nourishment. Neo-Confucians generally believed that there is a certain consistency between the Way of Heaven and human nature. That is， human nature is uplifted to become a kind of moral reason that is also the Way of Heaven; conversely， the Way of Heaven descends to become part of human nature before being manifested in human conduct as the Way of humanity. In this regard， Guo Qiyong 郭齐勇 said，

First， there is development in the self–self dimension. Confuciuss approach to ren in terms of feeling has been inherited and expanded. In this respect， Mencius played a crucial role， with his “feeling of commiseration” or “mind that cannot bear to see the suffering of others” as the basic principle of human nature. Pre-Qin Confucianism not only granted legitimacy to peoples natural feelings， but also established feelings as the foundation for the transcendence of humanity and all kinds of rational laws and regulations. However， later Confucianism did not follow this approach. In the Song and Ming dynasties， Neo-Confucianism advocated “preserving heavenly principle and extinguishing human desires，” with human feeling utterly marginalized in morality. Undoubtedly， this led to a brutal suppression of innate human characteristics. Unreasonable as it was as a solution， this sadistic tendency did not last long， and the suppressed emotions fervently sought an outlet. It was superseded by Wang Yangmings 王阳明 （1472–1528） followers （especially the Taizhou school）， who advocated the liberation of human nature and promoted human feeling to unparalleled heights of importance. In modern times， Chinese philosophers have attached more importance to feelings. Both Kang Youwei 康有为 （1858–1927） and Tan Sitong 谭嗣同 （1865–1898） spoke highly of feelings， while Li Zehou 李泽厚 was the first to make emotion the ontological substance in his philosophy.

Second， the self–other dimension developed chiefly along the lines of ethics and politics. The development in ethics has been more significant than that in politics. Mencius and Xunzi combined the moral ideal of ren with Confuciuss ideas of loving people and rule by virtue. They proposed theories of benevolent government， people as the basis， and the kingly Way， laying the foundation for Confucian political theory and advancing Confuciuss ren learning along the path of outer kingliness. After Mencius and Xunzi， there were few breakthroughs. In the New Culture Movement （1919）， Confucianism was denounced and rejected， and after that Contemporary New Confucians reflected critically upon the decline of Confucianism and put forward insightful theories such as the “self-negation of moral knowing，” “Confucian socialism，” “Confucian constitution，” and the “all-under-Heaven system，” thus enhancing the development of this dimension.

Third， the self–Heaven and Earth dimension of ren developed from universal values， through the moral subject， to the substance of the cosmos. Zhang Zai 張载 （1020–1077） in his Western Inscription [西铭] said， “What fills the space between Heaven and Earth， I consider as my body; what directs Heaven and Earth， I consider as my inherent nature. All people are my brothers and sisters， and all creatures are my companions.” Here， Mozis thought of universal love is incorporated into the Confucian ren， and the previous notion of graded love is replaced by the highest form of thought that “ren means regarding Heaven， Earth， and the myriad things as one body.” Thus the person who is ren lives on a lofty plane is equal with Heaven and Earth， and assists in the transformation and nourishment of the world. Cheng Hao 程颢 （1032–1085） was the first to speak of ren as substance， and to clarify the way to realize ren through sincerity and reverence. His theory that “ren means becoming an integral whole with things” established the unity of all things as the core metaphysical proposition in Confucianism. Zhu Xi 朱熹 （1130–1200） interpreted ren as the creation of life， and considered ren to be “the heart of Heaven and Earth in ceaseless creation.” As a consequence， ren became the living， unrestrained， and all-inclusive substance of the cosmos， transcending abstract moral categories and taking on cosmogonic significance， establishing the unique ren learning view of the cosmos： humans and Heaven are one and the same body.

Generally speaking， ren learning found its most important development in Zhu Xi. Since the dawn of the modern age， many scholars have tried to explore the theoretical implications of ren， seeing it as the most important Eastern wisdom to rebuild the cultural tradition， to resolve the loss of value in modernity， and even to resolve the conflicts of civilizations and religions in the world. From Kang Youweis conception of “ren-substance，” Tang Junyis 唐君毅 （1909–1978） idea of “one root，” Mou Zhongjians 牟钟鑒 new ren learning， to Chen Lais 陈来 recent ontology of ren learning， the concept of ren has become central to the construction of Chinese philosophy in modern times. In particular， Chen Lai has traced the development of ren learning， and constructed an ontology of ren learning， a philosophical system including cosmology， ontology， ethics and other fields， thereby giving ren learning a mature and complete form.

Bibliography of Cited Translations

Ni， Peimin， trans. Understanding the Analects of Confucius： A New Translation of Lunyu with Annotations. Albany： State University of New York Press， 2017.

Translated by Hou Jian