"GFJ Commentary" introduces news analyses andopinions in Japan on the relations of Japan with therest of the world, but they do not represent the views ofGFJ as an institution.

June 28, 2016

Can The Path Really Teach About the GoodLife?
By KURANISHI Masako
A few weeks ago, I found an intriguing book review in the Nikkei Shimbun
which introduced The Path: What Chinese Philosophers Can Teach About the Good Life, byProfessor Michael Puett at Harvard University and Christine Gross-Loh. According tothe author’s interpretation, it seems that the ancient Chinese philosophies could beunderstood as dangerous thoughts.
The reviewer summarizes the author’s understanding of the common ancient
Chinese view of life and the world as follows: “People live in unfair society, and theirefforts are not necessarily rewarded. The virtue loses, and the evil prospers. Therefore,
any pursuit of harmony and of ideal will end up in vain in such a world; thus, in aworld of such disorder, we have to make a decision one by one and to become
constantly receptive to new things, facing the complexity of circumstance and theirrationality of our fates.”
In Japan, Confucianism has been generally interpreted as the lectures thatguide people to form a well-ordered society on the basis of the strict moral code
indicated by Confucius, though it tends to fall into formalism; and the philosophy of
Laozi and Zhuangi has been regarded as a kind of naturalism which suggests us to live
involuntarily, unintentionally or idly in order to acquire ‘Dao’ (‘Dao’ is a naturalProvidence, which has been often translated as ‘the path’ in English). Such Japanese
understandings of ancient Chinese thoughts are quite different from the author’s view.
Prof. Puett’s interpretation, however, well explains the view of the world heldby the today’s political leaders of China, rather than that of ancient China. Theirthoughts that the world is perpetually fractured and amorphously fragmented indisorder seems to be the very reason why China has behaved outrageously in the South
China Sea. They are eager to construct “the paths” of their selfish desire in order tomaximize their interests under the pretext of “self-cultivation” and try to hold themwith ‘faits accomplis.’
This book is written as an “enlightening book” for students and businesspersons. Just by this point, I feel concern over the risk that the more they would beinspired by the Prof. Puett’s view of “Chinese Philosophies” and would come toconduct themselves self-righteously in the real world, the more they would disrespect
the law and order to achieve their individualistic purposes. Then, such people would
not care anything about the trouble to others.
Anyway, one thing is clear that ancient Chinese philosophers, Confucius,Mencius, Laozi, Zhangi, and Xunzi deplored somber realities of their days in China.
With taking up their ink brushes, they tried to show the ways of how people can live
morally and virtuously in good order (Nevertheless, historically some scholars andphilosophers have pointed out some substantial defects in them). Considering theirdiscernment of the intrinsic issues of their nations and communities, it is extremely
doubtful if all of ancient Chinese philosophers suggest us to accept distressful“fragmented worlds and messy real life” as they were, and encourage us to behave as
China is doing now.
(This is the English version of an article written by KURANISHI Masako, Political
Scientist, which originally appeared on the e‐Forum “Giron-Hyakushutsu (HundredViews in Full Perspective)” of GFJ on May 31, 2016.)

2