Confucius is a Chinese sage. He lived during the later years of the Chou dynasty, sometime during the Period of the Warring Years. He taught whoever followed him as his disciples. He became very famous in the whole of China. His influence extends up to this day to all Chinese and to everybody influenced by the Chinese.

He never wrote anything, though. Whatever is handed down to us were notes by his students. That is why most of the analects begin with the phrase “Confucius said …” They are also in fragments because at one time in the history of the Chinese, their public library and everything in it was burned. What is left for us to consider are the analects of Confucius as remembered by those who studied his teachings.

This paper attempts to understand a little, and thus impart, Confucius’ teaching on human nature. The project is based on three analects, that is, 16:9, 17:24, and 6:1.

In the first analect (16:9), Confucius said, "Those who are born with knowledge are the highest type of people. Those who learn through study are the next. Those who learn through hard work are still the next. Those who work hard and still do not learn are really the lowest type."

This analect seems to suggest that Confucius considers the inequality of people as belonging to the natural order of things. His hierarchy is based on their capacity for knowledge. Some are born with it; some don’t even have the potentials to be actualized.

If this happens to be the only teaching of Confucius about human nature, then he would be an unambiguous elitist. This is not the case, however, as we shall see in the next analect.

In the second analect (17:24), Confucius said, “By nature all men are alike; through practice they become far apart.” This analect brings confusion to the idea already set above. While the previous analect suggests a natural inequality among peoples because of their different capacities for knowledge, this one suggests natural equality among men. Inequality is suggested here as an artificial creation of men themselves, a product of their differences in practice. A superficial reading would leave us with two conflicting analects from Confucius about which is natural— equality or inequality.

In view of this seemingly conflicting ideas, it is necessary for us to consider the two analects together at a deeper level. We have to dig deeper and find ways to reconcile these two. The clue could be in asking ourselves whether Confucius regards the capacity for knowledge as the primary foundation of human nature. The question is valid because the second analect did not mention that nature refers to the capacity for knowledge. Thus, while the first analect clearly states that the capacity for knowledge constitutes human nature, it is not clear whether this capacity is the only basis of determination. Thus, our next endeavor would be on clarifying this confusion by appealing to another analect.

In the third analect (6:1), Confucius said, “Man is born with uprightness. If one loses it he will be lucky if he escapes with his life.” To be upright means to be moral, to be good. In this analect, then, Confucius teaches us that man is born good, that he is naturally good. Here we can see that goodness is taken to be universal, that is, all men are naturally good. The use of the singular means that Confucius is referring to the generic man, not simply a specific individual. The natural goodness of man is something not belonging to a hierarchy. That you are human makes you like other human beings—good. Unlike the capacity for knowledge, which is present to some but not to others, goodness is present to all. Thus, goodness is a more fundamental nature than the capacity for knowledge.

Now that we have established that there is a nature universal to all men (goodness), which accounts for their natural equality, how does Confucius appropriate the natural inequality present because of the uneven distribution of the capacity for knowledge?

I think we have to assume that Confucius regards human nature as complex enough to handle this paradox without dissolving into a contradiction. Human beings are both equal and unequal. We see in this paradox an understanding of human equality without sacrificing each man’s uniqueness. We see in this Confucian understanding of human nature a basis for human solidarity without leveling everyone off into a single mass. This recognition of the presence of natural equality and inequality among men may have accounted for Confucius’ ambiguous stand on education and governance.

Confucius made education available to all. In Analect 7:7, Confucius said, "There has never been anyone who came with as little a present as dried meat (for tuition) that I have refused to teach him something." His education is the development of character. Its end product is the chun-tzu, the gentleman, who would be ruler. This is a subversion of the traditional practice. Traditionally, education was only available to the nobility who inherit their status. But in another analect (15:38), Confucius said, "In education, there should be no class distinction." This subversion stems from the belief that man is basically good and, therefore, perfectible. Almost everyone can change, because, as Confucius said, "Only the most intelligent and the most stupid do not change" (Analect 17:3). While Confucius can be said to have democratized education, we cannot derive from Confucius a democratic theory of governance.

While Confucius made education available to all, he also believed that not all could be developed to be a gentleman. In Analect 6:19, Confucius said, "To those who are above average, one may talk of the higher things, but may not do so to those who are below average." The common people would remain as they are. Only a few are fit to be gentlemen, to be rulers. He was clear that only the sage should be king, and the king must be a sage. The others may be government officials. The common people, though, should not be allowed to govern; they are only fit to follow. This stems from his belief that not all have the capacity to know [how to govern]. The common people are not defined, however, by their economic or social status, but by their capacity to know. In Analect 7:8, Confucius said, "I do not enlighten those who are not eager to learn, nor arouse those who are not anxious to give an explanation of themselves. If I have presented one corner of the square and they cannot come back to me with the other three, I should not go over the points with them." Thus, while Confucius advocates for public education, which was subversive during his time; he advocates for feudalism in government, which was status quo. Ω

Reference:

Wing Tsit Chan (1963). The analects of Confucius. A source book in Chinese philosophy. Princeton University Press.