Commentary on Xunzi's "Discourse on Heaven"

Yeah one of the things I love about him is that he takes an idea so far that you can’t tell if it’s actually meant as satire. Humor alone is enough to make him revolutionary.

For context, he is reasonably well known -- probably the third most-prominent of the early Confucians (albeit a distant third, after Confucius and Mencius), with partial and complete English translations. But, he was often regarded by Confucians throughout Chinese history warily, because of certain "Legalist" tendencies (which, to put it crudely, were more authoritarian and Machiavellian as well as more legalistic), which were frequently disparaged (but quietly drawn on by pragmatic "statecraft" thinkers). Especially because two of his students, Han Fei and Li Si, were arguably the most (in)famous legalists.

That said, I had a teacher years ago from Taiwan who argued that 1) Xunzi was the first full-blown "philosopher" (in the Western sense of offering an epistemology etc and arguing in a logically reasoned way) in Chinese history, and that 2) Xunzi and Zhuangzi were the smartest Chinese thinkers of all time. Years later, I'm not sure she was wrong.

We can e.g. compare this to something Zhuangzi (a Daoist) stated.

荃者所以在魚，得魚而忘荃 蹄者所以在兔，得兔而忘蹄 言者所以在意，得意而忘言 吾安得忘言之人而與之言哉？

The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you've gotten the fish, you can forget the trap.

The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare.

Words exist because of meaning; once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him?

Although perhaps they are talking about two different things. Moreover, during Spring and Autumn into the Warring states period Confucius was e.g. changing the conventional usage of terms, e.g. what it meant or standards to be a 君子 (noble/gentleman).

I mean, Plato argued for governance by philosopher-kings, not too different from the Confucian conception of governance.

What's more interesting to me is the skeptical attitude toward omens and the notion of heavenly will. That sounds really remarkably modern, and not at all what I'd expect from someone writing during the third century BCE.

I don't think it's peculiar to China: parents towards young children naturally act authoritatively, in part because of the nature of young children. This nature somehow perseveres in adulthood, albeit altered: consider for example Asch's experiments[0], or this antique idea of assimilating rulers to shepherds.

(I'm using "authoritative" in a neutral sense here, free from its usual negative undertone)

Edit: Hm, I was incidentally opening the San Zi Jing[1] a few moments ago. It's a historically important educational Chinese book, and it opens with: "Men at their birth are naturally good."

The character used for "good" is "善" (shàn), which contains in part "羊" (yáng), meaning "goat/sheep".

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Character_Classic

Oh, wait until you read about the so-called Legalists.

I wouldn't say Xunzi is authoritarian. His school, the Confucians, were explicitly opposed to ruling by force and raw power, and instead thought that a state should rule by creating and following proper rituals for everyone to follow. The rituals would act psychologically to instill a sense of virtue in everyone, and then you would have a harmonious state where the ruler doesn't need to do anything except wear the ritual robes and face south. They thought a state based on naked force (or one based on explicit laws) would be too unstable.