Hallo, this is Dr. Bin Song at Washington College.

While we fallaciously demand perfection, damn people, and awfulize imperfections in our life, our worldviews share some underlying philosophical assumptions, which, without a penetrating philosophical analysis, would be very hard to be exposed and examined. These assumptions include: firstly, we tend to think of life as consisting of discrete problems to solve, rather than of constantly renewing experiences to live. Under this assumption, if one problem does not or cannot get a perfect solution, we would rather take a stand-off, block the flow of life experience, and hence, torment ourselves under the seemingly invincible imperfections which are actually indispensable to human life. Secondly, since we are so ready to reify our life as a mumble-jumbo of sundry problems, we also tend to reify any person or event that is encountered on our life journey. For instance, if one problem has not yet been perfectly resolved, we may damn involved people, including ourselves, as a moron, a dope, a complete failure, to spew whatever words fit our anger and frustration; by the same token, if one bad situation takes place, we may be so terrified by it as to believe it is the worst thing which could ever happen to a human being, and hence, our life has to remain in an ossified state with little vigor to rejuvenate and rebound.

Clearly, these assumptions can be debunked if we take another more dynamic, perfectible and processual mindset. We can say No to these reifying, ossifying, and self-defeating thinking patterns, and instead, we can say Yes to fully accept imperfections as signs to grow and strengthen ourselves, and as gateways to emerging new possibilities of life. However, in order to enjoy this processual way of life, there is another thinking fallacy, which is closely related to all aforementioned ones, which we must see through and overcome. In the practice of psychotherapy, the fallacy is normally called “rumination”; but in the practice of philosophical therapy, we call it “dutiful worry.” In a definition, the fallacy of dutiful worry drives us to:

Think of it as a duty to constantly and multifacetedly upset ourselves or people close to us until a past problem receives a complete remedy or a future problem gets a certain and perfect solution.

In other words, a processual and forward-looking reaction towards problems in our life should be to muster all available resources to tackle the problems; however, while doing so, we neither demand a perfect remedy nor a certain solution. Rather, we see the process of wrestling with these problems as enriching moments of the constantly renewing life possibilities, and thus, we would have reasons not to hold off any moment of it since a problematic life is, after all, still our life which keeps changing, growing and advancing forward regardless.

Nevertheless, a person of dutiful worry does not perceive their life as such. As stated, they see the constant worry until a perfect solution as a duty, and thus, are obsessed with discovering, recollecting, or envisioning all negative possible aspects of their life up to a state of self-pity, self-doubt or sheer misery. In other words, I think a certain degree of worry is necessary to motivate us to resolve problems in our life; however, when remaining to be motivated, our major focus should be to employ our intelligence to think, move our limbs to act, and thus, to dedicate ourselves to solving problems seen as a necessary part of our processual life. However, the fallacy of dutiful worry urges us to worry over whether we have worried enough in order to get a perfect solution of problems. To put it bluntly, this fallacy makes us believe an intensive and repetitive worry is part of the solution; however, in a way completely contrary to the intention, the state of constant worry can undermine the very ability of rational deliberation and resolute action that is needed to solve any problem. In this way, dutiful worry may lead to a vicious cycle of negative moods, which sometimes engenders serious issues of mental health such as depression and anxiety disorder.

For instance, a man may feel a constant guilt of a mistake he made in the past, and ask himself “why I did such a thing” again and again without actually taking any action to objectively analyze the mistake, discover its causes, learn needed lessons, and hence, improve himself. A mother may worry over the underperformance of her son in math so much that no proposed solution by her husband is thought of as certain and adequate, and eventually, she may just never move a single step to either think differently or actually do something to change the situation. Similarly, a person having lived through a certain traumatic experience in their early age may habitually replay those cruel life scenarios again and again in their mind. This would seriously undermine their ability of normal communication and sociality with other people, and eventually undercut the very possibility of living a good human life. Throughout all these instances, we see the spector of “dutiful worry” haunting around, and for the sake of good life, it clearly needs to be rectified.

Therefore, if we see worry as a motivating emotion to find solutions to a problem, the worry over whether we have worried enough is clearly not part of the solution. Understood as such, the habit of dutiful worry is evidently a fallacy; it ties the state of constant worry unrealistically to the perfect solution of problems in our life, and furthermore, assumes that life is a series of problems to solve, rather than an enriching experience to live. To overcome the fallacy, we need philosophies that favor the aforementioned processual view of life, and actually practice them. Here, inspired by the philosophy that I am familiar with, the Ru tradition or Confucianism, I will share some of my experience about how to combat the habit of dutiful worry.

The Classic of Change once depicts the contrast between cosmic creativity and human creativity as such “(The constant creativity of the cosmos) energizes the myriad things, while not sharing a single worry with sages.” Here, since the ultimate creative power of the cosmos is normally not conceived by the Ru tradition as a person, the spontaneously and constantly renewing power is thought of as far surpassing what sages, viz., those most exemplary humans, can accomplish. In other words, just as Confucius once said, “a person who takes no concern about what is distant will surely have worries near at hand,” (Analects, 15.12) the proceeding of cosmic changes is by no means centered upon human interests, and if humans intend to create order within either the society or individual human life, we have to remain concerned while involving ourselves in an endless process of planning, organizing, learning, trying, and re-planning, re-organizing, etc. So, in a more accessible term, this means that humans are not God, and hence, it is just fine for us to worry about all sorts of things once we realize that imperfections are part of human life. However, using another verse, the Ru classic “Centrality and Commonality” also teaches

“In a position of wealth and honor, an exemplary human does what is proper to a position of wealth and honor. In a poor and low position, they do what is proper to a poor and low position. Situated among remote and foreign districts, they do what is proper to a situation among remote and foreign districts. In a position of sorrow and difficulty, they do what is proper to a position of sorrow and difficulty. The exemplary human remains to be content towards themselves in whatever situation they happen to enter.” ( “Centrality and Commonality,” translation adapted from James Legge)

In other words, although worry is ineluctable for the life of an exemplary human who always strives for order, peace and harmony of the society in a non-anthropocentric world, they can always find a state of self-contentedness, a deep and inner feeling of joy in whatever situation they happen to enter. So, how can they achieve this? Why, as indicated by the Ru classics, do humans need to worry over their life and society while simultaneously being able to feel content about themselves?

Firstly, let’s make sure that we are worrying over the right things. In other words, our worries cannot be so selfish as to be only concerned with the narrow interest of us or a certain group of people. If we think and behave thus selfishly, we could not find a synergy among all the surrounding human and cosmic beings whenever we need to muster resources to tackle our worries, and quite often, we would just pit ourselves against obstacles so as to enhance, rather than alleviate our worries. For instance, for the mother who constantly worries over the success of her son, a Ruist scholar would recommend that there are kids in other families who may share the same problems as well. Also, there are good cases to investigate why if not good at a certain subject, children can still flourish their life in the long run. So, rather than constantly worrying over the success of one’s own kid, why not worry about how to participate or organize a social process to deal with shared issues in various families? Once we see the problem of our life in the broader context of the society, then, the worry over it will be transformed into a motive to reform the society, and hence, generate very positive mental feedback for each worrying individual. In a Confucian term, this thinking process is described as “if you want to establish yourself, also establish the others.” (Analects 6:30)

Secondly, not only do we need to worry over the right thing, we also need to worry in the right way. Clearly, the worry over whether we can worry enough so as to demand a certain and perfect solution to a problem is not the right way of worrying given our previous analysis. In the terms of the Great Learning, the worry over their individual life, family, and the society motivates an exemplary human to investigate all “pattern-principles” (理) that dynamically and harmoniously fit things together in a particular situation, firm their heartmind (心) to execute what is required by the pattern-principle, and eventually, try their best to realize harmony in evolving situations. For instance, the mother in question needs to try best to obtain all necessary knowledge about how to deal with her son’s academic underperformance, and then, actually practice these knowledge so as to move the entire situation forward, rather than constantly upsetting herself without action. In other words, in order to worry in the right way, we need a forward-looking mindset to learn, grow and act, just as what the aforementioned processual attitude of life entails.

At this moment, it is very important to introduce one crucial feature of the Ru philosophy that can help to eliminate the self-defeating thinking habit of constant and dutiful worry. As analyzed in the previous unit, Mencius thinks every ordinary human will have a spontaneous feeling of alarm and fright when seeing a baby about to fall into a well, and for Mencius, this is the evidence for that there is a part of human nature which is innately good. However, when addressing the question that since human nature is good, why so many bad things are committed by humans, Mencius thinks that this is like asking why a once verdant mountain can one day become barren. Mencius explains further that if you continue to use axes and hatchets to destroy every sprout of plants naturally growing in the mountain, no matter how good the quality of soil is, the mountain still would not provide. (Mencius 6A) By the same token, as long as one has a good sleep during a night, in the morning, they will naturally feel a clearer mind and a more sensitive heart to connect to beings in the world. In this case, people will be easier to feel their sympathy and co-existence with the world so that their innately good human nature is well kept.

Understood in this way, the process of personal growth for Mencius would be similar to the industry of farming, by which a farmer plows the field, sows the seeds, and grows the sprouts according to their best knowledge of seasons, lands and other factors in agriculture. However, after every due human effort is implemented, it would be up to the nature to take charge of everything else. Similarly, when problems arise in our life, on the one hand, we indeed need to worry appropriately so as to investigate, plan and act, viz., do everything that we can as a human to confront the problems; however, on the other hand, even if no perfect solution can be found to these problems, let’s not forget to have a good sleep, take a nice walk, have a sincere conversation with our family and close friends, or do other positive things to continually nurture our inborn vital energy that was endowed by the nature. In the eyes of a Ru scholar, days come after nights; the sun rises following its setting; and the four seasons just change and renew themselves without any cease on this planet. Therefore, as long as we remain connected to the entire cosmos, know how to nurture the life-generating cosmic energy innate to our body, and try best to fulfill our potential to be a fully human, we would never lack a foundation to eventually live through a certain situation, move forward, and remain content towards ourselves. For me, no matter how stressful and tiring a life situation may be, I still hold a faith towards the fact that even with just a short nap, I can breathe in the fresh air-energy deeply and thoroughly into the depth of my heart. When opening my eyes, there would be new energy there, and I can still try my best to do the right thing in whatever situation I happen to enter.

So, even if worry is inevitable for human life, let’s sleep well, take care of ourselves, and worry over the right things in the right way. As a result, we would remain content to ourselves in every new situation of life experience we are about to savor.

Hallo, this is Dr. Bin Song in the course of “Foundations of Morality” at Washington College.

Perfectionism drives people to demand the congruence of their standards of ideal human living with objective realities; once failed to witness it, they may start to damn themselves, condemn other people and curse the world.

However, there is another thinking fallacy which lies at the directly opposite side of perfectionism, but could wrench people’s mind with no less pains and sufferings. In terms of philosophical therapy, we call this fallacy “awfulizing,” viz., just as perfectionists think there could exist perfect things in the world, people that awfulize tend to believe once something bad happens, it could be the worst thing that one can ever experience in the world. In other words,

awfulizing makes us exaggerate the severity of bad events to such an unbearable degree that we become terrified, horrified, and awed with little remaining vigor and stamina to bounce back.

If these perceived awful events happen to the past of people’s life, they may become extremely sad and depressed whenever these occurrences return to their mind. However, if these events are anticipated to take place in people’s future life, it may cause an even more debilitating emotion of anxiety. Regardless, once we entitle the term “the worst thing in the world” with a referent in reality, its petrifying effect would crush us to a bottomless and hopeless abyss, as I said, with no further vigor to bounce back.

Nevertheless, is there really such a thing called “the worst thing in the world”?

• A man loses his job in his middle career may be very bad. But what if he loses his job and gets divorced? Isn’t it even worse?
• A man loses his job in his middle career and gets divorced may be very bad, but what if one’s life, family, job and property all get wiped out by a tsunami? Isn’t it even worse?
• But if you think gratuitous, seemingly meaningless death incurred by a natural disaster is the worst thing that could ever happen to human life, what if a wrongly charged, innocent young man was constrained into his prison cell, and hence, got mistreated, tortured and exploited for all his remaining life? This prisoner does not even have a chance of living his life!

Eventually, if you think any of these examples as the worst thing that could ever happen, please just do some addition: if you add any of them to another, then you will technically get a “worse” thing, and this process can continue forever! Therefore, ontologically speaking, there is no much base to use the term “the worst thing in the world”; employing whatever standards you judge things as good or bad, you will get to continually add items on your list of “the worst thing in the world” without a stop.

Moreover, the phrase “the worst thing in the world” is not only non-realistic in the sense that it lacks a definite reference in reality. It is also unreasonable because it is based upon an assumption that there is such a thing in the world which is purely, absolutely, and without-any-remainderly bad and evil. However, is there really such a purely and hopelessly evil thing in the world? Isn’t the fact that whether we can find something positive within the negativity is entirely up to our own perception, imagination and philosophy? In other words, the worst thing to happen in people’s life is what you think as the worst. If you do not have any reason to perceive anything as purely and absolutely evil, you would not encounter such a thing in your life.

In the following, let me use two examples from the philosophical tradition of Confucianism to explain why such a philosophical approach to confront evil and hence, to live a perfectible good human life is desirable.

To address the issue of the origin of human goodness, Mencius (372-290 B.C.E) took a metaphysical approach. He thinks every ordinary human being is innately good, and hence, is born with some incipient moral sprouts within their heart. The example he furnished is that every ordinary human being, regardless of color, country, culture, wealth, etc., would spontaneously have a feeling of alarm and fright, viz., a feeling of commiseration, when they see a baby about to fall into a well. For Mencius, to live a good human life, humans just need to continually nurture and enlarge this incipient moral spout to affirm and promote the value of “life” or “vitality” within a continually becoming and generating cosmos. For Mencius, this is how humans manifest the constantly life-generating power of the cosmos in the human world, and thus, serve and strengthen the being of the entire universe in a distinctively human way.

However, even if evil is explained by Mencius as the lack of human will to nurture their innate goodness, and thus, as being deficient of a solid ontological status, bad things indeed happened to Mencius. It actually happened a lot to him, since the time when he lived is called the period of “Warring States” in ancient Chinese history, and hence, replete with social turmoil and disruption. Like Confucius, Mencius was also dedicated to wandering among varying states with a hope to find enlightened rulers to implement his ethical and political philosophy, eventually of no avail. However, Mencius had a mindset of resilience to put all these bad things in his life-time into a larger, more enduring and meaningful context, so as to never perceive anything as purely and absolutely evil. The following quote is one example for this mindset:

“When the cosmos (天) is about to bestow a great responsibility on a particular person, it will always first subject one’s heart and resolution to bitterness, belabor one’s muscles and bones, starve one’s body and flesh, deprive one’s person, and thwart and bring chaos to what one does. By means of these things it stimulates one’s heart, toughens one’s nature, and provides those things of which one is otherwise incapable. One must often make mistakes, and only then can one improve. One must be troubled in one’s heart and vexed in one’s deliberations, and only then rise up. Those saddening happenstances must show in one’s face and be expressed in one’s voice, and then, one can eventually understand them.

If, internally, a state has no model families or cautioning scholar-officials, and externally, it has no enemies or foreign problems, the state will normally perish.

Only in these ways do we know that our life springs from sorrow and adversity, but our death from ease and pleasure.” (Mencius 6B, translation adapted from Bryan Van Norden.)

Here, all adversities human life could possibly live through are understood as needed opportunities of empowering people with further abilities, merits and virtues so as to shoulder greater responsibilities. Please don’t get Mencius wrong here. The “responsibility” that Mencius talked about are by no means limited to ambitious and grandiose ones. In difficult life situations, taking good care of oneself, protecting and loving one’s immediate family members, strengthening one’s closer human network can all become a great motivation for us to perceive the positive from the negative, and thus, work ourselves up using the mindset of resilience that Mencius has so brilliantly articulated.

Another Confucian philosopher that indicated a similar mindset of resilience, yet with a different philosophical approach, is Xunzi (Circa., 316-235 B.C.E).

Rather than thinking with Mencius that humans are born with commendable dispositions towards the empathy with distressed human fellows, Xunzi thinks what humans are born with is not those concrete dispositions towards moral excellence. Rather, all humans prefer life to death, food to hunger, security to danger, health to illness, and order to disorder. However, without undergoing education and social ritualization, the inborn dispositions of humans are just not quite different from animals. Our intrinsically self-serving and egoistic nature will lead to endless competitions and conflicts among humans over limited resources, and this would eventually cause death, hunger, danger, illness, and in other words, all evils in the world. So, what is the value of evil after all? According to Xunzi, without witnessing and experiencing these evils, humans would not realize the value of cultivation, education, and ritualization for the sake of individual flourishing and social harmony, and thus, the value of evil is exactly to motivate us towards becoming good. Here is an exemplary quote of Xunzi’s thought:

“In every case where people desire to become good, it is because their nature is bad. The person who has little longs to have much. The person of narrow experience longs to be broadened. The ugly person longs to be beautiful. The poor person longs to be rich. The lowly person longs to be noble. That which one does not have within oneself, one is sure to seek for outside. … Looking at it in this way, people desire to become good because their nature is bad.

Now people’s nature is originally without an awareness towards ritual and rightness. Thus, they must force themselves to engage in learning and seek to possess them. Their nature does not know of ritual and rightness, and so they must think and reflect and seek to know them. So, going only by what they have from birth, people lack ritual and rightness and do not know of ritual and rightness. If people lack ritual and rightness, then they will be chaotic. If they do not know of ritual and rightness, then they will be unruly. So, going only by what they have from birth, unruliness and disorder are within them. Looking at it in this way, it is clear that people’s nature is bad, and their goodness is a matter of deliberate effort.” (Chapter 23, translation adapted from Erik L. Hutton.)

So, clearly, for Xunzi, every bad piece of human life, including both gratuitous natural disasters, chaos and varying adversities engendered by human efforts, is a sign of the corresponding incoming good. Without experiencing bad things in life, people would not be aware of what good things are, and how to achieve them. This by no means encourages people to put themselves in a bad situation voluntarily. Rather, if we enjoy our life as a perpetual process of perfectibility, advancement and creativity, we have to admit: the existence of imperfections in our life is just necessary and indispensable.

Using the examples of seemingly awful events mentioned above, I would say: without a concern of losing our jobs, we would not continually motivate ourselves to refine our employable job skills and entrepreneurship. Without an anxiety of worsening marital relationships, we would not dedicate ourselves to perfecting it. By the same token, without all impending natural disasters, human society would not be likely to pause to reflect upon human behaviors for a better future of the society. In a word, using the mindset of resilience indicated by Xunzi’s thought, there is no purely evil thing in the world of which we cannot make some good.

Therefore, let’s not use the language of “the worst thing in the world”, since there is no such a thing. Let’s put all bad things into a larger context, and thus, courageously confront evils to advance an endlessly perfectible future. Once we succeed to so, we will understand: the worst thing in the world is just that we think in the worst way, and hence, the thinking fallacy of awfulizing does not have much real ground to hold on to, since how we think are under the control of ourselves.

Required Reading:

Elliot Cohen, The New Rational Therapy, pp. 49-63.

Quiz:

1) Although the thinking fallacy of awfulizing is the opposite of the one of demanding perfection, they share the same irrationally absolutist view of the world: one thinks there is the worst thing in the world, and another thinks things in the world can be perfectly good. Is this statement true or false?

2) How does Mencius see adversities of human life?
A) They make individuals stronger and better to fulfill greater responsibilities.
B) They are not bad things seen from a larger, enduring and more meaningful context.

3) How does Xunzi see the value of evil?
A) The experience of evil motivates human beings towards becoming good.
B) Evil does not really exist, and evil things are just a lack of goodness.

4) “Man, as the animal that is most courageous, most accustomed to suffering, does not negate suffering as such: he wants it, even seeks it out, provided one shows him some meaning in it, some wherefore of suffering.” Whose view is this?
A) Nietzsche
B) Buddha
C) Confucius

5) The British philosopher David Hume thinks there is a gab between facts and values; one cannot infer “ought to” from “is” without imposing their own rating. Therefore, it is up to human individuals to decide whether anything awful has happened to their life. Is this statement true or false?

Hallo, this is Dr. Bin Song in the course of “Foundations of Morality” at Washington College.

Another thinking fallacy, which is closely related to the one of “demanding perfection” and can cause a slew of negative emotions and self-defeating habits of behavior, is damnation. As explained in last unit, people who demand perfection ascribe their standards of ideal human living to objective realities, and once they fail to witness or achieve these standards in reality, they tend to judge human life as not worth living.

One conceivable result from the thought that human life is not worth living is that you start to damn it. This damnation can be taken in multiple forms:

You may start to damn yourself to say words, such as “I will be a complete failure,” “I should not be borne by my parents,” or even harboring the intention of suicide, just because you don’t have those achievements or approval which you think your worth of life as a human individual is necessarily tied to.

You may also start to damn other people, and smear them using vulgar languages just because they fail in certain aspects of their life to realize your standards of good human living. This can be furthermore taken in multiple forms. For instance, you believe people should be honest; but once some people lie and behave in a dishonest way to you, you will think they are essentially and irreversibly a liar, and then, start to condemn them as worth going to hell. Another instance is that when you are greatly irritated by your disagreement with someone during a debate, you start to yell to them, and use damning languages all over the map to turn the debate into a name-calling shouting abuse.

With one step further, you may also start to damn the entire world. Think about the dividing politics, the natural disasters, the humanitarian crises, the ongoing pandemic and the apocalyptic global warming. I believe many people would feel overwhelmed at a certain point of their life, and they may start to condemn the entire world and doubt whether it is worth living here at all.

Quite evidently, once you think of either your self, the persons of others’, or the world as a whole as lacking an intrinsic worth, you will be greatly disturbed by strong self-defeating emotions, and sometimes, these emotions can be very dangerous. Apart for the formidable intention of suicide we mentioned above as an instance, once other people are looked at as damnable pieces of object, we can start to think over how the holocaust, genocides, and racism happen and recur in human history and society. Therefore, in order to live a healthy, good human life, we must eliminate this thinking fallacy of damnation, and start to build genuine respect to every human and non-human being that lives and exists in this world.

Despite standards using which people judge either themselves, others or the world as damnable may be different, there are two essential characteristics shared by all the aforementioned forms of damnation:

• Firstly, the thinking fallacy of damnation ascribes what happens badly (in whatever sense the badness is understood) in parts to the whole, so as to have a global negative judgment towards a person or the world just because of their partial imperfections.
• Secondly, which is closely related to the first, the thinking fallacy of damnation fails to appreciate the life of an individual human being or the entire world as constituting an endless process of changing, becoming and daily renewal. Instead, this fallacy reifies its targets of thought, and treats them as stiff, rigid and disposable “objects.” Since being objects rather than respectable beings, what are damned by the thinking fallacy could be either manipulated for selfish purposes or gave up and jettisoned to the extent of (self-) elimination.

In contrast with these two essential features of the thinking fallacy of damnation, if we start to think of people as respectable human beings who keep changing and growing, and if we stop using global, damning languages to address any one who fails to deliver certain of our expectations at a certain moment of their life, we will become more realistic, accepting and kind in our relationships with them. We will therefore become dedicated to patient communication, and rectifying humans’ wrong-doings in a concrete, piecemeal and perfectible way. In a reflective perspective, the attitude towards ourselves will also become much more accepting, motivating, and confident.

As indicated by the assigned reading, the author raised many philosophies and religions to help to nurture this virtue of “respect” to rectify the fallacy of damnation. These wisdoms all pertain to the recognition of the incomparable and constant worth of human life, and its authentic relationship with the world. In the following, I will use my expertise in Confucianism to address the same issue. Surely, for the sake of practicing the virtue of respect, I will also encourage you, my students, to find the philosophy or religion which is the best fit for you.

So, where does the worth of human life consist?

To answer this question, Mencius (372-289 B.C), the second most important philosopher in classical Confucianism, imagined a thought experiment. He said, any ordinary human being who saw a baby about to fall into a well will spontaneously have a feeling of fright and alarm, so as to have the initial thought to save the baby from the impending danger. In this thought experiment, it is completely out of question where the baby is raised, who its parents are, of what color the baby looks, what accomplishment the baby will have in its future life, etc. In other words, In Mencius’s view, all these objective attributes of the baby which we can describe from outside have no relevance to the stimulation of the universal feeling of compassion and love hardwired into the good part of human nature. As long as it is a baby to be approaching some danger, we will recognize immediately the value of its life, and try to save it from distress.

Along the same lineage of thought, Wang Yangming (1472-1529) thought humans’ universal compassion can reach even further to all beings in the universe. So, we have a feeling of alarm and fright not only to a baby about to fall into a well. If an animal gets slaughtered, a plant gets uprooted, or even some tiles and stones are blown away from their original places, we human beings can also be aroused with some inner feeling of concern and alarm, since according to Wang Yangming, the good part of human nature makes us all feel united with everything in the universe.

So, as indicated by these Confucian philosophers’ thought, Confucianism measures the intrinsic worth of human life from the perspective of the philosophy of life. It understands the entire universe as an all-encompassing, constantly creating and renewing cosmic field. Within this field, all human lives matter since they are the manifestations of this continually renewing cosmic force. Therefore, no matter what achievements we can have during our life, and how many people approve of our works, as long as we keep changing, growing, and renewing ourselves just as the normal function of life entails, our life is intrinsically valuable. Quite evidently, this Confucian philosophy of life is also very appropriate for the growing mindset that I explained before to counteract the fallacy of demanding perfection.

If the intrinsic value of human life consists in the sheer fact that each individual’s life is one form of the all-encompassing cosmic life, how should we deal with human relationships, particularly when others are doing something wrong to us?

There is a Confucian version of the so-called golden rule of ethics, and its three aspects address the question fairly well.

• Firstly, the negative golden rule, which is told by Confucius in the Analects 15.24: do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.
• Secondly, the positive golden rule, which is told by Analects 6:30: establish others what you want to establish yourself; help others to achieve what you want to achieve yourself.
• Thirdly, the corrective golden rule, which is told by Analects 14.34: when someone does something wrong to you, you should neither revenge nor tolerate. Instead, you should treat them with justice, viz., to correct their wrong-doing in a loving, but just and righteous way.

Among these three aspects of the Confucian golden rule, the third one is particularly relevant to address the fallacy of damning other people. When someone does something wrong to us, according to this Confucian rule, we should neither tolerate them, viz., that we continue to be kind to them as if nothing happens; nor revenge them, viz., to seek retaliation through damning them as revengeable pieces of object. No, Confucius approved of neither of these two approaches. Instead, Confucius says that we should treat them with justice. That is to try to correct their wrong-doing deeds, rather than damning their whole personhood, so as to create an opportunity for people to morally grow and improve. That can surely be done through legal terms, but can also be implemented in a much softer way in a daily basis, but the key of the methods is still the same: stop damning people, but correct their wrong-doings to indicate our respect to their perfectible humanity.

Last but not least, what’s the Confucian view towards the world as a whole? It is true that the universe is life-generating; otherwise, there would not be so many wonderful things to happen on this earth on a daily basis. But there are also so many natural disasters and humanitarian crises on the earth. If we only look at the bright side of the life-generating process without regarding the tragical sides of it, are we burying our heads into the sand as an ostrich?

To address this concern, the following conversation between Confucius, Confucius’s student Zi Lu, and two hermits (Changju and Jieni) in the Analects 18.6 will be illuminating. The context of this conversation is that Confucius wandered among varying warring states in his time with his students to find opportunities to implement his political and ethical ideas in order to regain peace and harmony in the world. And I will read the conversation as its entirety:

Changju and Jieni were plowing the filed side by side, when Confucius passed by them and sent Zilu to ask the whereabouts of the place to cross the river.
Changju said, “Who is the man holding the reins over there?”
Zilu said, “It is Kong Qiu (Confucius).”
“Is it the Kong Qiu of Lu.”
“Yes.”
“Then he must know where to cross the river already.”
Zilu then asked Jieni, and Jieni said, “Who are you, sir?”
Zilu said, “I am Zhongyou (Zi Lu’s style name).”
“Are you not the disciple of Kong Qiu of Lu?”
“I am.”
Jieni said, “Turbulent floodwater is surging everywhere under heaven. Who is able to change this? Besides, rather than following a man who avoids some people here and there, would it not be better to follow whose who avoid the world altogether?” With this he went on to cover up the seeds without stopping.
Zi Lu went back and reported it. The Master signed, saying, “One cannot be in the same herd with birds and beasts. If I am not with my fellow humans, with whom shall I associate? If the world had the Way, I would not be involved in changing it.”

In other words, in Confucius’s view, the world is neither set up to go against nor for the interests of human beings. The world is just what it is, and nothing about it needs to be particularly praised or condemned. Instead, the world would look exactly as what human beings make out of it. If we want a better world, we need better ourselves at first. If we want a better society, we need better human individuals at first. Therefore, Confucius teaches: do not give up the world, and the whole purpose of human living is to better the world through bettering ourselves.

So, let’s wrap up the Confucian wisdom to counteract the fallacy of damnation: the worth of human life consists in its livingness and perfectibility, which is independent from achievements and approvals from others. If others do something wrong to us, neither tolerate nor damn it; find ways to correct these wrong-doings while showing respect to their perfectible humanity; eventually, have a realistic human attitude towards the world as a whole, and make it as good as yourself can be.

Quiz:

(1) What are the two features of the fallacy of damnation?

A, to have a global negative judgement because of partial imperfections.
B, to fail to appreciate the processual nature of human living.
C, to rightfully condemn evil deeds rather than the whole person.

(2) According to Confucianism, where does the intrinsic value of human life consist in?

A, human individuals as perfectible and living human beings.
B, human individuals as autonomous rational beings.
C, human individuals as sentient beings to seek pleasure and avoid pains.

(3) what is the golden rule of ethics in Confucius thought?
A, do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.
B, help others to achieve what you want to achieve yourself.
C, treat someone who did wrong to you with justice.

(4) “An imperfection in the part may be required for a greater perfection in the whole,” and the whole is the best possible world that God can ever create. Whose view is this?

A, Leibniz.
B, Thomas Aquinas
C, Sartre.

(5) Only when the world become an “it,” it can be damned. However, if we see the world as an “Thou,” viz., some being worth of respect just as equally as us, we would not damn it. Whose view is this?

A, Martin Bubber
B, Confucius
C, William James.

(6) What philosophy would like to use to affirm the unconditional worth of human individual?

Hallo, this is Dr. Bin Song at Washington College.

In the previous units of “Foundations of Morality,” we introduced the distinction and procedure of philosophy as a therapy. What lies at the center of this philosophical practice is a commitment to good human living, for the sake of which, varying philosophies are mobilized by philosophical practitioners to nurture virtues as antidotes to fallacies of human thought.

As indicated by the clinical experience of philosophical therapy, there are a number of major thinking fallacies which frequently and seriously undermine the mental health of human beings. If remaining to be addressed, these fallacies can generate varying self-defeating emotions and behaviors. So, starting from this unit, we will focus upon several of these major thinking fallacies one after another, to define what they are, how they can be refuted, what virtue is needed to rectify them, and eventually, what philosophy can provide a remedy.

Let’s start from the fallacy of “demanding perfection” vis-à-vis the virtue of “metaphysical security.”

To put it simply, if succumbing to the fallacy of “demanding perfection,” a human would project a standard of ideal human living into objective reality, and insist upon the necessary congruence of the ideal with reality, to the result that if failing to achieve the congruence, human life would be thought of as not worth living. This resulted thought would cause varying negative emotions such as stress, anxiety, anger, and depression.

In previous units of the class, we have analyzed many cases for this fallacy of demanding perfection in our exercises. For instance, a son may demand that all his performances in school must get immediate approval from his parents so that he can validate his belief that he is a good child. A student may demand that none of her courses in a discipline should get a grade lower than B+ in order to re-confirm the validity of her choice of that discipline as a major. A lawyer may demand that none of her cases should ever be lost even if this means she has to manipulate the law and argue in opposition to her conscience. A youtuber may also demand that none of her new videos should get clicks less than her old ones even if this means she has to produce controversial and ethically problematic content. Conceivably, it is impossible to have objective reality conform to these varying standards of ideal human living. As a consequence, we can anticipate that it is almost necessary for all the people in these instances to suffer from a great deal of disappointment, frustration, self-doubt, and other negative emotions because of their irrational demand of perfection.

To remedy this thinking fallacy of demanding perfection, a philosophical therapist would suggest the virtue of “metaphysical security” as an antidote. To put it concisely, a person that enjoys the thinking habit of “metaphysical security” would feel at home, viz., have a constant feeling of security, rootedness and motivation, in a deeply uncertain and imperfect world. To parse it out, this virtue of “metaphysical security” would imply the following two key components:

Firstly, a metaphysically secured human being knows how to set a standard of ideal human living as high as possible so that the ideal can never be fully and completely realized in the real world. Since the ideal can never be fully and completely realized, it would be pointless to demand the congruence of the ideal with objective reality as implied by the fallacy of demanding perfection. And because the ideal would always lie steps further than any result established by human efforts, a metaphysically secured human being would simply enjoy themselves in the endless process of trying, reflecting, relaxing, trying again, and in a word, perfecting. During the process, failures would not be interpreted as a sign of unworthy life; rather, it is simply a needed nutrition for the perfecting human beings to learn from mistakes, to acquire new ability to adapt to evolving situations, and thus, to approach their high ideal in a more dynamic and enriched way.

To continue the instances we raised above, a metaphysically secured son would not demand immediate approval from his parents on all his academic performances, because he understands the process of perfecting is more important than the result of perfection. So, he would be very dedicated to his learning, while being patient to communicate with his parents so as to build a more enduring, understanding and trustful parental relationship. By the same token, a metaphysically secured youtuber would not tie the intrinsic worth of their life to the amount of attention they demand from social media. Rather, they would embed their video products within a larger and broader context of human life, and the value of this life would far surpass any amount of instantaneous attention that they can get from social media. So, in a word, if you tend to demand perfection, please give up the irrational notion that life can ever be perfect. Instead, set a genuinely noble goal, and have it continually motivate yourself in an endless process of perfecting,

Secondly, despite no genuinely noble goal of human life can be fully and completely realized in the objective world, it can still be made true in a partial, piecemeal and deeply satisfying way. In other words, a metaphysically secured human being would be sharply aware of which part of their life is under control, and they would simply enjoy the continually emerging results from efforts they spend upon things that succumb to their free will and autonomy.

For instance, it would be an extremely lofty goal for Buddhist practitioners to vow to save all human beings from sufferings, as the Buddhist teaching of universal compassion requires to; however, whenever motivated by the goal, any of a Buddhist practitioner’s determinations to actually save a concrete form of human suffering will lead to a deep feeling of self-satisfaction and fulfillment. In this case, it is not necessarily the result of the targeted human suffering being eliminated that brings the self-satisfaction, since many factors are out of human control in order to realize this result; instead, it is the self-motivated determination, dedication and process of acting and perfecting that matter the most to the practitioners, since whether to have this attitude of dedication entirely depends upon themselves. In an ultimate term, the awareness towards the sheer fact of being and living here and now already brings a certain degree of self-satisfaction to a Buddhist’s life since all beings, according to the Buddhist teaching, are interconnected; and the realization of all-interconnection is exactly what can eliminate human sufferings which derive from the self-isolation of each human individual.

So, in a word, rather than demanding perfection, we should simply enjoy the process of perfecting. And while in the process of perfecting ourselves, we are simultaneously being motivated by a sublime, never fully realized goal, and being satisfied by our partial, piecemeal and solid accomplishments. If putting ourselves into this balanced growing mindset and behaving ourselves accordingly, we would nurture a virtue of “metaphysical security” to live peacefully and joyfully in a deeply uncertain and imperfect world.

There are many world philosophies and religions that can help to nurture this virtue of “metaphysical security.”

Apart from the mentioned Buddhism, there is a common methodology on how to treat ideals in varying world religions. On the one hand, religions quite often prescribe sublime, transcendent goals which no humans can fully, completely, and everlastingly fulfill. Think about the Christian goal of being God-like; yes, humans can be God-like, but none of us can be a God. However, on the other hand, religions also provide methods of ritual-performance, spiritual practice, and communal living so as to make sure that those sublime goals are not completely out of reach. For instance, I believe many church-goers would not deny the good intention and warm feeling towards other human fellows which they can nurture in varying ceremonies and rituals. These nurtured inner-feelings and their corresponding actions are how the sublime religious goals are realized partially and momentarily.

Not only religions, philosophies can also help. For instance, the principle that we focus upon controllable things while remaining indifferent to things out of control is the golden rule in ancient Stoicism. And Confucius once described his mental state when he turned into 50s in such a way that he knows his mandate of heaven. This means that, firstly, he knows his ultimate goal of human life, viz., an awareness of a mission to continually motivate his life; secondly, he knows the limit of human life. These are factors of human life that are not succumbing to his control. And thirdly, he knows his talent and what he can do to better his life and the society. Overall, Confucius teaches his students to perfect their talents to continually fulfill the mission of their life, while both acknowledging and trying best to overcome obstacles down the road. In this way, to nurture the virtue of metaphysical security, Confucianism would work together with Stoicism to provide inspiring philosophical wisdom.

So, my friends and students, what philosophy and religion fit you to help you nurture the virtue of “metaphysical security” in face of this deeply uncertain and imperfect world? I would like to hear you and look forward to being inspired by your answers.

Required Readings:

Elliot Cohen, The New Rational Therapy, pp. 27-45.
Elliot Cohen, Logic-Based Therapy and Everyday Emotions, pp. 30-34.

Quiz:

(1) According to Confucius, what are the meaning of “mandate of heaven” for human individuals?

A, each individual has their mission of life.
B, each individual has their talent to discover and nurture.
C, each individual needs to acknowledge the limit and obstacles of their life.
D, each individual is determined by an uncontrollable cosmic power to be in a certain situation.

(2) For Thomas Aquinas, human excellence is different from perfection, and he used a metaphor to describe the distinction: “shooting for the stars” is a method of self-improvement, but you cannot demand to land on them. Is this statement true or false?

(3) We may “fail to perceive the beauty of a total pattern in which the particular parts, which seem ugly to us, blend in so harmonious and beautiful a way.” And this view can be used to remedy our demand for physical perfection. Which philosophers hold this view?

A, Augustine,
B, Thomas Aquinas
C, Socrates

(4) To remedy the fallacy of demanding perfection, Spinoza suggests to change people’s absolutistic, unrealistic, musts and shoulds to ()

A, Preferences.
B, Illusions.
C, Visions.

(5) According to Stoic philosopher Epictetus, what are not under human control?

A, our body
B, property
C, reputation
D, office
E, everything that is not our own doing.

(6) Have you ever demanded perfection to your life? If you have, if your friends/family did that, what’s your philosophical advice to yourself or them?

Quiz:

(1) You need to write down your conclusion derived from the first five steps of LBT to practice “affirmation” or “autosuggestion.” Is this statement true or false?

(2) (A) If I am angry towards what I thought my roommate did, (B) I would shout at her immediately regardless of whether the thought is true or false. In this behavioral rule, which component is the justification?

(3) For the previous question, which component is the behavioral prescription?

(4) Which part of emotional reasoning normally functions as a “justification” for behavioral reasoning?
A, the rating of an intentional object
B, the report of an intentional object.
C, the emotion itself.

(5) What faculty is the most needed one for a counselee to implement a plan of action, and thus transform the old pattern of his behaviors?
A, willpower
B, intelligence
C, emotion

(6) What guidance can a philosophical counselor provide to enhance the willpower of a counselee to implement the prescribed plan of action?
A, affirmation or auto-suggestion
B, meditation
C, role-play in a conversation
D, other methods of psychotherapies if the counselor is qualified to offer.

(7) A philosophical counselor can guarantee that their service of philosophical counseling will lead to successful results. Is this statement true or false?