Kermena Ishak

Chinese Philosophy
Prof. Littlejohn
10/20/2022
Epistemology
Are we born knowing some things are true?

Are we born evil? Are we born good? Are we born neither good nor evil, unaware of any
truths? Such questions are a form of epistemology (study of knowledge) as philosophers wonder
if one is born with specific knowledge that determines one’s reality or destiny. Many Chinese
philosophers have presented many thoughts on what knowledge one can be born with, such as
one’s consciousness of an item, if one is born better without human influence, etc. Philosophers
such as Mozi and Wang Chong discuss and contradict the topic of fate and whether it exists;
however, Mencius and Gaozi expressly emphasize their entire philosophy around the question:
what is human nature?
Mencius is a Chinese philosopher known for his seven books, Mengzi. Mencius argues
that human beings are born with a sympathetic heart, with goodness that can almost be described
as “instinct.” Mencius exemplifies that if one sees a child about to fall, it is human nature to save
them. He also criticizes the kings/rulers who cause unbalance and hostility towards their citizens.
Mencius could not but contradict Gaozi’s analogy that “human nature is like making cups and
bowls out of willow” (Littlejohn, 89). Gaozi’s analogy clarifies that seeking morality is not in
our nature. A person does not understand their moral state. Gaozi is not stating that we are born
evil; instead, we are born blank, neither good nor evil. Attitudes and emotions, according to
Gaozi, are affected by external forces. Human nature is insensitive to virtue, and developing
one’s nature in a particular direction must be a political or social endeavor. According to Gaozi,
turning toward self-development contradicts human nature. Mencius countered Gaozi’s views by
emphasizing that if the wood must be mangled to form the cup (analogy), human nature must be
mutilated to become moral (Littlejohn, 89). It is dangerous if one has no inner nature; what is
morality if not goodness? If “moral” is changed or not defined, how can one know true
“intuition” morality? If one is left without direction, good or evil, doesn’t that mean morality
does not exist?
 Aside from the willow analogy of human morality, Gaozi asks another water analogy for
Mencius that essentially asks an identical question on the direction of goodness and evil. Gaozi
notes that "Human nature is like whirling water. Give it an outlet in the east and it will flow east;
give it an outlet in the west and it will flow west. Human nature does not show any preference
for either good or bad, just as water does not show any preference for either east or west”
(Littlejohn, 90). In response, Mencius declared, "does the water show the same indifference to
high and low? Human nature is good just as water seeks low ground. There is no man who lacks
the tendency to seek the good; there is no water that does not flow downwards" (Littlejohn, 90).
Daoism does appear in Gaozi's statement; if one is swayed to the east, one will follow the east. It
is not that we do not have control; our nature can not be described as "good" or "bad" because we
are born following nature's direction. Wishing to be "good" or being born as "evil" is itself not
considered "natural" or "true." Individuals, as explained by Buddhism, are putting you at
"displacement," away from blank nature. According to Mencius, Gaozi failed to record that since
human nature flows downhill, it is heading towards a natural preference and "goodness." It is
when someone forces the water to go upward that one is going against nature; nature
"disruptance" can be considered evil. In these dialogues, Mencius had a strong faith in the
abilities of human logic to arrive at knowledge and truth. Even though Gaozi claims that one is
not born with moral truth/beliefs, the idea that one is born following whatever nature follows is
itself a form of born knowledge.
Aside from Gaozi and Mencius's "good and evil" truths, many Chinese philosophers
likewise claim where the source of our knowledge originated. Xunzi, for example, accepts that
knowledge comes from our senses, which we are born with, rather than outside
factors/influences. Furthermore, Chinese philosopher Mozi, contended that reality is predestined
and that the outcomes of life are subject to Heaven's plans, as shown in the rewards and
punishments imposed by ghosts and spirits in response to our acts. Wang, on the other hand,
contended that most characteristics of human life are established from infancy, "Gender, strength,
learning capacity, moral virtue, and physical being are defined from birth" (Littlejohn, 100).
Wang offered natural explanations, claiming that a person's qi influences situations and people
one will face and how one will interact with them. Many other philosophers have tried to answer
how our knowledge impacts our truth and whether that knowledge is pre-determined by nature.
 Although Gaozi and Mencius’s philosophies are rather prominent in China, there are
unexplained inquiries that one should have asked Mencius or Gaozi. For example, if one is born
good, as Mencius mentions, what causes such ‘evil’ in the world, and how can one explain
psychopaths and sociopaths? If one is born good, saving a child from death as an ‘instinct,’ then
how did one contain such goodness? Mencius’ belief that one is born good, or in western words,
“without a sin,” is quite comprehensible; however, one can contribute that only through
education and other means can one contain such goodness. As for Gaozi’s philosophy, if one is
born blank without morals, then does the term “blank” also attribute to other factors, such as love
for a mother or one’s efficient knowledge to know what fire is/does? Can one activate their sense
by experience, or are one’s senses already there? If we are born without any “goodness” or
“evil,” should we remain without “morals?” Moreover, if we are born blank, how did others
before us know what morality is? Furthermore, it is clear that Wang and Mozi’s philosophy
relates to a greater being influencing our characteristics and well-being. Mozi fails to mention
why “rewards and punishments” occasionally do not occur during one’s life. One might act on
ambition alone yet not receive any punishment. Wang, on the other hand, fails to convey any
freedom; if one can not alter future events, why must one try? It is a western religious belief that
“everything happens for a reason” and that god determines everything; however, some fail to
acknowledge the difference between knowing and influencing the future. God allows us to do
what we want, but he knows our decision. On the other hand, Qi does move nature; however, it
does not alter any persona or “successful” life. If people come one with nature, won’t everyone
be the same without different strengths, morals, or learning capacities? Each Chinese
epistemology philosopher does acknowledge qi (or at least a form of qi); however, the fact that
knowledge and truth can be two different things with different realities is what separates many
philosophers.
 Reference Page

Littlejohn, Ronnie. Chinese Philosophy and Philosophers an Introduction. Bloomsbury

Academic, 2022.