Chinese Philosophy: The Han Synthesis

The Han Synthesis Philosophers in China (207B.C.-9A.D.)

After the disastrous period of totalitarian government during the Ch'in dynasty (221-207 B. C.), the early Han dynasty (207 B.C.-9 A.D.) returned to older forms of imperial government. However, they adopted from the Ch'in the idea of an absolutely central government and spent most of their period in power trying to regain the same level of centrality that the Ch'in and the Legalists had so ruthlessly accomplished. This ideology of central government, along with the Legalists' attempts to standardize Chinese culture and Chinese philosophy, led thinkers of the Han to attempt to unify all the rival schools of Chinese thought and philosophy that had developed over the previous three hundred years. This unification of Chinese into a single coherent system is the most lasting legacy of the Han dynasty. Earlier, the Legalists attempted to standardize Chinese thought by burning the books of rival schools and by making it a capital crime to speak of Confucius, Lao Tzu, or Mo Tzu. The Han thinkers, who thoroughly despised the Legalists and their methods while adopting many of their goals, took a different approach. Rather than reject alternate ways of thinking, they took a syncretic approach and attempted to fuse all the rival schools of thought into a single system. This syncretic project of the early Han is known as the Han synthesis. In many ways it was similar to the larger project of unifying Chinese government.

The Han philosophers concentrated specifically on the Five Classics, attempting to derive from them, particularly the I ching , or Book of Changes, the principle of the workings of the universe, or Tao. This new theory of the universe they appended to the I ching ; this appendix explains the metaphysical workings of the entire universe. Once the overall workings of the unverse were understood, then every form of thought could be directly related to each other by appealing to the basic principles of the universe.



Chinese Philosophy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wu-hsing
Yin/Yang

The essentials of the Han synthesis are as follows: the universe is run by a single principle, the Tao, or Great Ultimate. This principle is divided into two opposite principles, or two principles which oppose one another in their actions, yin and yang. All the opposites one perceives in the universe can be reduced to one of the opposite forces. In general, these forces are distinguished by their role in producing creation and producing degeneration: yang is the force of creation and yin the force of completion and degeneration.


Yin and yang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taijitu, the traditional symbol representing the forces of Yin and Yang. The concepts of Yin and Yang originate in ancient Chinese philosophy and metaphysics, which describes two primal opposing but complementary forces found in all things in the universe.

Yin (Chinese: 陰/阴; pinyin: yīn; literally "shady place, north slope (hill), south bank (river); cloudy, overcast") is the darker element; it is sad, passive, dark, feminine, downward-seeking, and corresponds to the night.

Yang (陽/阳; yáng; "sunny place, south slope (hill), north bank (river); sunshine") is the brighter element; it is happy, active, light, masculine, upward-seeking and corresponds to the day. Yin is often symbolized by water or earth, while Yang is symbolized by fire, or wind. Yin (receptive, feminine, dark, passive force) and Yang (creative, masculine, bright, active force) are descriptions of complementary opposites rather than absolutes. Any Yin/Yang dichotomy can be seen as its opposite when viewed from another perspective. The categorization is seen as one of convenience. Most forces in nature can be seen as having Yin and Yang states, and the two are usually in movement rather than held in absolute stasis.


[edit] Summary of Yin and Yang concepts
Everything can be described as both Yin and Yang.

1. Yin and Yang do not exclude each other.

Everything has its opposite—although this is never absolute, only relative. No one thing is completely Yin or completely Yang. Each contains the seed of its opposite. For example, winter can turn into summer; "what goes up must come down".
2. Yin and Yang are interdependent.

One cannot exist without the other. For example, day cannot exist without night. Light cannot exist without darkness. Death cannot exist without Life.
3. Yin and Yang can be further subdivided into Yin and Yang.

Any Yin or Yang aspect can be further subdivided into Yin and Yang. For example, temperature can be seen as either hot or cold. However, hot can be further divided into warm or burning; cold into cool or icy. Within each spectrum, there is a smaller spectrum; every beginning is a moment in time, and has a beginning and end, just as every hour has a beginning and end.
4. Yin and Yang consume and support each other.

Yin and Yang are usually held in balance—as one increases, the other decreases. However, imbalances can occur. There are four possible imbalances: Excess Yin, excess Yang, Yin deficiency, and Yang deficiency. They can again be seen as a pair: by excess of Yin there is a Yang deficiency and vice versa. The imbalance is also a relative factor: the excess of Yang "forces" Yin to be more "concentrated".
5. Yin and Yang can transform into one another.

At a particular stage, Yin can transform into Yang and vice versa. For example, night changes into day; warmth cools; life changes to death. However this transformation is relative too. Night and day coexist on Earth at the same time when shown from space.
6. Part of Yin is in Yang and part of Yang is in Yin.

The dots in each serve:
as a reminder that there are always traces of one in the other. For example, there is always light within the dark (e.g., the stars at night); these qualities are never completely one or the other.
as a reminder that absolute extreme side transforms instantly into the opposite, or that the labels Yin and Yang are conditioned by an observer's point of view. For example, the hardest stone is easiest to break. This can show that absolute discrimination between the two is artificial.


Nor was it a coincidence or a first time appearance of the dialectic in China when the Chinese suddenly took to Marxian philosophy. Dialectical 'links' and a 'generology tree' can be made between Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Plato, Confuscious, the Han philosophers, Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Perls, and Derrida. Now the big geneological question here which I don't know whether any student of Western and Eastern philosophy has fully investigated, is whether there was any 'cross-link' between early pre-Socratic Greek philosophy and early Chinese philosophy (Confuscious, the Han philosophers). Anaxamander (611 BC-547 BC, preceded Confucious 551 BC-479 BC, who in turn preceded Heraclitus, 535 BC -475 BC so if there was any flow of influence it would probably have had to start from from West (Anaxamander) to East (Confucious and/or the Han philosophers) -- and then perhaps (although unlikely) gone back to West (Heraclitus and/or afterwards) again. From my admittedly limited knowledge in this area of Eastern, Middle Eastern, and Western history, I believe that the Egyptians may have had contact with the Chinese, and the pre-Socratic Greeks may have had contact with the Egyptians. So it is not impossible -- albeit unlikely with the language barriers -- that there might have been some sort of philosophical exchange of ideas between the Greeks and the Chinese. (Incidently, I have no knowledge of Egyptian philosophy at this time, and whether there were any ideas being developed by the Egyptians at this time which would coincide in any way with either the Chinese philosophers or the pre-Socratic philosophers.)

I also do not know whether the Chinese dialectical (dual) principle of 'yin' and 'yang' originated with Confucious or with the Han philosophers. I believe I have read conflicting information on the internet in this regard. The last essay I read suggested that the principle of yin and yang originated with the Han philosophers as part of the 'Han synthesis'.

Now let us assume for the moment that there was no philosophical integration between early pre-Socratic and early Chinese thought. If this was indeed the case, then what amazes me is the remarkable similarity in philosophy between Anaxamander and the Han philosophers (if not Confucious). Indeed, it would seem that the Han philosophers were using Anaxamanderian philosophy -- and no where have I seen on the internet that this was in fact the case -- as the basis, the foundation for the system of integrative Chinese philosophy that they developed including putting labels (such as 'yin' and 'yang') on Anaxamanderian concepts! 'Astounding' is the most appropriate word I can come up with that seems to best fit the remarkable coincidence of the amazing similarity in thought between Anaxamanderian and about 350 years later Chinese (Han) philosophy. Or maybe it is not a coincidence. A lot of even slow travelling and slow integrating of ideas can happen in 350 years. So maybe it is not completely outrageous to think that Anaxamander might have influenced the evolution of early Chinese (Han) philosophy. Let us look at the similarities not only embraces the whole history of Western philosophy going back to at least 550-600BC to Anaxamander and Heraclitus but also goes almost as far back into the history of Eastern philosophy (but not quite as far as my research tells me so far), back to the philosophy of Confucious, the beginning of Taoism (the beginning of the concept of 'yin' and 'yang'), culminating in the massive philosophical integrations of the Han Dynasty.

Now Western philosophy I feel I have something of a handle on -- although even with Western philosophy I can be put in my place fairly quickly by people who specialize in the different areas that I am investigating. But Eastern philosophy -- and Middle Eastern philosophy for that matter -- goes much deeper into my 'quicksand quagmire' or 'philosophical area of the unknown'. Do I keep digging, I ask myself? -- even with an excavator? -- or turn back?


One can say -- as with many different important ideas that have evolved through man's history -- that the idea of the 'dialectic' has many different 'dialects' (sounds like these two words with their different meanings have the same root). Some of these different dialects we will talk about either briefly or in more detail while others we may let slip to the wayside predominantly because they are of less interest to me, and/or I just do not have the required time and energy to investigate them all. Some of these different 'dialectic dialects' have already been investigated in greater or lesser detail, some I still feel are 'virgin territory'. We can and will talk about the 'Anaxamanderan Dialectic', the 'Heraclitean Dialectic', the 'Socratean Dialectic', the 'Platonic Dialectic', if we get braver, the 'Confucian Dialectic', the the 'Taoism Dialectic', the 'Han Dialectic' -- and then leaving some significant gaps for the time being in both Western and Eastern philosophical history -- we will fastforward to the 'Fichtean Dialectic', the 'Hegelian Dialectic', the 'Marx-Engels Dialectic', the 'Nietzschean Dialectic', the 'Freudian Dialectic', the 'Jungian Dialectic', the 'Adlerian Dialectic', the 'Gestalt Dialectic'. We will even get braver still and poke our way into an investigation on the significance of the 'dialectic' relative to 'biology', 'evolution', 'Darwin', 'intelligent design', 'medicine', 'natural health', 'religion', 'pantheism', 'politics', 'economics', 'law', and -- leaving some room for the unknown, some room for even deeper elements of my 'quicksand quagmire' -- any discussion of the 'dialectic' that is not coming to the top of my head at this precise moment.


It sounds like we have more than the potential for a Masters or PHD thesis here -- even if I don't exactly jump through all of the 'academic hoops' that might get me there. Oh yes, that reminds me of one other type of 'dialectic' that I have already written about in Part 1 of this philosophical project -- the dialectic between 'academic philosophy' and 'pragmatic, common sense, lay philosophy'.

Before we start, there is a need to establish our general 'overall range of meaning for the dialectic', and then we can zero in, individually, on what each and every philosopher means similarly and differently by the dialectic (the different dialects of the dialectic), and on how our discussion of the dialectic as a whole theoretically and pragmatically affects each and every element of man's history, culture, and evolution -- indeed, some might say, including myself, the very history and evolution of biology and life itself.


The Hegelian idea of the dialect (which entails the idea of opposite phenomena, ideas, and/or lifestyles coming into contact with each other, often colliding with each other in aggressive fashion, and either trying to conquor each other, and/or reaching an impasse and separating from each other again, and/or reaching some sort of integrative compromise and/or synthesis in the familiar Hegelain forumula of 'thesis', 'anti-thesis', 'synthesis', and start all over again) I traced this idea back to the Pre-Socratic philosophy of Heraclitus, and from Heraclitus back to Anaxamander. I could trace it no further. I couldn't find any trace of the Hegelian dialectic in Thales who is generally considered to be the oldest Western philosopher -- at least among those who's ideas have been carried through history. Before Thales we would have to dip into either pre-Pre-Socratic ancient Greek literature (Homer), mythology and/or religion which I intend partly to do in the DGB religion section, but for our purposes here it looks to me like the Hegelian idea of the dialectic starts with Anaxamander. It is for this reason that our investigation into the history of Western dialectic philosophy starts with Anaxamander and moves forward. A huge sidewards step could be taken with a lot more 'cloudy mud' involved (particularly for someone like me who has little knowledge here) if we wander into ancient Chinese philosophy and examine the 'dialectic' as it has evolved in Chinese philosophy, religion, and culture. In Western philosophy (as in Eastern philosophy) a distinction can be made between those philosophers who specialized in some semblence of the Hegelian dialectic (eg. Anaxamander and Heraclitus in Greece, Confucious and Lao Tze in China) vs. those philosophers who fought long and hard for a particular philosophical perspective and left their legacy in the history of dialectical philosophy not so much as a dialectic philosopher per se but rather as one part of a 'Fichtean-Hegelian dialectic philosophical-historical triangle' (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis). In this regard I am thinking of Plato (the rationalist) vs. Aristotle (the empiricist) or Scholastic (religous) philosophy vs. Enlightenment (scientific) philosophy, or Enlightenment philosophy (reason and the rational) vs. Romantic Philosophy (passion and the irrational), or Structuralism vs. Deconstructionism. These polar swings in the history of philosophy we will discuss as we move along here, but first, let us start with Anaxamander (610 BC to 546 BC), the person who I consider to be the oldest dialectical philosopher in the history of Western philosophy -- perhaps relative to Eastern philosophy too as his idea pre-date the philosophy of the Chinese Hans philosopers (207 BC to 9 AD) who came up with the distinction between 'yin' and 'yang'. Before we start with Anaxamander, I would like to pull a short exerpt from the internet regarding the Han Philosophers and the development of the Han Dynasty because the goals of the Han Philosophers are to my limited knowledge exactly the same as my goals here only in Hegel's Hotel -- only in a different cultural, historical, philosophical, political, and economic context. The primary similarity in our goals is/was the move away from 'righteous, authoritarian, either/or' thinking in favor of 'integrative thinking that aims to unite opposing perspectives and alternatives'.

Having read what you just read above about the Han Philosophers, I want you now read the next series of essays on Anaxamander who was operating around Greece about 350 years before the Han Philsophers were operating in China -- and ask yourself whether you do not see a startling similarity in the the two philosophies. If during this 350 year period, following Anaxamander's death, there was any contact between the teachings of the second oldest Western philosopher and one of the most esteemed group of ancient Chinese philosophers -- not taking into account at the moment older pre-Han Chinese philosophy influences which to be sure were and still are extremely significant -- then that would indicate that Anaxamander has perhaps had an even greater influence on the evolution of Eastern Philosophy than he has on Western Philosophy, although that is hard to imagine because indirectly at least I believe that Anaxamander's Dialectical Philosophy, as sparse and fragmented as it may be to us today, still provides, known or unknown, the basement foundation of all Western Dialectical Philosophy -- which includes the philosophy of Heraclitus, maybe Socrates to some extent, Plato, Aristotle, Scholastic Philosophy, Enlightenment Philosophy, Romantic Philosophy, Rationalism (Plato, Descartes), Emiricism (Bacon, Locke, Berkeley, Hume), Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Adam Smith, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, The Structuralists, Deconstructionists, The Modernists, The Post-Modernists...and I haven't even broken a sweat.

With all due respect to Plato, what Whitehead wrote about Plato: 'that all of Western Philosophy is footnotes to Plato', I believe that that statement is equally if not more applicable to Anaxamander in the sense that I have demonstrated above, and will demonstrate further below...