孟子의 墨家 비판

Abstract

Confucianism and Mohism were rival schools of thought during the Spring and Autumn period. Mencius expresses harsh criticism of Mohism. Through his criticism of Mohism, Mencius sought to solidify the foundation, and discover the identity of his philosophy. His main point of concern was that Confucianism might lose its standing to Mohism, which had been popular during the Spring and Autumn period. As such Mencius, who considered himself the successor to Confucius, declared Mohism to be heresy and set the discrediting of the philosophy as his primary goal. As such, the works of Mencius can be interpreted in the context of criticism of Mohism. Mencius criticizes Mohism and Micius on the following three points. (1) Does Mohist philosophy have a dual origin? (2) Does the concept of impartial care of Mohism go against filial piety? (3) Does the concept of impartial care of Mohism go against the idea of moderation?(1) Does Mohist philosophy have a dual origin? According to Micius, the foundation of life should be the natural instinct of man. Yet Micius and Yi Zhi suggest a dual origin, leading to confusion. Mencius criticizes the paradoxical and contradictory suggestion of an external value, that of an equal, impartial care alongside the natural instinct of humanity, that of a preferential filial piety for one’s parents. However, Micius and Yi Zhi simply suggested that impartial care simply begins with one’s parents, who are physically nearby. Therefore it is not a suggestion of dual origins. In fact, Mencius claims to argue for a single origin of piety, yet fails to understand that it is simply an extension. He simply sees dual origins due to the supposed application of an external value system. Thus Mencius’s argument that Micius and Yi Zhi suggest dual origins of codes of behavior is unconvincing. (2) Does the concept of impartial care of Mohism go against filial piety? Mencius criticizes Micius’s idea of impartial care as denying filial piety. However, Micius has never condemned filial piety, nor has he devalued parents and ancestors. While emphasizing the importance of filial piety, Mencius too has stated that one should go beyond filial piety. In that sense, Mencius’s beliefs are no different from Micius’s concept of filial piety based on impartial care. Mencius has failed to properly understand Micius’s impartial care, and if he had understood it properly and criticized it regardless, then Mencius himself may be criticized for blindly denouncing Micius’s philosophies. (3) Does the concept of impartial care of Mohism go against the idea of moderation? Mencius argues that Micius’s impartial care should be criticized because it goes against moderation. Mencius’s idea of moderation is not that of Confucius, without government and free. It is a biased, ideological form of moderation weighed down by rules and principles. It is a scheme meant to protect Confucius’s philosophies and attack the ideas of Micius and Yang Zhu. True moderation would entail embracing the philosophies of Micius. Mencius criticizes Micius for lack of moderation, but he himself is fated to receive criticism on this very point. Mencius’s criticism of Micius does not seem successful, and it seems that biased assertions about Micius are all he has.