Gongsun Long: “Name, actually refers to reality.” — The name or form is a reflection of the content of a thing. This is also reflected in language because language is an expression of human thought, and human thought is a reflection of the objective world. For example, in Chinese, the predicate expresses the state of a thing.
Hui Shi, while governing the Wei state and implementing reforms, said to “correct the names and realities and transform the world.” Although the School of Names (Mingjia) is a philosophical school studying the relationship between names and realities, its political purpose is also very clear.
Gongsun Long’s “White Horse is not a Horse” does not mean that a white horse is not a horse, but that a white horse cannot be equated with a horse. Horse is a genus concept, and white horse is a species concept. Besides white horses, there are yellow horses and black horses. The idea of distinguishing between genus and species concepts, applied to politics, means that one cannot recognize abstract rulers, but must start from reality, acknowledge specific rulers, analyze rulers concretely, oppose foolish rulers, tyrants, and mediocre rulers, and support wise rulers. This is a rejection of the metaphysical rhetoric of the Confucian landowning class’s “ruler-ruling, father-father, son-son” obedience to the king. Confucius’s sixth-generation descendant Kong Chuan once demanded that Gongsun Long abandon the “White Horse is not a Horse” argument. This is like saying that there are no abstract people, only concrete people; in class society, people have class characteristics, and different classes cannot be confused or generalized, just like the phrase “the community of shared human destiny”.
Confucius’s principle of proper naming is “Ruler, ruler; Minister, minister; Father, father; Son, son,” which serves the decayed slave-owning rules. If someone wants to break this rule, establish new relationships between name and reality, and reform, it is considered “rebellion,” destroying the Confucian standards of name and reality. Confucius said: “Those who are filial and respectful are rare in their opposition to authority; those who oppose authority and love to cause chaos have never been seen.” “Filial piety and brotherly love are the roots of benevolence!” This reveals his reactionary thoughts, implying that those who are servants at home will not “oppose authority” or “cause chaos” in society; those who dare not oppose patriarchy at home will not oppose exploitation in society. Father and son, ruler and minister, are unified.
Gongsun Long’s idea of “discerning坚白 (坚白: firm and white)” also reflects a kind of materialist thought. Attributes are the qualities manifested during the movement of things. Different qualities appear during different processes of movement. It is impossible to understand the comprehensive qualities of a thing through a single approach; one must understand various aspects and attributes through different channels, grasp the fundamental attributes, and understand the essence of things to avoid being deceived by illusions. Han Fei said: “The most dear to a ruler is ‘同坚白’ (same坚白)” — meaning the ruler must distinguish the true face of the Confucian landowning class, understand his trusted officials comprehensively, not just observe secondary aspects, or he will be deceived and infiltrated, and the reform and reform teams will not be pure enough. For example, Qin Shi Huang failed to “discerning坚白,” and Zhao Gao, a slave-owning reactionary, infiltrated his ranks. After Qin Shi Huang’s death, Zhao Gao usurped power and restored the old order.
Later Mohists said: “Since ancient times, even Yao could not govern” (using ancient systems to handle contemporary affairs, Yao could not govern the world well). This also means that every hero of an era is produced under the historical conditions of that time — heroes are shaped by the times, not beyond the era. The former is historical materialism, the latter is historical idealism. Exploitative classes favor promoting the latter, such as “Guan Gong fighting Qin Qiong,” forcibly comparing people from different eras, which is completely incomparable. If Napoleon traveled to World War II, he could not defeat Nazi Germany; Napoleon only knew how to use cannons, but Nazi Germany already had airplanes and tanks. Today, the left circles like to say that the five great teachers of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin can be resurrected to recreate communism — this is also a form of historical idealism.
Hundred schools of thought contend, each school has its characteristics, but fundamentally they are Confucianism and Legalism — the struggle between conservatism and reform. But why is Confucianism thoroughly reactionary, without progress, yet still revered through successive dynasties, even today; while Legalism has made significant political achievements but is philosophically incoherent; Moism is philosophically complete and progressive but lacks clear political stance? Because Confucianism was created from the beginning to defend the decayed and declining slave-owning class. It was formulated by Confucius during the decline of the slave system and the gradual formation of new feudal production relations, making it the favorite of the exploiting class. In feudal society, there were large landowners representing decayed forces and small and medium landowners representing reform forces, leading to new Confucian-Legalist struggles. Even in feudal societies dominated by Legalist forces, Confucianism was generally the state religion because conflicts among exploiting classes are mainly intra-class contradictions. Confucianism, as the most effective reactionary tool, was revered by reactionaries of all dynasties (except during Wu Zhou, because Wu Zetian, as empress, could not ascend to power if she promoted Confucianism; but she was not entirely against the exploiting class’s religion — she replaced Confucianism with Buddhism, which is essentially no different). Today’s bourgeois society remains the same. The reason why Legalism has made great achievements politically but is philosophically incoherent is because Legalism ultimately also belongs to the exploiting class, which is detached from the laboring people. Without the practical experience of the laboring people, it cannot form progressive philosophical views; its political views, while effective for reform, ultimately serve the interests of the exploiting class and exclude the laboring people. Moism, on the other hand, originated from the school of free commoners during the late Spring and Autumn and Warring States period, at the end of the slave society. The free commoners valued labor and production, had rich practical experience, and observed the world deeply, resulting in a complete philosophical and logical system. However, because these free commoners were small producers and belonged to the declining small production class at the end of the slave society, they could not propose an independent political view.