Han Fei`s commentary on the Tao Te Ching states that knowledge without perspective – an absolute point of view – is possible, although the chapter may have been one of his earliest writings. [14]: 371 If a thousand people are employed in agriculture and war, but there is only one man among them who occupies poems, documents, reasoning and prudence, then a thousand people will all become careless in agriculture and war. This is the lesson that impoverishes the state and weakens the army. (Shang jun shu 3:22–26; Book of Lord Shang 3:5-3:10) Han Fei`s immediate response is that the ruler must protect himself by carefully applying the techniques of government described above. It should review the reports of its ministers, review their performance, promote them or demote them according to the correspondence between „performance” and „name”; He must remain calm and mysterious, and let them be exposed; He should encourage mutual spying and whistleblowing between his ministers. But this supposedly clean solution is problematic. First, it sometimes requires superhuman intellectual abilities of the ruler, in direct contradiction to Han Fei`s insistence that his system is suitable for an „average” (i.e. mediocre) ruler (Han Feizi 40:392). Second, it is still unclear how the ruler has access to reliable information if each of his close associates – as Han Fei reminds him – is a potential fraudster (Han Feizi 6:36-37).

And third, a system that requires constant surveillance of all can easily fall into the trap of totalitarian regimes in which „each agent in charge of inspection and control must logically be inspected and controlled himself” (Graziani 2015: 175). Han Fei`s foresight regarding ministerial machinations is remarkable, but it ultimately involves the ruler in the nightmarish situation of widespread distrust and distrust. In practice, this means that the leader must be isolated from his ministers. The elevation of ministers endangers the sovereign, with whom he must be strictly separated. The punishment confirms its sovereignty; The law eliminates anyone who exceeds its bounds, regardless of their intent. The law „aims to abolish the selfish element in man and the maintenance of public order” by making the people responsible for their actions. [242] To date, there are only a few monographs devoted to legalists and legalism. The first in a Western language, Vandermeersch 1987, is particularly valuable because while Vandermeersch classifies several thinkers as legalists, he is very careful to examine their views individually to understand their differences as well as their similarities.

Xu 1995 is the second French volume on legalists, in which they argue that they are united in their advocacy for absolute power for the ruler. Fu 1996 is particularly notable as the only English-language monograph on legalism, and is unfortunately hampered by the fact that it does not clearly distinguish between the thinkers treated, but generally treats them as if they were advocating the same ideas. Other useful journals of legalism include Schwartz 1985, whose analysis is particularly astute and recognizes the social science and model-building aspects of their thinking. Graham 1989 focuses on the fact that good government does not depend on the moral qualities of the individual, but on having properly functioning institutions in the state, and points out that legalists were unique in early China in that they began their analysis not of how society should be, but of what it really is. Hsiao 1979 is useful in demonstrating how various legalistic thinkers drew on the ideas of their predecessors while demonstrating their unique contributions. Li 1997 gives a Marxist-inspired account of the development of Chinese science in this field, offering a range of perspectives on legalism not available in Western languages. Liu 1996 offers an analysis of the development of legalistic thought and focuses on its political significance. These and similar statements, along with the mocking language of the text (it refers to moral values as „parasites” or „lice”) explain why Shang Yang became known as an enemy of morality in the eyes of imperial writers as well as many modern scholars.

However, this conclusion must be qualified. The „alienating rhetoric” exemplified above focuses on only a few chapters of Lord Shang; most others show more accommodating views of traditional moral values; some even promise that „the sovereign sage” would be able to „implement benevolence and righteousness in all things under heaven” (Shang jun shu 13:82; Book of Lord Shang 13:6; see also the detailed analysis in Pines 2012). It seems that the text does not attack morality as such, but moralizing discourse. It is this discourse – or, more accurately, its holders, the itinerant „service men” seeking employment in the courts of the rulers – that arouses Shang Yang`s indignation. Of the ten „legalistic” texts in the Han Emperor`s catalogue, six ceased circulation more than a millennium ago; Two have arrived relatively unscathed, and of two others, only a few fragments have survived the vicissitudes of time. The oldest text (in terms of composition) is the Book of Lord Shang (Shang jun shu 商君書), attributed to Shang Yang (aka Gongsun Yang 公孫鞅 or Lord Shang / Lord of Shang 商君), a major reformer who orchestrated the rise of the state of Qin 秦 to position himself as a leading power in the Chinese world. During the transfer, the book lost at least five chapters; Others had been severely damaged and barely legible. Since the end of the 18th century, efforts have been made to prepare a critical edition of the text and to change its corrupt parts; However, more than two centuries passed before the complete critical edition was published (Zhang Jue 2012). The composition of the text is very heterogeneous: some chapters were probably written by Shang Yang himself; others may have come from the hands of his immediate followers, but others were written decades and even more than a century after his death (Pines 2016a). However, the text presents a relatively coherent ideological vision, and it is likely to reflect the intellectual development of what Zheng Liangshu (1989) called Shang Yang`s „intellectual current” (xuepai 學派). Legalism was not only against Confucianism, but could not tolerate it. After the adoption of legalism by the Qin Dynasty, Confucianism faced the very real threat of extinction.

This was true of the work of Xunzi, the Confucian reformer, as well as any other Confucian work, although Xunzi Han Feizi inspired the foundation of legalism. In reality, the claim that people are essentially selfish and act only out of self-interest was only one aspect of Xunzi`s philosophy. He argued that people could become better than they are, not only through laws, but also through self-discipline, education and observance of rituals. The legalistic discourse is experiencing a resurgence under the leadership of Xi Jinping, the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, with journalists reporting his penchant for Chinese classics, alongside Confucianism, including legalistic writers and especially Han Fei, both of whom Xi considers relevant. [318] [319] [320] Han Fei gained new notoriety with positive quotes. A Han Fei phrase quoted by Xi has appeared thousands of times in Chinese state media at the local, provincial and national levels. [321] A key word in Xi`s reforms is „governing the state according to law” (simplified Chinese: 依法治国; traditional Chinese: 依法治國; Pinyin: yī fǎ zhì guó), with the initial emphasis on the application of discipline for party and government officials. [57] Legalism is a popular, though rather inaccurate, term for an intellectual current that gained considerable popularity in the second half of the Warring States period (Zhanguo, 453-221 BC). The legalists were political realists who wanted to achieve a „rich state and a powerful army” and ensure domestic stability in a period of intense international and national competition.

They believed that people – citizens and elites – would always remain selfish and aspire to wealth and fame, and that they should not be expected to behave morally. On the contrary, a viable socio-political system should allow individuals to pursue their selfish interests exclusively in a way that benefits the state, namely agriculture and war. At the same time, an appropriate administrative system should allow civil servants to benefit from grades and emoluments, but also prevent them from undermining the power of the ruler. Both systems do not care about the individual morality of rulers and ruled; Rather, they should be based on impersonal norms and standards: laws, administrative regulations, clearly defined rules for promotion and decommissioning, etc. Movement between social classes is allowed. The old hierarchy and aristocratic inheritance had to be abolished. In addition to crises and bloodshed, the Warring States period was also a time of opportunity for intellectually active individuals. It was an extraordinarily dynamic period, marked by new beginnings and profound changes in all areas of life.

Politically, the loose aristocratic units of the spring and autumn periods have been replaced by centralized, bureaucratized territorial states (Lewis 1999).