Debate of DIKWP Active Medicine: The interplay of Neo-Confucianism, Spinoza, and Laozi 

Yucong Duan

International Standardization Committee of Networked DIKWP for Artificial Intelligence Evaluation(DIKWP-SC)

World Artificial Consciousness CIC(WAC)

World Conference on Artificial Consciousness(WCAC)

(Email: duanyucong@hotmail.com)

Abstract:“Preserving Heaven’s principle and removing human desires” is a core moral maxim of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism, emphasizing the internal cultivation of the mind to manifest the inherently moral principle (tianli) in human nature and to overcome the obscuring effect of selfish desires. Spinoza (Baruch Spinoza), from a Western philosophical perspective, advocates rational understanding of nature (substance) to transform passive desires into active emotions and thus attain spiritual freedom. Laozi, from the classical Daoist tradition, proposes “Dao” as the fundamental origin of the cosmos, advocating reduced desires, non-action (wuwei), and a return to simplicity and naturalness. This paper comprehensively compares and synthesizes the Neo-Confucian imperative of “preserving Heaven’s principle and removing human desires” with Spinoza’s and Laozi’s thought across multiple dimensions, including metaphysical foundations, human nature and the regulation of desire, rationality and freedom, ethical practice, sociopolitical visions, and contemporary relevance. Through this cross-cultural philosophical dialogue, we gain profound insights into varying interpretations of reason, virtue, nature, and freedom, providing valuable intellectual resources for modern ethical reflection.

Introduction: The Pursuit of Virtue and Freedom in Diverse Intellectual ContextsIn Chinese intellectual history, Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism constructed a cosmology and anthropology that integrated metaphysics with ethics. Within this framework, the phrase “preserving Heaven’s principle and removing human desires” (cun tianli, qu renyu) succinctly captures the project of affirming the innately good moral principle in human nature while eliminating the distortions caused by selfish impulses. By overcoming misaligned desires, one can restore the luminous moral essence endowed by tianli (Heaven’s principle).

In contrast, Spinoza (17th century) developed his philosophy during a European era transitioning from medieval theology to scientific rationalism. In his Ethics, Spinoza identifies God with Nature (Deus sive Natura), emphasizing the rational, necessary order of the world. He sees human suffering as arising from ignorance and the tyranny of passive passions. Rational understanding frees the mind from such bondage, enabling genuine spiritual freedom.

Turning to earlier Chinese thought, Laozi’s Daodejing posits “Dao” as the ultimate source of all existence. Laozi advocates non-action (wuwei), simplicity, and reducing desires to harmonize human life with the natural cosmic order. Instead of forcing moral actions, Laozi advises embracing nature’s own flow to achieve a state of tranquil authenticity.

This essay uses the Neo-Confucian maxim “preserving Heaven’s principle and removing human desires” as a point of departure, placing it in dialogue with Spinoza and Laozi. By exploring their metaphysical foundations, approaches to human desire, conceptions of rationality and freedom, ethical practices, political philosophy, historical context, and contemporary significance, we aim to uncover shared concerns and distinctive nuances. In so doing, we enrich our understanding of how different traditions address the human quest for moral elevation, inner liberation, and harmonious order.

I. Metaphysical Foundations: Tianli, Substance, and Dao

1. Tianli (Neo-Confucianism):In Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism, tianli is both the ultimate principle of the cosmos and the source of moral value. For thinkers like Zhu Xi, li (principle) exists prior to qi (material force), representing a pure, moral, and orderly metaphysical reality. Human beings possess this moral principle innately, which grounds the belief in original human goodness. “Preserving Heaven’s principle” thus means actualizing the moral essence inherent within.

2. Substance (Spinoza):Spinoza deduces a single, infinite substance, identified as God or Nature, from which all phenomena proceed with necessary rational order. Unlike the moralized universe of the Neo-Confucians, Spinoza’s substance is value-neutral, defined by logical necessity rather than moral goodness. Human freedom emerges from understanding this necessity, not from aligning with a moral directive.

3. Dao (Laozi):Laozi’s Dao is the unfathomable source of all things, the ineffable, nameless origin that engenders and nourishes the cosmos. Dao is beyond moral categories like good and evil, beyond rational constructs, embodying naturalness and spontaneity. The ideal stance is to be in harmony with Dao’s effortless flow, rather than imposing human moral schemes.

Comparing these three:

• Neo-Confucianism (tianli) moralizes the cosmos, making the universe inherently ethical.

• Spinoza’s entity is a rational, necessary framework devoid of moral valuation.

• Laozi’s Dao transcends moral and rational definitions, emphasizing a return to original simplicity.All three accept a fundamental cosmic principle, but differ in the moral, rational, and natural qualities they ascribe to it.

II. Adjusting Human Nature and Desire: Removing Human Desires, Rational Transformation, and Reducing Desires

1. Removing Human Desires (Neo-Confucianism):For Neo-Confucians, while human nature is originally good, selfish desires obscure this goodness. “Removing human desires” means eradicating excessive and morally improper impulses that block the manifestation of tianli. Through introspection, moral discipline, and rational discernment (gewu, zhizhi, sincerity, and self-examination), one’s mind regains clarity and goodness.

2. Transforming Passions (Spinoza):Spinoza acknowledges desire as intrinsic to human nature, but distinguishes between passive and active affects. Ignorance leads to passive passions that bind us in suffering. Rational understanding of nature’s necessity can transform these passions into active, rational emotions aligned with reason. Instead of repressing desire, reason refines it, enabling freedom.

3. Minimizing Desire (Laozi):Laozi suggests that excessive desires disturb the mind and disrupt harmony. By cultivating “few desires” (suppressing artificial wants) and embracing wuwei (non-action), one can return to simplicity and naturalness. This is not rational analysis of desire, but an effortless relinquishing of complications and contrivances.

In summary:

• Neo-Confucianism employs moral discernment to remove improper desires, revealing innate goodness.

• Spinoza employs rational insight to elevate desires into harmony with reason, achieving inner autonomy.

• Laozi advises reducing desires to restore natural simplicity, avoiding the necessity of rational or moral strictures altogether.

III. Reason, Virtue, and Freedom: From Internal Cultivation to Spiritual Liberation

1. Moral Rationality and Virtue (Neo-Confucianism):For the Neo-Confucians, rationality aids in discerning right from wrong and in affirming moral principles. True freedom arises when one’s desires spontaneously accord with the moral order (tianli). Reaching a state where “follow your heart’s desire without transgressing moral norms” encapsulates perfected virtue through moral self-cultivation.

2. Rational Freedom (Spinoza):Spinoza defines freedom as understanding necessity. By rationally apprehending the necessary order of reality, we are no longer enslaved by ignorance and erratic passions. Freedom is not whimsy but the joy of comprehending truth, leading to a serene spiritual liberation (beatitudo).

3. Natural Wisdom and Tranquility (Laozi):Laozi’s ideal is not rational calculation but attuning to natural rhythms. Freedom is found in non-action, non-contention, and returning to a state unburdened by artificial desires. Here, liberation emerges from effortless alignment with the Dao’s simple, unforced spontaneity.

Thus:

• Neo-Confucians root freedom in moral alignment and virtue.

• Spinoza bases freedom in rational understanding of reality’s necessity.

• Laozi finds freedom in tranquil surrender to naturalness, beyond conscious moral or rational striving.

IV. Ethical Practice and Political Philosophy: From Ritual Governance to Rational Polity and Non-Action Government

1. Neo-Confucian Ritual and Moral Politics:Neo-Confucian ethics aims at “inner sageliness and outer kingliness.” Those who have preserved tianli and removed selfish desires should govern society through virtue, rituals, and moral teachings. By doing so, they foster a harmonious social and political order that mirrors cosmic moral principles.

2. Spinoza’s Rational Politics:Spinoza envisions a rational and tolerant political order that encourages citizens to develop their understanding and reduce the impact of irrational passions on public life. A stable, just state emerges from institutions that foster rational enlightenment, rather than imposing moral dogma.

3. Laozi’s Non-Action Governance:Laozi’s political vision is “wuwei er zhi” (governing through non-action), minimizing interference, letting people remain simple and uncontrived. By reducing artificial desires and avoiding heavy-handed rule, society aligns with the Dao’s natural harmony.

Comparing these approaches:

• Neo-Confucianism focuses on moral virtue as the foundation of governance.

• Spinoza emphasizes rational structures and education to ensure civic peace and freedom.

• Laozi advocates minimal intervention and allowing natural order to prevail, reducing desires at both personal and political levels.

V. Historical Context and Contemporary Relevance: The Significance of a Threefold DialogueHistorically:

• Neo-Confucianism held orthodox status for centuries in imperial China, deeply influencing the scholar-official class and the moral-political structure.

• Spinoza’s thought, emerging in Europe’s age of reason and scientific inquiry, prefigured the Enlightenment and modern liberal ideals.

• Laozi’s thought, rooted in ancient China, inspired Daoist philosophy, “Huang-Lao” governance, and later influenced ecological and spiritual dimensions of Chinese culture.

In today’s globalized world, we face challenges such as consumerism, moral pluralism, environmental crises, and political complexities. These three traditions offer meaningful insights:

• From Neo-Confucianism, we learn that moral self-cultivation and ethical order are intertwined, encouraging introspection and moral refinement against materialistic temptations.

• From Spinoza, we realize the importance of rational understanding and education to mitigate prejudice, reduce conflict, and foster enlightened social conditions.

• From Laozi, we glean that in an era of hyper-artificiality, returning to simplicity, reducing desires, and embracing the flow of nature can restore balance and reduce stress, both personally and ecologically.

VI. Comprehensive Evaluation and Future ConsiderationsThe dialogue between “preserving Heaven’s principle and removing human desires,” Spinoza’s rational freedom, and Laozi’s non-action reveals varied yet convergent efforts to transcend blind pursuit of desires, achieve higher levels of freedom, and establish harmonious orders. Though each tradition emerges from different historical and cultural contexts, all three reject enslavement to base impulses and encourage aligning oneself with a higher principle—be it moral, rational, or natural.

Moving forward, we can integrate these perspectives: educational systems might combine moral character formation (Neo-Confucian), critical rational thinking (Spinoza), and a sense of ecological simplicity (Laozi). Political institutions can draw from virtue ethics, rational governance, and minimalist policy-making. On the individual level, one might cultivate moral discernment, rational reflection, and a return to simpler living. Such a multifaceted synthesis enriches contemporary ethical discourse and offers a guiding framework for addressing new-century challenges.

ConclusionBy comparing “preserving Heaven’s principle and removing human desires” with Spinoza and Laozi, we see how these distinct traditions illuminate reason, virtue, nature, and freedom in complementary ways. Their convergence in transcending uncontrolled desires and seeking alignment with a supreme order—moral, rational, or natural—offers a profound model for human flourishing.

This cross-cultural, cross-historical philosophical dialogue deepens our understanding of how humanity, across time and space, grapples with moral integrity, spiritual liberation, and harmonious coexistence. Drawing upon these three intellectual lineages, we gain insights into reframing our relationship with desire, knowledge, and nature, thereby guiding us towards a more balanced, meaningful, and sustainable way of life.

Selected References:

• Zhu Xi, Reflections on Things at Hand (近思录), trans. Wing-tsit Chan, Columbia University Press, 1967.

• Wang Yangming, Instructions for Practical Living (传习录), trans. Wing-tsit Chan, Columbia University Press, 1963.

• Laozi, Daodejing, annotated by Yang Bojun, Zhonghua Book Company.

• Spinoza, Baruch. Ethics, trans. Edwin Curley, Penguin Classics, 1996.

• Chan, Wing-tsit. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton University Press, 1963.

• Nadler, Steven. Spinoza: A Life. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

• Needham, Joseph. Science and Civilisation in China. Cambridge University Press.

The interplay of Neo-Confucianism, Spinoza, and Laozi provides a broad and intricate philosophical tapestry. Their respective approaches and insights offer valuable intellectual resources for contemporary ethical reflection, helping humanity navigate the complexities of present-day moral, intellectual, and environmental challenges.