A Comparison of Confucius with Socrates in the Light of a New Perspective:

Primary and Secondary Society

You-Sheng Li

Taoist Recovery Centre, London, Ontario, Canada

Dr. You-Sheng Li, Taoist Recovery Centre, London, Ontario, Canada. Email:

youshengli@aol.com. Website: http://taoism21cen.com

1

Abstract Outline

All human societies can be divided into two types: genetically coded primary

society and man-made secondary society. Western civilization, especially in

Mesopotamia and Greece, started with city states, which were formed by free citizens

after primary society or clans were disintegrated while Chinese civilization started as the

super state of a two-level system. The super state enabled people to live in a relatively

peaceful social environment while the two-level system, namely the newly formed

secondary societies were built on the top of numerous primary societies, enabled them to

still live in primary or quasi-primary society. From primary to secondary society is a

critical step in human cultural evolution, and it thus provides a new powerful perspective

to understand Western and Chinese philosophies and their difference.

Socrates is traditionally regarded as the father of Western ethics or moral

philosophy, and Confucius holds that position in Chinese ethics. The two men lived some

ten years apart. A comparison between Confucius and Socrates serves as an illustration to

show how the two fatherly philosophers were hallmarked by their different social

environments. The Apology shows that Socrates distinguished the law from the

authorities who handled the law. He refused to take the chance to escape, and said, “For

neither in war nor yet at law ought I or any man to use every way of escaping death.” He

accepted the death sentence as he respected the law but condemned the authorities who

passed the sentence to him. Such a distinction is a concept of a secondary society. On the

contrary, Confucius openly opposed the rule of law. He said, “If the government leads the

2

people by laws, and reaches uniformity by punishment, the people will try to avoid the

punishment, but have no sense of shame.” The Analects shows clearly that Confucius

wanted to build a society where there were neither lawsuits nor any cruelty and killing.

Today, Confucius’s words and views may only appeal to certain circles of families and

friends. In ancient time, they were addressed to the primary society.

Socrates' most important contribution is the so-called Socratic Method while

Confucius’s most important contribution is the ethical code of benevolence and

righteousness (renyi) which he set up for Chinese people. The Socratic Method reflects

the need of a secondary society to search for a far-sighted ideology for a more stable life

and society while Confucius’s ethical code of benevolence and righteousness reflects the

need of a primary society to rely on its members’ subconscious to prevent unwanted

division. Confucius held a strong belief in governing by doing nothing, which

summarises the way of life in primary society. As a result, Confucius and Socrates lived

different lives with different attitudes towards physical labour. Language functions

differently in primary and secondary societies. With the face-to-face interaction in

primary society, language is mingled with emotional and psychological exchange. As a

result, Confucius and Socrates talked differently. Confucius’s talks are more like pieces

of art while Socrates’ talks contain mainly information and insights.

Human nature and instinct keep a primary society stable and functional while in

the early stage of secondary society, religion or belief in gods was often used to

consecrate the form and course a society was taking, and thus provided a powerful

cohesive force to stop its members from seeking other types of secondary society. In

3

primary society, no authority can force his will on others, and their gods do not interfere

with people. As a result, Confucius and Socrates had quite different attitudes towards

religion. Confucius stayed away from gods and refused to speak about parapsychology,

psychic power, mental disturbance, and ghosts (guaililuanshen). In spite of Socrates’

sincere belief in and devout reverence for the gods, his critical thinking eventually led to

his execution. (end of Abstract Outline)

4

A Comparison of Confucius with Socrates in the Light of a New Perspective: Primary

and Secondary Society

According to A. N. Whitehead, all philosophy is only a footnote to Plato. 1 Such

a statement always reminds me of what Karl Jaspers called the Axial Age from 800 to

200 BC: a period of interregnum for liberty, a period of transition for critical thinkers to

lay down the frame of thinking or philosophical foundation for the coming years. Lao

Tzu, Confucius, Socrates, and Plato are as relevant today as they were more than two

thousand years ago. But the different social environments hatched different philosophies

in China and in Greece during the Axial Age. The Chinese civilization developed on the

basis of primary society while the Western started with secondary society. It provides a

new powerful perspective to understand Western and Chinese philosophies and their

difference, since it is based on a fundamentally critical step of human cultural evolution,

from primary to secondary society. I will explain this new perspective of primary and

secondary society, and then use Confucius and Socrates as examples to show the

difference between Western and Chinese philosophies in light of this new perspective.

I. The Concept of Primary Society and Secondary Society 2

5

Primary society is genetically coded society, and secondary society is any society that is

created by man or human culture. Although there is no real primary society for us to

examine, it is not difficult to outline the features of a primary society through its

definition and the study of animal societies and human society before civilization.

In primary society, human nature and instinct are enough to keep the society

harmonious and functional. Primary society is the basic social organization of man

immediately above families. Members are linked together emotionally and

psychologically, and thus they are a whole at the subconscious level. The ideal number of

people in a primary society is believed to be around 150. Bands and tribes are regarded as

primary societies. Bands or tribes were headed by headmen who had no power to force

their will on others. Their leadership was based on persuasion and consensus. The culture

of primary societies is close to human nature and has no power to modify human nature.

Secondary society is created by man, and so it has an ideology and a

corresponding social structure to support the ideology. As a creation by man, it has

limitless possible types with different value systems, different directions, and different

structures while primary society, dictated by genetics, has only one type. Social

stratification and institutionalized violence such as police and army are often necessary to

keep a secondary society stable in its present type and restrain its members from seeking

other types of society.

Here we define spare time as time left after one’s basic biological needs such as

food and water are fulfilled. Primary society spends spare time on enjoyment or on

anything closely related to survival such as controlling flood and building city walls. As a

6

result of social stratification and institutionalized violence, secondary society is able to

force its will on its members. Therefore, secondary society spends its spare time on its

goals that are often not closely related to enjoyment or survival.

An analogy is the lobefin fish that moved onto land and became a land animal

around 300 million years ago. The lobefin fish had strong fins but did not have limbs yet.

Once on land, they had the possibility to transform to different animals: reptiles, birds, or

mammals. Humans moved from primary to secondary society like fish moved onto land:

it is not an ordinary move but a move to a different level that is open to multiple

dimensions or directions.

Primary society has long been disintegrated in modern civilized society. Since

primary society is determined by genetics, and human genetics has not been substantially

changed, we can still see the vestige of primary society. It is what Charles Horton Cooley

called the primary group, the circle of families, relatives, and friends. 3

The distinction between genetically coded primary society and man-made

secondary society is a theoretical one, and thus it is determined totally by their

definitions. Their definitions are refined by examining the way in which they are contrary

to each other: One was man-made, the other, hereditary. The term “natural society” is

not used in contrast with “artificial society”, and it lacks theoretical precision. The

contrasting terms urban/rural and agricultural/commercial did not always correspond to

primary/secondary society in human history, because they describe different aspects of

society. The implication of the concept of primary and secondary societies in social

sciences is open to further studies. My pioneer endeavour is inevitably immature.

7

II. The Super State and the Two-level System in Ancient China

The Western civilization, especially Mesopotamia and Greece, started with city

states. Primary society or clans were disintegrated to form city states with free citizens, a

typical secondary society while the Chinese civilization started as a super state of the

two-level system: The super state enabled them to live in a relatively peaceful social

environment while the two-level system, the newly formed secondary society was built

on the top of numerous primary societies, enabled them to still live in primary or quasi-

primary society. A quasi-primary society is a society similar to primary society. This

system was first started by the Yellow Emperor around 2300 BC. 4 From 2300 to 476

BC, peace and morality were apparently the main voices. The first authoritative volume

of Chinese history, Historical Records, starts with such words:

“…When Godly Farmer’s (Shen Nong) rule was weakened, vassal states (tribes or

federations of tribes) were fighting and conquering each other, people were devastated,

but Godly Farmer was unable to punish them with military actions.” 5 

Now the Chinese academic circle considers Godly Farmer as a period of history

and not a specific ruler. During this time, agriculture was developed and people lived

together in peace except for its later years when violent conflicts developed. The first real

ruler in Chinese history was the Yellow Emperor, who conquered two large federations

of tribes that were apparently the major powers violating peace, and he then set up this

super state to put an end to those chaotic years. This super state was further enlarged and

8

solidified by Yu the Great around 2070 BC when the first Chinese dynasty Xia was

founded. A super state was the far largest state of the known world to its people, and

there were not any other states to compete with it. With limited geographical knowledge,

its people saw this super state as the only power in the whole world. As the above

quotation implies, this superpower or super state was to function as police to keep peace

among tribes or confederations of tribes (vassal states) like the United Nations keep peace

in our world today. If primary society is encoded by genetics, the following important

assumption shall apply: 

A primary society or quasi-primary society will form automatically if,

1), the population is no more than a few hundreds;

2), the society is based on face-to-face interactions;

3), no contact with and no ideological influence from secondary society;

4), no outside force is threatening their survival. 

The Two-level System of Chinese Ancient Society from 2300 BC to 476 BC was

modeled as follows:  

            The King and his clan + Intellectuals              Quasi-primary society

                        │

            The vassals and their clans + Intellectuals       Quasi-primary society

9

                        │

            Villages and tribes                                          Primary society 

            Although the king and vassals, who were the heads of vassal states, were in

secondary society according to the above definitions, they were able to live in quasi-

primary society, since all the four “if”s in the above important assumption were met. No

similar powerful states competed with this super state, which ensured that no outside

force threatened their survival. It is further explained as follows:

1), The king, vassals, villages/tribes, and their clans all lived in primary or quasi-

primary society.

2), The king, vassals, and their clans lived a better material life than the

village/tribal people, but a ten percent tax was well tolerated and was not enough to

change the idle life style of the people.

  3), The king and vassals did not live together, but they engaged in face-to-face

interaction. Their numbers were within a few hundreds, and they formed a quasi-primary

society;

4), Similarly, the vassal and his subordinate headmen formed another quasi-

primary society. The king ruled his vassals and the vassals ruled their headmen in the

same way as a headman ruled his subjects in a primary society, mainly by persuasion and

consensus.

10

  5), The relations between the above primary and quasi-primary societies followed

the princinple of reciprocity and mutual respect as if it was in primary society.

6), Ideally, adminstrative and military conflicts were minimized to nearly zero

according to the Taoist princinple: govern by doing nothing or follow the natural way. At

the level of the king and vassals, administration was mainly to help those who could not

survive by themselves, and military actions were mainly to keep peace. Thus it was ideal

if everyone was able to survive and there was no violence.

Secondary society is not an enlarged primary society but fundamentally different

society. The first critical thinker of China was Lao Tzu, who had a clear vision about this

difference. He said, “The human world (tianxia) is sacred, not something that can be

manipulated or possessed. Whoever manipulates the human world will fail. Whoever

possesses the human world will lose it.” (Daodejing, Chapter 29)

The human world is apparently a term used in contrast to primary society, and,

therefore, is secondary society. With limited geographical knowledge, their human world

was the only world they knew, the ancient Chinese world or China today. From those

words by Lao Tzu, we know that the king of the super state of China did not have

absolute power during or before Lao Tzu's time. The king and his government did not

possess their super state and did not have the power to manipulate state affairs. What they

could do was only to follow the natural course as the Taoist philosophy says. Taoist

philosophy is only a natural ideology that summarizes the way of life in the ancient

Chinese primary society.

11

In summary, Chinese people were able to live in primary or quasi-primary society

after civilization, and human nature was still the main force to stabilize the society and

keep it functional. With the analogy of fish moving onto land, the fish was on land but

still in water in the Chinese system.

III. A Comparison of Confucius with Socrates to Show their Different Social

Environments

Confucius was the first Chinese critical thinker who tried to restore the social

order and set up standards for human behaviour. Similarly, Socrates was the first critical

thinker who shifted his attention to society and the human world. Their different thoughts

and different outcomes are like hallmarks to label the different societies they were in. The

Greek society had been a typical secondary society for at least a few hundred years before

Socrates was born while the Chinese still lived in primary or quasi-primary society. But

the Chinese society was in crisis during Confucius' time. Socrates is traditionally

regarded as the father of Western ethics or moral philosophy, and so is Confucius of

Chinese ethics. The two men lived some ten years apart, and both died in their early

seventies. Neither of them wrote anything down, and far too much was ascribed to them

by their followers. The Analects and the Apology are the most reliable sources for the two

fatherly figures.

(1), Different Societies as Reflected in Socrates’ Apology and Confucius’ Analects: As

noted above, the Mediterranean world had several civilizations and did not have a super

state structure until later years. In face of war and survival issues, the ancient Greeks, like

12

the Mesopotamians, broke down their clans to form city states, secondary societies, but

Chinese clans remained intact during the same historical period. This difference is clearly

reflected in the Apology and the Analects.

The word “law” appeared 11 times in the Apology and only three times in the

Analects even though the latter is almost twice as long as the former. In the Apology,

Socrates said, “And so leaving the event with God, in obedience to the law I will now

make my defence.” After being sentenced to death, he refused to the take the chance to

escape, hiding in other city states for a few years. He said, “I would rather die having

spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at

law ought I or any man to use every way of escaping death.” Thus Socrates obeyed the

law even when he disagreed with the sentence. He condemned those who sentenced him,

and said, “…in the hour of death men are gifted with prophetic power. And I prophesy to

you, who are my murderers, that immediately after my departure punishment far heavier

than you have inflicted on me will surely await you.” So Socrates clearly distinguished

the law from the authorities who handled the law. He accepted the sentence as he

respected the law but condemned the authorities who passed the sentence to him. 6

Such a distinction is apparently a concept of a secondary society. It is consistent

with the above mentioned definition: “Secondary society is created by man, and so it has

an ideology and a corresponding social structure to support the ideology”. In contrast,

Confucius openly opposed the rule of law. He said, “If the government leads the people

by laws, and reaches uniformity by punishments, the people will try to avoid the

punishment, but have no sense of shame. If the government leads them by virtue, and

reaches uniformity by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and

13

moreover will become good.” “ In hearing lawsuits, I am no better than anyone else.

What we need is to have no lawsuits.” ( Analects, 2:3, 12:13)

On other occasions, he said, “In doing government, what is the need of killing? If

you desire good, the people will be good.” “ If any good men were to govern a country

for a hundred years, there will be no longer any cruelty and killing. How true this saying

is!” (Analects, 12:19, 13:11) In Confucius’ ideal state, there will be neither lawsuits nor

cruelty and execution. According to the ancient Chinese records, during the reign of

Kings Cheng and Kang, there were forty years when neither any sentence was announced

nor any punishment was given. To eliminate lawsuits and court sentences became a goal

for the subsequent Chinese governments to pursue. It was sometimes claimed that such a

goal was nearly achieved. A society that does not have any lawsuits, court sentences, and

punishment is only a primary society.

Although Confucius never had any trouble with any law, he often ran against the

authorities’ opinions. To be exact, the decision made by the duke and his court also

represented the state, or the law. Unlike Socrates who obeyed the decision reached

according to the law, Confucius simply left the state to seek employment in the

neighbouring states. He travelled over many states for 14 years and failed to find any

proper position, and he had no trouble in coming back to his native state.

Both the Analects and the Apology are formal documents, since they were highly

selected and recorded by Confucius’ and Socrates’ followers. Socrates talked so seriously

that he gives us an unparalleled picture of moral character and virtue. 7  On the other

hand, Confucius seemed rather informal. For example, Confucius once said, “If the

attainment of wealth was achievable, even if I were to wave a whip in hand to clear up

14

the road for a lord, I would do so.” (Analects, 7:12) On another occasion when everyone

talked about their political ambitions, Confucius said, “Ah, lovely, I am with you, Tien.”

What Tien had said was to relax and enjoy an excursion with friends along the river at the

height of spring. (Analects, 11:24)

In contrast to Socrates’ sophisticated apology in front of five hundred jurors and

the fashionable sophistry in Athens, Confucius asserted that Confucian gentlemen should

be hesitant in speech but sharp in action; they do not form cliques or factions, and they do

not wrangle or compete.

Today, those Confucius’ words and views may only appeal to certain circles of

families and friends. In ancient time, they could only be addressed to the primary society.

(2), The Top Contribution: Socrates' most important contribution is the so-called Socratic

Method, which he largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts. The Socratic

Method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination by asking a series of questions.

With this method, better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating

those which lead to contradictions. The influence of this approach is most strongly felt

today in scientific studies.

As a typical secondary society, the ancient Greek society was built to satisfy and

also stimulate the materialistic needs of the population. Knowledge, techniques, and the

social structure that supported such pursuits had to be tested to increase its odds of

success. Socrates' method reflects such a social need, and also reflects the need of a more

stable life course by the ordinary people. Since a secondary society faces all possibilities

15

like a boat on uncharted high seas, people need the more grounded experience of primary

society.

Confucius’ most important contribution is the ethical code of benevolence and

righteousness (renyi) which he set up for Chinese people. The core concept of this ethical

code is benevolence (ren). Confucius once said, “Benevolence means loving people.” In

fact, ren (benevolence) and man are interchangeable words in the Analects. Thus

Confucian benevolence (ren) is very close to the meaning of humanity. When a primary

society is facing the possibility of unwanted division, people rely on collective

unconsciousness to make sure the society stay intact, since nobody has the power to force

other members to stay. They call on people to search in their subconscious the feeling

that they are humans and they are members of this society. In other words, they call on

people to feel their subconscious bond with the society and with others. As mentioned

above, a primary society is a whole at the subconscious level because the members are

linked together emotionally and psychologically.

Confucius came up with a similar way to call on people's subconscious, and

remind them: “Please remember, you are human beings and behave like one!”

In secondary society, humanity is pretty much a creation by man and culture.

Socrates would have responded to Confucius' call, “What kind of human beings? Please

define it first.”

It must be pointed out that people who lived in ancient primary society responded

to those calls fundamentally different from us, since we are no longer as sensitive as they

16

were to those calls. An analogy is that a toddler playing outside and ignoring his mother’s

call will come back immediately when his mother asks, “You do not want mommy any

more?” A six month old infant knows to share his feeling with his mother by looking at

her repeatedly when he is excited with a new toy. It is the subconscious bond between

mother and child that the above toddler cannot part with.

(3), The Meaning of Life: Many people have a life long quest which serves as the

meaning of their lives. Confucius' quest was to restore the social order while Socrates'

quest was to find the truth. When a primary society was in trouble, every member felt the

obligation to help especially the elite. In a secondary society, it was not Socrates' business

to restore social order, and his duty was to fight bravely in the battlefield and work hard

to make a living. In the remaining time, Socrates’ quest was to examine everyone

including himself and also examine many philosophical topics in order to find the truth.

Such truth is ultimate in nature, not influenced by personal opinions. Such a concept of

truth is characteristic of secondary society, of which the construction is based on rational

thinking. Generally speaking, it is beyond the reach of a primary society to seek such

truth. In the social affairs of primary society, it is mingled with emotions and

psychological feelings that rules out any rational thinking and calculation. The Chinese

say, a law-binding magistrate keeps himself from meddling in family affairs. What

Socrates sought was exactly the truth in life and in society. Unfortunately the truth

Socrates finally found was unacceptable to the Athenian authority and the Athenian

citizens, which led to his execution.

17

(4), Governing by Doing Nothing as a Political Philosophy and as a Way of Life: To

govern by doing nothing (wuweierzhi) is often regarded as part of Taoist philosophy. In

fact, Confucius himself held a strong belief in governing by doing nothing, so called rujia

wuweishuo, the Confucian view of governing by doing nothing. 8 The Analects cites

Shun, a legendary king, as the model of governing by doing nothing. Shun was said to

have only five officials but the whole China was orderly during his reign. Once

Confucius says, “The one who governed by doing nothing was Shun, and wasn’t he?

What did he do? He did nothing except for sitting in the throne solemnly and

courteously.”(Analects 15.5)

The Western social and political philosophy hardly had any thoughts in history

close to such an idea of doing nothing to rule. Western civilizations were adventurous

expeditions on large scales from the very beginning.

Furthermore, Confucius gave a lovely picture of the life in the ancient Chinese

primary society where there was no trace of any government. It is another way to express

his belief in governing by doing nothing. He says, “When the Tao prevailed, the world

was publicly owned, virtuous ones were selected and able ones were chosen, and people

lived in harmony and honesty was valued. Everyone treated all the others as his own

family, and treated all children as his own children. The elderly enjoyed their later years,

the middle-aged made their contribution, and the young were nurtured to grow up. All

those who had lost their families were taken care of. Males had their shares, and women

had husbands. Goods were displayed on the ground, and nobody took them as their own.

Everybody worked but not for themselves. There was neither plot nor scheme, and there

18

was neither theft nor robbery. Doors and gates were not locked. It was called the World

Commonwealth.” (The Rites: Liyun)

If governing by doing nothing summarizes the social and political ideology of

primary society, it can also be considered as a way of life. Thus it applies to every level

and every aspect of life.

In a primary society, members spend their spare time enjoying themselves like

most animals do after their basic biological needs are fulfilled. Enjoyment includes

intellectual and philosophical pursuits, and also includes all aesthetic pursuits. If spare

time is time left when one’s basic biological desires are fulfilled, civilization can be built

using spare time or its building process can be enjoyed by the people who build it. Thus

the Chinese system did not hinder the development of their civilization, though their early

civilization may be less materialistic and ostentatious.

A secondary society often organizes its members to pursue its goal using their

spare time. It is most successful if it makes its member regard the goal as their own. An

easy way to achieve this is to link the goal to war, which makes any goal look like a

survival issue. Such tricks worked in the Greek system but did not work with the Chinese

super state of a two-level system.

The Chinese system was based on human nature and therefore unable to

accommodate any big project like building the pyramids that was outside the survival

needs of the population, since it was hard to get the consensus of the whole population.

During the above mentioned period from 2300 to 476 BC, there was no such project

19

mentioned in Chinese records except for the flood control around 2100 BC. The vast

flooded area itself was an urgent call to the population so that it could be regarded as a

project for survival. On the other hand, in 841 BC, the angry citizens within the capital

were enough to drive away the king. During the subsequent history after 476 BC, the

two-level system was substantially changed but the traditions were still there. Two

ambitious emperors, one built the Great Wall and the other, the Great Canal to link up the

major rivers of China, both caused massive uprisings and immediate collapse of their

dynasties. Their projects were far more useful than the ancient Egyptian pyramids and the

Greek temples.

The Chinese system itself also means the separation of the two-levels: primary

society and quasi-primary society. The former includes villages and the latter, the king

and vassals. They both lived their lives inside their own societies, and the only

connection between the two was tax and occasional military service. In the ancient

Greece, all the slaves, free citizens, and government officials worked inside the same

social and economic network. The close connection between slaves and their masters

ensured the normal productive process. In the Chinese system, too many interactions

between the two levels might lead to the emergence of a typical secondary society, which

would have the potential to destabilize the whole system. Lao Tzu promotes the

separation, and he says, “The best rulers are scarcely known by their people…When the

best rulers achieve their goals, their people would say it is their own doing.” (Daodejing,

Chapter 17)”

20

As a result, Confucius and Socrates had radically different attitudes towards

physical labour, though both of them were from poor families of the ruling class. Socrates

was one of the free citizens who formed the ruling class over slaves. Confucius disliked

physical labour and scorned those disciples who liked. For example, he was said to have

never laboured his four limbs and be unable to tell millets from rice, and he once called

one of his disciples a petty man (xiaoren) after this disciple asked him how to grow crops

and fruit trees. (Analects, 18:7, 13:4) Socrates was a mason. Some statues in the city of

Athens were said to be sculptured by him. As the duty of a citizen, Socrates bravely

fought several battles. Both as a teacher, Confucius apparently earned an income while

Socrates refused to teach for money. Socrates regarded his teaching as part of the ideal

philosopher’s life he was pursuing. It is apparent that the ancient Greek life was more

energetic and industrious while the Chinese, more peaceful.

(5), The Length of Speech: It is interesting to compare the lengths of Socrates' and

Confucius’ talks recorded by their followers. The Analects that records Confucius’ words

during his whole life has only 27,000 words in English translation while the Apology that

records Socrates' speech at the court has 14,700 words in English translation. The way

Plato recorded Socrates' words might be different from the way Confucius’ disciples

recorded Confucius’s words, and the latter might be more concise. Both Plato and Meng

Tzu (372-289 BC) expounded their thoughts in detail, since they both wrote for

contemporary and future readers. Plato wrote more than two dozen books ranging from

20 to 300 modern printed pages while Meng Tzu wrote only one book with some 45,000

Chinese characters and less than 100 modern printed pages. The difference reflects the

different functions of language in primary and secondary societies. China and Greece

21

were at different stages of language evolution though they were both in a typical Axial

Age.

Anthropologists believed that primates groom each other as a way to solidify the

social bond while naked humans chat with each other to solidify their social bond. Even

today when people spend most time working, watching television, they still chat at home.

Such chat does not necessarily function as exchange of information or discussion of a

current issue but can be only for the enjoyment. I often see children of three or four years

old chat this way: They giggle wholeheartedly at the nonsense they are talking. Such chat

is a piece of pure art. Through such chat and other collective activities, all members

integrate into a whole psychologically and emotionally in primary society. The cohesive

force and the unity of secondary society rely on the uniform understanding of their

collective goals. A highly developed system of communication that is based on exchange

of information is a must.

Both Lao Tzu and Confucius lived in the late Spring and Autumn Period (770-476

BC) when the above two-level system was in crisis, and a new system had not emerged

yet to replace the old one. Both Lao Tzu and Confucius admired the past. Confucius’

Analects is by no means a chat, and Confucius himself lived a life more like that in

secondary society since he traveled from state to state to promote his ideas. The friendly

atmosphere among his disciples and himself was more like a typical primary society.

Since people could live in primary or quasi-primary society with the above two-level

system, they lacked the experience of secondary society and lacked their sophisticated

language. Plato and Socrates used to worry about the emotional effect of poetry and arts

22

and ban them from their ideal republic except for hymns to the gods and praise of famous

men. Modern arts have lost such effects because we have all been exposed to too many

arts already since our childhood. Similarly we have all lost our sensitivity to language,

printed or spoken words. You can finish reading the Analects within a few hours but it is

not the way to read it. You have to read only a few lines a day and ruminating over those

words the whole day. You may then appreciate the beauty and deep meanings of those

words. You may even be induced into a particular mood that was precisely the effects of

those words. You then may roughly have experienced what ancient people did when they

heard those words because they were sensitive and we are not. Such effects do not apply

to Socrates' speech of the Apology, which is not much different from today's speech of a

similar man in a similar situation. Ancient Greek secondary society was well developed

by Socrates' time. The Analects (11:24) says, “When Confucius asked Tien to say

something about himself, Tien set his lute down with its strings still ringing, and stood

up.” From these records, we can conclude that Confucius’ words, as recorded in the

Analects, might have been companied by musical instruments. Nowadays, you can recite

the Analects or poetry while being companied with musical instruments but it is, in my

opinion, much harder to read the Apology with background music. Nevertheless, it is only

in relative terms to say that the Analects is more like a piece of art than the Apology,

A Chinese scholar says, the Analects is one of the few good books that you can

read any time under any circumstances and enjoy it. It will calm you down when you are

in a bad mood. According to him, Meng Tzu's book does not have such effects on him. 9

Thus, the Analects is not an ordinary piece of art like children's chats but one of the

greatest masterpieces of art in thousands of years. Meng Tzu, though a loyal Confucian

23

scholar he was, lived in the period of Warring States (475-221 BC) when secondary

society was established. The time required him to write differently from Confucius: There

was more information and more insights but it was less like a piece of art.

(6), Religious Philosophy: In the early stage of secondary society, religion or belief in

gods was often used to consecrate the form and course a society was taking, and thus

provided a powerful cohesive force to stop its members from seeking other types of

secondary society. It was certainly a contributing factor in the outcomes of ancient Greek

wars. When Greeks defeated the Persian invasion in 480 BC, the Greek cities agreed to

restore the Temple at Olympia and build a great temple to Zeus and a huge statue of him

to thank the gods for their victory. When the Athenians were defeated in the

Peloponnesian war (431-404 BC), Socrates was executed for blasphemy.

In primary society, the social cohesive force was human nature, and they did not

face the possibility of different types of society. Their religion was quite different.

Chuang Tzu says, “In the ancient time, yin and yang were in harmony. Gods and spirits

were quiet and did not interfere with people. The four seasons followed their course.

Animals and plants were not harmed. Humans lived to their full life span. People had

knowledge but there was no use of it. This is called the big One.”(Zhuangzi, Chapter 16)

Chinese countryside was close to Taoist ideal society. They consumed what they

produced, and only rarely bought something from outside. Here I use my own experience

to show the different attitude of Chinese people toward religion because of the Taoist

cultural tradition.

24

When I was a child in the early1950s, the gods Chinese peasants worshiped were

all natural deities. The only god who had a temple for villagers to pay respect was the god

of earth. A village may have several such temples, each for a clan or a cluster of

households, since it was considered as a local god like the headman of a tribe. They were

usually the size of a room, much smaller than a farmer house. Even a single room,

peasants never forgot to use it for something else. They could be used as grind mills,

public places for meetings, or playing grounds for children during rainy days. In my

village, all the temples for the god of earth had no image of the god. Each household of

peasants usually worshiped three additional gods: the kitchen god, the fortune god, and

the god of heaven and earth. Except for the kitchen god who had a paper portrait hung on

the wall, the other two were only specific locations, the granary for the fortune god, and

the yard for the god of heaven and earth. There were neither images of gods nor any

shrines for those two gods. The god of heaven and earth was really a god of nature and

had thus no image, but the fortune god was a male anthropomorphic god. Even with the

portrait of the kitchen god, a Chinese calendar was printed below the god image to

increase its sale. As a child, I saw clearly that Chuang Tzu was right: gods do not

interfere with people, and they do not have the power. When Buddhism and Christianity

spread to China, Chinese peasants worshiped them all as part of their polytheistic faith.

Since the houses of Chinese peasants were all one-storey, you could see only trees and

crops in the summer. Such a natural picture of life was well in contrast to modern cities

and to the ancient Greek landscape with huge buildings. My hometown is some two

hundred mile south of Beijing but to my knowledge, it was more or less the same in all

Chinese countryside in the 1950s.

25

Under such circumstances, Confucius' principles regarding gods are: Pay your

respect to gods and spirits but keep a distance from them. A suitable interpretation of

these principles is that gods and people do not interfere with each other. It is like in a

primary society where nobody can force his will on others. Furthermore, Confucius had

so-call Four No-Comments in his teaching and counselling practice, namely, Confucius

never spoke about parapsychology, psychic power, mental disturbance, and ghosts

(guaililuanshen). Confucius seemed to understand well today's psychology of religion. He

was a practical man and did not want to go into these grey areas. His religious attitudes

brought him no trouble since gods do not interfere with people in a primary society

setting.

A secondary society often stimulates its talents into free thinking but restricting it

within its boundary, and often stimulates its talents into religious imagination but

restricting it within its gods and beliefs. Socrates went too far both in religious

imagination and in free thinking for his society to tolerate. Socrates talked about his inner

voice that stopped him from entering politics. In a deep religious culture, such

subconscious similar to Socrates' inner voice must be commonplace. The Athens

government used Socrates to stop others, or even to use him as a scapegoat to silence

complaints. Such political trickery is typical of secondary society that is not seen in

primary society.

IV. Conclusion: the Uniqueness of Chinese Civilization

26

There were six primary civilizations in the world, namely Mesopotamia, Egypt, India,

China, Mexico, and Peru. There was no higher civilization among the neighbours of a

primary civilization. Greek and Hebrew civilizations were secondary but became the

philosophical foundation for Western civilization that dominates the world today. Of

those eight ancient civilizations, Chinese civilization showed eight characteristics that

were lacking in the other seven. Those eight characterisitics all favoured a more peaceful

and more natural lifestyle, which fits in the definition of primary society. Since it is

discussed in detail elsewhere, 10 two or three of characteristics are discussed below as

examples.

According to J. DeMeo, the desertification around 4000-3000 BC also occurred in

the Americas. The patriarchal warriors, who emerged from the affected areas, migrated to

the unaffected areas and conquered the original peaceful people and then formed the

primary civilizations around the world. China was apparently an exception, and the first

dynasty, Xia, was founded by the original peaceful people. 11 The lack of military

strength in early Chinese history favoured a primary society. In the six primary

civilizations, large-scale irrigation systems were constructed except in China, where

occasional flood control was often said to have similar effects on the emergence of state

structure but in fact, it did not. Irrigation systems enabled the ruling class to control the

economy and set up a stratified secondary society.

In the above eight ancient civilizations, China was the only one lacking

geographic/economic barriers to block discontented people from moving out. As a result,

Chinese people kept the migrating habits of hunters/gathers until the late Axial Age.

27

Confucius once said, “If you govern in this way (according to Confucian principles),

peasants will come flocking to you from all directions with their babies on their backs.”

Those words show that peasants were migrating freely during Confucius’ time.

Furthermore, their migration was neither driven by a military power nor attracted to or

forced by a higher level of economy such as irrigated farmlands or the trade-based

industry that enabled the ruling class to control the econmoy. They were attracted by a

friendly egalitarian society in Confuciuan terms. (Analects, 13:4)

Although some of these claims may be open to debate, it is enough to say that

Chinese civilization went through an evolutionary pathway that was fundamentally

different from all other civilizations. The appearance of the ancient super state of primary

society in China was itself no accident. The Axial Age featured scholars who travelled

from city to city. Because of the super state of primary society, ancient China was much

more culturally homogeneous than Greece even when China entered secondary society

during the Warring Period (476-221 HC). In many ways, Qi and Qin were similar to

Athens and Sparta. Qin burned all poems and other classics while Qi established the

famous Jixia Academy to support all sorts of free thinkers. Their thinking was greatly

limited by the tradition of primary society and lacked the broad horizon of ancient Greek

thinkers at the level of secondary society. Athens and Sparta were a democracy and an

oligarchy respectively while Qi and Qin formed a strong alliance for decades against

other states, reflecting the political homogeneosity of China.

Many consider the ancient Greek city, Athens, as unique such as commercial

activities, wealth, democracy, the pooling of different people with different ideas from

different places with diversified cultural backgrounds etc., to produce the most critical

28

thinkers during the Axial Age. The Axial China had none of those. But there was one

thing they shared with the Athenians, and that is freedom. The Chinese had no freedom to

pursue wealth or any projects on the Athenian scale, but they did not have the bondage of

commercial activities, wealth, democracy, etc. either. The first Chinese philosophers were

able to think from the basis of the born human nature and the genetically coded society,

primary society. Although the whole world including China is now on the road built by

Axial Greece or the Western civilization, Chinese culture may still point to a different

direction for the future.

(This article was submitted to the Journal of Chinese Philosophy on June 3, 2008, and

was revised and resubmitted on December 8, 2009 as the author was suggested to do. It

was finally rejected in February 2011. The reason for the rejection was indeed

“outdated”. Fortunately, it is not outdated for here the Scribd.)

Endnotes

1. The original words are: “The safest general characterization of the European

philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean

the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his

writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them…” Alfred North

Whitehead, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Corrected edition, edited by

David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne (Free Press, 1979).

2. You-Sheng Li, A New Interpretation of Chinese Taoist Philosophy (London, Canada:

Taoist Recovery Centre, 2005), 36-45, 232. The Chinese version of this book: You-Sheng

29

Li, Huange Jiaodu Kanrensheng, Kanshijie: 21shiji Zhonghua Daoxue. (Beijing:

Xianzhuangshuju, 2009).

3. Gordon Marshall, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1994), 92-93; and Charles Horton Cooley, Social Organization (New

York: Schocken Books, 1962).

4. The Yellow Emperor is considered to be a legendary figure, and the time of his reign

around 2300 BC is only an estimation.

5. All quotations from Chinese resources in this article are translated by the author You-

Sheng Li.

6. Plato, “Socrates’ Apology,” in Philosophies for Living, ed. R. M. Timko and J.

Whitman Hoff (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2001), 406-422.

7. R. M. Timko and J. Whitman Hoff, Philosophies for Living (Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2001), 406.

8. Yetan, “Rujia Wuweishuo (The Confucian View of Governing by Doing Nothing),”

Zhexue Yanjiu, No. 7, 1999.

9. Liu Mengxi, Zhuangzi yu Xiandai he Houxiandai (Chuang Tzu and Modern/Post

Modern) (Hebei Jiaoyu Chubanshe, 2004), 24.

30

10. You-Sheng Li, “Lun Zhonghua Wenmingde Teyixing (On the Uniqueness of Chinese

Civilization) ,” Xuedeng, Issue 10, 2009, available on line at:

http://confucius2000.com/admin/list.asp?id=3976)

11. J. DeMeo, Saharasia (Orgone: Orgone Biophysical Research Lab., 2004)

Chinese Glossary

Daodejing 道德經

Guaililuanshen 怪力亂神

Liji (The Rites ) 禮記

Ren 仁

Renyi 仁義

Rujia Wuweishuo 儒家无为说

shennong 神農

Tianxia 天下

Wuweierzhi 無為而治

31

Xiaoren 小人

Zhuangzi 莊子

32