The relationship that the great realist political philosopher Han Fei had with the Laozi has long been discussed by scholars and the conclusions drawn run a wide gamut. Some argue that Han Fei cynically (mis)appropriated the Laozian vision for “Legalist” ends. Others argue that we find within the Han Feizi the correct interpretation of the Laozi’s teachings. And still others argue that those chapters of the Han Feizi that comment upon the Laozi or draw upon its ideas must not have come from Han Fei’s own hand, for the positions advocated therein conflict with the overarching political philosophy that can be gleaned from the Han Feizi. This chapter will provide little for those concerned with the authenticity debate, for its focus is more on philosophical questions. However, I shall suggest that it may be a useful heuristic to read “Explaining the Laozi” (“Jie Lao 解老”) chapter of the Han Feizi, which constitutes the earliest extant commentary on the Laozi, as if were written by Han Fei. Following this heuristic allows one to more clearly see the connections between the broader Han Feizi and the “Jie Lao” itself. More importantly, it aids us in seeing the extent to which the Han Feizi may have been inspired and influenced by the Laozi. Further, the “Jie Lao” provides us with an additional lens through which to view the Laozi itself—and yet another interpretation of the protean text that is the Laozi. And finally, it provides us with reasons to prefer certain interpretations of the broader Han Feizi, those that read the text as not simply a handbook for a totalitarian ruler but rather as a text that grapples with coming to an understanding of the world around us and how most effectively to survive in such a world.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

The Laozi and Han Feizi Through the Lens of the “Jie Lao”

  • Eirik Lang Harris

摘要

The relationship that the great realist political philosopher Han Fei had with the Laozi has long been discussed by scholars and the conclusions drawn run a wide gamut. Some argue that Han Fei cynically (mis)appropriated the Laozian vision for “Legalist” ends. Others argue that we find within the Han Feizi the correct interpretation of the Laozi’s teachings. And still others argue that those chapters of the Han Feizi that comment upon the Laozi or draw upon its ideas must not have come from Han Fei’s own hand, for the positions advocated therein conflict with the overarching political philosophy that can be gleaned from the Han Feizi. This chapter will provide little for those concerned with the authenticity debate, for its focus is more on philosophical questions. However, I shall suggest that it may be a useful heuristic to read “Explaining the Laozi” (“Jie Lao 解老”) chapter of the Han Feizi, which constitutes the earliest extant commentary on the Laozi, as if were written by Han Fei. Following this heuristic allows one to more clearly see the connections between the broader Han Feizi and the “Jie Lao” itself. More importantly, it aids us in seeing the extent to which the Han Feizi may have been inspired and influenced by the Laozi. Further, the “Jie Lao” provides us with an additional lens through which to view the Laozi itself—and yet another interpretation of the protean text that is the Laozi. And finally, it provides us with reasons to prefer certain interpretations of the broader Han Feizi, those that read the text as not simply a handbook for a totalitarian ruler but rather as a text that grapples with coming to an understanding of the world around us and how most effectively to survive in such a world.