Rethinking the Mengzi’s Concept of Tian 天

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The central claim of the paper is this:

Mengzi’s concept of tian should not be understood as a transcendent substance or as an anthropomorphic deity, neither should it be understood as simply Nature or the “will of the people.” Instead, I have argued that tian is best understood as the cultural tradition which sustains human community as a source of intergenerational moral values.

Is the point that the term tian in the Mengzi text takes on the meaning of “the cultural tradition which sustains human community as a source of intergenerational moral values”? (i.e., that this is the concept which the term connotes.) But this is is either clearly either false, or at least insufficiently evidenced, if it's meant to work for all of the passages where the term appears! For example, in passages ones ostensibly quoting from the ancient books Shijing or Shujing (e.g., 1B3, 2A4, 4A8, ). Or the ones where it clearly refers to the physical sky/natural phenomenon (e.g., 2B1, 2A2). Or for that matter, in the compounds tianzi and tianxia--are we supposed to take them to mean "son of the cultural tradition which sustains human community as a source of intergenerational moral values" / "beneath the the cultural tradition which sustains human community as a source of intergenerational moral values"?

More generally, it would be a good idea to work from a more comprehensive audit of the different uses of the term within the text. The important thing will be to look for the passages where the "cultural traditions" reading don't obviously fit and explain what's going on. For example, does it really make sense to read the 不取必有天殃 in 1B3 as--if I don't capture [Yan] the cultural tradition will send down disaster? Or the 吾之不遇魯侯，天也 as "the reason why I wasn't able to meet the lord of Lu is due to the cultural tradition" in 1B16? And if it turns out that more than one meaning is involved--tian is a multivalent term in the Mengzi--that will be important to discover and state too.

It's all very nice to be arguing with Bloom and Behuniak. But it's really unclear how any further value add can be provided if we only focus on the passages they were fighting over. (On this score, what happened to the discussion in KL Shun, Mencius and Early Chinese Thought, 207-210, especially since the book was cited.)

(Incidentally, even if the cultural traditions reading go through--we still need to note that there are passages which really do seem to portray tian anthropomorphically--as seeing, or desiring, or intervening. By itself, this doesn't count against "the cultural tradition" reading--but if this is the right reading, then they also imply that Mengzi thought of "the cultural traditions" in anthropomorphic terms! It's not even that odd--we do that with abstract all the time. Otherwise, how do we make sense of people talking about their motherland weeping, or claiming that this or that is what society wants, etc. So, likewise, it's entirely believable that someone can say "this is what the tradition wants!")

If the point isn't about what the term tian in the Mengzi text meant, then, we need a clearer statement of the point. Here's one example of an alternative thesis: the term tian takes on the meaning of either anthropomorphic Heaven, or Nature, etc., in the Mengzi text, but the reality that Mencius was talking about is better understood in terms of the cultural tradition which sustains human community as a source of intergenerational moral values, even though that may not be what he had in mind. (Here's an analogy: Imagine that in the medieval times, certain women were prosecuted as witches who made a pact with the devil. Later study of the surviving data strongly suggests that the ones who were prosecuted had (what we now recognize as) mental illness with weak connections to the community. This means that—in reality—what’s going on is that people were prosecuting mentally ill women with weak connections to the community. But nonetheless, the word “witch”, as it was used by speakers and listeners didn’t mean that; it meant someone with made a pact with the devil! I'm not saying that this is what the paper author has in mind--but it's a different kind of thesis compared to the earlier one focusing on word meaning.

With the above in mind, I would rather reject the paper for now, but without prejudice against a future resubmission.

It's fine. Copy writing will fix any remaining (small) issues. My worry are more conceptual.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Response

I thank the reviewer for their time and diligence in reading my article and providing their feedback. Their review has been an opportunity to think more on key elements of my argument. I would like to provide a response and detail some of the changes made in light of the reviewer’s suggestions.

First, it seems to me that the reviewer’s overall concern is with the “multivalence” of the term tian 天. They say that my argument that tian refers to intergenerational values is “is either clearly either false, or at least insufficiently evidenced, if it's meant to work for all of the passages where the term appears!” I do not make the claim in my article that tian only has the one meaning I am arguing for. Nor do I claim my goal is to examine all of the meanings of tian in the Mengzi. I clearly state in lines 31-35, among other instances, that I am concerned with tian in the context of Mengzi’s philosophy in its role as the source of morality (the tian in 天下 and 天子 are not immediately relevant to this question). I also make it very clear that I am discussing tian as the source of moral values in the context of 7A1 where the dimensions of tian as anthropomorphic deity, transcendent substance, or biological nature are most relevant. Neither am I unaware that there are other meanings to tian as evidence by my discussion on lines 152-184.

            However, fault for unclarity lies on my shoulders. To remedy the problem highlighted by the reviewer, I have added several clarifying emendations (lines 34, 39, 41-43, 71, 80, 106, 147, 152-155, 148-151, 489-490, 492-493) to indicate the specific problem I am trying to answer: what is the proper interpretation of tian as the source of moral values? I have also added a substantial footnote (#4) to further clarify the multivalence of tian in both the Mengzi and the Chinese tradition. I hope the reviewer finds these changes acceptable.

Second, the reviewer questions the value added by my article due to its focus on the debate between Bloom and Behuniak. The debate lies in the further clarification of the concept of tian in its conceptual roles as the source of morality as “tradition sacralized” that neither Bloom nor Behuniak have made arguments for. The reviewer also mentions Kwong-loi Shun’s book on the Mengzi and I have incorporated it into my article where deemed relevant and necessary (lines 44-47, 470-472; footnote 6, 12). It should be noted also, in this context, that Shun explicitly states he will not discuss the problem of how we should interpret tian, whether it be as personal deity, transcendent entity, or natural order. My article therefore, adds value to the debate by explicitly taking up this problem and offering a solution.

Third, the reviewer says “we still need to note that there are passages which really do seem to portray tian anthropomorphically.” I agree, and lines 152-184 address this issue. But a more detailed exploration of how to properly interpret the anthropomorphic elements of early Confucian thought that avoid the religious overtones of a reading like Ivanhoe’s is clearly beyond the scope of the article. I agree with the reviewer that the anthropomorphism might be metaphorical like a “weeping motherland” or a “threatening sky.” An interpretation that I have been mulling over draws on Charles Peirces’ notion of the inevitability of scientific truth where truth is what a scientific (or epistemological) community will inevitability arrive at due to the logical necessities of their research paradigm. This is clearly a topic not directly relevant to the present article, nor is my argument one that I think would convince the reviewer. I simply offer it as an example of my agreement of their caveat that we must find a way to account for the anthropomorphic dimensions of tian in early Confucian thought.

Finally, I am not arguing, like Legge, that Mengzi has got it right but used the wrong terminology. I do not think it is appropriate to say that “even though Mengzi said ABC, what he actually meant was XYZ.” My argument in the article is that a specific dimension of tian—as source of moral values—has been misinterpreted by various scholars and that not enough has been done to get to the bottom of the issue. The tian in 7A1, for example, is not anthropomorphic deity or transcendent substance, neither does it refer to a strict biological nature. Also, when introducing 7A1, I clearly state that I am concerned with tian in the concept-cluster constituted of tian, xin 心, and xing 性. As already mentioned, my concern is not with tian and all of its valences, but rather with tian in the specific context as a concept referring to the source of moral and ethical values. I think that, in this context, understanding tian as the sacred socio-cultural tradition is appropriate.

I hope this response has resolved the doubts the reviewer has regarding my essay and that the changes I have made to improve my article in light of their suggestions qualifies it for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I would like to first thank the reviewer for their helpful comments. Their suggestions have provided the opportunity to think more on my central questions and improve my article.

       In response to the reviewer’s suggestion that I clarify my use of “condition” as a translation for ming, I have added footnote 14 on page 5 that references Steve Coutinho and Roger Ames who both understanding ming in a similar way. On the same page, I have also added footnote 15 that references Franklin Perkins’ work on xing wherein he translates the tianming in the opening line of the Zhongyong as “what is conditioned from heaven.”

       In response to the viewer’s suggestion that I clarify my understanding of shu er buzuo 述而不作, I have added a footnote 21 on page 12 with a quote from Wang Bo 王博 stating that a characteristic of the early Confucians is that they developed their own ideas through the study and interpretation of the classical texts.

I again thank the reviewer for their helpful comments and hope that the changes made to my article are satisfactory.

Reviewer 3 Report

This study does reasonable discussions and analysis of Mengzi's concept of Tian, with also related to other Confucian classics such as Lunyu論語 and Xunzi荀子, making the article present a comprehensive view.  

I only have one question.

As the author points out Mengzi's Tian concept is connected with Chinese cultural tradition. Do any differences between this Tian concept compare with other Chinese schools like fajia法家 and mojia墨家? Does this Tian concept do a great impact or implication on Dong Zhongshu's董仲舒 “Tianrenganying”天人感應（interactions between heaven and mankind）and Zhuxi朱熹 Neo-Confucianism理學（窮天理） thoughts later? 

 

For the language and format:

1. The citations should be put behind the main text as "notes".

2. Some of the proper nouns should change from pinyin to English terms such as Mengzi to Mencius, Kongzi to Confucius, etc.

Author Response

I would like to thank the reviewer for their review of my article.

       To answer their question regarding the concept of tian in other early Chinese thinkers: tian is certainly a multidimensional concept and means different things for different thinkers. For the Mohists, the anthropomorphic dimensions are much more prominent. It would be interesting to see how their conception of tian functions with their “three criteria” (sanbiao 三標) of “doctrine” (yan 言) in light of my argument regarding the Mengzi. The Legalists like Hanfeizi seem to take tian in its more naturalist dimensions rather than as “tradition.” Dong Zhongshu is a very interesting case because his Confucianism without a doubt revives the anthropomorphic features of tian but, I think, in a way that differs from what was common in the Warring States period. Interestingly, Wang Chong would later repudiate Dong’s anthropomorphism. As for the Neo-Confucians, I think 天理 might encompass social and cultural forms but not be reducible to them. Due to the influence of Buddhism, Neo-Confucianism moved away from a “social psychology” paradigm toward a “metaphysical” paradigm, if I may be so general.

       To address this question in my article, I have added a footnote 4 on page 2 clarifying the “multivalence” of the term tian in the Chinese intellectual tradition.

       I again thank the reviewer for their review and hope my answer and addition of a footnote are satisfactory.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Alright, this is much better. Narrowing the scope--so that it's specifically about the role of tian as source of morality--helps, a lot.