Xunzi All Born Bad, Mencius All Born Good, Science All Born Rage
(PD) 惡非名 on Wang Ximeng's A Thousand Li of Rivers and Mountains (Cropping and modifications by Larry Neal Gowdy)
Copyright ©2023 August 11, 2023
Reading time: 20–25 minutes.
(Note: This is the full-length article that was divided into smaller articles on this website.)
Two differences that mark the natures of Philosophy and Rationality:  philosophers invent beliefs that have no evidence and cannot be intricately described, and  rational people intricately describe what is and has been firsthand observed. The writings of Xunzi, Mencius, and western psychology are good examples that illustrate and distinguish philosophy from rationality.
It is obvious that all things are composed of ingredients, including bread, cars, planets, and minds. In modern English, the assembling of ingredients is popularly named physics. Most everyone on earth believes in science's physics to be true truth, but the same individuals also claim that science's physics does not apply to themselves nor to anyone else. The modern belief in science is always contradictory, illogical, and philosophical.
If an individual is unable to describe the active ingredients of a process, then the person is a philosopher, and his claims cannot possibly be true.
Scholar-philosophers have never intricately described any behavior of the mind, and, so, therefore, the individuals' claims cannot possibly be true.
Mencius Allegedly Claimed That Everyone is Born Good
The following quote is from James Legge's translation of Mencius (book Gao Zi 1, paragraph 6). Note that Legge's translation is so extremely poor and amential, that if it were not for Legge's references to specific books and paragraphs, the reader might find it to be difficult to recognize which Mencius paragraph that Legge was 'translating'. Nevertheless, the following quote's value is in how it illustrates what scholar-philosophers claim to have been Mencius' beliefs. Wording of immediate attention is in bold. Though 100% of all of Legge's choices of words are incorrect, some of the worst first words are marked with a number ((#)) along with the numbers' following notes.
"Mencius said, 'From the feelings(1) proper to it, it is constituted for the practice of what is good(2). This is what I mean in saying that the nature is good(3). If men do what is not good(4), the blame(5) cannot be imputed to their natural powers(6). The feeling of commiseration(7) belongs to all men; so does that of shame and dislike; and that of reverence and respect; and that of approving and disapproving. The feeling of commiseration implies the principle of benevolence; that of shame and dislike, the principle of righteousness; that of reverence and respect, the principle of propriety; and that of approving and disapproving, the principle of knowledge. Benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and knowledge are not infused into us from without. We are certainly furnished with them. And a different view is simply owing to want of reflection. Hence it is said, "Seek and you will find them. Neglect and you will lose them." Men differ from one another in regard to them - some as much again as others, some five times as much, and some to an incalculable amount - it is because they cannot carry out fully their natural powers. It is said in the Book of Poetry, "Heaven in producing mankind, Gave them their various faculties and relations with their specific laws. These are the invariable rules of nature for all to hold, And all love this admirable virtue." Confucius said, "The maker of this ode knew indeed the principle of our nature!" We may thus see that every faculty and relation must have its law, and since there are invariable rules for all to hold, they consequently love this admirable virtue.'"
(1) "Feelings" is a wrong word, and the use of "feelings' has permanently corrupted the entirety of the topic that Mencius was speaking of.
(2), (3), (4) "Good" is an adjective, not a verb, nor does the English word "good" relate to what Mencius was speaking about. The use of the word "good" permanently proves that Legge and all other scholar-philosophers did not know anything whatsoever of Confucian ideals (nor of their own religions of science and Christianity). Oxford University employee and Christian missionary James Legge (and Homer Dubs also) purposefully lied and gave the public a false presentation of Confucian qualities.
(5) "Blame" is a wrong word that does not relate to Mencius' topic.
(6) "Powers" is a wrong word that makes Mencius' topic dirty, filthy, and ignorant.
(7) Commiseration = sympathy and sorrow for another person. Sympathy, sorrow, and compassion cannot and do not exist until after an individual has personally firsthand experienced a similar problem as the other person is suffering. Sympathy, sorrow, and compassion are self-learned, self-experienced, and self-reliant upon the individual's own mental capacity of self-reasoning. Sympathy, sorrow, and compassion are not built-in innate "brain functions" as some biologists claim today, nor as what Legge claimed that Mencius alluded to about 2,300 years ago.
Shame, humility, and the sense of right and wrong also rely upon self-learning, and none pop into existence as a magical "brain function" as what many sciencians claim today.
Oxford University employee and Christian missionary Legge invented an argument that was an obvious lie, and Legge then claimed that Mencius was the one who stated the argument.
Xunzi Allegedly Claimed That Everyone is Born Evil
The following is from Homer Dubs' translation of Xunzi. Note that Dubs' translation is as amential as Legge's. Wording of immediate attention is in bold.
"The nature of man is evil(1); his goodness(2) is only acquired training. The original nature of man to-day is to seek for gain. If this desire is followed, strife and rapacity results, and courtesy dies. Man originally is envious and naturally hates(3) others. If these tendencies are followed, injury and destruction follows; loyalty and faithfulness are destroyed. Man originally possesses the desires of the ear and eye; he likes praise and is lustful(4). If these are followed, impurity and disorder results, and the rules of proper conduct (Li) and justice (Yi) and etiquette are destroyed. Therefore to give rein to man's original nature, to follow man's feelings, inevitably results in strife and rapacity, together with violations of etiquette and confusion in the proper way of doing things, and reverts to a state of violence. Therefore the civilizing influence of teachers and laws, the guidance of the rules of proper conduct (Li) and justice (Yi) is absolutely necessary. Thereupon courtesy results; public and private etiquette is observed; and good government is the consequence. By this line of reasoning it is evident that the nature of man is evil and his goodness is acquired." (Xunzi 23:1) (Homer Dubs)
Mencius says, "The fact that men are teachable shows that their original nature is good." I reply : This is not so. This is not understanding the nature of man, nor examining the original nature of man, nor the part played by acquired elements. Whatever belongs to original nature is the gift of Nature. It cannot be learned. It cannot be worked for. (Xunzi 23:5) (Homer Dubs)
(1), (3) As briefly explained in Evil, Not Mean Evil - Xunzi and Mencius Not Say Evil, 惡 (e) does not imply "evil" nor "hates". "Evil" is an intensely wrong word, and proves that Dubs and Legge were grossly ignorant of science, Christianity, psychology, English, and the Chinese language.
(2) "Good" is a wrong word that destroys the entirety of the topic that the Xunzi book author was speaking of, while also eliminating one of the core values in Confucian topics.
(4) Again Dubs exhibited his own inner nature by mistranslating the words to mean "praise" and "lustful". Dubs himself was obviously vain, lustful, and with desire for praise (as was Legge). Decent individuals, whom themselves are not dark of vainglory and animalistic lusts, never choose such negative terms.
Nevertheless, the Xunzi book author did make a claim of 'born while have ear eye it desire', which is false. Individuals have to learn what the eyes and ears sense. A humorous example: at a few days old, I felt what adults name to be a 'strong annoyance' that came from outside of myself. While I was giving mental attention to the 'annoyance' while wondering what the 'annoyance' was, I discovered that the 'annoyance' came from myself: my own loud crying. Noticing that the mother person was walking from the northeast towards me, I reasoned that the mother approached because of my loud noise. As an experiment, I later purposefully repeated the noise, proving that the mother would approach me every time I made the terrible noise. For a brief time I made it a game until the game grew boring and counter-productive.
Many adults still 'cry loudly' to get their way. The individuals learned how to get attention, and they still want attention. The adults may throw temper-tantrums, name themselves Greta, and scream "How dare you!", all while proving that their mentalities are no further developed than an infant's.
Eyesight is similar. Seeing white ceiling tiles while being moved through a hospital hall, a newborn may interpret the ceiling tiles as being crude because the tiles are motionless, flat, and artificial as compared to the curved, warm, moving womb that the infant was accustomed to. The focus here is that the newborn baby learns from conscious (or subconscious) reasoning of past understandings (life in the womb) relative to current sensory perceptions (life outside the womb). There is no magical "gift of Nature", nor any magical "brain function", nor any magical "genetics" that magically knows differences of objects and things; all children must self-learn.
Dubs' claim "Man originally is envious and naturally hates others" is a horrendously hateful translation that illustrated Dubs' own inner nature of hate and envy. The Xunzi book's author spoke of something far different than what Dubs claimed, but, the topic was more related to physics and psychology, neither of which Dubs would have been capable of comprehending. Too, envy is a mental construct that some of us still have not experienced.
Dubs' claims are also proven false by the above newborn events. An infant has not yet experienced enough life to learn and to develop a sense of concern for others. Bread is composed of ingredients, as is everything else in the universe composed of ingredients, including the mind. Specific scenarios in life must occur within specific sequences and specific ingredients before an individual will be able to self-learn specific emotions and standards. Again, some people have never felt envious, nor ever hated anyone. Envy and hate are self-learned expressions that are composed of specific ingredients: if the ingredients never occurred, then there can never be envy nor hate.
The original text of Xunzi Nature Evil states something far different — and far more sensible — than what Dubs claimed.
The author of Xunzi's Encourage Learning was correct that a person is unable to understand what 'high' and 'deep' mean without the person firsthand experiencing high and deep. The Xunzi book 性惡 Nature Evil is most valuable as a contrast to Encourage Learning. Dubs' invention of "It cannot be learned. It cannot be worked for." is fully wrong.
Scientists Claim That Everyone is Born With Fear, Rage, and Love
From Prodigy Myths Autism and History: "On page 581 of the August 1974 issue of AP, the article "Albert, Peter, and John B. Watson" by Mary Cover Jones states that John Watson proposed "that there were three basic emotions present at birth — fear, rage, and love — that were called out by specific but limited stimuli." ...The importance of Jones' article — if Watson did indeed state what was claimed — is that it helps to illustrate the same line of reasoning that has plagued western science: too often the 'scientists' simply make stuff up and then claim that their inventions are true science."
Scientists claim that their science is based upon firsthand observations, measurements, and empirical evidence, and yet science knows literally nothing about thoughts, memories, dreams, reasoning, self-standards, self-learning, voice tones, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, tactile touch, emotions, ethics, virtue, benevolence, honor, reverence, nor anything else related to the mind. Scientists cry physics! physics!, but still no scientist will apply physics to the developing mind, nor invest a moment to gather empirical evidence.
The topmost of modern science is as backwards, primitive, and superstitious as ancient philosophers' fairytales.
Rationality States the Obvious: Everyone is Born With Unique Ingredients
A funny video is of a slice of cheese stuck to the inside of a glass door. Outside the door was a dog licking the glass where the dog saw the cheese. Different dogs are smarter or dumber than other dogs, but the scenario illustrated that a typical dog may not have the mental capacity to reason how to walk 180 degrees around a door to the other side: the dog's mentality is as if flat. Smarter dogs may possess the mental capacity to reason the need to walk 180 degrees around to the other side of the door, but the dogs do not possess enough mental reasoning to reason how to open the door, nor how to enter from another location, nor have the self-gumption to ask how to enter.
Humans are similar; some humans may be able to easily reason 180 degrees, but are not able to reason 360 degrees. The ability to reason ingredients requires active simultaneous reasoning of no less than 360 degrees within no less than 360 degrees of opposite polarity flows. Sympathy, sorrow, compassion, concern for others, love, and all other quality inner traits rely upon the dual 360 degree reasoning. Individuals who do not possess the dual 360 degree reasoning are permanently unable to experience quality inner traits. (The inability to acquire quality inner traits is symptomatic of 小人 (xiao ren) 'tiny people'.)
By forcing children to memorize words without meaning, government-mandated public schools permanently destroy the students' ability to acquire 360 degree reasoning, which also permanently destroys the students' potential of possessing quality inner traits. Everyone who believes in science and science's physics ought to already know that.
No known scientist, philosopher, academician, politician, nor ideologist has ever been recorded to have been able to accurately count to 4 on a Nature-based scale. The inability to accurately count to 4 proves that the individuals are unable to reason ingredients. Today's government-mandated public schools preach the memorizations of words, proving that no government employee is able to reason ingredients.
Everyone is Born Different
Most everyone on earth believes in science. Most everyone on earth professes with their mouth their belief in science. But no known science believer believes in science's physics. If science believers believed in science's physics, then the science believers would know that metal TV antennas exist, that metal radio antennas exist, and that organic antennas exist. Everything in the universe is an antenna. The shapes and sizes of antennas dictate which frequencies that the antennas will best detect. In known elementary schools, students knew that by the fourth grade, but no known Oxford University graduate knows it. Jung also did not know it.
The crazy lady Ayn Rand wrote in Objectivist Ethics: "Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are "tabula rasa." It is man's cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man's emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program - and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses."
Humorously, Ayn Rand's philosophy was actually superior to most all other philosophies. Although she was 100% wrong about the "tabula rasa" claim, still she got the "which his mind has to program" reasonably correct.
Parallel is the Atheist Ethics quote of Richard Dawkins': "This is what we should expect if we have a moral sense which is built into our brains..." (The God Delusion)
There is physics, and there is physics, and there are more physics, but never ever in all of eternity is there a mystical magical "moral sense... built into our brains". Similar to other Oxford University employees' claims, Richard Dawkins' claim is fully false.
Genetics Guides Form, Genetics Does Not Guide Creativity
In a documented history of an individual's ancestry, for hundreds of years his ancestors were Christian protestants, Quakers, Scottish Lords, and French strawberry farmers, with none being of Eastern beliefs. The individual's immediate family was protestant. The individual's family believed in the soul entering the body at birth, and the family literally hated all Eastern beliefs, especially the idea of souls reincarnating. According to genetics, the individual ought to also believe in the same general beliefs as what his ancestors believed in. However, since prior to birth, the individual interpreted himself as reincarnating from previous lives.
If, as science claims, that genetics guides a person's beliefs and behaviors, then explain how an individual knows of many verifiable facts that no one else in his family knows of and has never heard of. If, as science claims, genetics alone dictates a person's physical and mental states, then explain how some individuals possess specific physical features (i.e. sensorial) and inner attributes that never existed in any other family member.
If an individual wishes to claim that chance mutations occurred that were caused by specific ingredients — science's physics — then fine, but then why does the same individual deny that science's physics are able to create new genetics? Why are none of the ingredients found within school teachings nor within any ideology? Claiming genetics to be the cause of new creations is an ad hoc excuse for a topic that the individual knows nothing about, all while the individual desires to hold up their faith in their holy science.
The Xunzi and Mencius books are similar; they speak of man's toddler-to-adult behavioral tendencies, all while the books' authors apparently knew nothing of the requirement for ingredients, nor did the authors possess the knowledge of wave-based formations. Today's science and popular opinion are no higher evolved than the most superstitious of beliefs of over 2,300 years ago; the opinions are still based upon bizarre imaginations, ad hoc inventions, and a desire to promote one's religion.
Obvious Observations of Nature
All competent electronic techs know that electricity is a created three-dimensional effect, and that electricity/force cannot possibly be the original cause of Creation. Science claims that all thinking occurs within the brain, and science also claims that the brain's 'thinking' and 'consciousness' are caused by electrical activity. All competent electronic techs know that it is eternally physics-based impossible for an electrical brain to store a hundred years of thoughts, memories, dreams, and everything else that scientists claim to exist within the brain. There is no such thing in all of Creation as a stable electrical voltage, nor amperage, nor wave form. It is eternally impossible for an 'electrical brain' to retain electrical stability. And yet most everyone retains the same unchanged and invariable "I" throughout life. If you are able to mentally recognize that you are the same you as you were last year, then you have already proven the scientific belief of an 'electrical brain' to be false. It is obvious.
Parallel observations are found within everything throughout Nature. Observe water flow, observe winds, observe the effects that sounds have upon solid objects; there is no excuse for anyone to not know that everything in Nature is variable and changes, except the "I". The Xunzi and Mencius authors did not speak of variable ingredients, nor of Nature's variances. The absence of ingredients and variables, lowers the Xunzi and Mencius chapters into being mere philosophies.
Observe one's own ingredients, and name the first ingredient that has not changed. With the self-knowledge of one's own first ingredient, the answers become easy: people it nature how "I" influences "me". However, if, as some people claim, that they have no "I", and are thus automatons, then those people are as what Xunzi and Mencius spoke of: mere reproductions of the same behaviors as the people's ancestors, which also means that the people would have no potential for self-betterment.
People with an "I" are able to self-learn and to self-guide. People without an "I" are unable to self-learn, and must be trained in schools.
It is unfortunate that very few people are interested in self-betterment; most people only want material quantities (hoarding) while exerting the least effort. Three opinions (Mencius, Xunzi, and scientists), none of which agree, nor are any able to describe the how and why of their opinions. Three opinions, three crowds of believers, three systems of faith, and zero explanations.