#ryan mcannally-linz

[arcticdementor]

Lots of our student feel torn between these two answers to the forest question. Total altruism versus individual self-actualization. A limitless forest or one central tree. It's tempting to try to synthesize them. But how could you actually live up to both? How could you both actualize yourself in all your uniqueness and devote yourself impartially to the good of everyone? And yet to just take one of these answers can be hard to swallow. Universal concern can be a crushing weight. Authenticity alone can feel shallow and small. As it turns out, this isn't a totally new predicament. During Mencius's time, two philosophies enjoyed wide popularity in China. Yang Zhu (ca. 440–ca. 360 BCE) took the side of egoism. Mozi (ca. 470–ca. 391 BCE) advocated concern for the whole of society. Aligning himself with Confucius, Mencius sought a different way. Here's how he put it: "Yang Zhu is 'for oneself. This is to not have a ruler. Mozi is 'impartial caring. This is to not have a father. To not have a father and to not have a ruler is to be an animal." If you're for yourself alone, you don't belong to a larger community that makes valid claims on you. That's what it means to say you don’t have a ruler. If you care impartially, then nobody can make special claims on you. Everyone has equal standing. A stranger counts as much as your parent. Hence, "impartial caring" means not to have a father. Either option, Mencius says, is beastly. The stakes here aren't just that if you follow Mozi you might care for the wrong people. Rather, by trying to become someone who cares impartially—someone who tries to adopt the point of view of the universe—you might diminish your humanity.

—Miroslav Volf, Matthew Croasmun, Ryan McAnnally-Linz, Life Worth Living: A Guide to What Matters Most