These two readings have very interesting arguments that contradict some of Confucius’s teachings while also agreeing with them. In the Man’s Nature is Evil reading, the author claims that man’s nature is inherently evil, meaning that man will always have an instinct to profit. In order to combat this, a man must produce good through conscious activity. The author suggests ritual principles and learning from a wise teacher in order to produce conscious activity and become good. This correlates with Confucius’s ideals of ritual and education, but contradicts Confucius’s belief in the inherent benevolence of humankind. The author also argues that the distinction between good and evil is that good is reasonable, orderly, and upright while evil is prejudiced, chaotic, and irresponsible. Since people are naturally born evil, then they must participate in rituals produced by sages. This suggestion is similar to the Confucian concept of turning to the past as a model for society and being good. The reading also warns that if a man associates with a bad man, then the evil is contagious and will easily affect the first man if he is not aware of the evil man.
The second reading, Eminence in Learning, explains the author’s belief in how a government can be effectively ruled. The author rejects Confucian values of having a more laid back government with less rules since people are naturally good. The author instead sides with the first reading’s argument in that kindness and generosity cannot solve a conflict, but rather power and authority help to gain control. Additionally, people cannot just become wise, as the author states, “to try to teach people to be benevolent and righteous is the same as saying you can make them wise and long-lived” (126-127). Confucius valued a leader who led a honorable and benevolent government, which is the opposite of what this author is arguing. Rather, a good leader will not try to please people or seek out the worthy and wise because this will only foster conflict within the society.