加密数字货币交易所-《论语》详解：给所有曲解孔子的人-子曰：“不患人之不己知；患不知人也

Confucius said: “Do not be concerned that others do not understand you; be concerned that you do not understand others.”

Yang Bojun: Confucius said: “I am not worried that others do not understand me; I am worried that I do not understand others.”

Qian Mu: The master said: “Do not worry that others do not know me; worry that I do not know others.”

Li Zehou: Confucius said: “Do not fear that others do not know you; fear that you do not know others.”

Detailed explanation:

All previous commentators on the Analects have been confused by the back-and-forth of the “do not worry” and “worry” parts in these chapters, and when faced with nearly identical statements, they could only resort to one explanation—that these are repetitions, perhaps reflecting Confucius’s repeated instructions, so the Analects recorded these multiple times. But this explanation is utterly absurd. May I ask, did Confucius really say these 500+ sentences over decades? Are these repeated phrases the only ones he said repeatedly, while all others were only spoken once? Did the editors not realize that these sayings are similar and fail to filter them? In fact, all the reasons stem from the previous commentators’ own confusion—they simply do not understand, cannot distinguish, and are desperately looking for reasons to justify their interpretations. Just like this chapter, these three figures adopt the same attitude. In reality, there are no redundant or repeated words in the Analects—like silver bowls filled with snow, if you cannot tell the difference, whose fault is that? If your eyesight is poor, fabricating stories to cover it up is not just about poor eyesight; it indicates a problem with the heart. If one does not fully understand the Analects accurately and flawlessly, what qualification do they have to interpret it?

This chapter is not about repetition but builds upon the previous chapter, discussing a more specific issue. If the previous two chapters addressed fundamental and general social questions from different perspectives, then this chapter reveals the internal structure of human society regarding “do not worry” and “worry.” Within the internal structure of human society, “people not knowing me” is the “do not worry” part; it is precisely because of the “do not worry” about “people not knowing me” that there is the “worry” about “not knowing others.” The phrase “people not knowing me” exists within the social structure without hierarchy; human society must be composed of people, and as long as there are people, they are “not known,” and it is precisely because of this “not known” without hierarchy that there is the “knowing others” hierarchy.

“Not knowing” is an inevitable state for all individuals in society. If there is any “human nature,” the only possible “human nature” is “not knowing.” Any theory that contradicts this “not knowing” is absurd and laughable. For example, some mainstream economics praised by countless people in the last century, based on the so-called rationality of humans, is garbage economics. Because “not knowing,” at the level of human rationality, makes “irrationality” without hierarchy; human rationality, due to the hierarchy of “irrationality,” is fundamentally always “irrational” when claiming to be rational.

“Not knowing others” refers to the previously mentioned “people do not know,” and the “Way of the sage” aims to transform a world of “people not knowing” into a world of “people not angered.” Why is this possible? Because of the hierarchy of “not knowing,” which leads to “not knowing others,” i.e., “people do not know.” It is precisely because of this hierarchy of “people not knowing” that transforming a world of “people not knowing” into one of “people not angered” is possible. But this change cannot be achieved by altering the state of “not knowing,” because “not knowing” is without hierarchy; any attempt to change “not knowing” is still “not knowing.” Under the structure of human society, “not knowing” is unchangeable. In other words, all movements aiming to transform society by transforming people are absurd and laughable; any movement hoping to revolutionize society from the depths of the soul is also absurd and laughable.

Confucius, over two thousand years ago, already declared the inevitable failure of movements like those of the 1960s. Moving from “people do not know” to “people not angered” cannot start from “not knowing,” because there is no starting point. In this regard, Marx and Confucius are completely aligned. Marx never discussed the transformation of human thought because the so-called hierarchy of human ideas fundamentally stems from the social hierarchy of “people do not know.” The only thing that needs transformation is the real structure of the “world of not knowing.” But social transformation must be determined by its hierarchy; different social hierarchies have different forms and laws. There are no universal, priori solutions applicable everywhere; all must start from the actual logic and hierarchy of each social structure. Only by understanding its hierarchy and acting accordingly can there be a possibility to turn a “world of not knowing” into a “world of not angered.” Departing from the logic and hierarchy of reality is a trick with ulterior motives.

Chánzhōng Shuō Chán plain translation