Yú xià zá shuō

Author: Huang Chang
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2006-06-01
Features: The transition period between the Ming and Qing dynasties was a time of "upside-down and inside-out" upheaval, and no one could escape the tests of the era. Due to various special reasons, intellectuals faced exceptionally severe trials. The power of feudal morality was particularly strict and potent in their lives, and the relationships between individuals and the "Heaven, Earth, Monarch, Parents, and Teachers" all demanded adherence to standards. This was somewhat like spinning a cocoon for oneself or destroying oneself through one's own methods. Scholars often loved to speak grandly, demanding extreme rigor from others, proposing many "high standards" when expressing opinions or writing articles. Now that it was their turn to face the test, many were exposed for their shortcomings. At the same time, under the recognized standards of the time, people were broadly categorized as either good or bad. This public opinion standard had changed little over the years, and many of them seem outdated and inappropriate today. In fact, differing opinions about this standard had already emerged even back then. Some argued that in critical moments, a person's responsibility lay in working hard and saving the, not just dying. If suicide could solve the problem, what use would there be for "moral integrity and literary talent"? At the time, this was indeed a "bold" statement, but it was not entirely without merit. Looking at many late Ming historical books, the authors' criteria for judging good and bad people were solely based on whether they died for the Ming cause in 1644. Some notorious individuals, despite their clear faults, were uniformly included in the "Loyalty and Righteousness" records simply because they died during the "national upheaval" (some were even killed by unruly troops in mysterious circumstances), while others were listed in the "Disloyal Ministers" or "Exiled Scholars" records. This classification method was simple, but it was far from scientific. Some even claimed that someone like Chen Zilong, who died with unwavering resolve, was inferior to those who died "gracefully" in the face of execution. Truly, a thoroughly radical "suicide for the sake of suicide" argument. Today, why is it necessary to show unconditional "loyalty" to the Chongzhen Emperor? It is truly difficult to understand. In the eyes of the public at the time, the Chongzhen Emperor represented not just himself or the Ming dynasty, but also his nation during a time of escalating national conflict. This emotional judgment and choice can be understood, but it also seems inaccurate and outdated today. This is a very complex issue, but no matter what, it cannot be avoided and will repeatedly arise in history. A is fearless, which demonstrates that in the field of social sciences, there is no difficult problem that cannot be reasonably explained. Avoidance is not the solution. For example, the issue of integrity could be analyzed and addressed using both macro and micro perspectives to draw appropriate conclusions. Surrendering to an enemy state or enemy is a matter of "national integrity"; selling oneself to the "Gang of Four" by writing loyalty letters, while not related to "national integrity," is still a matter of integrity. We can never compromise on this issue or adopt flexibility. Broadly speaking or, to put it more negatively, those who say one thing today and the opposite tomorrow, who change their stance with the wind, and who lack principles also have a problem of integrity. Compared to traitors and collaborators, their level may differ, but they are walking down the same path, and the harm they cause is no small matter. P12-13