Ogyū Sorai’s Critique of Neo-Confucianism

At this point I must confess that I cannot help but give Ogyū Sorai his due. For a long time I never much cared for Neo-Confucianism. The reasons are many: that the obsession with Neo-Confucianism was a cause of Joseon’s ruin; that concepts like the principle of the universe and all things are simply absurd from the standpoint of modern scientific civilization; and so on. Yet I, for one, could never escape Zhu Xi’s influence. I studied with Zhu Xi’s Collected Commentaries on the Four Books. And the rigor of Zhu Xi’s learning was rigorous enough that I could not criticize it carelessly. My scholarly roots are, in the end, Neo-Confucian. But having no capacity to criticize does not put discontent to rest.

This is probably why I clung to pre-Qin Confucianism and the Hundred Schools of Thought. Confucius was a rational man even by modern standards. He did not discuss what cannot be discussed. In this respect, Neo-Confucianism went too far. Had Confucius seen the debates of later Neo-Confucians — arguing over the Supreme Ultimate, over li and qi — I doubt he would have approved. Even without Neo-Confucian concepts, the claims of pre-Qin Confucianism are attractive enough. Confucianism as consummated in Xunzi was a political doctrine realistic enough to be applied to the realities of its day.

Sorai relieved this thirst of mine in part. He revived Confucianism as political science. He also possessed the realism and rigor that Xunzi had. The Confucianism he wanted, it seems, was a political methodology that would actually work in the real world. Even so, I cannot simply affirm Sorai. So intent was he on affirming shogunal feudalism that he missed a virtue essential to Confucianism as political science: his learning lacked a revolutionary character. Push the rationality of Confucianism all the way, and there is no room left to accommodate shogunal feudalism. This, I think, was the limit of Sorai — and of the world he lived in.

After reading Chapter 1 of Maruyama Masao, Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan

20191214