ATC	PRAGMATIC ARGUMENT « Profit, moreover, does not fall from Heaven, nor does it spring forth from the Earth. »

The following text is an extract from Discourses on Salt and Iron, a compilation of a debate held at the imperial court in 81bce, by Huan K’uan, translated by Esson M. Gale. [1] China had been unified a century and a half earlier by Emperor Qín Shǐhuáng, who was overthrown by the First Han Dynasty in 206bce.
In the debate, the Lord Grand Secretary is pitted against a group of sixty Confucian scholars on ssues of ieconomic and social policy  issues, with the focus being on the Grand Secretary’s policy of establishing state monopolies on salt and iron.
The dispute took place in the presence of the emperor.

1. The Lord Grand Secretary speaks first

a. The Lord Grand Secretary: Formerly when the Lord of Shang was Chancellor of Ch’in he pursued in internal affairs the policy of putting the laws and regulations on a firm basis, of making punishments and penalties harsh and severe, and of ordering government and education. In this no mercy was shown to the criminals and the cheats. In his external policy he managed to obtain profits of a hundred fold and collected taxes on mountains and
marshes. The state became rich, the people, strong; weapons and implements were kept ready, complete in every detail, and grain-stores had a surplus.

b. As a result of these measures he was able to wage war on enemy countries, to conquer foreign states, to annex new lands, and to extend wide his territories, without overtaxing the people for the support of the army. Thus he could draw constantly upon the resources of the people and the people would not even notice it; he could extend the territory of Ch’in to include all west of the Yellow River and the people bore no hardships on this account.

c. The profits derived from the salt and iron monopolies serve to relieve the needs of the people in emergencies and to provide sufficient funds for the upkeep of military forces. These measures emphasize conservation and storing up in order to provide for times of scarcity and want. The beneficiaries are many; the State profits thereby and no harm is caused to the masses. Where are those hardships of the common people which cause you so much worry?

The Grand Secretary uses a pragmatic argument based on the positive consequences.
As a determinant of action, the pragmatic argument is a universal anthropological principle that is integral to human activity. We sow in order to reap, and we reap in order to eat. If an action will have positive consequences, then we should perform it; if the consequences of an action are beneficial, then this action was right, and we are justiifed in pursuing it.
In §a The Grand Secretary first recalls the harsh policies inaugurated by Shang Yang (c.390–338bce), a former minister of the State of Ch’in. He claims that this policy was successful in both internal affairs (§a, profit of  a hundredfold) and external affairs (§b, extension of the territory), and presents himself as his continuator.
In §c, the Grand Secretary claims that the salt and iron policy he has initiated is beneficial to the state and neutral for the people (it does not harm the masses).

The floor is now with the literati.

The literati utterly reject the positive consequences alluded to by the Grand Secretary, at the point of implicitly accusing him of lying.

d. The Literati: At the time of Wên Ti was there not no profit from salt and iron and was not the nation prosperous? Now we have this system and the people are in dire circumstances. We fail yet to see how profitabe is this « profit » [of which you speak], but we see clearly the harm it does. Profit, moreover, does not fall from Heaven, nor does it spring forth from the Earth; it is derived entirely from the people. To call it hundredfold is a mistake in judgment similar to that of the simpleton who wore his furcoat inside out while carrying wood, hoping to save the fur and not realizing that the hide was being ruined.
e. Now, an abundant crop of prunes will cause a decline for the year immediately following; the new grain ripens. at the expense of the old. For Heaven and Earth do not become full at the same time: so much more is this the case with human activities! Profit in one place involves diminution elsewhere just as yin and yang do not radiate at the same time and day and night alternate in length.
f. When Shang Yang introduced his harsh laws and increased his « profit », the people of Ch’in could not endure life and among themselves wept for Duke Hsiao. When Wu Ch’i increased the army and engaged in a series of conquests, the people of Ch’u were grievously disturbed and among themselves they shed tears for King Tao. After their death Ch’u’s position became more precarious every day, and Ch’in grew weaker and weaker. So resentment increased with the growth of « profit », and sorrows multiplied with the extension of territory. Where is all that « inexhaustible profit to use without the people noticing it, and the territory extended to include all west of the Yellow River without the people suffering from it? »
g. At the present time, as the Government uses in the management of internal affairs Shang Yang’s system of registration and abroad Wu Ch’i’s methods of war, travellers are harassed on the road and the residents are suffering from want in their homes, while old women cry bitterly and grieving maidens moan. Even if we, the Literati, try not to worry, we cannot help it.
[End of the discourse of the literati]

(§d) — The literatis first argument is that are alternative policies to those enacted by the Grand Secretary. At the time of Wên Ti, was there not no profit from salt and iron and was not the nation prosperous?  (§d).
— Introduction of the literati leitmotif: « People are in dire circumstances; »
— The literati explicitly and utterly reject the positive consequences claimed by the Grand Secretary, thereby implicitly accusing him of lying.
The Confucians claim that profit cannot be neutral. ‘Profit does not fall from Heaven’ (§d), meaning painless spontaneous and autonomous generation of profit does not exist.
– Speaking of hundredfold profit (§d) is a gross and ridiculous mistake, similar to that of a simpleton (§d).

(§e) Moreover, the Grand Secretary’s pretensions  go against the basic law of nature. According to the Confucian literati « profit in one place involves diminution elsewhere, just as yin and yang do not radiate at the same time » (§e). Thus, profit and pain are a zero-sum game.  Remember that, carried away by his eloquence, the Grand Secretary, assumes that it is possible to bring good into the world without bringing evil (§c).
Therefore, pragmatic argumentation is flawed  in both its practical consequences and in its very concept.
Western pragmatic argumentation assumes that the recommended action is positive overall and will improve the world, despite minor negative side effects. The literati reject this moderate position, they argue that the so-called negative side effects balance the touted main effect.

(§f) rejects the alleged positive, painless benefits attributed to Shan Yang policies.

(§g):  The same applies to the policy implemented by his follower, the Lord Grand Secretary.

The profits of some are inseparable from the losses of others. Like the natural world, the human world, functions according to a principle of balance; the good that happens here is correlated with the evil that happens elsewhere.

---

Huán Kuān (compiler), Discourses on Salt and Iron – A debate on  state control of commerce and Industry in Ancient China. Chapters I–XXVIII. Translated from the Chinese of HuanK’uan with introduction and notes by Esson M. Gale. Original Publishers: E.J. Brill 1934. Reprinted by  Che’ng Wen Publishing Company.

ATC	Dialecticians and Other Human Types Common people, true Sages, great Dialecticians, small Dialecticians and Ideal man.

Teng Hsi_FORKE
Teng Hsi Tse, I. Unkindness, § 11

(11)  […] To say that honour is not like disgrace is no correct statement, and to pretend that obtaining is not like losing no true saying. Not advancing one goes back; not enjoying one’s self, one is sad; not being present, one is absent. This is what common people always think.

The true sage changes all these ten predicates into one³².

The great dialecticians distinguish between actions in general, and embrace all the things of the world. They choose what is good, and reject what is bad. They do what must be done in the right moment, and thus become successful and virtuous.

The small dialecticians are otherwise. They distinguish between words and establish heterogeneous principles. With their words they hit each other, and crush one another by their actions. They do not let people know what is of importance. There is no other reason for this than their own shallow knowledge.

The ideal man³³, on the other hand, takes all the things together and joins them, combines all the different ways and uses them. The five flavours, he discerns in his mouth, before he has tasted them. The five virtues, though residing in his body, are nevertheless extended to others. There is no certain direction which he follows. He rejects justice before the eyes. Measures to suppress disorder, he does not take. He is contented, having no desires; serene, for he takes everything easy. His devices are unfailing, his perspicacity enters into the smallest minutiae.

 

Notes Forke

Note 32 — The true sage does not care the least for honour and disgrace, obtaining or losing and all these contraries, which play such an important role in the world. To him they are all one and the same.

Note 33 — The bad dialecticians and controversialists multiply distinctions and differences, which exist but in their imagination, the great dialecticians distinguish only between some few general principles. The ideal man, i.e., the mystic does mot make any distinctions at all. He has no fixed purpose, but instinctively always hits the right and knows things, which others do not understand after long study.

 

Alfred Forke 1901.The Chinese Sophists 1901. Journal of the North-China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, XXXIV, Changhai, 1901, p. 1-100.
Cité d’après Les classiques des sciences sociales, Chicoutimi, Québec, p. 58.

https://classiques.uqam.ca/classiques/forke_alfred/the_chinese_sophists/forke_sophists.pdf

ATC	Ad Hominem reply ‘A true worthy tills the soil, and cooks his own meals’

Mencius_ENO 
“‘A true worthy tills the soil beside his people, cooking his own meals as he orders the state.’”

3A.4 A man named Xu Xing came to Teng from Chu, preaching the doctrines of the Sublime Farmer. He marched through the court gate and announced to Duke Wen, “I, a distant stranger, have heard that Your Highness is practicing humane governance, and I wish to receive a dwelling place here that I may become one of your common subjects.”
Duke Wen provided him a place. His several dozen followers all wore clothes of coarse hemp and eked out a living by weaving sandals and mats.

[…] Chen Xiang came to Teng from Song with his brother Xin, both bearing ploughs upon their backs. Chen Xiang said, “I have heard that Your Highness is [59] practicing the governance of sages. This makes you a sage as well, and it is my wish to become the common subject of a sage.”

Then Chen Xiang met Xu Xing and was delighted. He discarded all he had learned before and took Xu Xing as his teacher. When he met Mencius, he spoke to him of Xu Xing’s teachings. “The lord of Teng is certainly a worthy ruler. Still, he has yet to hear the Dao. A true worthy tills the soil beside his people, cooking his own meals as he orders the state. Now, Teng has granary stores and treasure vaults; this shows that the Duke treats his people with harshness in order to nurture his own person. How could this be worthy?”

Mencius said, “Does Master Xu only eat what he himself has planted?”
“Yes.”

“Does he only wear clothes that he himself has sewn?”
“No,” said Chen Xiang. “He wears hemp.”

“Does he wear a cap?”
“Yes.”

“What kind?”
“It is of plain silk.”

“He weaves it himself?”
“No, he traded some grain as barter for it.”

“Why doesn’t Master Xu weave it himself?”
“It would interfere with his farm work.”

“Does he cook with pots and steamers and work his land with an iron ploughshare?”
“Yes.”

“Does he make these things himself?”
“No, he trades grain to get such things.”

“Then to trade grain for implements cannot be treating the potter and smith with harshness, and when the potter and smith exchange their wares for grain, neither is that treating the farmer harshly. But why does not Master Xu work as a potter and smith so that he will be able to get from within his own home everything that he needs? Why does he enter into this welter of exchanges with various craftsmen? Doesn’t he begrudge all this bother?”

“No one,” said Chen Xiang, “could undertake the work of all craftsmen and be a farmer besides!”

“Well, then, is ruling the world the only occupation that one can undertake while farming? There are affairs of great men and affairs of ordinary men. If it were necessary for each individual first to make all the implements of his work before using them, it would simply march the world down the road to exhaustion.
“For this reason, it is said, ‘Some labor with their minds, some labor with their strength.’ Those who labor with their minds bring order to those who labor with their strength, and those who labor with their strength are ordered by those who labor with their minds. Those who are put in order by others feed people, and those who order people are fed by others. This is a universal principle throughout the world. […]

---

The Divine Farmer Shennong is a deity of Chinese folk religion venerated as a culture hero. Shennong has taught the Chinese their practice of agriculture ainsi que l’usage des herbes médicinales. (Wikipedia)
In the third century BCE, during times of political crisis and expansionism and wars among Chinese kingdoms, Shennong received new myths about his status as an ideal prehistoric ruler who valued laborers and farmers and « ruled without ministers, laws or punishments. » (Wikipedia)

---

 

ATC	“RHETORIC TO THE SINGLE-PERSON AUDIENCE”

Rhetoric to the single person audience developped special features.
(Hui Wu 2016, Preface to Guiguzi, etc., p. 12)

The Chinese rhetors were not public speakers but persuaders primarily in a private setting, most often talking to a one-person audience, often assumed to be the ruler or a superior. (id.)

Guiguzi, China’s first treatise on Rhetoric. A critical translation and commentary.
Translated by Hui Wu. With commentaries by Hui Wu and C. Jan Swearingen. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press. 2016.

---

« Warring states period » or « a first-millenium forgery »? —  A critical note on the preface
Was the book written by one author during the Warring States period (5th–3rd century BCE), or is it a forgery by various authors from the 1st millennium CE?
The issue is not simply a a scholarly dispute. The translator’s preface is entirely based on the hypothesis that « Guiguzi » lived during the Warring States period. If the reviewer is correct, then key passages of this preface, as well as the general perspective taken on Chinese rhetoric, are irrelevant.

A. S., a reviewer:
Can’t imagine how the introduction got past peer review

The translator supposes that this book is written by a wise old man named Guiguzi, who lived in the Warring States period […]
Many scholars suspect that the whole thing is a first-millennium forgery retroactively attributed to a shadowy master with a commensurately shadowy name (Master of the Valley of Ghosts). […]
Address: https://www.desertcart.sc/products/118771091-guiguzi-chinas-first-treatise-on-rhetoric-a-critical-translation-commentary

---

 

ATC	Rules of Debate: TSOU-YEN Inaugural Program

“The least misleading appoach to Chinese disputation is through the thinkers who actually describe and operate the apparatus of disputation, the later Mohists » (Graham 1978, p.19-20).
Graham takes Tsou Yen’s “program” (see Kroll 1985-1987) as the starting point for this tradition of disputers.
Tsou Yen lived from around 340 to around 260 BCE.

In this way, the winner does not fail to make his point and the loser finds what he is seeking.

The disputation recognised throughout the world has ‘five wins and three arrivals, of which correctness in phrasing is the least. (1)
The disputant distinguishes separate kinds of things so that they do not interfere with each other, arranges in sequences different starting-points, so that they do not confuse each other, dredges his ideas and makes his meaning intelligible, and clarifies what he has to say; he shares his knowledge with others and does not busy himself with misleading them.
In this way, the winner does not fail to make his point and the loser finds what he is seeking.
When it comes to elaborating style in order to put up a pretence, adorning phases in order to make nonsense of the other’s case, using subtle comparisons to make it shift his ground, stretching what he litterally says so that he cannot get back to his own idea, to behave like this is harmful to the Great Way.
Engaging in tangled debates and competing to keep talking the longest cannot but be harmful to being a gentleman
Tsou Yen_GRAHAM 1978, p. 20-21.

---

Rules of the Method

POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

1) Cognitive component

The participants must:
(a) Distinguishe separate kinds of things so that they do not interfere with each other.
First step, about things: clarification of categories. Distinguish things according to their proper category; categories are set of things of the same kind.
No interference, that is, non-overlapping categories No fuzzy zones.

(b) Arrange in sequences different starting-points, so that they do not confuse each other,
Second, about the organization of reasoning (i.e., the correct arrangement of judgments (NB in (a): correct grouping of things). Discourse arrangement.
Starting points, basis of the whole reasoning:  premisses, data, hypotheses, postulates, as well as implicit assumptions. The issue is the epistemic status of what is said.

In (a) and (b) clarification / confusion

(c) Dredges his ideas
Both participants deepen and clear up their ideas, that is exert self criticism.
For example, they have to get rid of prejudices and dubious ideas, like scooping out mud, weeds and rubbish out out a river with a dredge. Bacon’s « idols » produce such waste.
They have to track down their own shortcomings and fallacies.

2) Linguistic component

The participant must:
(d) Make his meaning intelligible:
Expression – communication: they ensure that what they have developed conceptually is expressed correctly and is correctly understood by their partner.

(e) Clarify what he has to say
The task of clarifying one’s thoughts doubles as the task of searching for the right expression. Globally (d) is about conceptual meaning whereas (e) is about correct reasoning.

[2g] Share his knowledge with others and do not busy himself with misleading them.
Share [their] knowledge with others:
            Task which has been detailed through the cognitive and linguistic recommendations. 

Do not busy himself with misleading them:
             Task which will be detailed through the cognitive and linguistic recommendations 1)

NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

Global structure of the negative component
The positive section has a linear structure; Tree kind of action converge to a global result, « the winner does not fail to make his point and the loser finds what he is seeking.“

The negative section has an alternating structure combines two parallel groupings

1st series: four negative actions (behaviors) converge to a global result:
harmfull to the Great Way.

2nd series: two negative actions (behaviors) converge to a global result parallel to the first: harmful to being a gentleman.

First series, four actions
The actions
Elaborate style in order to put up a pretence
Using style in order to mask the weaknesses of reasoning

Adorn phases in order to make nonsense of the other’s case
A classic condemnation of ornaments, The prestige orf ornaments superseds the reasoning – dissimulates the weakness of the positions.

Use subtle comparisons to make it shift his ground,
Subtle comparison is the first step towards metaphor. A especially de-stabilizing move.

Stretch what he litterally says, so that he cannot get back to his own idea,

Result: Harmfull to the Great Way.

Second series,

Engaging in tangled debate.
Better not to engage or join a tangled debate, that is a debate defying                                       clarification.

Competing to keep talking the longest
Could join the fallacy of eloquence. 

Result: Harmfull to being a Gentleman.

Harmful to the Great way = Harmful to reality
Harmful to being a Gentleman = Harmful to the status of the person

 

---

Graham, Arthur C., 1978. Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science. The Chinese University Press, Chinese University of London. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Kroll J. L.,1985-1987. Disputation in Ancient Chinese Culture. Early China, Vol. 11/12 (1985–1987). Cambridge University Press. Pp. 118-145.

• • Lat. incommodum, “inconvénient”.

L’argument ad incommodum est défini par Bossuet comme « l’argument qui jette dans l’inconvénient » ([1677], p. 131). C’est une variante de l’usage réfutatif de l’argumentation pragmatique, par les conséquences inacceptables ou contradictoires, V. Absurde.

Bossuet illustre ce schème par un exemple destiné à réfuter les doctrines des opposants au pouvoir politique absolu sur les corps et à l’autorité ecclésiastique absolue sur les âmes.

S’il n’y avoit point d’autorité politique à laquelle on obéit sans résistance, les hommes se dévoreraient les uns les autres ; et s’il n’y avoit point d’autorité ecclésiastique à laquelle les particuliers fussent obligés de soumettre leur jugement, il y auroit autant de religions que de têtes. Or est-il qu’il est faux [mais il est faux] qu’on doive souffrir, ni que les hommes se dévorent les uns les autres, ni qu’il y ait autant de religions que de têtes. Donc, il faut admettre nécessairement une autorité politique à laquelle on obéisse sans résistance, et une autorité ecclésiastique à laquelle les particuliers soumettent leur jugement.
Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Logique du Dauphin [1677] [1]

La réfutation de Bossuet a la forme de deux syllogismes hypothétiques :

Sans d’autorité politique absolue, les hommes se dévoreraient : non AP → D
Sans autorité religieuse absolue, les religions se multiplieraient : non AR → M
Les hommes ne doivent pas se dévorer : non D
Les religions ne doivent pas se multiplie : non M
Donc il faut une autorité politique absolue :  AP
Donc il faut une autorité religieuse absolue : AR

Les deux argumentations sont présentées de façon strictement parallèle. Cet effet textuel ou stylistique a pour effet de solidariser les deux argumentations, donc les deux pouvoirs, jusqu’à l’identification. [2] Ce parallélisme est différent de celui qui est mis en œuvre dans l’argument des cas parallèles, fondé sur l’analogie de deux domaines asymétriques, un comparant et un comparé.

---

[1] Paris, Éditions universitaires, 1990, p. 131 (Orthographe originelle)

[2] Cette identification exclut par exemple la pluralité des religions dans une monarchie absolue, justifiant ainsi la Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes de 1685.

---

 

ATC	A good argument, not a guarantee to be right

Zhuangzi
♦ “If you prevail over me, does that mean that what you say is so?’

2.14: Escaping the infinite regress of adjudication*
Now let’s say that you and I debate. If you prevail over me and I do not prevail over you, does that mean that what you say is so and what I say is not? If I prevail over you and you do not prevail over me, does that mean that what I say is so and what you say is not?
Or is it that one of us is right and one of us wrong? Or are both of us right or both of us wrong? If you and I are both unable to know, then others will become muddled as we are.

The impossible third party

Whom shall we call upon to put it right? Shall we call upon one who agrees with you? But if he agrees with you, how can he put it right?
Shall we call upon one who agrees with me? But if he agrees with me, how can he put it right?
Shall we call upon one who differs with both you and me? But if he differs with both you and me, how can he put it right?
Shall we call upon one who agrees with both you and me? But if he agrees with both you and me, how can he put it right?

The skeptical attitude: “Therefore logdge all this in the boundless”

Thus you and I and these others all cannot know – shall we await yet another? Harmonize all of these by the horizon of heaven. Relying on it to stretch forward is the way to live out your full lifespan; forgetting the years, forgetting all judgments, stirring within the boundless.
What do I mean by the horizon of heaven? It is to say, assert what is not true; affirm what is not so. Were what is true so different from what is false, there would be no arguments; were what is so that different from what is not, there would be no arguments. The mutual dependence of shifting voices is the same as if they were not mutually dependent. Therefore lodge all this in the boundless.

---

Zhuangzi (pinyin) – Chuang Tzu (W-G) – Tchouang-tseu (EFEO)
(~-369 ~288, dates traditionnelles) ; -4e siècle.

Zhuangzi, The Inner Chapters. Translated by Robert Eno. Version 1.0. 2010.
Chap. 2, On making things equal. § 2.14: Escaping the infinite regress of adjudication. P. 20.

ATC	Chinese authors cited Transcription of Names – Dates – Works

Transcription

Pinyin transcription is the official modern transcription of standard Chinese using the letters of the Latin alphabet (CK). Introduced in China in 1958.

Other transcription systems:
— Wade – Giles system, most used in the English-speaking world before the introduction of the pinyin system.
— EFEO system, from the École française d’Extrême-Orient (EFEO), designed by Séraphin Couvreur in 1902 used in French, before the introduction of the pinyin system. 
— Latin transcription

Other transcription systems can be found in the texts; quotations respect the author’s choice.

---

Dates and Periods

Date during the Common Era or Christian Era, CE: 512 = 512 CE
Date before the Common Era, BCE: 512 BCE

Periods start and end dates:
—— 512 BCE – 480 BCE 
—— 512 BCE – 215CE
—— 512 CE – 623 CE = 512 – 623

Hypothetical dates are noted « c. » or a « ca.« , abbreviations of the Latin word « circa » « around, approximately »:
c. 512BCE – c.215BCE.
c. 513 BCE
c. 513CE = c. 513ce

---

 

Kongfuzi K’ung-fu-tzu Confucius

551 – 479 bce

Analects

Deng Xi Teng Hsi

c. 545 – 501 bce

Teng Hsi Tse

Mozi Mo Tzu Micius

470 – 391 bce (W)

Mozi

Zhuang zi Chuang-tzu Tchouang-tseu

c. 4th C. bce

Zhuangzi

 

 

Shang Yang

c 390 bce 338_bce

The Book of Lord Shang

Meng Ke, Meng zi Meng tzu Mencius

Lifetime period 380 – 300 bce (Eno)

Mencius

Gongsun Long  Kung -sun Lung

c. 320 – 250 bce

Zou Yan Tsou Yen

305 – 240 bce

Xunzi Hsün Tzu Siun-tseu

before –298 bce, after –238 bce

Xunzi, Hsün Tzu

Lu Buwei Lü Pu-wei

291 – 235 bce ? – 253 bce (CK)

Lüshi Chunqiu « Spring and Autumn of Lü Buwei«

Hanfei, Hanfeizi

c. 280 – 233 bce

Han Fei Zi Han-Fei-tse, ou Le Tao du PrinceLÉVI Han-Fei-tsi Basic WritingsWATSON

Sima Qian Se-Ma Tsien

c. 145 – c. 86 BC

Shiji Mémoires Historiques Records of the Grand Historian

Huan Tan Huan T’an

c. 43 bce, 28 ce

Xinlun « New Discussions«

Wang Chong Wang Ch’ung

c. 27 – 97 ce

Lunheng « Critical Discussions«

 

Liu Hsieh

465, 522

Wen-hsin tiao-lung « The literary mind and the Carving of dragons«

---

Period from 600 bce to 200 bce

The scale of time (600bce-200bce)  is highlighted in yellow
Highlighted in pink: the period of the Warring States
Highlighted in black: Qín Shihuang(di), Emperor of unified China
Highlighted in blue: Beginning of the Han dynasty

---

 

ATC	Opposite terms presuppose each other “If Heaven produces drugs which kill man, it must certainly produce drugs which give man life”

Huan T’an  43 bce – 28ce
1— I told Liu Tzu-chün that cultivating one’s nature does not help (postpone old age).
2— His elder brother’s son Po-yü said “If Heaven produces drugs which kill man, it must certainly produce drugs which gives man life.”
3—I said, “The plant ourouparia rhynchophylla does not agree with man, so eating it causes death. But it is not produced for the purpose of killing man. Similarly, Szechwan beans poison fish, arsenic kills rats, cassis injures otters, and apricot stones kill dogs. But these are not made by Heaven for this purpose.
Fragment 66, p. 80-81.

Huan T’an (-43, +28) Hsin-lun (New Treatise) and other Writings.
An annotated translation with index by Timoteus Pokora. Michigan Paper in Chinese studies, The University of Michigan, Center for Chinese Studies. (our numbering

1 — The discussion focuses on the length of human life, the possibility of prolonging or even making it eternal.
« Cultivating one’s nature » is a key Confucean imperative for living a better life, but it is rejected here as a mean of extending life.

2 — Po-yü implicitly agrees with this negative conclusion and proposes another theoretical posibility, using the topos of the opposites:
Some plants cause death, so there must be plants which give life
The search is not about medicinal plants, known by the Chinese since the Divine Farmer told Human about them, but about plants giving eternal life. 

Since there are toxic plants, so there must be healing plants, The reasoning is, since the opposite  tems are mutually  defined (nice presupposes disagreeable, positive/negative, etc.). Speaking of toxic plants presupposes the existence of curative plants. 

3. Paragraph 3 refutes Po-yü’s belief in Heaven’s benevolent intentions toward humanity.
The issue is the teleological structure and providential organization of the world. Oranges are naturally divided into segments, but it It would be absurd to interpret this as a suggestion by Goddess Nature that the fruit should be shared between the members of the group.

*

“If Heaven produces drugs which kill man, it must certainly produce drugs which gives man life.”