Individual Autonomy and Responsibility in Late Imperial China By ...

metaphysical frame with his monistic and pantheistic vision (Deus sive/seu natura) identifies God with substance (Res Cogitans, Res Extensa, and an infinity of other unknown attributes expressing God’s infinite self-actualizing potency), with no reference to the traditional theological discourse within which the distinction between the creator and the creation obtained a well-defined function, and where all beings serve as direct expressions of God. Neo-Confucian heaven is not too far from Spinoza’s God, which is devoid of providential finalism, and does not let human nature get corrupted by the fall. This frame applies Spinoza’s metaphysical background to the Confucian cosmic concept. His substantia can be compared to the Neo-Confucian cosmic energy of monists that was identified with the idea of principle. More complex is the concept of conatus (effort, desire, virtue/power); it may recall the vital energy, or even desire, for some Ming and Qing thinkers, for its vitalistic and moral aspects (conatus sese conservandi): “each thing, as far as it lies in itself, strives to persevere in its being” (Unaquæque res, quantum in se est, in suo esse perseverare conatur).”³ Spinoza is also conscious that human beings desire to do what secures their own interests: “men act always on account of an end, viz. on account of their advantage, which they want,” provided these are positive and rational desires. Order and disorder, good and evil, justice and injustice are concepts without objective value, except from the personal and contingent perspectives. Complex would be a comparison on the management of emotions and desires which are basic for human morality according to Li Zhi and Spinoza; for both thinkers, emotions are expression of the self-motivated nature of the self (Li Zhi’s “selfishness” and Spinoza’s “increasing or decreasing my own power”⁴). Spinoza is analytical in the anatomy of passions, whereas Li Zhi is more practical, focusing on their common nature as manifestation of self-realization in each individual. It is safe just to say that Spinoza’s position (Part 3 of the Ethics) inherits the Stoics’ traditional stance toward license, while Li Zhi is to be framed in the cult of qing and the movement of Taizhou. A certain analogy can be also found in Spinoza’s moral eudemonism. According to the basic “striving for self-preservation,”