The Research On Relationship Between Laozi And Confucius

Laozi and Confucius ,who have been thought to be the founders of the Daoism school and Confucian school in acient China , were the two most important thinkers and philosophers in the history of China. Yet, who are they? And what was the relationship between them? These have seem become problems for centuries. Althought Laozi was thought to be the teacher of Confucius in most related Pre-qin and Han books, many people began to doubt this for many reasons since Tang Dynasty. Han Yu, a famous learner and thinker in the period of Tang, was the first person that began to doubt the fact that Laozi was the teacher of Confucius. Since then, More and more learners,especially Confucians, began to deny the basic fact of the relationship between the two greatest thinkers. Although so many people doubt the fact, none of them could prove their opinion with reliably materials. The first task of this paper is to discuss the possibilities of the relation between Laozi and Confucius and to make people sure about this relation. We hold the opinion that Confucius had learnt from Laozi, just as the records of some Pre-qin and Han books, such as Historical Records and The Book of Rites and so on.People usually think that the diffrences on their viewpionts and thoughts between t Laozi and Confucius are great. While we think that the thoughts of Laozi and Confucius have a lot in common. For example, both Laozi and Confucius paid much attention to the social problems, they both agreed the governing of benevolence and virtue; They both knew about Rites of Zhou, although their attitudes to the Rites became different later; They both insist the philosophy of Dao and the Doctrine of Mean, which later became the most important elements in acient Chinese philosophy. The second task of the paper is to discover in what aspects Laozi and Confucius were the same.Why Laozi and Confucius have so much in common is the third task that the paper needs to finish. In my opinion, Laozi and Confucius were in the same period of time, what they face should be the same,and from what they could learn should be the same too. Thus , the same culture and society backgrounds must result in the similar thoughts. That is the main reason why Laozi and Confucius had so much in common in their thoughts and social ideas.Although Laozi and Confucius have so much in common in their thoughts, their thoughts and learning had been developed quite differently to two opposite learning group, which was known as Daoism and Confucianism. What made this? It was the fourth question that the paper need to answer. We think the reasons are complicated ,the question has a gread deal with many related aspects, such as the political choices, the cultural developing, the argument and struggle between the leanrning schools, and the diiferent explanations to the content and intention of the classics during the periods of more than two thousand years. All these reasons made Laozi and Confucius keep far away from their original states.The last task of the paper is to discuss is the exact situations of the relation between the earlier Daoists and the earlier Confucians. People usually hold the opinion that the relation between the earlier Daoists and the earlier Confucians was absolutely opposite and repel. While we do not think so. Through what we researched and learned from the classics of Pre-qin and Han, we found that the earlier Daoists and the earlier Confucians had not been divided at all, they were in a whole in the early period, like the time of Laozi and Confucius, even in later time. The naming and division of the "Daoism" and "Confucianism" happened after Period of Qin , which was the invention of the Han people. So, in the period of Pre-qin, the "Daoists" and the "Confucians" had got on well for long. The situation continued until the period of Qin and Han.The paper also discusses the usage of the unearthed literature. Since last century, many unearthed literature also proved that our viewpoints on the relation of Laozi and Confucius is correct. However, we insist that the effects and proof of the unearthed literature are limited, we drew the conclusion mainly on traditional historical classics.