Beijing Weekend: Naming Planets

    I just noticed that China Daily ran another one of my pieces last Friday in the Beijing Weekend section.  Here's the link to the on-line version.    They made one error, changing a word that mangles a sentence. They used "a slightly different" as a stand-in for "nuanced," and I think their choice creates an awkward sentence.  Maybe it is just a problem in the web version, but I have made the correction in the copied text below the fold.   This is not a big deal.  It is the only editing choice that I would take exception to in eight articles.

    They have now published all of the pieces I have submitted, which means I should start churning out some new ones.  Here's a question for you all: what topics should I write about?  You can click on the "Beijing Weekend" link at the bottom of this post to see what I have already done for them.  What facets of modern life would benefit from insights of Confucianism or Taoism?  Or, conversely, what aspects of those ancient philosophies might be especially useful for the times we live in now? 

Precise definition of space is no simple name game
By Sam Crane(China Daily)
Updated: 2006-11-10 09:21

Confucius reminds us that names are important: "Naming enables the noble-minded to speak, and speech enables the noble-minded to act" (Analects, 13.3). It seems that the International Astronomers Union (IAU), in proposing a new definition for "planet," is following this Confucian idea, but not without some controversy.

Apparently, there had never been precise, scientific criteria that would allow for a clear distinction between a planet and other heavenly bodies, like moons and asteroids. This is a problem because, as technology has evolved, more objects have been discovered that appear to be planet-like, but not quite what our common sense might accept as a true planet. And at least one established planet, Pluto, has come to be considered something less than a real planet.

Without a precise definition for planets, astronomers, just as Confucius had warned, may not be able to act as they usually do: making observations and debating theories. They have to rectify names.

This is where the trouble starts. Some scientists worry that the new criteria will dilute the sense of the term "planet" by allowing too many objects to be named as such. Others fret that we might lose Pluto. There could be more than 50, or only eight, planets, depending upon the specific definition. "It's a mess," one astronomer complained.

Does this mean that Confucius is wrong? Does an attempt to rectify names actually create more problems than it solves?

Not really. Confucius, after all, is proposing a means of ethical government, not scientific categorization. He is concerned with justice and humanity. A wise leader has to make sure that people live up to their social and political roles "ruler a ruler, minister a minister, father a father." (Analects 12.11). One has to earn the name "father" through the performance of duty. If a person does not fulfil his responsibilities as a "minister" or a "ruler," than he should forfeit the name.

But determining whether a social obligation is truly accomplished is a  matter of [nuanced] a slightly different assessment of particular circumstances. There is no one, clear standard, but rather only a case-by-case consideration based upon the unique conditions faced by each individual. It is not as cut and dry as scientific classification.

Yet even if Confucian rectification of names is a social and ethical, and not strictly a scientific, project, it can create its own difficulties. How do we know when a father has fully lived up to his duties and responsibilities? Or a minister? Or a mother or sister or brother? It might be possible to see when a person is obviously failing in his or her obligations, but how can we really know if he or she is intentionally noble-minded? Only individuals can know, in their hearts, if they are consistently doing the right thing.

So, naming, either scientifically or ethically, is a complex process.

Some of the astronomers might be tempted to just give up the effort of precise definition. They might find inspiration in philosophical Taoism, which tells us that the fullness of existence, Tao, cannot be understood by analysis and naming. Zhuang Zi puts it nicely: "In difference there's no difference, and in division, no division The sage embraces it all. Everyone else divides things, and uses one to reveal the other. Therefore I say: 'Those who divide things cannot see'."

In pursuing the ideal of precise names, the astronomers might well be blinding themselves to the universe.

Contact the author at [email protected]

Sam Crane teaches Chinese philosophy and politics at Williams College in Massachusetts, USA.

Comments

[China Law Blog]

Hate to just throw this up here as a comment to this post, but I am soliciting your help here. There has been a lively and ongoing discussion on Chinese values and ethics on my blog based on two different posts on "the Chinese mindset."

I greatly respect your knowledge of Chinese religion/ethics/values/philosophy and would absolutely LOVE it if you would chime in. I am just a simple lawyer and could really use the help.

Thanks.