Han Fei Tzu Basic Writings

by Han Fei Tzu

VG Condition!

Genres: Philosophy, China, Politics, History, Nonfiction, Classics, Read For School

Hardcover

First published January 1, 251

Reviews

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

When a sage rules the state, he does not depend on people’s doing good of themselves; he sees to it that they are not allowed to do what is bad....Those who rule... devote themselves not to virtue but to law.

Han Feizi earnestly sent this advice to his king, the ruler of the small state of Han. You must, he said, forswear benevolence and demand absolute adherence to strictly enforced laws and penalties so that the state’s granaries are full and its armies ready. It might not have mattered anyway, but Han ignored his advice and fell to the neighboring king of Qin, who became the first Emperor of a unified China in 221 B.C.

Han Feizi would have a state that has no place for commerce, the arts, religion, or anything other than agriculture and war. One has to remember the threatening times in which he lived, but even so it is a ruthless prescription. He perfected the Legalist doctrines that would guarantee the strength of the state through the ruler retaining absolute power in his own hands. This power derived not through the ruler participating in the actual administration, but in giving his ministers and their subordinates no room for independent judgement or discretion. They must fill an exactly defined role, and deviate not at all from any programs they proposed to carry out. Severe punishment and/or dismissal should follow stepping out of job-description bounds, underdelivery or even overdelivery. In this way officials could not be susceptible to bribes for things such as being excused from military service, and they would have insufficient scope for cabals. (Han Feizi doesn’t address the question of how the ruler will acquire the massive amount of unbiased information needed to carry this policy out in practice.)

Han Feizi has a very low opinion of the people, and dismisses any notion that the ruler needs to shape his policies to gain their trust. All this sounds insanely ruthless, but this book is a classic because the examples and reasoning he employs are very convincing. For example, he points out that all of the steps the ruler needs to follow to built up a country’s defenses and ability to wage war (harder work and taxes) will be adamantly resisted by the people. Every proscription of refined life and occasional forgiveness of error is accompanied by an example of disaster befalling a ruler who was ’soft'. This being said, the first Emperor put Legalist doctrine into full practice and among the reasons for the collapse of his empire only a couple of years after he died, according to Burton Watson’s introduction, was resistance to the severity of these policies.

Watson provides a concise and graceful introduction that provides the necessary historical and philosophical context for this work. Han Feizi has been read ever since the book was written about 240 BC, and is well worth a look. It’s short and easy to read. (And for those who read my update from yesterday, about as far from Dhammapada as it’s possible to get.)

[Emily Carroll · Rating 4 out of 5]

Han Feizi was the creator of the Legalist philosophy. Unlike many earlier philosophers, it is believed that he wrote the text primarily on his own. According to a historian named Sima Qian, Han Feizi studied under Xunzi. I found this to be particularly interesting because Xunzi was a Confucian philosopher and there is a great rift between the two schools of thought. Though when reading Han Feizi there is a strong sense of Xunzi’s writing style. For example, like Xunzi, Han Feizi gives strict titles for actions and behaviors and makes it appear that you have no choice and can make no argument with what is ultimately his opinion on the matter. I will demonstrate the similarities below with examples from the two text.
From Xunzi:
“To lead others along in what is good is called “teaching”. To harmonize with others in what is good is called “proper compliance”. To lead others along in what is bad is called “flattery.” (Page 262)
From Han Feizi:
“To kill or execute- this is what is meant by “punishment”. To venerate or reward- this is what is meant by “favor”. (Page 323)
Unfortunately this is something I find to be very annoying because it gives me a sense of taking away free will and personal opinion. But this really makes sense with Han Feizi because legalism believes that people are naturally evil and will always try to avoid punishment while in the process of chasing gains. It supports a strict law and harsh punishments. Han Feizi also reminded me of “The Prince” by the renaissance writer Machiavelli. A lot of the book read like a guide book for rulers on the proper way to rule, as well as punish. Very much like The Prince, though perhaps a bit more extreme and harsh.

[Mason Masters · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely basic, very easy to read. Nice taste of Chinese philosophy. They really like to use their historical examples. Lots of political thought to be take from this.

[Vincent Li · Rating 4 out of 5]

Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Benthem in one. As someone who is more familiar with western political philosophy and ethics, it was really fascinating for me to see such a close analogue so far removed in time and space. Han Fei's teachings, that of the school of legalism, survived as a byproduct of his weakness. As he suffered a stutter, a major disability in a time that rhetoric was prized, Han Fei had to write down his ideas. Generally his ideas are a kind of uber-realism that has a deeply cynical view of man. Instead of assuming that man is good, Han Fei's writings assume that man is driven by the baser instincts and the a good ruler needed to apply laws (often in the form of harsh punishments) in order to keep them in line. Advisors were to be punished if they over or under promised, the ruler should stay mysterious and difficult to figure out. The ruler should be consistent between his purported values and his administration of benefits and rewards. The ruler should be careful and afraid of his wife and sons, who benefit from his death (old wives afraid of being replaced, and sons who seek to inherit) as well as his ministers who seek to fool the ruler (but Han Fei has some advice for would-be ministers: to be flattering and clever in persuading the ruler). Punishment and reward should be administered without heed to one's status, and the ruler should avoid giving out too much responsibility and power to others. Han Fei recommends the ruler to consider the cost and benefit of plans, as well as make use of the "two handles" of man (pain and pleasure). He also makes fun of Confucians for being too idealistic and confusing. Overall, interesting reading because it's so different, but also at once, eerily familiar.

[Seth Benzell · Rating 5 out of 5]

In America, we were raised to believe that just states can only exist by the consent of the governed. We believe that public education is essential to the maintenance of a free and prosperous state. We are taught to value virtue and initiative in the public and private domains. In fact, we don't even really believe in a conflict between (the aggregated, void of "special interests") public and private interest-- We are told that "The government that governs least governs best" and "The business of America is business".

Han Feizi (c. 280 – 233 BC), perhaps the most important 'Legalist' philosopher of Ancient China, would likely disagree with all of these theses. If I were to summarize his philosophy of government in one sentence, it would be "Rule like a Mafia Don". To his vision, virtuous men are practically non-existent, and scholars can't agree on what virtue even is. Maybe there was one day in the ancient past, before scarcity and the Malthusian trap, when the people really could be led by a string. But those days have long passed, and now the ruler (who likely also isn't virtuous, whatever that means) needs to rule his people with an iron law and an almost superantural detachment.

To do so, the ruler has some tools at his (it's always a man, although concubines commanding child rulers are mentioned in passing) disposal: the levers of reward and punishment -- always to be the exclusive tools of the ruler, to be applied generously/severerly and as rapidly/mercilessly as possible, and always in proportion to whether "the form matches the name" (in other words, rewards are for achieving the assigned goal using the assigned method, not for individual initiative); laws themselves, which should be clear, understandable, and yet adapted to the times; and a sort of removed mystique -- "He waits, empty and still letting names define themselves and affairs reach their own settlements. Being empty, he can comprehend the true aspect of fullness. Being still, he can correct the mover." This dao-ist inspired way of talking about totalitarianism is certainly different!

When I say that this style of ruling is Mafia-esque, one main element I have in mind is this last one. I was just watching "The Goodfellas" and in it, the don, Pauli, is notable for only meeting with his chronies one-on-one, and even then, mostly only listening. The reason given in Ray Liota's voiceover is exactly the same one given by Han Feizi -- that the Ruler should maximally conceal both their knowledge, sources of information and their secret desires. When these are unknown, they will be harder to manipulate.

One of the reason the essays are so compelling are their use of cool illustrations from history. Perhaps the most striking story is the one illustrating the principle of names and forms. A king is passed out drunk on his cold throne. The keeper of the royal hat puts a shaul on the ruler to keep him warm. When the king awakens he punishes both the keeper of the royal shaual and the keeper of the royal hat -- the keeper of the shaul for forgetting his job, and the keeper of the hat for overstepping his.

Does it make sense to rule a state like this? One that expects the worst of it's people and attempts to keep them in line with an iron discipline? I know I wouldn't want to live there. Further, it seems clear that modern economies and militaries that enable initiative (from nimble silicon valley startups running circles around IBM to WWI Stormtroopers swamping Belgian fortresses) beat those with rigid regulations and heirarchies. The ideal of just setting out very clear and precise rules/incentives and expecting everything to go smooth without local management is just wrong. The Hayekian idea that local knowledge and circuimstances are super important to successfully planning means that delegation of decision making and sharing of knowledge horizontally accross domains is essential. Not only is the mafia style of government decidedly unfree and fragile -- both to unluckilly drawing an unlucky ruler (there is no even thought in here of a mechanism for getting rid of bad rulers -- something Democracy is relatively good at) it also just seems inefficient.

I also think this approach to governance has what I'd call an "Antigone" problem. Not only is this style of government designed for the non-virtuous, it kind of breaks down if you do plug in the virtuous. In Antigone, Creon has an incredibly cynical, Han Feizi-esque, understanding of human nature. In that framing his actions make sense -- people fear punishment, so he punishes the rebels pos-houmously. But Antigone, who virtuously displays familial love, defies Creon's orders. Her punishment and martyrdom becomes a cause celeb that leads to the downfall of the ruler. A system with a notion of personal rights or which was more flexible to dissent wouldn't have such fragility.

That said, I enjoyed thinking about the book as a guide towards AI alignment. I think of there being, broadly, three classes of approaches to AI alignment: (1) Comprehensive AI services -- you just try to make sure AIs that can think across domains never emerge -- i.e. you make extremely powerful idiot savants, preventing malevolent AI from emerging and making sure paperclip maximizers won't attempt to monopolize the world's resources or first strike with nukes (2) "Raised" AI -- Trying to make an AI that loves and wants to be in a personal relationship with us in a vaguely human way and (3) "Tyrannized" AI -- Making a system of AIs that constantly spy on and report on eachother to make sure none of them individually get out of line. There's lots of good ideas about how to work towards this last strategy in here.

One last thing -- I was surprised by also was the vitriol with which Han Feizi goes after scholars, merchants, artisans, ronin and local power brokers. Scholars are said to be sophists and diletants who distract from real work. Merchants and artisans are similar distractions from farming and war, and what's more, might have clear anti-state or cosmopolitan interests. Local power centers and ronin decentralize power away from the ruler, bad for absolutism, but maybe ok for flexibility and efficiency.

Overall a good and provocative read with good stories. Some ground gets covered multiple times, but that's often inevitable in an essay collection made posthumously.

3.7 stars rounded up for ancientness and it's weird provocative theses.

[Stephen Durrant · Rating 3 out of 5]

It has been several decades since I last read anything more than a few excerpts of Hanfeizi (pardon the shift from Wade-Giles to pinyin romanization). He is, indisputably, one of early China's most influential thinkers and is, moreover, a man possessed of considerable literary skill. But I confess to have forgotten how very bleak his vision is. That would not bother me so much if it simply reflected a pessimistic take on the world--I am, I confess, fairly pessimistic myself. What troubles me is that this is a plan of action, a philosophy of governance, that cares nothing for such abstractions as human happiness or even self-cultivation (a "rank Confucian concept," I suppose). Instead, it is a manual on how a ruler can retain power with little concern for exactly what use this power might be serving. Hanfeizi is explicit in his disdain for the common people, who are best kept stupid and hard at work, and in his distrust of all those, particularly those of learning and respect for tradition, who gather around the ruler, seeming to serve him while only striving to mislead and supplant him. If we apply this vision more generally, we would all distrust one another, while carefully sharpening our own powers of manipulation.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading this the second time after an interval of about 12 years. Love it even more the second time around. Its one of the most important foundational texts of political realism in my opinion.

More interestingly, and something that I missed on my first go through-there is a detailed and extremely well argued critique of elite overproduction (a la Turchin) in this book but thousands of years before the rise of that term. Han Fei really hates Confucian moralists and their prevalence in the overproduced elite as well. I could only imagine the venon he would have for the overproduced professional managerial class liberals of today, whose ghost-ancestors are those quivering eunuch administrators of the past.

[Phillip · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would describe Han Fei Tzu's Legalism as a kind of Taoist panopticon, where the basic goal is for a ruler to structure the laws so that subjects are rewarded for doing exactly what's expected of them and punished for deviating in any way (ironically, even if they go above and beyond what they say they'll do or what they're asked to do). Legalism is primarily concerned with endorsing a strong ruler and then ensuring that he (because patriarchy) remains unchallenged in power. It shares many assumptions with Machiavelli's The Prince and Hobbes' Leviathan. The basic outlook is that people are power-hungry and fundamentally scheming--even people close to the ruler like wives, consorts, and children--and that through a harsh implementation of penalties according to the law, social order can be maintained. One of the really interesting aspects of this is the Taoist influence, because for Han Feu Tzu the ruler should not seem to implement punishments--the punishments come from the Law (in the same way Taoists talk about things occurring because of the Tao). The ruler should be a kind of shadowy, empty presence without positive characteristics, desires, or objectives because those would be things that scheming ministers could use to try and gain favor or leverage over a ruler. Instead, the ruler should enforce the law impartially, without regard for his personal feelings; the law should be seen to operate in itself, rather than being tied to the whims of an individual ruler.
https://youtu.be/mjEiWY6XrWo

[sammy]

my global society teacher really told us to read this by thursday on tuesday, the literal first day of classes of our freshman year. anyway i did it and kind of hated it.

[dr_set · Rating 3 out of 5]

Realpolitik 1800 years before Machiavelli and Cardinal Richelieu.

The world of Han Fei is a cruel and unforgiving one where nobody should be trusted. As he is quick to point out, only half of rulers die of old age. To avoid a premature death, he recommends that the sovereign must rule with an iron hand, dictating strict laws and punishing even minor transgressions to them with death.

In this short book, he offers advice to the ruler on how to have an orderly kingdom and avoid disaster:

Be blank and actionless. Be empty, quiet, and retiring; never put yourself forward

The greatest threat to the ruler is his own ministers. To maintain control over them, Han Fei recommends a strategy similar to a game of poker, where we keep our hand hidden very close to our chest and conceal our expressions behind a “poker face” while we try to force others to reveal theirs.

The ruler must be God like in his isolation

Friends, relatives, and advisers will try to take advantage of you, the solution proposed by Han Fei is isolation. The ruler dictates its laws and administers his rewards and punishments like a God on top of a mountain. This completely discards the possibility of genuine loyalty or friendship.

The Ruler has two handles: rewards and punishments. Don't delegate them

The ruler uses rewards and punishments based solely on results. Deeds must match words to the extreme. If the ministers don’t do exactly as they promised, even if the results are good, they must be punished. Delegating this power is akin to losing it.

Assign them tasks according to their ability and let them settle things for themselves

Don’t micromanage things.

Establish the standard and abide by it

Lead by example.

Discard wisdom and wile or you will find it hard to remain constant

This is one of many peculiar pieces of advice that Han Fei gives. He prefers consistency above all else, so he needs to keep things extremely simple. This also prevents plots but makes complex judgment impossible.

Never enrich a man to the point where he can afford to turn against you; never ennoble a man to the point where he becomes a threat; never put all your trust in a single man

Again, all people are to be distrusted as a matter of principle.

The sage does not try to practice the ways of antiquity or to abide by a fixed standard, but examines the affairs of the age and takes what precautions are necessary

He is a pragmatist not bound by tradition.

the enlightened ruler works with facts and discards useless theories. He does not talk about deeds of benevolence and righteousness, and he does not listen to the words of scholars

Over and over again, Han Fei shows special contempt for contemporary Confucian scholars that he considers to be charlatans and parasites that have nothing of value to offer and only parrot advice based on history that is not applicable to modern times. A strange thing considering that he does pretty much the same in this book, using an endless amount of examples from the history of past rulers to support his claims.

Those who do not understand how to govern invariably say, "You must win the hearts of the people!" The reason you cannot rely upon the wisdom of the people if that they have the minds of little children

He claims that the people are short sighted and unwilling to make long term sacrifices and that is the reason that the ruler should not consult with them and not fear making unpopular decisions when needed following the advice of the best and brightest that he can muster to his service.

It's not difficult to know a thing; What is difficult is to know how to use what you know. Is you gain the ruler's love, your wisdom will be appreciated, but if he hates you, not only will your wisdom be rejected, but you will be regarded as a criminal as thrust aside

On rare occasions, he offers advice to people like him on how to win the favor of the ruler and how to avoid disgrace.

From the examples above, the flaws in Han Fei thinking are pretty clear. His methods are over simplistic, draconian and, at times, his advice seems to be at odds with himself. Another glaring flaw that we can observe is that he too often resorts to the fallacy of hasty generalizations: because one time one ruler traveled far from the capital and his misters plotted behind his back, no ruler must travel away from the capital ever.

All and all it’s a short and interesting read, that contains some good insight on the challenges of leadership and ways to approach them, with plenty of historical references.

[Meihan Liu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Decent translation, straightforward and precise. The choice of chapters is bit confusing. This edition exclude Current affairs remind me of this book, as you start to see quotations of his appearing on social media condemning the deployment of THAAD.

The quoted chapter is not included in this English edition, title of which shall be translated as "signs of collapsing":

“恃交援而簡近鄰，怙強大之救而侮所迫之國者，可亡也⋯國小而不處卑，力少而不畏強，無理而侮大鄰，剛愎而拙交者，可亡也。”

(Basically saying that countries relying on faraway allies in defiance of close neighbors, being of weak state capacity but not deferential to strong neighbors are doomed.)

I always feel that the Warring State Period and the Rise of Qing are analogous to the trajectory of Contemporary China. Therefore this classic written that time is much more essential for understanding China's behavior pattern particularly in foreign relations than those of Confucius. China's clear preference for dealing with other countries in a bilateral manner rather than a multilateral one always has some flavor of Qin's classic foreign policy "连横” in it （countering "合纵”）.

"纵者，合眾弱以攻一強也；而横者，事一強以攻眾弱也。”

South China Sea seems to be an example of a modern conduct of 连横. You deal with claimants bilaterally, allying with one against some certain others. We'll see.

[Brandon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'd known about the Legalists since Day of the Dragon King: Magic Tree House Book 14, when the Qin emperor burned all those bamboo slips of rival schools. I thought they were the historical Bad Guys, advocating ruthless tyranny.

It turns out Han Fei's thought, as represented by the selections here, is not only much more nuanced, but even uncomfortably persuasive. Students of European philosophy will find an uncanny similarity to Kojève—who I now suspect of having cribbed notes from the Legalists. He also has some surprisingly modern observations, like how it was easy for the ancients to be benevolent because there were fewer people and therefore less competition for resources, or how people are forced by necessity to certain crimes, which fact is neither good nor bad: it is simply the Sage's job to govern under these undesirable conditions. In any case, it's always a pleasure to read ancient philosophy, especially examples as straightforward and digestible as these.

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably shouldn't say too much about this.

Far more engaging the second time around, read as a handbook on organizational governance in general rather than totalitarian statecraft in specific. The feudal states of ancient China more closely resemble the modern American corporation than the Western liberal nation-state, but in a way that spelled out its organizational dynamics in clearer, more brutal terms. As a prince of Han and student of Xunzi, H.F.Z. had the privilege of observing dysfunctional leadership up close and the vigorous intellect needed to synthesize his experience with history. The result is one of the greatest management books ever written.

Watson's translation flows well, and cuts to the point. I wish more chapters were included, but I already have a classical Chinese edition in the mail...

[Federico Arcuri · Rating 5 out of 5]

In 771 b.c., the Zhou emperor was forced by barbarian invasion to flee from his capital and establish his court at Luoyang in the east. As a consequence, the rulers of the feudal states were left increasingly free to ignore the customary duties to the sovereign and to each other if they pleased, leading to a situation of chaos known as "Warring States" period.

It's in this context that Han Fei, Prince of Han, wrote his handbook for the perfect emperor, which aimed at answering the question: How to preserve the state? Compared to Machiavelli, his aim was to teach the ruler, in what it regarded as hardheaded and practical terms, how to survive and prosper in the world of the present. Thus, it addressed itself exclusively to the rulers, taking no interest in private individuals or their lives except to the extent that they affected the interests of the ruling class. Han Fei's prescribed policies emphasized the strengthening of the central government, the establishment of more effective control over land and population through laws and strict penalties, the replacement of the old aristocracy by a corps of bureaucrats, encouragement of agriculture to provide a steady food supply, warfare to expand the borders of the state, ensure a tough, alert, and well-disciplined population, and, last but not the least, the suppression of all ideas and ways of life that impeded the realization of these aims


Reading this text now is important because it shows what traditional Chinese concept the Chinese Communist Party is looking at to legitimize their rule. What is called 'Fa' by the Chinese, is not what we intend as rule of law, but rather Rule By the Law, a system of law that orders all life within a nation, "so that nothing is left to chance, private judgement, or the appeal to privilege". Accordingto Han Fei, everyone but the emperor need to follow "Fa". The emperor has his own set of rules, "Shu", a set of Taoist principles that enable him to be distant and quiet, but also to use his Two Handles: Punishment and Reward. Here, the concept of "Xingming" is quite relevant: it describes the tool that the emperor has at disposal to judge the effectiveness of his ministers. Only when the name of the task of a minister (ming) is matched by its actual performance (xing) is the minister to be rewarded: "If they tallied, the man was to be rewarded and promoted; if they failed to tally—whether the man had done less than his office called for or more—he was to be summarily punished". This "holistic" approach is quite relevant right now, as "Good Governance" is often an argument that pro-CCP intellectuals use to support the legitimacy of the one-party rule.

[Animesh Mitra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great. Reward and punishment. Han Fei was an empiricist political philosopher, follower of the empiricist school of epistemology and applied empiricist epistemology to formulate his political philosophy.
The Chinese Machiavelli, the father of Chinese realpolitik, a follower of legalism. Han Fei criticized Confucius and Mozi and declared that their ancient code of ethics is impractical and is of no use at present time. Han Fei believed man is inherently evil and formulated a practical manual guidebook for the ruler; which makes him a precursor of Machiavelli. Han Fei also said man's nature depends on goods and resources, when resources are plenty then man becomes generous but when resources are empty then man becomes cruel and greedy. Han Fei said it’s the amount of wealth which determines the nature of a man, either greedy or generous, cruel or magnanimous. Man's nature depends on material conditions and wealth.
In a way Han Fei tried to give a material conception history, which makes him a forerunner of economic determinism, material conception of history, thus a forerunner of Karl Marx. But interestingly Han Fei opposed levying taxes from the rich and giving it to the poor. Han Fei said, rich people became rich because of their hardwork and frugality, poor people became poor because of their laziness and extravagance, thus it will be injustice to rob the wealth of hardworking frugal people and distribute the wealth to the lazy extravagant people. This opinion of Han Fei has much similarity with the capitalist libertarian philosophy.
Han Fei's philosophy is also similar to the Utilitarianism, the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham, James. Miill, John Stuart Mill. Like them Han Fei believed that only pain and pleasure, reward and punishment can control a man. Man is inherently evil by nature thus Han Fei suggested the ruler to be generous in giving rewards and to be ruthless in imposing strict and severe punishment, otherwise the. state shall perish and the royal family shall wane and die.
Han Fei has an immense influence on the present day Chinese communist party, modern Communist China is a product of Han Fei's thought. An absolute authoritarian dictatorship, complete totalitarianism. Modern Chinese Communist leaders abandoned the philosophy of Confucius, Lao Tzu and Mozi; they adopted the legalist philosophy of Han Fei to rule China with an iron fist.

[Etienne OMNES · Rating 5 out of 5]

A la veille de l'unification de la Chine dans le permier empire Qin, vers l'an 200 avant Jésus Christ, un conseiller d'état de l'état de Han, nommé Han Fei, frustré d'une carrière politique par son bégaiement, écrit un traité sur l'art de gouverner qui s'oppose frontalement à l'idéalisme confucéen. Ses préceptes seront récupérés par l'empereur Qin Shi Huangdi, et adaptés sans discontinuer jusqu'à aujourd'hui. Il prescrit au dirigeant de s'appuyer sur des lois impersonnelles plutôt que sur des conseillers trop faillibles, de se méfier de sa bureaucratie et ne surtout pas lâcher une once du pouvoir de récompense et de punition, de rester pragmatique par dessus toute chose, et ne pas sacrifier la survie de l'état par des actes insensés. Tels sont les préceptes de l'école légiste, une école de philosophie politique qui s'oppose au confucianisme, et dont Han Fei est le meilleur expositeur.

La sélection de Burton Watson donne un bon aperçu de la philosophie légiste, et celle de Han Fei en particulier. Le discours en lui-même est extraordinairement clair et sans artifice, il est très compréhensible pour tous, à cause de la nature pragmatique de ses idées. On a rapproché ce livre du Prince de Machiavel: on retrouve effectivement ce même souci de la préservation de l'état, mais cela ne signifie pas que la moralité est absente: l'auteur est simplement un tenant de la realpolitik, et réagit à des excès d'idéalisme qu'il critique férocement dans les derniers chapitres.

Une recommandation sincère à tous ceux qui s'intéressent à l'art de gouverner. Vous ne regretterez pas cette lecture.

[Joey Chen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Undeniably many ideas this book tries to convey prove to be untenable. Under the stifling threat of Qin, someone even as brilliant as Han Fei inevitably developed the biased mindset that all resources of the state shall be funneled into war and agriculture only, and the ideology inside that very state should be kept unified and stern. Human's long history ever since that time has demonstrated how detrimental this fallacy is, as industries other than agriculture are actually the key to the prosperity and modernization of a nation, and the diversity of thoughts is the wellspring of innovation, which serves as the propellant of the contemporary societies.

The kernel of Han's great proposal for feudal monarchs, though, seems to be practical even for today's use in a democratic society, after we take the ensemble of citizens in a nation as the monarch, and the politicians as his courtiers. According to Han, since no one can be omnipotent, the monarch should leave decision making and executive power to his courtiers and specialists, keep his mind neutral and unbiased to avoid distorting their decisions (as they all have the inclination to pander to him), and only grasp firmly and wield sensibly the power of rewarding and punishing. The extent to which these two powers are exerted should be purely dependent on the discrepancy between the courtiers' promises and real achievements, the so called "形名参同". This is a promising solution to the deceitful governments in many countries. Electoral system is great but not enough.

[The Smol Moth · Rating 4 out of 5]

I find this book really interesting from a historical perspective! Personally I love reading really old books and seeing just how much the writer's perspective differs from our modern one, it's really fascinating. Also this is just packed to the brim with cool analogies and fun historical anecdotes (someone allegedly made himself a eunuch in order to endear himself with the emperor who was obsessed with his harem???? Like this was not forced on him and he was already in a pretty stable position but he just went for it anyway in order to advance his position????? I mean you do you king, follow your dreams I guess). Anyway, I found that really fun!

Hold on, I'm sorry for getting distracted, but I just looked at the other reviews and what the fuck is going on with the guy comparing liberal managers to eunuch administrators. I just wanted to see what other people thought about my little medieval politics book. That was all I wanted. I have no idea what that person is even trying to say, but it's unhinged and DEEPLY funny. Anyway:

^Love of my life and also a liberal cuck apparently????

[k.]

"If the ruler is not godlike in his isolation, his subordinates will find ways to move him."

to isolate the ruler is to make him weak. in fact, isolation is not evocative enough for what this text aims to do to the ruler and his ministers. it is a theory of depersonalisation; it aims to make the rulers and the people they rule function ,denying and admonishing their every act of life. not only is it morally impoverished, which i expected from a legalist document, i find its cynicism very farfetched. i do not find it to be 'harsh yet insightful real-politik', as many of the commentators here. in fact i do not think it very practical to deny the humanity of political actors. the arguments contained within the hanfezi rely overmuch frankly ridiculous overstatements and does not have much weight in a discourse on politics grounded in messy actuality.

"Everything is functioning. That is precisely what is terror-inducing, that everything functions, that the functioning propels everything more and more toward further functioning, and that technicity increasingly dislodges
man and uproots him from the earth." - heidegger

"What do I mean by longing for the sound of music?"

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic reviews have been written about the writings of HFZ, so I won't belabor mine except for a few remarks. All things considered, it is pretty accessible, especially in contrast to Daoist and Confucian texts. A friend recommended it to me as a commentary on good organizational management practices, and to that end I was surprised by the degree to which HFZ's emphasis on empirical results and measurable outcomes and his "Two Handles" system of reward and punishment resembles the "OKRs and KPIs" of Silicon Valley. Like, yeah, be data-driven and incentivize employees properly.

Lot of funny zingers dunking on the Confucians too. Was also surprised how compatible Legalist thought was with Daoism (from the translator: "the Daoist sage has absolute understanding; the Legalist ruler wields absolute power. In the quality of absoluteness, they are alike"), and the astonishing continuity of Legalist thought with that of modern Chinese rulers.

[Seth Turnage · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fei Han has a way of stating his ideas in a concise yet compelling manner.

I would argue that this book is the ideal starting point for anyone interested in realpolitik or Chinese legalism. It delineates principles in a clear fashion and provides vivid analogies that are usually easy to follow.

It wasn't as hard to read as some might say in terms of the ethical content of the book either. He seemed balanced and ethical throughout most of the book.

[Gabriel Stein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent insight on how China is ruled today

This is an excellent insight on how today’s rulers of China perceive the role of law and how to govern their country. It is not rule of law – it is ruled by law. And there is little or no scope for diverging views. Han Feizi live more than two thousand years ago, but his views are still highly relevant.

[Grant Li · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this for a final paper.

First piece of primary source Chinese philosophy of any sort I've read. It is great. I did not know that legalism was so far apart from any other school of Chinese philosophy, nobody ever tells you that. AP World History kind of just mashes it up with Confucianism, but actually Han Fei attacks the ancient philosophers, including Confucius, pretty hard.

[Samuel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sound practical wisdom without relying on moral and ethical behaviour of which I agree with, since people are imperfect and seek private gain. Although written for rulers of states advising how they can last for in perpetuity using the handles of punishment and reward; the maxims can be applied to individuals too.

[Lingwijournal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting, even dare to say, amusing and a pinch of relevant thoughts. One of my favourite periods of Chinese history. Great conversation starter, too!

[NosNos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Machiavelli but good

[Jackson Heuer · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a good introduction, but I don't know that it best represents Han Fei's most elegant writing.

[Andrew]

DNF, because I really feel like I need to read this in a different setting than as a casual book read at home. But I'm glad I read it nonetheless.

[Daniel Castro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing. It predates The Prince and Machiavelli and I found many similarities. This book had the same aim.

[Livia · Rating 4 out of 5]

delightful funny lil book. a bit machiavellian (original)
one could nearly say a light read (this version)