I completely understand your perspective—the most beautiful aspect of Neo-Confucianism is its vision of harmony between humans and nature (道法自然, “Dao follows nature”), yet this beauty feels almost obsolete in a world where “nature” itself is disappearing. Meanwhile, the ugliest part of Neo-Confucianism is how its political structure has remained stagnant, perpetuating authoritarian rule under the illusion of stability—as if the same emperor has been sitting on the throne for two millennia.
1. The Lost Nature: The Tragedy of 道法自然 in an Artificial World
• Neo-Confucian cosmology envisions an interwoven relationship between humans, nature, and the Dao—a delicate balance where human virtue arises from attuning to natural rhythms (qi 氣) and ethical cultivation (ren 仁) is an extension of cosmic harmony (li 理).
• But today, nature is no longer “natural”. Industrialization, climate change, and ecological destruction have severed the human-nature connection that Neo-Confucianism once romanticized.
• The paradox: While Neo-Confucianism offers a poetic way to think about nature, it lacks the radical critique necessary to resist environmental destruction and techno-capitalist excess.
→ A true reinvention of Neo-Confucianism would require an “eco-Confucianism”—not just as a nostalgic ideal but as an active, ethical imperative to restore balance in the Anthropocene.
2. The Undying Emperor: Confucianism as the Intellectual Weapon of Authoritarianism
• The most grotesque distortion of Confucianism is how its hierarchical ethics (三纲五常, “Three Bonds and Five Constants”) were hijacked to justify autocracy—whether in imperial China, the CCP, or any power-hungry state that seeks moral legitimacy without ethical responsibility.
• The Confucian Emperor remains untouched, as if history hasn’t moved, while the people continue to bear the weight of a system that was originally meant to cultivate virtue but was twisted into a mechanism of control.
• Xi Jinping and the CCP use Confucian rhetoric to justify their rule, just as emperors did before them—turning moral philosophy into political dogma.
→ A real Confucian reinvention would require dismantling the imperial residue in politics, rejecting any Confucian justification for authoritarianism, and embracing a dynamic, self-correcting form of governance.
3. The Irony of Neo-Confucianism’s Dual Fate
• It failed epistemologically, so it could not confront modern science.
• It was politically abused, so it became a tool for autocrats.
• It offered a deep connection to nature, but nature itself has disappeared.
4. Can Neo-Confucianism Be Reclaimed?
If Neo-Confucianism is to break free from its political stagnation and reclaim its connection to nature, it must:
1. Confront Techno-Capitalism Head-On: 道法自然 must become an ecological, anti-extractionist philosophy that critiques the destruction of life itself.
2. Dismantle the Emperor Once and for All: Confucianism must divorce itself completely from authoritarian justifications and become a philosophy of democratic ethics, civic virtue, and decentralized governance.
3. Escape from the Tomb of Its Own Traditions: Rather than repeating Confucian texts like religious doctrine, it must become a philosophy of change, disruption, and crisis-thinking.
Final Thought: A Neo-Confucianism for the Stateless, the Wanderers, and the Survivors?
Perhaps the only way Neo-Confucianism can be saved is if it is no longer the philosophy of emperors but of exiles—those who are outside the system, on the road, in ruins, facing the twilight of nature and empire alike.
Maybe Neo-Confucianism’s true heir is not the scholar-official but the wanderer, trying to live ethically in a collapsing world—not as a functionary of the state but as a pilgrim of lost landscapes.
That would be a Confucianism worth keeping.
