Why Confucius Believed Education Trumps Politics

Zilu made Zi Yao the magistrate of Fei. The Master said, “A thief (1) has harmed the son (2) of the lady.” Zilu said, “There are people and there are the altars to the gods of earth and grain. Why must one study before learning?” The Master said, “This is why I hate flatterers.”

[Notes]

(1) Zhe: harm.

(2) Zi: son of a nobleman. Confucius thought that Zilu was harming himself by going into politics without a good education.

(3) Sheji: She, the god of the earth; Ji, the god of grain. Here, “sheji” refers to the place where the gods of the land and grain are worshipped, i.e. the sheji altar. In ancient times, the sheji altar was set up in the capital and various places, and was respectively presided over by the king and local officials. Therefore, sheji became a symbol of state power. Zilu said, “There are people and a shrine there. Governing the people and worshipping the gods are all learning. Does it have to be reading books to be learning?” Confucius said, “That’s why I hate people who are glib and clever with their words.”

In ancient China, Confucius, one of history’s most revered philosophers, had strong views on the relationship between education and governance. His teachings often highlighted the importance of proper learning and moral integrity, particularly in the context of leadership. An interesting episode involving his disciple Zilu provides a poignant example of this philosophy.

The story begins with Zilu, a loyal disciple of Confucius, recommending that Zigao be appointed as the governor of Fei. However, Confucius sharply criticized this suggestion, stating that Zilu’s recommendation was akin to harming a young man who had not yet undergone sufficient education. To understand why Confucius reacted this way, it is essential to delve into the underlying values and concerns he expressed.

Confucius’s criticism was not merely about Zigao’s qualifications; it was a broader commentary on the role of education in governance. He believed that merely holding a position of power, without proper education and moral grounding, was detrimental. According to Confucius, the effectiveness of a leader depended significantly on their ability to understand and apply the principles of righteousness, which could only be attained through rigorous learning.

Zilu’s argument was that managing the common people and performing state rituals (such as those associated with the “sheji,” or the state sacrifices to the Earth and grain deities) was itself a form of learning. He wondered whether formal education was truly necessary to govern effectively. Confucius’s response was a clear rejection of this notion. He pointed out that the art of governing required more than practical experience; it required deep-rooted knowledge and moral wisdom, which formal education provides.

This interaction underscores Confucius’s disdain for those who rely on superficial knowledge or persuasive rhetoric rather than substantive learning. His dislike for “flattering talk” reflected his broader belief that governance and leadership demanded genuine wisdom and ethical principles, which are cultivated through education rather than through mere practice or political maneuvering.

Confucius’s emphasis on education as the foundation for leadership highlights his belief that true competence and integrity come from a deep understanding of moral and ethical principles. In this context, he viewed education as an essential pillar for effective governance, rather than a secondary concern.