Xunzi's 'Jie Bi' (Unveiling Concealment): On the Wholeness of the Dao, Cognitive Limitation, and the Fortune of Being Unobstructed

Section 1: The Rise of the Idea of "Utility" and the Core Concern of Mohism

"Master Mozi was obstructed by Utility, unaware of Culture." (墨子蔽于用而不知文。)

This is Master Xunzi’s fundamental critique of Master Mozi and the Mohist school. To understand this critique, one must first deeply explore the Mohist concept of "Utility" (Yong, 用).

The teachings of Master Mozi arose from the late Spring and Autumn to early Warring States period. Tradition holds that Master Mozi "studied the professions of the Confucians and received the methods of Confucius," but later established his own school. One of the core reasons Master Mozi diverged from Confucianism was his profound emphasis on "Utility."

In Master Mozi’s view, every proposition and every social system must be tested by its "practical utility." That which is useful is good; that which is useless should be discarded. This utilitarian mindset permeates all of Master Mozi’s doctrines.

Master Mozi proposed the famous "Three Standards" (San Biao, 三表) as the criterion for judging whether a statement is correct:

"That which has a root, that which has a source, and that which has utility. What is its root$28 It is rooted in the deeds of the sage-kings of antiquity. What is its source$29 It is traced to the evidence heard and seen by the common people below. What is its utility$30 To abolish it or enact it as criminal law and administration, observing the benefits it brings to the country, the state, and the people. These are the Three Standards for speech." (有本之者，有原之者，有用之者。于何本之？上本之于古者圣王之事。于何原之？下原察百姓耳目之实。于何用之？废以为刑政，观其中国家百姓人民之利。此所谓言有三表也。)

The third standard—"abolish it or enact it as criminal law and administration, observing the benefits it brings..."—is the most critical. Whether a statement is correct is ultimately judged by whether it benefits the state and the people when applied to political practice. This is the standard of "Utility."

Viewed positively, this standard of "Utility" possesses a distinct spirit of realism. It rejects empty metaphysical speculation and demands that thought serve practical life, focusing on concrete social results—this was a commendable pragmatic attitude amidst the debates of the Hundred Schools.

However, when Master Mozi elevated "Utility" to the sole, supreme standard, problems arose. He used "Utility" as the measure for everything, leading to a series of conclusions that Confucians found extremely radical.

The most typical example is "Against Music" (Fei Yue, 非乐). Master Mozi argued that music has no practical utility—it neither fills stomachs, clothes bodies, nor provides secure housing; rather, it wastes human labor and material resources, which could have been used for producing necessities. Therefore, music should be abolished. "Against Music (Upper)," Master Mozi exhaustively argued the harms of music: making musical instruments consumes wood and metal; performing music consumes human effort and time. These resources could have been used for producing necessities. Therefore, "Making music is wrong." (为乐非也。)

Similarly, "Frugality in Funerals" (Jie Zang, 节葬). Master Mozi criticized the Confucian emphasis on elaborate funerals and prolonged mourning periods as wasteful of resources and damaging to human health, yielding no benefit to the deceased. Therefore, funeral rites should be simplified. The core consideration of "Frugality in Funerals" was also based on the standard of "Utility"—What is the use of lavish funerals$31 None for the living, none for the dead, so why bother$32

Furthermore, "Frugality in Expenditure" (Jie Yong, 节用). Master Mozi opposed all unnecessary consumption and ornamentation, advocating for the simplest possible living conditions. Palaces only needed to shelter from wind and rain; clothing only needed to keep warm; food only needed to satisfy hunger—any expenditure beyond practical need was waste.