rerevised Mao and Zhou

Both as one of the founders of People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao Zedong and Premier Zhou Enlai were two world-known political leaders. Simultaneously, Mao and Zhou were also famous for their different personalities or emotional intelligence as Chairman Mao was like a hawk, which was strong-willed, decisive and perseverant while Premier Zhou was like a pigeon, which was moderate, considerate and flexible.

Coming from two different family backgrounds, these two political figures developed their distinguished personalities at a very young age. As a son of kulak, Mao developed his sense of revolution during his struggle with his father, who was a typical Chinese small landlord with discrimination to the poor peasants. Comparably, Zhou was from a family of traditional intellects where his father, mother, uncles were all famous intellects in his hometown. In this bookish environment, Zhou developed his gentlemanship and modest characteristic.

There is one case that can show the differences of their emotional intelligence clearly. After the Great Leap and the natural disasters lasting three years from 1959 to 1961, China experienced a serious famine which caused a lot of starving. Although Chairman Mao also did some self-criticism at that time, he still believed that the policies he proposed before would eventually and non-alternatively lead the Chinese to happy lives and attributed the situation partly to the incompleteness during the execution of the policy. Meanwhile, Premier Zhou cared more about the contemporary tribulation people suffered and would like to change the policies immediately which were the ultimate causes of the suffering.

From their behavior at the foreign affairs, we can also see the difference. Chairman Mao was famous for his assertive arguments to show the independence and sovereignty of the new China, which would sometimes cause the misunderstanding of the outside. Conversely, Premier Zhou was famous for his gentleness and tact in the diplomatic stages, which earned him a great reputation as a diplomat.

Although Mao and Zhou are different in terms of their emotional intelligence, this difference does not obstruct them from being great men, which reminds me of one idiom “All roads lead to Rome”.

revised Mao and Zhou

Both as one of the founders of People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao and Premier Zhou are two world-known political leaders. Simultaneously, Mao and Zhou are also famous for their different personalities or emotional intelligence as Chairman Mao is like a hawk, which is strong-willed, decisive and perseverant while Premier Zhou is like a pigeon, which is moderate, considerate and flexible.

From two different family backgrounds, the two political figures developed their distinguished personalities at a very young age. As a son of kulak, Mao developed his sense of revolution during his struggle with his father, who was a typical Chinese small landlord with discrimination to the poor peasants. Comparably, Zhou is from a family of traditional intellects where his father, mother, uncles are all famous intellects in his hometown. In this bookish environment, Zhou developed his gentlemanship and modesty.

One case can show the differences of their emotional intelligence clearly. After the Great Leap and the continuous three-year natural disasters, China experienced a serious famine which caused a lot of starving. Although Chairman Mao also did some self-criticism at that time, he still believed that the policies he proposed before would eventually and non-alternatively lead the Chinese to happy lives. Meanwhile, Premier Zhou cared more about the contemporary tribulation people suffered and would like to change the policies immediately which were the ultimate causes of the suffering.

From their behavior at the foreign affairs, we can also see the difference. Chairman Mao is famous for his assertive arguments to show the independence and sovereignty, which sometimes will caused the misunderstanding of the outside. Conversely, Premier Zhou is famous for his gentleness and tact in the diplomatic stages.

Although Mao and Zhou are different in terms of their emotional intelligence, this difference does not obstruct them from being great men, which reminds me of one idiom “All roads lead to Rome”.

Mao and Zhou

Both as one of the founders of People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao and Premier Zhou are two world-known political leaders. Simultaneously, Mao and Zhou are also famous for their different personalities or emotional intelligence as Chairman Mao is like a Hawk, which is strong-willed, decisive and perseverant while Premier Zhou is like a Pigeon, which is moderate, considerate and flexible.

After the Great Leap and the continuous three-year natural disasters, China experienced a serious famine which caused a lot of starving. Although Chairman Mao also did some self-criticism at that time, he still believed that the policies he proposed before would eventually and non-alternatively lead the Chinese to happy lives. Meanwhile, Premier Zhou cared more about the contemporary tribulation people suffered and would like to change the policies immediately which were the ultimate causes of the suffering.

Although Mao and Zhou are different in terms of their emotional intelligence, this difference does not obstruct them from being great men, which reminds me of one idiom “All roads lead to Rome”.

Reading Nietzsche, Being a Man

I am a curious person who always wants to explore the mysteries of the world. I love physics and chemistry as they both have the amazing power to satisfy my desire to know more about the world. I also love philosophy deeply as it always enlightens me and gives me an extra eye to see the world in a new view.

I am fond of the Plato’s wandering lake, Aristotle’s library, Aquinas’s cathedral, Spinoza‘s glass as well as Lao Tzu’s water, Chuang Tzu’s butterfly, Confucius’s class and Wang Yang-Ming’s flower. In my opinion, a philosopher’s value lies on the shock and es on the rational enlightenment to our tradition concept rather than it is true or not. With these shocks, we see the world in another perception and build a new world based on it.

Perhaps the theory that brings me the fiercest shock is Nietzsche’s “God is dead”. He rejected the accepted moral values and the “slave morality” of Christianity, arguing that “God is dead” and therefore people were free to create their own values (Webster’s New World Encyclopedia).

As for Nietzsche's claim, for a long time, I cannot accept. It is really a crazy theory. How can the world be without the rules and spiritual dominance? Frankly speaking, I am an earnest adherent of Aquinas and Hegel whose theories aim at building an orderly and methodic world. Contrarily Nietzsche’s idea is totally a destructive one which refuses the rational structure.

But as time goes by, I have some deeper understanding of this German and his idea also promotes my own thinking. I quite appreciate Nietzsche’s explanation of the two words, Dionysian and Apollonian, which reflect the nature of us human being. “God is dead” means the dead of Apollonian dominance and the return of the genuine humanity. If his theory ends up here, it seems that his theory is easier to understand. But subsequently he calls for the naissance of the so-called “Ubermensch”, the superman he claims has the endless passion, creativity and power to save the people from the tribulation. I just doubt that if the superman came into being, will the human being still be free? How can we prevent this powerful superman becoming the next God? I do not think the human political icon can give people more freedom than any superstitious one. Definitely we need some spirit idol, but after all we ourselves should determine our own life rather than any will of others.

Perhaps Nietzsche’s mind is not so easy for me to understand. But in my opinion, the most valuable part of Nietzsche’s theory is his calling for the return of Dionysian character, which marks the return of human’s self-determination. Perhaps Nietzsche’s claim of the death of the God is quite crazy, but with a beautiful mind he really wants the development of us human being.

If god is dead, all the God’s children are absolutely free then. I believe everyone is an independent entity with distinctive spirit. Living in the world of no bond, we are the controller of our own fates. I am sure that there is a stream of wild power in human and it will transform into the genius aptitude with some proper lead. With these aptitudes, we made miracles. Jumping from all the religious statements, now we have enough courage and confidence to speak out: “We human beings are really great!”

If god is dead, willing or not we have to step into a state of nihility. Without God’s care, we are the orphans in spirit. An orphan’s life may easily lead to two contrary results: one is to live pessimistically and sink into the aimless future; the other is to face and conquer the nihility boldly and be the master of my own fate. Although sinking into people’s marsh is of less pain, I choose the latter one and to be a real man. Although the USP is hard to conquer, I believe I am strong enough to handle it.

Thanks to philosophy. It lets me live twice in one life.
Thanks to Nietzsche. He lets me know the power of each life.

I will be forever a thinker of unknown world and a pilgrim to my promised land.