The standard-bearer of the Southern Song school of Practical Achievement and founder of the Yongkang school, known as Master Longchuan. He challenged Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism from a distinctly utilitarian standpoint, excoriating the Neo-Confucians for empty talk of mind and nature while neglecting the livelihood of the nation and its people. He vigorously advocated "righteousness and benefit proceeding together, kingly and hegemonic methods used in tandem," holding that morality cannot be separated from practical achievement and that philosophy must serve the practical goals of enriching the state and strengthening the military. He engaged Zhu Xi in a debate lasting several years.
Chen Liang, courtesy name Tongfu, a native of Yongkang in Wuzhou (modern Yongkang, Zhejiang). From his youth he was exceptionally talented and bold, fond of discussing military affairs and the great trends of the world. He wrote "Assessments of Antiquity," a brilliant evaluation of heroes and failures throughout history. During the Longxing era, when the Song-Jin peace treaty was newly concluded and the court breathed easy in the belief that peace was at hand, Chen Liang alone memorialized the court urging vigilance and advocating resistance against the Jin and northern recovery. He visited the capital multiple times to present memoranda to Emperor Xiaozong, passionately denouncing current abuses and advocating military reform, shocking the court and public with his fierce rhetoric. But his character was wild and unrestrained; he was repeatedly imprisoned for his words, narrowly escaping death several times. He and Zhu Xi exchanged letters debating the relation of righteousness and utility, kingly and hegemonic rule for years. Zhu Xi urged him to "abandon the doctrine of dual righteousness-utility and combined kingly-hegemonic rule," but Chen Liang held firm. In his later years he placed first in the jinshi examination (zhuangyuan) and was appointed assistant magistrate of Jiankang, but died before taking office. His life, though marked by misfortune, never wavered in its resolve—a commoner who stood at the forefront of his era.
Chen Liang's core position is "righteousness and utility proceed together; kingly and hegemonic rule are both employed" (yi li shuang xing, wang ba bing yong), rejecting Zhu Xi's absolute separation of heavenly principle and human desire, kingly way and hegemonic way. Chen Liang argues that the governance of the sage-kings of the Three Dynasties likewise included utility and hegemony; it was not a purely moral ideal. He主张 that "the Dao" is not separate from "affairs"—righteousness is not a suspended abstract heavenly principle but is embodied in the practical affairs of governing the state and benefiting the people: "Without utility, righteousness is a useless empty vessel." In his view of history, he takes an evolutionary position, holding that the rulers of Han and Tang, though not matching the sage-kings of the Three Dynasties, were by no means entirely dark and contained valuable experience for governance. His thought represents the strongest practical turn within Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism.
"Without utility, righteousness is a useless empty vessel. Righteousness and utility proceed together; kingly and hegemonic rule are both employed. — Longchuan Wenji"
How does Chen Liang's "practical utility" critique of Cheng-Zhu's empty discourse on mind and nature provide insightful pragmatic thinking for scientific governance and pragmatic statecraft?
Chen Liang and Machiavelli both emphasize that political philosophy should be based on practical efficacy rather than moral discourse,主张 confronting real power rather than being constrained by idealized moral norms.
Can political philosophy succeed by being realistic about power without abandoning moral purpose entirely? Do the pragmatist political philosophies of Chen Liang and Machiavelli represent parallel insights, or fundamentally different approaches to the same problem?
Chen Liang's "the Dao is not separate from affairs" and Bacon's "knowledge is power" both ground the legitimacy of philosophy in practical utility, opposing hollow metaphysical discourse divorced from real life.
Is practical utility a sufficient criterion for the legitimacy of philosophy? Do the pragmatist philosophies of Chen Liang and Bacon represent the same insight across different civilizations, or fundamentally different intellectual projects?
Engage in AI soul dialogue with Chen Liang, or join the intellectual debate arena