Philosophies that Separate Two Worlds

Chinese philosophy is rooted in a holistic worldview that perceives the universe as an interconnected whole rather than a collection of isolated parts. It holds that contradiction is inherent in all things, as every unity is composed of two opposing aspects—male and female, yin and yang, day and night, mountain and river, right and wrong, beauty and ugliness, good and evil, fortune and misfortune. These forces do not merely oppose; they intertwine, coexist, and form a dynamic equilibrium. They are complementary, interdependent, mutually sustaining, and indispensable.

Harmony arises when these opposites are in balance; when that balance is disturbed, harmony dissolves. Thus, Chinese philosophy emphasizes the unity within contradiction and advocates the doctrine of the mean—a path of moderation and integration—as a means to sustain harmony between opposing forces.

In this framework, human life is not defined by individualism, but by a profound commitment to collective well-being—where interdependence and harmony guide the intricate web of relationships. It encourages the pursuit of common ground without erasing difference, recognizing that while individuals may hold diverse interests and roles, cooperation and shared flourishing outweigh personal ambition. At its heart, Chinese thought upholds unity, balance, and peaceful coexistence—embracing collectivism over individualism, collaboration over conflict, and mutual benefit over the conquest of others. The well-being of society is placed above individual gain, with social harmony upheld through the cultivation of public morality. Human rights are understood not merely as personal entitlements, but as responsibilities toward the collective—aimed at securing safe, equitable, and harmonious conditions for all (see Understanding China: Geography, Confucianism, and Chinese-Style Modernization).

Economically, China advances the vision of “common prosperity” through a hybrid model that blends state-owned enterprises, private initiatives, and market dynamics. This system protects individual freedoms—such as the right to pursue wealth within legal bounds—and encourages personal initiative, but always within a structure that aligns individual success with collective welfare. At the same time, it curbs the unchecked influence of special interests to safeguard societal integrity and the broader public good. The state plays a pivotal role in regulating capital, ensuring that economic growth does not come at the expense of social equity or long-term stability.

Politically, China stresses the central role of the state in uniting the nation, managing differences, protecting the vulnerable, investing in infrastructure, and providing public goods. It adheres to the principles of democratic centralism and national cohesion, rejecting factionalism, partisanship and decentralization. Chinese democracy—often described as “people’s democracy” and “whole-process democracy”—is consultative and consensus-driven, contrasting sharply with the adversarial nature of many Western electoral systems; it involves citizens in policymaking, implementation, and oversight, ensuring that public decisions reflect broad consultation and careful deliberation. By minimizing partisan strife, Chinese governance aims to foster shared prosperity, social harmony, and egalitarian development.

On the global stage, China upholds five guiding principles: mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-aggression, non-interference, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. It advocates for international cooperation, peaceful development, and a shared future for humanity marked by global prosperity and mutual respect.

In contrast, Western philosophy reflects an atomistic worldview, portraying the universe as a constellation of self-contained entities and focusing on the individual rather than the whole. Rooted in individualism, it regards human beings as autonomous actors driven by survival instinct and self-interest—a perspective shaped in part by Darwinian concepts of the “struggle for existence” and “survival of the fittest.” This outlook fosters a “law of the jungle” mentality, where competition and conquest are seen as necessary for survival and success (see Darwinism vs. Confucianism). Western culture tends to prioritize self-interest, personal achievements, and strategic advantage, frequently at the expense of collective well-being and ethical responsibility. Its individualistic human rights rhetoric is hypocritical. While professing to promote universal freedom, it largely serves the interests of a privileged minority, enabling them to defeat the disadvantaged majority and dominate legislation, the economy, media, military, and foreign policy to their own benefit.

Economically, Western nations champion unrestrained capitalism, driven by self-interest and competition. While this approach may spur short-term growth, it often results in rampant inequality, unchecked greed, and systemic injustice. Capital gains precedence over national welfare, benefitting only a small elite at the expense of broader society. The result is that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and for most people, "the pursuit of happiness" has become an illusion. The prioritization of profit over production inevitably leads to outsourcing and deindustrialization, hollowing out the economy, and eventually triggering systemic crises (see America Is in Big Trouble).

Politically, the emphasis on micro-gains over macro-interests and zero-sum victory over mutual benefit has plunged Western politics into the quagmire of power struggles, exacerbating social fragmentation, polarization, and radicalism. Despite formal democratic structures, these systems can devolve into political theater, rife with empty promises, ideological extremes, and sensationalism. Politicians, frequently funded by special interests, tend to serve their donors more than the public, reducing the role of voters to a periodic ballot with little real influence. Political strife often leads to government dysfunction, while the rotation of power between opposing parties causes policy swings between extremes and makes long-term planning impossible. (See Democracy vs. Plutocracy.)

In international affairs, Western powers often adopt a hegemonic posture, relying on tactics such as divide-and-conquer, military interventions, sanctions, and regime change. These actions have destabilized regions, perpetuated global conflict, and undermined prospects for lasting peace. The success of the West historically hinges on the conquest, colonization, genocide, exploitation, and plunder of weaker nations.

For a long time, the Chinese struggled to comprehend Western behaviors, yet they have now come to understand its underlying logic. Unless Western plutocrats alter their philosophical outlook, global peace remains elusive. This sentiment was succinctly expressed by the Chinese delegation during the Sino-US talks in Alaska: "We overestimated your integrity and assumed you would adhere to basic diplomatic norms. We must clarify our stance: You lack the authority to assert dominance over China." Despite the potential dangers inherent in their worldview, Western plutocrats are unlikely to relinquish it. They view China from their own perspective, assuming that once China becomes stronger, it will treat other countries the same way the West once did. It may require the collapse of the existing paradigm before humanity can aspire to construct a new world.

Thankfully, it becomes increasingly clear which philosophy holds more promise for humanity. As the world undergoes profound transformation, a new possibility is beginning to emerge. The rise of China and the relative decline of the West have given the Global South renewed hope. Many now glimpse the possibility of a new world order—one grounded in civilized values, peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, equality, fairness, justice, and win-win cooperation. This stands in stark contrast to the existing system, dominated by barbarism, self-interest, inequality, exploitation, and aggression (see Pluralism vs. Monism).