As an authentic Roman old aristocrat, what Guo Kang has to do is, of course, to resolutely confront this behavior and defend the patriarchal system.

This was unavoidable for Rome.

A comparison can be made to see the reason.

In the Central Plains, the establishment of the social system was based on some basic principles, or basic consensus, and then organized. This type of social order originated in the era of the Duke of Zhou and was later called the "ritual system".

By the Han Dynasty, the core of the ritual system was summarized by Confucianism as concepts such as "Three Outlines" and "Five Lun". The three outlines are the three relationships between the monarch and the minister, the father and the son, and the husband and wife; Wulun, it is on this basis that brothers and friends are added. According to Confucianism, this is the most basic interpersonal relationship, in which two parties take responsibility for each other, and then construct a complex network of social relations based on this.

If this two-way responsibility no longer exists, then there will be no more stable interpersonal relationships – just as kings in the past tried to emphasize the responsibility of their courtiers, but they still took monarchical responsibility very seriously. If the monarch really can't fulfill his duties, then no matter how he preaches, he will definitely be abandoned.

It is normal for different doctrines to have disputes over specific items and the content of responsibilities. For example, Mozi believed that Confucius's system of etiquette exalted women too much.

In the chapter "Non-Confucianism", Mozi criticized the Confucian etiquette of welcoming relatives: according to the Confucian system, the husband should greet the wife in person, wear clothes with black hems, and drive for her like a servant; With the reins in his hand, he gave the rope to the bride as if he were serving his parents; The wedding ceremony is majestic and solemn, like a great gift of sacrifice. This is obviously a reversal of the relationship between the upper and lower levels, a violation of the etiquette to parents, and a violation of the requirements of filial piety.

Early Confucianism regarded the relationship between husband and wife as the first of the "six virtues", according to the Warring States period slips found in later generations, Confucius's "monarchs, ministers, fathers, fathers, fathers, sons, sons, monarchs, and ministers" should actually be "husbands, women, fathers, sons, monarchs, and ministers......

Of course, this theory has been constantly questioned both internally and externally. Mozi believed that Confucianism was seriously excessive in the etiquette of husband and wife, and it was not a vacuum, and later Confucianism itself began to adjust.

But no matter how the specific content is changed and how the importance is adjusted, this order itself must exist. Because the maintenance of social relations depends on mutual responsibility. Responsibility is gone, and the relationship itself is disintegrated.

In Guo Kang's time, people actually couldn't figure out whether the relationship between husband and wife and family should be maintained, or whether it should be dismantled. The result of this confusion of thinking is that they want the benefits of the family, and they want to dismantle the family to appear more progressive.

The final result is to advocate the use of simple property relations to replace the previous complex mechanism of rights and responsibilities to measure and maintain the family.

But the problem is that the property relationship is too weak to maintain the existence of the family. In other words, an organization like a family is not a good choice for investment: if you really want to invest, wouldn't it be good for everyone to organize a serious business enterprise?

The efficiency of marrying yourself is definitely not as good as buying a spouse; The efficiency of buying is definitely not as good as renting one. Therefore, in order to maximize the efficiency of the property, it is necessary to generate offspring and meet various related needs through short-term leases. Isn't this a contradiction with the family itself?

So what is the meaning of family?

Directly comparing the situation in Rome, Guo Kang gradually discovered that this thing was actually mobilizing men.

Like the legitimacy of the state, any organization has to face the problem of how to convince others to contribute. A woman can be sure that the offspring is her own, but a man can't be sure directly. Therefore, a stable spouse and identifiable heirs can convince a man to work hard for the "future".

When this relationship breaks down, there is a problem: it is better to use one's own property to provide for the woman and the heirs, rather than to enjoy it all. People are going to die anyway, if it's not for the sake of future generations, then why don't you do what you want and pull it down yourself?

In Guo Kang's time, the disintegration of the family and the advocacy of the supremacy of personal pleasure, the abandonment of family responsibilities, and even the abandonment of responsibilities for the race, the country, and history, did indeed occur simultaneously.

In this case, in fact, it cannot be evaluated as "good" or "bad". Philosophers may be able to characterize it as "advanced" or "backward", but from the perspective of human history, the significance of such an advanced and backward judgment is very limited.

In prehistoric times, the various civilizations of the Central Plains began to fight to the death. And in the end, the reason why everyone chose this kind of organization based on a small patrilineal family has nothing to do with whether it is advanced or backward, and whether it is more just for men and women - from a cultural point of view, the Central Plains was even backward at that time, and even rituals and gods had to be copied every day. It can win simply because it is the most organized and the most able to fight......

Later generations of the imperial court all knew that an adult man with a family business was the most disciplined and the most combative. The army formed by these people is also the basis for successive regimes to fight in all directions and reach the geographical limit.

So, if you want to dismantle the family, of course, you can. It would also be a good idea to separate the men and women in the small family, as the merchants and Spartans did, and let all the men enter the large barracks.

At that time, due to various constraints, this system could not be maintained for too long. But if the future generations can really do it, so that all the men can be gathered together for military training, and all the children can be raised and cared for in the big barracks, it is indeed very good, and it is possible to gain a higher organizational and mobilization ability, and be able to fight better than the good family of a small family.

But if you can't do this, you have to face one of the most embarrassing problems: what if you can't beat others?

Many of the philosophical dilemmas stem from this:

Reality is not only a game of debate and rules, so the "advanced" side often has to face the situation of "I am advanced, but I just can't win", and even the opposite will cause "you can't win, how can you be embarrassed to say that you are advanced".

In the final analysis, the family, and the relationship between father-son and husband and wife within the family, is not only a property relationship, but also an organization and mobilization system.

Considering only the economic aspects may be fine in times of peace, but it is still the same old question - can humanity really maintain peace for a long time, or even never break the existing order? Will these groups, which seem to be rich but have poor organizational skills, become ATMs?

When theory conflicts with reality, it may be possible to deny reality. But history is cruel and unforgiving. After all, even the people of the Ming Dynasty were already deeply impressed by this.

(End of chapter)