A question that has been bothering me for the past several days is whether one should ever worry about his or her inclination being too 'worldly' (入世) or too detached (出世). This is not a new problem - but it has recently re-emerged in my thoughts. I use the words 'worldliness' and 'detached-ness' in a very particular sense. I first came across this distinction in Fung Yu-lan's A Short History of Chinese Philosophy, where Fung described the Confucius strand of philosophy as being more worldly and Daoist as more detached. A worldly philosophy, generally speaking, emphasises more on acting for ends which do not lie after death. Conversely, a detached philosophy would place more weight on the kind of development which affect our 'life' after death. It would seem that some metaphysical position (on the purpose of life, the state of 'life' after death, etc.) must be assumed in order to know - with some confidence - how one should appropriately act in life, and hence whether one should incline more towards worldliness or detached-ness.
A person with worldly inclinations would perhaps place a higher value on gaining respect, developing healthy social ties, and fulfilling social (and civic) duties through political participation and charity. In contrast, a person with 'detached' inclinations would, in some sense, be more 'solipsistic', or even egoistic: one's own pleasure, moral development, and maximisation of one's moral and mental potential would be priorities of the highest importance in that person's life. I associate the 'worldly' life with normality, 'common-ness', and vanity - for it is easy for any person to see that all political and social endeavours will ultimately be worth NOTHING, when one's life ends and with the passage of time. Such endeavours are only temporarily meaningful, conditional upon the observer's existence and that the observer sees such endeavours from a 'worldly' perspective, rather from one that is transcendent and, if I may, 'God-like': such that history is like a flowing river, where all human effort are merely vain attempts to make tiny impressions upon the river-bed, and shall ultimately be erased by time. Yet, neither the 'detached' life sounds absolutely attractive - how should one know whether Truth, the ultimate 'Realisation', or inner peace is actually attainable, and not in fact simply a fantasy of philosophers? And - already knowing how hollow and empty the vanities of fame, wealth and rank are, how should one be able to embrace such vanities again without deceiving oneself?
And if possible, how should one reconcile these two extreme inclinations? There are more other problems which flow from the original question. Is it really better to be an unhappy Socrates than to be a happy fool? CAN analysing grammar and semantics of words help humans decide how to live well? Do morality and social values (virtues & vices) only matter because we can - put simply - put ourselves in other people's shoes?
