Confucius reminds us that names are important: "Naming enables the noble-minded to speak, and speech enables the noble-minded to act" (Analects, 13.3). It seems that the International Astronomers Union (IAU), in proposing a new definition for "planet," is following this Confucian idea, but not without some controversy.

Apparently, there had never been precise, scientific criteria that would allow for a clear distinction between a planet and other heavenly bodies, like moons and asteroids. This is a problem because, as technology has evolved, more objects have been discovered that appear to be planet-like, but not quite what our common sense might accept as a true planet. And at least one established planet, Pluto, has come to be considered something less than a real planet.

Without a precise definition for planets, astronomers, just as Confucius had warned, may not be able to act as they usually do: making observations and debating theories. They have to rectify names.

This is where the trouble starts. Some scientists worry that the new criteria will dilute the sense of the term "planet" by allowing too many objects to be named as such. Others fret that we might lose Pluto. There could be more than 50, or only eight, planets, depending upon the specific definition. "It's a mess," one astronomer complained.

Does this mean that Confucius is wrong? Does an attempt to rectify names actually create more problems than it solves?

Not really. Confucius, after all, is proposing a means of ethical government, not scientific categorization. He is concerned with justice and humanity. A wise leader has to make sure that people live up to their social and political roles "ruler a ruler, minister a minister, father a father." (Analects 12.11). One has to earn the name "father" through the performance of duty. If a person does not fulfil his responsibilities as a "minister" or a "ruler," than he should forfeit the name.

But determining whether a social obligation is truly accomplished is a matter of a slightly different assessment of particular circumstances. There is no one, clear standard, but rather only a case-by-case consideration based upon the unique conditions faced by each individual. It is not as cut and dry as scientific classification.

Yet even if Confucian rectification of names is a social and ethical, and not strictly a scientific, project, it can create its own difficulties. How do we know when a father has fully lived up to his duties and responsibilities? Or a minister? Or a mother or sister or brother? It might be possible to see when a person is obviously failing in his or her obligations, but how can we really know if he or she is intentionally noble-minded? Only individuals can know, in their hearts, if they are consistently doing the right thing.

So, naming, either scientifically or ethically, is a complex process.

Some of the astronomers might be tempted to just give up the effort of precise definition. They might find inspiration in philosophical Taoism, which tells us that the fullness of existence, Tao, cannot be understood by analysis and naming. Zhuang Zi puts it nicely: "In difference there's no difference, and in division, no division The sage embraces it all. Everyone else divides things, and uses on to reveal the other. Therefore I say: 'Those who divide things cannot see'."

In pursuing the ideal of precise names, the astronomers might well be blinding themselves to the universe.

Contact the author at scrane@Williams.edu

Sam Crane teaches Chinese philosophy and politics at Williams College in Massachusetts, USA.

(China Daily 11/10/2006 page15)