Introduction: The Concept of “Removing Obstruction”

In the rich tapestry of classical thought, one finds enduring wisdom about the human tendency toward distorted perception. The ancient philosophical tradition recognized that true understanding requires liberation from subjective prejudices—a process termed “removing obstruction.” This principle asserts that without clearing our minds of preconceived notions, we risk mistaking day for night, white for black, and even confusing wise rulers with tyrants. The consequences of such cognitive errors extend beyond individual misjudgment to threaten social harmony and effective governance. Through examining historical episodes from China’s Warring States period, we uncover timeless insights about how bias corrupts decision-making and how societies might cultivate clearer vision.

Historical Context: Philosophical Debates in the Warring States Period

The era between 475 and 221 BCE witnessed intense intellectual ferment across the Chinese states. Often called the “Hundred Schools of Thought” period, this age produced Confucianism, Daoism, Legalism, Mohism, and other competing philosophical systems. Rulers frequently sought advice from scholars representing different traditions, creating an environment where persuasive speech and rhetorical skill held significant political value. Within this context, the Mohist school—founded by Mozi—emphasized impartial concern, merit-based advancement, and pragmatic governance. Mohists traveled between states advocating their views, making them both valued advisors and potential threats to established courtiers. The principle of “removing obstruction” emerged as a crucial epistemological concern across philosophical traditions, addressing how rulers might distinguish truth from flattery and substance from sophistry.

The Case of Lord Xie and King Hui of Qin

The encounter between the eastern Mohist scholar Xiezi and King Hui of Qin illustrates how personal jealousy can distort political judgment. When Xiezi journeyed westward to advise the Qin ruler, the king consulted Tangugu—a local Mohist already in his court. Feeling threatened by the visiting scholar’s reputation, Tangugu warned the king that Xiezi was “a cunning debater from the east” who would “strive in his persuasions to gain favor with the crown prince.” This malicious characterization, motivated purely by professional jealousy, predisposed the king to receive Xiezi with hostility. Despite the quality of his counsel, Xiezi found his advice rejected and departed in disappointment. The episode demonstrates a critical failure in judgment: rather than evaluating the message based on its merit, the king focused on imagined ulterior motives. As the original analysis notes, the value of advice depends entirely on its quality—not on the speaker’s supposed intentions toward the heir apparent. By prioritizing suspicion over substance, King Hui undermined his own capacity to receive beneficial counsel.

Consequences of Corrupted Judgment

The Xiezi incident represents more than a simple missed opportunity; it exemplifies how biased judgment creates vulnerabilities in governance. The text notes that this failure of discernment enabled historical crises: “This is why Shi Ding was able to perform his wickedness, why he could disguise men as ghosts, execute the innocent, throw ministers into confusion, and nearly bring about the state’s great peril.” When rulers cannot distinguish sound advice from self-serving manipulation, they open the door to corruption and abuse. The case further raises questions about cognitive aging, noting that while wisdom should increase with age, both physical and mental faculties may deteriorate. The rhetorical question—”Now that King Hui has reached old age, have both his body and wisdom decayed?”—suggests that the failure to “remove obstruction” might indicate broader cognitive decline, with serious implications for statecraft.

The Case of King Wei of Chu and Shen Yihua

A second historical example reinforces these themes through different circumstances. King Wei of Chu who helped draft laws. This official whispered to the king: “All the people say that Your Majesty is merely Shen Yihua’s disciple.” Though seemingly innocuous, this comment played on the king’s pride, implying diminished sovereignty. The offended monarch consequently distanced himself from his tutor, cutting off his exposure to classical wisdom and limiting advancement for scholarly ministers. A single carefully planted suggestion from a “petty man” thus altered the intellectual trajectory of a kingdom, demonstrating how easily manipulation can exploit unconscious biases.

The Psychology of Manipulation

These cases reveal consistent patterns in how prejudice is weaponized. Manipulators identify what their targets value and craft narratives that present others as threats to those values. Tangugu played on King Hui’s concern for his successor’s independence; the palace assistant exploited King Wei’s royal dignity. In both instances, the slanderers used minimal information to trigger disproportionate reactions, showing how cognitive biases serve as leverage points for those seeking influence. The text observes that such manipulators “multiple times anger the ruler, thereby clearing the path for treacherous men.” Once this path is cleared, restoring virtuous governance becomes extraordinarily difficult—like trying to contain water that has been violently agitated. The metaphor of agitated water illustrates how emotional manipulation disrupts rational judgment, creating turbulence that prevents clear reflection.

Social and Cultural Impacts

Beyond immediate political consequences, the failure to “remove obstruction” had profound cultural effects. When rulers rejected worthy scholars like Xiezi and Shen Yihua, they not only deprived themselves of valuable counsel but also discouraged intellectual exchange more broadly. The text notes that such biases prevented “literary men” from advancing, implying damage to the entire cultural ecosystem that supported philosophical innovation and administrative excellence. In an era when state patronage determined which schools flourished, royal prejudice could effectively marginalize entire intellectual traditions. Moreover, these cases demonstrate how court politics amplified personal rivalries into national policy issues. The competition between ministers transcended individual ambition, shaping which ideas received hearing and which approaches to governance received implementation. The cultural legacy included both immediate practical consequences and longer-term intellectual narrowing as certain perspectives became excluded from court discourse.

Comparative Perspectives on Cognitive Bias

While these examples emerge from specific historical contexts, they reflect universal cognitive tendencies. Modern psychology identifies numerous “cognitive biases” that parallel the concept of “obstruction”—including confirmation bias . What distinguishes the ancient approach is its moral dimension: where modern psychology often describes biases as neutral cognitive shortcuts, the classical text frames them as ethical failures with societal consequences. This perspective reminds us that clear thinking is not merely an intellectual exercise but a civic responsibility, especially for those in positions of power.

Legacy and Modern Relevance

The principle of “removing obstruction” remains vitally relevant in contemporary contexts where information overload and polarized discourse challenge rational decision-making. Leaders in government, business, and other fields still confront the same fundamental problem: how to distinguish signal from noise, substance from manipulation, wisdom from flattery. The historical cases examined here offer enduring lessons about institutional safeguards against cognitive bias. They suggest the value of formal processes for evaluating advice based on merit rather than source, protecting against the influence of petty slander, and recognizing how personal rivalries can distort organizational judgment. Furthermore, they highlight the importance of self-awareness in leadership—the need to recognize how pride, insecurity, or attachment to authority might create blind spots. Modern research on “debiasing” techniques echoes these ancient concerns, suggesting that the struggle against cognitive obstruction is a perpetual human challenge rather than a solved historical problem.

Conclusion: Toward Clearer Judgment

The ancient discourse on “removing obstruction” ultimately presents both warning and hope. The warning is dire: biased judgment leads to failed policies, injustice, and national danger. The hope lies in the proposition that “ordinary people must first remove obstruction before they can know”—that with deliberate effort, we can cultivate clearer perception. This requires intellectual humility, willingness to consider diverse perspectives, and institutional mechanisms that reward truth-telling over flattery. As we navigate complex modern challenges, from political polarization to algorithmic curation of information, the ancient imperative to examine our own preconceptions becomes ever more urgent. By studying historical failures of judgment, we equip ourselves to recognize similar patterns in contemporary contexts, perhaps avoiding repetitions of ancient errors. The task remains unfinished, but the philosophical foundation laid centuries ago continues to light the path toward more enlightened discernment.