Works › Old Tales Retold (Gushi Xinbian)
Work #1401 · Late period

Old Tales Retold (Gushi Xinbian)

Lu Xun's 1935 satirical retellings of classical Chinese stories

Lu Xun · 1922-35; 1935 collection · Chinese · Satirical short-story collection

Tradition: Modern Chinese literature

Lu Xun's 1935 satirical retellings of classical Chinese stories

Old Tales Retold (Gushi Xinbian, 1935) is Lu Xun's final fiction collection — eight satirical retellings of classical Chinese mythological-historical stories. Treats Yu the Great, Laozi, Mozi, Bo Yi and Shu Qi, Zhuangzi, Confucius. Late-Lu-Xun satirical-political work.

Author

Editions cited

  • Gushi Xinbian (Shanghai, 1935); English: Old Tales Retold, trans. Yangs
Compare this work

School Embodiments

Modernism · 20%
Critical Theory · 20%
Realism · 25%
Dialectical Materialism · 10%
Kantian Transcendental Idealism · 10%
Aestheticism · 10%
Historicism · 5%
Modernism 20%

Late-Lu-Xun modernist work.

"Late modernist Chinese-literary work." (Old Tales Retold)
Critical Theory 20%

Strong critical-theoretical satire.

"Critical engagement with classical Chinese tradition via satirical retelling." (Old Tales Retold)
Realism 25%

Major satirical-literary achievement.

"Major Chinese-literary satire." (Old Tales Retold)
Dialectical Materialism 10%

Late-Lu-Xun Marxist political-literary commitments.

"Marxist-political late-Lu-Xun commitments." (Old Tales Retold)
Kantian Transcendental Idealism 10%

Sustained critical-philosophical engagement.

"Critical engagement with classical Chinese philosophical tradition." (Old Tales Retold)
Aestheticism 10%

Aesthetic-literary achievement.

"Aesthetic-satirical literary work." (Old Tales Retold)
Historicism 5%

Historicist engagement with classical Chinese tradition.

"Historicist-satirical engagement." (Old Tales Retold)

Internal Tensions

Old Tales Retold has been variously assessed — defenders see late-Lu-Xun major satirical achievement, critics worry about specific political tendencies.

⧖

I. Time

1922-35.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Non-Linear Direction: Bi-directional Dimensionality: One
✦

II. Space

China.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local
◉

III. Matter

Classical Chinese stories satirically retold.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local
◎

IV. Observer

Late Lu Xun.

Attributes
Time Instance: Multiple Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Partial Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None
⚡

V. Energy

Satirical-critical energies.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Reversible
⧉

VI. Information

Eight-story collection.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Variable Personal Conservation: Variable Granularity: Continuous

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

79%
Raghavendra Swami
27/34
77%
Epicurus
23/30
76%
Derek Parfit
26/34
76%
Gottlob Frege
26/34
76%
Hilary Putnam
26/34
76%
Jürgen Habermas
26/34

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

44%
Milesian School
19/26
43%
Dvaita Vedanta
19/26
43%
Mechanism
18/26
42%
Cartesianism
18/26
40%
Multiverse Theory
16/26
40%
Modal Realism
18/26
40%
Presentism
19/26
40%
Deontological Ethics
19/26

How Old Tales Retold (Gushi Xinbian) resolves each dilemma

35 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 7 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 22 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible.
On this view, the cosmos has the resources to support whatever flourishing future generations are capable of, given sufficient time and intelligence. The impossibility concern is misplaced; the real questions are about trajectories and choices, not about resource ceilings.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) · The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) · The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it. (12%)
3 mainstream positions
Do you really choose? The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. 69% Are addicts responsible for their addiction? The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. 69% Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do? An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. 69%
3 unaligned
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them? Schools split: 47% / 32% / 17% — How much weight do future people deserve? Schools split: 47% / 32% / 17% — Is regret rational? Schools split: 47% / 32% / 17% —
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is the world created from nothing? Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. 55% Is the physical world fully real? Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting. 55% Does matter have intrinsic moral standing? Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good. 55% What is money? Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. 54% What is a nation? A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. 54% What makes someone male or female? Sex is a real biological kind with given content. 54% Should we edit the human germline? Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. 54%

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 4 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (26/202)
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Ancestor veneration, intercession with saints, the moral weight of a promise made to someone now gone — these all presuppose that the dead are present in some sense beyond memory. Whether they are turns on whether an observer is the kind of thing that exists in a single moment or across many.
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
On this view, an observer is not located at a single moment but extends across moments. The dead, on this signature, are not gone — they are elsewhere on the same trans-temporal structure that you yourself occupy. Ancestor veneration, intercession with saints, the moral weight …
Roads not taken Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. (44%) · The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence. (35%) · From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional. (8%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (26/202)
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
If God knows what you will do tomorrow, does your tomorrow-self choose freely? The classical problem of foreknowledge turns on whether the divine vantage stands outside time or inside it.
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
On this view, observers can in principle exist in more than one moment simultaneously — and divine omniscience is exactly the case of an observer occupying all moments at once. The future actions God 'foresees' aren't foreseen at all in the temporal sense; God simply …
Roads not taken The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. (46%) · The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering. (33%) · Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves. (8%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (26/202)
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Contemplative traditions across cultures report that sustained attention reveals a level at which time as ordinary experience knows it does not apply. Whether the report is a real glimpse or a real misdescription depends on what observers can in principle be.
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
On this view, observers can in principle exist in more than one moment, and meditation is the practice that opens that capacity. What's reported as 'timeless' is the experience of occupying moments at once — the trans-temporal mode the observer always could have inhabited but …
Roads not taken Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. (46%) · Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach. (33%) · The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it. (8%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (26/202)
Does prayer change God's mind?
When you petition God for something, are you addressing a personal agent who hears and responds, participating in eternal providence, attuning yourself to what already is, or doing something that doesn't quite map onto petition?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
On this view, the addressee of prayer — and the petitioner participating in prayer — can occupy more than one moment at once. Prayer isn't an instant of message-passing across a temporal gap; it is participation in a trans-temporal mode in which every moment of …
Roads not taken If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. (46%) · God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted. (33%) · Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement. (8%)
18 mainstream positions
When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 49% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 49% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. 37% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. 37% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. 37% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 32% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 32% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 32% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 32% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 32% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 30% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 30%
15 unaligned
Can a civilization recover from collapse? Schools split: 66% / 17% / 8% — Could causation work backwards? Schools split: 68% / 17% / 8% — Does history have a direction or meaning? Schools split: 37% / 23% / 19% — Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Schools split: 66% / 17% / 8% — How is knowledge of reality produced? Schools split: 25% / 17% / 13% — If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Schools split: 36% / 29% / 14% — Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Schools split: 66% / 17% / 8% — Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? Schools split: 15% / 14% / 4% — Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? Schools split: 68% / 17% / 8% — Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? Schools split: 68% / 17% / 8% — Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Schools split: 36% / 29% / 14% — Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Schools split: 65% / 16% / 10% — What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? Schools split: 44% / 16% / 14% — What makes someone the same person over time? Schools split: 36% / 29% / 14% — Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? Schools split: 40% / 28% / 14% —
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back? — — Does deleting your data online destroy something real? — — Is anything truly lost when someone forgets? — — Is forgiveness ontologically possible? — —
← #1400 Wild Grass (Yecao) All Works #1402 Yuishinshō Mon'i →