I am wrapping up with the Xunzi by Warring States Period Confucian philosopher Xunzi. It's a fascinating work. Outside of believing human nature is inherently bad, he doesn't stray that far from Confucian doctrine, but it's the way he argues and defends Confucian doctrine against Mohists and Daoists that's truly fascinating. For example, he describes Heaven in a way that makes him sound like a Daoist, but then pulls the rug by saying, "since Heaven is ultimately unknowable and beyond the control of humans, we should just ignore Heaven and focus on what humans can control such as the rites of propriety," thereby making the case for Confucianism. The Heaven chapter also had him saying ghosts and spirits are probably bogus, but religious rites should still be observed for their social function.

And as for him arguing that human nature is inherently bad, it's within the context of polemics against Mencius, a rival Confucian philosopher who argued that human nature is inherently good. Xunzi isn't actually concerned about human nature, but about defending the edifying role of the rites and the role of the sage kings to cultivate benevolence and righteousness within people. He's essentially calling Mencius a dumbass for saying human nature is inherently good because it just makes the rites, the sage kings, and thus Confucianism and their job as Confucian philosophers, completely pointless since humans are already good instead of needing to become good.

However, his defense of Confucianism wasn't perfect, and he wasn't able to convincingly make the case for Confucianism over what would become the school of legalism. He contrasts between the true king and a mere hegemon, but he doesn't actually condemn the five hegemons. I could see how prominent legalists Han Fei and Li Si were his students. They probably listened intently to when he explained how the five hegemons made their ducal states powerful while mentally checking out when Xunzi started pontificating about how they sucked compared with the sage kings.