Lionel Jensen

no, never heard of it, but I do know I do not like Confucianism at all, in fact it is my least favorite philosophy in the world.  And yet China was so great...just imagine how much greater she could have been with a better guiding principal...

I would define it as too hierarchical, unnecessarily bureaucratic, nebulous state worship with too much attention towards honoring old people and not enough emphasis on improvement or innovation.  Theres alot of that emperor and court reigns supreme stuff that I think Lao Tzu summed up greatly :

�The people are difficult to keep in order, because of those above them interfering.� Or: �I dig the well for water; I plow the field for food: What use do I have for the emperor�s power!�

Please dont be offended, I am fascinated by Chinese history, but it is within Chinese sources themselves that I find the best reasons not to like Confucianism, especially in the ealry 20th century with the literature fromt eh youth movements.

However I will conceide that there is one thing I do like about Confucianisms impact, and that was to always keep China comparitively secular and largely above superstitious national stigmas that EUrope and the Middle East are so prone to, or at least where.

Hey demon,

    you wrote, "A way to regulate society's values, that contribute to the rise of a nation.  In these days, it sounds absurd, but it's got some values that still are worthy."

    That's sort of what Confucianism is, but in effect, all ideologies regulate social values.  Even Taoist philosophy, which promotes deconstructing society, once it is popularly accepted, has the effect of regulating society.

    Confucianism actively constructs society, so it certainly informs social values.  But it's still much more than that.  It's unfortunate that most of what people see in Confucianism is how it superficially differs from other Eastern religions.

Peace,

Michael

8-21-2004

You will be surprised that there is a thought in Confucianism that stresses balance and harmony. It is the way to construct a society and stablize it.. calling in the "Middle Way"..

Hey Tobodai,

    There you are.  Did you read my longer reply?  If you have read it, you'll notice that your original definition of Confucianism is inconsistent with a lot of the formal classical contents of Confucianism.

    I don't want to divert to a different topic, but you brought up an important point: are the recent "unstable" peoples "successful?"

    The few European countries that have ravaged the world have done precisely that: ravaged the world.  Racism took on its modern form due to colonialism.  The resource-exploitative method of economy is socially self-destructively.  Notice that I'm not pitting Confucianism against this, I'm on to a different topic now.  I'm simply challenging your definition of "success."  It's quite tragic that many Asian countries also define success in similarly narrow standards.

Peace,

Michael

8-23-2004

Hey Gubukjanggoon,

    Incidentally, "the middle moderate way" is a key concept in Confucianism.

Peace,

Michael

8-24-2004

Hey Tobodai,

    "It doesnt matter what its official definition is, in practice once the original vitality of a dynasty decays confucian societies revert in on themselves and stagnate."

    I'm not talking about official definition of Confucianism, which constantly changed.  I'm talking about what Confucius and all the Confucian scholars actually said.  It would be unfair to take one or two fanatical Christians' view as representative of all of Christianity, don't you think?  That's what I'm saying.  If you want to define what Confucianism is, you would at the least have to define it based on what they actually believe.

    "Historically, once the strucutre falls apart the theory of the structure has no purpose so nothing can be done until a new central power is established.  The time thats wasted between dynasties and political powers therefore largely goes down the drain with little to show."

    That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

    "Whereas in the "evil imperialistic west" which isnt any different in subjigating people than anyone else, only more successful, times of fracture and competing nations produce technological and societal innovation."

    Yeah, but they are more successful in subjugating people than anyone else.  Is that your kind of success?

    "Ever heard of democracy? thats a western invention, how about railroads, computers etc etc? Sure the world would be so much better without these things...is that what your trying to say?"

    Democracy is doubtlessly a brilliant idea, but it's only a Western invention in so far as the Europeans were the first to formulate it (many others, including the Chinese, had some idea of it.)  The problem is that Democracy never happened in practice.  Majority rule is no different from mob rule, and unanimous vote is practically impossible.  Railroad and computers -- every technology solves one problem and creates another.  It really depends how you define "success" -- as far as I'm concerned, the resource-exploitative mode of production of today isn't very successful in the big picture.

    "Just like when Europe was so pathetically backwards it had a more advanced civilization transmitted to it from teh east so now the tides have changed."

    That is a common misconception.  Europe's "Dark Age" isn't quite as dark as we imagine it to be.  The Byzantine empire maintained a high level of culture.  The intellectual culture, such as that of the Catholic monasteries, is quite impressive.  Granted that they were as "advance," I wouldn't say they were pathetically backward.

    "Its not racist at all, its just acknowledging that differnet people have been the beacons of civilization and the advancement thereof at different times.  For most of the worlds history it has been Chin..but my point is, not inthe last 300 years."

    You misunderstood what I said.  Let me remind you of what I actually said.  "Racism took on its modern form due to colonialism."  Now let me clarify what I meant: I didn't say that the competition of different countries -- the success of one and the failure of another -- is racist.  I was saying that racism, in its modern form, first formulated in Enlightenment Europe (an era that sought to justify colonialism) as an intellectual, theoretical point of view.  Beating other people up and taking their stuff, forcing them to learn from you, that's just being an arrogant bully, that's not racism.  I'm referring to Enlightenment racism, which is much more frightening and much more sophisticated than that.  I suggest that you read Hegel, an important figure of the Enlightenment period, and you're in for a big surprise.  Racism doesn't recognize the possibility that civilization can appear in one place and then in another later.  Rather, the idea is that people are biologically predisposed to have culture: Europeans being the most predisposed to civilization, while others are less predisposed.  Now, this racist stuff seems pretty primitive to us now, since we have transcended it and noted its clear error.  But something has been done, and it's difficult to be undone: it was with racist theory that the idea of "race" was first defined.  Before, people were defined in terms of where they were from, what familial ties they had; their physical features might be noted, but are not the basis of the pigeon holes that contain them.  The Mongolians came close to formulating a racist ideology during its occupation of China (such as defining people with eye color other than dark as "better people,") but no one has attempted to give a biological, scientific categorization of people -- and that's what race is, albeit a faulty categorization.  I should stop now and save some for next time, cuz I can go on and on.

Peace,

Michael

8-24-2004

Edited by MengTzu