The College of Chinese Wisdom: Confucius(wsj.com)
wsj.com
The College of Chinese Wisdom: Confucius
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-college-of-chinese-wisdom-1459520703
22 comments
> ...but without the invisible man in the sky.
'天', "Heaven", is literally a pictogram of the 'invisible man in the sky'.
The ancient Chinese were monotheist, and Confucius was no exception.
Trying the fit modern norms over historical people and cultures that existed 3000 years ago silly, don't do that.
'天', "Heaven", is literally a pictogram of the 'invisible man in the sky'.
The ancient Chinese were monotheist, and Confucius was no exception.
Trying the fit modern norms over historical people and cultures that existed 3000 years ago silly, don't do that.
> What has always impressed me about Confucius is how is philosophy has survived 2,000 years in China, and it is completely secular.
Indeed, it has survived. As has Daoism. But they rarely co-exist, and instead are tools, or philosophies, of the current power.
While neither Confucianism not Daoism are outrightly political, their use, and survival, has been. If an dynasty seek hierarchy and power structure, leader-follower, right/wrong system, they promote Confucianism (as is the current case in China, harmony-because-I-tell-you); when a dynasty promote liberalism (ironically, in the current case of government) Daoism is the go-to example or philosophy.
There were other philosophies, but these 2 work reasonably well for most regime styles.
Indeed, it has survived. As has Daoism. But they rarely co-exist, and instead are tools, or philosophies, of the current power.
While neither Confucianism not Daoism are outrightly political, their use, and survival, has been. If an dynasty seek hierarchy and power structure, leader-follower, right/wrong system, they promote Confucianism (as is the current case in China, harmony-because-I-tell-you); when a dynasty promote liberalism (ironically, in the current case of government) Daoism is the go-to example or philosophy.
There were other philosophies, but these 2 work reasonably well for most regime styles.
Blech. I disagree that schools are responsible for any student's ability or inability to find him or herself. Schools are one of many gateways that are chosen by students. We all choose our own path. No need to lay responsibility at the feet of another.
Another thing Confucius said was if you don't want to do something, don't ask someone else to do it. If you don't want to find yourself, don't ask the world to do it for you.
> Confucius proposed another approach: “as if” rituals, that is, rituals meant to break us out of our own reality for a moment.
I wonder what the author thinks is the purpose of extracurriculars if not to give students the opportunity to practice this ritual.
Another thing Confucius said was if you don't want to do something, don't ask someone else to do it. If you don't want to find yourself, don't ask the world to do it for you.
> Confucius proposed another approach: “as if” rituals, that is, rituals meant to break us out of our own reality for a moment.
I wonder what the author thinks is the purpose of extracurriculars if not to give students the opportunity to practice this ritual.
Independent of the original article, I would like to disagree with you. Forcefully.
> Blech. I disagree that schools are responsible for any student's ability or inability to find him or herself. Schools are one of many gateways that are chosen by students. We all choose our own path. No need to lay responsibility at the feet of another.
It is trivially false that "We all choose our own path" and that sentiment stinks of caveman thinking and bloody evolution. Schools may not be singularly responsible, but the average American public school goes a long way toward preventing enlightenment. As a trivial example, consider the tested and measured objective effects of, say, enforcing abstinence-only sex education on whether a population actually has sex or not. You say that we can all "choose our own path", but when you really get down to it, the selection of paths that are available to us and which paths we're allowed to go down are not up to us, some paths are easier to go down than others, and we don't all have infinite intelligence, willpower, or time. If we did, we wouldn't have problems like being poor or the autism spectrum or functional illiteracy or innumeracy. Everybody wants to get rid of these things, but the paths to being free of them simply aren't there.
> Another thing Confucius said was if you don't want to do something, don't ask someone else to do it. If you don't want to find yourself, don't ask the world to do it for you.
Fuck this "every man for himself" bullshit. That's what gets us into the messes that we're in right now. Success is built on cooperation and coordination and if you insist on doing everything yourself you'll never get past living in trees and ooga-boogaing at antelope. We, as humans, are distinguished by our ability to ask people to do things that we don't want to do, that we wouldn't do as well, or that we can't do without help, and I consider this mindset, to throw those things away as being "weak" somehow, to be heresy. Being able to ask someone else for help is what makes humans strong.
> Blech. I disagree that schools are responsible for any student's ability or inability to find him or herself. Schools are one of many gateways that are chosen by students. We all choose our own path. No need to lay responsibility at the feet of another.
It is trivially false that "We all choose our own path" and that sentiment stinks of caveman thinking and bloody evolution. Schools may not be singularly responsible, but the average American public school goes a long way toward preventing enlightenment. As a trivial example, consider the tested and measured objective effects of, say, enforcing abstinence-only sex education on whether a population actually has sex or not. You say that we can all "choose our own path", but when you really get down to it, the selection of paths that are available to us and which paths we're allowed to go down are not up to us, some paths are easier to go down than others, and we don't all have infinite intelligence, willpower, or time. If we did, we wouldn't have problems like being poor or the autism spectrum or functional illiteracy or innumeracy. Everybody wants to get rid of these things, but the paths to being free of them simply aren't there.
> Another thing Confucius said was if you don't want to do something, don't ask someone else to do it. If you don't want to find yourself, don't ask the world to do it for you.
Fuck this "every man for himself" bullshit. That's what gets us into the messes that we're in right now. Success is built on cooperation and coordination and if you insist on doing everything yourself you'll never get past living in trees and ooga-boogaing at antelope. We, as humans, are distinguished by our ability to ask people to do things that we don't want to do, that we wouldn't do as well, or that we can't do without help, and I consider this mindset, to throw those things away as being "weak" somehow, to be heresy. Being able to ask someone else for help is what makes humans strong.
> Independent of the original article, I would like to disagree with you
You're welcome to try. My comment was written within the context of the article.
> Schools may not be singularly responsible, but the average American public school goes a long way toward preventing enlightenment.
The first line of the article makes it clear they're talking about higher education. So, in the context of the article, by schools I meant colleges and not the average american school.
> the selection of paths that are available to us and which paths we're allowed to go down are not up to us, some paths are easier to go down than others
For anything in which we are educated you will find some people who follow the education and others who don't. I won't disagree that marketing and education plays a big role on people who look to others to make decisions for them. I won't disagree that some people grow up without the love needed to empower their own confidence. Yet the fact remains that you can once in awhile find a destitute child who has risen to the top and beaten the odds. This suggests that marketing is not all powerful. It is possible to beat the odds.
> Fuck this "every man for himself" bullshit
Let me also add that I don't think we should stop educating. I just think that part of education should include the idea that yes you can and you don't need to do exactly as I say in order to be successful. Part of this message involves telling the student that he is valuable and can make his or her own choices just like I wrote above. No problem in asking for help. I will help and in the process try to find something that you did yourself, point it out, and hopefully give you some more confidence.
None of us are better than any other. None of us are worse than any other. The sooner you come around to that idea, the sooner you stop placing more value in others than yourself, or vice versa.
You're welcome to try. My comment was written within the context of the article.
> Schools may not be singularly responsible, but the average American public school goes a long way toward preventing enlightenment.
The first line of the article makes it clear they're talking about higher education. So, in the context of the article, by schools I meant colleges and not the average american school.
> the selection of paths that are available to us and which paths we're allowed to go down are not up to us, some paths are easier to go down than others
For anything in which we are educated you will find some people who follow the education and others who don't. I won't disagree that marketing and education plays a big role on people who look to others to make decisions for them. I won't disagree that some people grow up without the love needed to empower their own confidence. Yet the fact remains that you can once in awhile find a destitute child who has risen to the top and beaten the odds. This suggests that marketing is not all powerful. It is possible to beat the odds.
> Fuck this "every man for himself" bullshit
Let me also add that I don't think we should stop educating. I just think that part of education should include the idea that yes you can and you don't need to do exactly as I say in order to be successful. Part of this message involves telling the student that he is valuable and can make his or her own choices just like I wrote above. No problem in asking for help. I will help and in the process try to find something that you did yourself, point it out, and hopefully give you some more confidence.
None of us are better than any other. None of us are worse than any other. The sooner you come around to that idea, the sooner you stop placing more value in others than yourself, or vice versa.
> The first line of the article makes it clear they're talking about higher education.
Indeed, but when folk enter post-secondary education, their schooling overwhelmingly accounts for their intellectual development and conscious personal history in most cases.
Indeed, but when folk enter post-secondary education, their schooling overwhelmingly accounts for their intellectual development and conscious personal history in most cases.
Well you've got to start doing things for yourself at some point. If that isn't done during college these days I don't know when it is. Probably varies among us. You could even reasonably say it doesn't happen even until death since people will help you not die until you die.
The only issue I take with this article is it is blaming the very institutions that provide optional education. Many students must take out a very big loan to attend college in the US. To then blame schools for not helping us find success, I find ironic. If you're not happy with the educational system you can begin by teaching. Put your money where your mouth is.
The only issue I take with this article is it is blaming the very institutions that provide optional education. Many students must take out a very big loan to attend college in the US. To then blame schools for not helping us find success, I find ironic. If you're not happy with the educational system you can begin by teaching. Put your money where your mouth is.
Pretty good resource on Confucius: http://www.thenoneo.com/
Confucius was an authoritarian. There, I said it. There are other sources of Chinese wisdom.
I'll take Lao Tzu over Confucius any day.
Amen to that. Lao Tzu is spiritual and gentle.
Confucius sounds like an apologist for imperial servitude, giving a generous dose of quotidian platitudes. All this insistence on proper appearance, filial piety, and behaviour is an appalling appeal to conform. I never found anything subversive or insightful or spiritual in Confucius, but I do appreciate his sense of humour.
Confucius sounds like an apologist for imperial servitude, giving a generous dose of quotidian platitudes. All this insistence on proper appearance, filial piety, and behaviour is an appalling appeal to conform. I never found anything subversive or insightful or spiritual in Confucius, but I do appreciate his sense of humour.
> I never found anything subversive ... in Confucius
What do you mean? Did you expect him to tell you to fight the power?
What do you mean? Did you expect him to tell you to fight the power?
I'll take Bruce Lee over Lao Tzu and Confucius any day.
Would you mind elaborating on this assertion, preferably using direct quotes from Confucius himself?
It's true that Confucius focused a great deal on leadership and the hierarchical aspects of society, but I don't see how he was anymore authoritarian than Plato, whose Republic was much more authoritarian (see the film "Starship Troopers" if you want to see Plato's Republic in action). Confucius' philosophy survived 2,000 years in China because it focused on making leadership wise and just. In fact, for hundreds of years in China, anyone, no matter their background, could rise to leadership if they could demonstrate an understanding of Confucian philosophy. That seems pretty egalitarian to me.
It's true that Confucius focused a great deal on leadership and the hierarchical aspects of society, but I don't see how he was anymore authoritarian than Plato, whose Republic was much more authoritarian (see the film "Starship Troopers" if you want to see Plato's Republic in action). Confucius' philosophy survived 2,000 years in China because it focused on making leadership wise and just. In fact, for hundreds of years in China, anyone, no matter their background, could rise to leadership if they could demonstrate an understanding of Confucian philosophy. That seems pretty egalitarian to me.
Did you even read the article? He quotes multiple philosophers and also only selectively quotes Confucius. His authoritarian ideas don't invalidate his other, good insights.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Confucianism was chosen by the chinese power-that-be because he encouraged obedience and conformity. It's the reason Chinese society stagnated with a monolithic central authority. With a more libertarian approach, there would be more trade and research and given chinese huge population and food availability, they might have made a lot of technological progress and we would have a colony on Mars by now.
So in that way confucianism was similar to christianity during the dark age in that they were used by the powerful to sedate the masses.
So in that way confucianism was similar to christianity during the dark age in that they were used by the powerful to sedate the masses.
But at the root of Confucianism is the idea of leading by example and through self-discipline. If you want to understand Confucianism, "The Great Learning" is where your studies should first begin. This is my favorite passage from that writing:
The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.
Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination
[2] http://mxplx.com/meme/2873/