Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Confucianism AMA

Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 9:04:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)

Why are ceremonies important?
And is Confucius immoral for not trying to save the sheep for the ceremony?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 9:44:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 9:04:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)

Why are ceremonies important?
You know what? I'll write a blogpost-length reply to you before I go to work tomorrow. I'll go over briefly the meaning of rites before Confucius, why he revolutionised the idea, and so on. (I have to address some issues related to the game, which I published yesterday.)

And is Confucius immoral for not trying to save the sheep for the ceremony?

Oh dear, not this again :P

Okay, how about that, there isn't enough context. The Analects weren't very clear about the incident and a search returned no relevant results in the Kongzi Jiayu (which I haven't read cover to cover).
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 9:46:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 9:44:12 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:04:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)

Why are ceremonies important?
You know what? I'll write a blogpost-length reply to you before I go to work tomorrow. I'll go over briefly the meaning of rites before Confucius, why he revolutionised the idea, and so on. (I have to address some issues related to the game, which I published yesterday.)

And is Confucius immoral for not trying to save the sheep for the ceremony?

Oh dear, not this again :P

Okay, how about that, there isn't enough context. The Analects weren't very clear about the incident and a search returned no relevant results in the Kongzi Jiayu (which I haven't read cover to cover).

Translated to English: "I evade. I know Confucius is immoral, but I don't wanna admit it. So, no admission. *plugs ears*"

Whether or not he "praised his disciple" is irrelevant--he didn't do anything, so he's a hypocrite.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 10:04:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 9:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:44:12 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:04:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)

Why are ceremonies important?
You know what? I'll write a blogpost-length reply to you before I go to work tomorrow. I'll go over briefly the meaning of rites before Confucius, why he revolutionised the idea, and so on. (I have to address some issues related to the game, which I published yesterday.)

And is Confucius immoral for not trying to save the sheep for the ceremony?

Oh dear, not this again :P

Okay, how about that, there isn't enough context. The Analects weren't very clear about the incident and a search returned no relevant results in the Kongzi Jiayu (which I haven't read cover to cover).

Translated to English: "I evade. I know Confucius is immoral, but I don't wanna admit it. So, no admission. *plugs ears*"

Whether or not he "praised his disciple" is irrelevant--he didn't do anything, so he's a hypocrite.

It did lack quite a bit of context, such as whether he was involved in the rite himself, whether he had seen the sheep, etc.

I'll tell you an example of why context is important: 'Of all people, girls and servants are the most difficult to behave to. If you are familiar with them, they lose their humility. If you maintain a reserve towards them, they are discontented.' (Analects 17.25) It's often cited as 'evidence' that Confucius was a sexist. Someone had enough free time to dig through historical records, and found that Confucius was not referring to girls in general in the quote - he was ranting about a specific woman who annoyed him (Classical Chinese doesn't make it clear whether he was talking about a specific person or that group of people in general).
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 10:13:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 10:04:18 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:44:12 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:04:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)

Why are ceremonies important?
You know what? I'll write a blogpost-length reply to you before I go to work tomorrow. I'll go over briefly the meaning of rites before Confucius, why he revolutionised the idea, and so on. (I have to address some issues related to the game, which I published yesterday.)

And is Confucius immoral for not trying to save the sheep for the ceremony?

Oh dear, not this again :P

Okay, how about that, there isn't enough context. The Analects weren't very clear about the incident and a search returned no relevant results in the Kongzi Jiayu (which I haven't read cover to cover).

Translated to English: "I evade. I know Confucius is immoral, but I don't wanna admit it. So, no admission. *plugs ears*"

Whether or not he "praised his disciple" is irrelevant--he didn't do anything, so he's a hypocrite.

It did lack quite a bit of context, such as whether he was involved in the rite himself, whether he had seen the sheep, etc.

I'll tell you an example of why context is important: 'Of all people, girls and servants are the most difficult to behave to. If you are familiar with them, they lose their humility. If you maintain a reserve towards them, they are discontented.' (Analects 17.25) It's often cited as 'evidence' that Confucius was a sexist. Someone had enough free time to dig through historical records, and found that Confucius was not referring to girls in general in the quote - he was ranting about a specific woman who annoyed him (Classical Chinese doesn't make it clear whether he was talking about a specific person or that group of people in general).

If the context *was* him being involved, etc. -- is he immoral?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 10:48:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 10:13:14 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/8/2015 10:04:18 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:44:12 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:04:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)

Why are ceremonies important?
You know what? I'll write a blogpost-length reply to you before I go to work tomorrow. I'll go over briefly the meaning of rites before Confucius, why he revolutionised the idea, and so on. (I have to address some issues related to the game, which I published yesterday.)

And is Confucius immoral for not trying to save the sheep for the ceremony?

Oh dear, not this again :P

Okay, how about that, there isn't enough context. The Analects weren't very clear about the incident and a search returned no relevant results in the Kongzi Jiayu (which I haven't read cover to cover).

Translated to English: "I evade. I know Confucius is immoral, but I don't wanna admit it. So, no admission. *plugs ears*"

Whether or not he "praised his disciple" is irrelevant--he didn't do anything, so he's a hypocrite.

It did lack quite a bit of context, such as whether he was involved in the rite himself, whether he had seen the sheep, etc.

I'll tell you an example of why context is important: 'Of all people, girls and servants are the most difficult to behave to. If you are familiar with them, they lose their humility. If you maintain a reserve towards them, they are discontented.' (Analects 17.25) It's often cited as 'evidence' that Confucius was a sexist. Someone had enough free time to dig through historical records, and found that Confucius was not referring to girls in general in the quote - he was ranting about a specific woman who annoyed him (Classical Chinese doesn't make it clear whether he was talking about a specific person or that group of people in general).

If the context *was* him being involved, etc. -- is he immoral?

Not necessarily.

Like I've told you before, we believe in differentiated love in Confucianism. Non-family members are less important than family members, and animals are less important than humans. > The value involved in animal protection is the principle of benevolence.

As for the rite, I've just read the annotations by Zhu Xi (the most famous Confucian from the Song Dynasty), and I can tell it is an extremely important ceremony that maintains the cordiality between the king of China (there were no emperors at the time) and the princes of the states. It has important political and social meaning. To refuse to do it would be a gross violation of the principle of propriety.

With conflict arises between two moral values (propriety and benevolence), the two must be weighed. The concept of weighing is an important one in Confucianism, especially Xunzi. In a nutshell, it allows some violation of moral principles to ensure that a more important one is followed. In this case, the very important ceremony outweights the sheep.

I liken the concept to Gricean pragmatics. Sometimes, the quantity maxim, for example, must be violated to satisfy the quality maxim:

A: Where is my book?
B: I'm not sure, but I guess it's either in your drawer or somewhere near the teacher's desk.

In modern society (and most of post-Zhou society, actually), the social order that necessitates this rite no longer exists, and the sheep would be put before the rite.

(P.S. From what Zhu Xi wrote, I can infer that Confucius was, in all likelihood, not involved in the rite.)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 10:58:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 10:04:17 AM, Wylted wrote:
What is confetti ism

Now, confetti had not been invented in Confucius' time. They only started using paper confetti in 1875. Even Wang Yangming had been long dead by then.

However, since it originated from an older ritual in which that involves tossing grains, I can explain that in terms of rites and ceremony. It does promote some good values, such as sharing joy with your friends.

However, one issue I can find with confetti is that it consumes a great amount of paper. Now, it's a step up from the sweets they used to throw around, but it still causes quite a bit of a mess, and needs quite a bit of paper. 'In festive ceremonies, it is better to be sparing than extravagant.' (Analects 3.8) So basically, I wouldn't support the use of confetti unless it's, say, made from recycled paper.

Hope that helps :)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 10:59:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 10:48:48 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/8/2015 10:13:14 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/8/2015 10:04:18 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:44:12 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:04:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)

Why are ceremonies important?
You know what? I'll write a blogpost-length reply to you before I go to work tomorrow. I'll go over briefly the meaning of rites before Confucius, why he revolutionised the idea, and so on. (I have to address some issues related to the game, which I published yesterday.)

And is Confucius immoral for not trying to save the sheep for the ceremony?

Oh dear, not this again :P

Okay, how about that, there isn't enough context. The Analects weren't very clear about the incident and a search returned no relevant results in the Kongzi Jiayu (which I haven't read cover to cover).

Translated to English: "I evade. I know Confucius is immoral, but I don't wanna admit it. So, no admission. *plugs ears*"

Whether or not he "praised his disciple" is irrelevant--he didn't do anything, so he's a hypocrite.

It did lack quite a bit of context, such as whether he was involved in the rite himself, whether he had seen the sheep, etc.

I'll tell you an example of why context is important: 'Of all people, girls and servants are the most difficult to behave to. If you are familiar with them, they lose their humility. If you maintain a reserve towards them, they are discontented.' (Analects 17.25) It's often cited as 'evidence' that Confucius was a sexist. Someone had enough free time to dig through historical records, and found that Confucius was not referring to girls in general in the quote - he was ranting about a specific woman who annoyed him (Classical Chinese doesn't make it clear whether he was talking about a specific person or that group of people in general).

If the context *was* him being involved, etc. -- is he immoral?

Not necessarily.

Like I've told you before, we believe in differentiated love in Confucianism. Non-family members are less important than family members, and animals are less important than humans. > The value involved in animal protection is the principle of benevolence.

As for the rite, I've just read the annotations by Zhu Xi (the most famous Confucian from the Song Dynasty), and I can tell it is an extremely important ceremony that maintains the cordiality between the king of China (there were no emperors at the time) and the princes of the states. It has important political and social meaning. To refuse to do it would be a gross violation of the principle of propriety.

With conflict arises between two moral values (propriety and benevolence), the two must be weighed. The concept of weighing is an important one in Confucianism, especially Xunzi. In a nutshell, it allows some violation of moral principles to ensure that a more important one is followed. In this case, the very important ceremony outweights the sheep.

I liken the concept to Gricean pragmatics. Sometimes, the quantity maxim, for example, must be violated to satisfy the quality maxim:

A: Where is my book?
B: I'm not sure, but I guess it's either in your drawer or somewhere near the teacher's desk.

In modern society (and most of post-Zhou society, actually), the social order that necessitates this rite no longer exists, and the sheep would be put before the rite.

(P.S. From what Zhu Xi wrote, I can infer that Confucius was, in all likelihood, not involved in the rite.)

Life v. Ceremony

(1): Core assumption of this argument is misinterpretation of the concept of "desire", and for "desire" to function via. justice is incoherent, especially in the concept of entitlements against equality.

(2): The moral distinguish in Confucianism does *not* entail a position of existential nihilism, which is rejected--life has intrinsic value.

Balancing the Two

Two balance the two, one must weigh the concept of morality--valuing morality is a core assumption in Confucian principles, thus disvaluing basic objective morality for propriety is contradictory.

Confucianism implies intrinsic sanctity of all life--thus, the question is obvious: IS life more valuable than "ceremonies"?

Taking lives vs not conducting ceremonies -- the objectively "greater" non-justified is observed. Taking a human life vs. taking an animal life is irrelevant, since ceremonial institutions do not necessarily preserve human life, thus the concept of the ceremony is taken.

Ceremony strengthens society, not living. If Confucianism values humanity over civilization, which it does, the following observations can be inferred:

1. Humanity can exist sans civilization.
2. Humanity cannot exist sans sheep.
3. Confucianism values humanity greater than society or civilization.

From these observations, the obvious conclusion would prevail where benevolence based on *living*, in any form, is greater than propriety in any Confucian moral concept, thus the impact: Confucius contradicts Confucian principles *if* this were the case.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 11:36:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 10:59:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/8/2015 10:48:48 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/8/2015 10:13:14 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/8/2015 10:04:18 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:46:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:44:12 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/8/2015 9:04:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)

Why are ceremonies important?
You know what? I'll write a blogpost-length reply to you before I go to work tomorrow. I'll go over briefly the meaning of rites before Confucius, why he revolutionised the idea, and so on. (I have to address some issues related to the game, which I published yesterday.)

And is Confucius immoral for not trying to save the sheep for the ceremony?

Oh dear, not this again :P

Okay, how about that, there isn't enough context. The Analects weren't very clear about the incident and a search returned no relevant results in the Kongzi Jiayu (which I haven't read cover to cover).

Translated to English: "I evade. I know Confucius is immoral, but I don't wanna admit it. So, no admission. *plugs ears*"

Whether or not he "praised his disciple" is irrelevant--he didn't do anything, so he's a hypocrite.

It did lack quite a bit of context, such as whether he was involved in the rite himself, whether he had seen the sheep, etc.

I'll tell you an example of why context is important: 'Of all people, girls and servants are the most difficult to behave to. If you are familiar with them, they lose their humility. If you maintain a reserve towards them, they are discontented.' (Analects 17.25) It's often cited as 'evidence' that Confucius was a sexist. Someone had enough free time to dig through historical records, and found that Confucius was not referring to girls in general in the quote - he was ranting about a specific woman who annoyed him (Classical Chinese doesn't make it clear whether he was talking about a specific person or that group of people in general).

If the context *was* him being involved, etc. -- is he immoral?

Not necessarily.

Like I've told you before, we believe in differentiated love in Confucianism. Non-family members are less important than family members, and animals are less important than humans. > The value involved in animal protection is the principle of benevolence.

As for the rite, I've just read the annotations by Zhu Xi (the most famous Confucian from the Song Dynasty), and I can tell it is an extremely important ceremony that maintains the cordiality between the king of China (there were no emperors at the time) and the princes of the states. It has important political and social meaning. To refuse to do it would be a gross violation of the principle of propriety.

With conflict arises between two moral values (propriety and benevolence), the two must be weighed. The concept of weighing is an important one in Confucianism, especially Xunzi. In a nutshell, it allows some violation of moral principles to ensure that a more important one is followed. In this case, the very important ceremony outweights the sheep.

I liken the concept to Gricean pragmatics. Sometimes, the quantity maxim, for example, must be violated to satisfy the quality maxim:

A: Where is my book?
B: I'm not sure, but I guess it's either in your drawer or somewhere near the teacher's desk.

In modern society (and most of post-Zhou society, actually), the social order that necessitates this rite no longer exists, and the sheep would be put before the rite.

(P.S. From what Zhu Xi wrote, I can infer that Confucius was, in all likelihood, not involved in the rite.)

Life v. Ceremony

(1): Core assumption of this argument is misinterpretation of the concept of "desire", and for "desire" to function via. justice is incoherent, especially in the concept of entitlements against equality.
No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't understand this...
(2): The moral distinguish in Confucianism does *not* entail a position of existential nihilism, which is rejected--life has intrinsic value.
Life has intrinsic value =/= Intrinsic value of life cannot be overridden.
Balancing the Two

Two balance the two, one must weigh the concept of morality--valuing morality is a core assumption in Confucian principles, thus disvaluing basic objective morality for propriety is contradictory.
I've told you before, but the four basic principles of objective morality in Confucianism (the Mencian variety, of course, not Xunzi, who likely didn't believe in objectivem morality) are benevolence, righteousness, PROPRIETY and wisdom.
Confucianism implies intrinsic sanctity of all life--thus, the question is obvious: IS life more valuable than "ceremonies"?
Not necessarily (see above).
Taking lives vs not conducting ceremonies -- the objectively "greater" non-justified is observed. Taking a human life vs. taking an animal life is irrelevant, since ceremonial institutions do not necessarily preserve human life, thus the concept of the ceremony is taken.
No, they don't, but the rite was an extremely important part of the political system of the time (look up the hierarchical fengjian system). It ensured that the ruler of China would treat the lords of the states with respect, and the lords would in turn treat the ruler with loyalty. The sheep had a lower value compared to this essential relationship.
Ceremony strengthens society, not living. If Confucianism values humanity over civilization, which it does, the following observations can be inferred:

1. Humanity can exist sans civilization.
2. Humanity cannot exist sans sheep.
3. Confucianism values humanity greater than society or civilization.
See above.
From these observations, the obvious conclusion would prevail where benevolence based on *living*, in any form, is greater than propriety in any Confucian moral concept, thus the impact: Confucius contradicts Confucian principles *if* this were the case.

To clarify, the differentiated love isn't just about decision-making when there are conflicts between, say, the life of an animal and that of a human. It really is differentiated.

'In regard to inferior creatures, the superior man is kind to them, but not loving. In regard to people generally, he is loving to them, but not affectionate. He is affectionate to his parents, and lovingly disposed to people generally. He is lovingly disposed to people generally, and kind to creatures.' (Mencius 13.45)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 12:00:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Confucius say:

"Man who go to bed with itchy butt wake-up with stinky finger."
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 11:56:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 9:04:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)

Why are ceremonies important?

No treatment of ceremonies can hope to be complete without first looking at the origins of the concept itself.

Like all civilisations, Chinese ceremonies originated as primitive religious rituals, in which tribesmen prayed to the gods for good harvests and suchlike. This continued until the institution of the liyue system. After the tyrannical King Zhou of Shang was overthrown by King Wu of Zhou, the Zhou Dynasty created a social system that emphasised hierarchy and order but, at the same time, ensured the livelihoods of the people. There were four main systems, namely the zongfa system, the liyue system, the fengjian system and the jingtian system.

The Duke of Zhou (Ji Dan) was believed to be the creator of the liyue system, which comprised of ceremonies (li) and music (yue). The purpose of the li system was to enforce the social order of the time and maintain the hierarchical relationships between the king and the feudal lords who ruled their own respective states, and between other types of noblemen in the zongfa hierarchy.

The system worked all the way throughout the Western Zhou Dyansty, until the overthrow of You of Zhou, which began the period of history known as the Spring and Autumn Period. This period was characterised by chaos, increasing strength of the feudal lords, and contempt of the King who ruled over all of China. The liyue system began to decline in influence. Confucius dedicated much of his life and teachings to the reinstatement of the liyue system, which would imply a return to an orderly, perfect society.

Before we proceed from this point, it is necessary to point out what 'li' actually means. It has several senses, all interrelated, and it is not always completely clear what sense we're speaking of. It is often not cut-and-dry which meaning 'li' refers to, and sometimes it encompasses all of the senses. As the late Adam Kilgarriff, who passed away a few weeks ago, proposed, word senses are a continuum, rather than discrete. (I haven't read his paper except for the abstract, but it's here: http://www.kilgarriff.co.uk...)

The first meaning of 'li' is propriety, which is a set of social rules that dictate what people should do. There is a thin line between this and laws, which carry legal repercussions. (This is probably why Xunzi, noted for his emphasis on propriety, taught two students who later became noted legalists: Han Feizi and Li Si.) The second meaning of 'li' is the ceremony. When modern people say words with the 'li' morpheme, this is what they mean about 70% of the time ('litang' - ceremony hall, 'hunli' - wedding). The former meaning is a superset of the latter, since the ceremonies are dictated by social rules. The third, often used in the context of Mencius, is the innate sense of respect that we hold to others - when we develop this sense, we get the rules of propriety and so on.

Now, let's look at the Book of Rite's definition of li:

They are the rules of propriety, that furnish the means of determining (the observances towards) relatives, as near and remote; of settling points which may cause suspicion or doubt; of distinguishing where there should be agreement, and where difference; and of making clear what is right and what is wrong.

According to those rules, one should not (seek to) please others in an improper way, nor be lavish of his words. According to them, one does not go beyond the definite measure, nor encroach on or despise others, nor is fond of (presuming) familiarities. To cultivate one's person and fulfil one's words is called good conduct. When the conduct is (thus) ordered, and the words are accordant with the (right) course, we have the substance of the rules of propriety. I have heard that it is in accordance with those rules that one should be chosen by others (as their model); I have not heard of his choosing them (to take him as such). I have heard in the same way of (scholars) coming to learn; I have not heard of (the master) going to teach.

To be continued (sorry, I couldn't finish this. I will when I get back tonight.)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:58:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 11:36:35 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

The entirety of your argument is based on the presumption that *society* > lives, and I digress. I would annihilate the entirety of civilization (note, not the humans within) to save an ant.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 11:41:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Part II:

Now, how exactly did Confucius revolutionise ceremonies and li in general?

Well, what he did was that he emphasised the meaning behind ceremonies. He did not believe in conducting rites for their own sake, and indeed did not believe in ritualism. He saw ceremony as a way of enforcing virtue. This is most famously exemplified in the conversation with his disciple in Analects 17.21, on the three years of mourning (at the time, as a ritual, people had to stay by their parents' graves for three years after their death, and abstain from most activity):

Zai Wo asked about the three years' mourning for parents, saying that one year was long enough. "If the superior man abstains for three years from the observances of propriety, those observances will be quite lost. If for three years he abstains from music, music will be ruined. Within a year the old grain is exhausted, and the new grain has sprung up, and, in procuring fire by friction, we go through all the changes of wood for that purpose. After a complete year, the mourning may stop."

The Master said, "If you were, after a year, to eat good rice, and wear embroidered clothes, would you feel at ease?"

"I should," replied Wo.

The Master said, "If you can feel at ease, do it. But a superior man, during the whole period of mourning, does not enjoy pleasant food which he may eat, nor derive pleasure from music which he may hear. He also does not feel at ease, if he is comfortably lodged. Therefore he does not do what you propose. But now you feel at ease and may do it."

Zai Wo then went out, and the Master said, "This shows Yu's want of virtue. It is not till a child is three years old that it is allowed to leave the arms of its parents. And the three years' mourning is universally observed throughout the empire. Did Yu enjoy the three years' love of his parents?"

He did not force Zai Wo to perform the ceremony. He didn't want the ceremony to be carried out 'just because'; he wanted Zai Wo to carry it out with full understanding of why it was necessary, which is why he explained the entire meaning behind the rite to him, and even said he could go ahead if he felt at ease about it.

This was how Confucius revolutionised ceremony. Ceremony was, to him, a manner of reinforcing virtue. Through the discussion, he taught Zai Wo the proper attitude to take after the passing of a parent. This attitude stemmed from the gratitude that children have for the first three years of their life, in which they were in their parents' arms.

Now, let's fast-forward to modern society. The three year's mourning period has been around halved, and rather than staying by their graves, people still go on to their lives, except they are not allowed to party, go to weddings or other happy occasions. At the same time, filial piety is on the decline. People leave the country to do business and leave their parents in senior homes, only sending back money and rarely, if ever, visiting them. Some don't even send back money. It seems that more and more are no longer interested in serving their parents any more.

And that, my friend, is the importance of ceremonies.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 11:42:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 5:58:30 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/8/2015 11:36:35 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

The entirety of your argument is based on the presumption that *society* > lives, and I digress. I would annihilate the entirety of civilization (note, not the humans within) to save an ant.

I wouldn't, lol. Your beliefs are pretty deontological...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 11:46:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)

When will the glorious Chinese Revolution occur to topple the oppressive communist regime and restore the Republic of China?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 12:14:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 12:00:27 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Confucius say:

"Man who go to bed with itchy butt wake-up with stinky finger."

That is indeed a very interesting saying, and with some wisdom of it. However, let me assure you that this is a misattributed quote; there is no evidence that our sage ever commented on buttocks suffering from pruritus, nor the digital effects on the following day. With that said, I will attempt to extract the wisdom that can be found in the quote.

Now, the itchy butt can be considered a form of lack of self-cultivation. That can be, in a way, a metaphor, but someone with a high level of self-cultivation is indeed less likely to suffer from itchy buttocks because he takes care of his own body well enough.

The quote then mentions that, on the next morning, the man is supposed to have a foul-smelling digit. Now, I will not speculate on the causal link between the buttocks suffering from pruritus and the smell of the finger, except guess along the lines that it is related to the hand being stuck in the undergarments in an anaerobic and moist environment for itching. What could this symbolise? Well, the foul-smelling digit is probably another metaphor for lack of virtue - and this would symbolise, logically, that lack of virtue begets lack of virtue.

The very essence of the quote is found in Mencius 11.8:

The trees of the Niu mountain were once beautiful. Being situated, however, in the borders of a large State, they were hewn down with axes and bills - and could they retain their beauty? Still through the activity of the vegetative life day and night, and the nourishing influence of the rain and dew, they were not without buds and sprouts springing forth, but then came the cattle and goats and browsed upon them. To these things is owing the bare and stripped appearance of the mountain, and when people now see it, they think it was never finely wooded. But is this the nature of the mountain? And so also of what properly belongs to man; shall it be said that the mind of any man was without benevolence and righteousness? The way in which a man loses his proper goodness of mind is like the way in which the trees are denuded by axes and bills. Hewn down day after day, can it - the mind - retain its beauty? But there is a development of its life day and night, and in the calm air of the morning, just between night and day, the mind feels in a degree those desires and aversions which are proper to humanity, but the feeling is not strong, and it is fettered and destroyed by what takes place during the day. This fettering taking place again and again, the restorative influence of the night is not sufficient to preserve the proper goodness of the mind; and when this proves insufficient for that purpose, the nature becomes not much different from that of the irrational animals, and when people now see it, they think that it never had those powers which I assert. But does this condition represent the feelings proper to humanity? Therefore, if it receive its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not grow. If it lose its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not decay away. Confucius said, "Hold it fast, and it remains with you. Let it go, and you lose it. Its outgoing and incoming cannot be defined as to time or place." It is the mind of which this is said!

'If it lose its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not decay away.' The man have up his own self-cultivation, and could only go into a downward spiral from there. This is my interpretation of the quote.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 12:21:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 11:46:19 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)

When will the glorious Chinese Revolution occur to topple the oppressive communist regime and restore the Republic of China?

Ummm... I'll respond to you tomorrow. I'm going to do my daily dose of opinions, then go to sleep.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 1:35:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 12:14:08 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/8/2015 12:00:27 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Confucius say:

"Man who go to bed with itchy butt wake-up with stinky finger."

That is indeed a very interesting saying, and with some wisdom of it. However, let me assure you that this is a misattributed quote; there is no evidence that our sage ever commented on buttocks suffering from pruritus, nor the digital effects on the following day. With that said, I will attempt to extract the wisdom that can be found in the quote.

Now, the itchy butt can be considered a form of lack of self-cultivation. That can be, in a way, a metaphor, but someone with a high level of self-cultivation is indeed less likely to suffer from itchy buttocks because he takes care of his own body well enough.

The quote then mentions that, on the next morning, the man is supposed to have a foul-smelling digit. Now, I will not speculate on the causal link between the buttocks suffering from pruritus and the smell of the finger, except guess along the lines that it is related to the hand being stuck in the undergarments in an anaerobic and moist environment for itching. What could this symbolise? Well, the foul-smelling digit is probably another metaphor for lack of virtue - and this would symbolise, logically, that lack of virtue begets lack of virtue.

The very essence of the quote is found in Mencius 11.8:

The trees of the Niu mountain were once beautiful. Being situated, however, in the borders of a large State, they were hewn down with axes and bills - and could they retain their beauty? Still through the activity of the vegetative life day and night, and the nourishing influence of the rain and dew, they were not without buds and sprouts springing forth, but then came the cattle and goats and browsed upon them. To these things is owing the bare and stripped appearance of the mountain, and when people now see it, they think it was never finely wooded. But is this the nature of the mountain? And so also of what properly belongs to man; shall it be said that the mind of any man was without benevolence and righteousness? The way in which a man loses his proper goodness of mind is like the way in which the trees are denuded by axes and bills. Hewn down day after day, can it - the mind - retain its beauty? But there is a development of its life day and night, and in the calm air of the morning, just between night and day, the mind feels in a degree those desires and aversions which are proper to humanity, but the feeling is not strong, and it is fettered and destroyed by what takes place during the day. This fettering taking place again and again, the restorative influence of the night is not sufficient to preserve the proper goodness of the mind; and when this proves insufficient for that purpose, the nature becomes not much different from that of the irrational animals, and when people now see it, they think that it never had those powers which I assert. But does this condition represent the feelings proper to humanity? Therefore, if it receive its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not grow. If it lose its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not decay away. Confucius said, "Hold it fast, and it remains with you. Let it go, and you lose it. Its outgoing and incoming cannot be defined as to time or place." It is the mind of which this is said!

'If it lose its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not decay away.' The man have up his own self-cultivation, and could only go into a downward spiral from there. This is my interpretation of the quote.

Bravo!

And thank you for making me literally LOL with your informative post.

I actually posted my OP as a joke--something I first heard as a kid..you know, along with all those faux Chinese-authored stories like: "Brown sport on the Wall" by Hoo flung Poo?" Or "Yellow River" by I.P. Freeley.

But you actually found some philosophical merit in my psuedo-Confucious quote. Again...good job!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 8:54:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 11:46:19 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)

When will the glorious Chinese Revolution occur to topple the oppressive communist regime and restore the Republic of China?

Now, a subject, in general, should be loyal to the ruler. We believe in transferring the filial piety with which we treat our parents to loyalty to the ruler.

'The filial piety with which the superior man serves his parents may be transferred as loyalty to the ruler. The fraternal duty with which he serves his elder brother may be transferred as submissive deference to elders. His regulation of his family may be transferred as good government in any official position. Therefore, when his conduct is thus successful in his inner (private) circle, his name will be established (and transmitted) to future generations.' (Book of Filial Piety 14)

'Thus, when occupying a high situation he is not proud, and in a low situation [the superior man] is not insubordinate.' (Doctrine of the Mean 28)

However, we do believe that the loyalty which subjects have towards their rulers is not unconditional. It is really a bargain that goes both ways. 'A prince should employ his minister according to according to the rules of propriety; ministers should serve their prince with faithfulness.' (Analects 3.19) Throughout history, emperors who ordered his subjects to join his court without employing the rules of propriety would often be refused service.

If the ruler treated his subjects very poorly, it was acceptable for them to hate their ruler. 'When the prince regards his ministers as his hands and feet, his ministers regard their prince as their belly and heart; when he regards them as his dogs and horses, they regard him as another man; when he regards them as the ground or as grass, they regard him as a robber and an enemy.' (Mencius 8.3)

In fact, faced with a highly tyrannical ruler, it was acceptable to revolt:

The king Xuan of Qi asked, saying, 'Was it so, that Tang banished Jie, and that king Wu smote Zhou?'

Mencius replied, 'It is so in the records.'

The king said, 'May a minister then put his sovereign to death?'

Mencius said, 'He who outrages the benevolence proper to his nature, is called a robber; he who outrages righteousness, is called a ruffian. The robber and ruffian we call a mere fellow. I have heard of the cutting off of the fellow Zhou, but I have not heard of the putting a sovereign to death, in his case.'
(Mencius 2.8)

However, there are caveats. The first one, obviously, that the ruler actually is tyrannical. The second one is that the rebels have the full support of the people. Here is an example of this full support:

'I have heard of one who with seventy li exercised all the functions of government throughout the kingdom. That was Tang. I have never heard of a prince with a thousand li standing in fear of others. It is said in the Book of History, As soon as Tang began his work of executing justice, he commenced with Ge. The whole kingdom had confidence in him. When he pursued his work in the east, the rude tribes on the west murmured. So did those on the north, when he was engaged in the south. Their cry was "Why does he put us last?" Thus, the people looked to him, as we look in a time of great drought to the clouds and rainbows. The frequenters of the markets stopped not. The husbandmen made no change in their operations. While he punished their rulers, he consoled the people. His progress was like the falling of opportune rain, and the people were delighted. It is said again in the Book of History, "We have waited for our prince long; the prince's coming will be our reviving!"' (Mencius 2.11)

So basically, when the Communist Party can topple is when a) it becomes tyrannical and incorrigible enough to warrant a violent overthrow (which is currently untrue) and b) there is a rebel force that gains the support of all the people.

'The love and protection of the people; with this there is no power which can prevent a ruler from attaining to it.' (Mencius 1.7)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 9:11:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 1:35:06 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/9/2015 12:14:08 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/8/2015 12:00:27 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Confucius say:

"Man who go to bed with itchy butt wake-up with stinky finger."

That is indeed a very interesting saying, and with some wisdom of it. However, let me assure you that this is a misattributed quote; there is no evidence that our sage ever commented on buttocks suffering from pruritus, nor the digital effects on the following day. With that said, I will attempt to extract the wisdom that can be found in the quote.

Now, the itchy butt can be considered a form of lack of self-cultivation. That can be, in a way, a metaphor, but someone with a high level of self-cultivation is indeed less likely to suffer from itchy buttocks because he takes care of his own body well enough.

The quote then mentions that, on the next morning, the man is supposed to have a foul-smelling digit. Now, I will not speculate on the causal link between the buttocks suffering from pruritus and the smell of the finger, except guess along the lines that it is related to the hand being stuck in the undergarments in an anaerobic and moist environment for itching. What could this symbolise? Well, the foul-smelling digit is probably another metaphor for lack of virtue - and this would symbolise, logically, that lack of virtue begets lack of virtue.

The very essence of the quote is found in Mencius 11.8:

The trees of the Niu mountain were once beautiful. Being situated, however, in the borders of a large State, they were hewn down with axes and bills - and could they retain their beauty? Still through the activity of the vegetative life day and night, and the nourishing influence of the rain and dew, they were not without buds and sprouts springing forth, but then came the cattle and goats and browsed upon them. To these things is owing the bare and stripped appearance of the mountain, and when people now see it, they think it was never finely wooded. But is this the nature of the mountain? And so also of what properly belongs to man; shall it be said that the mind of any man was without benevolence and righteousness? The way in which a man loses his proper goodness of mind is like the way in which the trees are denuded by axes and bills. Hewn down day after day, can it - the mind - retain its beauty? But there is a development of its life day and night, and in the calm air of the morning, just between night and day, the mind feels in a degree those desires and aversions which are proper to humanity, but the feeling is not strong, and it is fettered and destroyed by what takes place during the day. This fettering taking place again and again, the restorative influence of the night is not sufficient to preserve the proper goodness of the mind; and when this proves insufficient for that purpose, the nature becomes not much different from that of the irrational animals, and when people now see it, they think that it never had those powers which I assert. But does this condition represent the feelings proper to humanity? Therefore, if it receive its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not grow. If it lose its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not decay away. Confucius said, "Hold it fast, and it remains with you. Let it go, and you lose it. Its outgoing and incoming cannot be defined as to time or place." It is the mind of which this is said!

'If it lose its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not decay away.' The man have up his own self-cultivation, and could only go into a downward spiral from there. This is my interpretation of the quote.

Bravo!

And thank you for making me literally LOL with your informative post.

I actually posted my OP as a joke--something I first heard as a kid..you know, along with all those faux Chinese-authored stories like: "Brown sport on the Wall" by Hoo flung Poo?" Or "Yellow River" by I.P. Freeley.

But you actually found some philosophical merit in my psuedo-Confucious quote. Again...good job!

Haha, thanks and no problem. I knew you were joking, but I like a good joke, so I played along :)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 9:39:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 8:54:39 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2015 11:46:19 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)

When will the glorious Chinese Revolution occur to topple the oppressive communist regime and restore the Republic of China?

Now, a subject, in general, should be loyal to the ruler. We believe in transferring the filial piety with which we treat our parents to loyalty to the ruler.

'The filial piety with which the superior man serves his parents may be transferred as loyalty to the ruler. The fraternal duty with which he serves his elder brother may be transferred as submissive deference to elders. His regulation of his family may be transferred as good government in any official position. Therefore, when his conduct is thus successful in his inner (private) circle, his name will be established (and transmitted) to future generations.' (Book of Filial Piety 14)

'Thus, when occupying a high situation he is not proud, and in a low situation [the superior man] is not insubordinate.' (Doctrine of the Mean 28)

However, we do believe that the loyalty which subjects have towards their rulers is not unconditional. It is really a bargain that goes both ways. 'A prince should employ his minister according to according to the rules of propriety; ministers should serve their prince with faithfulness.' (Analects 3.19) Throughout history, emperors who ordered his subjects to join his court without employing the rules of propriety would often be refused service.

If the ruler treated his subjects very poorly, it was acceptable for them to hate their ruler. 'When the prince regards his ministers as his hands and feet, his ministers regard their prince as their belly and heart; when he regards them as his dogs and horses, they regard him as another man; when he regards them as the ground or as grass, they regard him as a robber and an enemy.' (Mencius 8.3)

In fact, faced with a highly tyrannical ruler, it was acceptable to revolt:

The king Xuan of Qi asked, saying, 'Was it so, that Tang banished Jie, and that king Wu smote Zhou?'

Mencius replied, 'It is so in the records.'

The king said, 'May a minister then put his sovereign to death?'

Mencius said, 'He who outrages the benevolence proper to his nature, is called a robber; he who outrages righteousness, is called a ruffian. The robber and ruffian we call a mere fellow. I have heard of the cutting off of the fellow Zhou, but I have not heard of the putting a sovereign to death, in his case.'
(Mencius 2.8)

However, there are caveats. The first one, obviously, that the ruler actually is tyrannical. The second one is that the rebels have the full support of the people. Here is an example of this full support:

'I have heard of one who with seventy li exercised all the functions of government throughout the kingdom. That was Tang. I have never heard of a prince with a thousand li standing in fear of others. It is said in the Book of History, As soon as Tang began his work of executing justice, he commenced with Ge. The whole kingdom had confidence in him. When he pursued his work in the east, the rude tribes on the west murmured. So did those on the north, when he was engaged in the south. Their cry was "Why does he put us last?" Thus, the people looked to him, as we look in a time of great drought to the clouds and rainbows. The frequenters of the markets stopped not. The husbandmen made no change in their operations. While he punished their rulers, he consoled the people. His progress was like the falling of opportune rain, and the people were delighted. It is said again in the Book of History, "We have waited for our prince long; the prince's coming will be our reviving!"' (Mencius 2.11)

So basically, when the Communist Party can topple is when a) it becomes tyrannical and incorrigible enough to warrant a violent overthrow (which is currently untrue) and b) there is a rebel force that gains the support of all the people.

'The love and protection of the people; with this there is no power which can prevent a ruler from attaining to it.' (Mencius 1.7)

So is that a "soon"?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 6:17:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 11:41:53 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Part II:

Now, how exactly did Confucius revolutionise ceremonies and li in general?

Well, what he did was that he emphasised the meaning behind ceremonies. He did not believe in conducting rites for their own sake, and indeed did not believe in ritualism. He saw ceremony as a way of enforcing virtue. This is most famously exemplified in the conversation with his disciple in Analects 17.21, on the three years of mourning (at the time, as a ritual, people had to stay by their parents' graves for three years after their death, and abstain from most activity):

Zai Wo asked about the three years' mourning for parents, saying that one year was long enough. "If the superior man abstains for three years from the observances of propriety, those observances will be quite lost. If for three years he abstains from music, music will be ruined. Within a year the old grain is exhausted, and the new grain has sprung up, and, in procuring fire by friction, we go through all the changes of wood for that purpose. After a complete year, the mourning may stop."

The Master said, "If you were, after a year, to eat good rice, and wear embroidered clothes, would you feel at ease?"

"I should," replied Wo.

The Master said, "If you can feel at ease, do it. But a superior man, during the whole period of mourning, does not enjoy pleasant food which he may eat, nor derive pleasure from music which he may hear. He also does not feel at ease, if he is comfortably lodged. Therefore he does not do what you propose. But now you feel at ease and may do it."

Zai Wo then went out, and the Master said, "This shows Yu's want of virtue. It is not till a child is three years old that it is allowed to leave the arms of its parents. And the three years' mourning is universally observed throughout the empire. Did Yu enjoy the three years' love of his parents?"

He did not force Zai Wo to perform the ceremony. He didn't want the ceremony to be carried out 'just because'; he wanted Zai Wo to carry it out with full understanding of why it was necessary, which is why he explained the entire meaning behind the rite to him, and even said he could go ahead if he felt at ease about it.

This was how Confucius revolutionised ceremony. Ceremony was, to him, a manner of reinforcing virtue. Through the discussion, he taught Zai Wo the proper attitude to take after the passing of a parent. This attitude stemmed from the gratitude that children have for the first three years of their life, in which they were in their parents' arms.

Now, let's fast-forward to modern society. The three year's mourning period has been around halved, and rather than staying by their graves, people still go on to their lives, except they are not allowed to party, go to weddings or other happy occasions. At the same time, filial piety is on the decline. People leave the country to do business and leave their parents in senior homes, only sending back money and rarely, if ever, visiting them. Some don't even send back money. It seems that more and more are no longer interested in serving their parents any more.

And that, my friend, is the importance of ceremonies.

Once more, everything Confucius said is a bare assertion. How would someone feel "at ease" after 3 years of mourning rather than 1? Because time does not affect sadness--it either goes or it doesn't.

And, finally, what is the point of filial piety? We're just back to begging the question--I ask you the importance of filial piety, you say because ceremonies are important, I ask you why ceremonies are important, you say filial piety is important.

If someone dies, one feels depressed, but a funeral makes no difference: I would feel equally sad if a person I love(d) dies/died, and a funeral was held. It would make no difference at all.

And another question: you've only illustrated the importance of funerals. What's the importance of ceremonial marriage?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 9:56:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 6:17:31 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/9/2015 11:41:53 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Part II:

Now, how exactly did Confucius revolutionise ceremonies and li in general?

Well, what he did was that he emphasised the meaning behind ceremonies. He did not believe in conducting rites for their own sake, and indeed did not believe in ritualism. He saw ceremony as a way of enforcing virtue. This is most famously exemplified in the conversation with his disciple in Analects 17.21, on the three years of mourning (at the time, as a ritual, people had to stay by their parents' graves for three years after their death, and abstain from most activity):

Zai Wo asked about the three years' mourning for parents, saying that one year was long enough. "If the superior man abstains for three years from the observances of propriety, those observances will be quite lost. If for three years he abstains from music, music will be ruined. Within a year the old grain is exhausted, and the new grain has sprung up, and, in procuring fire by friction, we go through all the changes of wood for that purpose. After a complete year, the mourning may stop."

The Master said, "If you were, after a year, to eat good rice, and wear embroidered clothes, would you feel at ease?"

"I should," replied Wo.

The Master said, "If you can feel at ease, do it. But a superior man, during the whole period of mourning, does not enjoy pleasant food which he may eat, nor derive pleasure from music which he may hear. He also does not feel at ease, if he is comfortably lodged. Therefore he does not do what you propose. But now you feel at ease and may do it."

Zai Wo then went out, and the Master said, "This shows Yu's want of virtue. It is not till a child is three years old that it is allowed to leave the arms of its parents. And the three years' mourning is universally observed throughout the empire. Did Yu enjoy the three years' love of his parents?"

He did not force Zai Wo to perform the ceremony. He didn't want the ceremony to be carried out 'just because'; he wanted Zai Wo to carry it out with full understanding of why it was necessary, which is why he explained the entire meaning behind the rite to him, and even said he could go ahead if he felt at ease about it.

This was how Confucius revolutionised ceremony. Ceremony was, to him, a manner of reinforcing virtue. Through the discussion, he taught Zai Wo the proper attitude to take after the passing of a parent. This attitude stemmed from the gratitude that children have for the first three years of their life, in which they were in their parents' arms.

Now, let's fast-forward to modern society. The three year's mourning period has been around halved, and rather than staying by their graves, people still go on to their lives, except they are not allowed to party, go to weddings or other happy occasions. At the same time, filial piety is on the decline. People leave the country to do business and leave their parents in senior homes, only sending back money and rarely, if ever, visiting them. Some don't even send back money. It seems that more and more are no longer interested in serving their parents any more.

And that, my friend, is the importance of ceremonies.

Once more, everything Confucius said is a bare assertion. How would someone feel "at ease" after 3 years of mourning rather than 1? Because time does not affect sadness--it either goes or it doesn't.
You appear to have misunderstood what Confucius was saying. Basically, the first and last times he said 'if it makes you feel at ease', he meant that 'if you don't feel guilty about not mourning for the full three years, then go ahead, don't.'
And, finally, what is the point of filial piety? We're just back to begging the question--I ask you the importance of filial piety, you say because ceremonies are important, I ask you why ceremonies are important, you say filial piety is important.
I thought I've demonstrated that in the post...? You know, by comparing modern society, with the weakening of the rite, to ancient society.
If someone dies, one feels depressed, but a funeral makes no difference: I would feel equally sad if a person I love(d) dies/died, and a funeral was held. It would make no difference at all.
The logic is:
Someone dies -> You feel depressed -> You want him to treat him better even though he's passed away -> You hold a funeral
And another question: you've only illustrated the importance of funerals. What's the importance of ceremonial marriage?
'The ceremony of marriage was intended to be a bond of love between two (families of different) surnames, with a view, in its retrospective character, to secure the services in the ancestral temple, and in its prospective character, to secure the continuance of the family line. Therefore the superior men, (the ancient rulers), set a great value upon it.' (Book of Rites 44.1)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 9:57:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 9:56:24 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/11/2015 6:17:31 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/9/2015 11:41:53 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Part II:

Now, how exactly did Confucius revolutionise ceremonies and li in general?

Well, what he did was that he emphasised the meaning behind ceremonies. He did not believe in conducting rites for their own sake, and indeed did not believe in ritualism. He saw ceremony as a way of enforcing virtue. This is most famously exemplified in the conversation with his disciple in Analects 17.21, on the three years of mourning (at the time, as a ritual, people had to stay by their parents' graves for three years after their death, and abstain from most activity):

Zai Wo asked about the three years' mourning for parents, saying that one year was long enough. "If the superior man abstains for three years from the observances of propriety, those observances will be quite lost. If for three years he abstains from music, music will be ruined. Within a year the old grain is exhausted, and the new grain has sprung up, and, in procuring fire by friction, we go through all the changes of wood for that purpose. After a complete year, the mourning may stop."

The Master said, "If you were, after a year, to eat good rice, and wear embroidered clothes, would you feel at ease?"

"I should," replied Wo.

The Master said, "If you can feel at ease, do it. But a superior man, during the whole period of mourning, does not enjoy pleasant food which he may eat, nor derive pleasure from music which he may hear. He also does not feel at ease, if he is comfortably lodged. Therefore he does not do what you propose. But now you feel at ease and may do it."

Zai Wo then went out, and the Master said, "This shows Yu's want of virtue. It is not till a child is three years old that it is allowed to leave the arms of its parents. And the three years' mourning is universally observed throughout the empire. Did Yu enjoy the three years' love of his parents?"

He did not force Zai Wo to perform the ceremony. He didn't want the ceremony to be carried out 'just because'; he wanted Zai Wo to carry it out with full understanding of why it was necessary, which is why he explained the entire meaning behind the rite to him, and even said he could go ahead if he felt at ease about it.

This was how Confucius revolutionised ceremony. Ceremony was, to him, a manner of reinforcing virtue. Through the discussion, he taught Zai Wo the proper attitude to take after the passing of a parent. This attitude stemmed from the gratitude that children have for the first three years of their life, in which they were in their parents' arms.

Now, let's fast-forward to modern society. The three year's mourning period has been around halved, and rather than staying by their graves, people still go on to their lives, except they are not allowed to party, go to weddings or other happy occasions. At the same time, filial piety is on the decline. People leave the country to do business and leave their parents in senior homes, only sending back money and rarely, if ever, visiting them. Some don't even send back money. It seems that more and more are no longer interested in serving their parents any more.

And that, my friend, is the importance of ceremonies.
(As an aside, now that I think of it, I probably subconsciously stole this line from JMK. I'm not sure which post it was, though.)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 9:59:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 9:56:24 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/11/2015 6:17:31 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/9/2015 11:41:53 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Part II:

Now, how exactly did Confucius revolutionise ceremonies and li in general?

Well, what he did was that he emphasised the meaning behind ceremonies. He did not believe in conducting rites for their own sake, and indeed did not believe in ritualism. He saw ceremony as a way of enforcing virtue. This is most famously exemplified in the conversation with his disciple in Analects 17.21, on the three years of mourning (at the time, as a ritual, people had to stay by their parents' graves for three years after their death, and abstain from most activity):

Zai Wo asked about the three years' mourning for parents, saying that one year was long enough. "If the superior man abstains for three years from the observances of propriety, those observances will be quite lost. If for three years he abstains from music, music will be ruined. Within a year the old grain is exhausted, and the new grain has sprung up, and, in procuring fire by friction, we go through all the changes of wood for that purpose. After a complete year, the mourning may stop."

The Master said, "If you were, after a year, to eat good rice, and wear embroidered clothes, would you feel at ease?"

"I should," replied Wo.

The Master said, "If you can feel at ease, do it. But a superior man, during the whole period of mourning, does not enjoy pleasant food which he may eat, nor derive pleasure from music which he may hear. He also does not feel at ease, if he is comfortably lodged. Therefore he does not do what you propose. But now you feel at ease and may do it."

Zai Wo then went out, and the Master said, "This shows Yu's want of virtue. It is not till a child is three years old that it is allowed to leave the arms of its parents. And the three years' mourning is universally observed throughout the empire. Did Yu enjoy the three years' love of his parents?"

He did not force Zai Wo to perform the ceremony. He didn't want the ceremony to be carried out 'just because'; he wanted Zai Wo to carry it out with full understanding of why it was necessary, which is why he explained the entire meaning behind the rite to him, and even said he could go ahead if he felt at ease about it.

This was how Confucius revolutionised ceremony. Ceremony was, to him, a manner of reinforcing virtue. Through the discussion, he taught Zai Wo the proper attitude to take after the passing of a parent. This attitude stemmed from the gratitude that children have for the first three years of their life, in which they were in their parents' arms.

Now, let's fast-forward to modern society. The three year's mourning period has been around halved, and rather than staying by their graves, people still go on to their lives, except they are not allowed to party, go to weddings or other happy occasions. At the same time, filial piety is on the decline. People leave the country to do business and leave their parents in senior homes, only sending back money and rarely, if ever, visiting them. Some don't even send back money. It seems that more and more are no longer interested in serving their parents any more.

And that, my friend, is the importance of ceremonies.

Once more, everything Confucius said is a bare assertion. How would someone feel "at ease" after 3 years of mourning rather than 1? Because time does not affect sadness--it either goes or it doesn't.
You appear to have misunderstood what Confucius was saying. Basically, the first and last times he said 'if it makes you feel at ease', he meant that 'if you don't feel guilty about not mourning for the full three years, then go ahead, don't.'
And, finally, what is the point of filial piety? We're just back to begging the question--I ask you the importance of filial piety, you say because ceremonies are important, I ask you why ceremonies are important, you say filial piety is important.
I thought I've demonstrated that in the post...? You know, by comparing modern society, with the weakening of the rite, to ancient society.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, and I don't think it implies causation at all. Lack of respect for ancestors you never knew doesn't *cause* lack of respect for parents.

If someone dies, one feels depressed, but a funeral makes no difference: I would feel equally sad if a person I love(d) dies/died, and a funeral was held. It would make no difference at all.
The logic is:
Someone dies -> You feel depressed -> You want him to treat him better even though he's passed away -> You hold a funeral

"You want to treat him better even though he's passed away" -- no, that isn't exactly why people hold funerals. Those are only for religious reasons.

And another question: you've only illustrated the importance of funerals. What's the importance of ceremonial marriage?
'The ceremony of marriage was intended to be a bond of love between two (families of different) surnames, with a view, in its retrospective character, to secure the services in the ancestral temple, and in its prospective character, to secure the continuance of the family line. Therefore the superior men, (the ancient rulers), set a great value upon it.' (Book of Rites 44.1)

Yes, but just because they want to *symbolize* a bond of love doesn't mean the ceremony is important. One can, for instance, say a civil union is a bond of love. And it is.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 10:01:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
And to clarify, I'm not saying people shouldn't marry, lol, I'm saying the Confucian interpretation of marriage v. civil union shouldn't make civil unions *banned*.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 9:42:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 9:59:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/11/2015 9:56:24 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/11/2015 6:17:31 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/9/2015 11:41:53 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Part II:

Now, how exactly did Confucius revolutionise ceremonies and li in general?

Well, what he did was that he emphasised the meaning behind ceremonies. He did not believe in conducting rites for their own sake, and indeed did not believe in ritualism. He saw ceremony as a way of enforcing virtue. This is most famously exemplified in the conversation with his disciple in Analects 17.21, on the three years of mourning (at the time, as a ritual, people had to stay by their parents' graves for three years after their death, and abstain from most activity):

Zai Wo asked about the three years' mourning for parents, saying that one year was long enough. "If the superior man abstains for three years from the observances of propriety, those observances will be quite lost. If for three years he abstains from music, music will be ruined. Within a year the old grain is exhausted, and the new grain has sprung up, and, in procuring fire by friction, we go through all the changes of wood for that purpose. After a complete year, the mourning may stop."

The Master said, "If you were, after a year, to eat good rice, and wear embroidered clothes, would you feel at ease?"

"I should," replied Wo.

The Master said, "If you can feel at ease, do it. But a superior man, during the whole period of mourning, does not enjoy pleasant food which he may eat, nor derive pleasure from music which he may hear. He also does not feel at ease, if he is comfortably lodged. Therefore he does not do what you propose. But now you feel at ease and may do it."

Zai Wo then went out, and the Master said, "This shows Yu's want of virtue. It is not till a child is three years old that it is allowed to leave the arms of its parents. And the three years' mourning is universally observed throughout the empire. Did Yu enjoy the three years' love of his parents?"

He did not force Zai Wo to perform the ceremony. He didn't want the ceremony to be carried out 'just because'; he wanted Zai Wo to carry it out with full understanding of why it was necessary, which is why he explained the entire meaning behind the rite to him, and even said he could go ahead if he felt at ease about it.

This was how Confucius revolutionised ceremony. Ceremony was, to him, a manner of reinforcing virtue. Through the discussion, he taught Zai Wo the proper attitude to take after the passing of a parent. This attitude stemmed from the gratitude that children have for the first three years of their life, in which they were in their parents' arms.

Now, let's fast-forward to modern society. The three year's mourning period has been around halved, and rather than staying by their graves, people still go on to their lives, except they are not allowed to party, go to weddings or other happy occasions. At the same time, filial piety is on the decline. People leave the country to do business and leave their parents in senior homes, only sending back money and rarely, if ever, visiting them. Some don't even send back money. It seems that more and more are no longer interested in serving their parents any more.

And that, my friend, is the importance of ceremonies.

Once more, everything Confucius said is a bare assertion. How would someone feel "at ease" after 3 years of mourning rather than 1? Because time does not affect sadness--it either goes or it doesn't.
You appear to have misunderstood what Confucius was saying. Basically, the first and last times he said 'if it makes you feel at ease', he meant that 'if you don't feel guilty about not mourning for the full three years, then go ahead, don't.'
And, finally, what is the point of filial piety? We're just back to begging the question--I ask you the importance of filial piety, you say because ceremonies are important, I ask you why ceremonies are important, you say filial piety is important.
I thought I've demonstrated that in the post...? You know, by comparing modern society, with the weakening of the rite, to ancient society.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, and I don't think it implies causation at all. Lack of respect for ancestors you never knew doesn't *cause* lack of respect for parents.
Weakening of the rite -> Less attention paid to filial piety, less social stigma for violating filial piety -> Lack of respect for parents
If someone dies, one feels depressed, but a funeral makes no difference: I would feel equally sad if a person I love(d) dies/died, and a funeral was held. It would make no difference at all.
The logic is:
Someone dies -> You feel depressed -> You want him to treat him better even though he's passed away -> You hold a funeral

"You want to treat him better even though he's passed away" -- no, that isn't exactly why people hold funerals. Those are only for religious reasons.
But it was why humans invented funerals in the first place (think about the passage from Mencius about the burial ceremony, i.e. funerals, that I showed you).
And another question: you've only illustrated the importance of funerals. What's the importance of ceremonial marriage?
'The ceremony of marriage was intended to be a bond of love between two (families of different) surnames, with a view, in its retrospective character, to secure the services in the ancestral temple, and in its prospective character, to secure the continuance of the family line. Therefore the superior men, (the ancient rulers), set a great value upon it.' (Book of Rites 44.1)

Yes, but just because they want to *symbolize* a bond of love doesn't mean the ceremony is important. One can, for instance, say a civil union is a bond of love. And it is.
In a wedding, you invite lots of members from both families to participate in the occasion, which stresses the fact that marriage is between two families and not two individuals. Civil unions defeat this purpose.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 9:44:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 9:39:39 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/9/2015 8:54:39 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2015 11:46:19 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/7/2015 11:13:37 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So I decided to do this AMA for a few reasons
-I want to clarify any confusions people might have regarding Confucianism (no pun intended)
-I want to promote Confucianism
-I want to get to 1000 posts more quickly

(You can guess which one is the main reason, lol.)

So... basically, ask me anything. My own biases will of course be present in my posts, and keep in mind that there are a handful of points about Confucianism that I do not entirely agree with (mainly regarding polygamy and taxation).

Ask away! :)

When will the glorious Chinese Revolution occur to topple the oppressive communist regime and restore the Republic of China?

Now, a subject, in general, should be loyal to the ruler. We believe in transferring the filial piety with which we treat our parents to loyalty to the ruler.

'The filial piety with which the superior man serves his parents may be transferred as loyalty to the ruler. The fraternal duty with which he serves his elder brother may be transferred as submissive deference to elders. His regulation of his family may be transferred as good government in any official position. Therefore, when his conduct is thus successful in his inner (private) circle, his name will be established (and transmitted) to future generations.' (Book of Filial Piety 14)

'Thus, when occupying a high situation he is not proud, and in a low situation [the superior man] is not insubordinate.' (Doctrine of the Mean 28)

However, we do believe that the loyalty which subjects have towards their rulers is not unconditional. It is really a bargain that goes both ways. 'A prince should employ his minister according to according to the rules of propriety; ministers should serve their prince with faithfulness.' (Analects 3.19) Throughout history, emperors who ordered his subjects to join his court without employing the rules of propriety would often be refused service.

If the ruler treated his subjects very poorly, it was acceptable for them to hate their ruler. 'When the prince regards his ministers as his hands and feet, his ministers regard their prince as their belly and heart; when he regards them as his dogs and horses, they regard him as another man; when he regards them as the ground or as grass, they regard him as a robber and an enemy.' (Mencius 8.3)

In fact, faced with a highly tyrannical ruler, it was acceptable to revolt:

The king Xuan of Qi asked, saying, 'Was it so, that Tang banished Jie, and that king Wu smote Zhou?'

Mencius replied, 'It is so in the records.'

The king said, 'May a minister then put his sovereign to death?'

Mencius said, 'He who outrages the benevolence proper to his nature, is called a robber; he who outrages righteousness, is called a ruffian. The robber and ruffian we call a mere fellow. I have heard of the cutting off of the fellow Zhou, but I have not heard of the putting a sovereign to death, in his case.'
(Mencius 2.8)

However, there are caveats. The first one, obviously, that the ruler actually is tyrannical. The second one is that the rebels have the full support of the people. Here is an example of this full support:

'I have heard of one who with seventy li exercised all the functions of government throughout the kingdom. That was Tang. I have never heard of a prince with a thousand li standing in fear of others. It is said in the Book of History, As soon as Tang began his work of executing justice, he commenced with Ge. The whole kingdom had confidence in him. When he pursued his work in the east, the rude tribes on the west murmured. So did those on the north, when he was engaged in the south. Their cry was "Why does he put us last?" Thus, the people looked to him, as we look in a time of great drought to the clouds and rainbows. The frequenters of the markets stopped not. The husbandmen made no change in their operations. While he punished their rulers, he consoled the people. His progress was like the falling of opportune rain, and the people were delighted. It is said again in the Book of History, "We have waited for our prince long; the prince's coming will be our reviving!"' (Mencius 2.11)

So basically, when the Communist Party can topple is when a) it becomes tyrannical and incorrigible enough to warrant a violent overthrow (which is currently untrue) and b) there is a rebel force that gains the support of all the people.

'The love and protection of the people; with this there is no power which can prevent a ruler from attaining to it.' (Mencius 1.7)

So is that a "soon"?

The reason I haven't yet replied to you is that, although I can't say for sure whether that will be a 'soon' (or whether that will even happen - Mr Xi might democratise China or something for all we know), there *is* a passage from Mencius saying how long an unbenevolent government can last, though I can't put my finger on where it was. If I find it, I'll reply to your post again.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...