The "Progress" of History

The "Progress" of History

While reading I had similar concerns to the other people who posted before me. Hegel contends that history unfolds according to the "'plan' of Providence." As Alyssa noted, there are many events in history which seem contradictory with a sense of Providence from an All-Good God. Why is it necessary for Hegel to believe that history is progressing positively. While many people would buy the notion that history unfolds according to God's plan, how would we explain the many apparent execeptions (war, genocide, disease, etc.)? If we do not buy Hegel's thesis of history, is this work worth reading at all?

Improvement?

Improvement?

Hegel asserts that history can be seen to be moving towards the actualization of the World-Spirit attaining its object - finding itself and contemplating itself in concrete-actuality. (25) My issue is that I can't buy the idea that the world is progressing towards some ultimate ideal. Where is this improvement? How are we better off than those of times past? It seems that killing, greed, and total self absorption have become more prevalent than at any point in history. I'm a little concerned that if we are progressing towards the ultimate actualization of the World-Spirit, that it's something that doesn't look like anything I want to be a part of.

The Great Man

The Great Man

A World-historical individual is not so unwise as to indulge a variety of wishes to divide his regards. He is devoted to the One Aim, regardless of all else. It is even possible that such men may treat other great, even sacred interests, inconsiderately; conduct which is indeed obnoxious to moral reprehension. But so mighty a form must trample down many an innocent flower-- crush to pieces many an object in its path (32).

I have a difficult time dealing with this idea of the great man. Hegel seems to be saying that the great man has some kind of innate instinct to act in great ways. If the one aim is the idea of freedom, and the idea of freedom is bound up in the nature of God's Will (20), is it God's Will to trample down innocent flowers? Perhaps I am confused with the definition of the "One Aim", but if I'm not, it seems that the problem of evil is creeping up into the discussion. Many would say that Hitler was a great man, but it seems hard to reconcile the execution of millions of people with Hitler's supposed devotion to the One Aim. I would find it hard to say that the Holocaust was in God's Will.

Does anyone else find the same problem?

The Validity of Philosophical and Teleological Histories - Thought Piece

The Validity of Philosophical and Teleological Histories - Thought Piece

“History in general is therefore the development of Spirit in Time, as Nature is the development of the Idea in Space” (72).

“Spirit—consuming the envelope of its existence—does not merely pass into another envelope, nor rise rejuvenescent from the ashes of its previous form; it comes forth exalted, glorified, a purer spirit. It certainly makes war upon itself—consumes its own existence; but in this very destruction it works up that existence into a new form, and each successive phase becomes in its turn a material, working on which it exalts itself to a new grade” (73).

“We have already discussed the final aim of this progression. The principles of the successive phases of Spirit that animate the Nations in a necessitated gradation, are themselves only steps in the development of the one universal Spirit, which through them elevates and completes itself to a self-comprehending totality” (78).

In the Philosophy of History, Hegel addresses the theme of history and its interpretation. Hegel’s ideas regarding history contrast those of Tolstoy’s but before I contrast the two, we need to examine the questions that Hegel’s writings elicit, namely the validity of philosophical and teleological histories.

Hegel’s thoughts ultimately raise the question regarding the definition of history. Often, the term history is understood so loosely that we fail to grasp how history is created. For many, history is the recounting of past events related to you by an authoritative textbook. Obviously, though, history has to be compiled and gathered. In his text, Hegel makes the distinction between the three types of history: original, reflective, and philosophic. Original history is written by actual observers who “simply transferred what was passing in the world around them” (1). Reflective history is authored by historians who are writing about the past. Finally, Hegel believes philosophical history is the highest. Hegel believes that a rational, philosophic mode can be used for historical interpretation to find that history is grounded in a Universal History with a spirit of Freedom. This Universal History is inherently rational, and by the use of reason, one can see that human societies, which are the expression of human reason, are moving towards states that more perfectly embody Freedom and the ideal of Universal History (16-17). As referenced in the three quotations on which I have based my thought piece, Hegel believes that history progresses along a timeline and that through antitheses, the ideal Universal History unfolds in our space and time towards perfection (77-78).

Hegel’s assertion, however, raises the following question: is his philosophic history valid and is it unnecessarily teleological? In the modern world, we recognize both scientific and rhetorical histories. Scientific histories work from empirical investigation of evidence and primary texts in an attempt to create an objective account of history. Pure objectivity is impossible, but the scientific method strives to be as close to objectivity as possible. Rhetorical history is an interpretive account. It is written for an audience with that culture’s views, beliefs, and sentiments in mind. Essentially it is a Nietzschean view of history. I have no doubt that Hegel pored carefully over his historical studies, but his assertion that societies and history itself is teleological and that states become more perfect seems untenable. Doesn’t a good historian avoid feeding interpretive, preconceived notions into the text? This significantly contrasts with Tolstoy’s view of history. Tolstoy viewed history as cold, aloof, and remote. History is the aggregate of all human actions, and it barrels along out of our own control. Those who attempt to control it, like Napoleon and other heroes, become enslaved and ultimately are deluded. History is unintelligible. For Hegel, however, history is completely knowable because it is inherently rational and follows rational, teleological principles. In fact, Hegel believes that great men affect historical events because they are in tune with the Universal Spirit, and this history has a teleological purpose. Instead of writing a philosophical history, has Hegel written a mythology instead?

498 Words Excluding Internal Citations

Passions?

Passions?

....we may affirm absolutely that nothing great in the World has been accomplished without passion.
--23

The History of the World is not the theatre of happiness. Periods of happiness are blank pages in it, for they are periods of harmony - periods when the antithesis is in abeyance.
--26-7

Hegel corrects the meaning of the word passion on p. 23-4 to mean not individual self-interest but rather a "particular bent of character" interested in helping the community at large (24). Does this mean that his criticism of passion and subsequent lament (20-21) does not apply? What implications does all this (the second quote, and Matt's TP) have for happiness and the individual? What do passions have to do with the actualization of the soul or of the general will (cf. 38)?

Superfluous Thought Piece: A Real Left Turn(?)

Superfluous Thought Piece: A Real Left Turn(?)

In Hegel’s The Philosophy of History, we find a completely different attitude towards individuality from what we have recently encountered in the Eastern classics. There is a similar base line to the Eastern works, however almost immediately Hegel steers in the opposite direction.

On page 17 of the introduction, Hegel reveals that the “essence of Spirit is Freedom,” and Spirit and Freedom become his topics for the first half of the introduction. He continues, and explains that Spirit is self-contained existence–self-consciousness. This evokes the emphasis on the individual that was so prominent in the Eastern works, although for the East it was not an indulgence of the individual but rather a disconnect from everything not the individual, including passions, etc. He discounts this similarity, however, when on 18 he asserts, “The Orientals have not attained the knowledge that Spirit–Man as such–is free; and because they do not know this they are not free.” From there, the similarities cease and the disparities increase as Hegel takes his individuality in a completely new direction in terms of the course readings.

On 20, Hegel discusses the means of Freedom’s development, contending that action is the drive. Action is produced by the things that the Eastern philosophies strove to deny: passions and desires. This selfish action is the groundwork for all action, betterment, and eventually freedom, in dire contrast with the East, which only achieves freedom by denying passion and desire, thereby escaping the grasp of life and reincarnation, and reaching sublime nirvana in the soul through death.

Hegel propounds on 25 that when individual passions and actions come together in the naturally forming societies of humanity, they combine to create not private but social desires, such as Reason, Justice, and Liberty, all which hold much more weight than the individual claims. This union of individual passions forms the basis of the State, and likewise forms Law. He further insists that the State and Law are the only channels through which self-consciousness, Spirit, and Freedom can truly be attained.

On 39, Hegel explains “Truth is the Unity of the universal and subjective Will; and the Universal is to be found in the State, in its laws.” The Universal is the objective will, due to forming through the combination of multiple individual wills resulting in the majority (therefore subjective, hypothetically) will’s expression. True Freedom, Spirit, and self-consciousness are reached by following these laws because in doing so the individual is being true to itself and its personal passions and desires. These passions and desires expressed in the majority will are also supposedly the best, concerning Reason, Justice, and Liberty due to the human propensity, especially when acting as a society, towards the betterment of that society, i.e. towards the greater good.

This seems to be in stark contrast to everything discussed in the Eastern classics. The duty of the individual is transformed from one of self-purification to universal betterment, and simultaneously self-betterment. A shift from concentration on the soul in the afterlife to the soul in the present life is also seen. These differences, or apparent differences, raise two questions in my mind. First, can we see the disparities as results of utterly different eras and consequently different thought? Second, is the disparity really as great as it seems? Or, can we conclude that the explicit social benefits resulting from Hegel’s system were in fact, at least in part, implicit in one or all of the Eastern philosophies that we read?

547

History as Spirit: Can we understand it?

History as Spirit: Can we understand it?

"The remark next in order is, that each particular National genius is to be treated as only One Individual in the process of Universal History. For that history is the exhibition of the divine, absolute development of Spirit in its highest forms--that gradation by which it attains its truth and consciousness of itself" (53).

Hegel's comments related to "great men" or "National geniuses" in history are interesting when viewed in relation to Tolstoy's criticism of the "great man". While Hegel does not seem to completely obliterate the importance of "National geniuses" as Tolstoy does, he certainly does emphasize that they are only important in that they are related to the historical process as a whole. Regardless of how Hegel's views on the "great man" relate to Tolstoy's, I am primarily interested in whether Hegel believes that we can grasp or understanding the meaning of history in some capacity. Obviously, Tolstoy is very skeptical about our ability to understand history. Does Hegel's description of history as an "exhibition of the divine, absolute development of Spirit" likewise imply that we are unable to fully understand it?

In Conclusion

In Conclusion

With "The Teaching of a Compassionate Buddha", we have reached the end of the Eastern section of the seminar. I was wondering if we could draw any pervasive themes out of all of these texts (in particular, themes that we did not find in any non-Eastern texts we have read). Also, what were the major differences between these texts? And which text did we in the end find must fulfilling and interesting?

Thought Piece... Doubting our Religion: Worth It?

Thought Piece... Doubting our Religion: Worth It?

In any religion, be it Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism or Judaism, people have questions and doubts towards the most controversial and deep topics one can think of. Life and death, the afterlife, the soul, the body, the mind, Gods, Lords, and Kings; these are all topics of conversation among those who doubt and questions the teaching and laws of ones own religion. It is perfectly normal and fair to question what we don’t fully understand. After all, being in PLS, we are taught that the “unexamined life is not worth living”, so there obviously would be no problem with questioning something if a proper answer was not given to us. This is exactly what happens in The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha. We learn all about the three sections, and twelve divisions that properly lead us towards nirvana, and steer us away from a meager life. The teachings that we learn from Buddha convey peace, love of humanity, and distaste for material possession. Ultimately nirvana is the goal, “Which is to be conceived not as a sheer extinction but as a state naturally produced by the destruction of tanha—a state marked on the positive side by a sense of liberation, inward peace and strength, insight into truth, the joy of complete oneness with reality, and love toward all creatures in the universe.”  This ultimate prize is one that seems to be quite pleasurable, but there must be certain questions along the way. There must be doubts in the minds of those who follow Buddha, just as there are doubts in the mind of those who follow Jesus, Mohammed, and any other prophet or disciple of God.

            In the section entitled, Questions Not Tending to Edification, we hear concerns towards Buddha’s position on metaphysics. “These theories which the blessed one has left unexplained has set aside and rejected—that the world is eternal, that the world is not eternal, that the world is finite, that the world is infinite, that the soul and body are identical, that the soul is one thing and the body another…” Questions of this sort are common among those who truly want to understand their religion. The afterlife, after all, is a very important part of one’s life, and ultimately their existence. We hear some frustration from the narrator when he says, “And the fact that the Blessed One does not explain them to me does not please me, nor suit me. There fore I will draw near to the Blessed One and inquire of him concerning this matter.” We see the narrator s in a sense, giving his religion a chance. We see that if he does get answers to his questions he will “live a religious life under the Blessed One”. “But if he does not get the answers he is looking for, “I will abandon religious training and return to the lower life of a layman.”

It seems as though this man is looking for immediate results to his questions about the metaphysical and his faith in general. This is something that I find hard to understand. I live a life that gives me gradual answers towards questions about my faith. I find questions like the ones that are asked on pages thirty-two and thirty-three are answered over a lifetime. Why do answers of such a complicated and deep matter want to be answered so quickly? How is this different from our own religion? The teachings of the Buddha steer away from eagerness, it seems as though the narrator lacks any sort of patience, and because of that he is ready to give up everything he knows. Is this worth it? Or is it better to understand your religion over a lifetime? Would it be better to know the answers to any question about your religion immediately? I believe that this gets rid of any concept of faith, and faith seems to be the most important part of the Catholic religion. We can find a million reasons not to believe in something, and sure there are answers that we will never know. But is that worth giving up all your faith for?

 

 

Word Count: 699

Compassion

Compassion

What exactly is the compassion that the Buddha preaches? Is it an empathy that is only expressed inwardly, or does the compassion manifest itself in works?

Life and Death in Earnestness

Life and Death in Earnestness

"Earnestness is the path of Nirvana; thoughtlessness the path of death. Those who are in earnest do not die; those who are thoughtless are as if dead already." (Bk II, Chpt II [p54])

"A bhikshu who delights in earnestness, who looks with fear on thoughtlessness, cannot fall away from his perfect state - he is close to Nirvana." (Bk II, Chpt II [p55])

When I first read this I was slightly confused, because I thought immediately of the teachings (or at least what I had gathered) that the idea was you want to die and be done, not die and live and die and live (reincarnation, in short), so Nirvana being equated with not dying and thoughtlessness with death seemed slightly backwards. Then I realized I had to think of it not in corporeal terms, but rather in terms of the soul. This different view was easily reconcilable for me with the Nirvana and living half; when living in earnestness, close to Nirvana, the soul lives on forever in it's perfect state, close to Nirvana, etc. However when I tried to apply it to the thoughtless - dead - reincarnation part, I still had some trouble. If a way to get out of the cycle of reincarnation is to live earnestly, then thoughtlessness keeps one in the reincarnation cycle. Those who are thoughtless, though, are dead already, and so in this cycle they are in a perpetual death, never living in life. Is life therefore, inaptly named? In this system, do we not "live" until we die? I know the point is to get out of the cycle, but this seems to deny any value to living, except as a way out of living... Or maybe I am reading too much into this. Your thoughts / help?

caitlin's question channeled through her professor

caitlin's question channeled through her professor

I am sending this question in for Caitlin (kindred soul), who is having technical issues with her computer. Here is her question for the class:

The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha

The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism state that:

“existence is unhappiness

unhappiness is caused by selfish craving

selfish craving can be destroyed

selfish craving can be destroyed by following the eight fold path” (28).

The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism were not revealed to Siddharta Gautama through revelation. Rather, through an analysis of the lessons we have learned from our experiences, human beings can eradicate suffering from their lives, without the help of a deity.

Christianity relies on a deity to grant us grace in order to eradicate the suffering from our lives. Is a religion without a deity still a religion? Is Buddhism more like a self-help program for living a cleaner, less cluttered life?

Violence and Order/Justice

Violence and Order/Justice

Coming off of our discussion about sacred duty and violence in the Gita, I was intrigued by the story of Prince Dirghayu that the Buddha told during a schism among his disciples (p. 39-43). En route to his execution, the King Dirgheti's imparts some final advice to his son:

O Dirghayu, my son! Do not look long, do not look short, for not by hatred is hatred appeased; hatred is appeased by not-hatred only! (p.40)

Even when Prince Dirghayu has the opportunity to kill the king that had his father executed, he does not do so because of his father's advice that hatred can only breed more hatred. The oath between the Prince and the king not to do any harm to each other eventually restores order and justice because the king gives the prince back his father's kingdom. This story seemed to me extremely similar to the Gita. We have a son who must take a stand to defend his father's kingdom from injustice. In the Gita, Krishna says that it is Arjuna's sacred duty to fight his brothers. In this story of the prince, he is rewarded for making peace out of hatred. Can these two religious teachings be reconciled?

I Really Want to Know You, I Really Want to See You, Lord

I Really Want to Know You, I Really Want to See You, Lord

In the most recent reading of the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna asks Krishna to reveal himself in his true form. In the Eleventh Teaching, Krishna complies, and he reveals himself in a magnificent yet frightening form. In Judaism and early Christianity, a direct encounter in which one laid eyes on God would result in death because human beings are incapable of understanding and processing the power of a deity. I am reminded of Tim's thoughts last week, in which he wondered what was the significance of choosing to have a dialogue between a mortal and a deity. I believe that discussion must continue for this week as Krishna not only reveals himself in dialogue but also in form as well. What are we to make of this?

Do you choose your destiny?

Do you choose your destiny?

“He really sees who sees

that all actions are performed

by nature alone and that the self

is not an actor” (p 118)

“When one is free of individuality

and his understanding is untainted

even if he kills these people,

he does not kill and is not bound” (p 145)

The Bhagavad-Gita contains many parallels to what is taught in the Western tradition. The human soul is trying to reach salvation with the help of one immutable God, and though the path may differ slightly the end goal is to reach perfect union with the God and all other creatures of the world. The question also arises of fate versus free will. Krishna tells Arjuna: “When it sustains acts/of mind, breath, and senses/ through discipline without wavering,/ resolve is lucid” (p 147). Lucidity and lucid knowledge, according to Krishna, means that one understands that the infinite spirit and has reached the highest level, and thus salvation. In order to reach salvation, one must have the understanding of the self as separate from the body, and the way to do this is to discipline the body and allow it only the amounts of food, breaths, etc. necessary for basic survival while engaging in contemplation. Each man seems to have the ability to control these actions, though it takes practice and is difficult

The preceding quotes, however, indicate that man has no control over his actions and the wise man is one who merely understands this. The Christian tradition teaches that each man is wholly responsible for his actions, and the fate of their soul rests on these actions. The conventional Western understanding of morality relies on a comprehension of the morality of actions and the ability to freely choose to commit or not commit a certain deed. Is there a morality at stake in this text, then, if people have no agency over there own actions?

The question also arises concerning the individual’s ability to reach the understanding necessary for salvation on their own. In the case of Arjuna, Krishna presents himself and explains how one ought to live his life, and for what reasons. The Christian tradition teaches that God instills grace into the human beings that understand his way and will achieve salvation, but Krishna is not clear about his role in the saving of souls. Can an individual intuitively come to the conclusion that one must meditate in order to understand the truth? Problems arise when a group of people must have access to a certain teaching in order to know the right way of life. Though Krishna says that even the sinner can reach salvation, is there a certainty that all individuals will be given the chance through exposure to Krishna? If an individual cannot control his individual actions, how can he control his salvation? Are certain people simply fated to be saved?

Word Count: 426

Krishna Christ?

Krishna Christ?

          Reading the Bhagavad Gita through Christian eyes is an interesting experience. For two religions that seemingly have many differences, the essential tenets of the Gita seem remarkably similar to Christianity.

         There are, of course, obvious differences. The idea of reincarnation is the one that most obviously sticks out. Many could argue that Krishna’s insistence that Arjuna go to war could also be against the basic tenets of Christianity. However, war and violence pervade the Old Testament, and many wars have been fought by Christians who believed that the Bible justified their actions. Specific instructions from God, as in the case of Abraham, have been far stranger than fighting a war against ones kinsmen.

         Krishna advocates a love of every living thing because of the recognition that each living thing is connected to the greater spirit, something that sounds a lot like the Christian idea of loving living things because they are God’s creation (End of Chapter XIII). Krishna’s discussion of meditation makes it sound very similar to forms of Christian prayer. Even Krishna’s revelation to Arjuna(Chapter XI) is reminiscent of God’s revelation to Moses, and, perhaps if we stretch, Jesus’ revelations to the apostles.

         Perhaps the most interesting parallel is the fact that each religion essentially ends up with the same moral system and instructions for how a person should act. In Christianity, we love God and thus are led to love each other. Our love of God is what motivates us to act justly. In Krishna’s moral system the idea is essentially the same. We are to meditate upon Krishna and allow that to guide our actions.

         At the beginning of Chapter XVI, Krishna offers a list of characteristics necessary for leading one to eternal life. Piety, humbleness, truthfulness, slowness to wrath, charity, tenderness towards all that suffer, a contended heart, patience, fortitude, purity, an unvengeful spirit are all listed. All of these are characteristics also sought by Christianity.

         If Christians are unintentionally following the way of Krishna, what does this mean if Krishna’s religion is correct and ours isn’t? In Christianity, acceptance of Jesus as God’s son is a necessary tenet of gaining eternal life, however with Krishna’s view of incarnation, Christians may be sitting in a relatively good position.

         Although Krishna does say that those who pray to other gods will “fall back to earth”(Chapter IX), it also seems that living the Christian way of life may prepare us for a better position to start from in our next life. We already have the way of living down, and thus once we focus our sights on Krishna we will be set for eternal life. In all honesty, we might have the right way to go about it, because in Christianity we only get one chance. If this way doesn’t succeed, at least Krishna will put us in a better situation next time around to gain eternal life, but if Christianity and the Christian God are correct, then we have nothing to worry about.

Approximately 470 words

Arjuna: The chosen one.

Arjuna: The chosen one.

This is a comment to Rob's post.

As I was reading, the same question cropped up in my mind. I noted that in 11.52 Krishna says that the other gods want to see his totality but Arjuna is the only one to have ever been granted this vision.

Krishna says in 16.5 that Arjuna is of the divine half of men, but I don't feel that explains why he is granted the vision of Krishna.

Krishna constantly reiterates that only those men who are disciplined and completely devoted to him can really have a chance of seeing him, but doesn't the fact that Arjuna contests having to kill his kinsman reveal that he has not reached the level of discipline and devotion required to merit a vision? In fact, it is not until after he sees the totality of Krishna that Arjuna professes his complete devotion.

So if Arjuna doesn't feel at one with the will of Krishna, and cannot separate the action of killing his kinsmen from some feeling of remorse (dare I say, passion?) how does he become the chosen one?

Who is Arjuna?

Who is Arjuna?

My overall question for this reading is why did Krishna choose to reveal himself to Arjuna? Was there some special trait or characteristic of Arjuna so that Krishna choose him? My question was prompt by 11.47, in his Krishna talks about revealing his higher form to "grace" Arjuna. In other ethical stories deities usually appear to a person because of their special devotion or worship of the deity, i.e. Moses in the Old Testament. I guess it is difficult to understand this context as we are so unfamiliar with the territory and scope of the Gita. Does anyone know much about the Arjuna of Hindu theology, or is he only in this one Hindu book?

Free from individuality?

Free from individuality?

What is the distinction between the individual and the self, and why is one apparently negative and the latter positive?

Three passages apply to this: 16.18 (p. 129), 18.17 (p. 137), and 18.53,57-59 (p. 142-3). In the last he says:

If I am in your thought, by my grace
you will transcend all dangers;
but if you are deafened
by individuality, you will be lost.

Your resolve is futile
if a sense of individuality
makes you think, "I shall not fight"--
nature will compel you to.

In this passage, we see the stark contrast Krishna describes between individuality on the one side, and Krishna, duty, grace, etc. on the other. In 18.17 and 18.53 he speaks of 'freedom from individuality' in the senses of not being responsible for one's actions and of being one with Krishna, respectively and in a way which relates the two. It would seem that individuality is something very unattractive to Krishna, and in his glowing encomium of the demonic man, Krishna describes individuality as one in a list of traits:

Submitting to individuality, power,
arrogance, desire, and anger,
they* hate me and revile me
in their own bodies, as in others.
--16.18 (p. 129) *the demonic men

Miller draws a distinction between the self (atman, p. 162) and individuality (ahamkara, p. 158), saying that the latter is akin to individual identity whereas the former is "the animate, spiritual principle of life." The result being, for Miller, that "implicitly this means that liberation from empirical existence involves the negation of individuality.

I think I spoke without proper foresight when I spoke today on this; I didn't mean to spend time on how this can be spun one way or the other. I do think this topic could be useful, however, to come to a fuller understanding of, first, what exactly it is the Gita considers to be essential to the nature of humans, and second, what the end result or ideal would look like for a disciple, especially since now we have more resources regarding Krishna's opinion on the self and individuality. It could also be useful in light of Tolstoy's opinion on the individual will and in anticipation of other authors' opinions on individuality; last and not least, Krishna's words above put an interesting caveat onto our discussion today regarding the "individualistic" nature of this philosophy, in the sense that it is "soul-oriented" and not "society-oriented."

Existence: United Divisions

Existence: United Divisions

"Know that through lucid knowledge one sees in all creatures a single, unchanging existence, undivided within its divisions" (138, 20).

I had a lot of trouble understanding this passage. In particular, I don't understand what Krishna means when he says that the single, unchanging existence is "undivided within its divisions". In general terms, Krishna seems to be referring to the divine, pervasive essence of the infinite spirit. In fact, the notion of something that is united yet has divisions remains me of our recent discussion topic in Christian Theological Traditions: the Trinity. Is Krishna simply trying to say that in spite of their physical separation, all existing things are one in so far as they contain some part of the divine essence of the infinite spirit?

So-crates

So-crates

When reading the Bhagavad-Gita, I was struck how similar the structure was the the Platonic dialogues. Both texts involve one character (Socrates or Krishna) explaining a philosophical system by answering the questions of another character. I think that we would all agree that this concept generally works for Plato, but how do we feel about using it for a more spiritual text? Is it permissible to have a sacred scripture that forces the diety to explain the spiritual system to a mere mortal? Or does this text seem more sacred and legitimate, because it tries to explain this rationally through the traditional method used in antiquity?

Maybe I get this part?

Maybe I get this part?

"Abandoning attachment to fruits/of action, always content, independent,/he does nothing at all/even when he engages in action" (4.17, p54)

Ok so I think I may finally get something in this. This quote, which is an echo of earlier teachings, is one of the first things I actually think I understand in these Eastern writers. I understand this as saying that when gain is not sought, when things are done for others and for the common good, it's not like acting but more just living 'the way,' because acting implies doing something out of the ordinary and if one is living the way then everything he does is ordinary so there is no action... or something. So maybe it's harder to explain than to understand, but my question is this; am I actually understanding at all? Or am I missing some different point that is much more complex? Or am I just making too big of a deal out of this "revelation" and I need to try to understand the more important stuff, which is by nature of being more important, harder to "get?" I'm just wary of my lack of confusion...

When reading the Bhagavad-Gita, I found the introduction to be extremely helpful. The background information that was provided about a religion and faith that I was unfamiliar with was eye opening, and informative. In particular, something that was said quite early on the in the intro caught my attention:

"The dramatic moral crisis that is central to the Bhagavad-Gita has inspired centuries of Indian philosophers and practical men of wisdom, as well as Western thinkers such as Thoreau, Emerson, and Eliot. Interpretations of the Gita, as it is commonly referred to in India, are as varied as the figures who have commented on it."

The "Moral Crisis" that is referred to is something that I am still trying to figure out. It could have a variety of meanings in my mind. The title of the book alone, "Krishna's counsel in time of war" seems to be a moral crisis within itself. Authors like Thoreau, Emerson and Eliot do point to the ides of internal conflict through external pains, how might have the Gita pointed them in the right direction? We see later in the introduction, on page 16, that the idea of an "Oriental" learning style was not taken lightly...

"I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia"

Although it might have taken a while for the Western culture to warm up to the idea of these thoughts, it truly did benefit some of our best thinkers. The idea of the internal struggle that is portrayed through the Gita is noted to be extremely valuable...How has the text changed and molded the way we think about modern political and philosophical thought? What are its impacts in society, and how might we use this text to our own advantage?

(I know, broad question, but I am curious as to the Gita's true effect on our society!) 

Anybody else want a wish-granting cow?

Anybody else want a wish-granting cow?

I'd love to talk about the philosophy in this text, but I'd also like to talk about it as a piece of literature. What do we make of all the characters in the text, as well as the context, the layout of the story with its exposition that leads to the climax and the eventual resolution, and all of the rhetorical flourishes? We largely skipped over the literary aspects of our last two Eastern texts, but this one is such an intentionally beautiful piece of writing that I think a discussion of its literary elements might help our discussion of the philosophy.

The Implications of a Morality Revolving around Sacred Duty

The Implications of a Morality Revolving around Sacred Duty

I am concerned about the possible implications for a morality that revolves around sacred duty. Does this type of morality make all good and evil action relative?

Disciplined by understanding
one abandons both good and evil deeds;
so arm yourself for discipline–
discipline is skill in actions.
(2nd Teaching, 50)

If a man's sole responsibility is to sacred duty, then it seems to me that anyone who commits his actions (or crimes) as a sacrifice for Krishna is a "man of virtue." I am really troubled about the passage below. Does this type of war philosophy and the heavy importance on discipline to sacred duty open the door to a whole host of problems of individual responsibility? Or is this just my Western perspective getting the better of me and not being able to understand how in the Gita morality and religion are inextricably intertwined?

If he is devoted solely to me,
even a violent criminal
must be deemed a man of virtue,
for his resolve is right.
(9th Teaching, 30)

Even a violent criminal?

Even a violent criminal?

The motivating force of the plot is the question of whether Arjuna ought to engage his kinsmen in battle. Throughout his lamentation to Krishna, Arjuna appeals to the notion of evil: "Evil will haunt us if we kill them" (p. 28). It seemed strange to me that Krishna so directly and unequivocally incited Arjuna to rise to war (p. 31). By way of explaining this, he assures Arjuna that since "Death is certain for anyone born," (p.35), he has no reason to be saddened. It seems that through detachment and devotion to Krishna, the aspiring yogi can remove his or her self-interest yet still partake in action: as a result, he or she becomes more in tune with the whole idea that "Death is certain" and can act in fulfillment of his or her duty.

Nevertheless there is something curious in all this. Krishna seems keen to stress that not only war, but also violence and evil are extraneous to the issue of what one should do:

Even if you are the most evil
of all sinners,
you will cross over all evil
on the raft of knowledge.

Just as a flaming fire reduces
wood to ashes, Arjuna,
so the fire of knowledge
reduces all actions to ashes.
(p.56)

If he is devoted solely to me,
even a violent criminal
must be deemed a man of virtue,
for his resolve is right.
(p.89)

Why doesn't the meaning of being devoted to Krishna preclude being evil? Sometimes it appears that it does:

But when they cease from evil
and act with virtue, they devote
themselves to me, firm in their vows,
freed from the delusion of duality.
(p. 77)

The duality he is referring to here is between desire and hatred. Yet, in defying that duality, he paints another one, namely between evil and virtue. People who do not take refuge in Krishna are "vile, deluded sinners" (p.75).

So how is it that it makes sense to say that those who do not follow Krishna are sinners, yet that there can be sinners who follow Krishna? In other words, how can it be that "a violent criminal" could ever be a disciple of Krisha, especially given that relinquishing the fruits of actions is one of the keys to discipline? Does the idea of a detached criminal make any sense, especially given the tranquil mind of the yogi (p. 66-67)?

The answer to these questions might lie in the notion of dharma, or sacred duty. Krishna seems to understand his role, i.e. "to protect men of virtue / and destroy men who do evil, / to set the standard of sacred duty" (p. 52), as working against chaos and for order. Miller suggests that Arjuna's victory would be "the triumph of order over chaos" (p. 5). Furthermore, Miller notes that dharma, meaning "that which sustains," need not be universal, but can vary according to class and over factors (p. 3). Hence it would be possible, if it were the criminal's dharma to be such, for a violent criminal to be detached from his actions and submitting to the will of Krishna.

But there is still something that does not quite add up here. Why should it be harmonious or ordered for a violent criminal to act as such? for war to occur? If I were Arjuna, I would wonder: even if I became disinterested in the fruits of my actions; even if I were disciplined; even if as a result I act only in accordance with sacred duty; even if all of these people would die anyway, how is it that it is my sacred duty to kill?

(Fixed: minus the quotes and the citations, it's roughly 450 now.)

To Act or Not to Act!

To Act or Not to Act!

We encountered the concept of "non-action" once before in The Way of Lao-Tzu. In that context, non-action was essential to preserving a harmony with all things. One who acted "unnaturally" or "with force" upset this harmony, and for this reason, the followers of Lao-Tzu strove to act only in a way "flowing with the moment." In The Bhavagad-Gita, we encounter a different understanding of "action" v. "non-action". Early on in the poem, Krishna explains to Arjuna that:

The worlds would collapse 

if I did not perform action; 

I would create disorder in society, 

living beings would be destroyed. 

(3.24) 

While action upset universal harmony in The Way of Lao-Tzu, action preserves harmony in The Bhavagad-Gita. This point is elaborated upon later on in the poem when Arjuna asks Krishna which is more appropriate, action or renunciation of action. In response to this question, Krishna explains: 

Renunciation and discipline is action

both effect good beyond measure; 

but of the two, discipline in action

surpasses the renunciation of action. 

(5.2) 

Krishna clearly advocates action over renunciation of action because it is through action that one fulfills his duty, or dharma. Than again, Krishna does not condemn the renunciation of action. In regards to the renunciation of action, Krishna comments:

Armed with discipline, he purifies

and subdues the self, masters his senses, 

united himself with the self of all creatures; 

even when he acts, he is not defiled. 

Seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, 

eating, walking, sleeping, breathing, 

the disciplined man who knows reality 

should think, "I do nothing at all."

(5.8-5.9)

Krishna acknowledges that there is value in the renunciation of action. In what way, if any, is the renunciation of action in The Bhavagad-Gita related to the concept of "non-action" found in The Way of Lao-Tzu? What does the inclusion v. omission of action as the stabilizing force of the universal harmony tell us about each text's worldview/goal for humanity? Does the presence of a worshipped divinity in The Bhavagad-Gita at all have to do with why action is advocated so strongly?   

Lao Tzu

Lao Tzu

"In Ancient times those who practiced Tao well
Did not seek to enlighten the people, but to make them ignorant.
People are difficult to govern because they have too much knowledge.
Therefore he who rules the state through knowledge is a robber of the state;
He who rules a state not through knowledge is a blessing to the state" (Number 65).

I find this passage is particularly puzzling and counterintuitive. Any student of political science would argue that it is necessary for the individual to be educated so that he or she can function within the society. I should hope that the people would want their leader also to rule with knowledge. Does Lao Tzu actually believe that knowledge is detrimental for a government? Or is this a different use of the word knowledge? Does he actually mean cleverness or deceit? Or a knowledge that is subject to corruption?

Jim

Oh, Tao

Oh, Tao

I found this reading to be quite puzzling. I think it's interesting that it's intended to be an instructional text, and yet its very vague and contains many paradoxes. I guess my question then is if someone picks up this book does it give enough information to be used alone as a guide? Or is some preconceived idea of the Tao and how to achieve it necessary also?

The Dao of Dr. Faust

The Dao of Dr. Faust

Kind of building off of Mike's post, I find this notion of "nonbeing," "non-contention," "nonaction," etc. confusing.

First, we've got the motif of the newborn child: cf. 20 "I alone differ from others / in that I cherish my nurturing mother," 52 and 55. It seems that the "Dao," or "nonbeing," much like the empty space inside a vessel or the "formless matter" of Genesis, is the "mother" of existence, and by cleaving to that, the sage finds weakness (in a good way (in his opinion)).

Second, we've got the motif of the weak conquering the strong, even if "the world" doesn't recognize it: cf. 43 ("The softest of the world / overide the hardest of the world /.../ the world can rarely grasp these"), 41, 61 (the "great countries must yield" one), and so on and so on; there are many good examples. For Lao Tzu, even great things are struck down, and it is better to engage in this idea of "wu wei."

A quote from 46 enlightened me a little to his possible goal in all this: "of misfortunes, none is greater than discontentment." Certainly, an attitude of submission and inaction is an excellent path to lack of discontent, if that's where you want to go.

I think it might be worthwhile to contrast this philosophy to that in Goethe's Faust. If you know anything about the relentless activity with which Goethe lived his life, you would be predisposed to find his views in contrast with those of Mr. Tzu; but Faust will confirm it: "If I ever recline, calmed, on a bed of sloth," says Faust, "You may destroy me then and there" (Goethe, Kaufmann, p. 183) And again: "For restless activity proves a man" (p. 187) and again: "This is the highest wisdom that I own, / The best that mankind ever knew: / Freedom and life are earned by those alone / Who conquer each day anew" (p.469), and of course, the excellent passage which reads:

The reeling whirl I seek, the most painful excess,
Enamored hate and quickening distress.
Cured from the craving to know all, my mind
Shall not henceforth be closed to any pain,
...
And thus let my own self grow into theirs (mankind's)
Till as they are, at last I, too, am shattered (p. 189).

Even looking at each of those quotes in context, I think it will come out pretty clearly that Goethe is pro-"life embracing," pro-"getting Faust out of the lab and into the sunlight." Faust's dive into discontent ends with his "veritable paradise" (p. 467), a much more poignant moment than his ascension later on. Whereas here, with Lao Tzu, we have someone interested in finding contentment, and seeks to achieve it through some kind of submission, yielding, a refusal to contend.

Maybe there is something I don't quite understand in Senor Tzu's teachings: my translator admonishes me in a footnote, "Nondoing or Nonaction is a key dictum of Laocius. It means not doing something based on selfish grounds. To view it as inaction, indolence, inertia, laziness, or escapism is to misunderstand him altogether... That the sage is active rather than passive, positive rather than negative is seen throughout the book." But I think the difference between the two modes of thought is striking: Lao Tzu seems very "anti-being," "anti-this life," and not just in an Augustinian "we're all pilgrims here" sense, but in an "emptiness is superior to existence" sense, whereas Goethe seems very life-affirming. The chasm is as wide as between a rock eroded to nothing beneath a waterfall, and one tempered into steel in flames.

In contrasting him with Goethe, I'm trying to paint Lao Tzu as someone who is seeking some kind of contentment or comfortable path of living or understanding of or with the cosmos (my translation actually uses the word "macrocosm" at one point) by embracing this idea of "wu wei," which seems to me to be a defiance of the very meaning of existence itself. Is this a correct charge to make? Do his views on government and ruling change the matter?

P.S. 75: "Yes, only one who overlooks life is wiser than one who overvalues life."

Foundation of Taoism/ What is The Way?

Foundation of Taoism/ What is The Way?

Therefore let there always be non-being, so we may see their subtlety, And
let there always be being, so we may see their outcome. The two are the same,
But after they are produced, they have different names. Teaching 1, Pg. 97.

The overarching question when reading The Way of Lao Tzu is to wonder what exactly The Way purports to be. Confucius' Analects are far more practical, at least in their application to daily life. The Analacts were written for the edification and upbringing of true gentlemen. The purpose of The Way is not, however, to serve as a practical handbook for life. It does not seem to be a teaching tool as Lao writes “Abandon learning and there will be no sorrow.”(Teaching 20, Pg. 154) Nor is it a religious text as the commentary notes that Taoism is atheistic. The author suggests that The Way is important for its ethics and the gaining of moral lessons. It is very difficult for a Western mind to grasp an understanding of what is going on here, if the claim that The Way is an ethical treatise is true. It seems that there is little foundation for a moral code based on the cardinal ideas of being and non-being. For a Westerner, this is a gross contradiction in terms. A thing (if the Tao can be properly termed “a thing” which I highly doubt) cannot “exist” as both being and non-being at once. This idea, however, is central to Taoism and The Way.

It may be appropriate to compare the formulations of the Tao to the formulations that authors like Dionysius give to God. For Dionysius, God is darkness and light at the same time, without contradiction. Every name that can be thought of can be attributed to God, as well as the denial of everyone of these same names. Trying to name the essence of the Tao is similar to trying to give names to the ineffability that is the Christian God. Perhaps the analogy of wind is an appropriate one. The Tao is like wind in that one can see its effect, but whenever one tries to capture it, it slips through one's fingers.

Viewed in this light, one can see perhaps see The Way as a handbook to the ethical life. While the Taoist foundation is an ineffable one, this is really no different from the foundation for Christian ethics: namely an ineffable God. The Way then can be read perhaps as the rituals that are necessary for one to lead an ethical life. Obviously, rituals here do not have the same strict sense as in Confucius or the Christian mode of thought, but rather ritual in the sense of living one's life as a ritual i.e. a life that conforms with the Tao. It is a ritual life that loves faithfulness, order, competence, timeliness, etc. (Teaching 8, Pg. 113) that is the prescription for the Taoist's “best man”.

Word Count: 455 (including internal citations)

Static Culture?

Static Culture?

Along with Tara's question about the Taoist concept of inactivity, I was wondering about the phrase:

"No action is undertaken, and yet nothing is left undone." (48)

This saying is mentioned several times throughout the Way of Lao Tzu, and I struggle with it. How can nothing be left undone if there is no action? How is there progress within society? Is progress viewed in a negative light?

The section continues with:

"An empire is often brought to order by having no activity. If one (likes to) undertake activity, he is not qualified to govern the empire." (48)

Isn't the purpose of the ruler to bring order to an empire through some kind of action?
Section 17 contains the same idea that the best way to rule is to let the people be, but does that seem realistic? From most of our reading in PLS it seems that the general thought is that people left to their own devices cause chaos, and some kind of leader is needed to keep a sense of order within society.

In general, I wonder if the Way of Lao Tzu is supposed to be some kind of prescription for people to live by? And if so, what would a Taoist follower look like?

Tranquil Nature

Tranquil Nature

Attain complete vacuity.

Maintain Steadfast quietude.

All things come into being,

And I see thereby their return.

All things flourish,

But each one returns to its root.

This return to its root means tranquility.

It is called returning to its destiny.

Number 16

In The Way of Lao Tzu, Lao Tzu advocates for a return to tranquility, which he believes is the original state of nature. Thus to be with nature, we must be in synch with inactivity. One of the metaphors he uses for returning to nature is returning to the state of the infant, which he believes to be the ideal being (Number 55).

Few people remain in an infant state forever. As we grow, we become more active. Is this inactivity unnatural? Lao Tzu seems to think so. Why is it that being inactive is more natural than activity? Tzu seems to argue that inactivity came first and thus, due to the Chinese understanding of cyclical time, we should seek to revert to this state of inactivity. Is the sole purpose of becoming active so that we can then know inactivity (as illustrated in 16)? If so, what is the purpose of going through the process of reversion? Is there some sort of cleansing or purification that comes along with understanding the Tao and applying it? If so, what are the benefits of reversion?

Sublimation of the Ego: A Link Between Tolstoy, Confucius and Lao Tzu?

Sublimation of the Ego: A Link Between Tolstoy, Confucius and Lao Tzu?

"Therefore the sage never strives for the great, and thereby the great is achieved. He who makes rash promises surely lacks faith. He who takes things too easily will surely encounter much difficulty. For this reason even the sage regards things as difficult. And therefore he encounters no difficulty" (212).

This passage, like many others from The Way of Lao Tzu, seems to suggest that only by recognizing the presence of a greater force in the world and submitting oneself to this force can one truly be at peace and achieve success. Rather than striving for achievement independently, one must be aware of this force and or greater order and channel it by renouncing oneself to it. This sort of "sublimation of the ego" to a larger process is reminiscent of both Confucius and Tolstoy's works. Could the idea of the "sublimation of the ego" and recognizing one's limited place and influence in the world be one of the main threads that relates these three texts to one another? Is this perhaps why those who had been reading Tolstoy were so fascinated by these Eastern philosophers when they finally came upon them in the 19th century?

Prompt for first Essay

Prompt for first Essay

September 14, 2009
Dear Committee:
This spring our press will introduce a new edition of Leo Tolstoy's classic War and Peace. This massive work is a strange melding together of various themes, styles and genres. And while the book is heralded as a masterful novel, we worry that the title obscures the narrative's greatness. While Tolstoy touched our hearts with this book, he failed to give it a name that amply captures its central spirit. Our press has decided that because Tolstoy equivocated in naming this book, we will take liberties in changing what did not fully satisfy its author.
To be sure, there will be plenty of controversy whirling around our upcoming meeting where our board will vote on the new title. We, therefore, want you to supply a compelling justification for the new title. We are looking for something that weaves the seemingly disjointed parts together; something catchy that serves the primary purpose of getting to the core of Tolstoy's tome.

On Sept. 25 our board will read your committee's essay along with various others. What we want is a new title that is vigorously defended in your essay from beginning to end. Your argument must be razor sharp and tidy. Each submission will be between 1500 and 2000 words. If you need to nitpick, dissent from fellow committee writers, or engage in an aside that will help your argument but that is not essential for the main essay--we invite you to relegate these words to end notes. (If you are worried about merit as Tolstoy was, you may break up the writing and indicate in the notes who wrote what.) In other words, while you will certainly need to point to various specifics in the text, we don't want Tolstoy's verbosity or dissension to bloat your arguments: if need be put extended quotes and such in the notes. The word count is for the main text; please include the count at the end of the paper.
Once these essays are submitted by Sept 25, noon. Each committee will be assigned to read another committee's entry and respond with a 150-200 word critique. This critique will be due shortly after.
One last bit of advice: Our committee will be persuaded by cogency--by style and substance. While no title can hold this sprawling work together, you should try your best to do the impossible.

Sincerely,
Vladimir Pushkin
chief editor, Fated Ends Press

The Role of "Bad Men" in Confucius

The Role of "Bad Men" in Confucius

In Book IV, Confucius says that "in the presence of a bad man, turn your gaze within" (p. 105). Throughout our second reading, it seems like Confucius emphasizes the role of "bad men" and vice in bringing about moral improvement. When one encounters a bad person, Confucius does not advocate trying to improve these men or make them aware of their vices, but instead to look inward as a means to self-improvement. Are bad men necessary for Confucius? Is the only way one can become morally better is by looking at bad people and learning from them? And is there any hope for these bad people to improve, or are they forever cursed to be bad people?

Martyrdom?

Martyrdom?

The disciple, Hui, is portrayed as the greatest of the Master's disciples. He has understood the Way far better than his fellow disciples have:

8. The Master in discussing Tzu-kung said to him, Which do you yourself think is the better, you or Hui? He answered saying, I dare not so much as look at Hui. For Hui has but to hear one part in ten, in order to understand the whole ten. Whereas if I hear one part, I understand no more than two parts. The Master said, Not equal to him - you and I are not equal to him! (Book V)

And he endures suffering and sickness while maintaing his happiness:

9. The Master said, Incomparable indeed was Hui! A handful of rice to eat, a gourdful of water to drink, living in a mean street - others would have found it unendurably depressing, but to Hui's cheerfulness it made no difference at all.  Incomparable indeed was Hui! (Book VI)

What does this tell us about the aim of Confucian thought that the greatest disciple is humble and does not voice his complaints? The Master has already mentioned that men who are qualified for government positions but get overlooked should not voice their disappointment. What is the goal of building a society where everyone simply accepts their lot? How does this society develop? 

Why Confucius?

Why Confucius?

The Master said, I have 'transmitted what was taught to me without making up anything of my own.' (VII 1 - 123)

If Confucius never 'made up anything of his own,' why is he always the credited one? Was he the last student of the teaching he passed on that was able to actually understand and live through the teachings? Was there something else in his teaching method or in his life that made him more worthy of recognition than the others that taught before or after Confucius? Why any name at all, why not just assign the teachings to a group of people, or is Confucius really just the personified version of the group of people who taught these things?

(Unrequired) Thought Piece

(Unrequired) Thought Piece

Although it took the Western world thousands of years to become familiar with The Analects of Confucius, people in the late 19^th century nonetheless embraced this text when they finally discovered it. What were educated Westerners in the late 19^th century doing latching on to Eastern philosophy? And why did they do so when they could have gotten so much of the same advice from ancient Greek texts and subsequent Western literature?

Or is it precisely this similarity between this bedrock of Eastern philosophy and the foundation of our own Western tradition that made and still makes the modern reader fascinated with The Analects? A comment that came up in class last Wednesday was that there was nothing in The Analects that we have not read before. I argue that this remark is less a criticism of The Analects and its inclusion in our curriculum than a vindication of the text and its place on our reading list. The fact that our Eastern and Western ancestors were pondering many of the same questions and arriving at almost identical answers upholds the idea of “timeless truths” that are supposed to be present in Great literature. These are the questions and answers that stand the test of time and the ones that are worth revisiting because they cross all time periods and all cultures.

To give a couple examples of analects that seem right out of Western philosophy:

“He does not mind being in office; all he minds about is whether he has qualities that entitle him to office. He does not mind failing to get recognition; he is too busy doing the things that entitle him to recognition” echoes Socrates’ question about who should take the ship of state and his insistence that it is the Good man who is entitled to office although he may not always be the one in office (IV.14).

Also, “I have never seen anyone whose desire to build up his moral power was as strong as sexual desire” brings the Symposium and Socrates’ discussion of eros as the love and pursuit of knowledge immediately to mind (IX.17).

And Confucius resembles Socrates. Humble just as Socrates was, Confucius denies claims that he is a prophet or even a wise man (IX.8, IX.7), champions moderation (VI.27), and only allows that he is a passionate learner and teacher (VII.33). Thus, it is not only the ideas and the answers that are similar, but also the teachers.

What are the parallels between this text and the ones we have read before, including but not limited to the Platonic dialogues, and are these similarities still worth discussing even though we may have read and thought about them before? Am I right in suggesting the idea of timeless truths, and if not, how else can we explain this phenomenon of déjà vu that anyone steeped in Western tradition must feel when reading this Eastern text? Finally, what in this text is purely Eastern, that is, neither included nor relevant to Western culture?

(436 words)

The Good

The Good

Ok so I know the first time we talked about Confucius we were trying not to impose our own worldview on the text too much. But, I think it would be helpful to relate a few concepts to our Western conceptions.

Tzu-kung said, If a ruler not only conferred wide benefits upon the common people, but also compassed the salvation of the whole State, what would you say of him? Surely, you would call him Good? The Master said, It would no longer be a matter of 'Good.' He would without doubt be a Divine Sage. Even Yao and Shun could hardly criticize him. As for Goodness - you yourself desire rank and standing; then help others to get rank and standing. You want to turn your own merits to account; then help others to turn theirs to account - in fact, the ability to take one's own feelings as a guide - that is the sort of thing that lies in the direction of Goodness.

So to be brief, my question is, is this path to knowing Goodness similar to Plato's idea that to know the Good is to do the Good? How would we define Goodness for Confucius from the analects we read?

Lessons for leaders and on life

Lessons for leaders and on life

With Confucius, we have read the lessons and advice that has been bestowed countless amounts of people. Advice varying from thoughtful wisdom, to strategic guidance. Confucius, whose advice seems to have no fault, explores a wide range of possible targets for his statements. First we see his possible advice for a leader...

"The Master Said, the common people can be made to follow it, they cannot be made to understand it." Book VIII, 9. 

What advice is Confucius giving here? Why does he feel as though the common people can follow orders, without truly understanding them? What does this say about the mass population being lead by an individual or a government?

We also see some words of inspiration from Confucius in the next page...

"The Master said, Learn as if you were following someone whom you could not catch up, as though it were someone you were frightened of losing."

Book VIII, 17

Where do we think Confucius gets his wisdom and knowledge. I know we discussed possible influences, but from what is he deriving his remarkable thoughts? Such a wide range of knowledge must be further explored. 

Thought Piece: Confucius vs. Rousseau

Thought Piece: Confucius vs. Rousseau

“The Master said, When natural substance prevails over ornamentation, you get the boorishness of the rustic. When ornamentation prevails over natural substance, you get the pedantry of the scribe. Only when ornament and substance are duly blended do you get the true gentleman” (pg. 119, VI. 16).

Following his earlier discussion of the manner in which “if harmony itself is not modulated by ritual, things will still go amiss,” Confucius cautions that ritual itself must be used in moderation. (86, I. 12) As he says, “Courtesy not bounded by the prescriptions of ritual becomes tiresome. Caution not bounded by the prescriptions of ritual becomes timidity, daring becomes turbulence, inflexibility becomes harshness” (132, VIII. 2). Essentially, Confucius seems to be saying that while rituals can lead to harmony, it is only prudent to practice them within certain limits.

Similarly, Confucius also speaks of the prudence of placing limits on cultural influences on the level of the individual. In light of the fact that any culture is merely the sum of many rituals that have accumulated over time, this discussion is clearly and naturally related to his statement about practicing ritual in moderation. It is most immediately evident in Book VI of the Analects, as he advocates the practice of moderation and the maintenance of balance with regard to culture and nature. He notes that, “only when ornament and substance are duly blended do you get the true gentleman” (119, VI. 16). In this particular excerpt, Confucius uses the term ‘ornament’ to represent culture while using the term ‘substance’ to represent nature.

Ultimately, Confucius seems to suggest that there is a dichotomy between culture and nature reminiscent of many of Rousseau’s ideas. However, while Confucius advocates a balance between culture and nature, Rousseau attributes many of the inadequacies of human society to the corrupting influence of culture. In his work “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,” Rousseau expresses his belief that human society would be better off if it could return to a more natural state. Nevertheless, he struggles with the difficulty of discerning exactly what such an original, natural state would have been like. Finally, he seems to conclude that it is impossible to arrive at any comprehensive understanding of the original, natural state of humanity. Meanwhile, Confucius’ statements with regard to maintaining a balance between nature and culture seem to imply that it is indeed possible to obtain some knowledge about what the natural state of man might be like.

To what extent does Confucius believe that we can obtain knowledge about the natural state of humanity? What would he think of Rousseau’s ideas about the corrupting influence of culture and society? Indeed, the majority of Confucius’ aphorisms seem to be related to how one should conduct oneself within society and in one’s interactions with other people. What might he say about the relationship between culture, society and morality? Would he directly oppose Rousseau and argue that culture and society (in moderation) have had a positive effect on the overall moral development of humanity?

(457 words including internal quotations)

Confucius Thought Piece: Who's Your Daddy

Confucius Thought Piece: Who's Your Daddy

“And surely proper behavior towards parents and elder brothers is the trunk of Goodness?” (Book 1 Analectic 2)

“A young man’s duty is to behave well to his parents at home and to his elders abroad…” (Book 1 Analectic 6)

“A man who treats his betters as betters, wears an air of respect, who into serving father and mother knows how to put his whole strength, who in the service of his prince will lat down his life, who in intercourse with friends is true to his word – others may say of him that he still lacks education, but I for my part should certainly call him an educated man.” (Book 1 Analectic 7)

Many of Confucius’ analects are concerned with what makes a good man. Throughout Book 1, and some of Books 2 and 3, a main ingredient of his recipe for this good man is the proper treatment of parents and elders. In fact, in the second analectic, he says that “proper behavior towards parents” is surely “the trunk of Goodness.” It seems that perhaps this trunk is more complex than he makes it out to be.

Confucius emphasizes the proper treatment of parents, saying in the second book that this is comprised of much more than simply ensuring that parents are well fed and housed, for even horses and dogs are cared for as much. Honor and respect with one’s “whole strength” put into serving one’s parents are Confucius’ requirements. This parental respect leads to Goodness, as he assumes when he says in Book 1 Analectic 2, “Those who in private life behave well towards their parents and elder brothers, in public life seldom show a disposition to resist the authority of their superiors. And as for such men starting a revolution, no instance of it has ever occurred.” In this passage, we begin to see that the respect of one’s parents is perhaps more involved than simply that, as Confucius mentioned in Book 2 Analectic 8 (that it is much more than feeding and housing).

In the 6^th analectic of Book 1, elders abroad are mentioned, and in the 7^th one’s prince is considered as well. This leads one to consider that by parents, Confucius may have meant more than one’s biological mother and father, but perhaps all those who watch over and provide for one’s life. This opens the door for many more people to be considered, as is implied by “elders,” and makes it clearer as to why Confucius endorses proper behavior towards one’s parents as the “trunk of Goodness.”

In considering this newly opened view of who is encompassed when Confucius mentions parents, many different possibilities are brought to mind. Clearly familial ties are important to Confucius, so it would likely be safe to say that most of one’s family is included in “parents.” Elders are mentioned, so that would likely encompass teachers, societal leaders, and other adults in one’s immediate area. One’s Prince is also mentioned, so respect for one’s government and the ensuing branches would seem to be implied in parents, including all authority, as he mentions in Book 1 Analectic 2. The final possibility that seems to come to mind is the Father of all.

Did Confucius have in mind the Father of the universe? Was (a) God one of the parents Confucius meant his followers to respect and serve? Could this be a Spiritual message?

451 Words

Individuality and Creative Thinking

Individuality and Creative Thinking

The Master said, He who sets to work upon a different strand destroys the whole fabric.

So far in the Analects, Confucius has emphasized the necessity of obeying tradition. As we read in the Introduction, Confucius was concerned that his own society had lost its moral center and had strayed from the path of the Ancients. For Confucius, his society could only return to glory by imitating the Ancients and following traditions. He scoffs at the idea of breaking away, for these individuals, in his own view, are the ones who have weakened his society. At what point, however, does obeying tradition rob innovation? It is true that societies with weak moral character often fail, but don't societies also fail where there is stagnant innovation and freedom of thought?

Ritual vs. Adaptation

Ritual vs. Adaptation

Book II of Confucius' Analects center primarily on the role of the filial relationship. This relationship is at the heart of Confucius' thought, as it is used not only to directly instruct on how to respect parents, but also as an indirect indication of the importance of respecting ritual.

Rituals are an important component of every culture, representing a link to one’s history. The danger with rituals, however, is that over time the meaning behind the ritual can be lost, and the ritual itself becomes the belief. Confucius warns against this, saying in Analect 26 of Book III,

 “The Master said, High office filled by men of narrow views, ritual performed without reverence, the forms of mourning observed without grief- these are things I cannot bear to see!”

 In order to avoid the loss of meaning behind rituals and thus retain the reverence, it is important for rituals to adapt to their current climates so that people can continue to connect with the deeper meanings. However, adaptation is also dangerous because it can skew the original intent of the ritual if modified too drastically.

 What is the correct balance between ritual and adaptation? The Catholic Church has had to adapt its rituals on numerous occasions in order to keep up with the times, most notably with the Vatican II Council. These changes made in the ritual have been successful in retaining membership in the Church. Will this adaptation allow the Catholic Church to thrive, as Confucianism has survived? Can the church be considered to thrive if the form that it has taken is so different from what it began as?

Dear Confucius

Dear Confucius

II.10 The Master said, Look closely into his aims, observe the means by which he pursues them, discover what brings him content- and can the man's real worth remain hidden from you, can it remain hidden from you?

Confucius seems to give some really good advice. You shouldn't trust someone who lies (II.22), be polite in a new country and get to know their ways (I.10), politicians can get the support of the common people by not being crooks (II.19), et cetera. Confucius is concerned with an overall "Good" and being a "gentleman," and these things have some specific and special meaning, to be sure. But by and large, being a good gentleman seems to involve being good in and for society (and Waley on "Jen" talks about the social aspect of the word).

This is neither an ethics interested in the fate of the soul or in "Society" as a Utilitarian might conceive of it. Instead he seems to be interested in a person's role in society, in conjunction with their inner demeanor. He is giving advice, good advice, for the here and now. What is the nature of his "system," if so it may be called, and what are its goals? If its goals are governmental or practical, what does that mean for what he says on non-recognition and/or inner feeling? If its goals are to instruct gentlemen, does that teaching have a further, societal end?

Plato and Confucius

Plato and Confucius

I find it a bit hard to relate to these sayings and to get at a coherent unity throughout these first few books of Confucius. I think that it might make sense to try and compare the Father of Western Philosophy, Socrates, with the Father of Eastern, Confucius. First off I wonder if the Good that Confucius talks about is simply to the idea of the form of the "Good" in Socrates. These formulations do sound similar to me. Also I wonder if Confucius's prescriptions in The Analects is similar at all to Plato's Republic, in how they are trying to shape and instruct the youth. It is difficult to make legitamate comparisions between the two, but I think that it is a worthwhile enterprise.

Whatchu talkin bout 'fucious?

Whatchu talkin bout 'fucious?

Confucious mentions a few times in the first three books of his Analects the importance of ritual. He writes that ritual should be associated with harmony (p 86), has a direct relationship with the Good man (p 94), and should be conducted with reverence (p 101). However, Confucius never clarifies what is meant by 'ritual'. Does he simply mean the custom according to the time? My inclination is to associate ritual with religion, but since Confucius doesn't espouse a particular religion, but rather a way of living, how are we to understand this term in his text?

Pieces of a Puzzle...

Pieces of a Puzzle...

So I'm going to start off the conversation with a semi-obvious question, but as I muddled through Confucius' Analects I was struck by the very basic question: "What are we supposed to take away from this reading?" I usually have this problem when reading any text that is broken up into fragments, such as Pascal's Pensees. Is each statement meant to stand alone, or can we glean some cohesive strand of thought from all of them together? I assume there is something greater to be learned than the simple statement "obey your parents," because Confucius is one of the few Eastern philosophers we study in PLS, but the organization of the writings throws me for a loop. What do you all make of the structure of this work? Advantages, disadvantages?

Thought Piece: Is knowledge of nature possible?

Thought Piece: Is knowledge of nature possible?

“Master Yu said, In the usages of ritual it is harmony that is prized; the Way of the Former Kings from this got its beauty. Both small matters and great depend upon it. If things go amiss, he who knows the harmony will be able to attune them. But if harmony itself is not modulated by ritual, things will still go amiss” (Confucius 86).

In his twelfth analect, Confucius seems to say that the most essential and valued element of ritual behavior is the promotion of harmony between man and nature. As is the case with many of Confucius’ analects, it is difficult to identify the exact scope of situations to which this particular pearl of wisdom is meant to be applied. However, Confucius does seem to provide us with some guidance, as he notes that, “Both small matters and great depend upon it” (86). This statement seems to indicate that the scope of this analect’s applications is relatively broad. Indeed, perhaps Confucius is loosely classifying all human behaviors as ritualistic. While this would seem to be a rather daring presumption, it may not be far from accurate in light of the highly patterned character of most humans’ daily lives.

In any case, Confucius follows this apparently presumptuous notion with the idea that “if things go amiss, he who knows the harmony will be able to attune them” (86). It seems logical to assume that such a knowledge of the harmony between man and nature would require a knowledge of nature itself. Nevertheless, Confucius’ assertion that “if harmony itself is not modulated by ritual, things will still go amiss,” suggests that our ability to possess knowledge of harmony and nature may be limited, necessitating a ritual process in order to ensure that its application remains within reasonable bounds. Just as there must be a harmonious balance between man and nature, man’s attempts to possess and apply knowledge of nature must be tempered by an awareness of his limited ability to acquire such knowledge. Essentially, Confucius seems to propose that promoting harmony with nature in a ritualistic, regimented fashion will help produce such a necessary moderating effect and prevent the disturbance of the delicate balance in question.

While he seems to place a limit on what man can know about the natural world, Confucius stresses the importance of maintaining a balance with nature, and seems to imply that it is indeed possible to possess some sort of knowledge of it. On the other hand, in his novel War and Peace, Tolstoy generally regards nature as a source of mystery. Many of Tolstoy’s characters, including Andrew, Nicholas and Pierre, experience a certain kind of enlightenment as a result of their interaction with or observation of nature, but do not necessarily acquire what one might consider to be concrete knowledge, as they are incapable of fully grasping and implementing exactly what it is that they have realized or experienced. In light of Tolstoy’s views, one must question whether it is truly possible to possess the sort of concrete, communicable knowledge of nature that Confucius seems to value.

(450 words including internal quotations)

How to quote stuff

How to quote stuff

I think this was helpful to people last semester, so I thought I'd post the same thing again. There are a couple of ways to make text become quoted, like this:

"History was really God all along" --Tolstoy, p. 4000

Just select text and click the quote marks below on the left:

select and click

A better way might be use the "Edit HTML" tab, which you can see in the top left in the image above. This way, you can format your paragraphs too if you want.

HTML isn't code. It's just like quotation marks or parentheses which demarcate text for the reader. Except instead of quotation marks, you put these things on either side of the selected text:

<blockquote>what you want quoted goes here</blockquote>

what you want quoted goes here

You can make paragraphs in the same way, so that your text doesn't end up one big lump of words. Just use these "p" things.

<p>blah blah</p>

blah blah

Note that, just as ( starts a parenthesis and ) ends it, the "blockquote" or "p" starts it and the "/blockquote" and "/p" ends it.

The Lead of War and Peace?

The Lead of War and Peace?

War and Peace is a massive book filled with hundreds of characters. It jumps around through different parts of Russia and the world chronicling the actions and motives of a diverse collection of people involved in the war. I am simply wondering who we would call the book's main character? Is it Pierre? Andrew? Or is this questions perhaps more complicated. We talked about how Tolstoy did not see War and Peace as a novel. Thus, is it possible that War and Peace is a book that is intentionally supposed to have no lead character? Even further, could one say that Tolstoy himself is the book's main character? He spends large sections of the work sketching out his philosophy and explaining his views through the role of a narrator? Who do we think is War and Peace's main character?

Petya - Quixotic or Heroic?

Petya - Quixotic or Heroic?

He was in a fairy kingdom where nothing resembled reality. [...] Nothing Petya could have seen now would have surprised him. He was in a fairy kingdom where everything was possible. (Bk 14, Chpt 2, 932)

When Petya galloped up the Frenchman had already fallen. "Too late again!" flashed through Petya's mind and he galloped on to the place from which the raid firing could be heard. [...] Through the smoke, as he approached the gate, Petya saw Dolokhov, whose face was of a pale-greenish tint, shouting to his men. "Go round! Wait for the infantry!" he exclaimed as Petya rode up to him.

"Wait?...Hurrah-ah-ah!" shouted Petya, and without pausing a moment galloped to the place whence came the sounds of firing and where the smoke was thickest." (Bk 14, Chpt 2, 934)

Tolstoy gives us an interesting look at Petya in the time leading up to his death in the attack on the French convoy. In the moments directly before Petya is killed, he acts, at the same time, both the same as any courageous hero in the war who, impervious to the danger of his actions, rode headfirst into the front line, leading his fellow soldiers to victory through his bravery, and the same as the men who crossed the river, rather than waiting for a bridge, for Napoleon and ended up drowning. One could use the description of Petya as in a fairy kingdom for either argument, saying that the reason the men blindly drowned themselves in the river was because they were crazed and had left reality, or to say that the reason the man who lead the charge to victory could only do so by his elevated state of mind which allowed him to put the danger out of his mind and concentrate solely on creating for his self a victory.

My question is, how are we supposed to view Petya, and/or the way his (perhaps yet too immature for the battle) imagination led him to charge into battle without regard for danger, looking only for glory. Are we to assume that because he died, this is a foolish way to face our battles? Why did he die and others who did mostly the same thing not die? How were their situations different? Is this perhaps more evidence of the importance of living a real life, as Caitlin and Andrew have mentioned?

Reflections of real life

Reflections of real life

"In Petersburg at that time a complicated struggle was being carried on with greater hear than ever in the highest circles, between the parties of Rumyanstev, the French, Marya Fedorovna, the Tsarevich, and others, drowned by the buzzing of the court drones. But the calm, luxurious life of Petersburg, concerned only about phantoms and reflections of real life, went on its old way and made it hard, except by a great effort to realize the receptions and balls, the same French theater, the same court interests and service interests and intrigues as usual. Only in the very highest circles were attempts made to keep in mind the difficulties of the actual position."

P. 827... Book 12, ch 1

The "reflections" of real life that the upper class of St. Petersburg live in is a life of complete isolation from the troubles and sufferings on the real world, especially in reference to the war with France. The upper class of russia not only go about their life as if there is not a national crisis going on, "only in the very highest circles were attempts made to keep in mind the difficulties of the actual position." Do they realize the decline and suffering of their own nation would jeopardize their own lives? Do they understand that they are oblivious to any adversity people outside their circle endure? Why is Tolstoy portraying the wealthy to be so completely oblivious?

Pierre Discovers What It Means To Live...As A POW

Pierre Discovers What It Means To Live...As A POW

At the beginning of Book Six, Tolstoy makes a distinction between the events of the war and the events of "real life". He writes:

"Life meanwhile - real life, with it's essential interests in health and sickness, toil and rest...went on as usual, independently of and apart from political friendship or enmity with Napoleon Bonaparte and from all the schemes of reconstruction." (Book Six, Chapter One, pp. 457). 

When reflecting upon historical events, it is easy to assume that the event in question deeply affected the lives of those people living during or throughout its occurrence (It made an impact on people. That is why it is a "historical event"). In the quote above, Tolstoy reminds us that our individual lives are not about wars or elections, ect.; they are about us. "Real life" is comprised of the routines and concerns and relationships that we cycle through everyday. 

Then again, in describing to us Pierre's experience as a POW, Tolstoy begins to outline define for us a new definition of "real life". This life is not made up of the dull, self centered concerns of society life. Rather, this new "real life" is vivid and real. Pierre feels the wind and sees the sunset, ect. Tolstoy writes: 

"...he felt the contact of fresh air and heard the noise of the crows flying from Moscow across the field, and when afterwards light gleamed from the east and the sun's rim appeared solemnly from behind a cloud, and the cupolas and crosses, the hoarfrost, the distance and the river, all began to sparkle in the glad light - Pierre felt a new joy and strength in life such as he had never known before." (Book Thirteen, Chapter Two, pp. 1123). 

So what is real life for Tolstoy? What does it mean to actually live? What do we think of the fact that Pierre begins to "live" only when he has been stripped of his freedom and his ability to make his own choices?