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)