Moral Progression Thought Piece

Moral Progression Thought Piece

Charles Darwin provides an extensive and detailed look into the physical evolution of man. He describes the advantageous variations that species undergo physically, but he does not believe that there has been moral progress made by man. In fact, he shows that morally the more depraved procreate and subsist in larger numbers than the morally virtuous because of their procreative habits.

But has man as a whole really undergone no moral development of the course of his existence? Darwin writes about the primeval species: “Our early semi-human progenitors would not have practiced infanticide or polyandry; for the instincts of the lower animals are never so perverted as to lead them regularly to destroy their own offspring, or to be quite devoid of jealousy” (p 644). These modern developments, for Darwin, demonstrate a regress in human morality. Though for the primeval humans lack the moral capacity of today’s humans, this only makes the situation worse; the early humans acted primarily on instinct while current humans have developed the ability to determine if something is morally wrong or right, yet continue to practice immoral acts.

Darwin writes that people want to believe in a moral development of man, but history proves otherwise. Obviously, this contradicts Hegel’s entire argument that history progresses toward the most perfect society. Both of them use history as an example. Darwin’s argument against moral development rests on his claims that the morally depraved members of society procreate with more frequency than the virtuous: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, forseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him” (p 711). Bold stereotypes aside, this statement demonstrates Darwin’s belief that our society will gradually become populated in greater numbers by immoral than moral citizens.

However, Darwin does not define what is meant by a moral person, and it seems as if his ideas of morality differ from the ones we use today. When referring to the lack of polyandry in most of today’s societies he credits jealousy as a positive attribute. Most people today would cite jealousy as a negative attribute that promotes immoral rather than moral actions. Obviously these examples are beyond Darwin’s life, but America has undergone many changes toward a greater morality. Over the past two hundred years we have seen the abolition of slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and suffrage for women and minorities. Are these developments not evidence of the evolution of a moral character in America?

This is not to say that all people posses equal levels of moral character or that history constantly progresses toward a greater moral character. Hegel allows for digression in his theory by referring to history as an ebb and flow. The problem with Darwin’s description is his failure to incorporate moral development while allowing room for stagnation or decline. Perhaps there is a different dimension to morality that cannot be proven in the same scientific way that he sets out to demonstrate his theory of evolution and physical progress. Is Darwin correct to say that mankind is making no moral strides?

(Word Count: 532)

Reading Mill in Light of Hegel: Negative and Positive Liberty

Reading Mill in Light of Hegel: Negative and Positive Liberty

(Unrequired thought piece)

Although Mill’s and Hegel’s philosophies ground themselves in the idea that liberty is the end of history, these thinkers espouse diametrically opposed positions on the manner in which this liberty is realized. In order to understand the possible consequences and applications of Mill’s political theory, his ideas on liberty must be read in light of their radical break with Hegelian thought.

In his work The Philosophy of History, Hegel implements a positive concept of political freedom, positive liberty. He writes that “the History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom” (19). Using Reason as the absolute measure of progress, he defines liberty as obedience to the law due to a realization that the law itself is rational. In other words, in the state of liberty, there is no possible conflict between the rational individual and the state. Hegel thus implements a positive concept of liberty in his writings, concluding that freedom can only be realized in the State through its public institutions: “Rather, we affirm, are Law, Morality, Government, and they alone, the positive reality and completion of Freedom” (38).

In his essay On Liberty, Mill inverts the positive liberty of Hegel and presents a negative concept of political freedom, negative liberty. He defines civil, or social liberty as “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” (3). In other words, Mill’s conception of liberty revolves around the protection of individual rights from the interference of society: “To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society” (86). He divides the liberties of the individual that must be protected into three branches to demonstrate the necessary precautions for a free society: Liberty of Thought and Discussion, Individuality, Limits on the Authority of Society on the Individual. In contrast to Hegel, negative liberty is not a consequence of the State but a prerequisite for a State that will not succumb to despotism. But Mill seems to extend the protections of liberty from governmental affairs to social, cultural, and religious norms: “Even despotism does not produce its worst effects, so long as individuality exists under it; and whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called, and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men” (73). This expansion of the realm of despotism leads to a wide range of possible applications of negative liberty.

If Mill’s proposed applications range from forced labor to support one’s children to privatization of education and public institutions, is this conception of liberty better than the positive liberty espoused by Hegel? Hegel’s notion of a teleological history acting through the cunning of reason leads us to an ideal State of peace, freedom, and morality. Where does Mill’s negative liberty lead us? Does it effectively defend against despotism and ensure peace and morality?

[498 words]

Tim's Thought Piece

Tim's Thought Piece

“All I have is my life, which I promptly stake every time a difficulty appears. Then it is easy to dance, for the thought of death is a good dancing partner, my dancing partner. Every human being is too heavy for me, and therefore I plead, I swear by the gods: Let no one invite me, for I do not dance” (p. 8)

      Kierkegaard ends his preface with this profound, yet confusing statement. Initially, this passage feels disjointed and out of place in the sporadic preface. However, when one takes this passage in the context of the philosophy Kierkegaard later fleshes out, its meaning becomes more apparent.

      Kierkegaard begins the passage in the mindset of someone living in untruth. He is not connected to any truth outside the temporal and is thus attached to his body (life). He realizes that he is staking everything he knows (his life) during any struggle in his existence. During these struggles, he begins to understand that he has the potential to be more than his “life”. Death is the primary fear of any human being living in untruth, for it takes away the only thing they have. But Kierkegaard has begun the process of coming to truth and is no longer connected to his life. Death is no longer something he is running from, but something he wants to examine and understand, for it can help in bringing him to greater understanding of truth.

      In the last sentence, Kierkegaard has further understood the separation from humans living in truth and untruth. Those living in untruth have become “too heavy” for him. They are weighed down by their sin and have not begun to accept the teacher who has descended to them. He then begs that none of these people of untruth come and ask him to teach them. He does not “dance”, meaning that he does teach others and bring them the necessary condition for a change. As a human being in truth, he knows that he is not a capable teacher for those in untruth, and thus hopes no one asks to dance, or to teach them.

       The use of the dancing metaphor is particularly effective because dancing is an act involving two people. These two people watch each other and work off of each other’s movements. But the movement to truth, while requiring a teacher, can not take place between two humans. One can not move form untruth to truth by watching someone else and following them. Instead, they must dance with themselves and allow the teacher (god) guide them.

      Kierkegaard frequently cites Socrates and the Greeks, and the dancing metaphor he uses makes connections to Plato’s cave. Both involve a movement away from the temporal world and one’s body. There is also a realization of higher truth that is possible and attainable. But Kierkegaard, unlike Plato, sees this movement as an internal action and can not be guided by a human teacher. This process of realizing truth is also possible for all humans for Kierkegaard, for the potential for truth is in all human beings. Plato’s truth is more of an elite, selective ascent. Thus, through the dancing metaphor and the rest of philosophy, Kierkegaard creates a Christianized form of Socratic philosophy, making the attainment of truth universal and internal.

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

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

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.)

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)

(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)

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

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)