“A weak people means a strong state and a strong state means a weak people. Therefore, a state that has the right way is concerned with weakening the people. If they are simple they become strong and if they are licentious they become weak. Being weak, they are law-abiding; being licentious, they let their ambition go too far; being weak; they are serviceable, but if they let their ambition go too far, they will become strong…” The Guanzi on Weakening the People
A Legalist society strives for a strong state and central authority. While history has proven that, in practice, legalism is effective in creating a strong state, its oppressive nature is intolerable.
The way The Guanzi is worded implies that the only way a state can be strong is if the people are “serviceable” and “simple” or ignorant. They should be without ambition and individually weak. By my standards, this is a pointless existence. A Legalist society doesn’t work towards a goal or work together at all. The government relies on the ignorance of oppressed workers to support and promote its wealth. This allows the government officials the benefits of the worker’s labor, while the workers are barely allowed to exist. It seems as if this government is perfectly structured for corruption and extortion. Legalism seems to be idealistic in a tyrannical way as well. If its theories were applied to an ignorant society, some of its goals may be achieved but all these theories seem to rely on an inherent weakness and inevitable ignorance of the people, yet oppression, while is it not mentioned, is clearly the way in which that weakness and ignorance is gained. While in the context of the philosophy, most of the beliefs and theories make sense; from an outside perspective it’s radical to a dangerous extreme.
Legalism and Confucianism share some common principles but on whole they couldn’t be more opposite. Both philosophies view respect and obedience as paramount but they ways in which they describe how it should be attained are entirely different. Respect in a Confucian society would be earned due to filial piety and a natural appreciation. Respect and obedience in a Legalist society would be earned through fear of extreme punishment, impartiality, and most of all, ignorance. The way The Guanzi is worded points the reader to the conclusion that Legalist societies are governed by a few powerful and hypocritical intellectuals who rely on masses of workers to further them and the state they represent and run, but doesn’t criticize that fact. This may achieve a goal of expansion and government wealth but if the majority of the people are uneducated and without ambition, how can a society so simple advance over time?
Friday, November 30, 2007
The Spectrum: Legalism, Mohism, Confucianism
“The six parasites are rites and music, odes and history, cultivation and goodness, filial devotion and brotherly love, sincerity and trustworthiness, uprightness and integrity, humaneness and rightness, criticism of the army and being ashamed of fighting…”
The harsh philosophies of Legalism are focused mostly on condemning the things which the religion views as excessive or unnecessary, and keeping to a very strictly structured ladder of society. There are no elaborate phrasings, no subtleties; these would be decadent and meaningless. In this way, the writing style of the Guanzi directly reflects the beliefs of the religion.
The passage wastes no time in getting straight to the point, saying outright the things that should not be done, that are trivial and unproductive. This view of eliminating the unnecessary is shared, in part, by Mohism. Mohist belief has no relevance for ritual and ceremony, music, philosophy, learnedness. Both Legalism and Mohism focus on attaining a rather bare lifestyle, doing only that which is required to keep one alive, to keep society thriving, and preach against wasting precious time on the luxurious pursuits that followers of Confucianism emphasize.
Unlike Mohism, though, Legalism openly dismisses filial piety as yet another pointless gesture. The Legalist ideal is that no man be given any greater respect or any less punishment than any other man. To be filially pious would be to offset this balance. Yet it contradicts itself in this sense, somewhat, in its assertion for a strong, central state and a weak people. In theory, a crime committed by a commoner and a governor would elicit the same punishment for each, but in such a situation, it is quite likely that that very same strong state might overlook the infraction of their own official in order to keep themselves strong.
The strict, controlling laws of Legalism are specially designed to keep the people in line. By stripping itself of nearly everything else, it emphasizes farming and fighting. Having come into the mainstream of Chinese society when the Qin dynasty took over, Legalism provides a very good medium to hold power over the people, and directly combat their initial Confucian beliefs. If Mohism is one or two steps away from Confucianism, Legalism is the exact opposite, sharing some Mohist policies, but ultimately taking up an even more extremist vision.
The harsh philosophies of Legalism are focused mostly on condemning the things which the religion views as excessive or unnecessary, and keeping to a very strictly structured ladder of society. There are no elaborate phrasings, no subtleties; these would be decadent and meaningless. In this way, the writing style of the Guanzi directly reflects the beliefs of the religion.
The passage wastes no time in getting straight to the point, saying outright the things that should not be done, that are trivial and unproductive. This view of eliminating the unnecessary is shared, in part, by Mohism. Mohist belief has no relevance for ritual and ceremony, music, philosophy, learnedness. Both Legalism and Mohism focus on attaining a rather bare lifestyle, doing only that which is required to keep one alive, to keep society thriving, and preach against wasting precious time on the luxurious pursuits that followers of Confucianism emphasize.
Unlike Mohism, though, Legalism openly dismisses filial piety as yet another pointless gesture. The Legalist ideal is that no man be given any greater respect or any less punishment than any other man. To be filially pious would be to offset this balance. Yet it contradicts itself in this sense, somewhat, in its assertion for a strong, central state and a weak people. In theory, a crime committed by a commoner and a governor would elicit the same punishment for each, but in such a situation, it is quite likely that that very same strong state might overlook the infraction of their own official in order to keep themselves strong.
The strict, controlling laws of Legalism are specially designed to keep the people in line. By stripping itself of nearly everything else, it emphasizes farming and fighting. Having come into the mainstream of Chinese society when the Qin dynasty took over, Legalism provides a very good medium to hold power over the people, and directly combat their initial Confucian beliefs. If Mohism is one or two steps away from Confucianism, Legalism is the exact opposite, sharing some Mohist policies, but ultimately taking up an even more extremist vision.
Legalism passage
“The people will love their ruler and obey his commandments. . . who, in idleness, live on others will be many. . .” (Legalists and Militarists, 195)
The Legalists were firm believers of maintaining a weak and ignorant people. In this passage, the essential message is that a weak people will yield a strong state. If the people are not exposed to “itinerant scholars,” successful merchants, and rich artisans, then they will not know that there is a life better than one spent farming; if they are aware, they will “shun agriculture, they will care little for their homes” (195). The state will suffer if the people care more for their individual well-being. Legalism makes stability the priority. When intellectuals and other successful or wealthy people “expound their sophistries in the street,” they threaten this stability. Control of the state is more secure without such radical ideas when that state’s priority is stability rather than education or personal achievement. “Seeing as they succeed in captivating kings, dukes, and great men,” these lifestyles are very dangerous, because “all [want to] imitate them.” The ruler should not be concerned with exposing the people to various lifestyles, for “they will be of no use... [and] will certainly not fight and defend [the state] for the ruler’s sake.” If the state’s welfare is not also the first priority of the people, the people will feel less obligated to defend their state in war.
In terms of Legalism’s overall philosophy, the passage reflects such. Maintaining the state’s focus on agriculture and farming is practical. The state should be focused completely on order and obedience, and war and expansion. In order for the state to expand, its citizens must be willing to defend it. In Legalism, since the people, in theory, will be most concerned with their homes and state, the will be willing to go to war. Preventing the people from living other lifestyles makes for a very orderly state with a strong central government; social mobility is the largest threat to the obedience of the people and the order of the state. In Chinese society, Legalism is meant to be applied to maintain or accomplish order, a strong central government, obedient citizens, expansion, and practicality. In order to achieve these ideals, the rights of the people are altered and a specific need or aspiration is not considered important or appropriate to dwell upon.
Legalism is most definitely a response to Confucianism; it is essentially the antithesis of it. Confucianism is focused on education, social and academic, as well as pursuing individual goals. Legalism sees any idea in favor of the individual as a weakness of the state. In Confucianism, people are focused on their own needs, and do not put the state first. When the people get new ideas, they may disrupt the order of the state, possibly overthrowing the ruler. While Legalism and Confucianism agree that obedience is important, the philosophies do not have other common principles.
The Legalists were firm believers of maintaining a weak and ignorant people. In this passage, the essential message is that a weak people will yield a strong state. If the people are not exposed to “itinerant scholars,” successful merchants, and rich artisans, then they will not know that there is a life better than one spent farming; if they are aware, they will “shun agriculture, they will care little for their homes” (195). The state will suffer if the people care more for their individual well-being. Legalism makes stability the priority. When intellectuals and other successful or wealthy people “expound their sophistries in the street,” they threaten this stability. Control of the state is more secure without such radical ideas when that state’s priority is stability rather than education or personal achievement. “Seeing as they succeed in captivating kings, dukes, and great men,” these lifestyles are very dangerous, because “all [want to] imitate them.” The ruler should not be concerned with exposing the people to various lifestyles, for “they will be of no use... [and] will certainly not fight and defend [the state] for the ruler’s sake.” If the state’s welfare is not also the first priority of the people, the people will feel less obligated to defend their state in war.
In terms of Legalism’s overall philosophy, the passage reflects such. Maintaining the state’s focus on agriculture and farming is practical. The state should be focused completely on order and obedience, and war and expansion. In order for the state to expand, its citizens must be willing to defend it. In Legalism, since the people, in theory, will be most concerned with their homes and state, the will be willing to go to war. Preventing the people from living other lifestyles makes for a very orderly state with a strong central government; social mobility is the largest threat to the obedience of the people and the order of the state. In Chinese society, Legalism is meant to be applied to maintain or accomplish order, a strong central government, obedient citizens, expansion, and practicality. In order to achieve these ideals, the rights of the people are altered and a specific need or aspiration is not considered important or appropriate to dwell upon.
Legalism is most definitely a response to Confucianism; it is essentially the antithesis of it. Confucianism is focused on education, social and academic, as well as pursuing individual goals. Legalism sees any idea in favor of the individual as a weakness of the state. In Confucianism, people are focused on their own needs, and do not put the state first. When the people get new ideas, they may disrupt the order of the state, possibly overthrowing the ruler. While Legalism and Confucianism agree that obedience is important, the philosophies do not have other common principles.
Legalism
“Punishments should know no degree or grade, but from ministers of state and generals down to great officers and ordinary folk, whoever does not obey the king’s commands, violates the interdicts of the state, or rebels against the statutes fixed by the ruler should be guilty of death and should not be pardoned. Merit acquired in the past should not cause a decrease in the punishment for demerit later, nor should good behavior in the past cause and derogation of the law for wrong later done.”
--Rewards and Punishments
This particular passage states that all punishment is equal with no consideration of your moral or social standing. Punishments do not vary in degree of harshness; all crimes earn the same punishment of death. This follows the overall philosophy of Legalism. Legalists believe that one has a duty to follow the laws set down by the ruler. Under no circumstance should these laws be broken or questioned, as people should be weak to make the state strong. As long as the people are afraid of punishment there will be no crime. This is why there is only one harsh form of punishment in the state. Petty crimes will always exist if they are not treated with the same intensity as murder. As long as people are obedient subjects to their ruler the state will remain strong.
This should be applied to Chinese society in order to prevent crime from ever happening. It also unifies people as everyone is seen as equal under the law. Even members high up in the government are the same as the ordinary people. Ordinary people are less likely to be unhappy with their punishments if they know that they are the same for everyone. This makes it more difficult for the upper class to receive special treatment with lighter punishments for wrongdoing. Since everyone lives their lives knowing the result of committing even a small crime it gives the population a common ground that can allow them to relate to one another on a certain topic.
The last sentence of the quote is in direct conflict with Confucianism. In Confucianism your merit is very important as it is a meritocracy. Moral education is very important, so if one was previously moral they would most likely be punished less severely than anther person who was not moral in the past. Their good behavior should not be discounted completely. However, some ideas are still similar. Confucians see filial piety as the most important aspect of human life. The people are to show the ruler of the country filial piety without question. In Legalism, the people are also supposed to respect the ruler as the father of the country.
Legalism
Legalism was prevalent during Qin dynasty, the state that conquered six other states during the warring period and unified China. Concept of having a strong, central government was especially important since expansion of the Qin dynasty through well-organized, powerful military lead to its domination over other states. Along with promoting strong centralized government, ideas from previously influential Confucianism were regarded as “artful words and empty doctrines”, which led to persecution o myriads of Confucian scholars.
In an ideal legalist society, word of the king is to be considered most important over anything else and people should work to “honor the emperor”. People should farm to “love their ruler and obey his commandments even to death” and should participate in wars to maintain “peace”. On the other hand, scholars, unlike the farmers, are the “glib-tongued”, masters of sophistry, who would eventually lead a state to destruction.
Considering emperor-oriented, totalitarian, and combative qualities of legalist society, it is logical for legalists to ban Confucianism and encourage farming. Scholars, unlike farmers, have profound knowledge and are not be afraid to speak against the ruler if they firmly believe that emperor’s decisions are not appropriate. Because their role in the traditional Confucian society as advisors conflicts with the values of the legalist society, Confucian scholars along with Confucianism were persecuted under the legalist era. Moreover, advocates of legalism feared farmers comparing their lives with those of the respected, successful scholars and becoming dissatisfied with their farming lives.
Overall, Legalism opposed the Confucianism, but advocated a society in which everything is strictly kept under control by emperor’s decisions. Scholars who spoke up when they are not in agreement with the ruler were forbidden; people were encouraged into farming, which would keep them submissive and obedient to the ruler. By doing so, legalist state succeeded in expanding its power, but there was no room for individuality and development of more mature philosophies.
In an ideal legalist society, word of the king is to be considered most important over anything else and people should work to “honor the emperor”. People should farm to “love their ruler and obey his commandments even to death” and should participate in wars to maintain “peace”. On the other hand, scholars, unlike the farmers, are the “glib-tongued”, masters of sophistry, who would eventually lead a state to destruction.
Considering emperor-oriented, totalitarian, and combative qualities of legalist society, it is logical for legalists to ban Confucianism and encourage farming. Scholars, unlike farmers, have profound knowledge and are not be afraid to speak against the ruler if they firmly believe that emperor’s decisions are not appropriate. Because their role in the traditional Confucian society as advisors conflicts with the values of the legalist society, Confucian scholars along with Confucianism were persecuted under the legalist era. Moreover, advocates of legalism feared farmers comparing their lives with those of the respected, successful scholars and becoming dissatisfied with their farming lives.
Overall, Legalism opposed the Confucianism, but advocated a society in which everything is strictly kept under control by emperor’s decisions. Scholars who spoke up when they are not in agreement with the ruler were forbidden; people were encouraged into farming, which would keep them submissive and obedient to the ruler. By doing so, legalist state succeeded in expanding its power, but there was no room for individuality and development of more mature philosophies.
Mohism
“What the superior considers right all shall consider right; what the superior consider wrong all shall consider wrong. If the superior commits any fault, his subordinates shall remonstrate with him; if his subordinates do good, the superior shall recommend them.”
This passage from Section 11: Identifying with The Superior of ‘Selections from the Mozi’ emphasizes inability of people to have individual opinions against their superior. It is seen that people were obligated to take sides of their leader without any hesitations or objections even when he makes mistakes. This principle causes the fact that wishes of the citizens are only refer to their government through the superior, not directly from them. This authoritative voice may sound unfair, but it is crucial to achieve the absolute uniformity; one of the most important ideas in Mohism.
Because Master Mo aimed for universal love which came only by uniformity of thoughts and actions of people, he stressed on necessity of following leaders who were also led by the will of Heaven. Therefore, enforcement of law was needed in daily lives to organize immorality; unnecessary luxuries, pleasures, and thoughts. A man had to be equal to everyone else and had to treat everyone equally under any kind of circumstances. For that reason, Master Mo disliked Confucius because Confucius emphasized value of relationship of family and believed that good family would be the model of good government. This family-oriented teach was unacceptable in Mohism because Mo did not allow favoring anyone to prevent disorder in uniformity.
This philosophy gave an opportunity for China to be united. For the unity, people identified themselves as a member of the great China and were able to work for prosperity of the country in chaos. The religion also may have an influence on the communism in China. The communist in China, which still exist in some parts, believe in equality of men in terms of social and economical states. The situation has been changing currently, but consequently, their strong belief in communism suppressed domestic development in China.
This passage from Section 11: Identifying with The Superior of ‘Selections from the Mozi’ emphasizes inability of people to have individual opinions against their superior. It is seen that people were obligated to take sides of their leader without any hesitations or objections even when he makes mistakes. This principle causes the fact that wishes of the citizens are only refer to their government through the superior, not directly from them. This authoritative voice may sound unfair, but it is crucial to achieve the absolute uniformity; one of the most important ideas in Mohism.
Because Master Mo aimed for universal love which came only by uniformity of thoughts and actions of people, he stressed on necessity of following leaders who were also led by the will of Heaven. Therefore, enforcement of law was needed in daily lives to organize immorality; unnecessary luxuries, pleasures, and thoughts. A man had to be equal to everyone else and had to treat everyone equally under any kind of circumstances. For that reason, Master Mo disliked Confucius because Confucius emphasized value of relationship of family and believed that good family would be the model of good government. This family-oriented teach was unacceptable in Mohism because Mo did not allow favoring anyone to prevent disorder in uniformity.
This philosophy gave an opportunity for China to be united. For the unity, people identified themselves as a member of the great China and were able to work for prosperity of the country in chaos. The religion also may have an influence on the communism in China. The communist in China, which still exist in some parts, believe in equality of men in terms of social and economical states. The situation has been changing currently, but consequently, their strong belief in communism suppressed domestic development in China.
legalism
“The way to administer a state well is for the laws regulating officials to be clear; one does not rely on men to be intelligent and thoughtful. The ruler makes the people single-minded so they will not scheme for selfish profit. Then the strength of the state will be consolidated, and a state whose strength has been consolidated is powerful, but a country that loves talking is dismembered…”
This passage from Agriculture and War covers a key philosophy of legalism. The idea that if people are working toward one common goal they will have no time to think and “scheme” and therefore the “strength of the state will be consolidated.” What this means is that people will be simply too busy to question their government, and therefore the government will become strong. Legalism is, at its roots, a pretty simple and straight forward philosophy; the people are to concern themselves with only one objective- to provide food for their community and support for their government, no questions asked. In this way of thinking the government rains supreme, the people remain fed and protected, and the state can expand. Although this philosophy may be productive it does not take into account the fact that humans have an inane desire to question, to think, and to rebel.
Legalism attempts to control the population with fear of punishment; yet fear propagates fear and eventually people will most likely either become paranoid and dangerous or generally emotionally unstable. The legalist government seems to only consider what is best for the state, and does not concern itself with its people. Harsh punishments and strict ideas may seem to work short term, but eventually people will realize how controlled they are and how unfair the government is and start to think. Through thinking the people will come to resent the government and become the stereotypical angry worker. Many companies and work areas in modern times have come to understand that a happy worker is a good worker, and to that end the companies provide fair wages, benefits, and good work environment. The legalist would have done well, if they had been able to take the advice of modern times. Although you should not always “rely on men to be intelligent and thoughtful” you should rely on the fact that they are human and do have emotions. You should also rely on the fact that these emotions have the ability to spur on a group of citizens; which has a very good chance of leading to the demise of an entire government.
Some of the ideas and concepts of legalism, though flawed, do have some merit in providing protection and stability. If this philosophy had not been a direct opposition to Confucianism it may have been able to be less extreme and have more success. This passage states that a “country that loves talking is dismembered” this is exactly the opposite of what the Confucians believed. Maybe if the legalists had been more open to a moderate change in society instead of such a drastic one, they could have created a government with a good amount of structure and the ability to allow thought and individuality.
This passage from Agriculture and War covers a key philosophy of legalism. The idea that if people are working toward one common goal they will have no time to think and “scheme” and therefore the “strength of the state will be consolidated.” What this means is that people will be simply too busy to question their government, and therefore the government will become strong. Legalism is, at its roots, a pretty simple and straight forward philosophy; the people are to concern themselves with only one objective- to provide food for their community and support for their government, no questions asked. In this way of thinking the government rains supreme, the people remain fed and protected, and the state can expand. Although this philosophy may be productive it does not take into account the fact that humans have an inane desire to question, to think, and to rebel.
Legalism attempts to control the population with fear of punishment; yet fear propagates fear and eventually people will most likely either become paranoid and dangerous or generally emotionally unstable. The legalist government seems to only consider what is best for the state, and does not concern itself with its people. Harsh punishments and strict ideas may seem to work short term, but eventually people will realize how controlled they are and how unfair the government is and start to think. Through thinking the people will come to resent the government and become the stereotypical angry worker. Many companies and work areas in modern times have come to understand that a happy worker is a good worker, and to that end the companies provide fair wages, benefits, and good work environment. The legalist would have done well, if they had been able to take the advice of modern times. Although you should not always “rely on men to be intelligent and thoughtful” you should rely on the fact that they are human and do have emotions. You should also rely on the fact that these emotions have the ability to spur on a group of citizens; which has a very good chance of leading to the demise of an entire government.
Some of the ideas and concepts of legalism, though flawed, do have some merit in providing protection and stability. If this philosophy had not been a direct opposition to Confucianism it may have been able to be less extreme and have more success. This passage states that a “country that loves talking is dismembered” this is exactly the opposite of what the Confucians believed. Maybe if the legalists had been more open to a moderate change in society instead of such a drastic one, they could have created a government with a good amount of structure and the ability to allow thought and individuality.
1. Choose one quotation/passage from your reading on Mohism or Legalism and analyze the passage. What does it mean? How does it connect to the overall philosophy of Mohism or Legalism? How is it meant to be applied to Chinese society? Is it a response to Confucianism or another philosophy?
Mohism
"I have heard that the truly superior man of the world regards his friend the same as himself, and his friend's father the same as his own. Only if he does this can he be considered a truly superior man. "
Treat others as how you want to be treated. People often think that having more money and fame than others acutally give them victories. Thus, they unconsciously compete and fight everyday to make themselves better. However, truly superior man gives other what they want and make others feel good. This way, he truly accomplishes his superiority while keeping others happy.
This connects to the universality love that Mohism is focusing on. Love every individual equally. Love your friend as you love yourself, and love his father as you love his father. If one loves everyone equally, there is no possilibity of fighting. There will be no competition among people to be better than others. Also, even when one accomplishes something, the others would be truly happy about it since they love everyone. In this way, Mozi has tried to make a world without wars and fights but love.
Mohism was depicting a perfect utopia to live in, where everyone is truly happy. Yet, it was too idealistic. Mohism evolved with confucianism, taoism and legalism as one of the philosophic schools. It was once the powerful rival to confucianism. Yet, due to its strong idealistic ideas, Mohism disappeared during Qin dynasty. Eventhough it was gone, Mohism left the big foundation of Chinese history. The communism, which focuses on equality of every individual has a foundation in universal love. Equality of everyone, equal love to everyone.
While mohists focused on universality, confucianists focused on partiality. They basically supported the opposite ideas. Confucianists thought that it is better to be filial towards your own father than the stranger wallking on the street. Both ideas have strong opinions about ther own concepts.
Eventhough it is idealistic, it would be great if there is a world where everyone loves and truly cares about each other.
Legalism
To say that legalism is strict would be to understate the rigidity of legalist rule. However, though the legalist laws and punishments were extremely harsh, the philosophy of legalism is one that makes sense. In a passage from “The Guanzi”, Master Guan says “In applying punishments, light offenses should be punished heavily; if light offenses do not appear, heavy offenses will not come. This is said to be abolishing penalties by means of penalties, and if penalties are abolished, affairs will succeed”. This passage means that in a legalist society, each crime will have the same punishment-likely death- so that people are never able to move on to bigger crimes. Each different part of the legalist writings seem to say that same thing; if one ruler has all the power to enforce what he believes over his people, then there will be more structure and less hardship. This is the basic premise for legalism. A legalist ruler does not appreciate scholarship, or virtue, because neither is for the good of the society. What a legalist ruler does appreciate is obedience. An obedient citizen will earn the respect of a legalist ruler.
This system of harsh punishments was used and enforced in China during the warring states period. Men like Shang Yang, who were against the more traditional confusion values, began to enforce legalist rule over their states. In everyday life, this rule meant that if you killed someone you would be killed, and likewise if you stole a piece of break for your starving family you would be killed. The thinking was that a structured set of laws would lead to a structured and therefore successful society. It makes sense to see the rise of such a rigid rule during the warring states period because each empire and state is trying to survive and become the strongest. The legalist rule was harsh so that their state could be strong, and militarily it was. Though legalism is possibly too strict by today’s standards, during the warring states period, Legalism provided the strongest and most reliable living environment.
This system of harsh punishments was used and enforced in China during the warring states period. Men like Shang Yang, who were against the more traditional confusion values, began to enforce legalist rule over their states. In everyday life, this rule meant that if you killed someone you would be killed, and likewise if you stole a piece of break for your starving family you would be killed. The thinking was that a structured set of laws would lead to a structured and therefore successful society. It makes sense to see the rise of such a rigid rule during the warring states period because each empire and state is trying to survive and become the strongest. The legalist rule was harsh so that their state could be strong, and militarily it was. Though legalism is possibly too strict by today’s standards, during the warring states period, Legalism provided the strongest and most reliable living environment.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Mohism
“Mozi’s most characteristic doctrine comes close to asserting that “all human being are equal before God.” Believing in heaven as an active power manifesting love for all, he urged that all people follow heaven in this by practicing universal love. But this has nothing to do with love between persons or human affectivity. His standard of action is strictly based on utility: love for all human beings is demonstrated by satisfying their immediate material needs by abandoning all forms of activity and expense that do not contribute to the feeding, clothing and housing of the people” (Mozi: Utility, Uniformity, and Universal Love, 65).
Mohism, founded by Mo-tzu, was the third group that sought to influence government during the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C.E. Mo-tzu and his supporters believed that the government operated best under the traditional Chinese religions. Under these religions, people were taught to love one another. They believed that the government operated better from a position of love. Although Mohists were pacifists, they utilized their self-defense when it was necessary. They allowed themselves to build strength in preparation of defense.
In this passage a great amount of emphasis was placed on the belief in universal love. Universal love was an idea that everyone was equal, no matter what rank or class a person was in. “Mozi’s most characteristic doctrine comes close to asserting that “all human being are equal before God,”’ that everyone should be treated equally because in the “eyes” of God, everyone is equal. “God urged that all people follow heaven,” the ultimate authority and moral force. This moral force required the participation in universal love. Following this philosophical idea of universal love was a practical love, a consideration for others. The idea of “partiality” or “half love,” was not acceptable. The idea of universal love was to unify, not to single out. The main idea was that everyone should treat others as if they would like to be treated, and treat them as if they were their own family members. Any actions that do not directly assist someone else should be avoided. Merchandise that was not a necessity or was not practical should be ridden off if not needed. Mozi’s doctrine stated, “love for all human beings is demonstrated by satisfying their immediate material needs.” Once the material needs are satisfied, then the person must abandon any activity and materials that don’t contribute to the basic food, clothing and housing of a person.
The founder, Mo-tzu was well educated in the classics and was thought to have even been a follower of the Confucian school. He then separated himself from the school and took up a position of strong belief in separate ideas. These ideas were different from the Confucians who where characterized as “pretentious aristocrats who stand very much on their own dignity and on ceremony, suggesting perhaps a degree of plebeian hostility on the part of Mozi’s followers” (64). This apposed position to the Confucian beliefs was evident in this passage. Filial Piety was an important and strong aspect to Confucianism; however, in Mohism, Filial Piety was considered to be partial. Filial Piety only concentrates on the respect for elders, mainly family members, not the universe as a whole. As Mohists were taught to be practical in all senses, the Confucians did not accentuate this idea. This was why the Mohists felt as if everything the Confucians did was a waste of time, harmful and not worthwhile. The Confucians were known to be selfish for not thinking more about others.
Mo-tzu expressed the idea that by following his doctrine, the world would be able to live in harmony. If everyone maintained the same thoughts and actions then Mohism would be successful. Mohists believed in following the leaders, who followed the will of heaven. This was thought to help with the order and chaos of the society. Reciprocity or a cooperative community was the ultimate goal. Ideally this could work; however, in reality people were not in favor of these analects. In a Mohist society, people were not able to excel, because they were taught to avoid anything that might hurt another person. They needed to be fair and just. Adhering to this idea would have left no opportunity for individuality. In a competitive world, run by government and money, this idealistic universe would be impossible. Mohism, therefore, was a short-lived philosophy concept.
Mohism, founded by Mo-tzu, was the third group that sought to influence government during the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C.E. Mo-tzu and his supporters believed that the government operated best under the traditional Chinese religions. Under these religions, people were taught to love one another. They believed that the government operated better from a position of love. Although Mohists were pacifists, they utilized their self-defense when it was necessary. They allowed themselves to build strength in preparation of defense.
In this passage a great amount of emphasis was placed on the belief in universal love. Universal love was an idea that everyone was equal, no matter what rank or class a person was in. “Mozi’s most characteristic doctrine comes close to asserting that “all human being are equal before God,”’ that everyone should be treated equally because in the “eyes” of God, everyone is equal. “God urged that all people follow heaven,” the ultimate authority and moral force. This moral force required the participation in universal love. Following this philosophical idea of universal love was a practical love, a consideration for others. The idea of “partiality” or “half love,” was not acceptable. The idea of universal love was to unify, not to single out. The main idea was that everyone should treat others as if they would like to be treated, and treat them as if they were their own family members. Any actions that do not directly assist someone else should be avoided. Merchandise that was not a necessity or was not practical should be ridden off if not needed. Mozi’s doctrine stated, “love for all human beings is demonstrated by satisfying their immediate material needs.” Once the material needs are satisfied, then the person must abandon any activity and materials that don’t contribute to the basic food, clothing and housing of a person.
The founder, Mo-tzu was well educated in the classics and was thought to have even been a follower of the Confucian school. He then separated himself from the school and took up a position of strong belief in separate ideas. These ideas were different from the Confucians who where characterized as “pretentious aristocrats who stand very much on their own dignity and on ceremony, suggesting perhaps a degree of plebeian hostility on the part of Mozi’s followers” (64). This apposed position to the Confucian beliefs was evident in this passage. Filial Piety was an important and strong aspect to Confucianism; however, in Mohism, Filial Piety was considered to be partial. Filial Piety only concentrates on the respect for elders, mainly family members, not the universe as a whole. As Mohists were taught to be practical in all senses, the Confucians did not accentuate this idea. This was why the Mohists felt as if everything the Confucians did was a waste of time, harmful and not worthwhile. The Confucians were known to be selfish for not thinking more about others.
Mo-tzu expressed the idea that by following his doctrine, the world would be able to live in harmony. If everyone maintained the same thoughts and actions then Mohism would be successful. Mohists believed in following the leaders, who followed the will of heaven. This was thought to help with the order and chaos of the society. Reciprocity or a cooperative community was the ultimate goal. Ideally this could work; however, in reality people were not in favor of these analects. In a Mohist society, people were not able to excel, because they were taught to avoid anything that might hurt another person. They needed to be fair and just. Adhering to this idea would have left no opportunity for individuality. In a competitive world, run by government and money, this idealistic universe would be impossible. Mohism, therefore, was a short-lived philosophy concept.
Mohism
“The believer in partiality says, ‘How could I possibly regard my friend the same as myself, or my friend’s father the same as my own?’ Because he views his friend this way, he will not feed him when he is hungry, clothe him when he is cold, nourish him when he is sick, or bury him when he dies. Such are the words of the partial man, and such his actions. But the words and actions of the universal-minded man are not like these. He will say, ‘I have heard the truly superior man of the world regards his friend the same as himself, and his friend’s father the same as his won. Only if he does this can he be considered a truly superior man.’ Because he views his friend in this way, he will feed him when he is hungry, clothe him when he is cold, nourish him when he is sick, and bury him when he dies. Such are the words and actions of the universal-minded man.” (Mozi: Utility, Uniformity, and Universal Love, 70-1).
Mohism arose during the warring states period. It is one of the 100 Schools of Philosophy, which also include Taoism, Legalism and Confucianism. These systems of belief are all responses to the chaos taking place throughout China during the warring states period. Each different belief system was used to promote change and structure in society in order to improve the people in China. Mo-Tzu, the founder of Mohism, did not believe in Confucius’ teachings and therefore took Confucianism in a new direction, creating Mohism. The primary concern of Mo-Tzu was to end the chaos that occurred due to the warring states period.
This passage is talking about universality verses partiality. Mozi says that universality is right, but yet it is still criticized by many people. Someone who is a believer in partiality says, “[h] ow could I possibly regard my friend the same as myself, or my friend’s father the same as my own?” Because of his views, the believer’s actions will be partial too, they are selfish and discriminatory. Partiality is half love; this does not produce an ideal society. He is not treating his friend as an equal to himself, which is against Mohist beliefs. In Mohism everyone should be treated the way one would treat his or her family. Additionally, he will not regard his friend with universal love, which is a philosophical concept of Mohism. Universal love is about care and consideration, it is practical love. Mohist beliefs are practical and Mohists therefore employ universal love in practical ways. The point of universal love is to get rid of partiality and to treat everyone the same. The universal-minded man would say, “I have heard that the truly superior man of the world regards his friend the same as himself, and his friend’s father the same as his own…” His views will then carry out into his actions, making them in discriminatory, which is how the actions of a universal-minded man should be. Therefore his actions will be done with love and be sincere. Universal love is equal affection for all, and this is what makes a man good in Mo-Tzu’s eyes. The believer is regarding his friend and his friend’s father as he would treat someone of his own family. By practicing universal love and universality rather than partiality, it creates an orderly society, the ultimate goal of Mohism. As a result of universal love there is equality throughout society so that there is less emphasis on the aristocratic class. Instead there is an equal focus dispersed throughout all classes, including the middle and lower classes.
Mohists do not agree with Confucian beliefs. Confucianism is all about partial love, the exact opposite of Mohist values. Mohists refrain from any activity that would hurt anyone as well as any activity that does not benefit or help another person. They do not perform rituals or pursue the arts like a Confucian would. Mohists view the Confucians as snobby, selfish and as having missed the point of life. The Mohists also believe that the Confucians focus on things in life that are not worthwhile. Mohists believed that when everyone loves one another then the government would operate efficiently, thus creating an ideal society. Although Mo-Tzu’s ideas were ideal, Mohism did not become a lasting belief system, unlike Confucianism. There was no room for individuality or success because everyone always had to worry about not hurting others and treating others equally. Consequently this was not good for government and therefore society was not able to function ideally.
Mohism arose during the warring states period. It is one of the 100 Schools of Philosophy, which also include Taoism, Legalism and Confucianism. These systems of belief are all responses to the chaos taking place throughout China during the warring states period. Each different belief system was used to promote change and structure in society in order to improve the people in China. Mo-Tzu, the founder of Mohism, did not believe in Confucius’ teachings and therefore took Confucianism in a new direction, creating Mohism. The primary concern of Mo-Tzu was to end the chaos that occurred due to the warring states period.
This passage is talking about universality verses partiality. Mozi says that universality is right, but yet it is still criticized by many people. Someone who is a believer in partiality says, “[h] ow could I possibly regard my friend the same as myself, or my friend’s father the same as my own?” Because of his views, the believer’s actions will be partial too, they are selfish and discriminatory. Partiality is half love; this does not produce an ideal society. He is not treating his friend as an equal to himself, which is against Mohist beliefs. In Mohism everyone should be treated the way one would treat his or her family. Additionally, he will not regard his friend with universal love, which is a philosophical concept of Mohism. Universal love is about care and consideration, it is practical love. Mohist beliefs are practical and Mohists therefore employ universal love in practical ways. The point of universal love is to get rid of partiality and to treat everyone the same. The universal-minded man would say, “I have heard that the truly superior man of the world regards his friend the same as himself, and his friend’s father the same as his own…” His views will then carry out into his actions, making them in discriminatory, which is how the actions of a universal-minded man should be. Therefore his actions will be done with love and be sincere. Universal love is equal affection for all, and this is what makes a man good in Mo-Tzu’s eyes. The believer is regarding his friend and his friend’s father as he would treat someone of his own family. By practicing universal love and universality rather than partiality, it creates an orderly society, the ultimate goal of Mohism. As a result of universal love there is equality throughout society so that there is less emphasis on the aristocratic class. Instead there is an equal focus dispersed throughout all classes, including the middle and lower classes.
Mohists do not agree with Confucian beliefs. Confucianism is all about partial love, the exact opposite of Mohist values. Mohists refrain from any activity that would hurt anyone as well as any activity that does not benefit or help another person. They do not perform rituals or pursue the arts like a Confucian would. Mohists view the Confucians as snobby, selfish and as having missed the point of life. The Mohists also believe that the Confucians focus on things in life that are not worthwhile. Mohists believed that when everyone loves one another then the government would operate efficiently, thus creating an ideal society. Although Mo-Tzu’s ideas were ideal, Mohism did not become a lasting belief system, unlike Confucianism. There was no room for individuality or success because everyone always had to worry about not hurting others and treating others equally. Consequently this was not good for government and therefore society was not able to function ideally.
Mohism and Confucianism: The Mozi vs. The Analects
“...He urged that all people follow Heaven in this by practicing universal love. But this has nothing to do with love between persons or human affectivity. His standard of action is strictly based on utility; love for all human beings is demonstrated by satisfying their immediate material needs and by abandoning all forms of activity and expense that do not contribute to the feeding, clothing and housing of the people.” -The Mozi
"One should abide in loyalty and trustworthiness and should have no friends who are not his equal." -The Analects
Mohism’s central belief in Universal Love creates a mutually benefiting alliance between Mohist believers during China’s Warring States period, while taking a jab at what was believed to be Confucianism’s pretentious and impractical doctrine of bettering oneself by keeping only equally- or better-educated friends.
The Mohist philosophy of Universal Love is expanded on to stress the “utility” of friendship, a focus that sets a behavioral guideline for Mohist believers while also setting this mutually benefiting relationship against the ambitious friendships encouraged in Confucianism. Universal Love, the belief that all actions of a person should directly help someone else, is the essential doctrine in governing behavior in Mohism, and was an especially attractive guideline to Chinese civilians during the chaotic Warring States period. As territorial skirmishes raged on in every part of the country, the practical nature of relationships encouraged by Mohism was appealing to civilians searching for order in their communities, as well as for basic survival necessities. Confucianism’s decree to “have no friends that are not [one’s] equal” does not satisfy the immediate priority of basic survival to the Chinese in the practical way that Mohist relationships can. The mutual satisfaction of basic needs within a Mohist relationship clashes with the selfish gains of knowledge and social graces through friendships valued in Confucianism. The “utility” stressed by Mohism’s Universal Love directly spurns Confucian ideals of education, ritual and etiquette, beliefs that seem to be out of place in a society scrambling to survive.
Mohism’s goal of fulfilling the needs of individuals within friendships, and therefore ultimately of a community, not only garnered many Mohist followers during the Warring States period, but also openly made cuts at Confucianism’s elaborate system of social and etiquette rules that seemed to lack perspective in a time of uncertainty and confusion across China.
"One should abide in loyalty and trustworthiness and should have no friends who are not his equal." -The Analects
Mohism’s central belief in Universal Love creates a mutually benefiting alliance between Mohist believers during China’s Warring States period, while taking a jab at what was believed to be Confucianism’s pretentious and impractical doctrine of bettering oneself by keeping only equally- or better-educated friends.
The Mohist philosophy of Universal Love is expanded on to stress the “utility” of friendship, a focus that sets a behavioral guideline for Mohist believers while also setting this mutually benefiting relationship against the ambitious friendships encouraged in Confucianism. Universal Love, the belief that all actions of a person should directly help someone else, is the essential doctrine in governing behavior in Mohism, and was an especially attractive guideline to Chinese civilians during the chaotic Warring States period. As territorial skirmishes raged on in every part of the country, the practical nature of relationships encouraged by Mohism was appealing to civilians searching for order in their communities, as well as for basic survival necessities. Confucianism’s decree to “have no friends that are not [one’s] equal” does not satisfy the immediate priority of basic survival to the Chinese in the practical way that Mohist relationships can. The mutual satisfaction of basic needs within a Mohist relationship clashes with the selfish gains of knowledge and social graces through friendships valued in Confucianism. The “utility” stressed by Mohism’s Universal Love directly spurns Confucian ideals of education, ritual and etiquette, beliefs that seem to be out of place in a society scrambling to survive.
Mohism’s goal of fulfilling the needs of individuals within friendships, and therefore ultimately of a community, not only garnered many Mohist followers during the Warring States period, but also openly made cuts at Confucianism’s elaborate system of social and etiquette rules that seemed to lack perspective in a time of uncertainty and confusion across China.
Legalism
“The people will love their ruler and obey his commandments, even to death, if they are engaged in farming morning and evening; but they will be of no use if they see that glib-tongued, itinerant scholars succeed in being honored in serving the prince, that merchants succeed in enriching their families, and that artisans have plenty to live upon. If the people see both the comfort and the advantage of these three walks of life, then they will indubitably shun agriculture; shunning agriculture, they will care little for their homes; caring little for their homes, they will certainly not fight and defend them for the ruler’s sake.” (Legalists and Militarists, 195)
This passage is meant to create an image of what the ideal Legalist society would be like. The Legalism doctrine is mainly a series of ideas and rules by which the society and government must follow to achieve a stable and balanced state. Through strict laws and equal punishment, Legalism sought to maintain order and a steady balance throughout society. Legalism was born into ancient China during the Warring States period, a time of great chaos and instability, and was meant to provide a helpful solution in the protection and safeguarding of one’s state. Reflecting upon this “school of thought” in our present society, the idea doesn’t sound practical, but for the struggles ancient Chinese states were going through, Legalism was perhaps the most intelligent and insightful response that could have been put to use.
This specific passage is meant to show exactly how Legalism was enforced in a state. “The people will love their ruler and obey his commandments, even to death, if they are engaged in farming morning and evening”. This quote suggests the idea that if everyone has the same occupation, and lives identically with each enjoying an ordinary life, then the state as a whole would be much stronger than one of constant social mobility and inequality. This passage gives insight into the hopeful outcomes a Legalist society would provide. It seems that in a Legalist society there can only be a “successful” chain of events or reactions, or a “failing” chain, with no in between alternative. The “successful” chain would mean that everyone would virtually be living the same, thus the people will be happy, thus the state would be strong, and thus war wouldn’t be a threat. The “failing” chain would mean that there is inequality in the distribution of occupations among the society, with favoritism playing a role. This would then lead to a revolt amongst the “lower” class and cause them to shun their work (mainly farming), which would inevitably lead to a muddled state of confusion and anger with no unity in defense. A typical Legalist society was very dependent on agriculture, and thus directed their people to farming. With all of the people of a state farming, and the experienced and educated officials running and leading the state, order would be present and thus stability and balance. Although Legalism is basically designed to weaken and oppress the people in order to maintain the perfect state, it is important to keep in mind the circumstances presented in the particular time period. Through oppressing the people, Legalism might actually prove successful, and keep its promise in keeping all of its civilians protected.
It is evident that Legalism was created after the influence Confucianism had upon ancient Chinese society. The ideal Confucian society was opposed by a Legalist society because of its lack of practicality, its unequal distribution of rewards, and its constant social mobility. “But they [the farmers] will be of no use if they see that glib-tongued, itinerant scholars succeed in being honored…” This quote shows Legalism’s apparent distaste for a society of Confucian scholars, and those more concerned with whimsical ideas rather than the present, or reality. A Legalist society had no room for the “glib-tongued, itinerant scholar” or the merchants and artisans who were able to enjoy more commodities than those of the farming class. To have a state with farming as the only occupation, the state would know no jealously, anger, or dissatisfaction. Legalism was originally developed as a response to present times in China, and thus it greatly opposed Confucian ideal of practicing rites, filial piety, music, and other impractical ideas. Legalists condemned these practices as a waste of time if they had no impact on reality.
This passage connects to the overall philosophy of Legalism because it emphasizes again the order and practicality their ideals held. With a strong central authority, and “weaker” followers of the society, there would be no threats to the society or state. Merchants, artisans, and scholars were viewed as a potential threat and danger to an ideal perfect society, and Legalists most likely got this idea from viewing the chaos in an ordinary Confucian society. Anger arose in a state because of the unequal application of honor and praise. “If the people see both the comfort and the advantage of these three walks of life, then they will indubitably shun agriculture; shunning agriculture, they will care little for their homes; caring little for their homes, they will certainly not fight and defend them for the ruler’s sake.” This quote shows the underlying fear Legalist states had, of the idea of that its people may not care enough to defend their homes. If there is an equal balance in the society then everyone should be happy. Nevertheless, Legalism was an intense concept but important in its time period and perhaps kept some states in order more than others which during ancient China was a positive element.
This passage is meant to create an image of what the ideal Legalist society would be like. The Legalism doctrine is mainly a series of ideas and rules by which the society and government must follow to achieve a stable and balanced state. Through strict laws and equal punishment, Legalism sought to maintain order and a steady balance throughout society. Legalism was born into ancient China during the Warring States period, a time of great chaos and instability, and was meant to provide a helpful solution in the protection and safeguarding of one’s state. Reflecting upon this “school of thought” in our present society, the idea doesn’t sound practical, but for the struggles ancient Chinese states were going through, Legalism was perhaps the most intelligent and insightful response that could have been put to use.
This specific passage is meant to show exactly how Legalism was enforced in a state. “The people will love their ruler and obey his commandments, even to death, if they are engaged in farming morning and evening”. This quote suggests the idea that if everyone has the same occupation, and lives identically with each enjoying an ordinary life, then the state as a whole would be much stronger than one of constant social mobility and inequality. This passage gives insight into the hopeful outcomes a Legalist society would provide. It seems that in a Legalist society there can only be a “successful” chain of events or reactions, or a “failing” chain, with no in between alternative. The “successful” chain would mean that everyone would virtually be living the same, thus the people will be happy, thus the state would be strong, and thus war wouldn’t be a threat. The “failing” chain would mean that there is inequality in the distribution of occupations among the society, with favoritism playing a role. This would then lead to a revolt amongst the “lower” class and cause them to shun their work (mainly farming), which would inevitably lead to a muddled state of confusion and anger with no unity in defense. A typical Legalist society was very dependent on agriculture, and thus directed their people to farming. With all of the people of a state farming, and the experienced and educated officials running and leading the state, order would be present and thus stability and balance. Although Legalism is basically designed to weaken and oppress the people in order to maintain the perfect state, it is important to keep in mind the circumstances presented in the particular time period. Through oppressing the people, Legalism might actually prove successful, and keep its promise in keeping all of its civilians protected.
It is evident that Legalism was created after the influence Confucianism had upon ancient Chinese society. The ideal Confucian society was opposed by a Legalist society because of its lack of practicality, its unequal distribution of rewards, and its constant social mobility. “But they [the farmers] will be of no use if they see that glib-tongued, itinerant scholars succeed in being honored…” This quote shows Legalism’s apparent distaste for a society of Confucian scholars, and those more concerned with whimsical ideas rather than the present, or reality. A Legalist society had no room for the “glib-tongued, itinerant scholar” or the merchants and artisans who were able to enjoy more commodities than those of the farming class. To have a state with farming as the only occupation, the state would know no jealously, anger, or dissatisfaction. Legalism was originally developed as a response to present times in China, and thus it greatly opposed Confucian ideal of practicing rites, filial piety, music, and other impractical ideas. Legalists condemned these practices as a waste of time if they had no impact on reality.
This passage connects to the overall philosophy of Legalism because it emphasizes again the order and practicality their ideals held. With a strong central authority, and “weaker” followers of the society, there would be no threats to the society or state. Merchants, artisans, and scholars were viewed as a potential threat and danger to an ideal perfect society, and Legalists most likely got this idea from viewing the chaos in an ordinary Confucian society. Anger arose in a state because of the unequal application of honor and praise. “If the people see both the comfort and the advantage of these three walks of life, then they will indubitably shun agriculture; shunning agriculture, they will care little for their homes; caring little for their homes, they will certainly not fight and defend them for the ruler’s sake.” This quote shows the underlying fear Legalist states had, of the idea of that its people may not care enough to defend their homes. If there is an equal balance in the society then everyone should be happy. Nevertheless, Legalism was an intense concept but important in its time period and perhaps kept some states in order more than others which during ancient China was a positive element.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Confucianism Response paper
Choose two or three related passages from "The Analects." Discuss what the passages means in the context of Confucian belief, and discuss how the main idea of the passages would be beneficial to society. Due Friday, November 30th.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
As promised. . .
Here's the link to my cousin's blog about living in Japan. I've chosen the link to the Japanese children's show about the butt-biting bug.
Enjoy!
http://akiinmiyagi.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog-post_06.html
Enjoy!
http://akiinmiyagi.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog-post_06.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)