Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 52:03 — 47.7MB)
On the Analects, compiled after Confucius’s (aka Master Kong’s) death in 479 BCE.
How should we act? What’s the relation between ethics and politics? Can a bunch of aphorisms written in the distant past for an unapologetically hierarchical culture emphasizing traditional rituals actually give us relevant, welcome advice on these matters? Are we even in a position to determine the meaning of these sayings?
Mark, Seth, and Wes are joined by Tzuchien Tho, who studies Leibniz but grew up in a household where Confucian texts were revered, to do the best we can in figuring out Confucius’s fundamental ethical concepts, trying to make notions like “ritual propriety” and “filial piety” relevant given today’s mores, and what to do with all your wisdom given a corrupt political climate.
This episode should be understandable to anyone, but we do refer a bit given Confucius’s emphasis on tradition to our recent episode on Burke, and compare Confucius to Socrates. You may recall we’ve ventured once previously into Chinese philosophy with Taoist Chuang Tzu.
We used the Ames/Rosemont The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation
Some of us watched Robert André LaFleur’s lecture series “Books That Matter: The Analects of Confucius,” part of which is available on YouTube. The Confucius entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is also helpful.
Get part 2 or the unbroken, ad-free Citizen Edition. Please support PEL!
Confucius picture by Solomon Grundy.
Re tradition and innovation. In the eastern martial arts, once a student has been accredited (eg by a black belt) they have permission, and are expected to innovate in the tradition.
Somewhat like making your original contribution in the Ph.D. after learning the discipline via undergrad and masters.
Is this the quote that Wes mentioned from de de Tocqueville? Different translation, but it seems to be the same quote.
“Men living in democratic ages do not readily comprehend the utility of forms: they feel an instinctive contempt for them—I have elsewhere shown for what reasons. Forms excite their contempt and often their hatred; as they commonly aspire to none but easy and present gratifications, they rush onwards to the object of their desires, and the slightest delay exasperates them. This same temper, carried with them into political life, renders them hostile to forms, which perpetually retard or arrest them in some of their projects. ”
Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/816/816-h/816-h.htm
Tzuchien Tho’s reading that one first has ren, or an orientation towards it, then approaches li as an expression or working out of ren is very much Mencius’ understanding of the concept. It must be noted that this interpretation did not go unchallenged in Classical China, even within the Confucian tradition. Xunzi held that one achieves ren through li. The differing metaphors used by each thinker underscore their positions. Mencius uses the language of horticulture; we are seeds that grow teleologically if nourished in the right way. Xunzi uses images of crafting, of making a beautiful object from rough wood or jade; thus ren isn’t natural to an individual but shaped by external forces and something one eventually forces upon one’s nature through a kind of force of will. This is, within the Analects themselves, I think, never really worked out.
Johnnie David Schiller also has a translation of the Analects! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0981748317/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=audacity88-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0981748317&linkId=2fa3e51b95db14049481d24bce2e70d2