it would be interesting to note how this has impacted the students at Harvard.
The best comment I can make from these few paragraphs is to encourage people to read Dr. Puett's book. It seems hasty to debate it from the snippets here, as if one could really identify its defects or call it Orientalism. Traditional philosophies are allergic to two paragraph criticisms.
I was unaware that Western Philosophy was concerned with self fulfillment or even personal happiness. Such a vision would make Plato, Descartes and Hume turn over at many RPMs in their graves. In the event, I have no question that the Western thinkers excel at curiosity, while the eastern are more involved with Life and Goodness. I am eternally indebted to Hume for my intellectual morals and to Chuang Tzu for my human morals.
2
學而時習之,不亦說乎?有朋自遠方來,不亦樂乎?人不知而不慍,不亦君子乎?
“To study with the winging of the seasons! Isn’t this joyful? Friends coming from afar! Isn’t this delightful? Not recognized by others, yet unperturbed. Isn’t this also a mark of merit?”
So opens The Analects of Confucius, a fascinating record of conversations between a teacher and his circle of students, as written by the students.
“To study with the winging of the seasons! Isn’t this joyful? Friends coming from afar! Isn’t this delightful? Not recognized by others, yet unperturbed. Isn’t this also a mark of merit?”
So opens The Analects of Confucius, a fascinating record of conversations between a teacher and his circle of students, as written by the students.
2
Harvard philosopher Puett: "Today, we are often told that our goal should be to look within and find ourselves, and, once we do, to strive to be sincere and authentic to that true self, always loving ourselves and embracing ourselves for who we are. All of this sounds great and is a key part of what we think of as a properly 'modern' way to live. But what if we’re, on the contrary, messy selves that tend to fall into ruts and patterns of behavior?"
Professor Puett offers a straw man argument. Modern Western philosophy is more along these lines: Those who feel they are forced to conform to expectations and roles dictated by others (family, friends, society, tradition) should "find themselves" and be authentic to their true self. The professor substituted "messy ... ruts and patterns of [personal] behavior" for the actual problem, then deduced that more meddling by society would be good for what ails us.
Professor Puett offers a straw man argument. Modern Western philosophy is more along these lines: Those who feel they are forced to conform to expectations and roles dictated by others (family, friends, society, tradition) should "find themselves" and be authentic to their true self. The professor substituted "messy ... ruts and patterns of [personal] behavior" for the actual problem, then deduced that more meddling by society would be good for what ails us.
I believe you're missing the point. Puett believes that there is no one 'authentic' self, an idea which Western philosophy actively dismisses.
2
Some of philosophy is just incomprehensible, ridiculous or self-contradictory. Some is common sense. Most of us will have little use for anything that is not. I've been reading the Tao te Ching for a good part of my life at intervals and I find much of it is common sense when applied to the lives of modern ordinary people. Some of it just isn't. I find this true with almost all philosophy. Pick and choose what I like, and laugh at or ignore the rest.
1
Lest we fall into the trap of Orientalism, you rightly point out that these philosophies should not be domesticated. Yet seeking to adapt a more "traditional" interpretation of ancient Chinese schools of thoughts for Western readers is inherently Orientalist as well...How about we avoid distilling complex cultural heritages in an effort to modernize their teachings, and instead take them for what they are?
Debate in China about their own ancestor's thought processes is normal. Writing a book called "The Path" that frames these philosophies for Western readers as foreign tools is something to avoid in my opinion. Edward Said has many great thoughts on this type of analysis...look them up.
Debate in China about their own ancestor's thought processes is normal. Writing a book called "The Path" that frames these philosophies for Western readers as foreign tools is something to avoid in my opinion. Edward Said has many great thoughts on this type of analysis...look them up.
Said's critique was based on the idea that Western scholars have a paternal attitude toward Oriental culture and treat it as static and antiquated. On the contrary Puett seeks to demonstrate that Chinese philosophy can be applied to our modern world without 'domesticating' it. Your critique is incomprehensible. I suspect if a Chinese born scholar at Harvard had written the book you would not have written such a comment.
2
“Know thyself” (Dephi)
"An unexamined life is not worth living" (Socrates).
“He who found himself, found God” (Islam).
Buddha, Confucius say the same.
Civilizations learn, never clash. So much for Samuel Huntington. Like genes some dominate, widening ideas pool. Today, Toynbee’s 5 living are:
1. Hellenized West
2. Christian Russia
3. Islam
4. Indics
5. Sinics
Primal Question of Existence is Survival, Growth, Evolution. Religions as socio-economic systems answer it in every economic stage: Pastoral (Judahism), Agrarian (Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity), and Exchange (Hellenism, Islam).
The natural ones (Islams) are optimal. Abraham, the founder and his successors - Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, were Chief Economists of their eras.
God is a metaphor for an ideal to aspire to, hence Abrahamics have prevailed over the godless in the past: they always will. God makes us frugal, efficient, caring, gives us a longer horizon (Hereafter).
Of 5 civilizations the last 2 are racial, regional; Christian other-worldly, leaving Corporate Capitalist West and Islam, both urban (Athens, Mecca) to battle for the hearts and minds of the globe as it morphs from Agrarian to Exchange, Gospel Love gives way to Koranic Justice (like Athenian Socrates) - Churches empty and mosques fill. Mohammed the Trader conceived his socio-economics for soil-poor, water-poor, resource-poor trading economy of Arabia that Globe is today writ large. In due time Abraham will triumph again. Confucians take note.
"An unexamined life is not worth living" (Socrates).
“He who found himself, found God” (Islam).
Buddha, Confucius say the same.
Civilizations learn, never clash. So much for Samuel Huntington. Like genes some dominate, widening ideas pool. Today, Toynbee’s 5 living are:
1. Hellenized West
2. Christian Russia
3. Islam
4. Indics
5. Sinics
Primal Question of Existence is Survival, Growth, Evolution. Religions as socio-economic systems answer it in every economic stage: Pastoral (Judahism), Agrarian (Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity), and Exchange (Hellenism, Islam).
The natural ones (Islams) are optimal. Abraham, the founder and his successors - Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, were Chief Economists of their eras.
God is a metaphor for an ideal to aspire to, hence Abrahamics have prevailed over the godless in the past: they always will. God makes us frugal, efficient, caring, gives us a longer horizon (Hereafter).
Of 5 civilizations the last 2 are racial, regional; Christian other-worldly, leaving Corporate Capitalist West and Islam, both urban (Athens, Mecca) to battle for the hearts and minds of the globe as it morphs from Agrarian to Exchange, Gospel Love gives way to Koranic Justice (like Athenian Socrates) - Churches empty and mosques fill. Mohammed the Trader conceived his socio-economics for soil-poor, water-poor, resource-poor trading economy of Arabia that Globe is today writ large. In due time Abraham will triumph again. Confucians take note.
"Civilizations learn, never clash." Not true.
1
"They’ve become simply foreign and exotic, made into things that we have nothing to learn from."
That is simply a bizarre statement. In case Mr. Puett has not noticed, the 1950's are over. Most college students would be disappointed if their curriculum included no "foreign and exotic" material. Every marketer in the US strains to provide "foreign and exotic" products to our citizens. The most popular movies are "foreign and exotic".
That is simply a bizarre statement. In case Mr. Puett has not noticed, the 1950's are over. Most college students would be disappointed if their curriculum included no "foreign and exotic" material. Every marketer in the US strains to provide "foreign and exotic" products to our citizens. The most popular movies are "foreign and exotic".
1
You proved his point exactly. Our interest in exotic things is superficial at best. Many believe that Eastern medicine is effective because it is ancient and "natural." People make a reading of sacred literature of the East because it's fashionable or perceived to be deep (perceptions most likely gained from kung fu movies). Films use exoticism for sex appeal or as a backdrop for Western characters and their values.
3
A little unassuming book: Witter Bynner's translation of the Tao Te Ching. Accessible and poetic gives a sense of the Taoist philosophy.
Some tidbits:
"Conduct your triumph as a funeral"
"One who recognizes all men as members of his own body
is a sound man to guard them"
"Yield and you need not break"
A little book full of wisdom that would do all of us some good especially our leaders.
Some tidbits:
"Conduct your triumph as a funeral"
"One who recognizes all men as members of his own body
is a sound man to guard them"
"Yield and you need not break"
A little book full of wisdom that would do all of us some good especially our leaders.
4
The translation by Gia-Fu Feng is good too. But beware readers, some translations are totally off the chain: the same stanza of two different translations can defy comparison.
When I was a teenager, about to be inducted into the Army during Vietnam, Witter Bynner's translation was a great consolation to me. Perhaps it's not too much to say that it opened a third eye in my forehead, and helped me not to see things merely as I wanted to see them, but to see things as they are--and it helped me to learn something about acceptance in a very tough situation. In the end, I lived in the Orient for a number of years, and read a great deal of the Chinese classics, Taoist, Confucian, and Zen.
In the West, we like to think that we have some sort of patent on "the truth", but we really don't. The Chinese philosophical tradition is a monument in humanist thought, profound, replenishing, perennial, well worth knowing something about.
In the West, we like to think that we have some sort of patent on "the truth", but we really don't. The Chinese philosophical tradition is a monument in humanist thought, profound, replenishing, perennial, well worth knowing something about.
2
"Are we at a phase of globalization where ideas that were once considered exotic might be valued as part of our own, broader cultural heritage?"
This is hillarious, because the mindset advanced in many of these books is in fact the moral foundation of conservitivism. An acknowledgement that people are not perfectly well behaved when left to their own devices, and that institutions and traditions (or rituals if you prefer) evolved over time to provide us with a framework within which we can all succeed. Why is this new now? or more accurately why do we have to look at Chinese thought to realize the truths here? The answer is simple. Liberals are approximately three times less accurate than conservatives when it comes to assigning reasons for why the other side does things. This trend has been demonstrated in numerous studies across numerous demographic groups. In short, liberals long ago decided conservatives are evil and therefore stopped empathizing with them long ago
This is hillarious, because the mindset advanced in many of these books is in fact the moral foundation of conservitivism. An acknowledgement that people are not perfectly well behaved when left to their own devices, and that institutions and traditions (or rituals if you prefer) evolved over time to provide us with a framework within which we can all succeed. Why is this new now? or more accurately why do we have to look at Chinese thought to realize the truths here? The answer is simple. Liberals are approximately three times less accurate than conservatives when it comes to assigning reasons for why the other side does things. This trend has been demonstrated in numerous studies across numerous demographic groups. In short, liberals long ago decided conservatives are evil and therefore stopped empathizing with them long ago
These ancient texts never confused the ego or the human personality with the Self. Unfortunately, our modern interpretations continue to do just that. Secondly, these texts need to be read in historical context. What was going on in the world when they were written? How did these texts address those specific conditions as well as the more universal principles that they espouse?
Unfortunately the Confucian teachings about the importance of order and social structure are seen as limited and limiting, while the Tao is read as more universal and embracing. The truth is they are both part of a continuum of truth, one creating the social conditions for both the individual and the nation to pursue the other.
As for self improvement; when we understand the difference between the self and the Self the key to these texts and many other 'mysteries' will be unlocked.
Unfortunately the Confucian teachings about the importance of order and social structure are seen as limited and limiting, while the Tao is read as more universal and embracing. The truth is they are both part of a continuum of truth, one creating the social conditions for both the individual and the nation to pursue the other.
As for self improvement; when we understand the difference between the self and the Self the key to these texts and many other 'mysteries' will be unlocked.
1
There is nothing new under the sun. A good life was mentioned by the Chinese, the Greeks and John Stuart Mills.
Before political communism rose in China in the 20th Century, Top down and bottom up practices were organized by the divine right gang. There were 9 lineages and 10 schools. When Mao said, "let a 100 flowers blossom and a 100 schools compete for supremacy," he didn't invent the idea but tried to harken back the golden age.
So pigeonholing Chinese philosophy can be too narrow focused
Before political communism rose in China in the 20th Century, Top down and bottom up practices were organized by the divine right gang. There were 9 lineages and 10 schools. When Mao said, "let a 100 flowers blossom and a 100 schools compete for supremacy," he didn't invent the idea but tried to harken back the golden age.
So pigeonholing Chinese philosophy can be too narrow focused
Actually, Bos, Mao's decree that a hundred flowers should bloom was purely cynical. With those words he lured dissidents to reveal themselves, which they did in large numbers. Then he allowed his victims to wither in prison or face firing squads.
Forced collectivization of Chinese agriculture, vast industrial mismanagement, and ceaseless political purges added up to a cost of tens of millions of Chinese lives during Mao's quarter-century in power.
All the while, there was no competition for intellectual supremacy except when the country's obvious disasters forced Mao to back down from some of his most unrealistic plans for Chinese socialist development. Confucianism, however, always remained poison in the lexicon of Maoist propaganda. For the most part, the Tao Te Ching seemed too airy-fairy to contemplate.
Unfortunately, Mao always came roaring back from his huge failures, especially with the universally catastrophic Cultural Revolution. No controversy about the source of that phenomenon. Nothing to do with any supposed golden age; everything to do with the Little Red Book.
Forced collectivization of Chinese agriculture, vast industrial mismanagement, and ceaseless political purges added up to a cost of tens of millions of Chinese lives during Mao's quarter-century in power.
All the while, there was no competition for intellectual supremacy except when the country's obvious disasters forced Mao to back down from some of his most unrealistic plans for Chinese socialist development. Confucianism, however, always remained poison in the lexicon of Maoist propaganda. For the most part, the Tao Te Ching seemed too airy-fairy to contemplate.
Unfortunately, Mao always came roaring back from his huge failures, especially with the universally catastrophic Cultural Revolution. No controversy about the source of that phenomenon. Nothing to do with any supposed golden age; everything to do with the Little Red Book.
Admittedly, "self-help" is a bit overly trite motivation and does not take Chinese thought seriously.
Nevertheless, societies have always adopted ideas for their own needs.
Consider Japan. There are major differences in the way Japanese adopted Confucianism. In particular, most Japanese lived in small farming communities at that time, so they build a Confucian view that centered on a small community (more so than the family or emperor). In the modern age, this "community" has transformed to the "company". From that, Japan developed a rather natural kind of socialism that centered on the company, particularly after the war.
However, I also see Japan going through considerable upheaval over the last 20 years (and probably many years to come) as a result of the clash between these older traditions they adopted from China, and the more recent influence of the business-oriented strategies adopted largely from the US and globalization. This is the real problem with mixing cultural foundations -- change. Presently, the results do not look pretty, but probably Japan's greatest strength is its flexibility in chaos.
I imagine that if we in the West ever become imbued with some natural sense of Chinese thought, it will also be one adapted to our genuine needs.
Nevertheless, societies have always adopted ideas for their own needs.
Consider Japan. There are major differences in the way Japanese adopted Confucianism. In particular, most Japanese lived in small farming communities at that time, so they build a Confucian view that centered on a small community (more so than the family or emperor). In the modern age, this "community" has transformed to the "company". From that, Japan developed a rather natural kind of socialism that centered on the company, particularly after the war.
However, I also see Japan going through considerable upheaval over the last 20 years (and probably many years to come) as a result of the clash between these older traditions they adopted from China, and the more recent influence of the business-oriented strategies adopted largely from the US and globalization. This is the real problem with mixing cultural foundations -- change. Presently, the results do not look pretty, but probably Japan's greatest strength is its flexibility in chaos.
I imagine that if we in the West ever become imbued with some natural sense of Chinese thought, it will also be one adapted to our genuine needs.
6
Western philosophy focuses on "me" and what "I" should do in life -- whether it's because that's what "God" said I should do, or to "self-actualize,", or whatever. Taoism and Buddhism, on the other hand, focus on losing that focus. "I am nothing; the world is nothing; the best life is to do nothing..." As Puett says, Taoism is about overcoming the self -- not "actualizing" it.
This is of course an over-simplification but I think a valid one.
When a priest or a government or anyone at all tells you how you should live your life, run away from them as fast as you can.
This is of course an over-simplification but I think a valid one.
When a priest or a government or anyone at all tells you how you should live your life, run away from them as fast as you can.
9
"There’s a very strong debate going on in China about values." Countries don't debate values. Individuals do. Individuals that choose to discuss nation-states as having debates about values are involved in their own creation of the 'other' as not-individual in nature. What nation-state does not have individuals debating values?
5
China's president Xi Jin-ping would certainly like Prof. Puett's interpretation of Confucianism. Xi is reviving Confucianism to reinforce social order and stability at the cost of sacrificing individual freedom. Confucianism turns out to be a powerful tool for authoritarian regimes, just like it has been used by successive dynasties through Chinese history. Prof. Puett may interpret Confucianism in an enlightened view, history, however, demonstrated otherwise.
Interpreting ancient Chinese texts is even more difficult and diverse than in figuring out Shakespeare. It is at a par with interpreting the Bible. One can come out with whatever meanings that the ancient texts may or may not mean.
The use of Confucianism by authoritarian regimes through out China's history is contrary to Prof. Puett's view of Confucianism.
Interpreting ancient Chinese texts is even more difficult and diverse than in figuring out Shakespeare. It is at a par with interpreting the Bible. One can come out with whatever meanings that the ancient texts may or may not mean.
The use of Confucianism by authoritarian regimes through out China's history is contrary to Prof. Puett's view of Confucianism.
11
Professor Puett has selected some ideas from Confucian texts to prove that
it is a relevant philosophy to those in the West today, which is debatable. What is indisputable is that Confucian ideas had been used by Han Emperors to concentrate political power in their own hands, and such practice had been followed by other dynasties in the next 2,000 years. Confucian scholars today may claim that it is not the philosophy itself that is to blame, and the emperors selected the texts for their own purpose.
Nonetheless, Confucian system had been the foundation for authoritarian,
or even totalitarian governments, because it enabled them to place people
according to their order. No wonder the leaders in Beijing today are supportive of Confucius again. But why should it appeal to those living in
democratic societies?
Politics aside, on the personal relationship level. Confucius famously said,
"Only scoundrels (male) and women are impossible to deal with". To denigrate half of the population would hardly improve human relationship.
Does Professor Puett have an explanation for that?
it is a relevant philosophy to those in the West today, which is debatable. What is indisputable is that Confucian ideas had been used by Han Emperors to concentrate political power in their own hands, and such practice had been followed by other dynasties in the next 2,000 years. Confucian scholars today may claim that it is not the philosophy itself that is to blame, and the emperors selected the texts for their own purpose.
Nonetheless, Confucian system had been the foundation for authoritarian,
or even totalitarian governments, because it enabled them to place people
according to their order. No wonder the leaders in Beijing today are supportive of Confucius again. But why should it appeal to those living in
democratic societies?
Politics aside, on the personal relationship level. Confucius famously said,
"Only scoundrels (male) and women are impossible to deal with". To denigrate half of the population would hardly improve human relationship.
Does Professor Puett have an explanation for that?
12
Yes. I would hesitate to call Confucianism a philosophy, at least in the western sense of seeking for truth. It is best understood as a (political and social) ideology.
6
Yes, people tend to cherry pick ideas from whatever religion or ideology they espouse. Never do I hear a republican, supposedly aligned with the Christian right, repeat Jesus's saying "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
1
The Western sense of seeking for truth is also an ideology. Sets of ideas are ideologies.
1
As someone who is fairly well-acquainted with Confucian ideas, I appreciate Prof. Puett's positive interpretations of the writings of Confucius and his disciples. However, over the years I have come to see serious limitations in the Confucian worldview, at least when compared with Christianity (or, for that matter, Theravada Buddhism). First, the concept that human nature is inherently good, argued by Mencius (Meng Tzu), seems unable to account for the really evil things men do - including the Japanese invasion of China and China's present occupation of Tibet. There is nothing in orthodox Confucianism corresponding to Original Sin, a lack which distorts the Confucianists' view of human motivations, which are both good and evil.
Secondly, Confucianism teaches that man can through his own efforts (with the guidance of good teachers) achieve perfection in this world. I simply don't believe this. Such a view encourages not self-examination but a sterile ritualism. Sorry if I am being politically incorrect, but the Christian (or Buddhist) view is much deeper. When the Christian says that man or woman cannot achieve salvation without God's grace, he or she is giving us a view of what human life is really like, not what it should be like.
Secondly, Confucianism teaches that man can through his own efforts (with the guidance of good teachers) achieve perfection in this world. I simply don't believe this. Such a view encourages not self-examination but a sterile ritualism. Sorry if I am being politically incorrect, but the Christian (or Buddhist) view is much deeper. When the Christian says that man or woman cannot achieve salvation without God's grace, he or she is giving us a view of what human life is really like, not what it should be like.
6
When Confucius was asked to explain Death, his reply is "I don't even understand Birth, what do I know about Death?" Confucius is kind of agnostic on the metaphysical. He certainly never mentioned Creator God or Grace. "Show some respect to the ghosts and deities but keep a good distance from them", his own words. He focused on finding a workable social system for harmonious living in a very chaotic era. Start with self-improvement.
To Christians, it is all about a Creator God and God's grace, and one that's supposedly all merciful, all powerful, always on standby, and know-it-all. It's a belief that should not be questioned or challenged. To do so is punishable by hell-fire. (The same as other belief system in a single Creator God, like Judaism and Islam).
The Buddha understood the cyclical process of Births and Deaths as driven by the residual forces of a self-consciousness' past actions and delusional desires. Everything in time-space is based on causes and effect. He rejected the notion that "matters" alone, atoms & molecules, is all there is to life. Buddha also rejected any notion of a Creator God or a "First-Cause" because nothing can exist without cause. Yet time-space existence is all too limiting and prone to suffering according to the Buddha. The culprit is the delusional concept of "Self": selfishness & self-righteousness. He taught how to be liberated from such a miserable state.
Each of these three systems of teachings are quite different.
To Christians, it is all about a Creator God and God's grace, and one that's supposedly all merciful, all powerful, always on standby, and know-it-all. It's a belief that should not be questioned or challenged. To do so is punishable by hell-fire. (The same as other belief system in a single Creator God, like Judaism and Islam).
The Buddha understood the cyclical process of Births and Deaths as driven by the residual forces of a self-consciousness' past actions and delusional desires. Everything in time-space is based on causes and effect. He rejected the notion that "matters" alone, atoms & molecules, is all there is to life. Buddha also rejected any notion of a Creator God or a "First-Cause" because nothing can exist without cause. Yet time-space existence is all too limiting and prone to suffering according to the Buddha. The culprit is the delusional concept of "Self": selfishness & self-righteousness. He taught how to be liberated from such a miserable state.
Each of these three systems of teachings are quite different.
18
Mencius never said human nature is inherently good, he said human nature lean towards good, just as water lean towards going downward. However, just water can be forced go in upward direction, human nature can do evil things.
Original text here
http://ctext.org/mengzi/gaozi-i?searchu=%E5%91%8A%E5%AD%90%E6%9B%B0%EF%B...
This view differs from Gao-Zi (also in the that section) which believe that human nature is indifferent to good or evil, and Xun Zi which believe human nature LEAN towards evil and can be guided to goodness through education. Both as considered Confucians. Only decisive judgement on human nature came from the Legalists like Han Feizi, which believe that human nature IS evil, and only the fear of law and punishment make human not do evil.
Original text here
http://ctext.org/mengzi/gaozi-i?searchu=%E5%91%8A%E5%AD%90%E6%9B%B0%EF%B...
This view differs from Gao-Zi (also in the that section) which believe that human nature is indifferent to good or evil, and Xun Zi which believe human nature LEAN towards evil and can be guided to goodness through education. Both as considered Confucians. Only decisive judgement on human nature came from the Legalists like Han Feizi, which believe that human nature IS evil, and only the fear of law and punishment make human not do evil.
1