General purpose philosophy thread

[rotting bones]

What you are doing is taking the Confucian view on the behavioral conduct of inferiors and of the ruled and treating it as an unbreakable absolute but not doing the same for the behavioral conduct that the superiors themselves should follow and which was given equal emphasis by Confucius. Ren is meant to be developed by a mutualistic relationship that encourages harmony. Of course, it is still very much hierarchical, patriarchal and I don't personally find it attractive. But I disagree that it is authoritarian, it does not imply directly that authoritarian government is the form of government.

Authoritarian masses always think the Tzar is both merciful and terrible. Even in Egyptian or Inca despotisms, the concentration of power was thought to have benefits for the ruled.

When discussing practice, Confucianism was utilised to legitimise a system of imperial autocracy. As I will point below, it also recommended certain political positions that were a lot less evidently based on total state control for their time. We also see a hostility to some forms of hierarchy in Confucianism that was not found in the West at that time, for example. While Rome had a senatorial system but increasingly relied on slave labour, Wang Mang, inspired by his orthodox reading of Confucianism, attempted to ban slavery and implement land reform, with unsuccessful results.

The Stoics favored land redistribution too, but the Western philosophers didn't have as much state power as Confucian scholars. Like in the East, the elitists in Rome called themselves Stoics too. This is what Marxists mean when they say the class struggle is more fundamental than systems of morality. Interpretations can go either way based on class interests.

Interestingly, Confucianism did see formulations that could be regarded as a form of early redistributionism. Land reform was to them an ideal to be pursued, as Wang Mang attempted and failed but later the early Ming dynasty succeeded in performing a huge programme of land reform, redistributing land from large landowners to the peasantry.

Farmers on small plots of land can't afford to become great scholars.

To many Confucians, wealth was seen as a limited resource and when concentrated in the hands of a few, it impoverished the many.

Yes, but it's not a limited resource in the way Confucians thought. If the state organizes production, you can lower the price of goods by exploiting economies of scale.

The Confucian government saw it as its role to prevent the formation of significant wealth disparity, and this also was one of the reasonings behind the hostility that Confucianists had to merchants. Gradual concentration of land and empowerment of a bureaucratic-landowner class gradually still happened of course in the later Ming. Meanwhile, the Joseon dynasty had debates about the need of land reform. Mencius also speaks of the idealised need for the government to provide to peasants as opposed to extracting from them.

If you can only advise your superiors, you will not be able to enrich the many because the superiors are disincentivized from doing that. I don't understand why this is confusing.

Obviously this is very different from the redistributionism that we idealise in our society and it is not grounded in the same rationale. And yes, the bureaucratic class was often occupied by the same families. The imperial examination system actually only reached its truest manifestation that we associate with it in the Qing dynasty. During the Ming dynasty before the Qing, the bureaucracy was still relying partially on recommendations and familial relationships to fill bureaucratic jobs. The Yuan dynasty before the Ming outright dismantled the imperial examination system for a period of time and preferred an ethnic caste system.

I'm arguing from a far left perspective. Seizure of the means of production rather than liberal redistribution.

I don't know enough about Islam to comment here though I assume your claim might be seen as contentious and not universally agreed.

I mean, there are always people who prefer feelings over facts. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_Islam Google the rest yourself.

Islam is the subject I'm actually knowledgeable about. Confucianism is just something I read about when I was bored.

My main point here is that you cannot label a philosophy/theology as authoritarian if it does not very explicitly command and maintain that authoritarianism is the proper form of governance. As long as a philosophy or theology is compatible with other systems of governance and societal organisation, it is not authoritarian.

Confucians would say it's right to obey your superiors under almost all circumstances. In fact, ethics is understood as carrying on the wishes of your parents. Although rulers can be challenged, this is only if they have a tumultuous reign characterized by social disharmony. This is what makes it authoritarian. Authoritarian doesn't mean evil. It means fitting specific criteria making it a target for Mesquita's criticism.

I would not make the same judgement with Christianity being feudal simply because it legitimised a feudal arrangement, though perhaps you may disagree with me.

I would say Christianity has excuses for monarchism embedded in it, but it's mostly about worshipping a historical personage as the universal logos for some reason. In contrast, Confucianism is mostly about advising superiors to be benevolent to inferiors and inferiors to be obedient to superiors. That is what makes it a form of paternal authoritarianism. By contrast, Christianity has a number of conflicting messages. At one point, the universal logos appears to be instructing people (already a category mistake, but whatever) to disobey their parents.

The early Ming dynasty redistributed effectively all the land in its territory equally and then banned the slave trade (though it resurfaced in the late Ming).

The first Ming emperor was what we would today call a mass murderer. He preferred Buddhism and orthodox Confucianism as opposed to Neo-Confucianism.

China turned inward in the late Ming and didn't recover until the Nationalists. Confucian classicism played a big role in the ideological component of this. See Ian Morris.

In Korea, scientific advancement reached its height under the Joseon dynasty, which was so committed to a strict orthodox interpretation of neo-Confucianism that it was seen as excessive and backwards to the Chinese.

Confucians railed against the alphabetic script every chance they got.

PS. The first Ming emperor came from peasant origins IIRC.

[rotting bones]

Could you be, say, a democratic and progressive Confucian in Taiwan? Sure. I expect it takes some dancing around the pro-authority parts of the Analects, though.

I'm in favor of progressives embracing a Confucian identity. Progressive Confucianism already exists, sort of: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conf ... brFemiTheo To me, this looks more like using Confucian categories in progressive thought, which is very different from the scholarly claim that Confucianism wasn't traditionally authoritarian. The last part is the only thing I object to.

[romddude]

Authoritarian masses always think the Tzar is both merciful and terrible. Even in Egyptian or Inca despotisms, the concentration of power was thought to have benefits for the ruled.

Confucians would say it's right to obey your superiors under almost all circumstances. In fact, ethics is understood as carrying on the wishes of your parents. Although rulers can be challenged, this is only if they have a tumultuous reign characterized by social disharmony. This is what makes it authoritarian. Authoritarian doesn't mean evil. It means fitting specific criteria making it a target for Mesquita's criticism.

The Stoics favored land redistribution too, but the Western philosophers didn't have as much state power as Confucian scholars. Like in the East, the elitists in Rome called themselves Stoics too. This is what Marxists mean when they say the class struggle is more fundamental than systems of morality. Interpretations can go either way based on class interests.

Yet what I'm raising here isn't about benefits for the ruled but the nature of the arrangement where obedience is asked for. Confucianism does not ask for obedience or filial piety for the sake of it. It asks for it to ensure harmony. Harmony isn't the idea that all should stay in line or all should be the same or that inferiors can't be their own man like you claimed earlier but that all interests - with the ruler, group and ruled interests being treated as equal here- should be reconciled. Confucianism does not see the subordination of someone's interests to another's as an ideal and does not ask people to directly conform to another party's, in fact Confucius and Mencius and even later authors speak negatively of sameness and they call for people to live their own lives even if they are not in line with what society expects of them. Confucianism asks for the individual and the group to reconcile equally. When reconciliation is impossible, it is incorrect to think that Confucius believes in subservience, but rather it advocates for selflessness.

This is because Confucianism sees the individual as social, and his ability to grow as a person as social and believes that without his family or society, the individual cannot thrive. So Confucianism believes that the person needs its place in society (and in his family, which is a microcosm of society) and that place cannot be assured if there is only conflict. Ren is shaped by one's interactions with his environment. Yet, an environment that only constricts the individual and prevents his growth and cultivation, or that forces him into line is completely opposed to Confucianism because the need for harmony is a result of the individual's need for the social to thrive and be cultivated. So while Confucianism has issues with a system like we have today of presidential/parliamentary elections that puts people in a struggle with each other and causes polarisation and tribalism, Confucianism is supportive of a democratic forum where people need to debate, discuss and reach something akin to consensus.

I've not really touched upon it before but there's also Xunzi's work in regards to obedience. Xunzi is more straightforward than Mencius and Confucius, he declares that a person's morality outweighs and is more crucial than any sense of obedience to his family. You should serve your family always but obedience should not be held if it runs counter to your own principles. He argues that this is completely in line with Confucius' beliefs. Neo-Confucianism abandoned Xunzi in favour of Mencius but he was greatly influential in Han dynasty Confucianism.

Mencius, meanwhile, states that the respect a person is owed will be lost if he does not reflect and act on virtues. Accountability should be upheld. Mencius also is interesting because a lot of the narrative arguments he has in his work are based on a principle that the individual interests, the individual's familial responsibilities and the responsibilities to the state are not always at odds even when they are at odds. Mencius makes a series of examples showing that there are alternatives to be found that fulfil all of them.

What about pluralism? Confucianism clearly maintains the existence of only a single form of behavioural conduct and that divergence from that is wrong but there have been Confucian scholars that have argued that the difficulty of cultivating oneself and determining the best conduct in a situation necessitates that the people be allowed to themselves cultivate their own conduct and that the state should never seek to impose it upon them. This is in line with Confucius' arguments that governance should be through example. Neo-Confucianism is especially interested in the centrality of self-cultivation, the individual needs to cultivate himself and never be forced into said behaviours and cultivation. People should be allowed to disagree and discuss, as otherwise they cannot be cultivated.

Personally, I am not a Confucianist and I do not find it attractive to follow but I do see how in many ways, it reflects upon my behaviour and life. I have filial piety and when there are conflicts of interests with my parents, I avoid outright disobeying them, trying always to reconcile my interests with theirs. My parents also did their part in this, they never used corporal punishment or beat me, and always taught through example and a correct moral conduct. The teachings and behaviour I have with my family, I try to extend to broader society. In regards to my democratic government, I obey the laws and governmental decisions, even when I disagree with them, and never vote for those I believe to be morally corrupt. If my country has a president that does not serve my interests, I do not try to oust him but join my interests with the reality of the system and wait for the next election cycle to put him out of office.

Farmers on small plots of land can't afford to become great scholars.

I'm not saying they can. I'm just putting forward small examples of Confucianism in practice being more than simply a tool for legitimising total state power.

Yes, but it's not a limited resource in the way Confucians thought. If the state organizes production, you can lower the price of goods by exploiting economies of scale.

But I'm not arguing it is. I'm giving small examples as mentioned.

I'm arguing from a far left perspective. Seizure of the means of production rather than liberal redistribution.

I see. I disagree with historical materialism so I am not arguing from this perspective.

This is what makes it authoritarian. Authoritarian doesn't mean evil. It means fitting specific criteria making it a target for Mesquita's criticism.

I'm not making any assessment about being evil or not, so not sure why bring evil up. I'm arguing that you are misrepresenting (and possibly misunderstanding) Confucianism. I'm not sure specifically about Mesquita's criticism, but I'm talking about authoritarianism in the conventional sense of a system where there is strong political power that rejects plurality or open discussion towards change and has restricted civil liberties.

I would say Christianity has excuses for monarchism embedded in it, but it's mostly about worshipping a historical personage as the universal logos for some reason. In contrast, Confucianism is mostly about advising superiors to be benevolent to inferiors and inferiors to be obedient to superiors. That is what makes it a form of paternal authoritarianism. By contrast, Christianity has a number of conflicting messages. At one point, the universal logos appears to be instructing people (already a category mistake, but whatever) to disobey their parents.

You can also find conflicting currents of thought in Confucianism. Nonetheless, Confucianism is not about obedience. It is about reconciliation and of understanding that the individual is nurtured socially and that his acts are always political.

The first Ming emperor was what we would today call a mass murderer. He preferred Buddhism and orthodox Confucianism as opposed to Neo-Confucianism.

No actually. Taizu was NOT a Buddhist. He was a Buddhist monk for years but after leaving the life, he lost interest in Buddhism. He was personally more interested in Daoism and politically was committed to strengthening Daoism's position in China but I mentioned those actions as he politically sustained them on the basis of Confucianism.

China turned inward in the late Ming and didn't recover until the Nationalists. Confucian classicism played a big role in the ideological component of this. See Ian Morris.

I don't question the role Confucianism played in a lot of policies and views in China, but I think it is reductive to categorise it as necessarily stifling. A very simple example is that Confucian scholars generally looked down upon expansionism and military expeditions once a dynasty was established as they saw it as a waste of resources and a drain on the people. This is coupled with their insistence on having low tax rates. Zheng He's treasure fleet was also seen as a similar waste of resources. Their opinion on this was ignored at times, but it is an inwards perspective motivated by decent reasoning.

Confucians railed against the alphabetic script every chance they got.

Sejong was a firm adherent of neo-Confucianism and reinforced its position with a number of policies. His belief to improve literacy and the lives of the people was likely formed by his own Confucian views. Yet, we seem to blame the troubles of East Asia on Confucianism but never its successes. Not surprising as this is also done to a number of different places - the troubles of the Middle East are because of Islam is authoritarian and Al-ghazali killed rationalism, the troubles of India are because of Hinduism, the troubles of southern Europe are because Catholicism lacks the Protestant work ethic, etc.

PS. The first Ming emperor came from peasant origins IIRC.

I do dislike the way you are saying this, as if it is news especially. Based on his life as a peasant, Taizu was obsessed with improving the lives of the peasantry and he had an ideal utopian state that was focused around free peasants involved in agriculture. He used Confucianism amply to legitimise and sustain policies to achieve this, and it is not unlikely that Confucianism inspired some views on this. I mention him, once again, as an example of Confucianism being used as something more than just a tool for conservative continuation.

[malloc]

Really? All this time, I thought Yarvin took his inspiration from Confucianism because it represents an authoritarian alternative to liberal democracy. Then why does he call himself "Mencius" after the Confucian philosopher?

Alliteration using the name of a random philosopher to sound smart? Something like Nietzsche speaking through a character named Zarathustra to preach the opposite of Zoroastrianism? A narcissist who believes he's a genius, and therefore whatever noise his brain makes is 5D chess?

I see then. That just leaves one question: which of the million species of insects does "moldbug" reference? I have always pictured him as an anthropomorphic roach with a Fu Manchu mustache made of mold myself.

[rotting bones]

I see then. That just leaves one question: which of the million species of insects does "moldbug" reference? I have always pictured him as an anthropomorphic roach with a Fu Manchu mustache made of mold myself.

Max Raskin: Where did your pen name — “Mencius Moldbug” — come from?

Curtis Yarvin: It came from two different handles that I was using in different places. I would very occasionally post on Reddit or Hacker News. Sometimes I would get banned and I would choose the name of a new classical figure, and I just happened to land on Mencius. And then I was doing some economics posting, and I posted something about gold, but I said mold instead of gold because I was talking about something with a hypothetical restricted supply. That caused me to choose, maybe at a later date, the handle Moldbug instead of Goldbug.

[rotting bones]

romddude: Traditionally, the one thing Confucians agreed on is that the core of their philosophy are the Relationships. E.g. See the To Become a Sage book I listed earlier or entries in the SEP. 4 of the 5 Relationships outline principles regulating the behaviors of superiors and inferiors.

The social benefits of Confucianism are regarded as the Great Learning. There is no Great Learning without the Elementary Learning, and at its core are the Relationships. All abstract speculation is explicitly subordinated to these social practices.

Confucians routinely interpreted changing the ancient usages of a country as introducing social disharmony. Historically, they are famous even among the Chinese for resisting rulers who wanted to introduce positive changes to the country.

I don't understand the point of trying to clear Confucians of charges they repeatedly and proudly admitted to.

Things like land redistribution happened very rarely, during times of great upheaval. Also, when the far left mentions a peasant, it refers to the sickle in the hammer and sickle.

[Otto Kretschmer]

What might a mix of Confucianism, Mohism and Legalism look like?

[Raphael]

What might a mix of Confucianism, Mohism and Legalism look like?

I guess a mix of Confucianism and Legalism might well look a lot like traditional Western right-wing politics, but I don't know enough about Mohism to know how it might fit into that.

[Otto Kretschmer]

What might a mix of Confucianism, Mohism and Legalism look like?

I guess a mix of Confucianism and Legalism might well look a lot like traditional Western right-wing politics, but I don't know enough about Mohism to know how it might fit into that.

Here are the basics: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism

In essence they advocated pacifism, egalitarianism and utilitarianism over tradition and social hierarchy.

[Raphael]

Here are the basics: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism

In essence they advocated pacifism, egalitarianism and utilitarianism over tradition and social hierarchy.

Thank you. Sounds like they would be the odd ones out in your trio.

[Torco]

Mohism always struck me as noticeably progressive -insofar as such categories can be used for ideologies that sprung in a feudaloid preindustrial society that's not western, which is admittedly not that far. Universal love and concern for all people without regard to family and social status, critique of the very wealthy, anti-war, an emphasis on commoners as opposed to nobles, very little elitism, not a lot of emphasis put on the value of hierarchy and obedience, and utilitarianism. at least methinks it's the least rightwing of the three big philosophies of classical china.

[rotting bones]

What might a mix of Confucianism, Mohism and Legalism look like?

Have you read Aristoi?

[MacAnDàil]

A lot of left-leaning thinkers today like Gabor Mate romanticize tradition and authority. I regard these people as more authoritarian than the Stalinists.

You mean this Gabor Maté? I admittedly know little about him but nothing is mentioned about political views and the only tradition is the use of the Amazonian plant ayahuasca.

[rotting bones]

You mean this Gabor Maté? I admittedly know little about him but nothing is mentioned about political views and the only tradition is the use of the Amazonian plant ayahuasca.

Even that article has a few hints about where he stands, being a Jewish supporter of Palestine. The Myth of Normal discusses his green positions, especially on diet. Hold On to Your Kids went way harder on traditional authority than I expected.