General purpose philosophy thread

[Otto Kretschmer]

@zompist
i agree with you - Mohism is cool. ^^

[rotting bones]

Confucians criticized Mozi for prioritizing universal love over personal relationships. To me, this sounded similar to Chesterton's criticism of socialism.

[Ares Land]

The ruler is advised by sages chosen by meritocratic examination focusing on the classics.

Minor correction: the examination system didn't start till 600 CE, a millennium after Confucius. (It was also spectacularly unsuited to modernity and arguably made the 1800s far worse for China than they had to be.)

The Confucian ideal of scholar-officials has much to recommend it over the European medieval idea of giving power to, essentially, horse warriors. On the other hand it's not that different from the Roman patrician, who was supposed to be a cultured gentleman.

The general idea was a good one, the problem was in the specifics. One bit I find interesting that Europeans actually liked the idea, imported it, and still use it. Here, you have to take Confucean-style exams to get into civil service. Though of course the exams did adapt to modernity (they don't expect deep knowledge of Homer! though in the early 1800s they did), also you can actually take an exam and actually have a chance of getting a civil service job (as opposed to the Chinese system, where the odds were 10,000 to 1 or lower.)

[rotting bones]

Clarifications:

They thought this is realistic because, according to Chinese mythology, an age like this existed in the past.

1. Confucius himself was not big on mythology. He got his rites from the early Zhou court. Confucianism played down the fact that these rites were novel at the time.

The Confucian ideal of scholar-officials has much to recommend it over the European medieval idea of giving power to, essentially, horse warriors. On the other hand it's not that different from the Roman patrician, who was supposed to be a cultured gentleman.

Confucius said that anyone can become a gentlemen scholar, not just aristocrats.
子曰：有教無類。
The Master said: "In teaching, there should be no distinction of classes."
— Analects 15.39.

2. Of course, not everyone could afford to be a classical scholar in practice. (I formally submit this for your consideration as Understatement of the Century.)

Minor correction: the examination system didn't start till 600 CE, a millennium after Confucius. (It was also spectacularly unsuited to modernity and arguably made the 1800s far worse for China than they had to be.)
The Confucian ideal of scholar-officials has much to recommend it over the European medieval idea of giving power to, essentially, horse warriors. On the other hand it's not that different from the Roman patrician, who was supposed to be a cultured gentleman.

3. A major factor that was evaluated in these exams was the quality of one's handwriting. Misplace one stroke within a long essay, and you could expect sarcastic letters from the examiners about what the pictographic meaning of the mangled character says about how a blind man sees the world.

4. For why authoritarianism doesn't work, I recommend the Dictator's Handbook by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita: https://www.burmalibrary.org/docs13/The ... ndbook.pdf

[rotting bones]

The general idea was a good one, the problem was in the specifics. One bit I find interesting that Europeans actually liked the idea, imported it, and still use it. Here, you have to take Confucean-style exams to get into civil service. Though of course the exams did adapt to modernity (they don't expect deep knowledge of Homer! though in the early 1800s they did), also you can actually take an exam and actually have a chance of getting a civil service job (as opposed to the Chinese system, where the odds were 10,000 to 1 or lower.)

I had a sense of that, but I don't know the specifics. How much smaller were ancient governments compared to modern governments?

[zompist]

3. A major factor that was evaluated in these exams was the quality of one's handwriting. Misplace one stroke within a long essay, and you could expect sarcastic letters from the examiners about what the pictographic meaning of the mangled character says about how a blind man sees the world.

That doesn't fit my sources— here, John Fairbanks's book. He says (and this may be based on Qing practice, I'm not sure and the book is packed up) that all answers were recopied by another scribe, precisely so that candidates' handwriting could not be recognized.

[rotting bones]

That doesn't fit my sources— here, John Fairbanks's book. He says (and this may be based on Qing practice, I'm not sure and the book is packed up) that all answers were recopied by another scribe, precisely so that candidates' handwriting could not be recognized.

I remembered that from Bertrand Russell's book on his visit to China. Assuming he didn't make it up, maybe there's a distinction between calligraphy and handwriting. The calligraphic qualities would be lost, but the scribe would note mangled characters.

[zompist]

The general idea was a good one, the problem was in the specifics. One bit I find interesting that Europeans actually liked the idea, imported it, and still use it. Here, you have to take Confucean-style exams to get into civil service. Though of course the exams did adapt to modernity (they don't expect deep knowledge of Homer! though in the early 1800s they did), also you can actually take an exam and actually have a chance of getting a civil service job (as opposed to the Chinese system, where the odds were 10,000 to 1 or lower.)

I had a sense of that, but I don't know the specifics. How much smaller were ancient governments compared to modern governments?

About an order of magnitude smaller.

In Hàn times, there were 130,000 officials in a population of 60 million. That's one official per 462 people. (But again, no exam system yet, and these people weren't all scholar-officials.)

The PRC today has 70 million public sector officials, and a pop size of 1.4 billion: one public worker for 20 people.
The US has 23 million state and federal workers, and a pop size of 335 million, so one public worker for 14 people.

In Qing times, there were 3000 to 4000 scholar-officials, graduates of the examination system. About 200 to 300 students were selected each year.

In imperial China, the state appointed the magistrate and paid him a salary. He had no staff... unless he paid for it himself. That was one reason you generally had to be rich to be a magistrate.

[rotting bones]

That doesn't fit my sources— here, John Fairbanks's book. He says (and this may be based on Qing practice, I'm not sure and the book is packed up) that all answers were recopied by another scribe, precisely so that candidates' handwriting could not be recognized.

I'm positive I read it elsewhere, but I've managed to track down one source for my story:

From this view of the written character, and the mode of education, it will readily occur, that little progress is likely to be made in any of the speculative sciences; and more especially as their assistance is not necessary to obtain the most elevated situations in the government. The examinations to be passed for the attainment of office are principally confined to the knowledge of the language; and as far as this goes, they are rigid to the utmost degree. The candidates are put into separate apartments, having previously been searched, in order to ascertain that they have no writing of any kind about them. They are allowed nothing but pencils, ink, and paper, and within a given time they are each to produce a theme on the subject that shall be proposed to them. The excellence of the composition, which is submitted to the examining officers, or men of letters, depends chiefly on the following points.

That every character be neatly and accurately made.

That each character be well chosen, and not in vulgar use.

That the same character do not occur twice in the same composition.

The subject and the manner of treating it are of the least consideration, but those on morality, or history, are generally preferred. If the following story, as communicated by one of the missionaries, and related, I believe, by the Abbé Grozier, be true, there requires no further illustration of the state of literature in China. "A candidate for preferment having inadvertently made use of an abbreviation in writing the character ma (which signifies a horse) had not only the mortification of seeing his composition, very good in every other respect, rejected solely on that account; but, at the same time, was severely rallied by the censor, who, among other things, asked him how he could possibly expect his horse to walk without having all his legs!"

Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/28 ... mages.html

This specific book is known to have factuality issues. Already, this description of how the eight legged essay was evaluated is incomplete at best. I know for a fact that the essay was required to be doctrinally orthodox. The author, the first Permanent Secretary in Britain (a position that was later shown on TV as the unscrupulous character Humphrey Appleby in Yes, Minister), had a vested interest in depicting Englishmen as superior to the Chinese. Nevertheless, as an educated man, he gives a wealth of practical information on Chinese affairs for Britain to act on. I've read criticisms of this book in the past. I'm having trouble tracking them down to see whether they mention this story. If the other books I read got the story from here, maybe the whole thing is a vicious rumor.

Also, many authors say that Confucian examinations are purely based on the classics. However, I've read they had exams in Neo-Confucian Korea that tested other subjects depending on the government position the candidate was being considered for. If China didn't have an equivalent (which I don't know for a fact), maybe it wasn't Confucianism that was at fault.

I think it's amazing that the early Europeans found ancient Chinese moral principles attractive and thought their art is flat. For me, exactly the opposite is true.

[rotting bones]

About an order of magnitude smaller.

In Hàn times, there were 130,000 officials in a population of 60 million. That's one official per 462 people. (But again, no exam system yet, and these people weren't all scholar-officials.)

The PRC today has 70 million public sector officials, and a pop size of 1.4 billion: one public worker for 20 people.
The US has 23 million state and federal workers, and a pop size of 335 million, so one public worker for 14 people.

In Qing times, there were 3000 to 4000 scholar-officials, graduates of the examination system. About 200 to 300 students were selected each year.

In imperial China, the state appointed the magistrate and paid him a salary. He had no staff... unless he paid for it himself. That was one reason you generally had to be rich to be a magistrate.

Thanks, this answers my question.

[rotting bones]

I found a copy of the one traditional Confucian text I liked: https://faculty.washington.edu/mkalton/ ... %20web.htm Read classic works before Musk uses AI to mass rewrite correct history that sounds suspiciously woke.

[romddude]

Confucianism is authoritarianism. Your social superiors have complete authority over you. They are supposed to be benevolent towards you. However, there are no checks on their caprice other than exhorting them to humanity through culture and sage advice. They thought this is realistic because, according to Chinese mythology, an age like this existed in the past.

PS. They also opposed all innovation because they were paranoid about cultural changes harming human values.

I wouldn't be so harsh on it personally - Confucianism, like Marxism and other philosophies, can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Even if only one was predominant historically, others can exist.

As a very general statement, I pretty much agree with rotting bones. Confucius is personally interesting, precisely because he never had any power, but Confucianism is more or less benevolent conservatism, and like all conservatisms it never takes the benevolence very far. The Neo-Confucians can be blamed for the dampening of Chinese innovation after the Tang/Song.

Within Chinese tradition there are far more interesting philosophers— Laozi, Zhuangzi, Mozi, the originators of Zen, etc.

I wouldn't be so harsh on it personally - Confucianism, like Marxism and other philosophies, can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Even if only one was predominant historically, others can exist.

I'm not describing effects, and that wasn't intended to be an attack. The core of Confucianism are the 5 relationships that define society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucian ... ationships

I reported a summary of the duties assigned to these roles. For a concete application, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Obe ... Obediences I should mention that distaste for the relationships is a modern reaction. The Catholics who first arrived in China loved them and wanted to import them back to Europe.

I did briefly mention the other features of Confucianism. Culture (lǐ "rites"), when carried out with a sincere heart (xīn), trains people in humane virtues (rén). The ruler is advised by sages chosen by meritocratic examination focusing on the classics. Students are expected to study the classics and learn the arts of a gentleman. But core of the philosophy are the social ethics. The result is authoritarian humanism. Not just that, but the focus on filial piety made the Chinese obsessed with tracing descent. This is the core content of the philosophy, not just an implication. Confucians would have stressed the relationships of obedience and benevolence, but if you'd rather focus on the virtues than how they were intended to be applied, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucian ... and_ethics

By contrast, Marx never said that making Stalin dictator for life will make things hunky dory for all eternity. His main mistake was that he opposed all human rights, not just the rights of the rich to exploit the poor. This is because he had a level of respect for human sanity that was unwarranted in hindsight. Since humans are lunatics, we do need some kind of an asylum. That's why a state focused on upholding rights and the popular will is good insurance.

The Confucian focus on rites encouraged people to elevate everyday occurrences by infusing them with ritual significance. Without that, the Chinese, Korean and Japanese tea ceremonies wouldn't have existed. The modern book talks about Taoism and Zen, but trust me, infusing beverage with propriety is as Confucian as it gets. I do appreciate these contributions to culture. Other than that, there's symbolism about heaven, earth, rock, tree and the seasons, there are various sects, some of which taught meditation, etc.

It's hard to recommend anything from Confucian writings since the ideas are not very detailed. One lesson I would recommend is to study classic literature, and not just the Chinese classics. The support for studying the humanities is a lesson I appreciate in these dark times when our tech overlords want to cut non-STEM funding for efficiency. Confucians also thought gentlemen should play aristocratic board games like weiqi. If people played more board games, that would make me very happy.

I disagree with the conclusions you two draw here. A respect for hierarchy and authority is not authoritarian. There is a difference between hierarchical and authoritarian, and authoritarian and authoritative. Confucianism enshrines the professor who is an authority in his field and leads and is respected because of his excellence, not the professor who receives respect for the sake of it and treats his students like a despot.

Confucius asks for deference, filial piety and respect to superiors. But in the ruled-ruler relationship, mutualism rather than subjugation is the key. The Annals are clear that it is not the ruled that should 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's' and provide loyalty in expectation of benevolence, but rather it is the ruler that should act humanely and just, and in return should gain loyalty and respect. Confucius maintains that leadership should always seek to educate and inspire, he does not call for punishment or a strong hand to guide the people. He explicitly speaks against the death penalty and many Confucianists have traditionally been hostile to corporal punishment in China, believing that crime and violence was thwarted by example rather than by punishing. The virtue of Yi and the constant of Ren is as valid for the ruler as the virtue of loyalty is for the ruled. You can argue that this is authoritarianism, but it isn't - obedience is something we seek in society even in liberal democracy or in a workplace or studying environment, and the virtue of obedience to Confucius is met by the necessity of the ruler not to impose himself brutally onto others. This arrangement can find its place in authoritarianism but so can it find its place in democracy and other forms of governance.

Not to mention about how Mencius made it clear that rebellion is justified in the case of bad governance.

I do not think Confucianism is entirely opposed to liberalism, for example. It is extremely patriarchal and does have an entirely different conception of obedience as being relationship-based rather than legal but its meritocratic ideation and focus on humanistic virtue and education as almost a form of liberation are analogous to some of the priorities that liberal democracy has. Per Confucianism, all have an equal right to pursue a fruitful life and all have an equal ability to be educated and improve.

[rotting bones]

Confucianism was extremely authoritarian. Your superiors have complete authority over you. You can advise your father to be benevolent, but you have no right to disobey him. You are not your own man. A ruler can theoretically be resisted if he governs very badly, but this never turned out well in practice because people don't agree on what it means to rule badly.

The goal for Confucianism is not justice as we understand it. It's social harmony. For those at the top of society, this means not too much tumult to destabilize their position while the lower strata starves. This was the practical consequence in China and Korea. (Edit: Clarification: Note that Confucianism explicitly advises rulers to enrich their subjects. It's just that the people at the top are disincentivized to pursue this policy in the short term. Another factor I should have mentioned is Adam Smith's criticisms of selflessness.)

In contrast, my vision of society is completely based on game theory: https://www.burmalibrary.org/docs13/The ... ndbook.pdf I don't expect obedience from anyone. In consequence: viewtopic.php?p=38560#p38560

Per Confucianism, all have an equal right to pursue a fruitful life and all have an equal ability to be educated and improve.

This is impossible in practice. Without redistribution, the same families produce the best scholars generation after generation.

Note that Islam also gives rights to everyone. It promotes kindness towards the weak, towards strangers and towards animals. A lot of people find themselves incapable of believing this, but that's because they are all lunatics. Islam also promotes culture and education. (Edit: There's a long history of Islamic scholars resisting rulers too.) Nevertheless, it is rigidly authoritarian. Why? Because instead of fighting for equality, it tells inferiors to be deferential towards superiors. This is the key factor that makes it authoritarian. See Altemeyer's book on the phenomenon. (Edit: https://theauthoritarians.org/)

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

[zompist]

Confucius asks for deference, filial piety and respect to superiors. But in the ruled-ruler relationship, mutualism rather than subjugation is the key. The Annals are clear that it is not the ruled that should 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's' and provide loyalty in expectation of benevolence, but rather it is the ruler that should act humanely and just, and in return should gain loyalty and respect. Confucius maintains that leadership should always seek to educate and inspire, he does not call for punishment or a strong hand to guide the people. He explicitly speaks against the death penalty and many Confucianists have traditionally been hostile to corporal punishment in China, believing that crime and violence was thwarted by example rather than by punishing. The virtue of Yi and the constant of Ren is as valid for the ruler as the virtue of loyalty is for the ruled. You can argue that this is authoritarianism, but it isn't - obedience is something we seek in society even in liberal democracy or in a workplace or studying environment, and the virtue of obedience to Confucius is met by the necessity of the ruler not to impose himself brutally onto others. This arrangement can find its place in authoritarianism but so can it find its place in democracy and other forms of governance.

Most philosophies are more benign in theory than in practice. As I said, Confucius is more appealing than Confucianism. An unemployed scholar, he certainly wasn't guilty of being authoritarian himself. And-- as with Christianity-- it's certainly possible to attribute most of the authoritarianism of imperial China to the emperors.

Still, it was Daoism and Buddhism that provided most of the fresh air in Chinese philosophy, and when Neo-Confucianism was established, arguably the dynamism of Tang/Song China was lost. It's also worth noting that Zhu Xi, the key figure in Neo-Confucianism, was also an advocate of foot-binding.

Per Confucianism, all have an equal right to pursue a fruitful life and all have an equal ability to be educated and improve.

Did they? Did any Chinese magistrate seek to educate the peasants, or women?

[malloc]

Whether rationally or not, any movement which inspired Mencius Moldbug automatically has my distaste. I must agree with the assessment of Confucianism as authoritarian.

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

Heh, that seems a stretch unless Gabor Mate has been throwing people into gulags on the sly. Nonetheless, I agree that many leftists these days have a rather romantic view of tradition and undue hostility toward modernity.

[rotting bones]

Whether rationally or not, any movement which inspired Mencius Moldbug automatically has my distaste. I must agree with the assessment of Confucianism as authoritarian.

Yarvin and the bloggers he inspired think liberalism is a form of Confucianism because PC words choices are similar to the Relationships and professors are like mandarins or something. They proudly identify as "formalist" (the official name of Yarvin's "philosophy"), a name that aesthetically suggests tech-oriented authoritarianism, while they see Confucianism as the non-STEM enemy. In my experience, they don't know what you are talking about if you say Confucianism is authoritarian, so they tend to assume you're an idiot. They are extremely superficial people, absolutely incapable of thinking in non-aesthetic, structural terms outside the STEM fields they were trained in.

In traditional Chinese thought, practical engineering was associated with Mohism, another philosophy that was basically as authoritarian as Confucianism.

Heh, that seems a stretch unless Gabor Mate has been throwing people into gulags on the sly. Nonetheless, I agree that many leftists these days have a rather romantic view of tradition and undue hostility toward modernity.

Stalinists tend to think Stalin didn't send anyone to the gulag who didn't deserve it. I'm sure people would make similar excuses for traditional punishments.

[malloc]

Yarvin and the bloggers he inspired think liberalism is a form of Confucianism because PC words choices are similar to the Relationships and professors are like mandarins or something. They proudly identify as "formalist" (the official name of Yarvin's "philosophy"), a name that aesthetically suggests tech-oriented authoritarianism, while they see Confucianism as the non-STEM enemy.

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?

[rotting bones]

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?

[romddude]

I'm not used to using this forum so I hope I'm replying to everything right.

Confucianism was extremely authoritarian. Your superiors have complete authority over you. You can advise your father to be benevolent, but you have no right to disobey him. You are not your own man. A ruler can theoretically be resisted if he governs very badly, but this never turned out well in practice because people don't agree on what it means to rule badly.

The goal for Confucianism is not justice as we understand it. It's social harmony. For those at the top of society, this means not too much tumult to destabilize their position while the lower strata starves. This was the practical consequence in China and Korea. (Edit: Clarification: Note that Confucianism explicitly advises rulers to enrich their subjects. It's just that the people at the top are disincentivized to pursue this policy in the short term. Another factor I should have mentioned is Adam Smith's criticisms of selflessness.)

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.

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.

Per Confucianism, all have an equal right to pursue a fruitful life and all have an equal ability to be educated and improve.

This is impossible in practice. Without redistribution, the same families produce the best scholars generation after generation.

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

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.

Note that Islam also gives rights to everyone. It promotes kindness towards the weak, towards strangers and towards animals. A lot of people find themselves incapable of believing this, but that's because they are all lunatics. Islam also promotes culture and education. (Edit: There's a long history of Islamic scholars resisting rulers too.) Nevertheless, it is rigidly authoritarian. Why? Because instead of fighting for equality, it tells inferiors to be deferential towards superiors. This is the key factor that makes it authoritarian. See Altemeyer's book on the phenomenon. (Edit: https://theauthoritarians.org/)

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

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

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.

Confucius asks for deference, filial piety and respect to superiors. But in the ruled-ruler relationship, mutualism rather than subjugation is the key. The Annals are clear that it is not the ruled that should 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's' and provide loyalty in expectation of benevolence, but rather it is the ruler that should act humanely and just, and in return should gain loyalty and respect. Confucius maintains that leadership should always seek to educate and inspire, he does not call for punishment or a strong hand to guide the people. He explicitly speaks against the death penalty and many Confucianists have traditionally been hostile to corporal punishment in China, believing that crime and violence was thwarted by example rather than by punishing. The virtue of Yi and the constant of Ren is as valid for the ruler as the virtue of loyalty is for the ruled. You can argue that this is authoritarianism, but it isn't - obedience is something we seek in society even in liberal democracy or in a workplace or studying environment, and the virtue of obedience to Confucius is met by the necessity of the ruler not to impose himself brutally onto others. This arrangement can find its place in authoritarianism but so can it find its place in democracy and other forms of governance.

Most philosophies are more benign in theory than in practice. As I said, Confucius is more appealing than Confucianism. An unemployed scholar, he certainly wasn't guilty of being authoritarian himself. And-- as with Christianity-- it's certainly possible to attribute most of the authoritarianism of imperial China to the emperors.

I would not say that there is a distinction to be drawn between Confucius and Confucianists but between pre-Qin Confucianism, Han dynasty Confucianism and then Neo-Confucianism. Nonetheless, I believe we cannot state that the entire framework was authoritarian simply because in practice it legitimised an imperial system of government. 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.

Still, it was Daoism and Buddhism that provided most of the fresh air in Chinese philosophy, and when Neo-Confucianism was established, arguably the dynamism of Tang/Song China was lost. It's also worth noting that Zhu Xi, the key figure in Neo-Confucianism, was also an advocate of foot-binding.

If we exclude the more primitivist anarchical positions that are seen in a part of the Daoist canon, a lot of Daoist philosophy was not that different from Confucianism in its vision of the role of the ruler. Huang-Lao Daoism was very close to having the same conception of the ruler as an inexerting virtuous figure, and both Confucianism and Daoism extolled wu wei as a principle to be followed by emperors. Confucianism actually believes in governmental inexertion in a number of spheres, believing that the government should often be laissez-faire towards spheres of the economy and should have a low tax rate. The low tax rate of the early Ming and much of the Qing dynasties plagued them.

I disagree that neo-Confucianism killed off the dynamism of Tang and Song because that assumes that China was not dynamic after them and assumes that neo-Confucianism was unquestionably in a position of authority after them. I mean the Yuan dynasty was characterised by the dominance of Tibetan Buddhism, a foreign religion. Philosophical debates sponsored by the Yuan dynasty had the government declare that Buddhism (at this time Tibetan Buddhism as Chinese Buddhism had been suppressed by the Yuan) was the winner of the debates and the superior belief system and that neo-Confucianism only secondary (with Daoism coming third). The Ming dynasty sponsored a revival of Daoist thought and effectively used Daoism as an extension of itself.

And then when we speak of being dynamic, there is a succession of political reforms and transformations from Yuan-Ming-Qing, a flourishing of culture and scientific advancements still. 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). Meanwhile, the Song dynasty was characterised by a huge concentration of land and wealth in the hands of a few incredibly powerful landowners that gradually undermined the positions of peasants.

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.

Per Confucianism, all have an equal right to pursue a fruitful life and all have an equal ability to be educated and improve.

Did they? Did any Chinese magistrate seek to educate the peasants, or women?

They were no Puritans, there was no call for an educational crusade but that is not what I'm implying there.

[zompist]

I'm not used to using this forum so I hope I'm replying to everything right.

You're doing fine! Though I'd suggest replying separately to different people, otherwise it makes it harder to reply (e.g. I have to delete the part of the conversation relating to rotting bones).

I would not say that there is a distinction to be drawn between Confucius and Confucianists but between pre-Qin Confucianism, Han dynasty Confucianism and then Neo-Confucianism. Nonetheless, I believe we cannot state that the entire framework was authoritarian simply because in practice it legitimised an imperial system of government. 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 agree that dividing up Confucianism into periods is useful.

Judging the moral effect of philosophies is tricky— neither Confucius nor Jesus are responsible for everything done in their name, especially when much of that was contrary to their actual teachings. On the other hand I think it's unhelpful to judge a philosophy only by intentions, ignoring the actions of its believers once given power. Christians can and have created sects with democratic and progressive policies, but it's still true that Christianity, like Confucianism, gave intellectual support for absolute monarchy and slavery for centuries, and Christians have to honestly deal with that.

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.

If we exclude the more primitivist anarchical positions that are seen in a part of the Daoist canon, a lot of Daoist philosophy was not that different from Confucianism in its vision of the role of the ruler. Huang-Lao Daoism was very close to having the same conception of the ruler as an inexerting virtuous figure, and both Confucianism and Daoism extolled wu wei as a principle to be followed by emperors. Confucianism actually believes in governmental inexertion in a number of spheres, believing that the government should often be laissez-faire towards spheres of the economy and should have a low tax rate.

Wu wei is definitely one of the more fascinating bits of Chinese philosophy. I think it's far more real for sages than for emperors, however. Historians generally find that the empire only worked well when the emperor was a bit of a workaholic.

I disagree that neo-Confucianism killed off the dynamism of Tang and Song because that assumes that China was not dynamic after them and assumes that neo-Confucianism was unquestionably in a position of authority after them. I mean the Yuan dynasty was characterised by the dominance of Tibetan Buddhism, a foreign religion.

Well, the Yuan represent a takeover by nomadic foreigners, so it doesn't tell us much about the Chinese system per se.

And then when we speak of being dynamic, there is a succession of political reforms and transformations from Yuan-Ming-Qing, a flourishing of culture and scientific advancements still. 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). Meanwhile, the Song dynasty was characterised by a huge concentration of land and wealth in the hands of a few incredibly powerful landowners that gradually undermined the positions of peasants.

On the scientific front, I'm mostly relying on the opinions of Joseph Needham, who studied Chinese science very deeply. It seems obvious that Tang/Song China was the leading nation in the world in its time; Ming/Qing China for sure was not.

To me land reform is a political issue, and a crucial one for the empire, as its revenues depended on direct taxation of peasants. Consolidation of estates among the rich was a threat to the state, as the rich had many ways of evading taxes. Note that the land reforms generally accompanied changes of dynasty, especially the Sui and Ming. The perennial political problem of the empire was that a dynasty could only really get things done in its first century or so. Confucianism has little to do with this problem (but also provided little in the way of solutions).