His post includes –
The moral man conforms himself to his life circumstances: he does not desire anything outside of his position. Finding himself in a position of wealth and honor, he lives as becomes one living in a position of wealth and honor. Finding himself in a position of poverty and humble circumstances, he lives as becomes one living in a position of poverty and humble circumstances. Finding himself in uncivilized countries, he lives as becomes one living in uncivilized countries. Finding himself in circumstances of danger and difficulty, he acts according to what is required of a man under such circumstances. In one word, the moral man can find himself in no situation in life in which he is not master of himself.
OK, I find that rather less enlightening. So you have to go outside of Confucius' works to find the paths to propriety in those cases.
In a high position he does not domineer over his subordinates. In a subordinate position he does not court the favors of his superiors. He puts in order his own personal conduct and seeks nothing from others: hence he has no complaint to make. He complains not against God, nor rails against men.
Thus it is that the moral man lives out the even tenor of his life calmly waiting for the appointment of God, whereas the vulgar person takes to dangerous courses, expecting the uncertain chances of luck.
Confucius remarked: "In the practice of archery we have something resembling the principle in a moral man's life. When the archer misses the center of the target, he turns round and seeks for the cause of his failure within himself."
I'd like to see a bit more of that going on.
Al, sorry for picking on you, but yours really is a good post, and it is also a good place to pick up on other thoughts at the same time.
In the course of paging through linked sites and blogs on anarchy (I came upon anarcho-syndicalist by chance) there is an increasing trend toward analysing the likes of LaoTzu (TaoTeChing) and Confucius as “models” or leads into political philosophy which I suspect would have been far from their minds at the time they wrote their particular works.
To give one direct parallel (this one peddled from time to time on right wing militarist boards), I have no doubt that modern US military strategists such as those planning the future direction of the war in Iraq have studied SunTzu “Art of Warfare”. No doubt, that work can be translated to parallel much of what happens in Iraq at a broad level. On that basis also it can argued, quite rightly, that SunTzu’s analysis of correct strategy applies in the modern world. I suspect that the truth of that conclusion is in fact somewhat removed from the fanciful application I have given. If we turn the logic over, take out the belief, it happens that there are fundamentals of warfare that are like laws of nature; they are inescapable, incontrovertible, and undeniable, like gravity. Where the parallels from SunTzu to Iraq can be drawn come both from his recognition of these fundamentals, and that the fundamentals still apply in Iraq; just like gravity.
This is why I take issue with the anarchists and others who apply Confucius in particular to their particular ends. It is in fact no different than application of the Bible to the same manner of justifying (or legislating against) events in the modern world.
Now I have no problem with any of the texts that I mention in this post; all of them are challenging to read, all of them espouse principles of “good action” and “good law” and “good society” that I can whole-heartedly agree with and – along parallels like those between SunTzu and Iraq – apply in my life every day.
Those also are the parallels that many free thinkers pick up and (mistakenly in my view) misapply to the modern world.
Now I can say here that I agree with much of what Al has posted. His quotation of Confucius is apt and follows one of these fundamentals. But in the middle he has dropped this –
OK, I find that rather less enlightening. So you have to go outside of Confucius' works to find the paths to propriety in those cases.
The “outside” of Confucius has been forgotten because the work has been taken as all inclusive.
It is NOT complete, NOT all-inclusive, NOT comprehensive..
Like every work of philosophy (any work for that matter, writing, art, music…) it has an outside.
That “outside” is the environment in which it was created.
I suspect that (from the language) Al’s quote is from “The Analects”; written about 500BCE or over 2,500 years back. Its age is not what creates the problem.
The problem is that everybody reading the Analects sees the parallels, thinks “This is marvellous; it suits me!!!” without ever considering its environment.
So, Al, to answer just that one part of your comment, the answer comes not from incompleteness, but from assumption. Al has picked this – “you have to go outside” – and Confucius says in reply “Of course not, because the piece you are missing is a fundamental for me, an integral part of the way that I think and believe. It does not require being written down”.
Another parallel if I may be permitted.
In the Old Testament of the Bible, the story is told of Abraham sacrificing a lamb to God. The story does not detail the rites involved. It makes no mention of words to be said or action to be undertaken. That was simply the environment from which the story comes. No doubt the rites of sacrifice (if they still are practiced within Judaism) would be little changed from that time.
Hand in hand with that environmental consideration, comes that of language. To give an illustration of how difficult that can become, I offer the following.
In my teens and early twenties I went through very much the same manner of search for “truth and enlightenment” that every thinking person seems to undertake. As part of that process I purchased myself a small paperback copies of the ‘Gita and the Upanishads.
In the preface to these translations (by the same translator), there is a note explaining that the translation has retained the original terms for the religious concepts espoused in the text. It gives as the reason the rationale that there is no exact or literal translation of the term into English; the concept of the term has no direct equivalent. It then gives a small table of “approximations” to help the ignorant like me with reading the text.
Now this comment does not apply to Al, but it most assuredly does to many others who are picking up on the Eastern religions to support modern contentions in philosophy, belief and politics.
Tucked into the tail end of his quotation from the Analects (if I got that right…) is the word “God”.
That one little word gives me a problem. Not as one might think because I am atheist. No far from that.
The problem arises from translation.
It is my understanding that in Confucius’ time, there was no “God” as such; religion was predominantly animist, and pantheistic (everything is a “god”).
It is my understanding that the Analects were written as an outline toward good government for a despotic ruler and at the same time to form the basis for maintaining and strengthening the observation and preservation of the rites of worship practiced by the religion(s) of that time. None of those practices are detailed in the Analects. There is no prescription of “what to do or say”. That is very simply explained; the purpose of the text was to protect that multitude of beliefs, not to restrict or proscribe in any way.
Now PLEASE NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME!!! The parallels between Confucius, or LaoTzu, and the modern world are real. That is because they are fundamentals of good conduct and good society. You will find the same parallels, figuratively almost word for word, in the Ancient Greeks, the Bible, the Upanishad and the teachings of Bhudda.
BUT PLEASE - as a universal plea – would all of you self-appointed philosophers, learned or not, homespun or ivory tower, Christian, Taoist, Bhuddist or Moslem, PLEASE REMEMBER the environment from which the detail comes when you take pieces out of your faith to justify action and belief in the 21st century.
The parallel that you draw might well exist, but the devil is in the detail.
No comments:
Post a Comment