Order

March 16
ORDER:

Not surprisingly there are many similarities between Confucius and Mencius (Confucius was, after all, Mencius’ mentor). Like Mencius, Confucius emphasizes respect, virtue, good friendships, sincerity, benevolent government... and that the only constant is change itself. Another persistent theme is that of the wholeness and interrelatedness of things. Now, after the reappearance of this topic of “wholeness” throughout our readings, it’s surprising to me that this idea should come as a surprise to anyone. Is this the legacy of Descartes? Of rational thinking? Who or what can be blamed for the divisions that separate what is fundamentally connected? The notion of interconnectedness was stressed in the introduction to Analects, and whenever I had trouble grasping the meaning of Confucius’ maxims, I attributed it to the fact that I must not be thinking wholistically enough.

Western philosophy seems to have put far too much emphasis on polarities and opposites. Yes, there are oppositions in this world but they do not exist or act in a vacuum. By painting the world as such, the “picture” is simplified which can be advantageous in some respects but can also be detrimental if it negates the bigger picture; one must not think too dogmatically in “blacks and whites”. Alternatively, it can be said that Eastern philosophies get muddled in that they are too wholistic. Ironically, I’m describing (and generalizing) Eastern and Western philosophies as two extremes along a spectrum but we should remember that they do have the same goal in mind. That goal being “Truth” or a higher understanding or appreciation of something, as well as how one should live. Despite their different approaches and outlooks, they arise from the same kernel, the same human desire for clarification, understanding. Chinese philosophies - (this is true) - fall more into the “Eastern” category of philosophy and it’s understandable that what has become known as “Confucianism” can be recognizable in thinkers even before Confucius’ time. The Confucian philosophy has changed very much over the past two and a half millennia.

The Chinese philosophy doesn’t separate the individual from his surroundings, including, of course, the people he interacts with. We extend our unique personhood by the ways we interact with others, as children, parents, lovers, friends and so forth, within the constraints denoted by what is meant by "parent", lover", friend" and "neighbour". And, "Excellent persons do not dwell alone; they are sure to have neighbours." This reminded me of Mencius’ writings and the use of his word benevolence (at least this is how it was translated into English: Benevolence). Mencius’ definition is more complex. Perhaps it was my Western thinking that wanted his idea nicely packaged in a single word, but his definition of what we’ve termed “benevolence” would have been more accurately described with: "Characteristics of someone who is looked up to and revered"... perhaps an “excellent person”? There are far too many things that make a sage a sage (and an excellent person an excellent person); benevolence does not capture them all; it is but one admirable attribute. …There is more complexity and convolution in thinking wholistically, but, finally, this is how the world was created and how it exists: as a whole.

From a psychological point of view, one should have the view that relationships with others are what makes the individual. To a large extent we define ourselves by how others perceive and judge us as individuals; we are the result of the many experiences we’ve had with others.

On Propriety and rituals:
When Mencius makes any mention of members of the other sex, they are mere objects, concubines. What is more, it is written (about Mencius’ mother, Appendix 2) that a woman’s guiding principle is the “three submissions”: In youth she submits to her parents; after marriage, to her husband; after the death of her husband, to her son. This is in accordance to the rites.”

Rituals are often misunderstood… Rituals are not necessarily tyrannical forms of behaviour when viewed broadly and wholistically. It seems to me that Confucius felt manners and actions based on rituals were important because if not followed as the “kings and excellent people of the old times” did, by letting rituals of the “good old days” slide, this would be indicative of a slide down a slope leading to public disorder and social disarray.

Following set rituals must have given the sense of civility and order to human relationships at a time when war ravaged China. The “Mandate of Tian ming” is a cosmic order that one should fall into step with so that all might go “smoothly”. Should bumpy roads be encountered, this was taken as falling out of harmony with tian ming. This is not dissimilar to the Bhagavad Gita, Mencius and Marcus Aurelius’ beliefs.

Self si versus Public yong.
Living with reverence toward the Public is living with consideration of it. Making it recognized that the people you interact with are important to you is crucial for self respect as well as respect for the other. In practicing such rituals, there is a “give and take” in which both benefit and are honoured (although I wonder about what the women in Confucius’ day thought of the “Three Submissions”).
Losing sight of and not respecting the Public was feared to be a slippery slope to a land of greed and individualism.

Confucius was more concerned with HOMEOSTASIS than with change/growth.
This describes well what I have said.