Talk:Confucianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] hooligans?
This sentence is jarring and confusing: "...before being able to express their goodness for the chinese hooligans." I don't even know what this is trying to say, is it vandalism or a poorly-explained concept?
--Valwen 04:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] misc
There is now an entry for Li(Confucian); should the "Rites" section of the entry on Confucianism be somehow merged or replaced with the entry on Li, considering that "Rites" is only one possible English translation of li? I don't know how best to change the Rites section, but it should definitely be improved.
--Sam
"Rite (禮, Lǐ) stands here for a complex set of ideas hard to render in Western languages. Its Chinese character previously had the religious meaning of "sacrifice": 禮 is 示 'altar' on the left of 曲 on 豆 representing a vase full of flowers, offered as a sacrifice to the gods." Who in heaven wrote this ? I deleted it. Please check out the 214 kangxi-radikals before writing bout characters. btw...豆 = bean --luke--
- 豆 is originally a food serving container and its shape is preserved in the character. The character later borrowed to bean. See a picture of it. Just like 莫, a sun within four woods, means evening originally and later borrowed to don't.
A poster below stated that Confucianism is physical, and not spiritual, but this is not true, it is a false dichotomy. --Michael
removed redirect now that there is some more content here. Added some old lecture notes of mine to what was little more than a stub when i got to it Could we ask a native Chinese speaker to pinyinise the names and terms? Thanks --- clasqm
I added an outline and some content on the history of confucianism. Also there is a section on "shi" and the relationship between Confucianism and the Chinese state which I think is very historically inaccurate, but I've left it until I can think of something better to write Chenyu
- Thanks, Chenyu!
Confucianism was not and has never been any religion. This is proved, in my opinion, as Confucius accepted the heavenly mandat (kind of God/holy law) as the supreme and only rightous way to go about state governing, family life and so on. He was obsessed with the rules of propriety. During the Han dynasty, however, Master Zhongni was idolized and often given "super powers" by fans.
I just visited China and people repeatedly reminded me that Confucius was no God, but "probably one of the greatest thinkers in the world"!
Sigg3.net
- I think you are correct. It's really more of a philosophy than a religion, though in practice it may get intermingled with bits of Taoism or Buddhism, especially as 'folk religion'. Wesley
-
- I think that's really strange, since Taoism goes for the spiritual while Confucianism goes for the physical. It's also interesting to know that Master Zhongni met the founder of Taoism, mr. Laozi (which means "old baby" as he was born with white hair) accidently since he was going to browse China's archive of scrolls and Laozi happened to be the archivist. During the 1 month of studying the old rules of propriety at this library Zhongni actually learns more from Laozi than from the books.
- Sigg3.net
- I think that's really strange, since Taoism goes for the spiritual while Confucianism goes for the physical. It's also interesting to know that Master Zhongni met the founder of Taoism, mr. Laozi (which means "old baby" as he was born with white hair) accidently since he was going to browse China's archive of scrolls and Laozi happened to be the archivist. During the 1 month of studying the old rules of propriety at this library Zhongni actually learns more from Laozi than from the books.
-
- The above story has been the claim from Taosism radicals as their school of philosophy is more superior than Confucianism. User:kt2
-
- The above story is supported by historical records from that time. Again, Taoism and Confucianism doesn't have any ties and should not be compared. Taoism is focusing inwards while Confucianism is focusing outwards (very simplified, of course).
- Sigg3.net
-
- I also consider Confucianism as a philosopy more than a religion. But when talking about Taoism, it can mean a religion or a philosopy. This is kinder confusing in English but in Chinese we have Dao Jiao and Dao Jia which is definitely not the same thing. And Laozi means Master Lao rather than Old baby, just like Kungzi stands for Master Kung. --Lorenzarius 10:32 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
-
- This is only a small suggestion to edit this article. Hong Kong, Macao and taiwan arent really territories predominantly occupied by chinese. They are more or less part of China. Taiwan and PRC are both China. HK & Macao were china before colonialist took over and are still very china. In all of these plases Han people are the dominant people.
[edit] Wish to remove something
Extract I propose to remove (I don't see any way to improve and I feel it's useless as it is now)
Was there a Confucianism? One of the problems in discussing the history of Confucianism is the question of what Confucianism is. In his book Manufacturing Confucianism, David Jensen claims that our modern image of Confucius and Confucianism, which is that of a wise symbol of learning and a state-sponsored quasi-religion, did not exist in China from time immemorial, but was manufactured by European Jesuits in order to portray Chinese society to Europeans. The notion of Confucianism was then borrowed back by Chinese who used it for their own purposes.
To simplify this discussion, we shall simply define Confucianism as any system of thinking that has at its basis the works that are regarded as the "Confucian classics," but even this definition runs into problems as it is not clear what are the "Confucian classics."
By the way, defining what the classics are is far from impossible and the fact that the corpus changed with time don't imply that there is no corpus. I think the current article could be improved a lot, for example by reading http://afpc.asso.fr/wengu/files/ext_cache.php?url=http://www.rep.routledge.com/philosophy/articles/entry/G/G001/G001SECT4.html gbog 16:23, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- You may not like the second para, but the first appears useful. Surely the section can be improved by being added to - David Gerard 16:47, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
I not very good at refactoring and my english is crap but I can try to work on the article. I think the interesting point in the first paragraph is that, maybe, the "confucianist" didn't see themselves as a particular group sharing particular ideas, and therefore didn't feel to use a common name like 'confucianist', because, in a way, confucianism was the main stream and only needed to be called something like "orthodoxy" (some being more orthodox than others). But reading the paragraph, I feel that it is said that no "coherent ideological stream linked to Confucean classics" existed before westerners coined a name for it...
Well. I should work on it. But I should begin with the begining. The first lines of the article are, imho, not very accurate : I think that Confucius has not "founded" confucianism. He had ethico-political ideas and shared them with disciples but the school itself is probably founded by disciples of disciples. Then, i would say, instead : Confucianism (儒家 Pinyin: rújiā "The School of the Scholars"), sometimes translated as the School of Literati, is an East Asian ethical and philosophical system followed by people in China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam and other Asian countries for more than two thousand years. / The belief system is named, in Western countries, after 孔子 (Confucius, Master Kong), who lived in the late 6th and early 5th centuries BC, because Confucianists see in him the greatest Master and study his attributed Classics.
You will think I'm an erazorman :) but I would remove this, also (because it's place is in Confucius article and had very little to the understanding of confucianism): Confucius was born into a middle class family, although the family was actually in the superior class of the current dynasty. His Chinese name was later latinised to Confucius by Jesuit missionaries. As an adult, Confucius went from state to state trying to teach their rulers. He is credited with a number of books, the best-known of which is the Analects, a collection of his sayings that was compiled and edited to its modern form during the Han dynasty.
- I think I see your point. I don't actually know the area well. But if you can re-order things sensibly, then I can clean up the English afterwards - David Gerard 10:58, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
-
- I've written few pages and am currently trying to feed batabase with it. I hope it will work before I go to bed. Thanks in advance if you take the (long) time required to make something readable from my thing. gbog 14:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Good content so far :-) I've done some copyedit of the intro and first section, up to the beginning of ==Meritocracy==. I've tried to keep to correcting the grammar and slight untangling of sentences and word choice - please check for inadvertent changes to the content - David Gerard 12:25, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thanks a lot ! I read the result and it's really nice. I didn't see any changes in the content for now. I may add other paragraphs later. gbog 17:20, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I have added the clause: 'as a "translation" of the ancient indigenous traditions known as "Ru Jia,"' in the "first paragraph" under discussion above, because I contend that the author of that paragraph isn't being very clear. -- Michael
-
-
-
I'm suggesting re-examining Jensen's work and re-editing this part here. I think what Jensen might be saying is that while there was a Ru Jia, "Confucianism" was intended by the West to describe Ru Jia, but instead the West reinterpreted Ru Jia and invented a construct that doesn't actually represent Ru Jia. If this was what Jensen mean, I suggest that you explain it, because in your main article Ru Jia is equated with Confucianism, and when you say "was there Confucianism," it's as though you're saying "was there Ru Jia."
-- Michael
This idea that the sole cultivation of Virtue is enough for the King to rule his Kingdom is, on one side, probably related to early shamanistic beliefs, like that of the King (Wang, 王) being the axe between the Sky, the Men and the Earth.
Shouldn't "axe" be "axle" here? I'll make the change later if no one objects. --Eric Forste 00:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rites
I thing the "Rites" must be futher expanded to accomodate the useless aspect of rites
Study of confucianism must learn that not everything state in the writing of confucius are true. Indeed, some are forms without substatnce. For example, confucianism promote the use of "rites" to pay repect of deceased people. Thus some deceased "King" titled by the later , are not real King, some ancestor are simply a sheperd, blacksmith,etc On the other hand, some councilman mean by Confucius as real king. For example, Confucius claim the northen tribe Qing King as "councilman", given the reason that the Qing King did not earn the title from Zhou dynasty emperor.
[edit] Negative aspect of Confucianism
Rites and minority discrimination Although Confucianism practice the rites, Confucianism are direspect the the female and foreigners.
Rites and excessive expenses Historically, rites also lead to excessive expenses and unrealistic ritual. It happens that any kingdom that practice the rites ritual maintain more than 300 temples over the country for the deceased relative.
filial piety and corruptions Under the teaching, people with deceased parent must quit their job and stay at home for 3 years. This has lead to heavy corruption of all level of government officer in order to earn money to support living during the 3 years filial piety ritual.
Meritocracy sound better than you though. Indeed, Confucianism come with a face of literacture facism. The Confucianism officer in power has ask the authority to suppress teaching and idea that are not related to confucianism (摆拙百家,独尊孔教).
Loyalty Ironically, The Sing(新) dynasty emperor are a confusianism follower who seized the power from the Han-Dynasty.
The perfect gentleman The best way to become a perfect gentlemen is "staying out of trouble"(明哲保身).
==
[edit] Modern confucianism
Modern confucianism is a idea promoted by 20th century confucianism follower. It is mean to remove the negative and overhype aspect of confucianism. One should not confuse the meaning of modern confucianism with "old script" and "new scripts".
--sltan
Why are there so many dates mentioned in the article? There are dates (and not just years) for the birth and death of Qin Shihuang, who is not even the focus of this article. Can we get rid of these?
The naming conventions are also inconsistent. We have "Xun Zi" but "Han Feizi", "Han Wu Di" and "Qin Shi Huang". These should be Xun Zi, Hanfei Zi, Han Wudi and Qin Shihuang, should they not?
One of the negative results of confucianism is sometimes said to be the lower status of women and treatment of women in some Asian societies, especially before modernisation. Can this be integrated into the article somewhere? Xaqua 03:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The material about the Script Controversy is good, but feels very vague. When were the New Scripts reconstructed? Who feels that the Old Scripts are more authoritative? Can we give textural citations for these things? Et cetera. Jiawen 07:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--- The vast majority of cultures in history have treated women relatively poorly and most of the major religions have treated women poorly. To mention whether or not women were treated poorly as a result of Confucian thought is precarious because it is found in the vast majority of cultures. Kennethtennyson
[edit] Is Confucianism a religion
It's obviously not a religion, as explained in the section later. It does not relate to afterlife or a supreme being, rather a way of life in connection to society. So why does the first paragraph states that it is a religion? Mandel July 1, 2005 10:35 (UTC)
Response to Mandel: 1) By what criteria do you determine that religion = belief in afterlife or a supreme being? See Emile Durkheim's Elemental Forms of Religion. 2) Although he expressed skepticism, Kong Tzi (Confucius) did not completely deny the afterlife. His committment to ancestral veneration and honoring of spirits probably imply at least belief in the possibility of afterlife. Furthermore, it is not at all self-evident that Kong Tzi did not believe in a supreme being. In fact, some of his teachings about Tian signifies his personal faith in Tian. An important thing to remember is that classical Chinese thought did not contain Western dichotomy of supernatural v. natural (or at least not to the point of a paradigm of polar opposites.) -- Michael, July 29, 2005
I don't agree that Confucianism is obviously not a religion. The section on is Confucianism a religion? is a good feature in this article, although I tend to think that it doesn't present very balanced arguments for Confucianism being a religion, only for it not being so. Perhaps I will update this later. Parallel or Together? 04:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
As long as there is no consensus about what religion exactly is, one cannot argue about whether or not confucianism is a religion. - Raptor Noctis
Perhaps we could see from other opinion Confucianism (Kongzism) in Indonesia - Kongfuzianism is beyond religion. By the way, in order to respect Kongzi, I would suggest not using his western name. Why didn't Lao Zi, Zuang Zi, ... Sun Zi has no western name? Is it because the Jesuit missionary was confused? and therefore name Confucius? The same should apply to Mengzi not Mencius - Love peace Nov 28, 2006.
[edit] Copyediting?
Why does this need to be copyedited?
- Just glancing quichly through, I see "in his 'flat' way of seeing things" (what does that mean?), "Since then, Confucianism has been used as a kind of 'state religion'" (I think that modern Chinese citizens would be a little surprised to discover that), "As with many other canonised men" (canonised?), "Different from many other political philosophies, Confucianism is reluctant to employ laws" (ugh!), etc. etc.. It's also a mixture of U.S. and U.K. English, and needs general tidying of punctuation, etc. I shall do it when I get time, but in the meantime, the template alerts other Wikipedians to the job that needs doing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
none of this is true (preceding obscure unsigned comment by 203.44.213.18 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 4 October 2005)
[edit] Reciprocity
One thing that isn't mentioned at all, and I think it should be, is the fact that superior–inferior relationships in Confucianism are not one-way streets. The Zhong Yong emphasizes that superiors have duties to inferiors -- to be magnanimous, kind, protective, etc. I've observed that those people who claim that Confucianism is a hidebound philosophy that promotes authoritarianism and chauvinism and those people who do in fact use Confucianism to defend authoritarianism and chauvinism both ignore the responsibility that the superior has to the inferior. Arguably, Confucius' entire philosophy is a rebuke to people in powerful positions who think they're entitled to everything and owe nothing. Especially under the Mencian interpretation that an incompetent or wicked ruler forfeits the Mandate of Heaven and should expect to be overthrown, Confucianism is a good deal more radical than people give it credit for. It's not even incompatible with republican government, if you think of elections as efficient engines for carrying out the Mandate of Heaven without bloodshed (and gloss over the fact that they install petty people in positions of power considerably more often than noble ones). --Mr. A. 04:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Confucianism and law
While it is already touched upon to some degree, the relationship between Confucianism and law, and between Confucianism and Legalism merit more exploration here. I'll try to add some when I can. --Dpr 06:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] seizensetsu/seiakusetsu
The two doctrines 性善説 and 性悪説 are dealt with in the Chinese Wikipedia here. Can someone transcribe them into English? I only know the Japanese names. These names are important enough to be noted in the article I believe. --DannyWilde 12:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Trimming this article
We may want to start trimming this article for length; sub-sections can be encorporated into their own articles. Can we remove the quotations section? --Dpr 01:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. I think we also should remove the "concepts" section, for two reasons : 1) many redundancies with other sections, 2) there is nothing ressembling "concepts" in Chinese philosophy in general, and in confucianism in particular. A list of "keywords in confucianism" could be used, but I'm not sure it's really useful. However, while describing parts of confucianism, those "keywords" are to be used and linked together. gbog 17:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- 2) there is nothing ressembling "concepts" in Chinese philosophy in general, and in confucianism in particular.
- The term as used here simply means "topics" or "areas." Nothing inappropriate about that. --Dpr 01:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Well if I check answers.com, the firts defs tell me you are right (concept is "Something formed in the mind") but wikipedia entry tells me I'm right (concept is an abstract, universal idea, which is closer to the use we have in French, and, I guess, in philosophy). However, you'll agree that sections "Rites" and "Ritual" are redundant, no ? My feeling is that "concepts" section needs rework, but... gbog 13:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] "Sage"
The first sentence of the article informs us that Confucianism is "originally developed from the teachings of the early Chinese sage Confucius." The word "sage" is linked to the article "Sage", which informs us that "Sage is a term used for plants of the genus Salvia". So Confucius was a plant. So Confucianism was developed by a plant.
[edit] Junzi article
Someone recently created an article on junzi. The contents of junzi is much less elaborate than the description in the article; should junzi be merged into this article, or should the contents of this article about junzi be moved to the new article on junzi?--Confuzion 23:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think that it would be better to establish an indepedent article for Junzi. --Neo-Jay 03:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New portal on religion
Brisvegas and I have been creating portals for various significant religions, with your religion being one of the portals. The portals still need work, but most of the groundwork has been done. We need to find people who would like to take responsibility for their faith's portal. Brisvega looks after the Christianity portal, and I look after the Islam portal. You can find your religion's portal by looking at the Religion & Spirituality section on the portal template at Template:Portals. I've been notified that your faith's portal can possibly be deleted if no one looks after the portal. --JuanMuslim 1m 17:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] New edits re: "we" vs. "humans"
The current edits say "humans have recollections by..." This phrasing is weird. Do aliens from Vega have better access to Confucius' writings? I preferred the original phrasing. Jiawen 06:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Big edit
I added a section on Confucian texts (sorely missing!), moved some things around to save space and generally edited a bunch of different things. I think the result is both more concise and more informational than what we had before. Jiawen 07:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm curious why the section on Confucian texts was removed. I didn't see an obvious reason in the edit history. Jiawen 10:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is Confucianism a religion?
Confucianism is more of a philosophy than a religion (lacking a true belief in god) as confucious was obsessed with the rules of propriety, not with teaching people about god. Though confucious was a strong believer in god he already knew that people already worshipped god, but lived in a time of unexersized individual moral and ethics. He taught about ettiquette, propriety, love within families, righteousness, honesty, trustworthiness, belnelovence, humaness towards others, and loyalty to the state and not about any god or supernatural leaders of the universe. Confucianism is phisical not spiritural, facing outwards not inwards on the moral etiquette of the human being. wwwmoo
- Religion isn't defined by belief in a god or gods.
- Confucianism is both a philosophical tradition and a religion (the former pre-dating the latter).
- Confucianism isn't a simple matter of what Confucius wrote, any more than Platonism is just what Plato wrote or Christianity is just what Christ is recorded as saying in the New Testament. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] the accuracy of 孔教 Kŏng jiào
"less accurately, 孔教 Kŏng jiào, "The Religion of Confucius")"
Is the "less accurately" really neccessary 孔教 is a perfectly good chinese word. Do chinese scholars condider it to be less accurate? Dosn't it really just refer to a different aspect of Confucianism? I would say delete it.
- 教 can mean religion, but it can also mean education. So, it can also mean the education of Confucianism. --Skyfiler 17:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Jiao means 'teaching', so Kong Jiao means the 'The Teachings of Confucius'.
[edit] BCE versus BC
I've noticed the recent edits over using "BCE" versus "BC". I would be more comfortable using "BCE", as it seems more standard amongst other sources, and to avoid any type of religious undertones. (I hope nobody minds the minor cleanup to the discussion page.) Archmagusrm 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I did some of that already and it was reverted. "BC" is no longer academically acceptable, even more so in an article about Chinese religion and culture. I'll go ahead and make the changes again and see what happens. For those of you who are not familiar with the issue: "B.C." = "Before Christ". No exactly appropriate in the world context, let alone here. "BCE" = "Before the Comman Era". Tho the dates don't change, it's a bit more neutral and is comman usage.--Jonashart 17:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- This is a well-tread topic in Wikipedia, right up there with abortion and British vs. American spellings. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras, from which I quote, "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article" ... "it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change" ... "Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable". Therefore the changes by Jonashart to an article that was already uniformly using BC/AD dates were inappropriate. --Marlow4 23:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Manufacturing Confucianism
Lionel Jensen is correct in his assertions. Does anyone claim that the Chinese only practised 'Confucianism' after Confucius came to this earth? Did the Chinese not honour their fathers and mothers before Confucius? Even Confucius was recorded as saying he added nothing new, so the way of life he prescribed was already in existence. What his followers wanted to say was really, 'Wouldn't it be nice if everybody followed this uniform life-style without questions, like the pre-programmed worker ants in an ant colony?' Of course rulers and the powerful would say 'yes', having seen this as an ideal opportnunity to subjugate and squeeze work out of a large population. If anyone questioned them, the answer would have been, 'We must do this because Confucius said so, see, read it for yourselves (knowing that the subjugated people could not read)'. Of course the lower class people aspired that their children got into the 'system', as they saw that as a rewarding life without having to labour, rather like people now wanting to be footballers and pop singers.
Could Chinese society (past and present) be labelled as Confucian? The ordinary people (those consisting 90% or more of the population) were illiterate, and in all reality did not even know what Confucius was supposed to have said. Their concern was on how to make a meagre living and keep what they made without handing over a large chunk to the government. The ruling class certainly justified their existence on Confucian principles, but they consisted of less than 10% of the Chinese population. So, I think the answer was 'no'. The majority of the Chinese customs and practices pre-dated Confucius. It is like asking whether a so called Roman Catholic who practices contraception is still a Roman Catholic. The practice of 'Confucianism' by the entire population was only nominal, as is in many Roman Catholic societies' practise of Roman Cathloicism.
It seems that at some point in the development of any society, someone wants to write down their thoughts of what they see as the rights and wrongs of their society in the hope of guiding that society. Examples of this are the Greek philosophers, Buddha, Confucius and so on. In the Judeo-Christian society, this was very often recorded as 'And God said to so and so in a dream...'. In all the cases, some followers followed blindly. It is also the case that although the ideals sounded good, nobody appeared to have been able to put numerical figures or arithmetic relationships to their ideas (models) and no plans or contingency plans were made to cope with growth, disasters or unforeseen situations. Why, because in all their wisdom, Confucius, Buddha and so on did not know or understand these subjects.
The status of Confucius when compared to an equivalent in the West was probably that of a 'saint' rather than a 'god'. The temples devoted to Confucius are equivalent to naming a church St Peter's, St Paul's, St Mary's, etc.