AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-09-29, 15:27   Link #41
Proto
Knowledge is the solution
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: U. of Pittsburgh, Previously in Mexico City.
Age: 29
Quote:
What I was pointing out is that man is free because there's nothing stopping him from doing things, whatever those are.
What if those things that are stopping him from doing things are the inherent principles that rule the universe?
Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 15:30   Link #42
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
What if those things that are stopping him from doing things are the inherent principles that rule the universe?
Not my concern. Laws of nature and negative freedom aren't related.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 15:42   Link #43
Proto
Knowledge is the solution
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: U. of Pittsburgh, Previously in Mexico City.
Age: 29
We should have started from there I guess. Let's start anew. From your POV, what IS freedom, or your definition of freedom?
Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 15:45   Link #44
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 16:10   Link #45
JRendell
Manga Addict
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, UK
Age: 23
Send a message via Skype™ to JRendell
Lmao, such a debate!

Maybe we should start a thread on people's ideas of freedom, unless one has already been created.
__________________
VeritasAnimeList
MangaList
ImgurImages

Protip: Manga originals are
always better than Anime
adaptions.

-listening to-
-current desktop-


JRendell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 16:14   Link #46
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thingle View Post
That's not necessarily a good thing. This "solid" is in fact "rigid" and by the time the West explored the abstract ideas of morality, China got left behind, apparently because the Chinese never bothered straying from the confucian paradigm due to their "practical" leaning.
Quote:
the Chinese never bothered straying from the confucian paradigm due to their "practical" leaning.
See the straw man? It's not Confucius' fault, but the Chinese's. Confucius never gave himself the ultimate authority to forbid others from questioning, the ones governed did, because it benefits them. Confucian is not rigid, the governments were.

The problems within a Confucian society structure have already been being eliminated over time, but the basic principles and lessons of life he gave us remain. Dignity, honesty, loyalty, modesty... I fail to see how those moral guidelines impeding a society's advance. If anything, Japan and China could not have their high stands in nowadays global economy without Confucian.
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 16:18   Link #47
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
If anything, Japan and China could not have their high stands in nowadays global economy without Confucian.
Don't tell me you're serious.

China 1900? Confucianism trained the mandarins very well in managing the state (sarcastic). It is truly a source of up-to-date information on dealing with barbarians and a reliable guide to international politics. It is so effective that in fact, a "barbarian" state such as Japan soundly beat the Middle Kingdom and pulled away Taiwan and Korea from its sphere of influence. That at the time when the "barbarian" white men were forcibly opening ports everywhere.

Last edited by Thingle; 2009-09-29 at 16:29.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 16:36   Link #48
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
I'm saying that the ethics guideline that Confucius laid out has greatly helped East Asia businesses prosper in recent decades. Is that wrong?

I don't mean Confucian is perfect. It has a huge load of problems. The ancient governments mostly interpreted Confucianism to their own benefits, forbade any questioning and therefore forbade its evolvement. But those problems is being eliminated in practical uses nowadays.
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 21:02   Link #49
LeoXiao
提倡自我工業化
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thingle View Post
Don't tell me you're serious.

China 1900? Confucianism trained the mandarins very well in managing the state (sarcastic). It is truly a source of up-to-date information on dealing with barbarians and a reliable guide to international politics. It is so effective that in fact, a "barbarian" state such as Japan soundly beat the Middle Kingdom and pulled away Taiwan and Korea from its sphere of influence. That at the time when the "barbarian" white men were forcibly opening ports everywhere.
This was a at a time when the Manchus were ruling China, and also, at the end of the Chinese dynastic cycle. The dynasty was already on its last legs and the fact that the West suddenly industrialized super fast was too much. China was actually lucky that it didn't get totally colonized and end up like Africa.

The whites and Japanese, arguably, were still barbarians, they were just barbarians with high technology. China at many times had scientists and educated people who discovered the same things the Westerners did, but didn't use them for the same ends. A good example is the Ming fleet which sailed to Africa and maybe even America, but they never went around colonizing those places.

China has survived for many thousands of years. No other major culture on Earth has this sort of continuity. If you want to say anything about Confucius and Chinese philosophy, it would have to be that the Chinese mindset is actually the most effective. I'm not going to say if it is indeed the best or not, but I think it's wrong to attribute China's problems to Confucianism, or to attribute Europe and America's problems to Christ, in that case. Those philosophers were most likely much more knowledgeable and open-minded than their fellow countrymen and rulers, and you can't say it's the fault of their teachings in particular that screwed things up.
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 22:03   Link #50
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thingle View Post
Freedom is the concept of being free. There is no absolute freedom and there is no absolute restraint(no freedom). The freedom of having no freedom counted.

What's Confucius' say with freedom? Totalitarian?
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 22:17   Link #51
autobachs
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Confucious is/was the greatest philosopher ever to live besides Jesus.
autobachs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 22:21   Link #52
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoXiao View Post
The whites and Japanese, arguably, were still barbarians, they were just barbarians with high technology.
Technology is culture.

Quote:
China at many times had scientists and educated people who discovered the same things the Westerners did, but didn't use them for the same ends. A good example is the Ming fleet which sailed to Africa and maybe even America, but they never went around colonizing those places.
Oh yea, they wouldn't have After the war, everyone is a general.

On topic: oh haiz Confuseius.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 22:58   Link #53
LeoXiao
提倡自我工業化
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
Technology is culture.
that sounds like the thinking of a barbarian to me
ok, it's a culture, but a different kind. the japanese and europeans were still barbarians because they were colonizing and taking advantage of other cultures without any qualms. The Chinese never had these sort of ambitions. Sure, they had really violent wars at the end of each dynasty, but all the territory China gained in ancient times was mostly through more subtle integrations, a la the greeks and romans.
therefore, the actions of the west were barbaric. It has nothing to do with technology, at least not from the POV of ancient chinese philosophy.

Quote:
Oh yea, they wouldn't have After the war, everyone is a general.
what do you mean
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 00:09   Link #54
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoXiao View Post
that sounds like the thinking of a barbarian to me
ok, it's a culture, but a different kind. the japanese and europeans were still barbarians because they were colonizing and taking advantage of other cultures without any qualms.
I say Honolulu is more civilized than China, what do you think?
Quote:
The Chinese never had these sort of ambitions.
I don't know what Chinese history textbooks say. But from my personal experiences, those from small countries often claim that their civilizations are peaceful and thus, didn't expand... Well, "couldn't" and "didn't" are two different things in my book.

Invasions, whether subtle or not, or in any form, are still invasions. Instead of conquering a village of 10 people, you let 100 of your people in without the host's consent then run an election the following year. Those poor 10 will rebel. Ah ha! Now you didn't invade anyone, you're just trying to quell the rebels! Or you put 1000 of your men near the village and believe that nothing funny would happen.... After a while, you defend your people to taking over the village.... How civilized!

And you mentioned the Romans. Then what exactly is your problem with the West and the Japanese?
Quote:
what do you mean
I mean when we talk about history there is no such thing as "would have." There might be billions of "would have" Newton. Does that matter one bit? Nah. But then people will wonder why we "would have." The honest answer is "because you sucked and they didn't." That's not gonna work so let's start the blame game! When you look at the old China, you see Confucianism. You dig deeper, you'll still see Confucianism. And that is exactly the problem.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 00:36   Link #55
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
When you look at the old China, you see Confucianism. You dig deeper, you'll still see Confucianism. And that is exactly the problem.
What do you mean? You mean Confucianism was China's problem?
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 22:26   Link #56
LeoXiao
提倡自我工業化
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
I say Honolulu is more civilized than China, what do you think?
Yeah, probably, at least on that aspect.
Quote:
I don't know what Chinese history textbooks say. But from my personal experiences, those from small countries often claim that their civilizations are peaceful and thus, didn't expand... Well, "couldn't" and "didn't" are two different things in my book.
China couldn't expand? "small nation?" The point made in my last post was that China could but chose not to expand, even after developing the capability for it. Idk if this was because of Confucius or just because of the mood of the Ming emperor, but the point still holds.
Quote:
Invasions, whether subtle or not, or in any form, are still invasions. Instead of conquering a village of 10 people, you let 100 of your people in without the host's consent then run an election the following year. Those poor 10 will rebel. Ah ha! Now you didn't invade anyone, you're just trying to quell the rebels! Or you put 1000 of your men near the village and believe that nothing funny would happen.... After a while, you defend your people to taking over the village.... How civilized!
Historically, I'm not sure on a case-to-case basis, but usually Chinese culture was not really enforced on the surrounding peoples, but they gravitated towards it. The Mongols, who ended up conquering China, for example, took up Chinese ways.

Of course, now things are different. The modern Chinese do not follow old ways so strictly, and the smaller ethnic groups are being wiped out through modern, government-sponsored Han immigration doing just fine, right?
Quote:
And you mentioned the Romans. Then what exactly is your problem with the West and the Japanese?
The Romans conquered the Greeks, but Greek culture became Roman culture, instead of being wiped out. (See the Mongol example)

Quote:
I mean when we talk about history there is no such thing as "would have." There might be billions of "would have" Newton. Does that matter one bit? Nah. But then people will wonder why we "would have." The honest answer is "because you sucked and they didn't." That's not gonna work so let's start the blame game! When you look at the old China, you see Confucianism. You dig deeper, you'll still see Confucianism. And that is exactly the problem.
I don't quite understand your last statement, but my point is not to say whether or not China is/was better than the West, but rather, to say that to attribute China's 19th-century problems to Confucius is incorrect. This was what Thingle and I disagreed on, and therefore, I refuted his post.
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 23:37   Link #57
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoXiao View Post
Yeah, probably, at least on that aspect.
Uh....
Quote:
China couldn't expand? "small nation?" The point made in my last post was that China could but chose not to expand, even after developing the capability for it. Idk if this was because of Confucius or just because of the mood of the Ming emperor, but the point still holds.
If they could, they would've done it with the neighbors. Not every ethnic group easily abandoned their ways. The mindset that governed the Chinese at that time simply wouldn't allow them to do what the West did. And China didn't have to conquer anyone to prosper, just trade! The land was rich beyond the European imagination. However, if the emperor turned out to be a dumbass, and even so firmly held on to his power (guess why?), the country would go astray. And the next hero to overthrow the tyrant would name himself king (guess why?). If a nation's welfare is based on throwing dices to get a good king, then that nation would not go very far. The West smarted up and changed. Then began the influx of new ideas and its expansion.


Quote:
Of course, now things are different. The modern Chinese do not follow old ways so strictly, and the smaller ethnic groups are being wiped out through modern, government-sponsored Han immigration doing just fine, right?
Yea, that what they told us.

Quote:
The Romans conquered the Greeks, but Greek culture became Roman culture, instead of being wiped out. (See the Mongol example)
Uh... no. Your order of events is wrong.... Besides, let's not forget how the Roman tried to bring civilization to the "barbarians."

Quote:
I don't quite understand your last statement, but my point is not to say whether or not China is/was better than the West, but rather, to say that to attribute China's 19th-century problems to Confucius is incorrect. This was what Thingle and I disagreed on, and therefore, I refuted his post.
The problem with Confucianism is, imo, when people revere it en mass, they will tend to kill off new ideas. Confucius's teaching never explicit suggested such. However, that is the direct consequence. Now I won't go into whether Confucianism is good or bad but if you adopt such an inherently oppressive philosophical system en mass, you'll have a huge problem.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 03:15   Link #58
MitsubishiZero
Resource cabinet
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Confucius is a great philospher. His ideas were great during his time. However, he did not personally leave behind any book relating to what he teach to his students, so what we are reading now are philosophy recollected and interpreted by his students. The reason why he didn't do it himself is because (well i believe) he knew the world would change, values would change, and his ideas would be interpreted differently or even misinterpreted. As a result, some people went to extremes and caused the technical development of China as a civilization to lag behind America and Europe for quite some time. Today, we read his philosophy to better understand our weaknesses and improve it because, at the end of the day, he is a philosopher.
MitsubishiZero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 03:24   Link #59
Lathdrinor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
China's Confucianism was cause-and-effect. China didn't start with Confucianism. It started with shamanism and slavery: the Shang Dynasty was all about enslaving the other tribes and offering human sacrifices to the great spirits. Then the Zhou came along, curbed some of the excesses, instigated patriarchy, and society progressed a bit. But it was still a Machiavellian game of thrones, with the aristocratic houses at the top and everybody else suffering under their feudal ways.

The chief ideology of the Chinese elite, for most of its history, has not been Confucianism. Confucianism was a reactionary movement against the clannish militarism of China's warlord rulers (for it took a warlord to impose his will upon the peasant masses). The emperors of China were cold-blooded, fratricidal killers who instigated such murderous laws as "exterminating one's relatives up to the ninth generation" for daring to speak against the throne.

Yes, China's rulers were ruthless, but the masses weren't necessarily that much better. Constant banditry plagued the countryside, where corruption - then as now - reigned. Rich families dined on pork and wine while poor families starved to death on the streets. Gambling, prostitution, greed, burglary, drunkenness - these were all widespread in old China (and still are, in many ways). In light of all this, Confucius, it must be remembered, was a critic who spoke against the immorality of his time. By establishing rules of conduct and creating a common code of behavior, Confucius sought to restrain some of the bad behaviors that characterized Chinese society. Regardless of what effects the philosophy might have had, later, this was its origin and context.

Besides, I wouldn't blame China's lack of progress on Confucianism.

I think it has more to do with the fact that Chinese people dislike instability and change. Indeed, one might say that Asian peoples in general are very conservative (or were).
Lathdrinor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 03:31   Link #60
MitsubishiZero
Resource cabinet
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathdrinor View Post
China's Confucianism was cause-and-effect. China didn't start with Confucianism. It started with shamanism and slavery: the Shang Dynasty was all about enslaving the other tribes and offering human sacrifices to the great spirits. Then the Zhou came along, curbed some of the excesses, instigated patriarchy, and society progressed a bit. But it was still a Machiavellian game of thrones, with the aristocratic houses at the top and everybody else suffering under their feudal ways.

The chief ideology of the Chinese elite, for most of its history, has not been Confucianism. Confucianism was a reactionary movement against the clannish militarism of China's warlord rulers (for it took a warlord to impose his will upon the peasant masses). The emperors of China were cold-blooded, fratricidal killers who instigated such murderous laws as "exterminating one's relatives up to the ninth generation" for daring to speak against the throne.

Yes, China's rulers were ruthless, but the masses weren't necessarily that much better. Constant banditry plagued the countryside, where corruption - then as now - reigned. Rich families dined on pork and wine while poor families starved to death on the streets. Gambling, prostitution, greed, burglary, drunkenness - these were all widespread in old China (and still are, in many ways). In light of all this, Confucius, it must be remembered, was a critic who spoke against the immorality of his time. By establishing rules of conduct and creating a common code of behavior, Confucius sought to restrain some of the bad behaviors that characterized Chinese society. Regardless of what effects the philosophy might have had, later, this was its origin and context.

Besides, I wouldn't blame China's lack of progress on Confucianism.

I think it has more to do with the fact that Chinese people dislike instability and change. Indeed, one might say that Asian peoples in general are very conservative (or were).
very true. I often wondered why little people stand up to cruel governments in old China. I begin to see that Chinese in general don't seem to really care about the government or the political environment unless they are really suffering. They rebelled and set up a new dynasty instead of a new political system. As long as that man up there is doing his job well, the people are happy with that. This only changed when China was exposed to Western Civilization. I often wonder is it that Chinese do not really care about politics and is single party ruling better for China. (Look at Taiwan. They might have a good universal sufferage system but look at them. So many liars. ) (P.S. i am not saying there is no corruption in China. There IS a lot, but the leaders can be chosen for the interest of the whole country.)
MitsubishiZero is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:27.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.