Government/Political PhilosophyEmphasis is placed on benevolence (jen) and righteousness (yi). Profit (expansion of the empire) is not desirable (2). War (desire) creates great suffering for humans and destroys nature. Rulers with expansionist aims are not fit rulers and should be punished (83). War = greed/desire/wealth/power therefore war is wrong. This is not benevolence. War is only "just" if it is a punitive war.
A just ruler shares his bounty with his people. Only through sharing can one truly enjoy the fruits of his kingdom (4-5). It is not the size of the empire that matters (7-8). What matters is how well the ruler tends to the needs of his people (9).
Domino effect and transformative power of duties (through jen and yi) from a micro level to a macro level: empire <-- state <-- family <-- self
Filial piety (duty to parents) is thought to uphold good societal values. Mencius believes that good virtues starts at the individual level (of having constant heart). When one then tends to one's parents, one is virtuous and when these are the qualities that a good ruler should have. A virtuous ruler commands respect from his people.
Obedience/submission/lack of opposition from the people through respect and admiration rather than ruling through fear or iron hand (36).
Constant support of the people (ensuring that people's basic needs are met with a dash of kindness) ensures constant heart of the people (54-55).
Courage and righteous principles in action = formula for good governance (31-32).
If a ruler has gone astray, the people will have discontent and will thus have the moral right to rebel and remove their ruler.
Human Nature
Everyone is capable of being virtuous/moral. Mencius believes that human nature is originally good but morality must be nurtured/cultivated. Middle path is good (33). Relationships must be worked on with reciprocity, co-operation and respect be it between husband and wife, ruler and ruled, young and old, friends with other friends, etc (60).
The right path is a journey. We are all capable of reaching virtuousness as we are all originally good. If one is not virtuous, it is only because one has not worked hard enough to achieve this level of self-awareness/actualization. One must then look within and see where the failure lies rather than to blame it on an external event/circumstance - in other words, look inwards (79).
Constant heart/heart(mind) of thinking/moral thinking:
- heart of compassion = benevolence, empathy
- heart of shame - dutifulness
- heart of courtesy and modesty = observation of rites
- heart of right and wrong = wisdom
For Mencius, these four concepts make up the ethical dimension of a good/virtuous/moral person, of which we are all capable of attaining (16-17 of introduction). To live with a fuller consciousness is to lead a more enjoyable life.
Mencius' philosophy of governance in many ways challenges the philosophy dominant in our current system of governance which relies on regulations enforced by armed state authority, a punitive (in)justice system and a culture of fear. While Mencius' philosophy is not exactly congruent with anarchism (the political philosophy), it does share a very basic core value: that of co-opearation, mutual respect as a way of governance. One core difference = Mencius advocates a centralized state but anarchism advocates the exact opposite.
Greater self (following virtue) vs. lesser self (following desire, greed, senses). Greater self will lead to a higher level of being. Balancing the two, with the greater self leading = middle, right way. This concept is somewhat like the good angel and the bad little devil within ourselves, the internal dialogue we have when faced with a conundrum.
Mencius' concept of benevolence (jen) and righteousness (yi) which can be developed and nurtured, enabling ordinary men to become sages is in some ways similar to the concept of enlightenment/immortality in Bhagavad Gita. While Mencius' concepts appear non-mystical compared to the Gita, the innate bliss he talks about arising from performing one's duty to one's parents is similar to the concept of nirvana. While Heaven in this sense is not an external concept but an earthly one. Fulfillment of one's duties to parents, state, etc. is to create conditions of Heaven on Earth.
Afterclass thoughts/notes/extras from Professor Paul Crowe:
Paul Crowe notes that 仁 (ren, not jen) is incorrectly translated as benevolence (the first component of the character means person and the second component means the number two). Benevolence is just one aspect of this character. 'Authoritative contact' is more accurate. By this, he means an honest charisma and kindness that a good person exudes. His/her presence creates much admiration and respect from others. This is the kind of person/sage we should all strive to be (rulers or otherwise).
Ren and Yi are only two of four Confucian beliefs. 忠 (chung) = loyalty is a third (loyalty to the appropriate peoples (e.g. the state, elders, ancestors, etc.). The top character 中 means middle/centre and the bottom character means 心 heart. The fourth is 信 (xin). The first component of the character means person and the second component means right. Xin means trustworthiness/honesty/sincerity. The aim is not to be perfect at these ideals, rather it is the process that matters. A cyclical process of learning, of trying to become skillful at being human.
Mencian and Confucian beliefs provide a discourse on rights, proper conduct, family affairs, political affairs, economics, etc. They note that all these affairs are intertwined and is in essence a social contract between people and the state, and also just personal kinships between individuals. Rites connect humans with each other. Equilibrium, middle path is good. There is a natural rhythm similar to the Daoist concept of 無爲 (wu wei or "without effort") in Mencian and Confucian beliefs. Paul notes that it was Confucious who first elaborated on wu wei in the Analects. Much of Chinese philosophy has been demarcated into boxes of its own categories. It is not so clear cut. Many of these philosophies intertwine and share commonalities with each other. Dichotomies are not prevalent. There is no demarcation of reason vs. passion.
Questions for class discussion:
1) Mencius argues that human nature is originally good (e.g. the child and well analogy). Hsun Tzu, on the other hand has the opposite view on human nature. Do you think that morality is an "absolute" and/or a black and white issue? (e.g. not saving the child is wrong or killing is wrong) Or are we imposing cultural, national, religious, etc. biases when claiming absolutes?
2) At first glance, Mencius' concept of original heart/thinking heart/moral thinking seems more akin to reason than passion since morality/compassion/empathy (greater self) takes precedent over sensory experiences/desires (lesser self). Ethics/morality/humanity is sometimes referred to that 'gut feeling' that says "this is the right action" - is this passion or reason? Of course, these two realms are never exclusive. What are your thoughts? How do you construct your own sense of ethics/morality?
3) Mencius argues that desire is not a defining feature of what makes us human since this trait is shared with animals as well. While there is truth in this statement, are we not the only creatures (to the best of my knowledge) who take greed, profit, war, etc. to heights beyond our imagination at the expense of our fellow creatures and mother earth. Are these not desires that distinguish us from animals? Was Mencius painting humans in a more favourable light to give us hope?
4) Mencius argues that a political hierarchy of people doing a variety of work is necessary for social order. How does this compare with the caste system mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita? (We touched on this a bit during the Gita discussion.) Should persons in a certain role not be accountable to do other work? (e.g. the ruler need not toil in the fields) Is this then really any different from the caste system in principle?
5) The state's relationship to its people is akin to a parent to a child, or it ought to be in Mencius' view - more specifically, the state must tend to its people's needs. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that
6) While Mencius' statement on the overthrowing of government if those in power are not tending to the needs of the people and are instead governing with war, profit and greed in mind (22, para 6) was not meant to be taken literally, how do you view this statement in the context of current global events (e.g. Arab springs, Occupy Wall Street Protest, Cheney protest in Vancouver yesterday evening)? And how do you view the heavy handed response from the respective governments (and their armed forces) to their people?
Mencius' philosophy of governance in many ways challenges the philosophy dominant in our current system of governance which relies on regulations enforced by armed state authority, a punitive (in)justice system and a culture of fear. While Mencius' philosophy is not exactly congruent with anarchism (the political philosophy), it does share a very basic core value: that of co-opearation, mutual respect as a way of governance. One core difference = Mencius advocates a centralized state but anarchism advocates the exact opposite.
Greater self (following virtue) vs. lesser self (following desire, greed, senses). Greater self will lead to a higher level of being. Balancing the two, with the greater self leading = middle, right way. This concept is somewhat like the good angel and the bad little devil within ourselves, the internal dialogue we have when faced with a conundrum.
Mencius' concept of benevolence (jen) and righteousness (yi) which can be developed and nurtured, enabling ordinary men to become sages is in some ways similar to the concept of enlightenment/immortality in Bhagavad Gita. While Mencius' concepts appear non-mystical compared to the Gita, the innate bliss he talks about arising from performing one's duty to one's parents is similar to the concept of nirvana. While Heaven in this sense is not an external concept but an earthly one. Fulfillment of one's duties to parents, state, etc. is to create conditions of Heaven on Earth.
Afterclass thoughts/notes/extras from Professor Paul Crowe:
Paul Crowe notes that 仁 (ren, not jen) is incorrectly translated as benevolence (the first component of the character means person and the second component means the number two). Benevolence is just one aspect of this character. 'Authoritative contact' is more accurate. By this, he means an honest charisma and kindness that a good person exudes. His/her presence creates much admiration and respect from others. This is the kind of person/sage we should all strive to be (rulers or otherwise).
Ren and Yi are only two of four Confucian beliefs. 忠 (chung) = loyalty is a third (loyalty to the appropriate peoples (e.g. the state, elders, ancestors, etc.). The top character 中 means middle/centre and the bottom character means 心 heart. The fourth is 信 (xin). The first component of the character means person and the second component means right. Xin means trustworthiness/honesty/sincerity. The aim is not to be perfect at these ideals, rather it is the process that matters. A cyclical process of learning, of trying to become skillful at being human.
Mencian and Confucian beliefs provide a discourse on rights, proper conduct, family affairs, political affairs, economics, etc. They note that all these affairs are intertwined and is in essence a social contract between people and the state, and also just personal kinships between individuals. Rites connect humans with each other. Equilibrium, middle path is good. There is a natural rhythm similar to the Daoist concept of 無爲 (wu wei or "without effort") in Mencian and Confucian beliefs. Paul notes that it was Confucious who first elaborated on wu wei in the Analects. Much of Chinese philosophy has been demarcated into boxes of its own categories. It is not so clear cut. Many of these philosophies intertwine and share commonalities with each other. Dichotomies are not prevalent. There is no demarcation of reason vs. passion.
Questions for class discussion:
1) Mencius argues that human nature is originally good (e.g. the child and well analogy). Hsun Tzu, on the other hand has the opposite view on human nature. Do you think that morality is an "absolute" and/or a black and white issue? (e.g. not saving the child is wrong or killing is wrong) Or are we imposing cultural, national, religious, etc. biases when claiming absolutes?
2) At first glance, Mencius' concept of original heart/thinking heart/moral thinking seems more akin to reason than passion since morality/compassion/empathy (greater self) takes precedent over sensory experiences/desires (lesser self). Ethics/morality/humanity is sometimes referred to that 'gut feeling' that says "this is the right action" - is this passion or reason? Of course, these two realms are never exclusive. What are your thoughts? How do you construct your own sense of ethics/morality?
3) Mencius argues that desire is not a defining feature of what makes us human since this trait is shared with animals as well. While there is truth in this statement, are we not the only creatures (to the best of my knowledge) who take greed, profit, war, etc. to heights beyond our imagination at the expense of our fellow creatures and mother earth. Are these not desires that distinguish us from animals? Was Mencius painting humans in a more favourable light to give us hope?
4) Mencius argues that a political hierarchy of people doing a variety of work is necessary for social order. How does this compare with the caste system mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita? (We touched on this a bit during the Gita discussion.) Should persons in a certain role not be accountable to do other work? (e.g. the ruler need not toil in the fields) Is this then really any different from the caste system in principle?
5) The state's relationship to its people is akin to a parent to a child, or it ought to be in Mencius' view - more specifically, the state must tend to its people's needs. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.In today's context, how does Mencius' philosophy on governance plays out? What do you think should the the state's role in its citizens' affairs?
6) While Mencius' statement on the overthrowing of government if those in power are not tending to the needs of the people and are instead governing with war, profit and greed in mind (22, para 6) was not meant to be taken literally, how do you view this statement in the context of current global events (e.g. Arab springs, Occupy Wall Street Protest, Cheney protest in Vancouver yesterday evening)? And how do you view the heavy handed response from the respective governments (and their armed forces) to their people?
No comments:
Post a Comment