Mencius

Government/Political Philosophy
Emphasis 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

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? 

Antigone

fighting, standing up for the state,
being a good citizen, obeying authority - good

shunning duties to the state, going into exile - bad
money corrupts!  money bad! (73)

dictatorship
ruling for self instead of people (97)
in the most non-compassionate way

hypocrisy
"what wounds cut deeper than a loved on turned against you?" (93)
father to son
yet
the father betrays his niece and nephew

justice (or lack there of)
sentry
wrongly accused (75)
scapegoat
passion, revenge

sentry
self interest over others (8)
in the most non-compassionate way

familial ties
strong bond
protecting family honour
rituals and oaths to gods
trump
over state

state must honour this honour
else it must suffer the wrath

death, holding on to principles and honour
death in own hands than by torture

Afterclass thoughts: I really enjoyed this text and I confess that I took the side of Antigone.  I am biased in that I see quite a bit of Antigone in myself.  I didn't know that 'antigone' means 'unbending' until Brenda pointed it out (which I am glad she did).  While I agree that both Antigone and Creon to some extent were doing what they deemed to be necessary (I like Paul Crowe's concept of avoiding the words "doing the right thing") and Brenda very persuasively presented a strong case for Creon, I nonetheless still have much more admiration for Antigone's strong will, standing by her principles (One could argue that I am allowing my passion to subdue my reasoning, I suppose...).

I do not quite see Polyneices as a traitor.  I find traitor to be too strong of a word.  Dissenter, yes.  Traitor, no.  I am picking on semantics, I suppose...  My mind has been on current global events in which dissenters are labeled as unpatriotic, traitor, etc.  Unfairly, I might add.  If your gut feeling, your principles tell you that what the state is doing is wrong, do you not have a right to oppose this?  I am not saying that what Polyneices did is right.  Rather, he has his own reasons for his actions and I think it is not accurate to label him as a traitor.

Creon's display of Polyneices' body is reminiscient of mulitated bodies/body parts left out in public areas in times of war or discontent to serve as an example to others - defy me (the state/king/etc.) and this is what will happen to you and/or your loved ones.  I have very deep ethical concerns with such behaviours and confess that this one action alone puts Creon in my bad books.

I also have qualms with punitive justice (e.g. in relation to Brenda's second question).  Jumping ahead to Mencius' philosophy which sits better with me.  The proper way to govern is to tend to the people's needs.  You win people's admiration and hearts over by being kind, not by setting examples (display of a "traitor's"body or by killing the person who dared to give the "traitor" a proper burial.

Lysistrata

A very interesting text with an anti-war message but also with unusual gender roles.  On the one hand, women perform gender by donning feminine clothing,  depilating themselves but on the other hand, women are also showed to be sexual beings with needs, a trait more often associated with men.

Lysistrata's role is very much like that of an army sergeant leading a war - keeping the men's or in this case, the women's strength and morale up, plotting a winning strategy and leading the women to the "war" of abstinence.  In this case however, the ends is ceasefire, peace and the safe return of their male loved ones - sons, husbands, brothers and fathers.

Women are portrayed as passionate when they 'war' against their husbands yet when men war against another, no such proclamation is made.  Men are portrayed as 'reason'.  Yet at the same time, Lysistrata is portrayed as 'reason' - she is the one who very strategically and effectively stopped the war and to resume the local economy and bring male loved ones home.  Men in this sense can thus be viewed as 'passionate' and blinded by war efforts.

Women's role reversal = not portrayed as completely passive characters, not completely passionate - able to hold desire of sex from men.

Lysistrata critiques the financial and non-financial losses of war and thus points to the futility of war.

Afterclass thoughts: I hadn't given much thought that this text lacks interfering gods and that humans are taking control of their own affairs.  Or that this text may be a commentary of the power of sexual desire have over humans.

Medea

A very passionate story of a woman consumed by rage, intent on revenge at her husband at the expense of her children and his new bride and father-in-law.  "How I long for the comfort of death" (verse 145, said by Medea) - this line ties in with the notion of an afterlife in which peace/serenity is presumed to be the norm.

Medea speaks at lengths about the wrongs done onto her but speaks little of the wrongs she has done onto her own family in the pursuit of her husband's ascent to power (She does mention her wrong doings but not in the conventional sense; she speaks of them as actions taken by a dutiful wife).  She talks about how "there is no justice in human eyesight: people take one look and hate a man, before they know his heart, though no injustice has been done to them" (verses 218-221) - she is speaking about herself of course.  She and her children are abandoned by her husband and thus any status or respect she holds in society is automatically withdrawn regardless of whether she wronged her spouse or not.  She is also not a Greek, thus always being the 'other'.

Medea's voice provides a critique of the uneven gender roles within marriages (p. 12) and of the class system.  Her husband has left her and their children for a new royal bride.

Whil Medea is portrayed as a strong woman with the gods on her side, women still appears to be linked to irrationality and negative passion.  The line "You have the knowledge, not to mention woman's nature: for any kind of noble deed, we're helpless; for malice, though, our wisdom is unmatched" (p. 19), tying women to be cunning and vengeful creatures. (see another similar verse on p. 55).

The Nurse appears to be the voice of reason in this text.  While she empathizes with Medea's broken heart and rage, she argues that such an attachment to a strong desire is never a good thing (p. 28).  She advocates a life of moderation and middle ground (p. 8).

While Medea's act of filicide is indeed cruel and hard to bear, I am reminded of the film, Hotel Rwanda where, Tatiana and her children were told by husband, Paul Rusesabagina to run to the top of the roof of their hotel and jump to the deaths, should the Interahamwe barge into their hotel's compound.  It should be a more compassionate death...  Perhaps Medea was having similar thoughts.

Afterclass thoughts:  I hadn't given much thought to what was the main messag that Euripides was trying to provide to his audience (e.g. for men to be dutiful to their wives or they may have a 'Medea' in their lives).  Professor Duguid argues that the text challenges our ability to emphatize since neither of the major characters (Medea and Jason) are particularly likeable.  Another theme that didn't occur to me is the  faustian bargain that Jason made to Medea in order to be King.  I am not clear if Medea is supposed to be a witch/semi-god/magician or...?

Sappho

Beautiful, beautiful language! but I didn't know quite what to make of this text as some poem fragments are literally only a few words long.  The language is very sensuous, evocative and communicates embodied experiences very well.  By that, I mean the very real physical sensations one feels even though the cause is psychic (e.g. when one is longing for another, when one is happy, sad, anger).  The emotions expressed appear timeless despite the poetry written many moons ago.

After class thoughts: A classmate pointed out that Sappho's simple fragments, incomplete as they are, provide very rich descriptions of what life was like at the time (at least as experienced by someone of Sappho's class, education and gender).  I confess that I hadn't given this much thought until this was mentioned in class.

Symposium

What is love?  A few different answers are provided in this text.

There is the story of love - seeking love, one's soulmate or other half and an explanation for one's orientation coupled with a fantastic creation myth!

There is the story of love - sexual love or lust.

There is the story of love - guidance to a life of virtue, the importance of the role of a mentor to another.

There is the story of love - framed as the pursuit of happiness and/or abstract knowledge/wisdom (Socrates and Diotima) and as means to achieve immortality.  (1) Physical immortality = you are never the same and you are mortal.  Perpetual procreation by offsprings after offpsrings will ensure that you (your genes) live on forever.  (2) Mental/Spiritual immortality = guidance through mentorship, passing down or "reproducing/giving birth" knowledge to a life of virtue (43-45).  What struck me on page 45 is the similarities to ideas expounded in the Bhagavad Gita on fleeting moments or the ephemeral nature of life.  There is also a quality mentioned that is reminiscent of non-attachment on page 48, in that something or an idea (e.g. beauty) just is.  The slow process in the search for wisdom is also reminiscent of Siddhartha Gautama's slow search eventually leading to enlightenment or Buddhahood.

After class thoughts: The Form of Beauty and more generally, Plato's theory of forms, again reminds me of Buddhist ideas.  When one achieves oneness with one's form (e.g. a dog that is most doglike in its abstraction) is to be the ultimate being, godlike, reaching Budhhahood.

Genesis

This marks the first time that I have picked up a bible in my life!

I enjoyed ch1-3 but from ch4 onwards, I found numerous contradictions and/or inconsistencies. This made it really hard to follow the text (especially the genealogy parts).  I understand that the stories within this text were passed down orally, hence when reproduced in written form, gaps in continuity become a prominent feature.  However, that said, I do not understand how anyone can take the bible literally given the numerous inconsistencies within this story. e.g. God said that man would live 120 years yet later in the story, man would live much beyond this age.

I do not fully understand the symbolism within the story, nor am I familiar with biblical knowledge/history but I find it interesting that the serpent is a symbol of evil in Genesis yet in other cultures, the serpent represents something positive.  I wonder if Christianity as it is written in the current form of Genesis co-opts older religions in which the serpent is a positive symbol (e.g. Ouroboros) and changes it into a negative symbol to 'entice' people to embrace Christianity.

The change in tone is also very interesting.  In ch2, nakedness was not something to be ashamed of (25) yet later on, it is. (20-25) Lines from this text have been used by various groups to promote their own cause.  e.g. Nudists using verse 25 to promote their lifestyle noting that this is the way we are supposed to be, as we were in the Garden of Eden.

God in Genesis appears to me to be childish, hateful/vengeful, women-hating.  Stories are always open to individual interpretation, of course. The is no right or wrong (or is there?)  This God seems to seek obedience (or revenge) on mankind by any means necessary!

Genesis is to me many things including:
1. a creation myth (how we have night/day, earth/sky, man/woman, etc.).
2. a myth to justify the "Chosen People" based on the genealogy story.
3. a story to guide gender relations (in favour of men).
4. a story of what we can do to nature and other creatures on earth (some read 'dominion' as the right to conquer.  Others read it as stewardship over earth and its creatures).


After class thoughts: Both reason and passion guide me in spirituality although it may be argued that reason trumps passion in this case.  I find the story of Genesis to be highly convoluted.  I am not able to reason myself into using this text as a philosophy to guide my life.  I think a better understanding of the roots of Genesis and more generally, Christianity would help to alleviate my confusion.  I thought it interesting that the question of whether astronomy and/or astrology factor into the story of Genesis - something that I have never given any thought to.

Bhagavad Gita

The dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna revolves around the dilemma of 'to war or not to war' against his kinship.  Krishna counsels Arjuna to perform his duties as a warrior (reflecting the importance of maintaining duties are per assigned roles within the caste system) over his duties over familial ties.

My interpretation of the Gita is that it is a story of how to cope with internal dilemmas, of managing passion and reason, of managing suffering (grief, anxiety, making difficult moral decisions, etc.).  Krishna argues that passion (in this context, Krishna's moral dilemma) is fleeting (33).  To overcome 'passion' through discipline is to achieve inner peace.

"Arjuna, you must learn to endure
fleeting things - they come and go!
When these cannot torment a man,
when suffering and joy are equal
for him and he has courage,
he is fit for immortality." (33)

Without attachment to desire or to fruits of action, one can attain inner peace/transcendence/enlightenment (immortality) (40-41) thus reducing/removing suffering (44-46).

I do not read 'immortality' literally, rather to me, it denotes inner peace.  Longing/desire/attachment causes self-inflicted suffering.  To let go of these attachments is to relieve suffering and also to understand that pain, suffering, happiness and all of life is ephemeral.

Krishna points to the illusion of self (individuality/ego) (47),  and notes the unity or connectedness of all life/nature/creatures (69).

"he sees the self in all creatures
and all creatures in the self.
[...]
I exist in all creatures,
so the disciplined man devoyed to me
grasps the oneness of life;
wherever he is, he is in me. (69)

When one lets go of the self/ego/individual, one affirms the ephemeral nature of life and gains greater respect for our surroundings and the other creatures around us.  I am not "me", rather I am also the water I drink, the air I breathe, the plants I eat, etc.  Everything is interconnected (which is how I read Krishna's statement of "I am in everything").  Krishna's teaching in this text is very Buddhist in its core.

There are various ways to achieve inner peace (e.g. meditation, yoga).

After class thoughts: I do not see reaching inner peace/nirvana so much as a desire, rather it speaks of a continuing process to attain this state of mind.  I do not think it is possible to be in nirvana 24/7.  We are human and we feel anger, pain, happiness, jealousy, etc.  To detach from the emotions that cause us psychic and in turn real physical pain (e.g. heartache), that is to attempt to reach nirvana through meditation, yoga, etc. is a coping mechanism to deal with those painful emotions.

Bhagavad Gita: Krishna's Counsel in Time of War
Translated by Barbara Stoler Miller (2004) Bantham Books.