debate on 2/27

[Anonymous]

As a Legalist, if my father did something wrong (whether he believe it was wrong or not), if it was wrong according to the law it would be my duty to turn him in or punish him myself if I was in a government role. This is because in the beliefs of the Legalists, all people must know and follow the laws. If they follow, they will be rewarded, but if they disobey, then they must be punished.

[Anonymous]

I really enjoyed our debate today. I thought that first, the readings were very clear and provided ideas that could be understood by students. I also thought that the way Professor Dube lead the debate was great, having us to response to one another’s responses. In addition, I appreciated that we ended with a question that was relatable across time. I would love to do something like this in my classroom, to have students think about their beliefs of order and structure in society, especially with the overarching issues of police brutality today. I wonder which ideology they would connect with most? I have found that my students are surprisingly conservative, and I would image they would be legalist, but it would be an interesting activity.

[Anonymous]

In reading the four philosophies for our reading this week, I was very delighted with the role of teachers as it was presented within Confucius thought. It highlights the importance of teachers as the keepers of ritual and the guides that allow people to reach their potential. This made me very curious about how this philosophy might influence how the teaching profession is seen in contemporary China. Teaching is certainly not seen a prestigious line of work in the United States, and I am curious to see how teachers are seen in China. Another interesting point I found in the readings was the idea that people have the right to rebel against tyrannical rulers. I was very curious about this idea influencing the thinking of the Enlightenment thinkers. Clearly, Confucian thinkers came up with this idea much earlier than the Enlightenment thinkers, and I am curious about the possibility of the Enlightenment thinkers borrowing this concept from the Confucian thinkers.
edited by nramon on 2/27/2016

[Anonymous]

In examining Confucian thought in regards to responding to a father how has done wrong, the analects state “In serving his father and mother a man may gently remonstrate with them. But if he sees that he has failed to change their opinion, he should resume an attitude of deference and not thwart them; may feel discouraged, but not resentful.” This excerpt reflects the overarching themes of Confucian thought that prescribe that one of the most crucial loyalties to keep is to your father. Overall, it seems that when a father does grown, the son/daughter must not take a forceful position, and this is a dynamic that is prevalent in the Confucian way to rule an empire. For instance, in Analects, it states that chastisement will only promote resentment, Confucian thought recommends moral force as the driving force when ruling. In not forcefully trying to change a father’s thinking and in not turning in their father, it is clear that this goes on par with remaining loyal to one’s father even when he has done wrong.
edited by nramon on 2/27/2016

[Anonymous]

In Confucianism, if I knew that my father did something wrong, as a child I would only be able to sway my parents and advise them. According to Confucianism “A man may sway his parents’ opinion by serving them. If he fails to sway them, he should refer to an attitude of deference (24)” Therefore, I cannot disobey my father and I do not have the right to turn him in. I can only advise him on what is wrong and hope that he would make the correct decision. Due to the hierarchical structure, I do not have the right to turn my father in. A father is higher in the hierarchical class and overstepping his power would defy Confucianism beliefs.

[Anonymous]

As a Mohist, since we stress universal love and compassion, we would consider all fathers our father, so we would not favor one individual over another. Thus our father would have to be punished for what he did. Furthermore, we grow up with a guide and education of knowing what is right from wrong, so when we do something wrong, we know what will happen to us; thus our father knows what he did wrong, and that there are consequences for his actions he has to follow through with.
edited by jenniferlopez on 2/27/2016

[Anonymous]

I learned more about the 4 schools of thought engaging in our debate compared to reviewing the printed material. I will be able to implement this type of activity in my classroom for teaching any subject. This allows for collaboration, encourages depth of knowledge, and retention of material. I enjoyed observing Dr. Dube’s role in facilitating the discussions. When reading the lesson plans I became curious of the rule the teacher would play during the debate. Excellent class experience.
edited by mvelarde on 2/27/2016

[Anonymous]

I agree with Jennifer Lopez's response as a fellow Mohist: Father should be punished accordingly. The concept of Universal Love applies to all - all fathers are our fathers, therefore no one deserves special treatment. We are guided by shared values and since father understood that what he did was wrong, he shall expect punishment.

[Anonymous]

If my father did something wrong, and he knew he did something bad, I would turn him in so he would be punished. As a legalist, I believe in enforcing the laws and providing rewards for the obedient, and severe punishment for the disobedient.

[Anonymous]

I wrote I would turn my father into the authorities. He knew what he did was wrong and he did it anyway. Following laws and order is more important.
edited by cgao on 3/2/2016

[Anonymous]

As a farmer who believes in Mohism, I am disappointed that my father has done something terribly wrong. I am disappointed that he is obviously not a Mohist because in order to do the wrong, he did so with from the point of view of his own interest. If he were a Mohist, this would have never of happened. Unfortunately, his wrong is inexcusable, and he will be punished for the order of the state.

The debate is applicable to the high school classroom, and I found the graphic organizer to be helpful for preparation. Furthermore, my English language learners appreciate graphic organizers and chance to increase their language acquisition through speaking opportunities.
edited by aschleicher on 3/2/2016

[Anonymous]

Understanding the crime that my father committed would cause me to enhance direct punishment for the offense he committed. As a legalist, mercy will not be displayed as the offense needs to be punished. Laws are created to enhance order and structure within the civilization. People will be rewarded for following the law or will be directly punished. Future corruption will cease to exist in the city as individuals understand what expectations are set for them. Legalists understand how to conduct themselves in society, allowing for more prosperity and growth in the culture. Citizens that do not abide in the law will simply be exterminated with consequences.

[Anonymous]

Session 3 was very interesting. The debate helped clarify the reading on a different level.

Responding to our Session 3 question, as a Daoist, I would just let things be. If the authorities wanted to punish him, so be it, esp if he had done something wrong. If he was given a chance to avoid consequences, perhaps it was meant to be for him to be free. I would not turn him in or fight to free him.

Are we supposed to answer this question only based on the philosophy we were assigned, or on a personal level as well?

[Anonymous]

The tao teaches us that problems arise from our efforts to pursue a solution. Thus, if my father had engaged in some great wrong doing, attempting to act to punish would only lead to more problems that would complicate the situation further. Also, because I am not my father I do not know the reason for his actions so I can't pretend to understand the situation. Furthermore, if I take no action my father might have the chance to transform.
edited by bmendoza on 3/3/2016

[Anonymous]

The debate was a great example of a "historical encounter." This peer review on the four thoughts of school was an excellent opportunity to allow us to immerse and imagine ourselves inside this period in history and what it was all about. Historical encounters is a fabulous teaching tool for students to comprehend informational text, which my students tend to have more difficulty with when compared to a fiction story. The debate activity allowed me to really learn about the four thoughts of school and in the end, I had a complete understanding. I will definitely use this teaching strategy when reading and comprehending nonfiction text.

[Author]

Posts