october 18 - philosophy

[clay dube]

As we noted last time: for Saturday, Oct. 18, please read the Chinese philosophy section in your binder.

If you would like to further explore Confucianism, Daoism, and Legalism, please read selections 6, 7, and 8 in Ebrey, Chinese Civilization: A Sourcebook (it’s one of the two textbooks we’ve provided thus far).

On the 18th, I’ll provide a bit of historical context for the teachings and review some of their central principles. We’ll then have a four-sided debate where each of you will be expected to speak in the first person on behalf of “your” school of thought. You’ll be expected to use examples drawn from the primary sources (“the words of the masters”) to advance your cause, defend against the slanders of your opponents, and to point to the contradictions and weaknesses in their arguments.

To prepare, focus on the questions included on pages 46 and 47 in the “Chinese Philosophy” section of the binder.

Ordinarily, we permit participants to choose their own school of thought, but since we didn't last time, we're forced to assign schools. If you wish to trade amongst yourselves, please do.

Confucianism
Alarcon Jamie
Bakody John
Bakody Vafa
Burr Maggie

Mohism
D'Ambra Adelina
Dubin Susan
Flanagan Kathleen
Goldstein Dottie

Daoism
Hartmann Stacy
Herrera Michael
Hong Ellen
Howe Stephanie
Kulish Kyle

Legalism
McLemore Chris
Montes Mari
Onyango Elizabeth
Rivas David
Seegmiller Kate

[Anonymous]

I was originally slated fro the Daoism group, and I concentrated on tht all week. I finished late last night, as I am not available tonight.

[Anonymous]

For a moment I too panicked, but feel better knowing that the original groups we were assigned to are indeed the correct groups. So in response to the reading suggestion in The Chinese Civilization book: it held the missing pieces I was looking for. I am excited to debate as a Confucian. This activity seems like something I may use for my honors class.

[Anonymous]

Professor Dube,

Sorry, but the Confucian confusion (great alliteration there) has me religiously regimented with one set of directions making me a Mohist, and another making me a Confucian. Tomorrow will be time enough to decide my religion, but my prep time for the Great Debate has been short circuited due to this duality. Like many great debaters who have preceded me, spin is everything. Thanks in advance for your understanding.

[Anonymous]

Consider me a "confusing"ist with the change. But I got Miranda's e-mail that we are to return to the groups she disgnated.

So, given the fact that I am a legalist, I say "Off with the heads" of the people who dispute that natural order of law and lead to chaos in our well-regimented, government controlled world!
How's that for holding to the party line?

I look forward to our discussion.

[Anonymous]

From the legalist point of view, the descision is rather simplistic.
Han Feizi clearly states that, "The ruler gets into trouble through placing his trust in others." Since dad has shown he has an inability to heed a well-known and long standing law -- daddy must die.

Case closed, next!

[clay dube]

Hi Folks --
Steven Butler produced the "Master Kong Rap" for one of my earliest seminars and I've been using it ever since. I hope that someone will produce another masterful rap or song to convey central ideas for one of the other schools of thought. Could that someone be you?

[Anonymous]

Clayton, you did a fantastic job giving background, reviewing the four schools of philosophy and leading the debate. There were times when each group wanted to keep pushing their point, but you asked questions that led the next group to a new topic or revisited a topic. Thank you, because I am not that good at leading class debates and watching you do it has given me the experience of another way to try...though debates with classes of 38 or so 7th graders are a challenge no matter what.

I thought everyone did a good job of reflecting their philosophy...but it was sometimes difficult to remember to try and think like someone from that long ago.

[Anonymous]

Clayton,
Your morning section was wonderful. I learned a lot about how to conduct a debate. I have actually never watched an instructor do that. I will try it in my classroom with a relevant topic to my Special Ed. high school students. The love and use cell phones incessantly. I will have a debate on the pros and cons of bringing them to school. Yes, there are some cons too!
I am a Daoist. My father has broken an important law. Since my philosophy is a simple lifestyle and one in which I strive against materialism, I will side with my father. In addition, a complete absence of laws is argued by Zhuang Zi, so in essence my father did not even break a law at all. Therefore, he does not need a defense. Behavioral norms do not exist in our philosophy, a per Zi.

[Anonymous]

Hi Clayton,

The book burnings that the Chinese did also reminded me of the Holocaust. Just thought I would let you know. I do see many similarities regarding anti-social behavior and intolearnace of others. How far have we come? That is the real question in my opinion.
I know that you are very busy and you don't need to reply; I just wante to share those thoughts about the Holocaust with you.

[Anonymous]

As a legalist (at least for this exercise), if my father committed a crime he must be punished. The laws are clear, they have been made public, and my father knowingly acting against those laws deserves his consequence. It was selfish for him to act against the ruler and he must pay for it.

Katie

[Anonymous]

I too am thankful there was a mediator to help guide the debate. I learned a lot and am excited to try this activity with my 6th grade honors English/History class.
My father committed a crime you say? My father has never sought anything for himself, he has only shown benevolence to the sage kings, he has always shown respectfulness, tolerance, sincerity, diligence, and kindness. My father has only done what is morally right, as our ruler does, as do we all.

[Anonymous]

As a confucius follower, I have thought long and hard on the problem that you have left for us after the debate. The problem being to whom will I be loyal, the state or to my father. I look to being a good son and then to a be a good man. I would try to convince my father that he needs to turn himself in to the authorities. It is not my place to over step and turn him in myself, but to do everything in my power to see he does what is right for him.

[Anonymous]

Professor Dube,
The Saturday morning session was fun and interesting. I thought you did a sensational job of running the debate through moving from one group to another with questions and statements requiring explanations. You made it look easy and things went smoothly, as smoothly as a debate might go, in any event. I enjoyed the debate a lot. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Your father broke a law knowingly. Your question is, as a Mohist, what should you do and to whom should you do it?

My father’s crime reminds us that human nature is basically evil. However, though devoted study and adherence to certain standards, my father can replace the chaos in his life though discipline and by recognizing authority. What I would do as a Mohist would be to emphasize to my father the importance of universal love and cooperation to right this wrong. I would work with my father to rehabilitate him and show him the error of his ways in committing the crime. Further, if anyone was harmed by his crime, my father and the community of Mohists, including me, would make restitution to the injured party. As the key idea of our belief system is to practice universal love, we would embrace my father and his victim, if there is one, and bring them together. Through conscious activity we can restore my father to the status of a good person. Together we will rehabilitate my father so that he never again commits another crime. Regarding his responsibilities as a member of society who has broken the law, my father and I will inform proper authorities of our efforts to correct this wrong. If they are like minded as we are, they may perhaps agree with our efforts at dealing with the crime. If not, we must submit to their authority in this matter.

[Author]

Posts