Most difficult character to pigeonhole in wuxia?

[pannonian]

I have written before that Confused-ism is good once you seize power and want to control your country. It's not surprising that the Mongols and Manchus were influenced by it once they stablized their grip on power. You want society to be as conservative as possible with strict codes of conduct and banning of free thought. However, that philosophy is only appropriate when the system is largely closed. Once the system is opened, then you need adaptability to survive, and Confused-ism was definitely useless in that regard. The Europeans didn't start becoming powerhouses until they stopped persecuting people for challenging ridiculous religious worldviews and encouraged freedom of thought (the freedom wasn't complete of course, but at least there was progress).

Like i said before, imagine if all current politicians have to do to assume office is to ace a test on the Bible and the Quran, we'd be so screwed.

There were two schools of philosophy that aimed to stop the immensely destructive civil wars that had ravaged China for centuries. Legalism produced a military machine that steamrollered all the other states into submission to Qin. However, once it was imposed on a wider scale, it proved to be hugely unpopular - imagine Communism at its most inhumane. In contrast, Confucianist government was both practical and involved far less social adjustment than Legalism. It's a truism that benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. Confucianism aims to produce benevolent dictators.

I think you're confusing the symptoms of failed Confucianism with the idea of Confucianism itself. The philosophy doesn't seek those abuses you speak of. Instead, it has the ideal of a benign ruler who dispenses justice, and who sends his officials to dispense justice and good government on his behalf. Hence top-down government. There are stories of Chinese officials who go to their province, find injustice, and correct it. That's Confucianism as it ideally functions. What you're probably more used to is the Germanic idea of government, where there are councils where the thegns may speak their mind to their chief. The clash between this and the Norman ideal of absolute regal rule produced the English ideas of liberty and the rule of law, which you're probaby more familiar with, rather than the Confucian ideal of rulers dispensing the concept of justice. I know which I prefer, but it's best to try to understand the other idea before judging it.

[Ken Cheng]

There were two schools of philosophy that aimed to stop the immensely destructive civil wars that had ravaged China for centuries. Legalism produced a military machine that steamrollered all the other states into submission to Qin. However, once it was imposed on a wider scale, it proved to be hugely unpopular - imagine Communism at its most inhumane. In contrast, Confucianist government was both practical and involved far less social adjustment than Legalism. It's a truism that benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. Confucianism aims to produce benevolent dictators.

I think you're confusing the symptoms of failed Confucianism with the idea of Confucianism itself. The philosophy doesn't seek those abuses you speak of. Instead, it has the ideal of a benign ruler who dispenses justice, and who sends his officials to dispense justice and good government on his behalf. Hence top-down government. There are stories of Chinese officials who go to their province, find injustice, and correct it. That's Confucianism as it ideally functions. What you're probably more used to is the Germanic idea of government, where there are councils where the thegns may speak their mind to their chief. The clash between this and the Norman ideal of absolute regal rule produced the English ideas of liberty and the rule of law, which you're probaby more familiar with, rather than the Confucian ideal of rulers dispensing the concept of justice. I know which I prefer, but it's best to try to understand the other idea before judging it.

I don't intend to speak for jiang bao, but my interpretation of his comments on Confucianism/Confusedism lie not on its political ramifications, but its effects on forming opinions on personal and interpersonal ethics, as demonstrated by wuxia characters and real people reared with such a system of ethics.

[jiang bao]

There were two schools of philosophy that aimed to stop the immensely destructive civil wars that had ravaged China for centuries. Legalism produced a military machine that steamrollered all the other states into submission to Qin. However, once it was imposed on a wider scale, it proved to be hugely unpopular - imagine Communism at its most inhumane. In contrast, Confucianist government was both practical and involved far less social adjustment than Legalism. It's a truism that benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. Confucianism aims to produce benevolent dictators.

I think you're confusing the symptoms of failed Confucianism with the idea of Confucianism itself. The philosophy doesn't seek those abuses you speak of. Instead, it has the ideal of a benign ruler who dispenses justice, and who sends his officials to dispense justice and good government on his behalf. Hence top-down government. There are stories of Chinese officials who go to their province, find injustice, and correct it. That's Confucianism as it ideally functions. What you're probably more used to is the Germanic idea of government, where there are councils where the thegns may speak their mind to their chief. The clash between this and the Norman ideal of absolute regal rule produced the English ideas of liberty and the rule of law, which you're probaby more familiar with, rather than the Confucian ideal of rulers dispensing the concept of justice. I know which I prefer, but it's best to try to understand the other idea before judging it.

What you said about Confused-ism and Legalism is basically my point - Confused-ism is terrible for effecting change. It's fine and all to theoretically have order and rigidly "proper" ways of doing things, but in the real world things don't work that way. Legalism, cruel though it was, is practical and what got things done. Once in power, and having stamped out all dissension, then that's the time to instill a system that preaches obedience and confined thought, which is what Confused-ism does. However, coming around full circle, when you then come to a crossroad at which you need to make progressive changes and adapt, that is not what Confused-ism is even mediocre at. Its pure rigidity and conservatism bias make it akin to chain and shackles on the country.

PS, I am not attempting to say that Confused-ism is "worse" than other philosophies. I am simply saying that Confused-ism sucks and held China back. I am not a fan of organized religion anyway because progress happens IN SPITE of religion. If religious zealots ruled this world, we would still be stuck in the dark ages.

[pannonian]

What you said about Confused-ism and Legalism is basically my point - Confused-ism is terrible for effecting change. It's fine and all to theoretically have order and rigidly "proper" ways of doing things, but in the real world things don't work that way. Legalism, cruel though it was, is practical and what got things done. Once in power, and having stamped out all dissension, then that's the time to instill a system that preaches obedience and confined thought, which is what Confused-ism does. However, coming around full circle, when you then come to a crossroad at which you need to make progressive changes and adapt, that is not what Confused-ism is even mediocre at. Its pure rigidity and conservatism bias make it akin to chain and shackles on the country.

PS, I am not attempting to say that Confused-ism is "worse" than other philosophies. I am simply saying that Confused-ism sucks and held China back. I am not a fan of organized religion anyway because progress happens IN SPITE of religion. If religious zealots ruled this world, we would still be stuck in the dark ages.

Maoist Communism was in many ways the modern equivalent of the Legalism that was practised in Qin, extreme authoritarianism that sought to regulate every aspect of life (that was what the Legalist ideal was). Confucianism, in contrast, allowed more freedom, by appointing rulers who have been trained in a certain way, but allowing them to interpret their training wrt the situation they found. With incompetent officials, this greater latitude can be rotten. However, the philosophy doesn't set out to produce rotten officials, but assumes that, given sufficient bureaucratic and philosophical training, they can do a good job.

Perhaps if you refer to Confucianism by its proper name, it would make proper discussion slightly easier.

[jiang bao]

One of the reasons why Maoism came into power was because Confused-ism screwed the country and left it powerless against much smaller but smarter and more progressive countries. If reforms had been allowed to take place, there may not have been a need for the public outrage to let communism establish its firm toehold.

It doesn't matter what a philosophy is MEANT to do, what matters is what IS done. Communism, after all, was founded on the ideal of equality, but in practice it didn't work. That makes it a rotten idea. The fact that the idea sounded good on paper means nothing. The millions of people aren't any less dead or suffered any less just cuz Communism or Confused-ism was "misinterpreted." There's a reason why Confused-Is never found a longterm job. It's because his ideas were totally inappropriate for his time and useless to people who wanted to get things done - namely, strengthen their own kingdoms and swallow others.

When cultures clash, the stronger one inevitably overpowers the weak. It's obvious which one was the weak one. All these years, they were thinking how they had the mandate of heaven, how they were the "center nation," and how foreigners were "barbarians," and yet they were the most embarrassingly weak kingdom in the history of the world if you took size and foundation of the civilization into consideration. It's a travesty what Confused-ism and the conservative rulers did to the country and its people.

[pannonian]

This mis-writing of the name is silly and renders the discussion pointless, as it's clear there is no sensible discussion of what the philosophy is supposed to be. Without any effort to try to understand the ideas, there is no reasonable historical or philosophical discussion. My history teacher taught me to evaluate historical ideas and decisions using the conditions current back then. This repetition of Confused-ism goes against all I was taught, and convinces me there is no reasonable discussion to be had.

[jiang bao]

You don't get the point. It doesn't matter what the "ideals" of any philosophy is. All that matters is its effectiveness in real life. Like I said, the idea of communism was based on the concept of equality and it came into existence because there was a chasm between the rich and the working class. IF perfectly implemented, communism at its purest noble form may very well be in society in which everyone is taken care of and no one is exploited. But, that's fantasy, just like whatever the "ideal" for Confused-ism may be.

And no, there is no point in discussing any philosophy because philosophy is useless. It's what is called zhi shang tan bing. It doesn't matter whether I call Confused-ism by what it should be called - Confused-ism - or by some revering term of love - like themosthappeningphilosophyofalltimeuhhuhuhhuh-ism, it still doesn't change what happened. While you're wasting your time discussing philosophy, your enemies have already flattened your land.

[PJ]

It turns out that Confusion... I mean Confucius, may be a most difficult character to pigeonhole.

[CC]

Well, there is that famous quote from Confucius on women.

[jiang bao]

Did the Confused one actually have any quotes on women, or are those quotes from subsequent thinkers in Confused-ism? I know there are a lot of sexist sayings written by the great neo-confused-ists.