A Short Commentary on Some Confucian Philosophy - Page 2

On September 12 2013 07:35 Sauwelios wrote:
@MichaelDonovan: Oh I think the translation is totally fine as far as translations go in general. Think of the mess we get into with 'arete' which tends to be translated as 'virtue' for example: It's perfectly legitimate, but there's more to arete than that. The point is that sometimes meaning can be lost in translation with no fault of the translator, especially if the terms tend to come with a certain amount of argumentative baggage. If I say that x is y because REASONS and then use the term x again later on, it is already established that it is y; if someone were to come along and pick my later statements about x without knowing that I've definded it as y, misunderstandings accrue.

On September 12 2013 07:36 lisward wrote:
If you go in depth and you learn more about Confucianism, you'd find out that rulers in the past used it to control the masses and promote legalism. People were pretty much born into wealth and social mobility was almost non existent then. There's probably a lot of good stuff that can be learned from Confucianism, but mostly it was used, and is still used today, in Chinese culture to make people follow arbitrary laws and discourage subversive behavior.

On September 12 2013 07:42 sam!zdat wrote:


this is true about every idea ever, in the history of ideas

On September 12 2013 07:36 Awesomedrifter wrote:
Ancient culture in general had different views and opinions. There is more importance on being content and accepting your lot in life than in western philosophy from my limited knowledge. When you impose western values on their philosophy there are naturally things you are not going to agree with. Remember, it works both ways. I would recommend taking extreme caution on forming opinions per-maturely.

Also the confucious things I've read always had confucious respond to someone who asked him a question of some sorts. Some kinda back ground info on the quote would have been nice as well. Why was he saying this?

That said you should be proud for taking initiative in your own study and learning, keep up the reading ^_^

EDIT: very informative Sauwelios, that was a nice post

On September 12 2013 07:42 sam!zdat wrote:


this is true about every idea ever, in the history of ideas

On September 12 2013 07:42 sam!zdat wrote:


this is true about every idea ever, in the history of ideas

On September 12 2013 09:44 tissue wrote:
Jokes on them I was only pretending to strawman!

"Confucius said, 'Those who are born with knowledge are the highest type of people. Those who learn through study are the next. Those who learn through hard work are still the next. Those who work hard and still do not learn are really the lowest type."

I felt the translation was a bit lacking so I dug out the source and translated it as I see it.

+ Show Spoiler +
Confucius said, "Those who are born with knowledge are the highest type of people. Those who actively learn through study are the next. Those who seek knowledge after facing difficulties are still the next. To face difficulties and still not learn, these are really the lowest type, and commoners fall within this group"

Doesn't the entire statement raise the question, who makes up this highest type of people, those who are born with knowledge? Obviously, nobody is born with knowledge about stuff. Confucius would know that, and his 'knowledge' would include stuff like morality and decorum as well as academic studies. Neither did he nominate himself for that particular rank. It's possible he made up this image of an ideal, one who knows without learning, or learns at a superhuman rate, to motivate his students.

Among are the more humanly achievable ranks, those who actively seek out knowledge are ranked above everyone else, who only look for knowledge passively, as a tool to solve the problems in front of them. Thus his followers are encouraged to seek learning proactively.