Politics is about music, too.
Life is about 衣食住行, too. Eat, pray, love. You get such notions everywhere, so easily accessible, not just from classics like the Analects. But as political teachings, Confucius ideals made it a distinction.
In a sense, Yu Dan's interpretation is not so wrong as claimed by the author. Yes KongZi approved of Zengxi's ideal as the correct political attitude rather than as merely self-cultivation, yet just as the approved way is exactly to pursue political stability with social harmony, how can such a harmony be achieved without each participant being happy through self-cultivation as an individual? This stress on self-cultivation becomes even more justified considering that Yu Dan's target audience might have been politicians who are already strongly committed to political responsibilities, and what is lacking in the balance is the individual part. This might exactly be where the difference is. Western thinkers tend to think to themselves, and make complete circles around themselves without logical flaws. To the Chinese thinkers, rigor never matters so much, although that should not be either an excuse for talking nonsense.
Anyhow this Confucius ideal can only work within believers or similar minded individuals, unless education can wipe out individual difference, which can be a more dangerous situation than what we have without the ideal.
On second thought, though, just as people can be educated to follow social norms such as not spitting on the street, maybe a notion of social harmony can as well be generally agreed to be practiced. However, just by introspection, one should know already how hard it is to really achieve within oneself a harmony other than the born ignorance.
In a sense, Yu Dan's interpretation is not so wrong as claimed by the author. Yes KongZi approved of Zengxi's ideal as the correct political attitude rather than as merely self-cultivation, yet just as the approved way is exactly to pursue political stability with social harmony, how can such a harmony be achieved without each participant being happy through self-cultivation as an individual? This stress on self-cultivation becomes even more justified considering that Yu Dan's target audience might have been politicians who are already strongly committed to political responsibilities, and what is lacking in the balance is the individual part. This might exactly be where the difference is. Western thinkers tend to think to themselves, and make complete circles around themselves without logical flaws. To the Chinese thinkers, rigor never matters so much, although that should not be either an excuse for talking nonsense.
Anyhow this Confucius ideal can only work within believers or similar minded individuals, unless education can wipe out individual difference, which can be a more dangerous situation than what we have without the ideal.
On second thought, though, just as people can be educated to follow social norms such as not spitting on the street, maybe a notion of social harmony can as well be generally agreed to be practiced. However, just by introspection, one should know already how hard it is to really achieve within oneself a harmony other than the born ignorance.
No comments:
Post a Comment