Paul, very clever of you to introduce such a deep and important conversation and keep the article so short! Raises many questions.
"This could be about the difficulty of communication and accepting that we are always going to be misunderstood in some small way in everything we say and do. Our languages are not up to the task. Our cultures distort unseen all sides of conversations."
How indeed can we begin to read and understand not only across the boundaries of cultural perspectives but of time!
Important to remember that only in the west do we refer to this tradition by the name of one man - in China it is not called Confucianist, it is 儒教 Ru Jiao, or Ruism. 儒 is usually translated as 'scholar' but it has its roots in the Zhou kingdom, meaning someone who mastered the rituals.
Confucius himself declared "I follow the Zhou".
The term 'confucius' and 'confucianism' originated with the Jesuits when they were in China in the 16th century, latinizing the name孔子 or Kong Zi.
As to who Kongzi was speaking with, we can be reasonably certain that at least two of Confucius' disciples were there, as he namechecks them in Book Four, where this discussion of morality and virtue take place. Line ten talks about Disciple Zhen - who was Zhen Shen, or Zhenzi, a politician and military strategist who is then recorded as explaining Confucius' meaning to other disciples.
The other one, Ziyou, not only namechecked but given his own speech in line 26, "Ziyou says" ( same grammatical construction as "Confucius says" ).
So we can assume that Confucius was talking to his students and disciples, all learned and apparently 'virtuous' men, some serving as government officials.
🙏 Incredible, thank you, I really appreciate the interest this short article brought. 🙂 I like to imagine the setting and mood of the room during some of the floating observations.
I think its really hard, almost impossible, for us to imagine what the setting and mood of the room, or possibly the bamboo grove by the stream, was during these times, as they are so distant from our lived reality today. the best we can do is read commentators who have studied this, look to the ancient texts themselves, careful to chose which translation we are looking at and compare it to others, look at the original text if we can, to make any sense of it. These guys certainly weren't the Tang or Song poets grasping for another cup of wine as it floated down the stream then lazing back to languidly compose another poem: Kongzi and co were literate, educated, disciplined and passionate men who wandered through the warring states to give seasoned advice to rulers.
here's another excellent overview of who Confucius was talking to, from Sarah Schneewind in the Association of Asian Studies
The question is, who was Master Kong (“Confucius” is a European creation) talking to? He was not mumbling to himself in a corner; nor was he preaching from a pulpit; but neither was he usually admonishing rulers to their faces, as Mencius did later. He was teaching a few young men from the bottom level of the Zhou aristocracy: the shi. Socially distinct from commoners, they had been educated at home in the elite arts of war, in ritual and music, and in the poetry and speeches later compiled in the Classics, but inherited no great estates or high offices. Political power was still central to shi identity, but they had to make their own way into politics by serving men of higher rank. How to do that? And once there, how to act? All around, hereditary ministers were usurping the power and privileges of feudal lords, who themselves encroached on the primacy of the Zhou king. Master Kong set himself to persuade smart young upwardly mobile aristocrats, who valued fame, knowledge, and worldly advantages, to do what was right.
my initial thought is that it could be an issue of hierarchy and something similar to master-slave morality. those on high believe themselves greater; those below believe themselves less-than. this is reinforced through stark contrast in living conditions and social expectations, leading one side to excess and the other to admit defeat. because each pulls to either end, the “true” position is closer to the middle, as one is lowered and the other raised.
That is *really* interesting... I hadn't thought of that. The master-slave relationship in Chinese history is a topic that I want to explore more. Confucius lived in a different society that ours today, and different from the western history my mind is steeped in. The few conversations I've had on the topic indicate that a simple ownership viewpoint is not quite right... I can make nothing that sounds even like a conclusion, this is an unknown that has barely revealed itself.
regarding master-slaves, the Shang dynasty had slaves, usually from the outerlying western regions. When the Zhou famously defeated the Shang, they got rid of the institution of slavery. Confucius admired the Zhou.
So this has been a subject that I have been curious about for some time. Reading any classics or watching TV/movies, it is easy to think you're seeing this topic that is top of mind in "the West", and conspicuous by not being a subject "here." This is a topic I am certain I am unprepared to discuss or understand intelligently, but it is intriguing and will have to come another day. I didn't expect from this article, but welcome, this line of discussion.🙏
I think its 'discussed in the West' due to western - well, to use a word some might not like in this context, propaganda. Read Anna Chen's brilliant take on how the term 'wolf warrior' was invented - I just stumbled upon this article today.
I remind my boys, we’re all people, the west didn’t invent propaganda, neither did the east, but we sure all feel free to use it. Too much othering in the world for my liking today.
For full clarity, when I referred to the West’s issues and discussion, I meant its own (the West’s) past history with the issue. This is just a view from my seat, I never catch any discussion of the merits or history of servitude in China. Just another thing I may only now be becoming aware of. 😐
i would agree it cannot be limited to property relations, but i’d be willing to wager it played a role of some sort.
there are plenty of texts that advocate for “lowering and raising” without making bland gestures at centrism. Paulo Freire talks about it in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Laozi talks about it, Confucius…
it’s an incredibly interesting topic! i might reflect on this myself
Please do, I would enjoy reading that. It is an incredibly sensitive topic. If we want to talk about cultures affects on us, is there a more profound and nuanced topic that slavery? So much so that translations by western authors should be more suspect that usual, because what influences on them were they aware of?
it could easily be the case. i don’t think a western view could be imposed on chinese philosophy and history to make any meaningful sense of it. so, the master-slave morality can’t be applied 1:1, but the general concept can be preserved. i tend to think people have been the same for a while (there are 3000 year old your mom jokes), and though we’re capable of almost anything, the human experience has a transcendental, relatable nature. though systems, language, and culture may vary wildly, humans are in the center, and thus some basic truths (of violence, oppression, humility, kindness) are almost always present, even if they appear differently or have differing standards.
Great piece, wonderfully written! I've never thought of it from this angle. Very unique perspective!
Paul, very clever of you to introduce such a deep and important conversation and keep the article so short! Raises many questions.
"This could be about the difficulty of communication and accepting that we are always going to be misunderstood in some small way in everything we say and do. Our languages are not up to the task. Our cultures distort unseen all sides of conversations."
How indeed can we begin to read and understand not only across the boundaries of cultural perspectives but of time!
Important to remember that only in the west do we refer to this tradition by the name of one man - in China it is not called Confucianist, it is 儒教 Ru Jiao, or Ruism. 儒 is usually translated as 'scholar' but it has its roots in the Zhou kingdom, meaning someone who mastered the rituals.
Confucius himself declared "I follow the Zhou".
The term 'confucius' and 'confucianism' originated with the Jesuits when they were in China in the 16th century, latinizing the name孔子 or Kong Zi.
As to who Kongzi was speaking with, we can be reasonably certain that at least two of Confucius' disciples were there, as he namechecks them in Book Four, where this discussion of morality and virtue take place. Line ten talks about Disciple Zhen - who was Zhen Shen, or Zhenzi, a politician and military strategist who is then recorded as explaining Confucius' meaning to other disciples.
The other one, Ziyou, not only namechecked but given his own speech in line 26, "Ziyou says" ( same grammatical construction as "Confucius says" ).
So we can assume that Confucius was talking to his students and disciples, all learned and apparently 'virtuous' men, some serving as government officials.
🙏 Incredible, thank you, I really appreciate the interest this short article brought. 🙂 I like to imagine the setting and mood of the room during some of the floating observations.
I think its really hard, almost impossible, for us to imagine what the setting and mood of the room, or possibly the bamboo grove by the stream, was during these times, as they are so distant from our lived reality today. the best we can do is read commentators who have studied this, look to the ancient texts themselves, careful to chose which translation we are looking at and compare it to others, look at the original text if we can, to make any sense of it. These guys certainly weren't the Tang or Song poets grasping for another cup of wine as it floated down the stream then lazing back to languidly compose another poem: Kongzi and co were literate, educated, disciplined and passionate men who wandered through the warring states to give seasoned advice to rulers.
But it’s still fun. ☺️
For an overview of Confucius' disciples, see
https://mahans.edu.my/confucius-disciples/#:~:text=The%20Ten%20Disciples%20of%20Confucius%2C%20refer%20to%20the%20ten%20students,in%20Confucianism%20as%20exemplary%20figures.
here's another excellent overview of who Confucius was talking to, from Sarah Schneewind in the Association of Asian Studies
The question is, who was Master Kong (“Confucius” is a European creation) talking to? He was not mumbling to himself in a corner; nor was he preaching from a pulpit; but neither was he usually admonishing rulers to their faces, as Mencius did later. He was teaching a few young men from the bottom level of the Zhou aristocracy: the shi. Socially distinct from commoners, they had been educated at home in the elite arts of war, in ritual and music, and in the poetry and speeches later compiled in the Classics, but inherited no great estates or high offices. Political power was still central to shi identity, but they had to make their own way into politics by serving men of higher rank. How to do that? And once there, how to act? All around, hereditary ministers were usurping the power and privileges of feudal lords, who themselves encroached on the primacy of the Zhou king. Master Kong set himself to persuade smart young upwardly mobile aristocrats, who valued fame, knowledge, and worldly advantages, to do what was right.
https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/the-analects-in-the-classroom-book-four-as-a-first-step/
my initial thought is that it could be an issue of hierarchy and something similar to master-slave morality. those on high believe themselves greater; those below believe themselves less-than. this is reinforced through stark contrast in living conditions and social expectations, leading one side to excess and the other to admit defeat. because each pulls to either end, the “true” position is closer to the middle, as one is lowered and the other raised.
That is *really* interesting... I hadn't thought of that. The master-slave relationship in Chinese history is a topic that I want to explore more. Confucius lived in a different society that ours today, and different from the western history my mind is steeped in. The few conversations I've had on the topic indicate that a simple ownership viewpoint is not quite right... I can make nothing that sounds even like a conclusion, this is an unknown that has barely revealed itself.
regarding master-slaves, the Shang dynasty had slaves, usually from the outerlying western regions. When the Zhou famously defeated the Shang, they got rid of the institution of slavery. Confucius admired the Zhou.
I look forward to continuing it someday. 🙏
So this has been a subject that I have been curious about for some time. Reading any classics or watching TV/movies, it is easy to think you're seeing this topic that is top of mind in "the West", and conspicuous by not being a subject "here." This is a topic I am certain I am unprepared to discuss or understand intelligently, but it is intriguing and will have to come another day. I didn't expect from this article, but welcome, this line of discussion.🙏
I think its 'discussed in the West' due to western - well, to use a word some might not like in this context, propaganda. Read Anna Chen's brilliant take on how the term 'wolf warrior' was invented - I just stumbled upon this article today.
https://www.annachen.co.uk/2023/09/16/zoo-time-at-operation-circe/
and also her incredible account of how the whereabouts of the origins of covid and the political undercurrents of the responses and lack of responses
https://annachenwrites.substack.com/p/covid-timeline-vs-trump-spin-110
The 'west' loves to portray China as 'the enemy' so it will drum up these troupes - for China, this issue is really just ancient history.
I remind my boys, we’re all people, the west didn’t invent propaganda, neither did the east, but we sure all feel free to use it. Too much othering in the world for my liking today.
For full clarity, when I referred to the West’s issues and discussion, I meant its own (the West’s) past history with the issue. This is just a view from my seat, I never catch any discussion of the merits or history of servitude in China. Just another thing I may only now be becoming aware of. 😐
yes very complex and deep issues. thanks for the discussion :)
i would agree it cannot be limited to property relations, but i’d be willing to wager it played a role of some sort.
there are plenty of texts that advocate for “lowering and raising” without making bland gestures at centrism. Paulo Freire talks about it in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Laozi talks about it, Confucius…
it’s an incredibly interesting topic! i might reflect on this myself
Please do, I would enjoy reading that. It is an incredibly sensitive topic. If we want to talk about cultures affects on us, is there a more profound and nuanced topic that slavery? So much so that translations by western authors should be more suspect that usual, because what influences on them were they aware of?
it could easily be the case. i don’t think a western view could be imposed on chinese philosophy and history to make any meaningful sense of it. so, the master-slave morality can’t be applied 1:1, but the general concept can be preserved. i tend to think people have been the same for a while (there are 3000 year old your mom jokes), and though we’re capable of almost anything, the human experience has a transcendental, relatable nature. though systems, language, and culture may vary wildly, humans are in the center, and thus some basic truths (of violence, oppression, humility, kindness) are almost always present, even if they appear differently or have differing standards.