Review: The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation

The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation by Roger T. Ames

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



This is a great book for anyone who wants to get a good introduction to the core values of Confucianism. The translation of the Analects itself is not my favorite. Though I like parts of it better than others on the whole I like Burton Watson's translation better. That said, the introduction of Ames Philosophical translation of the Analects is the best I have read. It gives the reader a clear understanding of some of the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western thought, and accurately portrays the ideal of confucianism.

Too many academics in their writings on Confucianism have written based on the reality of history rather than the ideals that Confucianism tries to set. To judge any belief-system religious, philosophical, or political by the way it has been put to practice rather than what it strove for is to demonize it. If you look at the implementation of confucianism in Chinese or Korean histories you find authoritarianism, sexism, machoism and a long list of atrocities. However, the same can be said for christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Democracy, or any other belief system. Yet we do not judge Christianity based on the Crusades, or democracy based on the genocides it has led to in India and Rwanda. So we should not judge confucianism by the worst of its perversions. In attempting to see the ideal for which confucianism strives, this book is perfect.





View all my reviews

The Irony of Human Persuasion

      I spend a great deal of my time thinking how to convince people to change their habits. How to convince my family,  my friends,  my community, my country, and humanity in general. I do this because I am convinced that specific values and customs that they hold are wrong; and by wrong here what i mean is dangerous. I do not think I am alone in this. To the contrary, I think a concern for the actions and beliefs of loved ones is something that consumes most people. And that ultimately is what an attempt to change something about a person really is, a concern for their and your well-being. What I want to discuss here is not the validity of such an endeavor, but the illogical way in which the majority of us go about it.

   Thinking about my own life, when someone i love holds a belief or practice that i feel is dangerous my response is to show them why what they believe is wrong and what they should believe instead. Or to put it in other words, to attack the belief or practice. Does that make sense?  At first it appears to make sense. After all, I care about them, so of course I would look out for their best interests. But let's think about it a different way. I want to prevent people I care about from experiencing danger, but I attempt to reach this goal by attacking them, which to the human mind is synonymous with danger. Does this make sense?

   I don't think it does. And yet, from my experience this is the way most people attempt to change people. They might attack the idea by calling it stupid or ridiculous. If they have obtained a liberal arts education, there is a good chance they will attack the idea using the tools of western logic to show the other that they are being irrational in their belief. If they have any sort of higher education the use of scientific knowledge is generally a part of the assault, and if not, there is always the sword of experience and age to thrust into the belly of youth and inexperience. This variety of methods of persuasion are all an attack of some form or another.

  Why do we attack when we want to save? Isn't this just taking a perceived threat and substituting it with a real threat? Is it any wonder that people respond defensively to these attempts? You will rarely change someone's mind by attacking them, because we as humans are naturally distrusting of what hurts us. When touching a stove burns a baby the baby reflexively puts distance between its body and the stove. We react in the same way to hurtful ideas. The only reason our loved ones tolerate continued verbal assaults is because we are so integral to their self conception. This again is a reference to my notion of self (an essay I have not written) but the quick version of the idea is that a "self" is a network rather than a discrete body. Your most intimate relationships are literally a part of who you are. When your finger burns do you chop it off? No. In this respect, even though a particular relationship may continue to attack you, because it is a part of your self as whole you learn to cope with the attacks. However just as with attacks to your body, damage can be so severe that you have no choice but to amputate the limb or undergo some other sort of corrective surgery. I argue that the same is true from the self. We are defined by different relationships, some more important than others, but ultimately we are the heart-mind of our self, and if necessary can cut any and all other relationships to save ourselves. However, amputation or surgery are always painful events that leave the body irrevocably different from what it was before. In an ideal life, we would be able to avoid such things, and thus in our real lives do attempt to avoid such things at all cost. Even if it means dealing with a constant source of pain.

 To summarize, I am suggest that the most common form of human persuasion (attack, which could also be defined as argument/debate) is one that we are naturally adverse to and suffer from. In the following essay I will suggest some alternative methods of persuasion that I am personally trying to integrate into my daily life.

Review: Dynamics of Faith

Dynamics of Faith by Paul Tillich

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



To anyone who sees faith and religion as lesser forms of knowledge that have been rendered obsolete by the developments of science, Paul Tillich's book The Dynamics of Faith is a must read. Tillich is concise and artful with his prose and defines and defends his point beautifully. Reading this the clarity of his argument coupled with a subtle ambiguity that keeps you from being certain masterfully embodies the very ultimacy he tries to convey. I could not help but be reminded of Confucius's (Kongzi) use of the word "ren" in this work, and can only hope that some day I am able to write with such art.



View all my reviews

Review: The Human Animal

The Human Animal by Weston La Barre

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



Weston La Barre's work of evolutionary psychology (sociobiology) is an entertaining work. The reader will learn much about the process of evolution and the biological mechanisms of several species that will broaden their scientific perspective and provide several fresh and powerful analogies. That said, La Barre strays too far into the realm of psychoanalysis. The strong influence of Freud is unavoidable and at times off-putting. The reader must constantly remind themselves La Barre is a product of his time, but still, some of the arguments he makes are so shockingly sexist and outdated that you cannot help but develop skepticism for the overall worth of the book. Honestly it is not one that I will read through again. But I did enjoy it. His description of ants, the sequence of different animal families, and expansion on Freud's ideas of the spectrum from culture-to-pyschosis are all interesting and worthwhile.



View all my reviews

Review: On Human Nature

On Human Nature by E.O. Wilson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



It is not surprising that On Human Nature receives a lot of criticism in the social sciences field. The solution he suggests is to effectively re-engineer the social sciences more thoroughly within the natural sciences. A process that would completely eradicate some current fields of academics (such as theology). While his delivery is crass in this sense, I do believe the book is worth reading and contains much valuable insight and knowledge. It is interesting to point out that the 1st dilemma he suggests human society faces is a need for what Paul Tillich calls faith. Though Wilson tries to rewrite it scientifically it is impossible to ignore this if you have read both authors. In this light I would say the question Wilson raises is valid, and the information he provides is vital, it is only his solution that I would disagree with (and only slightly). Basically what Wilson suggests is that we engineer culture to promote humaneness. The way he says it is different, and his method of doing this is different from what I would suggest. However, overall I think he is on the right path.



View all my reviews

Moral Action- The distribution of power

 A couple days ago I wrote my brainstorm on the components of moral action. When I say moral here what I am referring to is action that sustains the solidarity of a community/society. Solidarity is mutually desired, mutually felt, and mutually shared. It is what brings people into harmony with one another.  Any action that works towards this goal is moral; whereas any action that does more to separate people than it does to unite them must be thought of as immoral. I have suggested that moral action has three components: motivation, knowledge, and methods. In any situation where a person has the potential to act there is a right reason to to act (motivation), a right set of skills to   I would like to redefine the idea of methods to "methods of distribution" or just distribution. How The right motivations and the right knowledge are put to use, this is what is meant by distribution. I suggest that even if a person has the right motivation and the right knowledge, without the right distribution their actions cannot be called moral. In fact, chances are they are immoral. To show this I would like to share with the reader a story. The story is called "The God of Peace." The God of Peace is a short children's story that is written as part of Naoki Urasawa's manga Monster. The story goes like this:

The God of Peace was very busy. He had to blow his trumpet all day long and didn't have time to look into the mirror.

The God of Peace's trumpet brought happiness to everyone. He did not have any time to look into the mirror and poured amazing water to the land. The water created lush mountains, made farming land fertile and grew flowers in the process.

The God of Peace was very busy. He did not have time to look into the mirror and gave names to everyone.

"Your name is Otto. Your name is Hans. Your name is Tomas."

"And your name is Johan."

Johan gave his hat to the God of Peace as an expression of thanks for giving him a name.

The God of Peace was very happy and wanted to see how he looked with the hat. That was when he first looked at himself in the mirror.

However, the reflection in the mirror was that of a MONSTER!

The monster said, "You are me. And I am you."

    What can we learn from this story? There is a God of Peace. What are the motivations of his actions? The God of Peace wants to bring happiness to everyone. To do this he blowed his trumpet, created lush mountains, fertile farmlands, and grew pretty flowers. The God of Peace even gives the people names. A name is the basis of an identity, healthy and fertile land is the basis of a community. The God of Peace is working to bring happiness to everyone. Is this not the right motivation? The God of Peace knows how to work the land to make it good and he knows what individual people need to be good (some sense of identity). Is this not the right knowledge? To be able to make an environment fertile and to give people assurance in who they are without a doubt requires knowledge. Assured people and healthy land are the basis of a flourishing society. And yet, when the God of Peace finally has time to look at himself in the mirror... he is a MONSTER!

     I took this too be literal not figurative; meaning that what "the God of Peace" was doing was actually hurting everyone, not helping them. How could it be hurting them?! The people were fed, happy, and safe doesn't that make the God of Peace's actions moral? I do not think it does, and here is why. You often hear people say they don't want a "knight in shinning armor," or they are not looking for some "superman to save the day" why is that? It is because if you had  knight in shinning armor or a superman taking care of all your problems, making life easy and completely safe, they would be crippling you. You would become so dependent on them that you would not know how to function without them. Let's go back to the story. The God of Peace tells people who they are, he effectively manages their agriculture; imagine what would happen if he were to disappear. It would be chaos. That is why when he looks in the mirror he realizes he is a monster. Before there was a God of Peace how did the people survive? They had their own knowledge and their own motivations. Sure their knowledge was nowhere near the level of the God of Peace's; sure their motivations were no where near the level of the God of Peace's; but they at least had some knowledge and motivation. As things are in the story all knowledge and motivation is monopolized by the God of Peace, it is not evenly distributed. So what happens when the God of Peace dies, or when the God of Peace is sick, or if he has an emotional breakdown? Society breaks down.

    It is irresponsible to monopolize the motivation and knowledge of a community into the bodies of a single or a few individuals no matter who they are. This is an almost universally accepted fact of the real world. That is why when we have something we want to protect or sustain we create multiple failsafes. No competent machine integrates the entirety of its functions through a single gear. To the contrary, truly important machinery not only divides its mechanics among many separate components, but it also contains multiple failsafes. The more centralized the mechanics of a machine is the easier it will break. I realize thinking of communities as machines might be displeasing to some given the connotations attributed to the word machine, but please temporarily put those aside. I do not mean to imply that communities are cold, static, mechanical, or lifeless. What I am trying to convey with the machine analogy is that like a machine, communities are composed of the integration of a multitude of factors (parts) that harmonize together into a larger function. And just like machines communities can break if certain factors are not taken into consideration.

    The topic of this essay is moral action. What I am suggesting here, is that in addition to solidifying the bonds between people morality should also work to be self-sustaining. What good is the ability to form a union if it is prone to dissolve as quickly as you can pull it together? Moral action is motivated by creating solidarity between people, it is equipped with the proper knowledge to supply those people with meaningful lives, but it is also designed to last. i am arguing that having the right motivation and the right knowledge is not as unheard of as it might have been several centuries or millennia ago. At this point in time humanity has produced enough literature and enough science to be able to conceive the right motivations for an action and the right knowledge to complete it (not that it always happens, but it is at least somewhat common). However, what I do not think we have done a good job developing is the right means of distribution of these things. Our actions, be they individual actions or the actions of nations, are often too centralized. To put it another way, I am suggesting that the superman model inherently fails at saving society. If you want to help your community, help your family, help your world, it must be done with them, not for them. You might have the right motivations, and you might even possess the right knowledge to do this, but if you fail to distribute the responsibility/ownership of these things across the community you are attempting to effect, then your efforts will be ultimately immoral. You will look into the mirror one day and realize you are a MONSTER!!!  

Moral Action - Brainstorm

The subject of this entry is still premature; however, I could not resist diving in and seeing what happens. Forgive me if my diction is sporadic and my ideas are not fully sequential for I am still churning with what exactly my idea is. It is an idea that I have been building towards for some time now , as can be seen in the Yan Hui entry of February. In my discussion of Yan Hui I open one of the latter paragraphs by stating "The wise are those who develop knowledge to feel autonomy/ indivudal power." 
   First of all I do not like the usage of the word wise here, for "wise" in the american context has strongly positive and moral connotation; while what was meant her was to respect the translations I was reading at the time of the Chinese text, The Analects. In The Analects what is meant by "wise" here I would perhaps translate more accurately into the english word "clever." Cleverness referring to possessing the knowledge and capacity of a wise man/sage but implementing it for the wrong reasons or in the wrong way.
      Here I have divided action into three components: Knowledge, Motivation, and Methods. This is by no means a novel construction. I am embarrassed to say that at this point in time I have not read any scholarly work on this trichotomy; however, I am sure that some must exist, and will begin to look for it. Though I have no real academic evidence to support this theory, I do not think it is entirely necessary. It would be nice to be able to have more eloquent words than my own to persuade the reader of the validity of my theory, but I believe that its validity can also be supported by common knowledge. There is a  popular saying in movies and TV shows,I think Machiavellian in origin, "Do the ends justify the means." Well the Machiavellian thing would be to say The ends DO justify the means, but because I disagree with this position I will address this catchphrase as a question rather than a statement . 
     "Do the ends justify the means"
      First off, let me begin by saying that this quote is a discussion of  Moral Action. The author, whoever they maybe, is postulating the question "Is the "right thing" justifiable by any actions no matter how inhumane and deplorable." Is there a need for moral (humane) methods, or does the righteousness of the end goal allow for (and maybe in some circumstances demand) immoral (inhumane) methods in the name of its completion?  The author is suggesting that moral actions contains two components: the ends; and  the means. 
    The ends here refers to the overarching goal behind an action. If a King takes his country to war, or a man decides to steal a loaf of bread, the ends are the results of theses actions, or at least the perceived results. It is because of the "ends" that the King and the man make their decisions to act, and thus the ends are motivations for action. The saying "Do the means justify the ends" implies a morality to the ends. The question is not "are the ends justified" it is assumed within this scenario that the actor (person taking the actions) is motivated by just ends. I just wanted to address that this is a dangerous assumption to make. Before questioning the means, it is imperative to seriously reflect on the question "are the ends justified" is my motivation moral (humane). 
* Note- I realize that what is moral is a very ambiguous term that I have yet to flesh out in words, which is why I continue to accompany it with the word humane. I promise to clearly define morality within the week, please bare with me for now and do not let this ambiguity distract you from the focus of this essay, the components of action. 


     Moving on, it is on the subject of  the means where my theory diverges from the author's statement. The author has taken action and defined it as bilateral, relating to two components (ends and means). However, what I am suggesting is that to accurately evaluate potential or taken actions the idea of means is too ambiguous. Instead, I suggest to divide the category of "means" into two separate categories: Knowledge and Methods.  Knowledge is  a type of tool, one that humans use to symbolically convey information about reality for the purpose of altering reality. Human knowledge can roughly be organized into two types.  Knowledge can be statistically inferred from one's own experiences, such is the case when after performing some task for years the process of trial and error hones one's ability to know how to most effectively and efficiently perform; and knowledge can be socially conveyed between humans through various mediums of language. The former is why individual humans are so powerful. It allows  humans the potential to rapidly progress in any task by simply devoting more time to it.  Now there are environmental limitations to this. For example, one of the largest and most invaluable chunks of time a person has to devote is their younger years, which are for the most part determined by their caregivers. Britney spears  devoted much of her younger years to singing but that decision was not autonomous, it was made by here parents.  Environmental (largely cultural) influence the amount of time a person has (their life expectancy) and the autonomy they have over their use of that time (Economic and Social limitations). That said, every free person to some extent has time that is completely of their own accord regardless of how much time that actually is. And because of this, every person is individually powerful in that they need only commit that time to a certain task to grow. 
         The individual capacity for statistical knowledge is what makes a person powerful, but it is the existence of social knowledge, collective knowledge, history, that makes the human species so formidable. In addition to the cultural limitations of a person's time, there also exists the very real limitations of the human biology , or in other words a overall life expectancy. A person must die, therefore there is only so much knowledge they can accrue on a given subject. However, with the invention of social knowledge, meaning knowledge transmitted between humans through mediums of language, the individual person is able to tap into centuries, even millennia of accumulated statistical knowledge. 
     If I wanted to learn to make a sword (i.e a tool to cut things), given 5 years I could figure out an adequate methodology. Given 40 years I could polish that methodology.  And since it is highly unlikely this journey would begin before I was at least in my teens, and because a large chunk of time must be devoted to personal survival (food, socialization, shelter, work, etc) lets say that 45 pure years is the most I have to devote to the sword. I do not doubt that I could create a sword, but it would be average at best; whereas if in stead I were to put aside my egoism an acknowledge the literal sea of knowledge that humans have throughout history built on this subject, I could create a sword that far surpassed the experience of a single lifetime. And this is what we as humans effectively do. We make things that are potent and precise beyond what we should be able to, because we are able to tap into the genius of humanity as a whole. 
biological factors, but not nearly to the extent that is assumed.   need only commit their time to a task and they will undoubtably progress at it. Furthermore, the diversity of the human condition also makes  for the diversity of the human experience.  Human life is so subjectively shaped that each and every person contains within them an irreplaceable and invaluable body of data to shed light on the human condition. The later however is what makes humanity as as a species truly powerful. 
       When I talk about the knowledge a person posses I am talking about both these parts. I am talking about the actual amount of experience they have performing some feat, as well as the experiences they draw on from the collective consciousness of humanity's social knowledge, that define the quality of their actions. Methods on the other hand, refers to the way a person distributes the benefits of their actions within a social system.  
       
    Sorry I am going to have to stop here. That last sentence was what I needed to solidify, I hope all this has not been too discombobulated I will continue at a later time. For now I am really hungry and I want to go back in my head to think about the ramifications of what I am trying to say. 
Bye Bye 

Being A Person

   The word person originates from the Etruscan word phersu meaning "mask" implying that a person is a masked human. At first the idea sounds bizarre.  After all,  a person is not a mask, a mask is a mask, a person is a person. But what is that? It does not make a subject any clearer to define it as itself. If you were to ask me what a stoic is, and I were to say, "A stoic is someone who is stoic" the concept could be no clearer. So if I were to ask you "what is a person" to say a person is a person is equally useless. So instead I am going to put aside the instruments of my common sense and imagine that a person is a mask. Now, what does that mean? 

    There are several definitions of the noun mask in the Webster's dictionary, the first being:

 "a covering for all or part of the face, worn to conceal one's identity."


   To conceal something is to hide it, and because of this i think conceal here is not the most accurate word. the ocean conceals sunken treasure, safe's conceal what they hold inside, but masks do more than this. Masks not only conceal, they disguise. To disguise is not only to keep something from sight, but to substitute it with something else. To present a strategically designed front to replace that which you hide. Now remembering that I am talking about the word "person," I ask myself: Is a person really a mask?


   And the answer I get is yes. I believe that people without a doubt attempt to control their facial expressions, the air they give off, their actions, and words, in order to conceal certain thoughts, feelings, intent, and instead present strategically planned images of who they are. Is this not a mask? 
  When you see an old classmate who remembers you but who you have forgotten do you immediately admit to not knowing who they are? Or do you smile and talk ambiguously attempting to complete the interaction without letting it known that they were not as memorable to you. Or you may even covertly attempt to remember or discern their identity if you foresee repeated interaction in the near future.  
    When you play a game with your friends and a pretty girl/ handsome boy slips onto your radar do you play the same way? Or do you intensify your efforts, or perhaps you attempt to look less involved as if the game does not matter, yet at the same time still wielding a certain level of skill. Aloof, skilled, compassionate; goofy,carefree, unrestrained; dominate, focused, skilled; these are just some of the multitude of impressions you could wish to impose of the potential viewer. 
    My point is not which of these is the most frequent or natural human response, but that to attempt to impose some sort of an impression on those who we believe are watching us (even when we are not being watched) is, in my opinion, a natural human phenomena. The reason that I am convinced this is a biological phenomenon is that since hosting these ideas I have been actively attempting to not be a person, or in other words to not create masks depending on given situations. Much to my discouragement I have found that this is a incredibly hard if not impossible task. I encourage you to try it. 


     The example I will give happened about a month ago.  was bowling with a group of male friends. Not too concerned with winning, I was causally playing (while at the same time still clearly attempting to convey to them through my implicit actions that I did not care who won or loss, especially since I was winning by a lot). About halfway through our time at the alley another group of young adults occupied the land immediately next to us. Without even thinking about it I was instantly aware of a young lady who I found to be incredibly attractive sitting in the group. Just as instantly I began to notice the evident change in my bowling. I danced to the lane, I told jokes much louder, I was adamant in encouraging my friends, in laughing when I failed, in being humble when I succeeded, all of this was things I had been doing the entire time, but the scale, frequency were greatly amplified. It took me about 7 minutes to fully realize the impact this young lady had on me. It was quite the shock seeing as I had been intentionally trying to control such a response. 
     You see originally I had thought that masks were intentional creations of people, and that it was not that we were persons, but that humans decided to be persons at some point. However, after this incident at the bowling alley I have come to believe that this is not entirely true. Some masks might be intentional, but I think the state of having masks is not. After all, are we not different people around our parents, friends, bosses, and lovers? This is because we are playing different roles (i.e wearing different masks) the role of child, friend, worker, and spouse/significant other. Is this wrong? I do not think so. The roles listed above have some fundamental differences all of which I have not contemplated enough to list here, but a seemingly evident one is the fact that the roles of child and work are traditionally devoid of influence from one's sexuality; whereas the role of love seems to be in large defined by one's sexuality. If there are fundamental differences in certain relationship dynamics (like the influence of the sexual drive) than it would make sense that humans must be persons to compartmentalize these faces of themselves. 
    So I am no longer trying to rid myself of the mask. My thinking at this point is that humans must also be persons (masked). That said, there are several new questions that spawn from this


   -Is there an appropriate amount of masks, a point where one has too many mask, or too little. Or in other words, how many persons should one individual carry within them?
   - If different relationships require different personas in what ways are human relationships graduated? What does this notion of a graduated humanity do to the idea of a universal rights/ ethics ?
  - What is it mean to be a human, what does it mean to be a self, that is different from being a person?


  I'll discuss this more in the near future, thanks for reading!