[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

I disagree. The relationship between religion and the State became a serious political issue early in the fifth century when native Chinese became the majority of Buddhist clerics. In keeping with traditional Buddhist practice, monks displayed no signs of respect to secular authorities including the Emperor. Huan Hsuan referred the matter to a highly respected cleric, Hui-yuan. He outlined his arguments in a treatise titled, "A Monk Does Not Bow Down To a King" and was accepted into law by the Emperor in 403ad, and this treatise was not without influence on succeeding dynasties. Although not a grand separation, it nonetheless is a unique and overlooked development in governing, east or west.

Whatever the importance Buddhism gained during the AOF, there isn't a single moment that religion is not under the control of the central government. When it became even remotely threantening, it was persecuted.

Quote

Sure religion is under the law in China, but doesn't it influence the law? Hasn't Confucianism influenced the Chinese civil and governmental structure; haven't Taoism and Buddhism to varying degrees influenced governing depending on the inclinations of the Emperor in power? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this strident antagonism to religion as an 'opiate of the masses' is a very recent historical development.

We are not talking about the simple moral influences of religion on law, but how China's laws aren't dictated by any religious dogmas. The written laws has little to do with Confucius, he never wrote down any set of laws, in fact he stressed on the moral cultivation over the written code. Neither did the central government base their laws on Daoist or Buddhist texts for governing. Unlike Islamic states, where the law of the state is taken directly from the holy scriptures.

Quote

Doesn't the merit-based bureaucracy owe its being to Confucianism at least as much as Legalism? The later dynasties at least had some proportionality to to their systems and codes of rewards and punishments; just the opposite of Legalism which depended on extreme penalties for minor offenses. Also. the Legalist position that you could be punished for an infraction committed by another in your group was at odds with the meritocratic idea of personal responsibility

The point here is not to claim that legalism is superior to other forms of governments, but to refute your claim that legalism has little positive influence on Chinese society. The fact is, the weakening of feudalism, the creation of many effective laws and population growth from the warring states to the Han, which had a tremendous impact on Chinese history, has alot to do with Legalism's emphasize on centralization, effective bureucracy and agriculture.

You are also using a heavyly modern influenced perspective to view ancient history when you made the statement that
"For much of Chinese history, the Chinese simply couldn't come up with a sufficiently comprehensive & efficient social/governmental model to replace the existing strutures based on/inspired by ancient agragrian communes."

You speak as if agricultural expansion is a bad thing and should be immediately substituted with an urbanized state based on a free trading economy. Thats not a realist appraoch to the actual economic situation of the time. Capitalism doesn't just appear from simply changing the form of the government. Without the development of sophisticated communication and transportation technology, of which agricultural surpluses are essential, there will be no capitalism. And without centruies of accumulated capital, industralization wouldn't occur. Clear European lead in living standard only really dates to the 17th century. Yet you focus on these 4 centuries of modern history and ingored the 2 melleniums before that. And from this modern centric view, you frown upon agricultural economy when in fact it was what made China the leading state in both living standard and economic power for a far longer period of time than the brief ascendance of the west.

Trade in ancient times only brings mimimum amount of surpluses, it is less efficient than agriculture in the area of exanding total output. Thats why China emphasized on agricultural growth, to the benefit that it became the most populous country on earth, hence the most productive. Thats a positive effect to China's long hisotrical position as the economic center of the world, a position that it retained until the early 19th century.

This post has been edited by warhead: 10 April 2006 - 01:55 PM

[Type98G]

Craig, on Apr 10 2006, 07:08 AM, said:

Chinas progress has come despite Legalism, not because of it. And successive dynasties weren't as harsh; correct me if I'm wrong. And of course there are laws in the west, but as I said below, the purpose of the Book of Lord Shang is far different than that of the Bill of Rights. Lest that be taken as some sort of bragaddacio, it should be pointed out that there are plenty of laws in the west that sound like Lord Shang or Li Si....and China was wrestling with the relationship between religion and government when Europe was throwing holy men to lions.

I understand this, but the fact is Legalism has moved away from the Qin dynasty example and evolved into Han Confucian due to the Yin and Yang theory. This theory had been in use in the Han, Tang and Song dynasty. Even thought in the Tang dynasty, when Confucian thought had been influence by Buddhist. It is still efficient and realistic. Sui dynasty of course used the Qin dynasty example but with a lot of Buddhist influence. And like the Qin dynasty it fell to peasant revolt, due to its 1,700+ laws. However the foundation left behind has benefited the Tang dynasty, and caution them to used only 501 laws instead. However the Tang dynasty has copy the Sui dynasty government system, and even with 501 laws it is still Legalism with Confucian influence.

Also there would not even be a China if Legalist philosophy was not adopted, because it would be impossible to rule China without a central government.

This post has been edited by Type98G: 11 April 2006 - 06:03 AM

[Little Fool]

If one wishes to look at the lasting effects of legalism and its central authority imperative, the most enduring and profound effect on Chinese society as a whole is likely the attempt by Qin to standardize the Chinese writing system - which despite overhauls later on, succeeded, and as an idea, the Chinese writing system has certainly gone a long way in helping to create and maintain 'China' as a single, unified country and people. This and further centralizing tenants combined the fractive Zhou Dynasty into what could, for the first time, truly be called a single nation(though I would hesitate at that time to follow the modern convention of adding the caveat 'one people').

One can argue that the Legalist philosophy was not directly responsible for any of this, but it is generally accepted that Qin's adoption of Legalism profoundly influenced the policies it subsequently adopted in terms of standarization and centralization of power. It is not wholly unreasonable, therefore, to make the logical leap that Legalism played a part not just in the central planning of Qin, but of the first serious and successful attempt to create a single Chinese writing system, with the eventual purpose of consolidating rulership and power. All of these have persisted in spirit into modern times. These first reforms, watered down, have persisted throughout Chinese history, and today there is more to be seen of 'Legalism' in the era of big government, and Communist China than other philosophies that are traditionally regarded as being more influential on Chinese society.

Whatever its failings, I hope I've at least floated the idea - as War Gear and company have argued - that Legalism has played significant and positive roles in Chinese society - and if you can accept the reasoning above - continues to do so to this day. Its certainly not difficult to pick apart the most ancient philosophies of the world - they were the first attempts to rationalize thought and address the human mind on a broad conceptual level to the world as a whole. Naturally these first forays were frought with as many if not more failures as successes. Legalism as an active philosophy, at least as it was initially taught, is dead. Even those philosophies that still carry the name that their progenitor teachings were founded under have, by the necessity imposed upon them by critical analysis, changed in many fundamental ways from their origins.

Observations that legalist thinking is evident in many other societies are not unfounded either. In many respects the ideas presented by Legalists were necessary to the maintainence of a large scale government. They are, in effect, akin to universal aspects of political organization; look at any empire of note throughout history and you will notice harkenings to Legalism. Even in periods of Chinese history when Legalism was denounced, no one fundamentally disagreed with many of the practices and organizational aids that Legalism produced. In many respects Legalism doomed itself by being mostly a reactionary philosophy that sought practical change rather than esoteric precision. While their practices were accepted and persisted, their underlying philosophy was found to be weak and discarded - the fact is the two are related and, even if the school is now defunct, there's no reason to deprive it of its due for at that early point in human history making some astute observations, and practically sound alterations, of and to society.

[jwrevak]

warhead, on Apr 10 2006, 07:43 AM, said:

What religion? Religion was never a serious political issue in China as it was in the west.

No, sometimes it was a very serious plitical issue in China. Case in point: Tai Ping.

[jwrevak]

wang yun, on Apr 11 2006, 08:26 PM, said:

Erm, isn't Tai Ping more of civil revolt/rebellion (like the Yellow Scarves, White Lotus, etc.)?

No, it was wasn't only civil revolt.

In fact, in the beginning it was first and foremost a religious movement with little or no political agenda. It was a religious movement with its own hierarchy, ethics, moral code, scriptures, economic philosophy, and leaders who purportedly spoke on behalf of God and commnicated directly with Him.

As it grew, conflicts between it and Confucian gentry festered. Only then did it become a significant political force. It rose up against local gentry and eventually the central government and came close to toppling the Qing. In the process it established a theocratic goverment over significant portions of China for a significant period. During most of its history, it aggresively evangelized, winning many converts.

The Tai Pingh movement was clearly a heterodox by Confucian and imperial standards. Although its members self-identifed as Christians movement, most Christians of the period in the West would have almost certainly considered it a bizarre, heretical movement.

In sum, it is an interesting and signifcant example of the Chinese goverment becoming embroiled in religious affairs.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"No, sometimes it was a very serious plitical issue in China. Case in point: Tai Ping."

None of these religious movements, such as the Yellow Turban(Daoist in nature) or the Taiping ever held even close to all of China. They were all temporary rebels that were eventually crushed. They all pale in comparison to the West. The TaiPing never held more than even a third of China's total territory, so in fact, the imperial government is still in control.

[Type98G]

Little Fool, on Apr 11 2006, 06:41 PM, said:

If one wishes to look at the lasting effects of legalism and its central authority imperative, the most enduring and profound effect on Chinese society as a whole is likely the attempt by Qin to standardize the Chinese writing system - which despite overhauls later on, succeeded, and as an idea, the Chinese writing system has certainly gone a long way in helping to create and maintain 'China' as a single, unified country and people. This and further centralizing tenants combined the fractive Zhou Dynasty into what could, for the first time, truly be called a single nation(though I would hesitate at that time to follow the modern convention of adding the caveat 'one people').

One can argue that the Legalist philosophy was not directly responsible for any of this, but it is generally accepted that Qin's adoption of Legalism profoundly influenced the policies it subsequently adopted in terms of standarization and centralization of power. It is not wholly unreasonable, therefore, to make the logical leap that Legalism played a part not just in the central planning of Qin, but of the first serious and successful attempt to create a single Chinese writing system, with the eventual purpose of consolidating rulership and power. All of these have persisted in spirit into modern times. These first reforms, watered down, have persisted throughout Chinese history, and today there is more to be seen of 'Legalism' in the era of big government, and Communist China than other philosophies that are traditionally regarded as being more influential on Chinese society.

Whatever its failings, I hope I've at least floated the idea - as War Gear and company have argued - that Legalism has played significant and positive roles in Chinese society - and if you can accept the reasoning above - continues to do so to this day. Its certainly not difficult to pick apart the most ancient philosophies of the world - they were the first attempts to rationalize thought and address the human mind on a broad conceptual level to the world as a whole. Naturally these first forays were frought with as many if not more failures as successes. Legalism as an active philosophy, at least as it was initially taught, is dead. Even those philosophies that still carry the name that their progenitor teachings were founded under have, by the necessity imposed upon them by critical analysis, changed in many fundamental ways from their origins.

Observations that legalist thinking is evident in many other societies are not unfounded either. In many respects the ideas presented by Legalists were necessary to the maintainence of a large scale government. They are, in effect, akin to universal aspects of political organization; look at any empire of note throughout history and you will notice harkenings to Legalism. Even in periods of Chinese history when Legalism was denounced, no one fundamentally disagreed with many of the practices and organizational aids that Legalism produced. In many respects Legalism doomed itself by being mostly a reactionary philosophy that sought practical change rather than esoteric precision. While their practices were accepted and persisted, their underlying philosophy was found to be weak and discarded - the fact is the two are related and, even if the school is now defunct, there's no reason to deprive it of its due for at that early point in human history making some astute observations, and practically sound alterations, of and to society.

Hard to know that Legalist underlying philosophy was found to be weak and discarded, for one thing it was very effective during the warring states. Qin was a very efficient state with documents that were very accurate, it allows man with ability to rise in rank, corruption was very low during the warring states ( at least before the first Emperor made some changes to the system), also the history of legalism was bias,as they are written down by Confucian historians.

Still I don't know why Confucian don't like Legalist philosophy. Maybe its because their philosophy are the exact opposite from each other. Legalist philosophy allow man with ability to rise in rank, while Confucians states down that rank should be base on birth. Confucians are reluctant to pass laws while Legalist philosophy pass laws more easily.

This post has been edited by Type98G: 18 April 2006 - 01:29 PM

[frederick]

shen dao,not shen daoqiang.
there is mistake,notice please.

[Sleepybeggar]

Is this the Main Kampf of Chinese philosophy? I always think legalism= Evil

I mean Emperor killed thousands of people with this philosophy

This post has been edited by General_Zhaoyun: 25 August 2009 - 10:12 PM

[General_Zhaoyun]

Sleepybeggar, on Aug 24 2009, 02:03 PM, said:

Is this the Main Kampf of Chinese philosophy? I always think legalism= Evil

I mean Emperor killed thousands of people with this philosophy

Legalism may seem to be 'evil' from today's perspective, but in ancient China, it was seen to be an advanced political philosophy to strengthen the state, to consolidate the rule of the empire or to turn the state into a strong military/economic force. Not only does it have influence over the politics of ancient China, it also had impact on the economy too.

Of course, the punishment imposed was too harsh and was deemed from humanitarian perspective as being too cruel.

This post has been edited by General_Zhaoyun: 25 August 2009 - 11:04 PM

[Sleepybeggar]

how many texts are there in this philosophy?