Sign In
Register
Help
I notice that there isn't a dedicated topic devoted to Han Feizi 韩非子's legalism philosophy. Here I'll post some information about his main ideology.
Han Feizi was born into the aristocracy of the Han state during warring states period. He, together with Li Si, was a student of Xunzi. His legalism though was centered on the combination of "Fa 法" (Law), "Shu 术" (Method) and "Shi 势" (Power). Before Han Feizi, legalist philosopher such as Shang Yang 商鞅 only stressed on "Fa 法" (Law). Shen Buhai 申不害 only stressed on "Shu 术" (Method), while Shen Daoqiang 慎到强 only stressed on "Shi 势" (Power). He viewed that "Fa 法" (Law), "Shu 术" (Method) and "Shi 势" (Power) should all be used together. When Shen Buhai 申不害 only stresses on "Shu 术" (Method), the failure to recognise "Fa 法" (Law) will allow too many violators of law. When Shang Yang 商鞅 only stresses on "Fa 法" (Law), this resulted in an expansion of wealth and power, but without "Shu 术" (Method), the regime will not be able to maintain its ruling. Without "Shi 势" (Power), a ruler will not be able to exercise order or ruling.
Here, I'll talk specifically about each ideology:
"Fa 法" (Law)
Law is used as a standard for judging whether a behaviour is correct or wrong, good or evil. Thus, all human's behaviour has to be confined within the boundaries set forth by the law. This law does not recognise the needs of the people. The people's need and interests will all be based according to the standard of law.
The laws have to be publicised as an order, and all the people should know and follow the laws, in order to cast away their selfishness and to practise justice.
The law has a notion of unifying all thoughts and practise justice. All the people appear equal before the law, and the basis of "rewards and punishment" without regard to your birth, background, forms the basis of equality and justice. In a way, it was used to eradicate all differences in views in order to consolidate the legal ruling.
Those who contribute will be rewarded, while those who violates the law will be punished.
The law is obligatory. It has a difference between today's law. Rather than recognising the civil rights of a person, the 'law' in ancient chinese legalism represents a form of oppression and does not allow the influence from morality and ethics. It places strong emphasis on punishment. Punishment was meant to make people fear, and thus it is one based on "harsh punishment".
Legalist philosophy
Rate Topic:
#1
- Grand Valiant General of Imperial Han Army
-
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 10,958
- Joined: 24-May 04
- Gender:Male
- Location:Singapore (Taiwanese/Singapore Permanent Resident)
- Interests:Chinese History, Chinese Philosophy, Chinese languages, Hokkien language, Classical Chinese, General Chinese Culture
- Languages spoken:Mandarin, Taiwanese Hokkien, English, German, Singlish
- Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese (Taiwanese Hoklo)
-
Main Interest in CHF:
General Chinese Culture
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Chinese Culture, chinese language and literature, confucianism, buddhism, chinese strategy
Posted 11 September 2005 - 09:29 PM
"夫君子之行：静以修身，俭以养德；非淡泊无以明志，非宁静无以致远。" - 诸葛亮
One should seek serenity to cultivate the body, thriftiness to cultivate the morals. Seeking fame and wealth will not lead to noble ideal. Only by seeking serenity will one reach far. - Zhugeliang
MultiQuote
#2
- Grand Valiant General of Imperial Han Army
-
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 10,958
- Joined: 24-May 04
- Gender:Male
- Location:Singapore (Taiwanese/Singapore Permanent Resident)
- Interests:Chinese History, Chinese Philosophy, Chinese languages, Hokkien language, Classical Chinese, General Chinese Culture
- Languages spoken:Mandarin, Taiwanese Hokkien, English, German, Singlish
- Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese (Taiwanese Hoklo)
-
Main Interest in CHF:
General Chinese Culture
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Chinese Culture, chinese language and literature, confucianism, buddhism, chinese strategy
Posted 11 September 2005 - 09:51 PM
"Shu 术" (Method)
Shu 术 means "political method" or wit used by the ruler to effectively control and rule his officials and subjects. According to Han Feizi, the ruler must used 'method' to know who are the bad officials and to consolidate his strength and power, in order secure control over his officials and subjects. The ruler must not let people know what he is thinking and must foster an atittude that does not trust anybody, does not communicate with officials, and tried to hide himself in order to become a sacred unattackable person.
"Shi 势" (Power)
Shi 势 means "power". If a ruler does not have any power, the law will only become a superficial representation, and 'method' will not be of any use. The legalism proposed that 'law', 'method' and 'power' have to exist as one body in order to make full use of it.
Whether one can rule the state depends on his power and has nothing to do with morality, hence one must always maintain his own power.
The power has to operate within the confinements of law in order to maximize its usage. Power itself has no good or evil, but whether it's a matter of convenience or not will depend on the person who exercises it. If the power does not emphasize the law causing it to disregard law, then this kind of power can easily lead to turbulence and debauchery.
If one has no power, law will not be exercised, and this only make a superficial leader. If one has power, but is not constrained by law, this invisible power will venomize a person's mind, and will cause harm to society and one will proceed towards destruction.
Fa, Shu, Shi represents the legalism doctrine of Han Feizi. It is essentially an autocratic kind of political ideology.
Any comments are appreciated...
Shu 术 means "political method" or wit used by the ruler to effectively control and rule his officials and subjects. According to Han Feizi, the ruler must used 'method' to know who are the bad officials and to consolidate his strength and power, in order secure control over his officials and subjects. The ruler must not let people know what he is thinking and must foster an atittude that does not trust anybody, does not communicate with officials, and tried to hide himself in order to become a sacred unattackable person.
"Shi 势" (Power)
Shi 势 means "power". If a ruler does not have any power, the law will only become a superficial representation, and 'method' will not be of any use. The legalism proposed that 'law', 'method' and 'power' have to exist as one body in order to make full use of it.
Whether one can rule the state depends on his power and has nothing to do with morality, hence one must always maintain his own power.
The power has to operate within the confinements of law in order to maximize its usage. Power itself has no good or evil, but whether it's a matter of convenience or not will depend on the person who exercises it. If the power does not emphasize the law causing it to disregard law, then this kind of power can easily lead to turbulence and debauchery.
If one has no power, law will not be exercised, and this only make a superficial leader. If one has power, but is not constrained by law, this invisible power will venomize a person's mind, and will cause harm to society and one will proceed towards destruction.
Fa, Shu, Shi represents the legalism doctrine of Han Feizi. It is essentially an autocratic kind of political ideology.
Any comments are appreciated...
"夫君子之行：静以修身，俭以养德；非淡泊无以明志，非宁静无以致远。" - 诸葛亮
One should seek serenity to cultivate the body, thriftiness to cultivate the morals. Seeking fame and wealth will not lead to noble ideal. Only by seeking serenity will one reach far. - Zhugeliang
#3
- Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)
-
- Group: Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
- Posts: 440
- Joined: 07-April 05
- Location:Thailand
- Interests:China, my root.<br />Strategies, tactics.<br />Otherwise always something with no specific use gets me interested..
Posted 12 September 2005 - 12:17 AM
Hm. I've notice certain similarities with Machiavilli's The Prince and Han Fei Tzu..
Still its a question whether Legalism demanded the ends to justify the means.?
Still its a question whether Legalism demanded the ends to justify the means.?
#4
- Grand Tutor (Taifu 太傅)
-
- Group: CHF Beginner
- Posts: 310
- Joined: 28-June 04
Posted 31 January 2006 - 01:00 PM
Quote
Legalism is an approach to the analysis of legal questions characterized by abstract logical reasoning focusing on the applicable legal text, such as a constitution, legislation, or case law, rather than on the social, economic, or political context.
In its narrower versions, legalism perpetuates the notion that the pre-existing body of authoritative legal materials already contains a uniquely pre-determined "right answer" to any legal problem that may arise; and that the task of the judge is to ascertain that uniquely predetermined answer by an essentially mechanical process.
This Western school of the application of laws has little connection to the Chinese philosophical school of the same name that is discussed from here on.
Contents
[hide]* 1 Chinese legalism
o 1.1 Power Politics
o 1.2 Decline
o 1.3 Related figures
o 1.4 Related philosophies
o 1.5 Contrasting philosophies
* 2 Korean legalism
* 3 Reference
o 3.1 Notes
[edit]
Chinese legalism
In Chinese History, legalism (法家; pinyin Fǎjiā) was one of the four main philosophic schools in the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period (Near the end of the Zhou dynasty from about the sixth century B.C. to about the third century B.C.). It is actually rather a pragmatic political philosophy, with maxims like "when the epoch changed, the ways changed" as its essential principle, than a jurisprudence. In this context, "legalism" here can bear the meaning of "political philosophy that uphold the rule of law" and thus, distinguished from the word's Western sense. Hanfeizi believed that a ruler should govern his subjects by the following trinity:
1. Fa (法 fǎ): law or principle. The law code must be clearly written and made public. All people under the ruler were equal before the law. Laws should reward those who obey them and punish accordingly those who dare to break them. Thus it is guaranteed that actions taken is systemically predictable. In addition, the system of law ran the state, not the ruler. If the law is successfully enforced, even a weak ruler will be strong.
2. Shu (術 shù): method, tactic or art. Special tactics and "secrets" are to be employed by the ruler to make sure others don't take over control of the state. Especially important is that no one can fathom the ruler's motivations, and thus no one can know which behaviour might help them getting ahead; except for following the fa or laws.
3. Shi (勢 shì): legitimacy, power or charisma. It is the position of the ruler, not the ruler himself, that holds the power. Therefore, analysis of the trend, the context and the facts are essential for a real ruler.
[edit]
Power Politics
Legalism was the central governing idea of the Qin Dynasty, culminating in the unification of China under the 'First Emperor' (Qin Shi Huang). This is the ruler featured in the 2002 movie Hero, and several other films.
Most Chinese philosophers and political thinkers have had very negative views toward Legalism blaming it for what today would be considered a totalitarian society. Many Chinese scholars believe that it was a reaction against legalism that gave Chinese Imperial politics its personalistic and moralistic flavor rather than emphasis on the rule of law. However, this view of the Qin may be biased, as most of the Chinese historical records were written by Confucian scholars, who were persecuted under the Qin.
[edit]
Decline
In later dynasties, Legalism was discredited and ceased to be an independent school of thought. However, both ancient and modern observers of Chinese politics have argued that some Legalist ideas have merged with mainstream Confucianism and still have a role to play in government.
More recently, Mao Zedong, who had some knowledge of ancient Chinese philosophy, compared himself with Qin Shi Huang and publicly approved of some Legalist methods. However, since the 1990s the related concept of the rule of law has gained currency.
[edit]
Related figures
The Confucian thinker Xun Zi is sometimes considered as being influenced by or having nourished Legalist ideas, mostly because two of his disciples (Li Si and Han Fei Zi) were strict Legalists.
[edit]
Related philosophies
* Confucianism
* Meritocracy
* Mohism
* Platonism
[edit]
Contrasting philosophies
* Taoism
* Stoicism
[edit]
Korean legalism
The history of Korea's legalism is traced to the Gyeonggukdaejeon, a law book compiled in the Joseon dynasty. There is a mixed perception of legalism within South Korean society, as the post-WWII military regime used the idea of legalism as a tool of its governance. The ideas are related to Chinese legalism, but often distinguished because of Korean distaste for what they see as Chinese use of legalism in attempting to legitimize Han imperialism.[1]
In its narrower versions, legalism perpetuates the notion that the pre-existing body of authoritative legal materials already contains a uniquely pre-determined "right answer" to any legal problem that may arise; and that the task of the judge is to ascertain that uniquely predetermined answer by an essentially mechanical process.
This Western school of the application of laws has little connection to the Chinese philosophical school of the same name that is discussed from here on.
Contents
[hide]* 1 Chinese legalism
o 1.1 Power Politics
o 1.2 Decline
o 1.3 Related figures
o 1.4 Related philosophies
o 1.5 Contrasting philosophies
* 2 Korean legalism
* 3 Reference
o 3.1 Notes
[edit]
Chinese legalism
In Chinese History, legalism (法家; pinyin Fǎjiā) was one of the four main philosophic schools in the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period (Near the end of the Zhou dynasty from about the sixth century B.C. to about the third century B.C.). It is actually rather a pragmatic political philosophy, with maxims like "when the epoch changed, the ways changed" as its essential principle, than a jurisprudence. In this context, "legalism" here can bear the meaning of "political philosophy that uphold the rule of law" and thus, distinguished from the word's Western sense. Hanfeizi believed that a ruler should govern his subjects by the following trinity:
1. Fa (法 fǎ): law or principle. The law code must be clearly written and made public. All people under the ruler were equal before the law. Laws should reward those who obey them and punish accordingly those who dare to break them. Thus it is guaranteed that actions taken is systemically predictable. In addition, the system of law ran the state, not the ruler. If the law is successfully enforced, even a weak ruler will be strong.
2. Shu (術 shù): method, tactic or art. Special tactics and "secrets" are to be employed by the ruler to make sure others don't take over control of the state. Especially important is that no one can fathom the ruler's motivations, and thus no one can know which behaviour might help them getting ahead; except for following the fa or laws.
3. Shi (勢 shì): legitimacy, power or charisma. It is the position of the ruler, not the ruler himself, that holds the power. Therefore, analysis of the trend, the context and the facts are essential for a real ruler.
[edit]
Power Politics
Legalism was the central governing idea of the Qin Dynasty, culminating in the unification of China under the 'First Emperor' (Qin Shi Huang). This is the ruler featured in the 2002 movie Hero, and several other films.
Most Chinese philosophers and political thinkers have had very negative views toward Legalism blaming it for what today would be considered a totalitarian society. Many Chinese scholars believe that it was a reaction against legalism that gave Chinese Imperial politics its personalistic and moralistic flavor rather than emphasis on the rule of law. However, this view of the Qin may be biased, as most of the Chinese historical records were written by Confucian scholars, who were persecuted under the Qin.
[edit]
Decline
In later dynasties, Legalism was discredited and ceased to be an independent school of thought. However, both ancient and modern observers of Chinese politics have argued that some Legalist ideas have merged with mainstream Confucianism and still have a role to play in government.
More recently, Mao Zedong, who had some knowledge of ancient Chinese philosophy, compared himself with Qin Shi Huang and publicly approved of some Legalist methods. However, since the 1990s the related concept of the rule of law has gained currency.
[edit]
Related figures
The Confucian thinker Xun Zi is sometimes considered as being influenced by or having nourished Legalist ideas, mostly because two of his disciples (Li Si and Han Fei Zi) were strict Legalists.
[edit]
Related philosophies
* Confucianism
* Meritocracy
* Mohism
* Platonism
[edit]
Contrasting philosophies
* Taoism
* Stoicism
[edit]
Korean legalism
The history of Korea's legalism is traced to the Gyeonggukdaejeon, a law book compiled in the Joseon dynasty. There is a mixed perception of legalism within South Korean society, as the post-WWII military regime used the idea of legalism as a tool of its governance. The ideas are related to Chinese legalism, but often distinguished because of Korean distaste for what they see as Chinese use of legalism in attempting to legitimize Han imperialism.[1]
http://en.wikipedia....28philosophy%29
#5
- Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)
-
- Group: Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
- Posts: 528
- Joined: 10-March 05
- Location:San Diego, California, USA
- Interests:jwrevak (James W. Revak) has had a passionate interest in Chinese history and culture since he was a child. As a young adult he studied such classics as the Confucian Analects 倫語, I Ching 易經, and Tao Te Ching 道德經. With regard to Chinese culture, he is especially interested in early Confucianism and is currently teaching himself literary Chinese 文言. He is also fascinated by the history of Chinese science and technology and the Qing dynasty. His other passions include Ancient Greece, the Italian Renaissance, Western Esotericism, modern European history, and Western opera and drama. <br /><br />James holds a B.S. in music, an M.S. in business administration, and the Cambridge Certificate for English Language Teaching to Adults (Cambridge CELTA). He is a native of the United States and of Hungarian and Swedish descent. A long-time resident of San Diego, California, he teaches English as a second language there and works as a docent for the San Diego Opera. With Michael Conley, he is the co-author of the play Out for Love.
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese Philosophy
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Confucianism, Analects of Confucius
Posted 31 January 2006 - 07:42 PM
Type98G, on Jan 31 2006, 10:00 AM, said:
It would be far more interesting and educational if members posted their views on legalism rather than only cut and paste lengthy articles about it from other sources.
JAMES W. REVAK
子張曰君子尊賢而容眾嘉善而矜不能
Zizhang said, The superior man honors the wise and tolerates the
common man, praises the virtuous and has compassion for the incapable.
子張曰君子尊賢而容眾嘉善而矜不能
Zizhang said, The superior man honors the wise and tolerates the
common man, praises the virtuous and has compassion for the incapable.
#6
- Grand Tutor (Taifu 太傅)
-
- Group: CHF Beginner
- Posts: 310
- Joined: 28-June 04
Posted 31 January 2006 - 09:17 PM
jwrevak, on Feb 1 2006, 12:42 AM, said:
OK. Now, why this lengthy quote interesting or important?
It would be far more interesting and educational if members posted their views on legalism rather than only cut and paste lengthy articles about it from other sources.
It would be far more interesting and educational if members posted their views on legalism rather than only cut and paste lengthy articles about it from other sources.
This is just for information source, since I don't think anyone has posted the definition of Legalism here.
At any rate, I think Legalism is very underrated due to the fact that its the first bureaucratic system in the world.
#7
- Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)
-
- Group: Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
- Posts: 1,629
- Joined: 18-January 05
- Gender:Not Telling
- Languages spoken:Mandarin Chinese, English
- Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese Philosophy
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Chinese Philosophy, Marxism, Religious Philosophy (including Buddhism and Christianity)
Posted 01 February 2006 - 01:44 PM
I do not believe in legalism.
The philosophical assumptions of legalism are logically paradoxical.
Legalism believes the ultimate nature of man is evil, yet also believes that man can be educated to become good through correct laws.
But this is illogical. Because where does laws come from, human beings. Therefore if human beings are ultimately evil then so are human laws. How can laws that are fundamentally evil turn people towards goodness?
For a similar reason I also believe Xunzi's philosophical position is self-contradictory. It is impossible for human nature to be fundamentally evil on the one hand and for the possibility of good transformation through human created institutions on the other. Because simply put, if humans beings are fundamentally evil and all institutions are created by human beings, then logically one can infer that all human institutions are fundamentally evil. How can fundamentally evil institutions make people good? It would only be possible if the institutions come from a non-human source, e.g. Divine Revelation. But if all the institutions are purely human, then it is impossible. This is why regarding the debate about whether human nature is fundamentally good or evil I am on the side of Mencius against Xunzi.
With respect to classical Chinese philosophy, my own position is a mixture of Mencian Confucianism and Mohism. I believe ultimately human nature is good and that in principle it is better to regulate a society through morality than through law.
The philosophical assumptions of legalism are logically paradoxical.
Legalism believes the ultimate nature of man is evil, yet also believes that man can be educated to become good through correct laws.
But this is illogical. Because where does laws come from, human beings. Therefore if human beings are ultimately evil then so are human laws. How can laws that are fundamentally evil turn people towards goodness?
For a similar reason I also believe Xunzi's philosophical position is self-contradictory. It is impossible for human nature to be fundamentally evil on the one hand and for the possibility of good transformation through human created institutions on the other. Because simply put, if humans beings are fundamentally evil and all institutions are created by human beings, then logically one can infer that all human institutions are fundamentally evil. How can fundamentally evil institutions make people good? It would only be possible if the institutions come from a non-human source, e.g. Divine Revelation. But if all the institutions are purely human, then it is impossible. This is why regarding the debate about whether human nature is fundamentally good or evil I am on the side of Mencius against Xunzi.
With respect to classical Chinese philosophy, my own position is a mixture of Mencian Confucianism and Mohism. I believe ultimately human nature is good and that in principle it is better to regulate a society through morality than through law.
This post has been edited by somechineseperson: 01 February 2006 - 01:52 PM
#8
- Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)
-
- Group: Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
- Posts: 528
- Joined: 10-March 05
- Location:San Diego, California, USA
- Interests:jwrevak (James W. Revak) has had a passionate interest in Chinese history and culture since he was a child. As a young adult he studied such classics as the Confucian Analects 倫語, I Ching 易經, and Tao Te Ching 道德經. With regard to Chinese culture, he is especially interested in early Confucianism and is currently teaching himself literary Chinese 文言. He is also fascinated by the history of Chinese science and technology and the Qing dynasty. His other passions include Ancient Greece, the Italian Renaissance, Western Esotericism, modern European history, and Western opera and drama. <br /><br />James holds a B.S. in music, an M.S. in business administration, and the Cambridge Certificate for English Language Teaching to Adults (Cambridge CELTA). He is a native of the United States and of Hungarian and Swedish descent. A long-time resident of San Diego, California, he teaches English as a second language there and works as a docent for the San Diego Opera. With Michael Conley, he is the co-author of the play Out for Love.
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese Philosophy
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Confucianism, Analects of Confucius
Posted 01 February 2006 - 04:08 PM
Type98G, on Jan 31 2006, 06:17 PM, said:
This is just for information source, since I don't think anyone has posted the definition of Legalism here.
At any rate, I think Legalism is very underrated due to the fact that its the first bureaucratic system in the world.
At any rate, I think Legalism is very underrated due to the fact that its the first bureaucratic system in the world.
JAMES W. REVAK
子張曰君子尊賢而容眾嘉善而矜不能
Zizhang said, The superior man honors the wise and tolerates the
common man, praises the virtuous and has compassion for the incapable.
子張曰君子尊賢而容眾嘉善而矜不能
Zizhang said, The superior man honors the wise and tolerates the
common man, praises the virtuous and has compassion for the incapable.
#9
- Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)
-
- Group: Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
- Posts: 1,629
- Joined: 18-January 05
- Gender:Not Telling
- Languages spoken:Mandarin Chinese, English
- Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese Philosophy
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Chinese Philosophy, Marxism, Religious Philosophy (including Buddhism and Christianity)
Posted 01 February 2006 - 05:45 PM
jwrevak, on Feb 1 2006, 09:08 PM, said:
No it wasn't the first. Clearly other sophisticated bureacratic systems pre-existed the Chinese school of Legalism, e.g., Ancient Egypt.
In fact, even in China itself, bureacratic system existed before legalism.
#10
- Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)
-
- Group: CHF Han Lin Scholar
- Posts: 3,632
- Joined: 17-June 04
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Chinese History, Chinese Military History, Qing dynasty history
Posted 01 February 2006 - 08:37 PM
Quote
The philosophical assumptions of legalism are logically paradoxical.
Legalism believes the ultimate nature of man is evil, yet also believes that man can be educated to become good through correct laws.
But this is illogical. Because where does laws come from, human beings. Therefore if human beings are ultimately evil then so are human laws. How can laws that are fundamentally evil turn people towards goodness?
Legalism believes the ultimate nature of man is evil, yet also believes that man can be educated to become good through correct laws.
But this is illogical. Because where does laws come from, human beings. Therefore if human beings are ultimately evil then so are human laws. How can laws that are fundamentally evil turn people towards goodness?
Who ever said Legalism aims to make people good? Its sole purpose is for practical reasons; to enforce order and increase the strength of a state, not the idealistic mumble jumbo of human nature. Whether human are good or bad is really irrelevant to a legalist, since humans are just like "lices" on a person's head.
#11
- Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)
-
- Group: Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
- Posts: 1,629
- Joined: 18-January 05
- Gender:Not Telling
- Languages spoken:Mandarin Chinese, English
- Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese Philosophy
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Chinese Philosophy, Marxism, Religious Philosophy (including Buddhism and Christianity)
Posted 01 February 2006 - 10:05 PM
warhead, on Feb 2 2006, 01:37 AM, said:
Who ever said Legalism aims to make people good? Its sole purpose is for practical reasons; to enforce order and increase the strength of a state, not the idealistic mumble jumbo of human nature. Whether human are good or bad is really irrelevant to a legalist, since humans are just like "lices" on a person's head.
Philosophy is not "mumble jumbo". As a philosopher (who is studying philosophy at university), I consider your comment to be personally offensive, I ask the moderators to take action against this.
This is why Chinese philosophy declined relative to the West, it is because there were too many people like you, who simply don't appreciate the value of philosophical discourse.
Why would one want to "enforce order and increase the strength of a state" in the first place? Because one desires a more ordered and strong state. To desire X is to believe in X as a good thing. This is the most basic meaning of "goodness": as an end that one desires.
But if human nature is fundamentally evil then nothing fundamentally good can ever arise from human institutions, for it logically follows that nothing fundamentally good can come from something that is fundamentally evil. Therefore it is evil to desire a more ordered and strong state for as a human institution an ordered and strong state is fundamentally evil.
Going in the other direction, since we know an ordered and strong state is not fundamentally evil, then human nature cannot be fundamentally evil.
#12
- Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)
-
- Group: CHF Han Lin Scholar
- Posts: 3,632
- Joined: 17-June 04
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Chinese History, Chinese Military History, Qing dynasty history
Posted 01 February 2006 - 11:46 PM
Quote
Philosophy is not "mumble jumbo".
Quote
As a philosopher (who is studying philosophy at university), I consider your comment to be personally offensive, I ask the moderators to take action against this.
It would actually help if you stop misinterpreting my post. And for your information, I am triple majoring in History, Physics, and philosophy as well.
Quote
This is why Chinese philosophy declined relative to the West, it is because there were too many people like you, who simply don't appreciate the value of philosophical discourse.
Quote
Why would one want to "enforce order and increase the strength of a state" in the first place?
To gain hegemon of course, what did you think? so they can live peacefully together? Maybe thats one of the reason the first emperors of Qin and Han ridiculed Confucian idealism and burned or pissed on his books. Legalism was more practical for its time, and that was why Qin adopted it.
Quote
But if human nature is fundamentally evil then nothing fundamentally good can ever arise from human institutions, for it logically follows that nothing fundamentally good can come from something that is fundamentally evil. Therefore it is evil to desire a more ordered and strong state for as a human institution an ordered and strong state is fundamentally evil.
Quote
Going in the other direction, since we know an ordered and strong state is not fundamentally evil, then human nature cannot be fundamentally evil.
It would help if you stop misinterpreting Legalism itself. And stop playing rhetoric games. Since Legalism drew its source from Daoism, good and evil is but relative terms.
#13
- Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)
-
- Group: CHF Beginner
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 05-June 05
Posted 02 February 2006 - 05:44 AM
Legalism is in essence, fascism without the nationalism.
Even thought Legalism opposes hereditary nobility, it emphasizes hierarchy and obedience even more than Confucianists.
"It should be remembered, that everything Nazis did back in Germany was legal."
Even thought Legalism opposes hereditary nobility, it emphasizes hierarchy and obedience even more than Confucianists.
"It should be remembered, that everything Nazis did back in Germany was legal."
It's been a long, long time coming, but I know change is gonna come.
#14
- Grand Tutor (Taifu 太傅)
-
- Group: CHF Beginner
- Posts: 310
- Joined: 28-June 04
Posted 02 February 2006 - 09:32 AM
well this is embarrassing I should have search it more carefully. 
You mean the nobility bureaucratic system.
Well Qin Legalism bureaucratic system is different, because they don't chose from nobles they chose from the most skill people to run in which area that they are most suitable. Also the Legalism bureaucratic system is the first centralise bureaucratic systems in the world, that is in use for 2000 years when it was first introduced by the first emperor of China.
Well, later post were held by Confucians in the Han and later dynasty, so Confucianism should be grateful towards the system.
Other wise people would decided that they are above the system and should not obey the law, at any rate this is over 2000 yrs ago so I would not really call it "fascism without the nationalism" since fascism is not known then.
somechineseperson, on Feb 1 2006, 10:45 PM, said:
In fact, even in China itself, bureacratic system existed before legalism.
You mean the nobility bureaucratic system.
Quote
No it wasn't the first. Clearly other sophisticated bureacratic systems pre-existed the Chinese school of Legalism, e.g., Ancient Egypt.
Well, later post were held by Confucians in the Han and later dynasty, so Confucianism should be grateful towards the system.
RedStarOverChina, on Feb 2 2006, 10:44 AM, said:
Legalism is in essence, fascism without the nationalism.
Even thought Legalism opposes hereditary nobility, it emphasizes hierarchy and obedience even more than Confucianists.
"It should be remembered, that everything Nazis did back in Germany was legal."
Even thought Legalism opposes hereditary nobility, it emphasizes hierarchy and obedience even more than Confucianists.
"It should be remembered, that everything Nazis did back in Germany was legal."
Other wise people would decided that they are above the system and should not obey the law, at any rate this is over 2000 yrs ago so I would not really call it "fascism without the nationalism" since fascism is not known then.
This post has been edited by Type98G: 02 February 2006 - 09:39 AM
#15
- Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)
-
- Group: Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
- Posts: 2,084
- Joined: 23-August 04
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese Philosophy
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
General Chinese Philosophy and Religion, Confucianism
Posted 02 February 2006 - 03:16 PM
somechineseperson, on Feb 1 2006, 06:44 PM, said:
For a similar reason I also believe Xunzi's philosophical position is self-contradictory. It is impossible for human nature to be fundamentally evil on the one hand and for the possibility of good transformation through human created institutions on the other. Because simply put, if humans beings are fundamentally evil and all institutions are created by human beings, then logically one can infer that all human institutions are fundamentally evil. How can fundamentally evil institutions make people good? It would only be possible if the institutions come from a non-human source, e.g. Divine Revelation. But if all the institutions are purely human, then it is impossible. This is why regarding the debate about whether human nature is fundamentally good or evil I am on the side of Mencius against Xunzi.
Not a good argument. It's like saying a sick person cannot find cure for oneself. Even if humans are fundamentally evil, it doesn't mean that he cannot seek correction beyond his fundamental tendencies.
Disclaimer: I'm very familiar with Meng Tzu's theory, which I find to be quite coherent, but I'm not familiar with Xunzi's, and I don't know what proofs Xunzi have to back up his theory, so I shouldn't comment further here.