Thoughts about the 2nd session on Oct. 5

For some reason I have always struggled when teaching my students about the dynasties and philosophies of China. Driving home the idea of China developing into an imperial state has always been difficult for me, and I have desperately tried to neatly package it up and convey it to 12 year olds. For some reason however, everything began to click when preparing for the philosophical school debate. Our discussion about the legendary origins and early dynasties cleared up a lot of my confusion. I really liked how the concept of the Mandate of Heaven, which gave early rulers justification for their power, can still be argued as applicable in China. In a sense, all rulers could use the justification that having power is Gods will, because it is the ones that want it most and are successful with gaining it, that will hold power. Then the philosophers can debate the reasons why or why not that leader was effective!

Tuesday nights session was helpful because I understood better the tension between Japan, China and Korea. It was enlightening to learn of their different names for the seas, East Sea, West Sea, vs Sea of Japan, and Yellow Sea.

As we studied and discussed the philosophies, I was struck with how "legalistic" China is today. I guess most people found this obvious, as I did, but it is interesting to see the roots of it. The discussion also shed light on why the Chinese may put up with this legalistic political situation in their country. It is "their duty", according to Confucius to, do what the government says.

We in the Confucius group agreed that if our father got caught breaking the law, that we would have to tell him as respectfully as we could, that he was wrong. This is in response to the assignment Clay gave us at the end of the period.

I am looking forward to more history, and geography of East Asia. Both of these are helping me start educational conversations with my students, as I try to make the topics that I am teaching, relevant.

Being a part of the Mohist school of philosophy I believe in discipline and authority. So my first thought is that my father should be treated as anyone else and punished for his crime, especially since I despise partiality in others (ahem Confucians). But since I am more of a questioning Mohist, I also might be inclined to blame the fact that my father committed a crime, on the competition for resources that has developed (even those stiffs, the Legalists, would agree with me) since it leads to scheming and disorder. My Daoist counterparts would also support the idea that laws are oppressive, and what my father did was just part of his "Way" and should not be restricted. If worse comes to worst, my father will be imprisoned, but hopefully they will allow him to study some math and science to prepare him for his life after release.

To those who posted their answers here -- thanks -- and to those who have yet to answer the question of what you should do now that your father has violated the law, please get your response in.

As a follower of confucius I respect my father more than anyone else. Because of this I believe that if my father broke the law, he had a good reason to do so. My father like all men is a good man by nature. I belive that he broke the law because it was the right thing to do

Lucas

I would say that if the goals of the session were to inform and provoke further research, they have been achieved. The session was highly informative, made the audience think, and, speaking personally, made me do some additional research.

Isn't there a duty of filial piety involved somewhere. My take on the matter was that I would ask my father to re-teach me the rules/conduct related to the rule that was broken. I also had the foolish idea that as a dutiful son I would take the fall for him. Thoughts?