Legalism

[Anonymous]

Legalism seems so brutal, wanting the people to give up the classics, filial devotion, study of philosophy, referred to negatively as "sophistry" and to concentrate on war and agriculture. They must concentrate on agriculture, seemingly to feed large armies though I am extrapolating here. No time for the arts, just keep your nose to the plow and your military obligations. How anti-humanist. I want to study it more to see how long it lasted and what effects it had on China's history.

[Anonymous]

If we do not rid ourselves of the meaningless ideas the state will fail. It is the only way to ensure the survival of the country. If we are weak the country will fail people will get sloppy and waste time pondering questions that have no answers. The only answer is the one that fulfills the need of the state.

[Anonymous]

I have been reading over the materials in preparation for tomorrow, today?! I'm wondering the debate will be something like the assignment at the beginning of the packet, where we have to convince the king (Clay) to adopt our philosophy to unite the country? If so, we have to see the weaknesses in each of the other philosophies, and tout Legalism whether we support it or not. Certainly Legalism is the strongest for ruling a country because it is based on military might and punishment/fear. Legalists don't have to waste time training people or winning them over with kindness; they just threaten them. Effective? Well, it united the country. Hey, we're pragmatists, right? I'm not sure how it would work in a more literate society. I wonder what the connection is to modern China. Peace out

[Anonymous]

After doing some research, I was really interested of how Legalism was a strongest ruling for a country. One of the readings, it stated, "The laws supported by the Legalists were meant to support the state, the emperor, and his military." I didn't like much of what I read because I felt that humans were run by law.

[Anonymous]

Chinese legalism-as I read and understand it-reminds me alot of operant conditioning (as I studied in developmental psychology). The learner (people) is "conditioned" to learn a certain task by a series of negative and postitive reinforcements, and punishments. In this case, what is to be learned is the law. "Laws should be clear and people should be make aware of the laws. Enforcement of laws should be consistent and offenders should be punished harshly." Also, "...two great motivators of people were fear and greed...force people to do what the state wanted, not what their families wanted..." Though conditioning seems a harsh and cold way to "teach" a person (or the masses), it is quite efficient, given what must be learned is simple. According to the reading, this is the case: The goals are successful harvest and military strength. Sorry. Must go to meeting now, or suffer negative consequences...

[Anonymous]

It pretty much is conditioning and hadn't thought of it that way. After today's discussion and pondering, it reminded me of how we are all conditioned to behave certain ways and in certain spheres and when behavior is and isn't accespatable. Good observation.

[Rob_Hugo@PortNW]

Legalism:
1. Marcos Andrade
2. Mary Cruz-Boddie
3. Sara Rodrigues
4. Edward Ting
5. Ruby Tran
edited by yhuang on 4/17/2012
edited by yhuang on 4/17/2012
edited by yhuang on 4/17/2012

[Anonymous]

Shang Yang is a practical person, but I think we to have both practicality in life as well as aspiration for beauty.

I like Han Fei Zi's ten faults of a ruler, it is very true, we should not micromanage our students, we need to look at the big picture.

[Author]

Posts