Mohist or Legalist?

[Rob_Hugo@PortNW]

I'm not sure if anyone else is torn between one or more of the Schools Mr. Clayton Dube discussed in today's class. When I singed up for the debate on March 6th, I was torn between Mohist and Legalist. As much as I would LOVE to side with Mo Zi and his wonderful idea of "universal love" (One Love, Bob Marley), I can't seem to agree with the idea that music is wasteful. Aside of this claim that music is an extravaganza and has no real value or worth in our lives, I also see some contradictions in the Mohists beliefs. How can Mo Zi say human nature cannot be changed, then suggest we learn to love others as we love our own family and friends. As human beings we are inately selfish. Take a baby for example. When a child desires something, he/she cries until he/she gets what he/she wants. Among love, the need to fit in, and food, our needs are always first on our list. We always want to fulfill those needs. How can we change our inate nature and learn to love others as we love those closest to us if it is not in our nature to change so easily?

[Anonymous]

I was caught between Mohist and Daoist philosophies. I liked the ideas of Mohism of "building community" such as rasing each others kids and rejecting hierachical structures that are prominent in Confucism. I also liked the ideas of the importance of love, even though I see the problems and conflicts with reality when you talk about everyone finding focus and importance in love. Concerning Daoism I liked the aspects of it that realte to the importance of nature. I do not like the ambiguity in it... I feel people have to take positions and be active in trying to change society to achieve a certain world view....hopefully a progressive one that creates a more equal world. I don't think its ok to say leave things alone and everything will work out.

[Anonymous]

Hi Flores,

1. In theory, the idea of univeral love is great and all, but in practicality, nah...doesn't work that way (that's just my opinionJavascript:insertsmilie('%20%20') <---this is suppose to be a happy face 2. During an era where states are constantly warring with each other, people are starving and un-restful, music does seem to be wasteful and not useful at all, "Can the chaos of the world be put in order...[by] playing the lute and the flute..[?]" 3. Yep, I understand where the contradictions might be. For example, Mohist stressed universal love; if everybody loves everybody, then there would be no warfare...however, in order to battle against large and agressive states, Mohist specialized in military defense--so fighting was involved anyway. BUT in terms of human nature not being able to change, I think that the Mohist believe that human nature naturally lean toward partiality, but as good citizens, humans must redirect and change so that they embrace universality and the benefits of a communal society. Universal love leads to a useful and beneficial state where everyone is happy with each other...yay!

[Anonymous]

hi there all you conflicted mohists and legalists. I just read a modern fable by Ray Bradbury called "The Golden Kite , The Silver Wind" with one of my classes today and it reminded me of the problem of really being defensive in your preparations for the possibility of conflict and being aggressive at the same time. The mandarin of each city was appalled by the walls being constructed by the other city, so a one-upsmanship went on with a club beating a pig and fire beating the club in a sort of rock, paper, scissors dance until each city was reduced to starvation and disease because of all the labor being concentrated in building these walls. The daughter of one of the mandarins,who had been giving the building insructions, finally realized that it could not continue. She said one city should build its wall as a kite and the other build it as the wind. One needed the other to survive and prosper in its own way- the kite to make the blue sky beautiful and the wind to have something to push against. Harmony and universal love Mohist style, If you love the other as much as yourself there will be no fighting. Good story, and I don" know about the legalist thing at the moment. Over and out

[Anonymous]

I honestly do not see how anyone can be attracted or see any possible connection to the Legalist philosphy. I no all four have their flaws but the Legalist seems to be a repressive, undemocratic dictatorial system. I reminds me of our historical and current government with its undemocratic nature (two parties that are similar and no other choices), the spying, lying and torture going on, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the millions of people in jail (mainly working class and Black and Latino), and on and on. Once again amongst these four Mohist and Daoist are by far the more humane and realistic of the bunch.

[Anonymous]

Okay, see it this way. Let's take Hitler as an example. After WWI, Germany's economy was shot. They were made to pay war reparations among others, and people were starving and poor. The future seemed bleak. In walks Hitler, who organized a great military, who systematically annihilated massive groups of people. Are there any guilty consciences? Maybe. But the end justifies the means. The German people were being taken care of and being fed, so they will do whatever they'll do just so they won't revert back to a dismal past. Hitler made these people proud Germans.

During the Age of Division, it might make a lot of sense to people who are suffering. Legalism is not based on theory, it's based on practice. If the Chinese were starving and a leader comes in, instilling national pride in people, promising a future where starvation does not fit in, people would probably listen and follow the directions of the leader. Even if they have to assemble an army to conquer other states, this means that they would have more land to reward hard workers and to farm at a larger scale.

[Author]

Posts