Session 2b: Philosophical Golden Age/Early Empire The Qin and Han Dynasties 7-29-08

[Rob_Hugo@PortNW]

Please post replies to the Tuesday, July 29 afternoon session here.[Edit by="ritow on Jul 29, 4:09:52 PM"][/Edit]

[Anonymous]

Even though the four main philosophies – Confucianism, Mohism, Daoism, and Legalism – are conflicting ideals, they each hold some great truths. It would be great if we could take the pearls from each of these.

My preference is Mohism, and no, it is not because that is the side I argued in the debate. They are the pragmatists. They are logical. If everyone respected one another’s right to be human and interpret things in their own way, perhaps there would be less infighting. In The Once and Future King “The Sword and the Stone,” Arthur meets a swan who cannot understand why humans would wage war against their own species. She can see why there might be conflict with another species, but to hurt one’s own is barbaric and incomprehensible. Of course I understand that human nature plays a role here and not everyone is going to agree, but it is a neat thought.

[Anonymous]

I think all of us are planning our own personal vacation itineraries to include a trip to the Hanging Temple--not only because of its amazing architecture, but also because of its willingness to include all 3 of the major Chinese philosophies: Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, separately, and together. This is one of my frustrations with religion is that so many religions want you to pick one and shun all others, but every time I read a religious or philosophical text, there are good and bad to each, so it's very hard to choose just one and stick to it.

This reminded me also of my trip to India in 2000. On my birthday, the father of the house, Babu, took me on a trip to a Catholic church and a Hindu temple, knowing my love for religious iconography. What I really loved about the trip was that I looked at each religious building as a tourist would, taking pictures, admiring the statues, and the different kinds of people. Babu, however, followed the rites and rituals of each holy house, following the practice of each, spending about a half hour praying/meditating, etc. When I asked him about it, thinking with my Western mind that you can't follow Catholicism and Hinduism at the same time, he told me that whatever honors God is what is right, no matter what vessel or means you get there, you can't be committing wrong. I thought that was amazing, and I've been inspired by this ever since.

[Anonymous]

This is a test to see if I can get in via another computer.

[Anonymous]

I am going to use the same activity with my kids when they are studying Ancient China in their 6th grade history class. This will be a reinforcement to those lessons but also help them in debating skills, showing evidence for any academic activity, and perhaps take the good from all 4 philosophies and use them in real life. I really enjoyed the activity of debating the 4 philosophies with Prof. Dube playing devil's advocate. The end result was a reinforcement to what we studied and it was very motivating to continue; I didn't want to stop.
Qin Shi Huang Di is one of my favorite subjects to teach about, not that he was great in kindness but that he attained power, his means of doing so, and maintaining that power to keep his people in control. The Great Wall is a point of interest for me because of the sacrafice of the Chinese people to accomplish such a project. I have seen the Saqquara and Giza Pyramids of Egypt and I hope to be able to walk as much of the Great Wall as possible. Having these experiences and then sharing them with my students make it more personal for them. I feel I develop a sense of interest because they see my excitement and want to have a similiar experience. The difference is that I hope to inspire them even more by educating them prior to them actually going there. I want them to know what they are looking at when they look at it and value its signifigance.
I always tell the story about the fish story and how it was a disguise to cover up the Emperor's death when he was being transported back to one of his palaces. It was amazing how loyal those close to him where for fear he would destroy them, but even their fear in his death. They were afraid that chaos would take place and then another would come to take power. My kids think that using the fish was a clever way to keep his death a secret.
I believe more in the hierarchy way of doing things perhaps because of my upbringing and in the society we Americans live in. I also believe that government is not the ultimate, final, absolute say so, because when they have it all, they abuse it. They need to have a watchdog too. American society would suffer from legalism being the only way to govern, I believe that America could benefit from all 4 schools of thought; taking the good and throwing out the bad, but then who would constitute what is good and bad from those philosophies?
I really like this class because it is challenging to learn again and it feels good to not only teach and give out, but also to learn and take in. I plan to incorporate many of these activities in my class to help my kids have more insight and make learning fun for them.

[Anonymous]

The Mohists had a philosophy that the human species was not ready for. Too bad. Because it does seem apparent that if we started thinking of "family" in broader terms, as Einstein himself suggested in an interview in the New York Times in the 1970s, and looked at all other persons as precious, as precious as our own blood family that a lot of disowned and discarded humanity would not suffer as they now do. Would a Mohist pass the beggar on the L.A. sidewalk and think, "Too bad about them. I'm glad that's not me!" The human heart has not expanded enough to include the beggar on the street as our lost mother, father, brother or sister. Einstein said that we must expand our notion of compassion to include everyone and all on the planet itself. He said that no one could do this completely, but that the striving to do so was a part of liberation from suffering and a part of personal liberation. What is it that BREAKS OUT when we, without consideration for our own welfare, move to save someone, a total stranger in grave danger? Isn't is a shared human consciousness that says, "I AM THAT PERSON"? How can we move human consciousness forward a truth that the smartest guy on the planet saw? We don't see the invisible threads that connect us. Perhaps one day science will enable us to see this web of relationship. Can we transcend a mentality of predation?

The Mohists wanted us to discard the wasteful practice of war by concentrating on practical matters, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and providing rest for the exhausted. But, music can feed us in other ways. The arts feed another aspect of humanity and it's a pity that the Mohists didn't recognize this. Still, I think they were on the right path. But, it does seem that gentle philosophies are crushed because we simply do not see ourselves in others.

[Anonymous]

I am testing my skill on attachments I think this picture is a good example of the women who may have been part of the Han Dynastie.

When we where in Xi'an she was in the window as a still model.

[Edit by="sneumann on Jul 29, 5:33:36 PM"]Okay that didn't work[/Edit]
[Edit by="sneumann on Jul 29, 5:43:23 PM"]I will have to have help it is saying that I am downloading a restricted file, it is a .japg?[/Edit]

[Anonymous]

Wow! Babu had a great point. That's awesome! I enjoyed the debate this afternoon. I didn't think I would because they can turn into battles, but this was very civilized and a great way to learn about the different philosophies. I agree that many aspects of each philosophy has merit, but alone they seem a little radical. I think we have taken Legalism and adapted in most situations today (i.e., government, police, schools, even families use rules, rewards and punishments). Do I think it is the best philosophy? No not really. I think you have to combine aspects of many philosophies to come up with what works for you. As a society we need laws and consequences or kaos would ensue, but not such punative punishments. This is an area I would like to discuss more if anyone has ideas.

[Anonymous]

In Daoism I am surprised to learn that they participated in violence. I've read the classic THE DAO DE JING many times and never got a hint violence except in this passage: "heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat myriad creatures as straw dogs; the sage is ruthless, and he treats people as straw dogs." Now, Clayton tells me that even the Daoists could engage in BLOW BACK when it was evidently needed. But, perhaps this could be seen as a "natural" storm, one that is cleansing.

Another thing: I never thought of the Daoists as guys who hung out in groups, but as solitary sages, seeking to absent themselves from the insanity of state life. And, it seems self-evident that if one piles up riches, the next guy will look at this, desire these goods, yes, theft will arise in the mind of the most innocent of men.

I see a similar concept in the Native American community and the idea of the potluck: give it all away every year; don't store up riches for one's own family; get bigger; give it away. It's all this piling up of stuff that creates the problem in the first place. And, recognize your humble place in the tribe of mankind. Keep low to the ground, like water.

[Anonymous]

The film THE WAY HOME is one I've used in conjunction with AVALON. In both films technology is show as unhelpful to true communication. The pace in the prior is slow, lovely, like nature itself, unfolding like a flower. In AVALON the television is an ever present entity and the film ends with what was once a loving, large and close extended immigrant family, disintegrated into two people eating on TV trays, living in suburbia and lonely. It's a metaphor for our time. It's the cell phone and TV now.

When I asked my freshmen to write an essay on the impact of television on family communication, one student told me that she had left her essay on the kitchen table and that her dad had read it. He had not realized that his family didn't or rarely ate together. She missed this. He instituted a family meal two times a week with TV off. Another student told me that she had become aware that her dad only gave her an audience during a commercial.

Here's something to think about. We are asked to post lots of responses here, but how many of us are reading other people's work? We're madly getting our requirements taken care of. So, is there greater or lesser communication and what is the quality of that communication?

An observation: As Clayton was lecturing, many were online, swishing into outer space, not mentally present in the room. I'm not judging, just observing. If you're not "here" for your teacher, do you get what's being communicated? Or, since we will be given a copy of the lecture, are we multi-tasking because we must keep up with the frantic forward momentum of bits and bites of information being thrown at us from every direction? So, I ask you, "Is this communication? Is this the dissemination of knowledge?" Is it possible to ask students to stop, look and listen? Can we ask them for full, unadulterated attention? I see many of us don't look at each other anymore. We speak while our eyes are glued to a screen

Two books written long ago are THE PLUG IN DRUG and THE GLASS TIT. Both outdated now, I'm sure, but they detail the physiological effects on the brain and nervous system of being plugged into this virtual reality. I've no doubt that the brains of my young classmates are faster and physiologically different from mine.

[Anonymous]

Wow, I so enjoyed our collective heated philosophical debate! I imagined people would get into it, but I didn't think I would find myself feeling animosity toward the other groups.
I don't know about everyone else, but last night I really only focused on reading about my assigned philosophy. During the encounter, you get a great feeling for the other three. This was an engaging and interesting twist on the typical jigsaw reading activity. As for having a preference, like I told Vera, I find something I connect with in all four, and also something I disagree with. I prefer to see it as a buffet, where I can pick and choose from all four.

I would have liked to have seen more on the two dynasties were heard about after the debate, but I guess that's what the heavy lifting is for. [Edit by="clawson on Jul 29, 9:34:32 PM"][/Edit]

[Anonymous]

I, also, very much enjoyed our debate this afternoon. Although I carefully read about the different philosophies and prepared "our" side, I did not understand them all that well until I watched all of you personify the personalities and voices of the different disciplines. I thought that was a great chance to participate in a learning activity that I have used in similar forms because now I know how well playacting works.

I also felt much more awake for the final hour of lecture after all the interactions, but again, although I was following along with Dr. Dube's presentation, all the different dynasties are now meshed in my brain, hoping to assert themselves as separate entities.

[Anonymous]

Interesting debate. One thing I got out of this session was that it seems all philosophies had their strengths and weaknesses, which makes it all the more important that we keep an open mind and not presume our way is always the most supreme. [Edit by="mburditt on Jul 29, 10:43:22 PM"][/Edit]

[Anonymous]

I too, like others, learned more from the debate of the four schools than I thought I would. Priah (forgive the spelling if incorrect) and I both found ourselves being drawn into the basic tenets of Daoism. I agree that each of the other three philosophies were probably better apt to serve large populations of highly human people (do you know what I mean?). Daoism seems to me like a great ideal to strive toward, but that perhaps during the period of over 2000 years ago the people may have needed more rules (guidance) to help them live in productive societies.
I hope to turn against Daoism as perhaps the best way to go is not sacrilege because it is only a philosophy after all, as opposed to being a religion.

[Anonymous]

Yes, some people are reading other people's posts. I too am often troubled by the distraction of too many high tech devices. The most troubling for me is the amount of thoughtless junk that is on television influencing our youth. It is movies like the one we watched tonight that help express the importance of human relationships, but unfortunately this is way beyond most people, and this is sad. Maybe we can help change this.

[Author]

Posts