Confucianism, Daoism, Legalism (Brad)

In ancient China, three distinctly contrasting faiths absorbed the attention of the Chinese population for centuries. Taoism, one of the three faiths, emphasized the importance of living simply and peacefully. Taoists believed that government was unnecessary for guiding in the right direction, but rather that meditation was enough to lead those who practiced it to a life free from desire, stress, and conflict. Almost entirely paradoxical to Taoism, Legalism hugely accentuated the importance of government ruling and strict laws. More of a social belief system rather than a religion, this faith taught people that they were born with the intention to act improperly and that they could only be directed properly through rigorous laws with harsh punishments. Eventually, these same ideas would cause Legalism to die out. Finally, the third faith was Confucianism. This religion is often considered the median between the other two. Like Legalism, Confucianism believed in social order with government ruling. However, rather than enforce rules and punishments designed to be broken, Confucianism believed that leaders should lead by example and treat their people as they would want to be treated. Like Taoism, this religion saw the importance of living simply and without desire. Ethics and Morality were the most important values for Confucianists. This faith inspired good behavior and encouraged it rather than forcing it upon people, it is perhaps why Confucianism lasted for so long and was so popular.

Catie- Confucianism, Taoism, Legalism

A main focus of Confucianism was family. Family was the most important of social relationships. The government of China was based on family. The ruler was the Son of Heaven and the father of the people. Another important aspect of Confucianism was the idea of the perfectibility of man. Confucianism taught that perfection could be achieved through ritual. This idea was woven into the political system in China. The ruler educated and transformed the people of the state through moral example and meditation.

Taoists believed that Confucianism focused too much on people and not enough on nature. They believed that human actions should be connected with nature. Taoism also disagreed with the idea of ritual. I found it interesting that they were skeptical of language because it defines you as a certain person. 

Legalism was a way of controlling the people of China 

1.  Confucianism

Confucianism was centered on the proper balance of good relationships among civilizations and people and committed towards religion.  Confucius believed through proper and well executed relationships would promote a better way of life in civilizations.  Every relationship had someone who was superior and responsible for properly mentoring and guiding such a person.  There were many varieties of relationships but what stayed constant was that one who was older and more powerful would be dominant in this relationship.  Confucius prioritized family relationships and often associated politics with family, emphasizing the relationship between the family and the state.  Politically, the monarch was the state and his family were the people he governed.  This relationship allowed the superior figure to treat others well and with respect.  These series of relationships were to bring structure and peace to a society.  If a ruler had failed to complete his moral obligations to his people, the people were given the right to rebel.  Another aspect of Confucianism is enriching others through education and tradition.  Confucius strongly encouraged the practice of religion and the connection of religion to make one a better person.  He also wished that rulers prompt education by inspiring his people through personal rule, moral example, and even meditation while he was interacting with others in political matters.  

2. Daoism

Daoism revolved around making decisions and living one's life in relation to the flow of nature.  Daoism believed that if people strayed from the proper course of nature it would lead to violence and pain.  Instead of influencing a way to avert violence, daoists simply rejected it and stood against it.  Daoists were much more extreme in their rebellious views towards violence and considered it the ultimate action of defying nature.  It also avoided concern of material things such as civilization and politics because these things are artificial and morals are what people should be mainly concerned of.  Daoism stressed the absence of action and desire since it is not in accordance with nature and can only lead to suffering.  Daoists were not in favor of ritual and convinced others to simply follow their own path.  They also supported silence instead of speech due to it following the proper paths of nature.

3.  Legalism

Legalism was purely a system fueled by power and higher authority.  It was a technique used by powerful political figures to create a fully rational civilization and to increase economic progress and military strength.  They discipline all people they governed and structured their lives for them purely in the interest of the state.  Legalists persuaded farmers and soldiers through force and propaganda to persevere for their country.   Laws were put in place to ensure maximum yield and military victories.  Rewards were few and gruesome threats always possible if a citizen wasn't performing his duties the way he or she should be.

Confucianism, Legalism, Taoism

Confucianism, Legalism and Taoism are the three pillars of Chinese philosophers that influenced all actions in China. Confucianism is a religion that has been followed by the Chinese for more than a thousand years.It is characterized more as a system of ethical philosopher than a religion. Confucianism is focused on human relations. It tells us that “man was by nature a human being” (colombia.edu). The primary social unit was family. Family was a fundamental aspect to others. The virtue of filial piety was the foundation for all people. The government was responsible to transform and educate the people. This was accomplished by moral example and not legal regulations. Legalism is a totally different belief system. Legalism stresses the importance of emphasizing strict consent with the law. As for education,  one should only follow government officials teachings and laws. Taoism is very similar to Confucianism. The central value of Taoism is being in harmony with nature. Taoists felt that Confucianism focused too much on human nature. They preferred to understand the term “Dao” as a moral way. However Taoists viewed “Dao” as the way of Nature as a whole. 

Claire: Philosophies and their Relationship to China

1. Confucianism and Moral Order: Early Chinese government and society was organized in accordance with Confucian ideas of the harmony between man, nature, and the divine. Man was considered inherently social, and that there was a natural order governing human relationships. Because familial relationships were so sacred, the state was naturally modeled after the family in accordance with filial piety (paternalism.) The monarch was the "Son of Heaven," and the "Father to the People," illustrating the importance of a male head. The ruler derived his power by earning the Mandate of Heaven, and his primary role was to embody moral uprightness for his people. Confucians believed in perfectibility of man, and it was the ruler's job to personally lead his people to perfection through education and ritualization. Good morals were honored above all (ex: merit-based bureaucracy)

 2. Legalism and Absolute Law: Providing a sharp contrast to the morality-based Confucians were the pragmatic Legalists.  Confucian persuasion was matched by Legalist force; Confucian morality with Legalist law.  Human nature was fundamentally bleak in their eyes, and had to be controlled through a system of codified laws and harsh punishments. The Chinese learned the limits of force during the age of Legalism: while force was a powerful unifying and mobilizing force (public works projects and law enforcement thrived, centralized administration proved effective), it's harsh brutality led to it's eventual demise. However, it's structural strengths were eventually married with Confucian spirit, exemplifying syncretism.

3. The Dao Way: Deviating completely from both Legalist and Confucianist structure was Daoism, which stressed the importance of natural order as an organizing force. Daoists rejected discord and assertiveness, denounced violence, and revered the pure and simple. It gave people a "Moral Way" free of desire or humanly ties, urging followers to see their lives as part of a greater natural process.

Ellen on Confucianism, Daoism, and Legalism in China

Confucianism, Taoism, and Legalism were three of the main belief systems that structured early Chinese society and politics. Confucianism was focused on human relations and believed that human nature can be cultivated to perfection. Additionally, the role of the government was central to this belief system. It was responsible for educating and improving the lives of its subjects through laws a political institutions that were focused on morals. Taoism was similar in this way as well. However, it took the concept of morality to a higher level. Taoists believed that Confucianists were too arrogant because they focused solely on human nature. "Dao," which means path or way, was the concept of how humans should act in respect to the Way of Nature. Taoism has a more simplistic approach to government and was focused on non-violence. Legalism, on the other hand, valued discipline and the government designed based off of this ideology had a strict legal system with harsh punishments to maintain control.

Each belief systems had their flaws, but the Chinese used a syncretism of the benefits to create a well structured society and government. From Legalism and Confucianism, laws with morals were developed, and, from Taoism, a broader sense of awareness was developed.

Rachel on Buddhism

For many years In India, social class was determined by birth. Now it is known as the Caste system.Each caste member had a set rule which meant you could only eat, live, and marry the people in your group. There wasn't a way for a caste member to improve there social class.They were in the same class for there lifetime but in order to be reborn into a higher caste they must live life supremely. This is a major example of why the Vedic religion is so strict. Many of the Vedic religion people hated this idea because they couldn't escape the caste system. This was where Buddhism came into place with there concept called Nirvana. This meant ultimate extinction of all sense of self in a mystical state. If nirvana is not achieved the soul is reborn.They teach that after death; a being will continue to be reborn until enlightenment is achieved. Buddhists believe that if you follow The Middle Way, the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path, that endless cycles of rebirth is achievable. Buddhism was based on the fact of reincarnation but nirvana was a concept that help the followers in the Vedic religion to escape themselves from the caste system. The core beliefs of Buddhism was a response to Vedic beliefs.

Brad's take on Buddhism

Before the Enlightened One began his journey across Asia to teach people the ways of Buddhism, the Vedic religions dominated the continent. Rigorously structured, Vedism disciplined it’s followers by demanding their frequent presence at rituals and required it’s peoples to abide by the laws that applied to their social class. Similar to Buddhism, Vedism predominantly focused on reincarnation, the belief that one would live again after they die. While this idea was hugely emphasized in both religions, one small detail between the two made a colossal difference when it came to choosing among them. Vedism declared that reincarnation was never ending, and that a soul would never be at rest. Buddhism promised its followers, that through hard work, they could obtain peace at death through Nirvana. Acquiring Nirvana took years of obedience and proper execution of Buddhist laws, but none the less, it saw an enormous development in religion as the most powerful of the Asian countries; India, China, and Japan, sought out an escape from Vedism. Buddhism was the answer to those who longer for Vedic change because it gave people a real reason to abide by religion.

Catie Buddhism Response

The core beliefs of Buddhism were a reaction to Vedic beliefs. Vedic religion created a strict caste system that was connected to the idea of reincarnation. People were born into one of four classes and could not move to a different class within their lifetime. In order to be reborn into a higher social class, followers of the Vedic religion had to live life admirably. People were unhappy with the idea that there was no escape from the caste system, but Buddhism offered the chance to achieve enlightenment and the escape of the caste system altogether. Buddhism also was based on the idea of reincarnation, but the idea of nirvana brought hope to people who felt trapped in the caste system. 

Carter Buddhism Response

The basic tenants of Buddhism at its core are certainly a direct reaction to the existing social structure of India at the time that Siddhartha Gautama lived. This is due to the fact that the social structure espoused by the Vedic scripture is heavily dependent on a fixed social hierarchy, with little to no class mobility. Of course, this entire system was bound together by the underlying belief in reincarnation, which kept people content with their lot in life by the simple reassurance that if they performed their societal role faithfully, then they would be born into a better situation in the next life.

So, while this social structure is certainly effective and stable, it is anything but fair, and suffering was ubiquitous for the majority of people. Buddha saw this suffering, and with the revelation that suffering could be alleviated only through the renunciation of worldly desires, proceeded to offer the people of India an escape from suffering inherent in the Vedic social structure. No longer were they trapped in a cycle of reincarnation and bound to their class, but by recognizing the Four Noble Truths, and adhering to the Eightfold Path, they could eventually achieve true enlightenment, and an end to all suffering, in the form of Nirvana. Naturally, some of Buddha's teachings would be distorted slightly after his death, leading to different schools of Buddhism in the form of Theravada Buddhism, which stays more true to the teachings of Buddha himself, and Mahayana Buddhism, which adapted to various regions by introducing Bodhisattvas, or other people that achieved enlightenment. However, due to the simplicity of its tenants, Buddhism has ultimately remained relatively unchanged throughout history. Regardless of when or where it was being taught, the teachings of Buddha have endured.

WILL BUDDHISM RESPONSE

Although not a story of creation, the path that the Buddha follows is one of self-reflection, as well as one of learning to experience all that the world has to offer.  Differing greatly from most ways of Western thinking, the Buddha began his life as a slave to materialism before then rejecting everything he had in order to pursue a homeless life style that revolves around the starvation of the body in order to learn about the universe.  This story, told for five hundred years before finding its way to scripture, is one that electrified the Indian subcontinent, and one that continues to peacefully bring people together.

When the Buddha was first born, India was divided amongst 16 (maybe 12 not sure) kingdoms.  Although they all shared the same underlying religious belief they were distinctively separate.  The Buddha's ability to understand the world for what it really is, is what leads him to unify all of India under his ideals.  This not only liberates the people of the subcontinent, but it allows them to escape this Life-Death cycle that has been in constant order for many years.  The Buddha, by creating Buddhism (if you can phrase it like that) gives the people of India a new lifestyle that promotes peace, while also maintain the rigid caste system, which has the primary purpose of controlling people.

In the long run, Buddhism has a really cool story, although it does not do what the majority of other major religions do.  It doesn't tell us where the world came from.  So I guess, if I could ask the Buddha, where does the Earth come from, and who or what created the cycle of reincarnation?

Theo - Buddhism and Hinduism

I would agree with the statement that suggests that Buddhism was at least, in part developed as a result of the beliefs expressed in Hinduism. This is because Hinduism was developed and made as a religion that was focused on one's self. Like Hinduism Buddhism has a large focus on the the striving for personal perfection and achieving enlightenment.  Although Hinduism was and still is, for the most part, a polytheistic religion the focus was more on the individual spirit and soul rather than the deities. Their focus is on Karma, making sure that their soul is in the best position possible to move on to be a better form after reincarnation. In the same way Buddhism is focused on the soul rather that a deity. Buddhism is focused on one's self, but rather than making themselves more pure or more holy in hopes to be reincarnated as something better they go in the opposite direction and make themselves as humble and lower themselves. Their goal was to achieve a metaphysical, inner bliss known simply as enlightenment. Their entire focus is on achieving Nirvana rather than glorifying a deity. Humbling yourself, desiring nothing, and meditating until you achieve a sense of enlightenment are, although very different from Hinduism, share a lot of the same principals.

Claire Buddhism Response

The Verdic religion was a really good mechanism of social control. The creation myth itself (that stated that a creature was sacrificed and the different social classes sprung from the various parts of it's body) underlined the permanency of the social hierarchy set in stone by the Verdic texts. Because people felt that their position in life was deserved, the only thing they could do was put their heads down and do their prescribed work in hope for good karma. Buddhism shook this up. It gave people a way to achieve inner peace (nirvana), in this life.

Siddharta was also a captivating leader. He traveled around Asia sharing his truth and his Middle Path with all people who would listen, regardless of class (!!) In this way, the Budda was countercultural. Buddhism gained support of the general population because it was so inclusive, and legitimacy through royal endorsement such as that of Asoka. I think the reason Buddhism made such a mark is because it's founding tenant resonates with all people, regardless of class/status/race/ect: life is suffering.

Buddhism Statement Response

Verdic religion, although popular, created a slew of problems throughout India. The caste system which was created for example, oppressed thousands of people and put them in a position which was impossible to escape. One could not improve their current situation, only hope for something better after reincarnation. It was horribly strict and did not provide much hope or optimism for something better.

However, this way of life was reinvented with the introduction of Buddhism to Southeast Asia. Buddhism presented the possibility of freedom and liberation for those who wanted to improve their lives and spirit. Although reincarnation was still a strong force, it was a more optimistic approach to the idea. One could find eternal peace and a greater understanding of the world despite their present situation. This was a wildly positive movement because of the liberation and optimism it granted to thousands of people.

Ellen's Response to Buddhism Statement

The caste system in India is an example of how strictly structured Vedic religion was. Those who practiced this religion were born into a caste and varna, each with a specific set of rules that guided an individual's daily life. There was no ability to improve one's social class during a lifetime. Instead a person had to accumulate enough karma, so he or she could hopefully be reincarnated into a higher caste. The system was rigid, and each persons' role and identity were predetermined before they were born. According to the Vedic religion, there was no way to escape this cycle; reincarnation was eternal.

Buddhism became dominant in Southeast Asia because it liberated those who were unhappy that one's spirit could essentially never rest. Both the Vedic religion and Buddhism have a strong focus on reincarnation, but what was appealing about Buddhism was the concept of Nirvana. By following the Middle Way, the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path, a person would be reincarnated into an animal/human being/etc. until he or she achieved a broader understanding of the world and stopped suffering. At this point, Enlightenment can be achieved and one would reach a state of Nirvana, escaping the cycle.

In my opinion, Buddhism makes so much sense, especially Theravada Buddhism. According to The Art of Buddhism, "an individual is responsible for his or her own journey towards enlightenment." The concept seems so simple, so my question is: Why is Buddhism not a more popular religion?

Kyle's response to Buddhism statement

The Vedic Religions were centered around ceremonies and rituals. This was a cramped and restrictive religion, and could even be described as a "spiritual vacuum". This created a negative connotation to the Vedic Religions, because at times it seemed like the rituals were more important than the gods themselves. There was a "spiritual hunger" during this time which had people looking for some kind of change. Buddhism was exactly the kind of change that people were looking for. The Buddah offered an escape from the constant cycle of death and rebirth: meditation. Through meditation, people could get out of the cycle of constant suffering temporarily, or if they were able to achieve a state of enlightenment, they could be free forever. The Buddah was preaching hope to a group of people hopelessly ensnared in a rigid caste system. Buddhism is a reaction to the Vedic religions because it gave people hope in a hopeless religious social system.

Brad's view on Diamond's view

I believe that Jared Diamond brings important recognition to opinions about agriculture that do not always receive attention. While a few of his points are somewhat extreme, they are all insightful and well backed with evidence. The point of his that concerns/interests me the most, is his entirely negative take on agriculture, and his belief that it has hindered human progression, and at times, made life worse than it had to be. He argues that health problems and poor diets became widely common in agrarian communities because their food carried diseases that the human body was unfamiliar with, and unable to defend from. While he is right that agriculture occasionally made life unnecessarily problematic, when looking back over the thousands of years between now and then and the distance humans have come in all aspects of life; politics, economics, and society, that issue was minuscule, and as far as I am concerned, has not hampered the improvement of humanity. I believe that Diamond misses an important aspect of agriculture, and that is human unity, a common consensus in communities. Agriculture taught people how to work together, how to function as a unit to accomplish a task that benefited everyone in the community. While Diamond brings about strong points against agriculture, I must ask him, where would we be without it?

Catie's thoughts on the reading

I find the arguments in both "The Plough and the Now" and "Excerpts from: The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race" very interesting because I never realized that the adoption of agriculture could leave such a long lasting impression on society. I do not completely agree with Jared Diamond’s theory, though he does make some valuable points. I find it hard to believe that society would be better off without the transition to agriculture because it allowed us to become a more developed society and to deepen our culture and develop an economy and political system. But I also wonder, did this really made us better off in the end?

Diamond's Point: Was agriculture a futile mistake

Personally, I found both of the articles we read, "The Plough and the Now" and excerpts from "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race", incredibly interesting but also quite disturbing. To say that the plow is the reason why gender inequality exists is a bit of a stretch for me but analyzing agriculture as a possible creation of gender hierarchies is much more understandable to me. Diamond makes several fervent arguments to support his point that the shift from a nomadic lifestyle to agricultural societies was a futile mistkae. In other words, we were rendering ourselves a disservice but becoming a society based on the production of agricultural goods. A few of his main argues stood out to me and I would like to highlight them here. Diamond asserted that the Neolithic Revolution led humans to uptaking a worse diet due to lack of adequate nutrients in their starch-based diet. Due to this substandard diet, agrarians had a significant amount more health issues than did their nomadic predecessors. Jared Diamond also argued that the agrarian societies dependence on monocultures of products like wheat and maize, led to the risk of starvation if one of these vital crops failed. Finally, with the development of cities due to farming, came the subsequent flourishment of both gender and social hierarchies in which men dominated and women became almost entirely submissive (see the Code of Hamurabi for more on this topic of gender inequality). In conclusion, I agree completely with what Diamond has to say because his arguments are well executed and based on genuine facts. These two articles both led me to pondering the fundamental structure of I society and this led me to several questions two of which are listed below:
1. Why has physical strength most often determined power and not intellectual capacity even though a person who is more intelligent than another would theoretically be a better leader due to his/her inherent ability to weigh decisions properly?
2. Are we as humans inherently violent creatures or did violence develop as a result of completion for resources?

Diamond's main point

I think Jared Diamond's main point in this excerpt was that "it's all about how you look at it." I think he's really trying to say that, sometimes, over the course of history, we tend to just take for granted that if we did it, it is an improvement. There's a lot of judgement built into history. It's not the bushman gatherer in the Kalahari defining the best way to go about setting up a civilization, it's Europeans who have been practicing agriculture for generations. Jared challenges the reader to step back and question the judgements we make when it comes to "advancement." Is the notion that "might is right" an innate human viewpoint? Is more really better (more people, more products, more wealth, more land)? Maybe it is. There's a lot to be said about striving for constant expansion in all realms; it's created the realities you and I live in. I think Diamond's statement that agriculture is the "worst mistake of the human race" is a stretch. The life of a hunter-gatherer wasn't some leisure-filled Utopia (infanticide...? origins of armed conflict in effort to kill off portions of the population seen as competition for resources?) I also find his modern example of the ethnographic study in New Guinea especially problematic because there are a ton of other factors at play there. All in all, I think he does a good job distinguishing the contrasts in lifestyle and certainly highlights the difference of opinion held by historians.

Mistake or Awesome?

If you couldn't tell already, Jared Diamond seems to really be against all agriculturally based societies.  Although his points about the negatives of agriculture, I think he is just trying to make an argument out of nothing.  Diamond is not wrong when he says that people were subjected to epidemics due to living in close quarters with each other, however if it weren't for these epidemics then there would have been no need for humanity to create modern medicine.  Without modern medicine, or any sort of medical outlook, people would still be living to the ripe age of twenty-six!  That means I have eight years left to live.  Diamond mentions the point that once life switched to farming the average life span dropped to age nineteen, which would only give me one more year to live.  Diamond mentions war, and how it was a by-product of human settlements fighting over resources.  Yet, if foragers needed meat and there is one mammoth left with two groups of people wanting it, there is going to be a fight.  Diamonds claim that violence is associated with farming is stretching it, to put it nicely.  At the end of the day, Diamond is free to argue the negatives of the agricultural lifestyle all he wants, but it will never change the fact that people did make this switch, and that it is because of this switch that people have developed into a species that is capable to leave this planet.  (In 11 hours and 54 minutes that people spent foraging, they got nothing done.  However once farming came around, the last 6 minutes, people have developed technologies that allow us to travel to other planets.)

Kyle's take on Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond makes several strong points about why the adoption of agriculture was the worst mistake made by humans, but the most compelling point for me is the point he makes about the current hunter gatherers. Though I knew people still  hunted and gathered for food, I had no idea how much food they actually ate. An average day for them amounts to around 2,100 calories. These people are eating well for their size, which I never would have thought to be true. Diamond follows this point up by saying sure, the hunter gatherer life may not be as good as the American life, but the American life is the life of the elite. We eat the surplus of food which comes from poorer farming nations. Our viewpoint is so skewed because we are accustomed to seeing a McDonalds on every corner, and though there are hungry people in America, they still have access to food as opposed to a poor Ethiopian farmer who has to grow his own food. Diamond poses the question: would you rather live the life of the hunter gatherers who eat well or the poor farmer who has to grow all his own food? In this case context is everything, and Diamond poses several viewpoints different from my own which caused me to think about how farming really has divided the human race, and how we may have been better off staying as hunter gatherers.