⬅ Back to diary page
Saturday, January 4th, 2025
18:46
Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated; suddenly have time to read again despite myself and my defeatism.
Finished reading 'Against Individualism: A Confucian Rethinking of the Foundations of Morality, Politics, Family, and Religion,' and although I wasn't taking notes whilst I got back into reading it, I do have something to say on this work after the fact in regards to its general approach toward the morality of individual actions in relation to one's given role-bearing responsibilities—inasfar as they exist for said indiviudal.
The text gives the example of a father and peace activist whose son becomes a United States marine, and the question is posed: is the son's decision to do so in spite of his father's wishes an act of familial impropriety worthy of moral condemnation? The author certainly thinks so; the son's wilful, conscious act of joining the military, knowing that it will undo some amount of his father's work is indeed condemnable to Rosemont, but, extending from that—and apparently more importantly under the guidance of Confucian role ethics—the sociocultural damage done by the son's refusal to defer, thus subverting the proper and expected conduct between that of father and son, can not be overstated.
I question this conclusion. I have to argue in contest: is Rosemont presuming an ethical standard that role bearing persons must align with in their actions for them to be meaningfully deferential?
My question might be understood better if I were to flip the example, take a situation in which a decorated military general is dismayed at his son's decision to become an outspoken peace activist. Surely, in such a circumstance, the familial and wider social balance is upset moreso than in Rosemont's example; a military official with a rabble-rousing child that quite publicly disregards his father's legacy would, to anyone, I'd argue, be more of an attack on the role relation that exists between the two than in the former example, thus leading to more social unrest than had the son simply deferred to his father, and yet I have suspicions that Rosemont would find no moral condemnation here on the part of the son. It is the case that Rosemont argues one can disregard the wishes of a beneficiary if you think you can morally argue the point, but to do so in this instance, where such disregard could surely only end in familial ostracization, it seems strange to me that one would advocate for such behaviors, an advocation that, in it's moral claim, is appealing to a standard irrespective of the reverence of any given role-relations involved.
This is all an assumption on my part, of course, I am answering for Rosemont here, but I'm doing so in the best faith I can (and with the rest of the text in mind, with which I need not simply intuit Rosemont's political positions—practically all of which I agree with, for what it's worth). Doubtless there are compounding variables on whether such an action's morality with role-bearing persons as the focal point of consideration, I can only write here that I intuitively sense a degree of ethical presumptiveness on the part of the author, wherein a case of disregarding a parent's wishes for one's other roles in life only become permissible wherein one can morally argue the point and be seen to be right, but it is Rosemont's moral opinions (read: relativism) on what constitutes 'right' action that is actually dictating the barometer of acceptability.
I come to no real conclusions or wider counterarguments regarding role ethics in the general sense, in fact, this book has made me reconsider in the fringes my own presumptions and perspectives on the individual self in concept, just as the book was aiming to do. In that sense, the work has exceeded its expectations.
Some select highlights from the book follow without comment:
'"The modern conservative is engaged in one of the oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."'
'"Freedom of the press," the journalist A. J. Liebling once noted, "Is guaranteed only to those who own one."'
'If everyone values freedom and autonomy very highly, I see no argument being effective against the libertarian.'
'Again, we are purchasing freedom at the expense of social justice.'
'The Analects records, for example, that when a student asked the Master whether the spirits of the ancestors were present during the ritual sacrifices to them, he replied, "As yet you know so little about life; why do you ask about death?" (11.12).'
'"Who am I?" Jane Spring asks, to which the shade of Confucius would probably reply, "Given that you are Jane Spring, you are obviously the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Spring. I see by the names on the door that you are the roommate of Susan Summer, and from the books on your desk, that you are taking classes from Professors Fall and Winter." "I don't mean those kinds of things," Jane interrupts, "I want to know the real me, apart from everyone else." To which the Master can only reply, "Small wonder these are called 'crises'; you have thrown away everything that could contribute to answering your question."'
'Remember that for Confucius, many of our responsibilities are not, cannot be, freely chosen. But he would insist, I believe, that if the term 'freedom' is to be used at all in ethics, it must be as an achievement term, not a stative one, such that we can only begin to think of becoming truly free when we want to meet our responsibilities, when we want to help others (be benefactors), and enjoy being helped by others (as beneficiaries).'
Tuesday, January 14th, 2025
18:54
Read 'Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy' from Bryan W. Van Norden. Very good refresher on Confucian and Taoist figures in general. Also introduced me to Han Feizi, who disagreed with tradition as a basis for ethical cultivation. He believed individuals are self interested (as with Yang), but that government exists to promote public interests. If such public interests aren't met, we are unable to meet our private interests (think golden rule). It's an interesting synthesis, and, as the author notes, surprisingly modern.
Confucius as the 'wistful Taoist' is a wonderfully amusing notion also. The idea that he knows the true way of the Sage but is unable to walk it because of his attachments to benevolence and righteousness—that is, he feels morally compelled to respect such things as filial piety, and act in accordance with ritual, all the while recognizing that to be beyond such considerations is perhaps to be more true to the way. The immanence of Taoism under this conception would truly be alluring; to enact the way through living itself, irrespective of human convention or preconception. It's fascinating. When Confucius says he is one of those 'punished by heaven' one can't help but feel awed. Just a delightful perspective and reorientation of the master, literarily speaking.
Quote from Zhaungzi for a moment:
"To stop leaving tracks is easy. Not to walk upon the ground is hard."
Not a lot to say on this one, just great.
The text ended with a discussion on the hermeneutics of a text as an insular vehicle for knowledge, predicated as it is on its own usage of terminology. It also expounded on the hermeneutics of a text in relation to its reader. This is a whole topic unto itself, but I don't think I've so evidently felt myself understanding a new concept as I have reading these scant few pages. The internal mechanisms of a text really can take some introspection and understanding to find.
21:11
As a final note, I will furnish the rest of this entry with some select quotes:
'"I once spent the whole day pondering, but it wasn't as good as a moment's worth of learning."'
The 'Just Asking Questions' crowd are quaking in their boots with this one, let me tell you.
'As Iris Murdoch said, "By opening our eyes we do not necessarily see what confronts us. We are anxiety-ridden animals. Our minds are continually active, fabricating an anxious, usually self-preoccupied, often falsifying veil, which partially conceals the world... It is a task to come to see the world as it is."'
Author didn't mention Qi as the sheath of Li on this point, but I see such allusions—also see the garment of Hadit. On that point, actually:
'There is nothing outside what is supremely large. Call it the "great one." There is nothing inside what is supremely small. Call it the "small one."'
The first of the ten theses of Hui Shi.
The following quotes on the utility of ritual are worth keeping in mind:
'It seems to be precisely a functionalist view of ritual that the later Confucian Xunzi is expressing when he writes, One performs the rain sacrifice and it rains. Why? I say: There is no special reason why. It is the same as when one does not perform the rain sacrifice and it rains anyway. When the sun and moon suffer eclipse, one tries to save them.'
'When Heaven sends drought, one performs the rain sacrifice. One performs divination and only then decides on important affairs. But this is not for the sake of getting what one seeks, but rather to give things proper form. Thus, the gentleman looks upon this as proper form, but the common people look upon it as connecting with spirits. (Xunzi 17; Readings, p. 272) In another passage, Xunzi makes clear that "proper form" is connected with the expression and reinforcement of one's emotions and dispositions:'
'"In every case, ritual begins in that which must be released, reaches full development in giving it proper form, and finishes in providing it satisfaction. And so when ritual is at its most perfect, the requirements of inner dispositions and proper form are both completely fulfilled" (Xunzi 19; Readings, p. 276).'
'Thus, the gentleman looks upon this as proper form, but the common people look upon it as connecting with spirits.'
'Thus I say: The sacrificial rites are the refined expression of remembrance and longing.'
'"You regret the loss of the lamb, whereas I regret the loss of the rite" (3.17).'
'By ritual, Heaven and earth harmoniously combine;
By ritual, the sun and moon radiantly shine;
By ritual, the four seasons in progression arise;
By ritual, the stars move orderly across the skies;
By ritual, the great rivers through their courses flow;
By ritual, the myriad things all thrive and grow;
By ritual, for love and hate proper measure is made;
By ritual, on joy and anger fit limits are laid.
By ritual, compliant subordinates are created,
By ritual, enlightened leaders are generated.
With ritual, all things can change but none brings chaos;
But deviate from ritual, and you face only loss.'
Saturday, January 4th, 2025
18:46
Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated; suddenly have time to read again despite myself and my defeatism.
Finished reading 'Against Individualism: A Confucian Rethinking of the Foundations of Morality, Politics, Family, and Religion,' and although I wasn't taking notes whilst I got back into reading it, I do have something to say on this work after the fact in regards to its general approach toward the morality of individual actions in relation to one's given role-bearing responsibilities—inasfar as they exist for said indiviudal.
The text gives the example of a father and peace activist whose son becomes a United States marine, and the question is posed: is the son's decision to do so in spite of his father's wishes an act of familial impropriety worthy of moral condemnation? The author certainly thinks so; the son's wilful, conscious act of joining the military, knowing that it will undo some amount of his father's work is indeed condemnable to Rosemont, but, extending from that—and apparently more importantly under the guidance of Confucian role ethics—the sociocultural damage done by the son's refusal to defer, thus subverting the proper and expected conduct between that of father and son, can not be overstated.
I question this conclusion. I have to argue in contest: is Rosemont presuming an ethical standard that role bearing persons must align with in their actions for them to be meaningfully deferential?
My question might be understood better if I were to flip the example, take a situation in which a decorated military general is dismayed at his son's decision to become an outspoken peace activist. Surely, in such a circumstance, the familial and wider social balance is upset moreso than in Rosemont's example; a military official with a rabble-rousing child that quite publicly disregards his father's legacy would, to anyone, I'd argue, be more of an attack on the role relation that exists between the two than in the former example, thus leading to more social unrest than had the son simply deferred to his father, and yet I have suspicions that Rosemont would find no moral condemnation here on the part of the son. It is the case that Rosemont argues one can disregard the wishes of a beneficiary if you think you can morally argue the point, but to do so in this instance, where such disregard could surely only end in familial ostracization, it seems strange to me that one would advocate for such behaviors, an advocation that, in it's moral claim, is appealing to a standard irrespective of the reverence of any given role-relations involved.
This is all an assumption on my part, of course, I am answering for Rosemont here, but I'm doing so in the best faith I can (and with the rest of the text in mind, with which I need not simply intuit Rosemont's political positions—practically all of which I agree with, for what it's worth). Doubtless there are compounding variables on whether such an action's morality with role-bearing persons as the focal point of consideration, I can only write here that I intuitively sense a degree of ethical presumptiveness on the part of the author, wherein a case of disregarding a parent's wishes for one's other roles in life only become permissible wherein one can morally argue the point and be seen to be right, but it is Rosemont's moral opinions (read: relativism) on what constitutes 'right' action that is actually dictating the barometer of acceptability.
I come to no real conclusions or wider counterarguments regarding role ethics in the general sense, in fact, this book has made me reconsider in the fringes my own presumptions and perspectives on the individual self in concept, just as the book was aiming to do. In that sense, the work has exceeded its expectations.
Some select highlights from the book follow without comment:
'"The modern conservative is engaged in one of the oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."'
'"Freedom of the press," the journalist A. J. Liebling once noted, "Is guaranteed only to those who own one."'
'If everyone values freedom and autonomy very highly, I see no argument being effective against the libertarian.'
'Again, we are purchasing freedom at the expense of social justice.'
'The Analects records, for example, that when a student asked the Master whether the spirits of the ancestors were present during the ritual sacrifices to them, he replied, "As yet you know so little about life; why do you ask about death?" (11.12).'
'"Who am I?" Jane Spring asks, to which the shade of Confucius would probably reply, "Given that you are Jane Spring, you are obviously the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Spring. I see by the names on the door that you are the roommate of Susan Summer, and from the books on your desk, that you are taking classes from Professors Fall and Winter." "I don't mean those kinds of things," Jane interrupts, "I want to know the real me, apart from everyone else." To which the Master can only reply, "Small wonder these are called 'crises'; you have thrown away everything that could contribute to answering your question."'
'Remember that for Confucius, many of our responsibilities are not, cannot be, freely chosen. But he would insist, I believe, that if the term 'freedom' is to be used at all in ethics, it must be as an achievement term, not a stative one, such that we can only begin to think of becoming truly free when we want to meet our responsibilities, when we want to help others (be benefactors), and enjoy being helped by others (as beneficiaries).'
Tuesday, January 14th, 2025
18:54
Read 'Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy' from Bryan W. Van Norden. Very good refresher on Confucian and Taoist figures in general. Also introduced me to Han Feizi, who disagreed with tradition as a basis for ethical cultivation. He believed individuals are self interested (as with Yang), but that government exists to promote public interests. If such public interests aren't met, we are unable to meet our private interests (think golden rule). It's an interesting synthesis, and, as the author notes, surprisingly modern.
Confucius as the 'wistful Taoist' is a wonderfully amusing notion also. The idea that he knows the true way of the Sage but is unable to walk it because of his attachments to benevolence and righteousness—that is, he feels morally compelled to respect such things as filial piety, and act in accordance with ritual, all the while recognizing that to be beyond such considerations is perhaps to be more true to the way. The immanence of Taoism under this conception would truly be alluring; to enact the way through living itself, irrespective of human convention or preconception. It's fascinating. When Confucius says he is one of those 'punished by heaven' one can't help but feel awed. Just a delightful perspective and reorientation of the master, literarily speaking.
Quote from Zhaungzi for a moment:
"To stop leaving tracks is easy. Not to walk upon the ground is hard."
Not a lot to say on this one, just great.
The text ended with a discussion on the hermeneutics of a text as an insular vehicle for knowledge, predicated as it is on its own usage of terminology. It also expounded on the hermeneutics of a text in relation to its reader. This is a whole topic unto itself, but I don't think I've so evidently felt myself understanding a new concept as I have reading these scant few pages. The internal mechanisms of a text really can take some introspection and understanding to find.
21:11
As a final note, I will furnish the rest of this entry with some select quotes:
'"I once spent the whole day pondering, but it wasn't as good as a moment's worth of learning."'
The 'Just Asking Questions' crowd are quaking in their boots with this one, let me tell you.
'As Iris Murdoch said, "By opening our eyes we do not necessarily see what confronts us. We are anxiety-ridden animals. Our minds are continually active, fabricating an anxious, usually self-preoccupied, often falsifying veil, which partially conceals the world... It is a task to come to see the world as it is."'
Author didn't mention Qi as the sheath of Li on this point, but I see such allusions—also see the garment of Hadit. On that point, actually:
'There is nothing outside what is supremely large. Call it the "great one." There is nothing inside what is supremely small. Call it the "small one."'
The first of the ten theses of Hui Shi.
The following quotes on the utility of ritual are worth keeping in mind:
'It seems to be precisely a functionalist view of ritual that the later Confucian Xunzi is expressing when he writes, One performs the rain sacrifice and it rains. Why? I say: There is no special reason why. It is the same as when one does not perform the rain sacrifice and it rains anyway. When the sun and moon suffer eclipse, one tries to save them.'
'When Heaven sends drought, one performs the rain sacrifice. One performs divination and only then decides on important affairs. But this is not for the sake of getting what one seeks, but rather to give things proper form. Thus, the gentleman looks upon this as proper form, but the common people look upon it as connecting with spirits. (Xunzi 17; Readings, p. 272) In another passage, Xunzi makes clear that "proper form" is connected with the expression and reinforcement of one's emotions and dispositions:'
'"In every case, ritual begins in that which must be released, reaches full development in giving it proper form, and finishes in providing it satisfaction. And so when ritual is at its most perfect, the requirements of inner dispositions and proper form are both completely fulfilled" (Xunzi 19; Readings, p. 276).'
'Thus, the gentleman looks upon this as proper form, but the common people look upon it as connecting with spirits.'
'Thus I say: The sacrificial rites are the refined expression of remembrance and longing.'
'"You regret the loss of the lamb, whereas I regret the loss of the rite" (3.17).'
'By ritual, Heaven and earth harmoniously combine;
By ritual, the sun and moon radiantly shine;
By ritual, the four seasons in progression arise;
By ritual, the stars move orderly across the skies;
By ritual, the great rivers through their courses flow;
By ritual, the myriad things all thrive and grow;
By ritual, for love and hate proper measure is made;
By ritual, on joy and anger fit limits are laid.
By ritual, compliant subordinates are created,
By ritual, enlightened leaders are generated.
With ritual, all things can change but none brings chaos;
But deviate from ritual, and you face only loss.'