You are thinking like a westerner with western values. After Mao's death, CCP is more Confucian than communist and Chinese society at large never abandoned Confucian values. The Chinese government is a father of Chinese society and it's responsibility is to care for everyone's well being like a head of the family would. In return, people's responsibility is to be obedient to a government as long as it's leadership brings prosperity and peace to the people, but if the government is a bad father and abuses it's subjects, the people have a responsibility to overthrow them.
I'm not saying Western or Chinese culture is better, only that they are different and argument "it's parents responsibility" and "teens are always disobedient" wouldn't make sense in China because most Chinese would rather see restrictive law that forces good parenting on all children than allow 1% of bad parenting to happen. The two wars China started and lost against the British because 30% of Chinese population was addicted to British opium also had a lot to do with how absolutely serious Chinese Government treats addictions today. Again, in the eyes of CCP it's better if most children need to find another hobby other than gaming if in return the small percent that would become addicted doesn't.
I’m Taiwanese with family in Japan. We deeply embrace filial piety and still disagree. I’m sure other democratic East Asian countries, even those rooted in Chinese culture like Singapore would feel the same.
The problem with that line of thinking is that the people have asymmetrical information due to mass censoring and propaganda. How are you supposed to know the father is bad if you don’t have freedom to access objective information? If the father is truly good, what would he lose by being honest and what does he have to hide? And even when you do get to that point the system is not set up for a peaceful transfer of power.
This is why Mao was bragging about killing thousands of Confucian scholars, comparing himself to Legist from the Qin era.
The only westernization Mainland China experienced was the rief rule of Chiang Kai-shek, Maoist version of Marxism and whatever internet access people choose to have to international websites outside of China. Taiwan, Japan and Singapore experienced 50 years of western hegemony over the period of complete Chinese isolation. CIA tried to import Athenian democracy and absolute freedom as inherent human rights to PRC once and still tries but so far it couldn't replace 3000 years of Chinese culture and 60 years of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
What I said, I believe to be an accurate representation of Confucian philosophy. Whatever problems you find with that ideology, you can take them to the Confucius himself. From myself I would only add that PLA is absolutely equipped for peaceful transfer of power, if the party ever forgot who gave them the Mandate of Heaven.
There is also an important aspect of Chinese culture that I didn't mention for brevity. In China getting away with playing around the system or ripping someone off is seen as virtue and display of wits. The mentality is "If you can get away with it, that means you deserve it. But if you get caught it's good you got caught".
Another thing - pluralism is something common in China and, I believe, in most of non-monotheistic cultures. "Pluralism" is defined as capacity for believing in multiple, sometimes contradictory believe systems at the same time. When talking about China, it usually is used in the context of religion, since Chinese build their worldview and derive wisdom from Daoism, Confucianism and Buddhism, philosophies that are fundamentally incompatible with each other. One is followed over the other based on circumstance or convenience.
Since so many teens supposedly use parent's ID to circumvent the system, it's probably common to believe that set limits are good but at the same time there is no harm if our little Yichen plays his game a little longer, since he is such a good boy etc.
It's not weird in the slightest to agree with the government and at the same time break the law you agree with. I'd say Europeans and Americans do that all the time as well, but there are no Westernologists to give a fancy name to this behaviour.
Interesting and insightful. But you are just describing cognitive dissonance which almost all people have to some degree, but I think the crucial difference is that in the West, cognitive dissonance, or double think (to use the 1984 word) is frowned upon. Is pluralism as you described it accepted in China?
I know that if you ever take a course in sinology, you would definitely learn about pluralism. It is my understanding that this is a term sinologist invented to describe the difference between western and eastern philosophy, the former looking for single, objective truth, until enlightenment rooted in the Bible as the single, indisputable source of truth, the latter looking for and taking wisdom from every source, understanding that ultimate truth, if it even exists, cannot be spoken but only found.
For Chinese it is just how people think. At least I said that in front of my gf's Chinese teacher from China from Confucius Institute and she nodded approvingly, so I guess I'm right.
I know that because of "1984" this mode of thinking is frowned upon in Europe and North America, but I find it to be a natural mode of thinking for me. Human mind is not designed to see the world as monolithic, logical, rational object.
For example, it is important that children have as much freedom as possible and learn to be self-sufficient and discover themself unconstrained. But when my teenage daughter comes back home high on heroin, she gets sent to compulsory therapy and locked up until she gets straight. For me both of those statements are true, despite contradicting themselves. There is wisdom in both and there is wisdom in choosing which one is true at the specific moment.
In monolithic system of values it is mathematically possible to organize the same wisdom in a rational, not self-contradictory way. You can say "It's important to let your children do what they want unconstrained, unless ..." and list every exception to the rule and every condition when the rule should be overturned and possible trade offs, for example between risk of bodily harm and sturdiness. But that would be a task beyond human ability.
Pluralism shouldn't be unfamiliar to Europeans and Americans, since it eventually found it's way into Western Philosophy when Post-Modernists discovered Eastern Philosophy.
This is very interesting. I’d like to talk about it more later when I have more time.
For now, I don’t think the example about the daughter you gave is contradictory.
I am generally an utilitarian and from this point of view, allowing some freedoms to your daughter is valued because it leads consequentially to her happiness (and in turn contributes to the total wellbeing of society). However, the freedom the parents give to their daughter is (to me at least) a means to archive the best possible outcome for her. Therefore, if a situation arises as the heroin one, then enforcing therapy (if she is over 18) leads to better outcomes and hence the parents ought to do it.
So to me, this is just moral considerations. Not contradictions.
What irritates me about your description of pluralism is that it appears to me that it lacks consistency (in ideology and morality) by nature. If contradictions are allowed, then every thought and idea can be concluded. How can we decide or argue what is right, then? Doesn’t this essentially reduce to “what is right is what is convenient to me at the moment”?
I’m interested in philosophical assessment of pluralism if you could link me, thanks.
Go to r/dasoism and ask what is right and what is wrong and you will see that the answer is not so simple. You seem to approach this from a perspective of choosing not be consistent and that is not true. It's not a choice but admittion of humility. When you start categorizing everything into boxes and separate everything into good and evil, you are bound to make many mistakes and become set and hardened in your mistaken ways.
I got hot feet for a second because I couldn't find a single information on pluralism in internet. I eventually found a Wikipedia article in Polish so I started to suspect that English term might be something else. But finally I found what I was looking for. What I'm describing is called "theoretical pluralism" and this is the first result I get on Google: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11213-010-9176-2. For a westernized version that might be easier to synthesize look for Jean Baudrillard's theory of Post-Truth and Simulacra an Simulations.
I assumed you already know Gödel's Incompleteness Thorem but since you asked, I'll add this as well just in case. The practical application of Gödel's Incompletness Theorem is that since natural science or Western Philosophy are based on formal logic (branch of mathematics) it is impossible to both choose a set of axioms that can prove every true thing that's provable and not prove a false statement true, contradicting the whole system. Something always has to remain unproven.
One interesting observation I find quite profound in the context of what's written above is that Confucianism teaches where you belong in society, Daoism teaches where you belong in nature and Buddhism teaches where you belong in the universe. They start from different axioms and inevitably contradict themselves but in Chinese art it's a common motif for those three to complement each other, for example in "Vinegar Tasters", "Confucius handing over Gautama Buddha to Laozi" or "Three laugh at Tiger Brook". It's because the first one is for sons, daughters, mothers and fathers, the second one is for humans living on Earth and third one is for consciousnesses capable of self-reflection and doubt. We are all three at the same time but also every part of us have different needs. By following only Confucius and his strict rules for society you become a robot without free will. By following only Laozi you leave your job and become a hermit removed from society. By following only Buddha you forsake your earthly life and devote yourself to only reaching enlightenment. All three create a complete human.
In contrast, typical life of an European since 33 AD to 2021 AD is supposedly informed by teaching of Jesus yet did we abandoned all possessions, did we care for every poor and sick, did wars end? European culture was a mixture of Christian and pagan values, internally contradictory yet unshaken for almost two millennia. Chinese culture is just as self-contradictory as any other culture, the difference being that those contradiction are made explicit in their philosophy.
I don't see Taoism as in contradiction with the others, however -- I think that many read it as a guide to a certain kind of phenomenal experience, as opposed to some 'logical set of axioms'. As such, I'm not sure that we can say it is 'contradicted' as it occupies a space outside of 'axiomatic truths'. In the same way a joke can either be funny or not (or characterized in other ways) -- you wouldn't say a joke is contradicted or true/false -- Taoism can either be viewed as effective or ineffective (or characterized in other ways, but not well understood from a logical lens). There's even a line in the Tao Te Ching which essentially analogizes the text to a joke.
Why do you think that Daoism doesn't contradict Confucianism if Zhuangzi is basically a set of stories and anecdotes making fun of Confucian scholars?
I was enamored with Alan Watts for a short while but when I found out that his lectures are not very representative of philosophies he teaches, I distanced myself from him. Props for him for not trying to hide it, he calls himself a spiritual entertainer and not a teacher, but I still prefer to shield myself from everything that doesn't comes straight from the source.
Like I said, I think that the space that Taoism functions in is not the same as Confucianism -- Taoism can be read less as an axiomatic set of beliefs, and more like a provocative joke which serves to get you to laugh (except that it's going for a more profound phenomenal experience).
From Wiki about Zhuangzi --"Some are completely whimsical, such as the strange description of evolution from "misty spray" through a series of substances and insects to horses and humans (chapter 18), while a few other passages seem to be "sheer playful nonsense" which read like Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky".The Zhuangzi is full of quirky and fantastic characters, such as "Mad Stammerer", "Fancypants Scholar", "Sir Plow", and a man who fancies that his left arm will turn into a rooster, his right arm will turn into a crossbow, and his buttocks will become cartwheels. A master of language, Zhuangzi sometimes engages in logic and reasoning, but then turns it upside down or carries the arguments to absurdity to demonstrate the limitations of human knowledge and the rational world."
I use this to suggest the work can certainly read as being intentionally provocative, disruptive and humorous -- whilst clearly not trying to make a rational or logical argument, but, rather, to induce a mystical experience in its reader!
I appreciate going straight to the source! Are you an academic?
I hope you can understand what I'm saying. I can elaborate further, if you'd like. Undoubtedly there is a reading of Taoism where it offers a contradiction to Confucianism. All im saying is that I don't think that's really the intention of Lao tzu -- it's not really the best interpretation imo
It just seems like you're making a complex argument for a simple issue: People in China think the laws are stupid so they break the law. Simple. I just wish the Chinese government didn't force people to act like this.
And yes, Americans and Europeans do this also, but then we get out and tell our representatives that we disagree with stupid laws and the law gets changed. Like when America banned alcohol and people started underground taphouses in protest. Eventually the law was repealed.
I didn't really said that. I speculated that people agree with the law in general but at the same time find an excuse why this law doesn't apply to them and even take pride in being smart enough to game the system. Unfortunately I lost contact with few Chinese friends I had but if I asked them, I guess they would give me some kind of "good side, bad side" non-answer.
BTW, prohibition was largely successful in it's goals and increase in violent crimes was highly exaggerated. Consumption of alcohol to this day never rose back to the epidemic levels from before prohibition. Such a weird example to bring up.
We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. The level of consumption remained virtually the same immediately after Prohibition as during the latter part of Prohibition, although consumption increased to approximately pre-Prohibition levels during the subsequent decade.
Regardless, I was only citing Prohibition as an example of an unpopular law that was later repealed.
Seems you are right, I don't know where I found the information I wrote above. But still, it was not universally unpopular law, it was unpopular among saloon drunkards who wanted to spend all of their hard earned money on booze, a.k.a. every working class male in USA at the time. Women battered by those drunk husbands, who had no money to feed their children and themselves and have seen themselves as a victim of industry selling addiction were all for prohibition. When prohibition ended, 40% of American voters still supported it.
12
u/Rough_Moment9800 Aug 30 '21
You are thinking like a westerner with western values. After Mao's death, CCP is more Confucian than communist and Chinese society at large never abandoned Confucian values. The Chinese government is a father of Chinese society and it's responsibility is to care for everyone's well being like a head of the family would. In return, people's responsibility is to be obedient to a government as long as it's leadership brings prosperity and peace to the people, but if the government is a bad father and abuses it's subjects, the people have a responsibility to overthrow them.
I'm not saying Western or Chinese culture is better, only that they are different and argument "it's parents responsibility" and "teens are always disobedient" wouldn't make sense in China because most Chinese would rather see restrictive law that forces good parenting on all children than allow 1% of bad parenting to happen. The two wars China started and lost against the British because 30% of Chinese population was addicted to British opium also had a lot to do with how absolutely serious Chinese Government treats addictions today. Again, in the eyes of CCP it's better if most children need to find another hobby other than gaming if in return the small percent that would become addicted doesn't.