17 Feb 2020
vukovich@hku.hk is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom
meeting.
Topic: vukovich@hku.hk's Zoom Meeting
Time: Feb 17, 2020 03:00 PM Beijing, Shanghai
Join Zoom Meeting
https://hku.zoom.us/j/6415244213
Meeting ID: 641 524 4213
Week 3, Feb. 3 : Confucius and Han Feizi
Readings: all on course website or linked at bottom of our
class website:
1.
Stanford Encyc. Entry on Confucius and his
political/ethical
thinking:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/#Co
nPol
2.
Read Section/Book 7 of
The Analects
, esp. 子曰三人行必有我
3.
Read Section V and the 1.1 section of VI in the pdf
of
The Doctrine of the Mean
. [PDF on website]
4.
Extracts from Han Feizi (incl. the editor’s
Introduction) [PDF on website]
Recommended: Chapt 3, "Confucius' Teachings II: The
Foundation of a Good Society and Other Topics" (45-63) in Lee
Dian Rainey,
Confucius and Confucianism: The
Essentials
(Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). PDF of book on website.
Week 4, Feb 10: Machiavelli
Readings: “The Prince” [Morgan anthology.] Read all of the
selections including the headnote.
1. CON.
Confucianism
nature), shu (reciprocity), and xiao (filial piety). Together these constitute de (virtue).
Mencius, Xunzi, and others sustained Confucianism, but it was not influential until
Dong Zhongshu emerged in the 2nd century BC. Confucianism was then recognized
as the Han state cult, and the Five Classics became the core of education. In spite of
the influence of Daoism and Buddhism, Confucian ethics have had the strongest
influence on the moral fabric of Chinese society. A revival of Confucian thought in
the 11th century produced Neo-Confucianism, a major influence in Korea during the
Choson dynasty and in Japan during the Tokugawa period.
Take-Away points….
Confucius’s texts are clearly poetic and suggestive, with
moments of profound ambiguity. We cannot read this like
“straight” argumentation in relation even to morality let
alone to political philosophy or worldview, and in this it
differs from other ancient classics like the writings of
Plato or Aristotle. But it is no less significant or ambitious
as a body of texts and writings or verses. It is simply
different and more akin to poetry.
But they/his texts make an insistent and consistent
argument about the importance of morality or being
“good,” and that to be fully human is to be
good/moral/righteous. This does not explicitly state but
clearly implies a positive vision or understanding of
human nature—of what it means to be fully human, of
what humans are naturally like or can be…. C came to be
powerfully identified with conservatism and misogyny and
“feudalism” or backwardness. But this is a long story and
can be reduced to the changing political climates and
contexts of modern China, from the decrepit or weak
Qing system by the late 19
thcentury to the radical
being/doing good, then this means the human is, if not
unique, a powerful and higher type of animal.
He uses the terms or principles of ren /
仁
and ren /
人
interchangeably, for example, and li /
禮
(ritual or
conduct) and yi /
義
(justice or righteousness) are also
inseparable from being genuinely ‘ren’.
Politically, what is most clear is that the ruler and
officials must be of good character in order to succeed,
i.e. that morality, and practicing morality, and politics are
inseparable.
In a sense by placing such great emphasis on acting and
moreover
being
moral, Confucius easily belongs in the
same tradition of, say, Mohandas Gandhi the Hindu
philosopher and political anti-colonial leader, or perhaps
even Martin Luther King or more contemporary “human
rights” advocates (e.g. Vaclav Havel from the former
Soviet Czech Republic).
Of course he is more often ranged with classical thinkers/
writers from antiquity such as Plato or even the Jesus
Christ of the Christian Bibles. AT bottom C’s texts reveal
him or his philosophy to be a deep/powerful/emphatic
humanist and moralist. His thought may be seen as
spiritual but is clearly not religious or in other
2. MACHIAVELLI
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS….MACHIAVELLI :
Machiavelli still makes the news. Wanted in Italy in his own time, an arrest warrant recently turned up:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9871527/Briton-finds-500-year-old-arrest-warrant-for-Machiavelli.html
Machiavelli is of historical as well as literary import. The Prince is his most famous text but he was also a skilled playwright and wrote another classic text on history and political philosophy called The Discourses on Livy . Machiavelli was a master of rhetoric and prose, i.e. of writing, i.e. of figurative speech. He was the very embodiment of a “Renaissance man.” Widely learned without being super-specialized.
Persuasive, provocative, influential writer—too much so for his own good, as he became infamous among the religious and Christian and opposing royal houses in Italy and elsewhere. The church and the powers that be hated or feared him. Like much later thinkers/artists later in the 1800s and 1900s, he was also seen as an advocate of atheism and secular reason: a threat to the Church and morality. Political threat too: that someone could actually have real, effective knowledge and could guide a ruler/”player” and therefore be powerful himself without having the right, ruling class pedigree.
Also: note that the prince here is an idealized type, despite M’s attempts to argue in terms of realism. In other words, the prince – the ideal one -- is a literary or figurative or imaginative creation, a character, in his own right. Almost an action hero.
We should read M’s prince as a character in his own right, perhaps even an anti-hero or a man of action….. So you see, reading fiction and non-fiction are not greatly different.
1. Academically he is most famous, or infamous, as an advocate of “the ends justify the means” philosophy or view. And for being an early realist and historical philosopher of politics and republicanism. I’ll try to clarify this below.
BUT the problem for us is that Machiavelli, while having some controversial and even objectionable views about, for example, women and the necessity of being cruel, is also a highly ethical or moral thinker. He has a specific END in mind and it is not just about power or money: he wants peace, stability and a safe and united Italy. This is clearly an ethical end. It isn’t just about power and glory but what ends you put power too.
2. >>ITS ALSO ABOUT THE SELF<< The Prince is also akin to today’s self-help manuals and guides on how to live. Part of the influence of his work is about how his advice guides you in how to live even if you are no politician…. Checkout the TOC for the book I will refer to,
What Would Machiavelli Do? By Stanley Bing (a self-help type of book, or pop psychology):
humorous but has a point about M’s influence and use today. M is still a cultural phenomenon. And if you think about it, it might be a lot of fun to be a Machiavel. Machiavells are sort of like action heroes/heroines. Upwardly mobile, ambitious, getting stuff done no matter who is in their way. Appealing? Fun life?
*********** The Prince ********
How to obtain and keep political power….>> the purpose of the book . Specifically applies to principalities/monarchies of some type but it can and has been read as of much larger import, i.e. as being about all./any political or governmental form.
SELECTIONS from THE PRINCE: some main themes. You don’t need to know or master all of these.
The key points are: human nature & ends justify the means. Third would be : M’s realism and historical reasoning. But first two are main thing for us.
1. Human Nature
The headnote is very detailed. P. 2519 brings up an essential issue: his view of humanity or human nature in general. As noted with Rousseau, most thinkers assume a theory of human nature: humans are either naturally or essentially good or evil, for various natural-scientific or ‘God given’ reasons. They have certain inherent qualities or behaviors or dimensions. And we need to be aware of these and build our thinking around them (esp. if we are princes).
What are we like by nature, as humans? What would we be like if we existed in nature only, before society or history? Christianity and esp. Roman Catholicism: human nature is flawed and sinful. [the Adam and Eve story…]
The human nature question is important because it can be seen as the foundation for the rest of their work (art/thinking, and so on). It is logically and rhetorically crucial. Since ppl are like X for Machiavelli (see chapts 15 and 16), then you should rule and act like Y.
Or conversely, if people are by nature good, or moral, or happy, or co-operative, then mass democracy or communism sounds like the right form of government [Rousseau, say, or later communists].
Machiavelli addresses this human nature question directly. But even when writers/artists/thinkers do not address it explicitly it is still a good question to ask of them.
What does this text say about the nature of human beings? Good or evil? How so? And why is this important or how does it get assumed in a text? Carver—pretty bleak. Wang Anyi? Zhao Shuli? Frost? Frost says we deceive ourselves all the time—in a way we are inherently dishonest even to ourselves. Rousseau says we are born free and naturally good, but often suffer due to society’s limitations. Zhao says we are naturally free too, but have to and can overthrow oppressive cultural and social conditions—esp. through a wise prince/Party/organization. Wang Anyi—also more like Zhao and Rousseau and etc.—marriage and patriarchal roles (gender roles) are the problem. Carver: ppl seem pretty messed up and unhappy in general! And often drunk as a result.
>>> first paragraph of chapter 15. Lays out M’s thoughts on human nature.
Chap 17: hated or loved? It is ideal to be both loved and feared (paradoxical!). But if you have to choose, it is better to be feared. Why? It is more secure. Why? Because of human nature—people are fearful and self-interested.
2. Machiavelli’s REALISM:
M’s method and beliefs are said to be realistic: based on what actually happens. He insists he is a realist. He observes things closely, including in history, and then argues from there. “Things not as they should be but as they are….” The way things are in reality and not as we imagine them. This is on the surface quite simple. Do your thinking on the basis of what really happens and what is true in reality, not in ideal terms or doctrinal (religious/faith-based) or conventional terms.
scientific but it does make claims on what really or truly “is.” Machiavelli also grounds this realism in history—historical example or ‘proof.’
Chapt 15
3. Machiavelli’s HISTORICISM. [related to #2]
M wants us to think historically—on the basis of learning form history, which is the ultimate “laboratory” or “proof” of things. So: be historical, Prince. M uses a lot of historicalexamples or precedents. You make your decisions based on this and not on morality or abstract logic or religious teachings. Part of what makes M important is that he is one of the first modern/secular Westerners to reason so explicitly on the basis of historical examples— like an academic. It is like he is saying what we already know: if you do not study history you are doomed to repeat it.
References or gestures to “reality.” 2524. KEY PASSAGE: 2524, the is/ought distinction
What is the is/ought distinction? M says we should talk about the world the way it really is, and not the way it ought to be. Now what do you make of this? It suggests we should break all of our illusions and ideals about the way things OUGHT to be (about love, virtue, godliness, etc.). We should pay the most attention to what people actually do, not what they say they do or think they are doing. This will come up later in the Marx lecture/readings.
4. The Necessity of APPEARANCES: The art of politics is also this. Perception is reality—i.e. you can create reality in some sense by manipulating people and society. What we call SPIN today in the political and media worlds.
Managing Appearances: or producing them. We don’t just need to manage our appearances to other people-- we have to actively produce these appearances (work hard on them).
should appear to be liberal and generous but should not always actually be so, for example. Why? He has very concrete justifications. For every bit of advice M offers about how you/we should appear and not just be, he offers a justification. You might or might not agree with him, but you can tell he is thinking pretty seriously about all of this stuff . It is a new discovery within intellectual history….
Liberality vs. parsimony: chap 16. don’t care if ppl call you stingy. Use other ppl. It is better to be stingy or un-generous than to be liberal/generous. IN fact you don’t want to appear to be generous —your money will run out, ppl will be ungrateful, and soon. Again, manage or produce your appearance and perception: persuade or manipulate other people.
5. ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS. ENDS VS. MEANS: a much more complicated issue than we think. In politics, M says, the ends justify the means. This also became one of his more ‘personal’ self-help tips [his later reputation], but he didn’t mean it that way.
Here it is in brief: according to at least Judeo-Christian and certainly liberal/humanistic thinking, our means must be as pure or as good as our ends. You can’t use bad/immoral means to arrive at a good end. And actually the great Indian political and intellectual and Hindu religious leader, Mahatma Gandhi, said much the same thing. As did Martin Luther King, the great American civil rights leader. We can’t act unjustly or immorally, or a-morally, and get just ends as a result. I believe Buddhist theology says something very similar. Non-violence is a, if not the primary virtue.
>>>>>>>>>>>BUT Machiavelli says otherwise: it doesn’t matter if you are so virtuous if you don’t get your ends. The ends are the main thing. What good are “good” means if they do not work or do not secure a good end? Then they seem useless at best, or even bad because they failed. You can use immoral or unjust or a-moral means to obtain good ends. It is justifiable and ethical (in its own terms). And moreover – since we human beings are so awful by nature – if we always act virtuous we are doomed to fail individually. In fact this is the point of his whole work in some ways: the Prince can act unjustly or immorally if it leads to a good end. IN fact he or she has no choice. The ends do justify the means whether we like it or not.
Italy (or Florence and Rome/papal territories anyway). It is kind of assumed this has to be a republic, to unite Florence with the rest….. PEACE AND UNITY: In itself this sounds like a good thing, does it not? So he does have an end in mind, and an ethical or moral one. Who does not want peace and unity? Safety from invasion and barbarians? Sounds very familiar to students of China, perhaps….
>>> wants Italy to be liberated from the barbarians (Spain/Swiss….)
6. FORTUNE.
In short: M is saying that Fortune – which he characterizes in sexist terms as a woman, to be sure -- accounts for 50% of human affairs. Think back to Crane—the guys in the boat talk about how nature or the universe is out to get them or is really unfair and arbitrary. How can they drown when they work so hard? Well Machiavelli is saying that yes Fortune/Fate is impossible to know or control ultimately. It accounts for about 50% of our lives—this much is out of our control and is not knowable. But we are in charge of the other 50%. Therefore, act on it! Be young and bold and daring. Be impetuous. You have nothing to lose and are still dead in the long run (M. is not a religious/Christian thinker). It is in this sense that Stanley Bing’s subtitle of his book – “The Ends Justify the Meanness” – has a point. Not that we should be mean but that we shouldn’t worry about that all the time. Morality is relative. It IS important but it is not absolute or objectively there, in reality. Relatedly, we – and the prince or rulers -- should strive to achieve our ends by any means necessary. But this end itself has to be more than merely greed or cruelty or power for its own sake. Perhaps the ultimate end is what the CCP calls “stability.” Or the self-preservation of one’s rule, or self, or one’s nation or empire. All of this is arguable and disputable. But it is not unreasonable or irrational.
More background on Han Fei [but those are just recommended readings, so this is just “fyi”….] : http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Diverse/hanfeizi.html
