Mencius

Cami

Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, and now Mencius are all concerned with what is good—no, what is best. How can we be the best people, the best society, the best leaders? But even then, they do not take for granted that everyone understands that there is a “best.” Is this discussion boring, irrelevant, and best left to philosophers and religious extremists? Some on the book discussion forums have told me so. But what is the worth of reading these dense and sometimes tedious ancients if we cannot take this one simple truth from them?

Mencius says, “I, too, wish to follow in the footsteps of the three sages in rectifying the hearts of men, laying heresies to rest, opposing extreme action, and banishing excessive views. I am not fond of disputation. I have no alternative,” and “If a thing has no source, it is like the rain water that collects after a downpour in the seventh and eighth months. It may fill all the gutters, but we can stand and wait for it to dry up.”

We need to be reading those things that have a source—a source in truth, in beauty, in good. Those fluffy reads may be fun, but any good that comes from them may evaporate in minutes. If there is something bad in them, once the fun is gone, all we have left is the sludge at the bottom that sticks around for ages. It is not worth it. I’ll stand up for reading good things, regardless of my unpopularity. I have no alternative.


Janice

I think ancient Chinese philosophy has its mostly good, but some bad points and also some inconsistencies. There is a lot of pride and even though they talk about humility, they seem to be proud of that, too. It was a lot like Plato and Aristotle in that he is trying to show what a perfect government should be like. I also think they are very idealistic. Mencius insists man is fundamentally good, and all he has to do is be his true self. It’s true that man has a potential toward godliness, but as Christians we believe he must change his heart and become a new creature. M. tries to explain man’s tending toward wickedness by saying it’s only because he gets on the wrong path, but then he says over and over that man must be taught to be good or continually “rectify” himself. That’s the main inconsistency. I like how he puts such great responsibility on rulers to be benevolent. Some of it was too deep to try to decipher. There were some great parts that totally applied to our society today, what with all the nonsense about “gay rights.” People should read Mencius.

If only the secular progressives today would read "the ancients! The ancients!" The last line of the book rings tragically true today. "In these circumstances, is there no one to transmit his doctrines? Yes, is there no one to do so?"


Julia

I always like to go back to the writer himself after I read the work. I usually forget the background as I get lost in the writings. Mencius was in the direct line from Confucius, at least philosophically. Teacher and pupil were as important a relationship as father and son. He said his teachings were solely concerned with benevolence and righteousness.

The most interesting and important reason we are studying Mencius is because he is a distant ancestor of our own Revolution. [John Major says that the resemblances between our founding political documents and the collected sayings of an ancient Chinese philosopher are not accidental.] It seems that throughout the history of the world, great thinkers have been touched by the Spirit as they reason and write about innate ethical questions. This desire to philosophize and teach, to decifer life's purpose and the best way to live in society must surely have been inspired by God.

Aristotle

Cami (Politics)

It is interesting to read this during such an influential election. It seems now more than ever a relative morality is pervasive in our country. Proposition 8, abortion laws, socialized medicine and schooling--these kinds of things are all addressed here in Aristotle. And more than that, he warns us against exactly what is happening now. . .

The standard of morality is of most importance because "man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is worst of all." And Aristotle's idea of law and justice is quite refined. . . One of my favorite quotes about money, but which can be applied to politics and everything else, is this: "Of everything which we possess there are two uses. Both belong tothe thing as such, but not in the same manner, for one is the proper, and the other the improper or secondary use of it." Again he appeals to the higher good. Sure, you can use anything any way you want, but there is a standard for what is should be used for.

In conclusion, I will allude to the reason Aristotle considered politics to be so important. He talks about the many classes, or different roles played, in every society, and how each of them are important in their own way. We depend on each other and rely on each other and connot survive without each other. Each of these classes are a part of the body of a state. But the government, Aristotle considers to be the soul. It goes to reason that if the soul is corrupted, by not aiming for the greatest good, then the body is soon to follow.


Janice (Ethics)

It's true that he is more difficult to slog through than Plato. I had to skim a lot. But it was worthwhile. He had many of the same concerns as Plato--you can see the influence--but goes into much more detail about relationships and virtues and motives. A lot is repetitive. My instro says these are his notes for various lectures, hence, the rambliness.

In this study of human nature we are exhorted to rise above any base and selfish inclinations. "Our task is to become good men, or achieve the highest human good. That good is happiness . .. It's all quite secular and worldly, but intensely moral. He has some very good arguments supporting his thesis that virtues must be acquired, just as vices are acquired. "So it is a matter of no little importance what sort of habits we form from the earliest age--it makes a vast difference, or rather all the difference in the world." (92) Another thing he drills into us is how we must arrive at the "mean" of every virtue, for instance, too much patience can be bad, just as not enough patience can be bad. He calls it excess and deficiency in actions and feelings. Everything must be in its proper intensity. "For men are bad in countless ways, and good in only one." (101) But not every feeling or action has a mean, because some are simply depraved, evil in themselves, such as malice, shamelessness and envy, and adultery, theft and murder. These are simply wrong, no matter what.

It's an amazing accumulation of wisdom and understanding. Everyone should know what Aristotle was really about.


Julia (Poetics)

"Contemplation is the highest form of activity." --Aristotle

Poetics is an analysis of Greek tragedy and has enormous influence on literary criticism. His whole approach to life is more earthbound than Plato's, less utopian and more geared to the actual nature and abilities of the ordinary man.

Examining the nature of tragedy, he takes as its prime example Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus. He believed that tragedy deeply affects the spectator by arousing the emotions of fear and pity, and then purifying and cleansing him of these emotions. Aristotle called this process catharsis. When I saw the movie, The Changling recently I had these same kinds of emotions, so now, according to Aristotle, I have experienced catharsis and should be a more whole and better adjusted person.

I don't necessarily agree with Fadiman when he says "Aristotle tells us that education is accompanied by pain. And education in Aristotle himself involves, if not pain, at least difficulty. Unlike his master, Plato, he is charmless."

Plato

Cami

I really, really liked the first ones we read—Apology and Crito. It helped to know from Aristophanes that lawyers were big in the land. It all makes sense—lawyers, politicians, philosophers, sophists—they are all about who can use words the best. And who can trick the public or their opponent into believing (or at least saying) what they believe. But Socrates seemed so different in these first two. I loved when he defended himself against sophistry by stating that the truth needs not embellishment. There IS a true correct opinion. He was a simple speaker, in some sense, and seemed to want to get to the bare truth of the matter at hand. I also loved how he seemed deeply religious, stating that he would obey God rather than man, although he followed the laws of the land (as we see by allowing himself to be killed rather than rescued—if we refuse the laws of the land, all is lost). I wrote at the end of Apology: He sounds like a prophet sentenced to death for preaching repentance. Truth will prevail. Death is not punishment. The Spirit cannot be denied.

Janice

How amazing that Plato (428-348 B.C.) started a school, the Academy, which continued for many centuries. And we still read and teach his ideas. As far as I could make out, I think Plato and his colleagues were trying to figure out things like what truth, virtue, wisdom, common sense, and goodness are, what civilized society should allow, what children should be taught, how to ensure a safe and good society. (Funny how our society doesn't seem to be so concerned with a lot of these things anymore.) They believed in God and gods, in other word, in a higher intelligence than mortal man which was responsible for and interested in their existence, and who they were somewhat accountable to. They also believed in the immortal soul being more valuable than the body, and in an afterlife. I have found it interesting to see what people thought before Christ came and answered a lot of their questions. And it's interesting that a lot of it sounds similar to some scriptures. These were the times, places, and people that were ripe for Christianity.

(addendum--after reading Republic) Let's just say they were "excellent people as far as their lights extend" 334. They really cared about making society a decent place where people could be free and safe to learn and grow. They understood a lot about human nature. They knew how tyrants are produed and what they are made of. They were seeking for truth. They faced reality. They sought to know what made a truly good man, inside and out. They were not "dazzled by the foolish applause of the world" 317. Like I always say, everyone should read it.


Julia

Socrates' goal was to teach young men to think clearly and act reasonably. he was accused of introducing new gods and currupting the youth. He is known for his adherence to his convictions and his fearlessness of consequences. The philosophy of his dialogues has remained for over 2000 years one of the greatest intellectual influences of the western world--amirable for literature as well as philosophy. He was more than 70 years old when he appeared in court. "I am that gadfly which God has given the state and all day long and in all places I am always fastening on you, arousing and persuading and re-provoking you." He said that the strong arm of that oppressive power did not frighten him into doing wrong (when he was a senator) "but I went quietly home." Was he referring to going to his Final Home? He said that he would never cease teaching philosophy about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul.