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.