Confucius on Tiananmen Square – UPDATED

(AP photo)

UPDATED and moved to top: As Steve Angle reported in comments a couple of days ago, apparently the statue has been moved inside the museum! Confucianism revivalists are up in arms. Information about why this was done — whether long-planned, or not -– is contradictory. The English-language press is now reporting this, though they don’t have much information, either!

Here’s a New York Times piece about it from yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/23/world/asia/23confucius.html?_r=1

If you hover over the Times picture, it shows you a dramatic(?) before and after shot. Note this interesting quote from the piece:

Guo Qijia, a professor at Beijing Normal University who helps run the China Confucius Institute, said that only Confucian teachings could rescue China from what he described as a moral crisis.

“Students come home from school and tell their parents, ‘One of my classmates got run over by a car today — now I have one less person to compete against,’ ” he said. “We have lost our humanity, our kindness and our spirit. Confucianism is our only hope for becoming a great nation.”

Continue reading →

Comparative Philosophy in Europe

A European member of the ISCWP noted, in our recent “Call for Board Nominations,” the plan to continue a geographical balance between East Asian and North America, and this led her to wonder why Europe was excluded. She writes: “…I would love to know who else in Europe is studying on comparitive philosophy, since indeed I am starting to think that I am one of few.” Continue reading →

ISCWP Call for Board Nominations

To all ISCWP members (and any new members who join prior to April 29):

The term of the current ISCWP Board will end on June 30, 2011. Starting July 1, 2011, our current Vice-President (Sor-hoon Tan) will assume the Presidency. This spring, we need to elect two new board members to three-year terms: a new Vice-President (who will become president in 2014), and a new Secretary-Treasurer. Continue reading →

Fatalism in Mozi

This is my first post here so I will begin by thanking the Steve and Manyul for first inviting me (and gently reminding me to post), and begging everyone’s indulgence since I wanted to post something less weighty.

So I was reading Ian Johnston’s new complete translation of the Mozi to write a review (out next year in PEW) when I came across this passage in the introduction:

Mo Zi’s argument against Fatalism is very simple. To a significant extent, the simplicity is a result of Mo Zi’s failure to provide, in any of the [“Feiming”] essays, a clear exposition of what Fate actually is or might be. The discussion is really only in terms of what a belief in Fate is presumed to entail. There is no semblance of any argument about determinism and free-will more generally, although the existence of the latter is certainly implied in Mo Zi’s social prescription. (lxv)

It’s a small point in a compact overview of Mohism so I didn’t think it’s necessary to make too much of it (no, what follows is not in my review). But I can’t help but think that Johnston had committed the common error of conflating fatalism with determinism. But that’s not really my point in this post (having just concluded a semester’s teaching on free will and determinism, I think I’ll take a rest from that mess.) Rather, it’s the point that the Mozi text lacks a clear exposition of what Fate is that bugged me. What follows are some relatively unpolished thoughts I had when thinking about Mozi, “Feiming” and Johnston’s complaint. Continue reading →

Must Ruists practice what they philosophize about?

For my first post here, I’d like to invite opinions on a contemporary issue. I’ve been coming across a common critique of contemporary Ruism and I’m curious what people think about it. As a preface, let me say that I’m close to giving up on various permutations of “Confucian” and “Confucianism,” so I hope you’ll all bear with my use of “Ruism” and “Ruist” instead.

The critique, which is generally directed against New Ruists, particularly Mou Zongsan, is something like this: the essence of Ruism is a social practice which aims not at developing theories, but realizing the Way in society. Making it into an object of academic study, so that it becomes an isolated practice of theorizing, is a mistake. The 20th century turn of making Ruism into a kind of philosophy and carrying out philosophical research in philosophy departments is emblematic of this mistake. Since Mou Zongsan is often considered the arch-theorist of New Ruism, he tends to get the brunt of this criticism. Continue reading →

Friend Us on Facebook

We’ve set up a Facebook account for the blog, here: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002285389132. If you “friend” us there, you’ll receive a Facebook update on your own Facebook page whenever there is a new post here on the blog. A permanent link to the blog’s Facebook page has also been added to the right hand column.

Please continue to use the blog site for contributing comments in response to postings, rather than the Facebook page.

PEA Soup Discussion of Slingerland on Situationism and Confucian Ethics

The excellent ethics blog PEA Soup hosts a public discussion of one article per issue of Ethics, and starting March 30 the discussion will feature Ted Slingerland’s “The Situationist Critique and Early Confucian Virtue Ethics,” which is now freely available (as part of an arrangement between the blog and Ethics). Double-congratulations to Ted (for the essay in Ethics, and for it being chosen for this discussion)!

UPDATE: the actual url for the discussion is here.