Ruism | Warp, Weft, and Way

Question about family and society in the Chinese philosophical tradition

Here are three different ideas:

Having the right attitudes in my family relationships tends to give me the right attitudes in my political relationships.
Where right family attitudes prevail in society, the right political attitudes tend also to prevail.
Differences in family culture from region to region, or from time to time, tend to be accompanied by analogous differences in political culture.

Idea #2 is very abstract, and can be understood simply in terms of order versus disorder, or natural respect versus the lack of it. Idea #3 contemplates a variety of kinds of stable order, and perhaps a variety of forms of government.

Where might idea #3 appear in the Chinese tradition?

January 6, 2018 Posted by Bill Haines | Chinese philosophy - 中國哲學 - 中国哲学, Confucianism, Filial piety, Ruism | 2 comments

Is Analects 1.2 about family?

Here are some reasons to think that Youzi did not regard family as the root of humanity or of the Way. (I used to think he did.)

Most of my argument focuses on defending a view held by Soothill, Leys, Chin, and maybe Lau and Slingerland: that by 弟 in Analects 1.2, Youzi meant elder-respect, a virtue commonly associated specifically with life outside the family. It would follow that according to 1.2, only one of the two parts of the root of humanity is specifically a family virtue. If 孝 and 弟 have something relevantly in common for Youzi, family isn’t it.

Continue reading “Is Analects 1.2 about family?”

May 16, 2016 Posted by Bill Haines | Analects, Chinese philosophy - 中國哲學 - 中国哲学, Chinese Texts, Confucianism, Confucius, Education Models, Filial piety, Moral Psychology, Roger Ames, Role Ethics, Ruism, Self-Cultivation | 22 comments

Should we use “Ruism” instead of “Confucianism”?

In a February 2016 blog post, Bin SONG makes a powerful case for switching from “Confucianism” to “Ruism.” This is not a brand-new idea; for instance, David Elstein has consistently used “Ruism,” including in his posts here at Warp, Weft, and Way, and Robert Eno advocated for such a practice in his 1990 book The Confucian Creation of Heaven (see here for relevant quote). Still, Bin Song raises some new arguments. To some degree, the things that Elstein, Eno, and Song are talking about may not be entirely the same: at least in the first instance, I take them to be referring to a modern philosophical movement, an ancient ritual-cum-philosophical movement, and a modern spiritual or religious movement of potential relevance in the contemporary US, respectively. (Admittedly, the application of these categories to Chinese practices can only be approximate; I just mean to gesture toward some possible distinctions.) Be this as it may, it may be that the arguments for using “Confucianism” in any of these contexts are weaker than many of us have assumed. What do you think: should we abandon the word “Confucianism”?

May 4, 2016 Posted by Steve Angle | Chinese philosophy - 中國哲學 - 中国哲学, Comparative philosophy, Confucianism, Contemporary Confucianism, Ruism | 45 comments

Warp, Weft, and Way is a group blog of Chinese and Comparative philosophy. Its primary purpose is to promote and stimulate discussion of Chinese philosophy and cross-tradition inquiry among scholars and students of philosophy, whatever their level of training. Contributors include active scholars with a variety of philosophical interests and approaches.

Contributors Stephen Angle and Manyul Im administer the blog behind the scenes. Any questions or requests regarding the blog and its operations may be directed to them. Contact information is available under their entries on the Contributor page. In order to maintain a dynamic conversational quality, discussion comments are not initially moderated. As a policy and a courtesy to other participants, comment or discussion authors must identify themselves with their first and last names. Exceptions will be made by request only to one of the administrators. If the blog administrators are unable to contact and verify identity, entries will be removed. While a SPAM robot stands guard to prevent obvious intrusions, the administrators reserve the right to judge the appropriateness of any posted comment.

Warp, Weft, and Way is an academic venture. Neither the administrators nor the contributors profit financially from its contents.

NOTE: Any quoted material from the blog that is published elsewhere must be properly cited, according to professional standards, for example as outlined here. Posts and comments are the intellectual property of their contributors.

Like us for New Post updates on your Facebook feed!