A Ku Indeed!

Anyone who reads Sullivan regularly knows that occasionally publishes posts that seek to defend the religious stance (one that he personally shares). I don’t have a whole lot to say about whether I find these arguments persuasive, but today he put up one of those ‘defend the religious’ posts that at least raised a question for me. The actual substance of the post isn’t by him, but by Karen Armstrong. Here’s the quote by her that he cites:

These writers are wrong — not only about religion, but also about politics — because they are wrong about human nature. Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. As soon as we became recognizably human, men and women started to create religions. We are meaning-seeking creatures. While dogs, as far as we know, do not worry about the canine condition or agonize about their mortality, humans fall very easily into despair if we don’t find some significance in our lives. Theological ideas come and go, but the quest for meaning continues. So God isn’t going anywhere. And when we treat religion as something to be derided, dismissed, or destroyed, we risk amplifying its worst faults. Whether we like it or not, God is here to stay, and it’s time we found a way to live with him in a balanced, compassionate manner.

(more…)

I’ve been a bit detached from the blog lately. A combination of things – I’ve simply taken on too many sabbatical projects, and so I feel like I’m constantly buried under a mountain of work. Someone mentioned to me a while ago that sabbaticals are supposed to be partly ‘restorative’ but I’m pretty sure that I haven’t really accomplished anything in that area. The other reason is that I’ve been sick for two weeks. Swine Flu? Maybe. I can’t tell, but in any event I can’t seem to shake the damn thing.  I have a bunch of post ideas, however – they’ll be up fairly soon.

One of the things that I noticed while in China this past spring semester was that when people who generally serve as your superiors do things for you, they tend to point out just how difficult it was to accomplish whatever it is that they did for you. Of course, admittedly, my data is limited, but hey – my experience is what it was. In any case, many times in these situations I found myself scratching my head about this, since the inserted commentary about difficulty often seemed very out of place, in fact to the point where it made you feel uncomfortable. Whereas Americans tend to discount difficulties, saying things like “ah, it wasn’t anything” or “no biggie” the Chinese I met said the opposite, graphically describing just how hard it really was.

(more…)

In Analects 3.19, it states: “The duke Ding asked how a prince should employ his ministers, and how ministers should serve their prince. Confucius replied, “A prince should employ his minister according to according to the rules of propriety; ministers should serve their prince with faithfulness.”

What’s interesting about this passage is that it seems to have a connection to passages in the work that deal with the “one thread” — the claim that Confucius’ “way” is held together by zhong (loyalty)and shu (flexibility, reciprocity). Typically ‘zhong’ is taken to refer to the virtues of the subordinate, and ‘shu’ refers to the virtues of the superior. If 3.19 is a related to the ‘one thread’ then we should expect zhong and shu to be represented. In 3.19, the claim that the minister serve his prince with faithfulness is a direct translation of the character for zhong. Although the character for ‘shu’ does not appear in 3.19, one might expect that it is being expressed in some way when it is stated that the superior treats the ministers according to ritual. But how? Why isn’t this just another instance of zhong?

(more…)

Yesterday we all went to the local fair/festival here in town, called “Apple Butter Makin’ Days.” This year they had an added attraction — a small kid amusement park. One of the things they had there for kids to do gave me some ideas about ways to deal with a four-year old girl (like Big P) when she refuses to listen and is doing her best to annoy her parents. See below…

(more…)

Over at New Majority again (I’ve been following a few of the writers there lately, as I’m interested in what their notion of a ‘new conservativism’ would amount to), Zac Morgan takes Obama to task (surprisingly) for not doing more about gay rights (specifically, regarding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”).  I agree with Morgan on this score — Obama has been heavy on talk, low on action. I don’t doubt that it’s political — the guy has his plate full, and there’s little political reason to drive up more furor against him from his opposition at this point. My guess is that when the health care issue is finished (one way or the other), we’ll see movement on these other social concerns. However, Morgan’s suggestion is not actually a call to action on the part of Obama — he really thinks that that Republicans should step in and basically steal the issue from Democrats, seeking to take the lead in overruling some gay-related policies such as DADT. That’s an interesting idea.

(more…)

I’ve been doing some research on the “Golden Rule” and was thumbing through a book that suggested that the phrase “the golden rule” came from Confucius. The author cites Analects 15.24 as the origin, translating the key part of the passage as “Here certainly is the golden maxim…” The corresponding part of 15.24 in the original would be here: “其恕乎…”. As far as I can tell, this just says “It is shu!…” or “Isn’t it shu?…” (‘shu’ is the word for ‘reciprocity’). Perhaps the “it” refers back to something “golden” but the sentence before it is Zigong’s question to Confucius, which reads: 有一言而可以終身行之者乎？By my reading, this just says “Is there a word that can be practiced to the end of life?” Nothing about gold hiding in there. Of course, I could be translating 15.24 badly, so if someone thinks different, let me know.

In the event that I’m reading 15.24 right, does anyone have any idea what the origin of the “golden” part of “the Golden Rule” really is?

Tim Mak’s post here at New Majority criticizing (right, criticizing) Obama’s decision to donate his 1.4 million dollar Nobel Award to charity is an example of what happens when you are (a) paid (or expected) to blog on a very regular basis, (b) paid (or expected) to be critical, and (c) paid (or expected) to be partisan. The result: on some days your never ending search for things to be critical about come up empty, so you are forced to make some very stupid posts.

I want to continue this issue of lacking capacity, strength , or ability for ren. In the thread below, Phil (in comments) noted that in his view, Confucius is saying that ren and strength are not connected (particularly, in 4.6 and in 6.12). Here I’d like to continue this general subject, looking at two different passages, 14.30 and 7.3. In these passages, it is not 力 that is highlighted as a culprit that can get in the way of pursuing ren, but rather 能 — capacity or ability. Whether, or to what degree, 力 and 能 are related I’ll leave to the side, and just talk about 能.

(more…)

One thing I’ve noticed lately is that letting your kids take pictures with your camera can lead to some cool moments and insights. Big P (she’s four) likes to take our digital camera and take pictures of her own. At first, I didn’t think much of it, but then I noticed that this really was a gateway into how she sees her world. Ever since, I’m always intrigued to see what she comes up with (I don’t let on that I’m interested in order to keep things natural).

(more…)

Two posts ago I raised some questions about Analects 4.6 and the use of ren, but I left out the last part of the saying. The whole saying reads:

子曰：“我未見好仁者，惡不仁者。好仁者，無以尚之；惡不仁者，其為仁矣，不使不仁者加乎其身。有能一日用其力於仁矣乎？我未見力不足者。蓋有之矣，我未之見也.

Let’s focus on the last part, 有能一日用其力於仁矣乎？我未見力不足者。蓋有之矣，我未之見也 this time. Below the fold I’ll try my hand at my novice clunky translation and then point to a few issues.

(more…)

Rod Dreher takes on the attempt by some at Conservapedia to “clean up” the Bible by scrubbing it clean of the liberal bias of its translators.  A good, sensible, short piece by a sensible conservative voice.  (h/t Sullivan)

Analects 4.6 has always perplexed me – it seems to contain elements that go against what I would think a typical Confucian would argue for or believe.  Below I’ll make an attempt at thinking through one of my problems with 4.6, using some of my ongoing tutoring in Chinese to take a novice look at (or at least wonder about) some key words in Chinese to see if they affect the way the saying should be interpreted.

(more…)