Ladies and gents, welcome to China week! The Era of Warring States, this period of chaos at the end of the Zhou period in Chinese history, led many Chinese thinkers to reconsider basic questions of social and political order. Remember, new ideas are often born out of turmoil. History teaches us that human beings are at their most innovative when their worst nightmares become everyday realities. Out of this period in Chinese history, three very different schools of thought emerge. The goal was the same (an orderly society through emphasis on living a good life, obedience to the state, and harmony). The roads to that goal, however, were quite different. I would like you to read all three of the passages that I have links to below. Each passage will provide clear evidence of the methods and thought processes of each philosophy. Please click and on each link, and read each passage (ALSO, IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO PRINT OUT THESE PASSAGES AND BRING THEM TO CLASS TOMORROW)...
After analyzing all three documents now, what do you think the positive and negative aspects of each philosophy are on government and social life? Is the Confrucian or Legalist approach best? Is the Legalist approach necessary in the early stages of political development? What do you think? Your thoughts...
74 comments:
To be honest, i think no matter what we try to do as people none of the three philosophies will work. I think the best of the three however is Confucianism. Confucianism talks about how you should treat people the way that you want to be treated. But even with such great advice, there will always be people who have the nature to treat people cruelly and to have hatred no matter what. It is Mans nature. Man would do anything for power. isnt this what its about? There is always someone willing to do anything to control people, whether its killing people or rebelling, etc. There is no such thing as world peace. Although we like to imagine life as a wonderful place with butterflies and rainbows all the time and no conflict, its never going to happen, unfortunately. The worst of the three philosophies is definitely the legalism ideas. They apparently didnt think that you cant solve violence with violence cause in turn there will just be more violence and it will never end (cyclical perspective). Daoism on the other hand was kind of in between both of them for me. it had some good ideas as well as bad ideas. But no matter what we try to do there will be people with the nature to cause problems causing chaos once again screwing up society again.
I think cunfucianism is much better than legalism, because cunfucianism basically is the common sense and the smart way to answer your questions. Where as legalism is basically violence. None of these are perfect though because no human is perfect so someone would mess up the confucianism ways eventually.
yes, and perhaps we'll see what mr. nutt fears later on in the course.
I agree with Becca on the fact that I think no matter how hard we work none of these philosophies will work. If I had to choose one it would be Confucianism. Confucianism states that you should treat others how you want to be treated. The world as long with any philosophy will never be perfect. No matter how hard anyone tries it is literally impossible. Legalism I think is the worst philosophy because they believed you could solve problems with violence. I personally think that is a pretty rideculous plan that can't solve anything, just make more problems and exsisting ones worse.
I don't think that any of these 3 are perfect. Nowhere close. I personally believe that Legalism is the best philosophy, because it uses a basic system of punishment and reward. However, in order for Legalism to work, the government must not be corrupt at all, and in fact must employ some Confucianism. This is because Confucianism involves "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and if commoners and peasants are to get rewards under the Legalist system, the government must use Confucian morals. Normally, governments would end up not bothering with commoners and would keep the supposed rewards for themselves.
So, Confucianism has good morals and it was a good idea. However, they don't think about the future at all, which you sometimes need to do. The Harappans didn't. They never thought that the Aryans would come to Harappa. Look what happened.
Daoism is overall... not good. They don't believe in advanced education and just think that you should be "one with nature" and at peace and whatnot. This doesn't really do much for society. So Daoism is completely thrown out in my book.
Overall, I think the one best is Legalism, but Legalistic Con-future-ism would be better. :D
I think that Legalism is the way to go, somewhat. I think that the harsh punishments are crucial to keeping the people in order. Confucianism and Daoism are both logical ideas but they are relying on human perfection. Although the punishments of the legalists are very cruel, I think that it is a necessity. Another problem is that it could lead to violence and rebellion in the long run.
I think all three can go hand in hand.That's why some rulers got smart and pulled ideas from all three. To me Confucianism is logical and common sense and could work really well. But I really like in the Daoism article when it says:
Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to keep the people from rivalry among themselves;
Because when you think about it. You hear over and over about the peasants and the poor revolting. So why not do what it says and try to limit the superiority exspressed in a society. But then again you look at what is programmed in our brain as a human being and we all want that feeling of superiority. So yea.
In theory these religons or ways of life are all great, but the question is will they work in the real world? i dont think so. Out of all of them, the best one in theory is Confucianism. but truthfully, how many people do you know that wouldnt jump at the chance to become more powerful. Its just plain and simple no matter what rules we set they are always gunna be broken. its just the way humans are. Like a lot of people say rules are ment to be broken. We americans wouldnt be here if we hadnt broken the rules so what makes confucius think that laying down a couple of rules down will solve everything?
I think that the more practical philosophy is Confuciansim. It's stating what we already know as people about morals. With Legalism, everything is pretty much violent. Only the highly acclaimed are appreciated and rewarded, while the people who are looked lowly upon, are punished. In Confucianism, like it said, the golden rule is "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." It's the most sensible of the three. It teaches that we as humans need to be morally correct, even though some will never follow the idea fully. There will always be someone who still hurts others and doesn't care what they get in return. It's just our human nature. Daoism to me was kind of in the middle. But we will always have to deal with violence in this world.
I think that a combination of all three of them is the way to go. Each one has its strengths and its weaknesses. If they could pick the best parts and pieces of each one of these and put them together, it would make for a great society.
Like Mr. Prill told us in class today, no government is perfect.
Daoism sounds the most pessimistic of the three to me. I got that
Daosim basically had no hope in humanity. So in order to leave peaceful we have to subdue our thoughts and never try to be better? Doesn't sound to good to me. But I can see where they are coming from, I just don't think it is right to sudue the pursuit of knowledge and the will to get better.
Legalism can be effective; and from the reading we learned that it was for a short amount of time. But for how long can it be effective? Is Legalism that different from our society? (though it is definitely less harsh) Laws are in place to punish those who do bad, and reward those who do good in America.
Confucianism seems to be the right way to go about peace, but it seems overly optimistic in how humans act, making me wonder how effective it would be if used to govern a state. Some people are just evil and can't be turned good.
i would say that it will be great if they mix a little of Confucianism the way of being educated and having respect. then how legalism uses more rule this way people will follow the law and there be less violence. next there is Daoism were we have the idea of peace with nature no harm to it.
I think none of the philosophies brings true and lasting order to society ; however, to choose one, i would choose legalism. Both confucianism and daoism AVOIDS crimes or rebellions by teaching children to respect the elders or by not teaching citizens to value man of superior ability; this only can occur if the people are "GOOD," which does not happen often. On the other hand, legalism is very strict and has very harsh laws for small crimes which will make most of the citizens to be afraid of the consequences. People will be more scared if they are told that if one stills an apple, one will get his or her hand cut off, than if they were told that if one stills an apple, one is going to be put to shame. However, even in this situation, whatever rules there are, someone is willing to act against it.
In my opinion, all three of them don't bring true and lasting order to society in the least. Yet, if I had to pick, it would be Confucianism. The laws are very logical, and make commen sense to me. 'Treat others the way you would want to be treated', basically. Legalism's violent ways is not popular in my world, and Daoism just does not make sense to me and i doubt it would bring any order to society at all.
In my opionon i think that legalism is most practical. The reason why i think this is because setting rules and regulations with punishments and rewards and being able to enforce them is a very practical idea. Daosm is to open to error and so is Confucianism. this is because you can't enforce them, you just set an example of what to do and if people stray then there is no punishment. So people tend to stray more often.
On the other hand, with legalism there is less straying off of laws because of the punishment that is sett there for them. Legalism is very close to what type of laws we go by. If you get caught speeding then the punishment is a ticket or a fine. If you murder someone you get the death penalty or life in prison. I think that legalism could bring lasting order to society but the problem is perfecting it. there are just so many flaws to the system. People have gotten away with many things because they know how to beat the system. If a woman murders someone and claims that it was self defence then she most likely would get away with it even if she was lieing.
okay. my opinion is that daoism would be nice, but it's not going to happen. now that we all know air conditioning is out there, we are NOT going back to live in the forests with Bambi. so that leaves us with Confucianism and leagalism. i belive that Confucianism is just common sense writen down, so i agree with it, but i don't think it's going to get you very far just by itself. you also need the rule system and punishments that comes with leagalism, but maybe not so harshly...like cuting off arms and legs. **leave that for gas prices**;) so, in short, confucian ideas with slightly harsher leagalism punishments.
hmm... i wonder, miss niemann, if there will be any chinese dynasties in the near future that will see the combination of confucianism and legalism as the way to go. hmm...interesting.
True. If we combined common sense with legalism then we all would be good off because the punishments would be less harsh then true legalism and we wouldn't just have sayings to live by either. We would have both but without the crutial punishment of legalism and the laid back style of life of confucianism. That's genius katelyn!!!!
Well, I wrote a whole bunch of random comments while I was reading, but i'll just sum it up so as not to take up so much space.
I think legalism is/was the best way to go.
“…the wise cannot reject nor can the brave defy. Punishment for fault never skips ministers, reward for good never misses commoners.”
Legalism seems to fit as the best form. Conf. and Daoism are both seeming opposites where Legalism fits comfortably in the middle.
As nice as Confucianism is, it calls for to many rules. It goes on and on saying how people should act and react. Now, many of these ideas truly are great ways to behave and I'm all for etiquette, virtue, honesty, etc. But, I don't think it is what will keep a civilization together. (And what is with the gentlemanly attire??)
(Why is it always respect your elders? Should we not respect those younger, as well? Or when saying this, was he speaking to youth and transferring a message? Why don't we just respect all?)
Daoism/Tao made me upset.
"Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government, empties their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthens their bones."
What an evil exchange. But there’s always a rebel? And the truth is hiding.
"He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge and without desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them from presuming to act (on it). When there is this abstinence from action, good order is universal."
NO! What makes us most human?! There will never be complete order! Someone is going to have to know, so they can keep brainwashing the rest. Again, there is always a rebel. But maybe that is just because I’m a teenager and we seem to like to rebel… but even if a strong government can create control, it is going to get worse every time and the leaders always become corrupt.
“To inflict death or torture upon culprits, is called chastisement; to bestow encouragements or rewards on men of merit, is called commendation.”
Punish the bad, reward the good.
This is basically how legalism works, so it seems. It controls to a degree and had benefits and punishments to keep people-and gov. in line. It worked/s, but for a time...
I think that really none of these can work by themselves. So, you need a little bit of each. I agree that legalism sets the stage for order and control, but I don't think that too much violence is the way to go, and the way that legalism works, it just means that the person in control has to b perfect and no one is perfect. That's probably what happened to Shinhuangdu, (sorry, if I wrote the name wrong), he made a mistake and down goes the empire! Confucianism is using common sense, and I like it how it teaches about respect and morals,but no human can respect everyone because rivalries do happen no matter what. Daoism is the one that seems peaceful and all, but think about it, does anyone really think that humans are going to forget themselves to equalize others, although that's something good that Daoists believe in,? I'm admiting it, HUMANS ARE THE MOST SELFISH SPECIES ON THE PLANET! Seriously, we are selfish, and we can't help it.
daoism cannot work unless everyone in the community is devoted to it. legalism is good in some ways but not at all perfect. confucianism is the best of the three though it also assumes that people will be naturally moral which is just not the case.
personally i think that none of them are terrible. if i was part of the society i would want to live under daoism. if i was ruling the society i would want to rule with legalism. so i think the confucianism is the best pick to rule people under because it makes you think about how to answer a question or problem in life but yet it still has a set of rules unlike daoism.
In my opinion, i dont think any of the three would help us to world peace or a lasting order to society. they can try but they wont succeed. confucianism are words written down, and the things they write down are things that we imagine perfection and world peace. Legalism is the basic, if you do you something your not suppose to there's consequences. (punishment & reward) if we look at now, we have laws and people still rebell, do what they want, and etc. There is always going to be atleast one person who is not going to agree. We cant have everyone agree on one thing, we have our on mind. this is why world peace is never going to happen.
all good thoughts lostatsea267, but can you please identify yourself so that i can give you credit for your post? thanks!
in all honesty, i think that all of them have their strong points and weak points, however, the philosophy that is the best is legalism. although they disregard the laws for being good and the more spiritual side of things, they have this represented alternatively in their laws. these are referred to as chastisement and commendation. with these, it makes them want to be good to recieve commendation rather than chastisement. also, in the community, everyone is treated pretty much equally. for example, if someone did something wrong, no matter what their class, they all had the same punishment. and visa versa with the good commendation. i think by having this, it unified the society a little bit more because even though there is still classes and ranks - nobles, kings, commoners, slaves - they still are somewhat brought together by the punishment and praise they recieved. i think having a more unified society allows for it to prosper better so therefore, i believe that legalism was the best.
None of these philosophies are perfect, but there are a lot of things in the world that aren’t. What makes them important is that if you put all of them together and cut some things out that wouldn’t go together. Daoism says you shouldn’t care about things that happen around you and not go for something higher, like education, so that basically every one would be the same. The didn’t want any conflicts, so that no wars would be stared. They just wanted to lay back. That is a problem because not every from the outside sees it that way, so eventually they would get taken over. But the part about not caring to much about what happens outside is good. This way you want get drag into wars that is none of your business just because you are trading with them. But you want to look at what is going so you don’t get blind sided.
Confucianism what every to one to be a good person and to have good morals. They want to fix everything and everyone. Then they would have a perfect government that taxes light so no one would have a problem. They would have government officials that wont let their personal things get in the way. Everything is good and everyone in harmony. Wrong because you can’t fix every little problem or everyone. But wanting people to good and officials that are not selfish is good.
Legalism has strict laws that are punish you heavily for even the smallest things. The don’t want any uprising. They wont every one on the same page. They want structure and organization. They wont tolerate any violators. So with everyone together and on the same page the will be one strong civilization and can concentrate on other things. People there is only so much water you can hold in that dam. And when one part cracks it all goes down. Its good to have laws, but you don’t want them to be so tight that every hates them.
Now we have perfect place that is not strict and not to lay back. It has no problems and it will last forever. Wrong even with all these good thing and it seems perfect doesn’t mean someone is not going to try take over and change it. No one is the same and no one doesn’t want to have power.
Robert V sorry if any thing is incorrect.
I like kailey's ideas too. If you had a legalistic society then we would be more unified and have better success than the rest of the philosophies. It would make everyone want to be good or else they would suffer cruel and unusaul punishments. It's somewhat like communism and that looks all fine and dandy on paper but when aplied to life then it's all down hill from there. It creates an economic down fall. But none the less good ideas.
I think all three philosphies have good points, but if I had to pick one it would be Confucianism. The saying "treat people the way you want to be treated" is really important to me because my parents have told me that all of my life. It's just the proper way of going through life. Don't get me wrong, Confucianism does have its problems, but doesn't every philosophy ever thought up have their own faults.
I think that for that time in the history of China Legalism was the best way to go. They needed a harsh form of order because they were unstable. I also think that none of these philosophies would completely work. Confucianism was logical but too laid back, daoism was too close minded, thinking that they should just live off the land and not mix with their neighbors. None of them will ever bring a lasting order to society but they can always help.
i think they all have some strong points, but i think confucanism has better, logical ways. i think if they all like mix together, take out the good things and make a new book, we would have a good system.
I believe that none of the three philosophies can function on it's own for very long. With a combination of the three, there is a chance for a surviving system, but only for a slightly longer time than either one of the the philosophies alone. Confucianism is good for a society because if one prefers to be treated a particular way, they'll treat others that same way. One problem with that is that not all societies believe in that idea. Surrounding forces may see the society as able to be easily conquered. Also, different people like to be treated differently, so there's a conflict of interests in this case. This could spark issues and disputes between people because some people may not choose to follow this way. Legalism, on the other hand, does pose the consequence and reward idea. If one is to disobey a rule, they'll have some sort of consequence which causes one to possibly choose to change their actions so that they may not have to pay for their action. Although, with too many laws, people might choose to rebel against them because they disagree with the rule. I know that even today, people find it funny or amusing to break certain rules and don't care about their consequences. Why should we believe that making more rules will cause human beings to follow all of them?
Well, i believe that all three of these philosophies can help bring order to the chinese society during its chaos. Daoism is nature based, and is very important because it is not based on force. Daoism, i believe, is about what the people want to do,and and they decides whether to behave well or not. Legalism is centrally based around strict laws and punishment to keep a society together.Although it is affective,it is not always a good thing.People will eventually get sick of the harsh laws, and one day revolt. That is why i think that Conficianism is the medium of the two. Conficianism is important because it shares the calm life teachings of daoism, but it aslo contains a small amount of force to make the people do as expected, like Legalism. That is why i believe that Conficianism helps to the lasting order of China.
Confucianism, in my opinion, is the best choice. The five key respects and the four key things that Confucianism is based on are theoretically correct. If we all respect everyone, things will all work in harmony. Humans will not do this, which is why Confucianism failed, but thats the whole point. Humans DID NOT do these things. If we all did, then we would live in a perfect world, and Confucianism would be on top. All the "what-if's" such as "what if someone thinks they are better than someone?" are all USELESS rebuttles because, like i said above, If we all respected eachother, there would be NO superiority (at least in respect-wise). sorry, just feeling annoyed today....
I agree with the logic in Confucianism, however, I believe Legalism is the most beneficial approach to creating a successful society.
Confucianism does provide a logical background and I agree with its sayings, but indeed humans are not a trustworthy species. I agree with mister Doty in that the punishments of Legalism are the only way to keep a society in order.
From what i can see none of the philosophies are perfect. they all have flaws. I think that legalism is the way that will keep a group in power the longest because it is more strict, but i dont necessarelly agree with it because i believe that it is too harsh. I think that confucionism would only work well in a society where everyone was perfect or at least where every single person had good intentions. also, i think that Daoism doesnt work well at all and is not helpfull in governing a society.
i think confucianism would work the best because it tell you that you should respect anyone you meet. but even if the laws that way, you cant cotrol everyone's manners. so eventually there ARE gonna be people that will disrespect the law.
i personally dont think that any of the three ways would ever succeed 100%. like mentioned a few times earlier, the first two philosophies are kind of similar. they both are based on peace. i think that confuscianism is a great way of teaching, since it shows much wisdom.
i mean, the teaching's arent wrong or right, and the first two philosiphies
both have great teachings, but they might be just a little too "soft" to control a group of humans. without the fear of punishment, not too many people are gonna follow rules, live to create peace, etc. even though legalism seems like the harshest of all three, it may have been the most effective. the harsh punishments actually do control the people's behaviors, since most of them are scared of the consequences. so instead of giving people a little too much freedom, and letting them figure things out on their own, sometimes, there needs to be guidelines, such as laws. so in my personal opinion, all three have thoughtful teachings, but the most effective one would be legalism. it sets standards and rules to live by, which is definately a helpful factor, in uniting a group of humans.
In confucionism the problem is that everyone is expected to behave perfectly and kindly. This religion would work in a perfect world where eveyone was basically a good person. The Daoists almost just want to go back to nomadic times, which probably would have coincided with their beliefs. The problem with them is that there is no going back and pulling back on the government. China had advanced too far for people not to try to advance themselves. The good thing about the Legalist system is that peasants and nobles have the same punishments and the same rewards, so it would even the class gap, but the Legalist system is too harsh and unforgiving to exist for a long period of time in an area without a rebellion. But, the legalists united china, which no one else was able to do, so the Legalists might have been necessary.
I think the best philosophy is Confucianism. Although it is based on an assumption that everyone is perfect and cares about others, it is the most realistic of the three. Daoism is the most unrealistic and can only exist theoretically because if all people in a state retreat from the politics and adminstration, they are not going to have any development, such as well-organized tax system to support armies. Since there is no military force in daoist state, it is soon going to collapse due to unprotection from foreign armies. Legalism seems like a reasonable policy, but only for a short period of time. People are following the rules only because they are afraid of the punishments, unlike Confucianism, which focuses on virtues and morals. Revolts and rebellions will put the dynasty into an endless cycle.
personally i think that legalism is the best way to go. only then will the government work, last long, and have a lasting impression on history.
I think Confucianism is the best choice. Legalism is way too violent andi don't agree with it BUT it is very effective because people would be scared to screw up all the time. But if people would live in harmony then things would be fine. But, especially with such a huge country like China, living in harmony would not work out. I think Confucianism's only chance would be in a very small country thousands and thousands of years ago and even then, it'd probably fail.
I think that Daoism is the worst of the three philosiphies. It is unrealistic in the fact that people are not going to just go back to worshiping nature and not getting involved with any affairs. Confucianism is a good option in that it states how people should be treated and respect of your elders, this is still also unrealistic. Legalism makes some good points also in that if things are not made to seem good then people are not going to crave them. If you threten punishment to people who do wrong then people will strive to do right. I think that this is the best choice because it does have some similar points that are comparable to governments and societies today. It has set rules and there are punishments for breaking those rules and the people who do not break those rules are then rewarded.
Personally, I believe daoism was very pessemistic, and leaves people with little education. Confucianism was in my opinion, one of the best options, because as many others have said, it is common sense on paper. It would be better if it was mixed with Legalism. Confucianism had the right qualities and ideas, but lacked the discipline required to uphold it, and that is where Legalism would be integrated. Legalism was too strict however. It worked, perhaps in the old days, but if many tried to use it today, especially here in America, and quite likely many other countries, the people of those states would be yelling for justice, and telling the political leaders to give the convicted person a fair trial. Perhaps this would be different if the people of today's world were raised in such fear of punishments. People revolted when Legalism was in use in the past, it is practically guarentee that a revolt would occur again if Legalism was still practiced, because history does indeed repeat itself. Confucianism, however, although a good concept in theory, when applied into the world, it will most likely fail. Many will eventually grow old enough, and when they think about how they're living, some will disagree with these teachings while some agree. This controversy would not only divide society apart from the inside, there would be no laws to enforce that people abide by such rules. If everyone thinks that everyone else is peaceful and harmless to those around them, they enter a state of false security, believing that since the rules apply to them they must apply to outsiders as well. This would leave them at a disadvantage because the military force would be almost non existant and not only would the threats be from those outside the ruled area, but from those who do not agree with said teachings inside the area being ruled. However, I believe if someone were to take the teachings of Confucianism and apply the political system of Legalism, but lessen the harshness of the rules, then I believe that philosophy would work better, and longer, than any others.
Sorry for the huge post! ^.^
Through these philosophies (Confucianism & Legalism), I dont think any of them would really work to get to world peace, or anything successful. Confucianism is mainly based on being the good person. Being the perfect person that you need to be to the gods.
& This philosophy came from a book of thoughts & sayings from a man, but that doesnt mean that the world is going to be better with just someone telling you what to do from a book.
Legalism was based more on the government and laws. This philosophy had many regulations and policies. They believed that if you did a good thing, you would get a reward & if you did a bad thing, you would get punishment. Which, is just a given thing today. But, even though we say that this is true, it wont help the world get any better than it is now.
I really think that world peace is a hard thing to have for this world. Everyone on this Earth is different, and there wont be two people with the same thought. And, if you really think about it, people are going to rebel. There is not a chance for you to have a situation & have not one person having a different thought from you, or rebelling. Because of these different thoughts and different ways of thinking, I dont think world peace & world unity will ever exist.
I believe that certain concepts from all three would be the best choice. the three could build a more better and more impacting philosiphy.
(I dont know if my name has been posted as 'yahska' because i put it like that on my gmail account i dont use so...if you see that name its Akshay Gopalakrishnan) Thanks.
I believe that all three philosphies left long lasting impressions on Chinese society. Legalism was the idealogy of the Qin dynasty and they united all of China. The rules may be harsh, but they were just and necessary to control the unstable states of China at the time. However legalism doesn't leave the best impressions on the people and it just accelerated the cycle of dynasties as in the case of the short-lived Qin dynasty. Daoism is a very neutral philosophy and basically waits for nature to takes its own course. This can be very beneficial, especially for the environment and the "balance" of the Earth. However, it doesn't believe in human initiative and ambition, which are key traits in a successful society. I believe that Confucianism was the most influential and brought the longest lasting order. Even if confucianism wasn't the main philospohy that united China during the period of chaos, it definately affected the mind-set of Chinese citizens for the next 2000 years. Confucianism always teaches to have an optimistic view of the "benevolence" of government. In the many following years of Chinese history, there will be many government changes and harsh times. The Chinese people will endure these difficult times all the way through the post-mao era. This optimistic point of view and that of the future is largely due to Confucianism.
no government is perfect. but if we had to choose, id say legalism will bring order to society. even thought the punishments are very cruel, i believe the people will be too scared to commit a crime because of the harsh penalties.
The only thing wrong with legalism is that it creates fear and then hate then anger then revolt and overthrow of the government and it just starts all over again. It would work only for a short period of time then it is time for a new system. But what type of system?
In true honesty, all three philosophies have their advantages and disadvantages. No matter what religion is introduced to people, there will always be someone who disagrees with that philosopy. I my opinion legalism is not the best philosophy for bringing true and lasting order. In this philosophy, people are forced to follow certain laws and are afraid to break any of them. i truely believe that scaring people into doing the right things is not a good idea and eventually people will rebel. I think Confucianism is the best philosophy for bringing true and lating order to a soceity. In confucianism, people do the right things because they want to, they arent forcd to do it.These people are respecteful, caring, understanding, etc becuase they want to be. Therefore, i think the philosophy of Confucious will create a better society.
Basically, as humans we use trial and error, nut in reality there is never going to be one form of control that is going to work for everyone. it might work early one, but eventually we find a new way. Humans are not perfect and so differnet, that there is usually not going to be one thing that keeps an entire society out of choas.
i think that they should have combined daoism, and confusionism. becaus legalism is to strict and you had to follow the laws or you would most likely be killed. and confusionism is based onrelaxed teachings and a minor forced laws.and daoism is nature based which means the are very relaxed and nota force based teachings.
I think that in a perfect world Cunfucianism would be the best of the three. Cunfusianism only works when 100% of the people abide by it. The world is not perfect, though, and if only 95% of the people live by it there will still be that small part that is ruining it for everyone else. Therefore, I feel that a few of the legalism ideas should also be in place to help keep the population in check but not to the extent of cutting people's hands off for littering.
I agree with Jennifer somwhat. I think legalism has the right idea of enforcing laws with punishment, but you can never truly stop somone from breaking laws. I think a little Confucianism should be enforced along with a lighter idea of legalism.
But out of the three, I think legalism is the best way to go.
I honestly think that none of them are the TRUE and LASTING order in society. But I think that the even if none of them work perfectly they still help the economy and society as a whole. In my opinion I think Legalism works the best because it united the people more quickly.
i somewhat agree with alex on this one, except completely switched around. I change my answer from Confucianism being the right choice, to Legalism w/ a hint of Confucianism. I think that if Shi Huangdi wasn't so harsh about everything, his kingdom would not have been overthrown. Yes, the penalties are severe, but they DO get the job done. And if Shi Huangdi did respect his subjects, then they would eventually respect him, and yes, they would obey the laws out of fear, but they would also obey the laws out of respect of Huangdi.
So today after talking about these three philosophies, I have come to the conclusion that legalism was the better one of the three, because it was the one to unify China. I think it did this, because the laws were very strict, and people were to scared to do anything wrong. I dont agree with this way, because it is really unfair to the people. I mean legalism to me is just the leaders taking advantage of their power to get what they want. The thing is, i think if we combined the teachings of Confucious and the ways of legalism, then maybe it could unify China even more. I dont know how you would combine the two exactly though!:)
Not one of these philosophies would bring true, lasting order. Perhaps order, but for only a few decades. I think the one that makes the most sense is probably Confucianism. I'm not saying i agree with it completely, but Confucian ideas do go hand in hand with what Christians know as "The Golden Rule". The only reason Legalism wouldn't work is because of the time period it would take to be overcome, as I mentioned, a few decades. It would definitely work until the people in fear are ready to revolt or begin the rebellion. Daoism, to me, seems basically pointless... seriously, who would follow that? Well, apparently some people, but yeah, these 3 are not ideal solutions for finding that unity in China. Maybe a combination of Confucianism and Legalism would, as the Han emperor tried.
I think that all three of them have the potential to improve society and all three have no flaws at all, taking into consideration that in theory they would all work whether it was by using brute force or peace. But then you also have to wonder why they all failed at one point to another? And the simple reason for that is all people are flawed in some way. But now if I could only choose one of them it would have to be Legalism just because of the simple fact that people seem to focus a little better when they know that there is the strong possibility that they could be punished for there wrong doings, thus fear could motivate them to create a better society.
even though confucianism is the one with more sense and if done properly wolud bring order, legalism would probably be the best option
I think that none of the three philophies are perfect. So I agree with what Han dynasty did which was to mix Confucianism ideals with Legalist government
Personally- I believe that if you took points from each of the belief systems that complimented each other, i believe that you would wind up forming a system that would work and last.
i think legalism would world, ,without the rolling of heads. but if all three were combined ( to some point, not so much daoism, butterflies are not the answer) that it would be a prefered form of government and would be very successful
In my opinion I believe that Legalism is the one that stands the most chance to create a lasting society. Yes it is harsh, but the only way us humans truely behave is when there are true consequences. For example, when your driving and see a police officer, what do you do? Obviously you slow down to avoid the harsh consequence of a fine.
I think that more of a combination of Confucianism and Legalism like the Han did is the most beneficial of the Three systems. Daoism is not really practical for any form of government because it calls for withdraw from society and back to nature even though a proper government requires a society. But combining the views that all people have the power to to good and the strict code of laws from legalism combine to form a more perfect government.
I think the Han dynasty got it right with a combination of Legalism and Confucianism. But Legalism did unite China in the Qin dynasty, but that dynasty didn't last as long as the Han. The Han took the centralized government of Legalism and the peace of Confucianism to make a united and long lasting dynasty.
I think the Han dynasty had it right with both Confucianism and Legalism. Legalism united China in the Qin dynasty, but the Qin did not last long. Han combined the central government of Legalism and the peace of Confucianism to make a long lasting dynasty and China.
Legalism, by far, is the most effective, and always will be. We Humans are very stupid creatures. All we understand is fear. Sure, people will rebel, but if you treat them with kindness, they will take advantage of you. I gurantee that stringing a peasant up by the neck will make the others obey you faster than by telling them that you love them all. Grow a spine, people, and use the only thing that really work in human culture; fear.
Well, Confucianism is good but not every one is ganna follow that, people always make mistakes. And Legalism, Violence solves nothing, even if it might bring balance but as Mr. Prill said it will bite the hand that feeds it.
I like the concept that if we combine all three philosophies then we'll achieve a perfect society. But, the problem with all of these philosophies is no matter how we try to make it work, it won't. The cold, hard truth. It's never going to be perfect; Even if it seems like one of these is working and making a change, success only lasts so long.
In a perfect society, Confucinism would prove successful, however we're not in a perfect society. Legalism is the only way.
Personaly I do not think that any of these were good philosophy. I think we should use a combination of all three of them. If we just used legalism we would resort to violence to everything. If we just used Confucianism we wouldn't solve as much as we have. In some way we should be thankful that we had them but we should have use a philosophy that used all of them.
I know I'm kinda late on this but I wanted to blog about this subject. The only reason Legalism worked in China is because people were afraid. I don't think that a society should be run by fear. To me, Confucianism seems like the best way to go. But as we all know the world couldn't handle it because humans are all about power. TO make a society work you need to take the best of all three.
In my opinion Legalism might be the best beneficial towards like thieves and criminals etc.
But i wouldnt want to live in that kind of environment, i'd rather live in a Confucianist environment. To be honest i think legalism works primarily by scaring people. Confucianism doesnt work because there arent any consequences for your actions its just if you want to be treated with respect, then treat others with respect. In a Daoist environment, its just a way for people to link with nature. So i agree with everyone that none of these works by themselves, but if you put them all together your society will have more order.
this from kailey carroll...
after reveiwing all of the philosophies in class gave me a better understanding of each. i really was not aware of all the things that legallism and confusionism entailled and daoism was just easy to grasp because its really not all that complex. however, saying that, i know believe that not just legalism is the best philosophy becuase although it united china, it did it through scaring people which in turn could turn out bad because the more the people are scared the more they don't want to follow. in my opinion, a mix of confusionism, and legalism would make the best philosophy that would perhaps bring lasting order to the society in china. daiosm to me just wasnt really all that important. i dont think it played an influential role and i dont think it could have proven into being the best phylosophy because it really doesnt cover enough of the problems that the society encounters.
Post a Comment