Antiseptic,

>>I don't see Confucianism or Taoism as religions so much as moral philosophies.<<

So would I have thought (at least about Confucianism), but I am no expert on these things. Therefore I commented just by quoting from Stark’s book, and wrote “religions” in quotation marks. After all, it depends on how you define religion. Stark prefers “variations on how God or Gods are conceived” rather than Durkheim’s “rites and rituals” or ethics as defining characteristics of a religion: his book is full of arguments in support of this approach.

Nevertheless, I agree with what you wrote about Confucianism, in particular that it resembles moral philosophy (with no metaphysics), but I am not so sure about Taoism. I cannot read Chinese, but I own three English and one German translations of Tao Te Ching (Dao De Jing). It starts with

“The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name”.

To a Western mind this (and elsewhere) sounds more like metaphysics/mysticism than ethics, and it can be compared to apophatic theology or Witgenstein’s “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

>> I wonder if Mohammed knew of Confucius? The Silk road means he might.<<
Maybe so. As far as I know, Buddha and Confucius (in distinction to Moses and Jesus) are not mentioned in the Koran or Islamic tradition.

As for Islam, it seems to have moved from being more tolerant to being more intolerant, during the same time as Christianity moved in the opposite direction, more along the Kohlberg scale, if you like. I know, this is a simplification.

Dear George,

Confucianism originally started out as a collection of statements defining desirable ways to behave and to govern. It has been intimately involved in Chinese politics.

Confucius (551-479 BC) himself was head of a little school that aimed at forming good men. His art of life appealed to tradition and in that sense could be termed reactionary. However, it also had democratic elements since he maintained virtue is the fruit of personal effort and is not restricted to the nobly born.

Quite possibly that is the way some other religions have started. Moses, Buddha, Mohammed and Jesus could have just been primarily teachers or political leaders who later generations venerated and gave to them an aura of sacredness.

The Sung Dynasty (960 - 1279 CE) under Chu Hsi developed a school of philosophy known as neo-Confucianism.

Many Christians think they are living by the Bible. The reality is that what we now call Christianity is a religion formed by centuries of political interaction, tradition and interpretation. One cannot know how it came to be what it is without knowing its history.

The same is true of Confucianism. It is necessary to be familiar with the development of Confucianism in Chinese history to know what it is now. "A History of Chinese Civilization" by Jacques Gernet is a weighty tome, but I think reading that or its equivalent is necessary in addition to reading the Analects if one wants to have a feel for Confucianism.

"If the term 'Confucianism', coined by Westerners, has any meaning at all, it is clear that it goes far beyond the actual personality or teaching of that great sage." Gernert p. 87

George,

I agree that the Tao has the element of mysticism, employing the natural world around as instruction....showing us the way things work in order to transmit wisdom and understanding of the world and ourselves.

The Tao is the "One" from which all else emanates and returns:

So the morality spoken by the Tao is one of harmony, working with the knowledge of the way things are.

Quite removed from the humanistic rituals and expectations enforced by Confucianism.

For instance:

"When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos."

Dear david f,

Thanks for the response. I do not see it contradicting anything I - actually Stark, since as I said, I am no expert on Chinese culture - wrote. I have been an admirer of Lao-Tzu and Chuang-tzu, so I feel closer to Taoism which (with Buddhismn) complemented Confucianism in the shaping of Chinese culture. As somebody put it, Tao is the reverse side of our (Western) God.

>>Many Christians think they are living by the Bible. The reality is that what we now call Christianity is a religion formed by centuries of political interaction, tradition and interpretation.<<

I agree; it sounds like a rejection of the Protestant “sola scriptura” doctrine.

Antiseptic,

<<I find your whole approach to be aggressive…>>

I’m sorry, but I think I have been rather patient on this wild goose chase that you have led me on and my approach (partly due to word restrictions) has been nothing but matter-of-factly and to-the-point. That you interpret it as aggressive suggests a sense of compunction on your behalf that you are unwilling to admit to.

Moreover, you are the only one here who has resorted to ad hominems and insults, while declining to justify them when asked to (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15315#264875). So where do you get off referring to my approach as “aggressive”?

<<…and about point scoring not conducive to holding a discussion.>>

Again, there is nothing wrong with seeking clarity on the positions of others. Indeed, it is conducive to productive discussion.

If you contradict yourself, how am I to seek clarity without pointing it out?
If you employ fallacies, how am I to stop them without pointing them out?
If you are evasive, how am I supposed to bring you back to the discussion without holding you to what it is that you’re evading?

It seems to me that productive discussion, to you, just means letting you get away with whatever you like and to heck with any consistency.

Your accusations simply stem from the fact that you no longer have anything to hide behind now that I have taken your ‘literalist’ strawman away from you by highlighting its fallaciousness, and that I have shown that I am not willing to be led around like fool by holding you to your claims as you switch back and forth between them. You realise that you are now forced to let us in on what this sophisticated model is that you keep falling back to; only it doesn’t actually exist and so you lash out at me.

On a final note, I’m sure they’ll cover transference in your degree, at some point, too…

<<Never mind, you can tell me you're insulted and you won't have to think about it.>>

I hope you can appreciate the irony there.

Poirot,

I don’t know whose translation of the second last paragraph of Chapter 38 you quoted:

"When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos."

Here are the three alternative English translations that I own:

WING-TSIT CHAN:
Therefore only when Tao is lost does the doctrine of virtue arise.
When virtue is lost, only then does the doctrine of humanity arise.
When humanity is lost, only then does the doctrine of righteousness arise.
When righteousness is lost, only then does the doctrine of propriety arise.
Now propriety is a superficial expression of loyalty and faithfulness, and the beginning of disorder.

GIA-FU FENG and JANE ENGLISH:
Therefore, when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion
Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of Tao
It is the beginning of folly.

FRANK J MACHOVEC:
When Tao is lost “compassion” becomes doctrine; when compassion is lost “justice” becomes doctrine; when justice is lost “ritual” becomes doctrine; ritual is the lost of loyalty, the beginning of unprincipled confusion.