The Analects (Lun Yu) is a famous book from Confucius (Kungtse). I love it but I think it isn’t the final answer to everything. I understand why taoists laugh about him but I appreciate his rigid morals.
To be frankly, I don’t like Confucius very much – hates women, does not like to drink wine … not a real fun boy.
Better read some stuff from Zhuangzi, this guy has a good sense of humour.
To read his most famous book, there is the fine work of the Chinese Text Project.
The analects doesn’t mention any negative thing about women afaik. And Confucius is said to have had female pupils.
But yeah, he’s a dead serious person. Rigid and unflexible. “If the eating mat wasn’t straight, he didn’t eat.” Also he is said to have shown not much love to his son.
I don’t like taoism very much.
I think there is a lot of wisdom in the different schools, and as for Confucius, the Chinese history isn’t thinkable, even to Korea, Japan and Vietnam his thoughts had a great influence.
As for Confucianism, I prefer to read Mengzi, he explains better and ever found good examples to make his point.
Han Feizi, Mozi, Hui Shi, Liezi … Chinese philosophers should be taught in school …
Yes, Chinese philosophers in school would be cool. (Rhyme not intented.)
What I can’t make much sense of, is the Tao te king and Sun Tsu’s Art of War. Tao te king has wonderful chapters but others are totally cryptic to me and some (even worse for me) teach to abandon all moral (which is very taoistic but against my view of the world).
To understand the 道德經 you have to see it in the context of its time period, the “Warring States”. In Confucianism, the term 德 means moral, but in Taoism it is only the “way” to fulfil the 道, the “Will of heaven and earth”. Taoism and Confucianism at this time (until today) were strong opponents in philosophy and Weltanschauung. So, what one term is for the Taoists, it has quite another meaning for the Confucianists, and vice versa.
So, this is meant by “studying the philosophers”, better not to compare it with European terms of thinking. The translations into European languages mostly don’t catch the real meaning.
E.g. the translations on Chinese Text Project are mostly of James Legge (very old –I think it is because they are free now), the German translations you get on the internet are of Richard Wilhelm. Wilhelm’s Chinese teacher was a Confucianist – so all the texts of Confucianism are translated not so bad. The Taoist texts on the other hand … And then, Wilhelm was a Protestant preacher, so there is another colourizing too.
BTW: Do you speak/read Chinese?
Unfortunately I don’t understand Chinese. I have for example trouble with the 4 different intonations of a syllable (rising, falling etc.).
I have read the Analects in German both translated from James Legge’s English text and from Richard Wilhelm. Both have its strength and weaknesses.
And yes, Richard Wilhelm’s Tao Te King is not very taoistic in some aspects. He uses terms from concucianism and/or christianity. He uses terms like sense, meaning and law where the original text probably meant way, flow, nature.
And you, @i18nde, do you speak Chinese?
