Talk:Confucianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject China (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject East Asia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

Promotion of corruption[edit]

Your mamma Seems to me that most of the stuff under this about the free market system and it's relationship to Confucianism is original research. None of that section has any citations and many of the claims seem flat out wrong, especially the almost way "free market" ideas are presented. Are there any citations available for these claims, or can I remove them?

CaptainManacles (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The disputes for this section are interesting. An encyclopedia entry in not supposed to be a place to record one's opinions. The discussion of religion gets silly. Some christians would claim that Christianity is not a religion either. Ancestor worship is a key part of Confusist practice and rituals exist as well. An encyclopedia entry should NOT judge a ritual to be "useless". Most rituals are "useless" to those that don't practice. THAT is why we consider them RITUALS!!! It would be fantastic if this article were actually written by an established authority or so. (And "locked" accordingly.) I think its pretty clear Confusiusm is a religion with some supernatural beliefs about one's ancestors.

In addition, this article has enough apparent ignorance about Confusism thrown in. Why combine that with ignorance about what Taoism is? Taoists and Confusists are considered to have almost opposite points of view on a lot of things. However, are those distinctions needed here? For example, ConfuI gotta say this critique is HORRIBLE. Confuscius does not promote corruption it weeds it out and condemns it. It merely says when laws are passed people try to avoid punishment, not necessarily avoid the crime just avoid getting caught. For this reason morals are MORE important because with morals you dont avid punishment you do the right thing cause you want to be good and believe in doing good. You have honor.

I gotta agree with the above poster that Lao Tsus way and Master Kong's are totally different. I read both the analects and the Tao te Ching and they must have HATED each other. There is a saying that when master kong met Lao Tsu he tried to argue with him and walked away dissapointed because he was unable to convince him of the importance of rules and laws saying. "I know how birds can fly, fishes swim, and animals run. But the runner may be snared, the swimmer hooked, and the flyer shot by the arrow. But there is the dragon: I cannot tell how he mounts on the wind through the clouds, and rises to heaven. Today I have seen Lao Tzu, and can only compare him to the dragon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.112.133 (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you kiding? Actually, Kongzi just expressed his highly respect and admiration for Laozi by praising him as a Drangon (Long, 龍). And Kongzi was not arguing with Laozi. He just wanted to learn knowledge of Li/禮 from Laozi who was erudite (Laozi was once a historiographer for Imperial Library of Zhou Dynasty for 30 years) -Herseer (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

By all means PLEASE remove these idiotic critiques and replace them with logical ones.

Vandalism[edit]

Reverted back due to o=0op[i][io[i]in the world." Konamaiki 22:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.44.137 (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

hooligans?[edit]

This sentence is jarring and confusing: "...before being able to express their goodness for the chinese hooligans." I don't even know what this is trying to say, is it vandalism or a poorly-explained concept?

--Valwen 04:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think its "poorly explained concept..."

misc[edit]

) helooooooooooo wassssss upppppppp confucianism started with a guy being confused

Wish to remove something[edit]

Extract I propose to remove (I don't see any way to improve and I feel it's useless as it is now)

Was there a Confucianism? One of the problems in discussing the history of Confucianism is the question of what Confucianism is. In his book Manufacturing Confucianism, David Jensen claims that our modern image of Confucius and Confucianism, which is that of a wise symbol of learning and a state-sponsored quasi-religion, did not exist in China from time immemorial, but was manufactured by European Jesuits in order to portray Chinese society to Europeans. The notion of Confucianism was then borrowed back by Chinese who used it for their own purposes.

To simplify this discussion, we shall simply define Confucianism as any system of thinking that has at its basis the works that are regarded as the "Confucian classics," but even this definition runs into problems as it is not clear what are the "Confucian classics."

By the way, defining what the classics are is far from impossible and the fact that the corpus changed with time don't imply that there is no corpus. I think the current article could be improved a lot, for example by reading http://afpc.asso.fr/wengu/files/ext_cache.php?url=http://www.rep.routledge.com/philosophy/articles/entry/G/G001/G001SECT4.html gbog 16:23, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

You may not like the second para, but the first appears useful. Surely the section can be improved by being added to - David Gerard 16:47, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

I not very good at refactoring and my english is crap but I can try to work on the article. I think the interesting point in the first paragraph is that, maybe, the "confucianist" didn't see themselves as a particular group sharing particular ideas, and therefore didn't feel to use a common name like 'confucianist', because, in a way, confucianism was the main stream and only needed to be called something like "orthodoxy" (some being more orthodox than others). But reading the paragraph, I feel that it is said that no "coherent ideological stream linked to Confucean classics" existed before westerners coined a name for it...

Well. I should work on it. But I should begin with the begining. The first lines of the article are, imho, not very accurate : I think that Confucius has not "founded" confucianism. He had ethico-political ideas and shared them with disciples but the school itself is probably founded by disciples of disciples. Then, i would say, instead : Confucianism (儒家 Pinyin: rújiā "The School of the Scholars"), sometimes translated as the School of Literati, is an East Asian ethical and philosophical system followed by people in China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam and other Asian countries for more than two thousand years. / The belief system is named, in Western countries, after 孔&#23376 (Confucius, Master Kong), who lived in the late 6th and early 5th centuries BC, because Confucianists see in him the greatest Master and study his attributed Classics.

You will think I'm an erazorman :) but I would remove this, also (because it's place is in Confucius article and had very little to the understanding of confucianism): Confucius was born into a middle class family, although the family was actually in the superior class of the current dynasty. His Chinese name was later latinised to Confucius by Jesuit missionaries. As an adult, Confucius went from state to state trying to teach their rulers. He is credited with a number of books, the best-known of which is the Analects, a collection of his sayings that was compiled and edited to its modern form during the Han dynasty.

I think I see your point. I don't actually know the area well. But if you can re-order things sensibly, then I can clean up the English afterwards - David Gerard 10:58, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
I've written few pages and am currently trying to feed batabase with it. I hope it will work before I go to bed. Thanks in advance if you take the (long) time required to make something readable from my thing. gbog 14:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Good content so far :-) I've done some copyedit of the intro and first section, up to the beginning of ==Meritocracy==. I've tried to keep to correcting the grammar and slight untangling of sentences and word choice - please check for inadvertent changes to the content - David Gerard 12:25, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks a lot ! I read the result and it's really nice. I didn't see any changes in the content for now. I may add other paragraphs later. gbog 17:20, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I have added the clause: 'as a "translation" of the ancient indigenous traditions known as "Ru Jia,"' in the "first paragraph" under discussion above, because I contend that the author of that paragraph isn't being very clear. -- Michael

I'm suggesting re-examining Jensen's work and re-editing this part here. I think what Jensen might be saying is that while there was a Ru Jia, "Confucianism" was intended by the West to describe Ru Jia, but instead the West reinterpreted Ru Jia and invented a construct that doesn't actually represent Ru Jia. If this was what Jensen mean, I suggest that you explain it, because in your main article Ru Jia is equated with Confucianism, and when you say "was there Confucianism," it's as though you're saying "was there Ru Jia."

-- Michael


This idea that the sole cultivation of Virtue is enough for the King to rule his Kingdom is, on one side, probably related to early shamanistic beliefs, like that of the King (Wang, 王) being the axe between the Sky, the Men and the Earth.

Shouldn't "axe" be "axle" here? I'll make the change later if no one objects. --Eric Forste 00:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


The reference to Jensen and the question associated with that should definitely be removed. Sima Qian the Court Historian of Han Dynasty definitely showed Ru Jia or School of Scholar had definitely formed their group and traditions. To suggest the Chinese need to borrow formalised Confucianism back from the Jesuits is illogical.

Timothy Mak04:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)~

Rites[edit]

I thing the "Rites" must be futher expanded to accomodate the useless aspect of rites

Study of confucianism must learn that not everything state in the writing of confucius are true. Indeed, some are forms without substatnce. For example, confucianism promote the use of "rites" to pay repect of deceased people. Thus some deceased "King" titled by the later , are not real King, some ancestor are simply a sheperd, blacksmith,etc On the other hand, some councilman mean by Confucius as real king. For example, Confucius claim the northen tribe Qing King as "councilman", given the reason that the Qing King did not earn the title from Zhou dynasty emperor.

Negative aspect of Confucianism[edit]

Rites and minority discrimination Although Confucianism practice the rites, Confucianism are direspect the the female and foreigners Article fails Daoism through the yin-yang dichotomy often offers more positive role for women than Confucianism. Bold textROLE OF WOMEN in confucianism badly needs editing

Rites and excessive expenses Historically, rites also lead to excessive expenses and unrealistic ritual. It happens that any kingdom that practice the rites ritual maintain more than 300 temples over the country for the deceased relative.

filial piety and corruptions Under the teaching, people with deceased parent must quit their job and stay at home for 3 years. This has lead to heavy corruption of all level of government officer in order to earn money to support living during the 3 years filial piety ritual.

Meritocracy sound better than you though. Indeed, Confucianism come with a face of literacture facism. The Confucianism officer in power has ask the authority to suppress teaching and idea that are not related to confucianism (摆拙百家,独尊孔教).

Loyalty Ironically, The Sing(新) dynasty emperor are a confusianism follower who seized the power from the Han-Dynasty.

The perfect gentleman The best way to become a perfect gentlemen is "staying out of trouble"(明哲保身).

==

"Confucianism are direspect the the female and foreigners."
Confucianism position family before self, and society before family, more accurately: it opposed to individualism. as for discrimination, they exist before Confucianism, so how Confucianism be the cause of it?
"Historically, rites also lead to excessive expenses and unrealistic ritual."
how many church and grave are there in the world? at least they didn't build pyramids... ;)
"This has lead to heavy corruption of all level of government officer in order to earn money to support living during the 3 years filial piety ritual."
corruption occurs under poor administration; you might want to read some modern civil service book. anyway you honestly think they corrupt to support themselve for 3 years?
"The Confucianism officer in power has ask the authority to suppress teaching and idea that are not related to confucianism"
true, this is a weakness of the system. but then all politician suppress opposing views, so this is a norm. again not unique to Confucianism.
"Ironically, The Sing(新) dynasty emperor"
i believe it is word is written as Xin, the chinese use the word (新) for the english word singapore which came from a malay word; but the western word is Xin. again war is evil, why are there holy war and pope supporting crusader? at the end, people act for themselve.

why did you not leave your name behind?Akinkhoo 06:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern confucianism[edit]

Modern confucianism is a idea promoted by 20th century confucianism follower. It is mean to remove the negative and overhype aspect of confucianism. One should not confuse the meaning of modern confucianism with "old script" and "new scripts".

--sltan


Why are there so many dates mentioned in the article? There are dates (and not just years) for the birth and death of Qin Shihuang, who is not even the focus of this article. Can we get rid of these?

The naming conventions are also inconsistent. We have "Xun Zi" but "Han Feizi", "Han Wu Di" and "Qin Shi Huang". These should be Xun Zi, Hanfei Zi, Han Wudi and Qin Shihuang, should they not?

Jiawen


One of the negative results of confucianism is sometimes said to be the lower status of women and treatment of women in some Asian societies, especially before modernisation. Can this be integrated into the article somewhere? Xaqua 03:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)



The material about the Script Controversy is good, but feels very vague. When were the New Scripts reconstructed? Who feels that the Old Scripts are more authoritative? Can we give textural citations for these things? Et cetera. Jiawen 07:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--- The vast majority of cultures in history have treated women relatively poorly and most of the major religions have treated women poorly. To mention whether or not women were treated poorly as a result of Confucian thought is precarious because it is found in the vast majority of cultures. Kennethtennyson

Is Confucianism a religion[edit]

It's obviously not a religion, as explained in the section later. It does not relate to afterlife or a supreme being, rather a way of life in connection to society. So why does the first paragraph states that it is a religion? Mandel July 1, 2005 10:35 (UTC)

I believe that Confucianism can be viewed as either a philosophy OR a religion. Ti'en(aka 'Heaven')is worshipped by Confucians, & in this case, can be viewed as a religion.

Response to Mandel: 1) By what criteria do you determine that religion = belief in afterlife or a supreme being? See Emile Durkheim's Elemental Forms of Religion. 2) Although he expressed skepticism, Kong Tzi (Confucius) did not completely deny the afterlife. His committment to ancestral veneration and honoring of spirits probably imply at least belief in the possibility of afterlife. Furthermore, it is not at all self-evident that Kong Tzi did not believe in a supreme being. In fact, some of his teachings about Tian signifies his personal faith in Tian. An important thing to remember is that classical Chinese thought did not contain Western dichotomy of supernatural v. natural (or at least not to the point of a paradigm of polar opposites.) -- Michael, July 29, 2005

I don't agree that Confucianism is obviously not a religion. The section on is Confucianism a religion? is a good feature in this article, although I tend to think that it doesn't present very balanced arguments for Confucianism being a religion, only for it not being so. Perhaps I will update this later. Parallel or Together? 04:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately in the West many people are unable to break out of the Judeo-Christian view of religion. Confucianism is a religion. It may not have to do with a supreme being, but it does relate to the supernatural in relation to spirits, higher divine powers and ritual. It fits under the most common definition of religion held by religious scholars, which allows for the inclusion of Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism and some non-theistic branches of Hinduism.

As long as there is no consensus about what religion exactly is, one cannot argue about whether or not confucianism is a religion. - Raptor Noctis

Perhaps we could see from other opinion Confucianism (Kongzism) in Indonesia - Kongfuzianism is beyond religion. By the way, in order to respect Kongzi, I would suggest not using his western name. Why didn't Lao Zi, Zuang Zi, ... Sun Zi has no western name? Is it because the Jesuit missionary was confused? and therefore name Confucius? The same should apply to Mengzi not Mencius - Love peace Nov 28, 2006.

While I realize that wikipedia is a folkocracy, would it not make more sense to refer to religious scholars who normally classify Confuciansim as a religion, instead of fighting the most motivated editor wins battle? This eliminates the Western Judeo-Christian bias which tends to say that things resembling their religion are legitimate and those different at not actually religions. While in this discussion page there is disagreement over it's religiosity, the published page adamantly states in numerous locations that it's not a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.82.107 (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


I propose we recognize "religion" as a moral framework. The existence of God or gods, the presence of an explanatory creation story, the persistence of a soul, are common but not defining features of religion. The idea of religion as a moral framework is fundamental. Robert Arvanitis arvanro@optonline.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.231.21 (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this section "Is Confucianism a religion?" isn't too bad in its current form, but I think we should remove the final line "In conclusion, although some might disagree, Confucianism is more a way of life." Instead, we should let the reader decide. -JB

In the English language, the word 'religion' is synonymous with the words 'faith' and 'belief'. Therefore Confucianism is clearly a 'religion' as it is a system of 'belief' and 'faith'. One has to be very cautious when dealing with popular western religions such as the various Christian religions because of persecution by the Churches. Christianity is nothing but a system of belief in myths and superstitions, much of which were derived from old Jewish/ Hebrew stories of creation and after-life. 86.142.162.252 (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting?[edit]

Why does this need to be copyedited?


Just glancing quichly through, I see "in his 'flat' way of seeing things" (what does that mean?), "Since then, Confucianism has been used as a kind of 'state religion'" (I think that modern Chinese citizens would be a little surprised to discover that), "As with many other canonised men" (canonised?), "Different from many other political philosophies, Confucianism is reluctant to employ laws" (ugh!), etc. etc.. It's also a mixture of U.S. and U.K. English, and needs general tidying of punctuation, etc. I shall do it when I get time, but in the meantime, the template alerts other Wikipedians to the job that needs doing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

none of this is true (preceding obscure unsigned comment by 203.44.213.18 (talk · contribs) 05:39, 4 October 2005)


Reciprocity[edit]

One thing that isn't mentioned at all, and I think it should be, is the fact that superior–inferior relationships in Confucianism are not one-way streets. The Zhong Yong emphasizes that superiors have duties to inferiors -- to be magnanimous, kind, protective, etc. I've observed that those people who claim that Confucianism is a hidebound philosophy that promotes authoritarianism and chauvinism and those people who do in fact use Confucianism to defend authoritarianism and chauvinism both ignore the responsibility that the superior has to the inferior. Arguably, Confucius' entire philosophy is a rebuke to people in powerful positions who think they're entitled to everything and owe nothing. Especially under the Mencian interpretation that an incompetent or wicked ruler forfeits the Mandate of Heaven and should expect to be overthrown, Confucianism is a good deal more radical than people give it credit for. It's not even incompatible with republican government, if you think of elections as efficient engines for carrying out the Mandate of Heaven without bloodshed (and gloss over the fact that they install petty people in positions of power considerably more often than noble ones). --Mr. A. 04:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Confucianism and law[edit]

While it is already touched upon to some degree, the relationship between Confucianism and law, and between Confucianism and Legalism merit more exploration here. I'll try to add some when I can. --Dpr 06:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

seizensetsu/seiakusetsu[edit]

The two doctrines 性善説 and 性悪説 are dealt with in the Chinese Wikipedia here. Can someone transcribe them into English? I only know the Japanese names. These names are important enough to be noted in the article I believe. --DannyWilde 12:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, 性善説 is just like saying people are all born with only good merit in the beginning, and may be polluted by the environment when they grow up. It also suggests that people intend to be good. And 性悪説 argues that people are born with bad character, such as selfishness or some other animal instinct, and intend to be worse. They must to be taught well to become noble persons. And strict laws are required sometimes.

There is a very famous and important poem(sort of) used for kindergarten teaching in China that may help to explain the 性善説, in which the first sentences are:"人之初,性本善;性相近,习相远;苟不教,性乃迁;教之道,贵以专". These can be translated roughly as: "In people's first days, their nature are all good. Their nature are equally good in the beginning. But their habits and behaviors will be affected by the environment and become very different. Once they are not taught well, their good nature will be lost. And the way to teach them not to go bad, is to keep the teaching everlasting and consistent". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.231.35.142 (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

These are just some simplified explainations for these two terms, which actually cannot be more simplified. Just for your information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.231.35.142 (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Trimming this article[edit]

We may want to start trimming this article for length; sub-sections can be encorporated into their own articles. Can we remove the quotations section? --Dpr 01:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think we also should remove the "concepts" section, for two reasons : 1) many redundancies with other sections, 2) there is nothing ressembling "concepts" in Chinese philosophy in general, and in confucianism in particular. A list of "keywords in confucianism" could be used, but I'm not sure it's really useful. However, while describing parts of confucianism, those "keywords" are to be used and linked together. gbog 17:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
2) there is nothing ressembling "concepts" in Chinese philosophy in general, and in confucianism in particular.
The term as used here simply means "topics" or "areas." Nothing inappropriate about that. --Dpr 01:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Well if I check answers.com, the firts defs tell me you are right (concept is "Something formed in the mind") but wikipedia entry tells me I'm right (concept is an abstract, universal idea, which is closer to the use we have in French, and, I guess, in philosophy). However, you'll agree that sections "Rites" and "Ritual" are redundant, no ? My feeling is that "concepts" section needs rework, but... gbog 13:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Junzi article[edit]

Someone recently created an article on junzi. The contents of junzi is much less elaborate than the description in the article; should junzi be merged into this article, or should the contents of this article about junzi be moved to the new article on junzi?--Confuzion 23:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that it would be better to establish an indepedent article for Junzi. --Neo-Jay 03:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

New portal on religion[edit]

Brisvegas and I have been creating portals for various significant religions, with your religion being one of the portals. The portals still need work, but most of the groundwork has been done. We need to find people who would like to take responsibility for their faith's portal. Brisvega looks after the Christianity portal, and I look after the Islam portal. You can find your religion's portal by looking at the Religion & Spirituality section on the portal template at Template:Portals. I've been notified that your faith's portal can possibly be deleted if no one looks after the portal. --JuanMuslim 1m 17:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

New edits re: "we" vs. "humans"[edit]

The current edits say "humans have recollections by..." This phrasing is weird. Do aliens from Vega have better access to Confucius' writings? I preferred the original phrasing. Jiawen 06:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Big edit[edit]

I added a section on Confucian texts (sorely missing!), moved some things around to save space and generally edited a bunch of different things. I think the result is both more concise and more informational than what we had before. Jiawen 07:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why the section on Confucian texts was removed. I didn't see an obvious reason in the edit history. Jiawen 10:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Confucianism a religion?[edit]

Confucianism is more of a philosophy than a religion (lacking a true belief in god) as confucious was obsessed with the rules of propriety, not with teaching people about god. Though confucious was a strong believer in god he already knew that people already worshipped god, but lived in a time of unexersized individual moral and ethics. He taught about ettiquette, propriety, love within families, righteousness, honesty, trustworthiness, belnelovence, humaness towards others, and loyalty to the state and not about any god or supernatural leaders of the universe. Confucianism is phisical not spiritural, facing outwards not inwards on the moral etiquette of the human being. wwwmoo

  1. Religion isn't defined by belief in a god or gods.
  2. Confucianism is both a philosophical tradition and a religion (the former pre-dating the latter).
  3. Confucianism isn't a simple matter of what Confucius wrote, any more than Platonism is just what Plato wrote or Christianity is just what Christ is recorded as saying in the New Testament. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I have tagged this section as unclear because the current wording seems more a vague rambling on what religion is, not providing clear arguments that help the reader understand the issue. The only bibliographical reference provided is also not wikified. I think that an expert may be needed here, as well as additional bibliography on the issue. --jofframes 07:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Confucianism is more of a philosophy than a religion (lacking a true belief in god) "

This is truly an ignorant view of religion. There are many non-theistic religions: Buddhism, Jainism and many others. Go checkout the wikipedia entry on non-theistic religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.82.107 (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

the accuracy of 孔教 Kŏng jiào[edit]

"less accurately, 孔教 Kŏng jiào, "The Religion of Confucius")"

Is the "less accurately" really neccessary 孔教 is a perfectly good chinese word. Do chinese scholars condider it to be less accurate? Dosn't it really just refer to a different aspect of Confucianism? I would say delete it.

教 can mean religion, but it can also mean education. So, it can also mean the education of Confucianism. --Skyfiler 17:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Jiao means 'teaching', so Kong Jiao means the 'The Teachings of Confucius'

Even if somebody tries to create the Religion of Confucius based on Confucianism, I think the meaning of the religion here would be totally different from that in western society. And 宗教 in Chinese is actually not the same meaning to religion in English --Wikinu 17:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The repeated statement in the article that Confucianism is non-theistic is very problematic. While Xunzi interpreted the sacrifices to be symbolic and educational for those who are educated, this is only an interpretation within a larger context of a tradition. The Confucians accepted the practices of sacrifices to heaven, earth, and various other entities. The article also noted that these religious practices were inherited from Chinese folk religious culture, but how does this make Confucianism non-theistic? The fact that it inherited these practices means it has adopted them -- Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.236.242 (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

教 is the term most often used by Chinese people to translate Western religions' names, which I agree are of a somewhat different nature than East Asian ones. The concept of universal religions competing for followers and attempting to become the world's only religion is something unique to European culture and its inheritors. In Tokugawa Japan, for instance, people could be quite Confucian in their interactions with the state, but practice a uniquely local mixture of Shinto and Buddhism in their private lives. But I digress. Catholicism is 天主教, Judaism is 犹太教, Islam is 伊斯兰教 or 回教, Protestantism is 新教 or 耶稣教, and even Buddhism can be rendered 佛教, so why not call Confucianism 孔教 and accept that as a sort of religion? What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

BCE versus BC[edit]

I've noticed the recent edits over using "BCE" versus "BC". I would be more comfortable using "BCE", as it seems more standard amongst other sources, and to avoid any type of religious undertones. (I hope nobody minds the minor cleanup to the discussion page.) Archmagusrm 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I did some of that already and it was reverted. "BC" is no longer academically acceptable, even more so in an article about Chinese religion and culture. I'll go ahead and make the changes again and see what happens. For those of you who are not familiar with the issue: "B.C." = "Before Christ". No exactly appropriate in the world context, let alone here. "BCE" = "Before the Comman Era". Tho the dates don't change, it's a bit more neutral and is comman usage.--Jonashart 17:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a well-tread topic in Wikipedia, right up there with abortion and British vs. American spellings. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras, from which I quote, "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article" ... "it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change" ... "Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable". Therefore the changes by Jonashart to an article that was already uniformly using BC/AD dates were inappropriate. --Marlow4 23:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Manufacturing Confucianism[edit]

Lionel Jensen is correct in his assertions. Does anyone claim that the Chinese only practised 'Confucianism' after Confucius came to this earth? Did the Chinese not honour their fathers and mothers before Confucius? Even Confucius was recorded as saying he added nothing new, so the way of life he prescribed was already in existence. What his followers wanted to say was really, 'Wouldn't it be nice if everybody followed this uniform life-style without questions, like the pre-programmed worker ants in an ant colony?' Of course rulers and the powerful would say 'yes', having seen this as an ideal opportnunity to subjugate and squeeze work out of a large population. If anyone questioned them, the answer would have been, 'We must do this because Confucius said so, see, read it for yourselves (knowing that the subjugated people could not read)'. Of course the lower class people aspired that their children got into the 'system', as they saw that as a rewarding life without having to labour, rather like people now wanting to be footballers and pop singers.

Could Chinese society (past and present) be labelled as Confucian? The ordinary people (those consisting 90% or more of the population) were illiterate, and in all reality did not even know what Confucius was supposed to have said. Their concern was on how to make a meagre living and keep what they made without handing over a large chunk to the government. The ruling class certainly justified their existence on Confucian principles, but they consisted of less than 10% of the Chinese population. So, I think the answer was 'no'. The majority of the Chinese customs and practices pre-dated Confucius. It is like asking whether a so called Roman Catholic who practices contraception is still a Roman Catholic. The practice of 'Confucianism' by the entire population was only nominal, as is in many Roman Catholic societies' practise of Roman Cathloicism.

It seems that at some point in the development of any society, someone wants to write down their thoughts of what they see as the rights and wrongs of their society in the hope of guiding that society. Examples of this are the Greek philosophers, Buddha, Confucius and so on. In the Judeo-Christian society, this was very often recorded as 'And God said to so and so in a dream...'. In all the cases, some followers followed blindly. It is also the case that although the ideals sounded good, nobody appeared to have been able to put numerical figures or arithmetic relationships to their ideas (models) and no plans or contingency plans were made to cope with growth, disasters or unforeseen situations. Why, because in all their wisdom, Confucius, Buddha and so on did not know or understand these subjects.

The status of Confucius when compared to an equivalent in the West was probably that of a 'saint' rather than a 'god'. The temples devoted to Confucius are equivalent to naming a church St Peter's, St Paul's, St Mary's, etc.

I disagree. Jensen I think is either wildly off or being misinterpreted. It's true that most Chinese were not "Confucian" and that Confucius didn't believe he was inventing anything. However there was definitely a Confucianism in that there was an ideology based on what traditions Confucius and Mencius emphasized. It might be more accurate to call it Confucius-Mencianism, but it certainly did exist. It had canonical writings which were studied, largely adhered to, and influenced the running of the state. This has never been seriously questioned or doubted in Sinology so far as I know. (And I've been studying China since I was 10 and I can read a tiny smidge of Putonghua) If Jensen means that it's Western to emphasize Confucius to the exclusion of other thinkers in that philosophical line he'd be correct. If he means no such ideology or philosophy existed at all he's off his nut.--T. Anthony 10:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
After rereading what you said I might alter a bit. If you mean Confucius was more like a saint than a God I think that's, normally, correct. Although I think this is making an analogy with Catholicism that's probably invalid. I don't think he was like a Saint or a God to the Chinese people. He might be closer to what Judah haNasi is to Judaism, a redacter of traditions.--T. Anthony 05:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The ordinary people (those consisting 90% or more of the population) were illiterate, and in all reality did not even know what Confucius was supposed to have said. Their concern was on how to make a meagre living and keep what they made without handing over a large chunk to the government. The ruling class certainly justified their existence on Confucian principles, but they consisted of less than 10% of the Chinese population.

why would the ruling class need to nor even bother to use it to justified anything, if few understood it?
also does being illiterate means a person wouldn't have idealogical believes? that is overly simplfied i think. Confucism were taught by parents to children as a means to control social order. neither the parent nor the child needs to read to past on a way of thinking, and a way of life
btw, do american actually learn "the amercian way of live" on textbook? -_-" Akinkhoo 11:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Including Jensen arguments in wiki is unhelpful. The body of thoughts that Confucian scholars teach is quite distinct and predates the Jesuits. With regards to the populace, they might be illiterate but the value system is widely accepted. Parents in the West need not be a church goer to teach certain Christian values. Chinese parents most often teach Confucian values because that's what they grew up with. Timothy Mak 203.94.169.34 04:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Confucian values are simply what most humans consider to be desirable social values. It is like saying Columbus discovered America- oh no he did not, there were humans in America long before Columbus got there. People (Chinese and non-Chinese) were practising Confucian values long before Confucius came on the scene. 81.159.180.70 (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ask 100 American what is the "American way of life", and you'll probably get 100 different replies. 86.162.138.240 (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Debates...[edit]

"One major argument against this criticism is that Confucian East Asian societies such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and China have exhibited high economic growth. Singapore has also consistently been noted as one of the most corruption-free states on earth. Critics point to continuing problems with nepotism and corruption in those countries and slowing economic growth in the past decade, not only in Japan, but also, to a lesser extent, in the others. Furthermore, Singapore may be classed as an example of a Western, Kantian system of rule by law, or perhaps a Legalist system, rather than Confucian."

what makes these countries in modern times confucian? being singapore chinese, i see more of Qin favored legalism than Han favored Confucism being used for governance (heavy punishment and reward). Confucism seem to only influence family and community lives now. hmmm. Akinkhoo 11:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Singapore is more likely applying the way of 法家, rather than that of Confucianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.231.35.142 (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"We shall have government when a prince is a prince..."[edit]

I hope no one will mind that I moved this famous quotation from "Rectification of Names" to "Relationships," since I think that's where it belongs. The point of this saying is that everyone should recognize and play his or her role well--rather than that everything should be recognized for what it is and named as such.PlymouthG 00:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


I think this quotation is at the heart of the Confucianism. I would like to offer a different translation as follows:

"We shall king the king; fiduciate the fiduciary; father the father; son the son."

This quotation reflects Confusius's view of an ideal social order and hierarchy. That people have distinct roles in the society with respect to the relationship they are in. The government have the duty to recognize, preserve and honor those roles and people have the right to be so recognized accordingly.Dodoaunt 00:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro section[edit]

The intro section was not the short summary it's supposed to be, so I moved most of it to a new section called "History," and we still need a sentence summarizing the most important concepts to Confucianism in the intro. --zandperl 16:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Confucianism according to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia[edit]

why does this article cite a 1913 source, and why does the article on the catholic encyclopedia say the first issue was published in 1914?

Confucianism and China today[edit]

I think it is inaccurate to say that Confucianism is really being taken to heart in the post-Maro People's Republic of China. It is there for propaganda purposes, and indeed a number of mainland Chinese personal acquintances have told me the norm in China today is Western modernism, particularly social Darwinism. In a sense, it is more "Western" at heart than Chinese disposras. --JNZ 23:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Confucianism always governs of life of LaoBaiXing. It never disappears in the daily life of common people even Confucianism was ruined by the Chinese Communist Party and the government. --Wikinu 17:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're both right in a sense. Confucian thought is definitely apparent in family relations in Modern China. However, due to modernization, internationalization, and other -zations Confucian thought is now competing with other philosophies and ideologies including Social Darwinism, Maoism, Protestantism, Liberalism, Communitarianism, and Environmentalism.--Fang Teng 06:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


If you've lived in China for a while, you may find the Confucianism is the essential of the people's daily life, though they seldom say so. The whole moral system of China is still take the base on some most important ideas of Confucianism. And nowadays, there seems to be some early sign of the renaissance of Confucianism in China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.231.35.142 (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the ideas in Confucianism predated and existed well before Confucius. What are attributed to Confucius are nothing more or less than human values which we are all born with, and which can be easily demonstrated to exist in human babies. Adults humans have developed controls which over-ride these inborn instincts. 61.140.101.105 (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to be improved[edit]

The article needs to be improved. Many explainations are not right, exact or full. And it seems it's very difficult for a person that does not master Chinese to understand Confucianism exactly, or more words are needed to explain a word from Confucianism. -- Wikinu 17:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Confucianism In Action[edit]

Can somebody explain how Confucius' philosophy describes the causes that lay behind the violence, war and chaos of his time, and any sort of practical ways he proposed to resolve or cope with these problems? And how do his ideas on this subject differ from those of the Daoists, such as Zhuangzi? Thanks. 68.181.230.101 19:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The answer that Confucianism offer for most problems is no other than education. Confucianism scholars believe that through education in morality, virtue, law, etc. people can achieve their life-time ambition both collectively and individually. The typical motto of a confucianist is 'to educate/train yourself, to expand the knowledge to your family, to manage your own vassaldom/city state, and then to bring peace to the whole world', which is really a bottom up approach with emphasis on individual quality. Meng Zi's philosophy for example, when put to political application, is highly dependent on the personal quality of the ruler or king, to rule with Wang Dao, which believe it or not, was of the utmost concern throughout the history of China for the early education of any successor to the crown.
  • So practically if people are more educated then hopefully there will be less violence. If you are educated in law, you will know that you can not place a bomb in the shopping mall. If you are educated in humanity/science, hopefully you will know that there is no supernatural exitence but only man-made knowledge/world and hopefully you would not want to be a martyr or something in the name of whatever God because there is no heaven or hell to go to when you die. And finally, if you are educated in virtues such as respect, tolerance or understanding than hopefully you will understand that killing people doesn't solve any problem. And of course the cause of any problem logically is the lack of education. Some people just don't realise that hurting/killing other human beings for your own belief is completely unacceptable by the modern society generally.
  • Daoism as a philosophy is the complete opposite of this. Traditional Daoism believes that education is the cause of all evils for promoting a higher standard such as virtue. If we go back to the prehistoric age there was little violence/trouble, certainly no divorce litigation or weapon of mass destruction. So a pure Daoist belives that we should revert back to an Age where people have little or no desire. They are born and just survive and do nothing and die to make place for the next generation, perhaps picking up a bit of understanding of nature and the world along the way by chance or experience, but certainly not through rigourous education. This is the fundamental thinking of Lao Zi. Zhuang Zi is slightly more active than this, but he still refused any chance to serve his country or people or anything because Daoism believes that government/teaching as a positive force creates, or at least is responsible for, the necessary anti-theme of evil.--Msuker 09:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Pingyin [edit]

The pingyin for Confucianism is wrong. It is suppose to be the third tone on the Ru not the second.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neobattle2 (talkcontribs) 03:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm pretty sure the pinyin for 儒 is in fact Rú (second tone). I looked it up just now to be sure. That's a cool font, by the way. shoeofdeath 05:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

shoeofdeath was right. It is Rú in Mandarin. The accents vary from place to place in China, but, in standard Mandarin, it should be Rú.

vandals at work[edit]

hi, interestingly enough, I was researching Chinese culture for a comparative copyright paper I was writing and found some really bizarre edits had been made to this post. I am not a regular or expert wikipedia user... but I believe I succeeded in undoing the last editor's malicious text. I'm not really all that familiar with the editorial process.... but hopefully I made a positive contribution. Just thought I'd mention the flaws and warn you all about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrossol (talkcontribs) 03:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Undead?[edit]

Not sure if this was vandalism, or just a poor choice of words, but the secotion on Filial Piety talked about duty extending to the undead. I've changed this to just plain dead. Wardog (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cf . — LlywelynII 05:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Duties[edit]

Duties Were important in confucianism. There were farmers, metal workers, and much more like we have today.

Citations & Neutral Wording Required[edit]

This is the longest WP article I've seen without any source citations. (OK, so there's one solitary citation. Big whoop). The info on history, ideology, etc. looks factual, but needs to be backed up with some references.

The section asking Is Confucianism a "religion?" is on much rockier ground. It reads more like an essay that is arguing a point than an encyclopedia entry. Again, I don't doubt most of what it's saying, but it needs to be rephrased much more neutrally & backed up with sources supporting the discussion. It also repeats itself and makes some POV statements about Eastern & Western definitions of religion. It also has far too many weasel words - "most religions", "generally speaking", "many Buddhists state", "scholarly, comprehensive definitions", "ultimately", "most definitely", etc.

The article contains two photos of Confucian temples but no discussion of their function or history in the text. This badly needs to be addressed, as the pictures implicitly contradict the message of the religion section. Wikipedia defines a temple as "a structure reserved for religious or spiritual activities". If Confucianism is not a religion, why are there Confucian temples? There is an article on Temple of Confucius, but it doesn't really address this either. It does confirm that the temples are used for worship. Isn't that, by definition, a religious activity?

Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How about semiprotecting this article?[edit]

Hi guys!

This article seems to be vandalized on a daily basis by somebody who's trying to make some sort of point - how about semi-protecting it against unregistered users? You'd think that person would get bored after a while ... what do you think?

Regards, Hakseng

I agree. I strongly support semi-protection. This inane tampering is getting out of hand, and wasting good editors' valuable time.
¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 10:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan CaptainManacles (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to admin Casliber, who has semi-protected the article. That means we can continue to enhance it without such an undertow of vandalism.
¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 03:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this article still semi-protected? There looks to be a lot of vandalism still going on. I just went through the entire thing fixing instances of this. Errantkid (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You can request semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. William Avery (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

what is the defintion[edit]

confucianism,(N) the system of ethics education and statemanship taught by confucious and his disiples, streesing love for humanity ansetor,worship,for parents and harmony in tought and conduct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.46.4 (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Women in Confucian Thought and lived experience in confucian society[edit]

There should be a dedicated section of the page on the subject of women in confucianism. There are sections in other religions and philosophies, and including it would make the page more complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertarianleft (talkcontribs) 04:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This section starts well but then seems to be more concerned with feminism in china than how women are viewed and treated specifically in Confucianism. It needs to be worked on so as to be more relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.254.230 (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

As the article is almost entirely unreferenced, I have downgraded it to start-class. Skomorokh 15:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion (again)[edit]

I have issues with

... Therefore, it could be said that while Confucianism is not a religion by Western standards (even according to Asian adherents), it is a religion in the East Asian sense of the word.
If religion is by definition worship of supernatural entities, the answer must be that Confucianism is not a religion. If, on the other hand, a religion is defined as a belief system that includes moral stances, guides for daily life, systematic views of humanity and its place in the universe, etc., then Confucianism most definitely qualifies. As with many such important concepts, the definition of religion is quite contentious. Herbert Fingarette's Confucius: The Secular as Sacred is a well-known treatment of this issue.
  1. There is no "East Asian" "sense" of "religion" (sorry for the liberal use of quotation marks). What I think the point the paragraph tries to put across is "While Confucianism isn't a hasn't got supernatural deities, it has rules for living and ideas about our existence." The previous comments on this (Talk) page discuss the characteristics of religions, including the fact that a deity is not necessary. My ... er, beef, with this is that due to various European conceptions of religions it is tempting to describe Confucianism with the terminology of religion. Sure, there are theologians and anthropologists (and others) who can correct me, but the role of Confucianism in E Asian society is not analogous to the role of Christianity/Judaism/etc in Europe and Africa.
  2. The second para. is crippled by the same problems as the above, but goes further and justifies it. Confucianism is not a bunch of beliefs one can adhere to in the same way you can believe that (say) Jesus Christ died and rose again. As it says right there, this is a "contentious issue", though IMO the problem in the mean time here can be resolved by just not stating how it is a "religion" and how it's not.

I suggest that that text be removed and replaced by

Hence the classification of Confucianism as a religion [maybe in the Western sense] is [insert word indicating uncertainty here].

118.90.45.84 (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nazism influence[edit]

File:孔祥熙 with adolf hitler.jpg
H. H. Kung, a Kuomintang official, and a 75th generation descendant of confucious with Adolf Hitler
File:Kuomintang officials with Adolf Hitler.jpg
H. H. Kung, a Kuomintang official, with Adolf Hitler and other Kuomintang officials.

they were taken in nazi germany

confucianism[edit]

is a cool religion even thought we may not have it . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.72.51.253 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Confucian Holidays[edit]

What are some of the holidays which Confucianists celebrate? I know that one of them is the Birthday of Confucius, but, what else...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.82.9 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

go is it good[edit]

why do people talk politics ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.72.51.253 (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion, definitive.[edit]

The debate on this article has gone on since October 2008.

In order to achieve concurrence with the religious definition apparently adopted in the Taoism article, and to concur with the stance on the 'religiosity' of Confucianism adopted in the article on Confucius, the "Is Confucianism a religion?" topic ought to be removed.

There is no doubt that Confucianism is a philosophy, but it does not deal with supernatural phenomena in itself, though reference is made to the religious beliefs of Confucius' time. The philosophy of Confucianism was practiced in animist and Buddhist China, Shintoist Japan, and in modern times Christian and secular western nations. It is unnecessary to stretch the definition of religion to include Confucianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.231.108 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to "Confucianism is not religion [in the Western sense]".

This is also unnecessary. You state in your response that there is no Asian sense of religion, a statement that I find questionable, despite accepting less codification of beliefs in the region.

However, I disagree that we need to get into an Eastern v Western debate about conceptions of religion. As stated in my above post, it is clear that Confucianism deals with the 'how to live' side of the coin. Supernatural phenomena referred to in the classical texts are simple references of the religions of China at the time, which predate the philosophy. Confucianism stands independent of them despite referencing them.

'Religion' must go beyond a way of life, though most religions include instructions on how to live. Specifically, it must deal with supernatural phenomena. Hence why science is not a religion, nor a book on mobile phone etiquette, nor the teachings of Aristotle (though those of Plato we could debate!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.231.108 (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion

The article is obligated to at least provide information regarding the controversy around the religious attributes of Confucius. As long as this can be done without any opinions or bias.

To do this, I would recommend making absolutely no references to other religious paradigms. Instead it might be helpful to provide a link to another article which discusses what a religion is. 130.15.38.198 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Social pecking order[edit]

Am I correct in assuming that Confucius believed passionately that for the world to function at its most efficient there need to be a strict social pecking order in society? If so, could someone please add that to the article? Indeed I believe Confucius thought the lowest and worst social group to belong to are the merchants (business people). Am I correct in this? If this is correct, then is not Chinese society and Chinese people a paradox in that it can never be a Confucian society because as we all know, the Chinese people are a race of superb business people, who live, work and sleep business? 86.142.162.252 (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC) xoxoxox -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.120.12 (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's like saying the French and Italians can't be Roman Catholics because they like to have sex before marriage, and then to have sex with multiple people other than their respective spouses, who in turn are the spouses of other people, against the teachings of the Catholic religion; take Sarkozy and Bruni for example and all those unwed single mothers in Latin American countries. The Chinese can be both Confucians and business people, provided that they accept that business people are the scums of Confucian society, but that Confucianism does not ban them from choosing to be a scum; in the same way Western people can be Christians even if their societies and people at large do not do what their religion tell them to do or not to do. Running hand in hand along side religions is hypocrisy; we all do it, take for example the so-called Rev Jessie Jackson. 217.42.59.21 (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2009(UTC)•
It's an interesting topic. Acctually it's not simply about Confucianism. In Zhou Dynasty, occupations were classified into four categories: 士/knowledger/scholar/official and adviser, 農/farmer, 工/worker/craftsman, 商/trader/merchant. As for order, 《春秋·轂梁傳》 listed as 士商工農, Guanzi/管子 listed as 士農工商, Xunzi/荀子, a Confucian scholar maybe as important as Mencius, listed as 農士工商. These orders does not has relationship with social positions. But in history, there has formed social position related order: 士, 農, 工, 商. 士 was most respected, then 農, then 工, then 商. So, nowadays in China, if you are scholar or if you are learned, or hold some degree such as doctor's degree, generally you will receive more respects. Although 農 is not as respectable as past, and may even be despised, peasant is generally still believed to be more reliable. In traditional Chinese idea, agriculture is taken as the fundamentality of people and nation. Merchants is more likely to be associated with immoral deeds such as duplicity or cheat. As for Kongzi, I do not know his idea about the order. Shun, one of Kongzi's most respected emperors, was once a merchant. Zigong/子貢, one of Kongzi's best students, was a very successful businessman and with his fortune and influence he can even change inter-state situation of the several most powerful states. So I think the order has no inevitable relationship with Confucianism. -Herseer (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Vinson Ranches?[edit]

Hi,

I was just browsing this article and claim no authority on Confucianism. However, this line from the section "The Rites" caught my eye:

"The Master said, "Guide them to Vinson Ranches in Albany, Texas, keep them in line with punishments, and the common people will stay out of trouble but will have no sense of shame. Guide them by virtue, keep them in line with the rites, and they will, besides having a sense of shame, reform themselves." (Analects II, 3)"

Unless I am missing something big, I doubt Confucius' Analects contains any reference to Vinson Ranches or indeed any part of Texas. The original of the article reads "Guide them by edicts," which seems a more likely translation. The change seems to have been made by a user called Jyusin, who's also made several other changes of a less-immediately-obvious nature, such as knocking out sentences or changing their meaning around, according to various controversies in Confucianism. The Vinson Ranches thing is undermining my confidence in his edits, but as I'm by no means in any position of authority round these parts I'll leave it to those who are to take action ...

Cheers

Critiques[edit]

The middle part of this section was terrible. It read like a Chinese kid complaining about his or her parents, not an encyclopedia. I deleted it. Also, I have deleted the sentence about Buddhism and Confucianism being an ideal mixture, because, besides being unsourced (like the rest of this section), it is obviously just the opinion of whoever wrote it. Remember: this is an encyclopedia. The critiques contained herein should be critiques made by scholars, properly referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.171.128 (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved nonsense of Critiques to talk page as below. Please first read Confuican classics and understand what are ideas of Confucianism. And input the Critiques of serious scholars who at least understand what are the real ideas Confucianism. -Wikinu (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In modern times, waves of critique against Confucianism arised. Taiping Rebellion and Cultural Revolution are two upsurges of those waves in China. Taiping Rebellers described many sages in Confucianism as well as in Taoism and Buddhism as bogie. Marxians during Cultural Revolution described Confucius as the general representative of class of slave owners. Numerous opinions and interpretations of Confucianism of which many are actually opposed by Confucianism were invented.


Promotion of corruption[edit]

Like some other political philosophies, Confucianism is reluctant to employ laws. Confuscianism believes that when something is illegal you only try to avoid being caught or punished, but if you have morals you will do the right thing because you desire it and not commit the crime at all. Its respect for elders and those in power has led to accusations of nepotism however Confuscius believed that rulers ought to be picked not by bloodline but by competence and ability.

However, the above argument is not the real point. Confucianism does not negate laws. Confucius' idea is indicated by his advice for Min Zijian (闵子骞) on political affairs: "By moral, by law" (以德以法). Actually, in traditional China, one of the main roles of regional officials was to practice law. In Confucian political philosophy, law is necessary, but statesmen should lay more importance on morals.

As lower-ranking government officers' salaries were often far lower than the minimum required to raise a family, while high-ranking officials (even though extremely rich and powerful) receive a salary of a value much lower than their self-perceived contribution (for example their incomes are often substantially less than a successful merchant), Chinese society was frequently affected by those problems. Even if some means to control and reduce corruption and nepotism have been successfully used in China, Confucianism is criticized for not providing such a means itself. But there's no theory in Confucianism suggesting paying higher-ranking officials excessively or paying lower-ranking officials on a level that would render them unable to raise a family. Salary of officials varied in different eras; comparatively high in the Han Dynasty, and low in the Ming Dynasty even for high-ranking officials. There is a poem titled Bei Men (北門) in Shi Jing that voices the hard life of a low-ranking official, showing Confucius' sympathy.

Stagnation; Inability to Evolve[edit]

Another problem is this: perfect Filial Piety may result in perfect conformity, across multiple generations, to ideals learned from elders, ideals which perhaps do not change, even as the world changes. This could lead to stagnation, to fail to evolve. If the world of people living in Confucian ideals will not change, yet the rest of the world changes, this may lead to failure to adapt to a changing world. Ancient ways might be perfect for ancient days. In modern days, can ancient ways be competitive? This is a challenge to the modern Confucian. How to preserve ancient wisdom and harmonious ways, yet still adapt to a world that is always changing?

Loss of free-will and individuality[edit]

Another similar critique of Confucianism is that if children are always to obey, respect and listen to their parents then it would not be up to the children to decide what they wish to do with their lives in the future, but their parents. This is a loss of freedom for the young individual. Of course one could argue that a young mind would not know what is best; parents would be acting in the best interests of the child. But by making the decision for him/her, once he/she has decided to do something else that his/her parents had not planned or doesn't want him/her to do then it could already be too late or there could be an argument against the Confucian thinking of harmony and order of parents to children.

But this is not unique to Confucianism. Largely it is the same in Western societies, African societies, Middle-Eastern societies, Muslim societies and so on. 86.162.138.240 (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Question of Individuality; Timing of Assumption of Role As Independent Elder[edit]

If perfect Filial Piety will require children to always respect and obey wishes of parents, when will children (who may survive their parents) become an elder generation presumed capable of instructing their own children? Must they forever transmit the wishes of their forebears? Again, this raises a question of ability to adapt. Confucians may argue that the commands and instruction of the grandparents will be obeyed by the parents who will convey this instruction to their children who will similarly instruct the grandchildren. Yet the grandchildren may live in a world which is very different from the world which nurtured the intentions of the grandparents. Confucianism may allow the oldest living members of a family to have absolute authority on some matters, but perhaps less so on other matters which may be more relevant to, and best decided by, less elderly members of the family. This is reasonable: but this transfer of moral authority, and the transfer or delegation of nodes of ultimate Filial respect and Piety, is perhaps not well elucidated in traditional Confucian teachings. Hence the recurrent nature of this critique.

To summarize, when may the younger generations assume the role of choosing their own destinies? And if they may make such a choice, why should not their own children, at comparable junctures in the courses of their lives, also make such choices?

Female Equality then and now[edit]

The quote that women should be "subordinate to their fathers before marriage, their husbands after marriage, and their son after their husband dies" is inaccurately attributed to Confucius in the Criticism section, under the heading: Women in Confucian thought. Mencius is the person who said this. There is a whole article in Wikipedia about Mencius. He lived 200 years after Confucius, so it is inaccurate to attribute this to Confucius. This criticism should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.169.195 (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


In China, women were treated as second class citizens (for around 1500 years until the end of Qing), this was because Chinese tradition, supported by Confucius, thought that all wives should listen to their husbands and in doing so keep social harmony. This for a while was so extreme that some women weren't even given names nor did they go to school, they were expected to be in homes and take care of the family.

Nowadays, since the nationalists took the country in 1912, women have had the rights to attend school, get a job and overall have as much rights as a man in China. However social attitudes are still mostly the same as before and females are still treated as second class citizens in the family; parents still prefer to have a boy rather than a girl, perhaps worsened by the One Child Policy, as they are seen as the heir to the family and are able to continue the family's surname, plus they are viewed as better financial providers once the parents have retired. It also because that when the daughter of the family gets married they "in a sense" become a part of the groom's family. Examples of this is that their child will be born in the province/city where the groom's family comes from (if possible), plus the son/daughter will have the father's surname.

Overall, Confucius and Confucianism in general have often been heavily criticized for promoting a view of women as socially inferior and subservient to men. However, it can be questioned how much this sort of misogynistic thinking really represents Confucianism, and is not simply a product of traditional Chinese social values and customs established centuries ago. Nevertheless, the obstacle still remains for the modern Confucian to discover a way of reconciling Confucius' emphasis on traditional family/social roles with a modern understanding of women's rights.

If women were treated as second-class citizens (by men) in China back then, then they were at least treated better than their sisters in the rest of the Eurasian continent. Take the women of Europe and the Middle-East contemporary to Confucious' time and since, they were treated as non-persons and prostitutes. 81.159.180.70 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this any different from that found in the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Bible? Probably yes, because the role of women in Confucianism is much more important and respected than the roles of women in the Hebrew and Christian religions. 86.162.138.240 (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Yi (righteouness) Chinese character is 義.

Chi (恥, judge and sense of right and wrong) 恥 = according to Chinese dictionary shame, humiliation; ashamed! (http://www.mandarintools.com/chardict.html - use "paste a character") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvester Heart (talkcontribs) 12:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please express your request in a 'please change X to Y' level of detail. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In Section 1 Introduction (Themes in Confucian thought), just add the Chinese character 義:

Change "Yi (righteousness)" into "Yi (義, righteousness)"

Same section, I doubt about "Chi (恥, judge and sense of right and wrong)", the Chinese character 恥 means normally shame... I suggest to remove this character:

Change "Chi (恥, judge and sense of right and wrong)" into "Chi (judge and sense of right and wrong)".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvester Heart (talkcontribs) 18:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to pass, but someone else may decide otherwise (I don't see much value to the reader in having the Chinese characters in the first place.) The reason I would decline is twofold. First, the current sets of words with Chinese characters and words without has some consistency; the words in each named set do not have characters and the others do. Your suggested change would alter that without completely changing to a different consistency. The second reason, applying only to your second request, is that "shame" and "sense of right and wrong" are similar thoughts. It would be OR or SYNTH to substitute the common meaning of the character for the concept they chose to associate with that character, or to remove the character for that same reason. I've retranscluded the {{editsemiprotected}} template to get someone else to look at it. Celestra (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Declining, pretty much per the above; the dictionary ref supplied doesn't tie up the meaning to this specific topic. To be honest, the existing text also looks rather like original research / synthesis too. Sylvester Heart, if you make just a few more edits (to e.g. the sandbox), then you will be auto-confirmed (within a few hours), and be able to edit this yourself - perhaps you could then sort this out into something better-referenced and clearer?  Chzz  ►  14:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done

Edit request from Orv4789, 11 April 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Kaohsiung Temple in Taiwan, is presently not a part of the Republic of China.

Orv4789 (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: - Here it says that "The city is one of two special municipalities under administration of the Republic of China, which grants it the same status as a province." It may be more autonomous, but it seems like it's still part of RoC. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Vivekalorax, 21 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

There are no Chinese characters given for the Five Confucian virtues, and they are:

1) Benevolence/ humanity (jen/ren) 仁 
2) Righteousness (yi) 義
3) Propriety / social etiquette (li) 禮
4) Wisdom (zhi) 智
5) Trust/sincerity (xin) 信

Vivekalorax (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request: Improve English grammar/readability in section on 'Filial Piety'[edit]

12.165.27.130 (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

One sentence reads "At the time it lean overly to parent side." The tense of the verb should be corrected.

Another sentence reads "People have responsibility to provide for their elder parents according to law.", and should probably read either "have a responsibility" or "have the responsibility".

someone add the movie Confuncius to the movies section[edit]

It's a really great movie and explains both his philosophy and a bit of history from his time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.104.2 (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Views[edit]

Why is the Ahmadiyya view given a small spot? It is no more legitimate than other views that believe Confucianism is a religion. Angry bee (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Any religion or faith can have their views represented as long as they follow Wikipedia criterion. However i think if ahmadiyya views are to be presented or for that matter any other faith, a separate subsection would need to be created, this is because it doesn't necessarily constitute to a scientific debate, but more of a religious point of view, though those faiths may have their own arguments.

Peaceworld111 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

History and Development[edit]

Compared to other pages on philosophy or religion, this page is a bit light. Especially for a system of thought that was so dominant in such a prominent civilization for 2500 years. There is almost no mention of the historical context, the history, or the development of Confucianism, barely anything about its role in Chinese governance, and nothing on or connecting to Neo-Confucianism, Zhu Xi, etc.

Women in Confucian thought[edit]

Something is wrong in this section in which excuses were made for treatment of women in Confucianism and made an attempt to blame Daoism. I don't see anything in the reference that suggests it was the Daoists who were responsible for the rigid and unfair application of the yin and yang dichotomy, so how did Daoism play "an even greater part in stifling female roles"? And it is wrong to say "many women flourished within Confucianism" (suggesting that Confucianism actively promote female success) when the reference says "some women ... were able to flourish by living their lives according to that model" (suggesting some can do well if they played by its strict rules). Very different connotations. The whole section reads like an apologist treatment of a controversial subject and has no place in wiki which should be neutral. Hzh (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the "Women in Confucian thought" section in an attempt to move the article away from its present tack, its sausage fest male-only perspective. My intent was to explain the problems Confucianism poses for women while also balancing that by showing there were important Confucian women thinkers such as Ban Zhao writing Confucian philosophy for women. Obviously there are flaws in the section, despite the best of intentions. If you want to revamp the section I'd encourage that, and would be eager to collaborate with you on any ideas and plans you might have. —NickDupree (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I do think it is good to have something about women's writing on Confucianism, Ban Zhao (her writings/guidelines for women, views and critiques of her writings) therefore may merit a paragraph and can replace the second paragraph of that section. I also think that there shouldn't be so much reliance on one single source, and I would delete the entire quoted paragraph (but keep the quote that some women of the intellectual elite "were able to flourish by living their lives according to that model.") There have been some pejorative Confucian quotes about women (but I'm not sure if they were by Confucius or if they were by later Confucian thinkers) which I'm wondering if they might be worth putting in the first paragraph. As for Daoism, if I read the reference right, it's the Confucian interpretation of the Yin-Yang principle that was the problem, so Daoism should be not be brought into the critique at all. It is possible to have a last paragraph about modern views about woman in Confucian thought or feminist interpretation about Confucianism, since there appear to be a few books about it - for example here [1] and here [2], although I'm not sure if it might be going in too deep for what should be a basic introductory page to Confucianism. Hzh (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a separate, Women in Confucianism daughter article is in order? NickDupree (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
That I can't answer, I don't know enough about the subject to say whether there is sufficient material that's note-worthy enough to warrant it's own page. I suspect not (is there for example a page on Men in Confucianism?) but I'll leave it to others to decide. Hzh (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
"Is there for example a..." That's your privilege reekingspeaking. (Actually never had much use for that obnoxious tack of argument, but there you have it: a perfectly valid example. It's worth talking about how this system did and does view women because women have larger, more independent lives now and the system on the face of it is very male-oriented. A decent sourced Confucianist rebuttal to China's ongoing female infanticide/overabortion would be a worthwhile thing to have.) — LlywelynII 10:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
But was Confucian thought on women's right at the time any worse than other civilisations from any other parts of the world? Confucius simply recognised that the human race is a mammal species and that male mammals have a natural tendency to behave in a certain way. Take for example lions, the female lionesses do the hunting, and the male lion eats first; and female mammals care for and bring up off-springs. That is the natural order of mammalian life. 86.162.138.240 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

Should probably have something about these, and particularly their reconfiguring of Confucius's own ideas of ren and its importance vis-a-vis li. More at the Analects article. — LlywelynII 10:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

To supply missing citation, etc.[edit]

Someone has given the Chinese text and a translation, without citation, of a passage from Mencius, "Wan Zhang". Here is the James Legge translation:

The desire of the child is towards his father and mother. When he becomes conscious of the attractions of beauty, his desire is towards young and beautiful women. When he comes to have a wife and children, his desire is towards them. When he obtains office, his desire is towards his sovereign - if he cannot get the regard of his sovereign, he burns within. But the man of great filial piety, to the end of his life, has his desire towards his parents. In the great Shun I see the case of one whose desire at fifty year's was towards them.'

P0M (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Archiving[edit]

Unless there is any objection, I'm going to set up this talk page for auto-archiving as it is becoming extremely long, and has several years of discussion still here. siafu (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"May have been..."[edit]

Saying that Confucius may have been a believer in Chinese folk religion is so wishy-washy that it contains no real content. Confucius may have been a convert to Judaism, but there is no evidence to support this idea. The content of the Analects suggests that Confucius was interested in shooing people away from folk religions. He says, "Respect the spirits, but keep away from them." That statement does not even prove that he accepted the existence of these spirits (or "ghosts"). All it establishes is that he knew that other people believed in them. He could be agnostic about them or even scoff them, but his public statement avoided any direct confrontation with what "everybody knows" about the spirit world.P0M (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The reference (Yang's Chinese Religion) did not connect Confucius and folk religion (a tricky concept in any case), so I removed it. ch (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

REmoval of Selishness[edit]

I removed the section Selfishness even though it was added in good faith. I hope User:江南吳越 will forgive me. The reason is 1) that it was based on a tertiary work rather than on a Reliable source. Wikipedia policy is to use recent secondary sources. 2) That the source was also more than one hundred years old and not written from a Neutral Point of View. I hope that User:江南吳越 will continue to contribute! ch (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

I'm grateful of User:Patrick0Moran's expansion of the lead, detailing the history of Confucianism which has sorely been needed, but the lead is not the best place for something so descriptive. The content should be incorporated into the body paragraphs... perhaps under a new "History" section? In addition, although the content is factually correct, it requires the citation of reliable sources.--Teatimefortodd (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sexist language must be removed[edit]

Words indicating males where the author intends to refer to both females and males should be changed. Sexist language and thus implicit assumptions are not necessary or useful in this Wikipedia entry. In all cases, when humans, humanity, or people are discussed, the terms men, man, he, and him can be replaced with non-sexist alternatives. If the author is unable to write in such a manner, please feel free to contact me for assistance. Thanks much. 174.126.242.95 (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (Feb. 18, 2012)

Influence in Modern Times section[edit]

It's pretty weak and seems mainly to be complaints about state-run education, which has been the norm ever since the Kuomintang ran mainland China, and, above the level of primary education, was the norm from the middle 1st millennium onward in China. I'm going to replace most of this with a summary of the theory of a Confucian model of development, which holds that post-Confucian societies have had a legup in their efforts to industrialize due to their cultures' emphases on collective good and personal sacrifice. It's pretty controversial and I'll include a link to a criticism of it. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Confucianism[edit]

Comparing people with bees and how they communicate, no single bee communicates on it's own, but speaks for all of their tribe. Confucianism can be compared with this fact. Bees dance75.203.249.176 (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Does a person in a reliable source use this analogy? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Just how is a single bee imagined to communicate the message of the hive of bees or the species to anybody? It appears to me to be groundless regardless of who might have said it.P0M (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Confucianism in Korea and its role[edit]

Here is an op-ed...

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2013[edit]

In the paragraph on criticism against Confucianism in Korea, the title of the book is poorly translated. Suggested translation in parentheses below:

wrote a criticism named (delete "Must Kill Confucius, This Nation will be Solved" and add "For the Country/Nation to Live, Confucius Must Die" or "Confucius Must Die For the Nation to Live") (공자가 죽어야 나라가 산다, gongjaga jug-eoya nalaga sanda) 192.35.46.1 (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Forgot to put name 16:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Expanded lede[edit]

I expanded the lede to give more info on the middle period when Confucianism was not in fact the official doctrine and mention the challenge of Buddhism and Daoism, which were absorbed into Neo-Confucianism. Also on the 20th century. Since this is the lede, I didn't add references, but I could easily do so if it seems useful. Also, I didn't know how to correct the Juergensmeyer citation, which should be to "Harold J. Berman, "Faith and Law in a Multicultural World," in etc etc. That is, I don't know how to amend the template to accept this information. Glad for ideas on any of this. ch (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Strange way to return to life[edit]

The text currently says: "In the late twentieth century, some people credited Confucianism with the rise of the East Asian economy and revived both in the People's Republic and abroad."

Break off the qualifications and it says: "People revived." I think the intention of the person who wrote this sentence was to assert that Confucianism was revived by some people. Religions sometimes promise a rebirth. As far as I know, Confucianism makes no such promise.P0M (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Buddhism[edit]

"The White Lotus Teachings in Chinese Religious History", p. 62[3] says the opposite, and in fact, buddhism was formed before confucianism. So i removed it, thanks. Capitals00 (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a complete non sequitur. The text you deleted is not in any way contradicted by this source, which also does not say "the opposite" of what the text says. All it said was that "people often see Confucian ethics as a complementary guideline for other ideologies and beliefs, including democracy, Marxism, capitalism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism", which is uncontoversial. Which "came first" is irrelevant to the point. Paul B (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
But it seems more like that confucian has inspired buddhism, when it hasn't, the "source" is not even available for discovering either, thus i saw no problem in removing it, because the book, page. 149 speaks about the popularity "that was raised for both buddhism and taoism by the confucian revival" this book came from 1962, not 1992. And my source, which is about buddhism inspiring "neo-confucian" is mentioned in the source, also adding that "however much it tried to disasociate itself from both"(included taoism), it's mentioned though, but the information that i had removed is indeed misleading, and the source is misinterpreted. Capitals00 (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
No-one ever said or implied that Conficianism inspired Buddhism, and in no way can the quoted sentence be interpreted to imply that. Confucianism didn't "inspire" Marxism or Christianity either. Of course versions of Buddhism in China were influenced by Confucianism, as, indeed, were versions of Marxism. Your source refers to a form of "neo-Confucianism" that was inflected by Buddhist ideas. None of this is remotely surprising or unusual. Belief systems influence each-other all the time. What the different dates of the publications have to do with anything I can't imagine. I guess you are implying that one is more recent scholarship, but since they don't contradict one another at all that's irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Point is, that the source is misinterpreted, so the problem ends right there, other sources, regarding marxism, christianity, islam, and democracy are properly added though. The book "Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity, and Chinese Culture" suggests that both confucianism and buddhism are independent faiths, and that's what i assume as well. Capitals00 (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Confucianism is not a "faith" in the sense of a dogmatic religion. It's a set of moral principles. No one denies that it is distinct from Buddhism, just as it is distinct from all the other belefs listed. The point is that it is not perceived to be inconsistent with versions of them. Paul B (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes but "contemporary guideline" is too much, as it's similarities/influence on other listed beliefs has been given already, but not buddhism. Capitals00 (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Buddhism does not predate Confucianism and Confucianism does not predate Buddhism, both developed independently around the 6th century BC. Mistaking Neo-Confucianism with early Confucianism to imply that Buddhism predates Confucianism is grossly inaccurate, Neo-Confucianism arose in the 9th century AD, fifteen centuries after the founding of Confucianism during the Spring and Autumn Period. But like Paul B said, all of this is a non-sequitor. The sentence does not imply that Confucianism led to the development of Buddhism, anymore than Confucianism led to the development of democracy, a Greek invention, Christianity, a Middle Eastern religion, or Marxism, an ideology that began in Germany. It's a statement about contemporary beliefs, and how modern East Asia has merged Confucian principles with other belief systems from around the world. The synthesis of religious and philosophical ideas has historically been frequent. Greco-Buddhism merged Buddhism with Hellenistic culture, after the military campaigns of Alexander the Great introduced Greek influences to India.--Teatimefortodd (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit]

There are some articles and internet sites claiming this and 囍 are "symbols of Confucianism". Preeetty sure that's not the case at all (double happiness has nothing to do with Confucianism beyond also coming from China; water's much more of a Taoist image), but kindly join and discuss here. — LlywelynII 05:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 21 November 2013[edit]

change remonstrating to demonstrating in the last half of the second paragraph in the section on loyalty.

Byrds00 (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: remonstrate is correct. (That exact word is used in the Englsih translation of the Mencius citation -- the second citation in that footnote.) --Stfg (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of these philosophy Wikipedia entries are horribly written.[edit]

I really feel sorry for the majority of people who first start out by looking at wikipedia, because honestly most people will be turned off because all the philosophy entries in here are really badly written, they will end up discouraged and confused. Even when I attempt to make entries to clarify a subject like Platos symposium (platonic love and platos theory of forms) I get unknowledgable editors who think the sophist entries are whats important? Really?

I swear you can get better stuff on youtube, where someone who actually knows what they're talking about can explain most of whats in wikipedia philosophy sections in a few minutes, instead of the uninformed, unorganized badly written stuff thats out there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.48.140 (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

the gentleman[edit]

if i understand what's intended, "cultivate humanity..." should probably be "cultivate humaneness". 63.142.146.194 (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This article should clearly state that Confucianism status as a religion is disputed[edit]

Rather than avoiding the topic, we should clearly say there's no consensus on whether Confucianism is a religion or not. I've done so through a note with two reliable sources; I presume few more refs wouldn't go amiss there, and people may want to rewrite the quotes into something better (but I'd recommend keeping them in the body through |quote= parameter). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably it would be better to explain that three things are going on: (1) There was a view of 天 tiān as a god that existed long before Confucius, that was associated with the political philosophy espoused by the early Zhou rulers (particularly the Duke of Zhou), and that continues to this day. (2) Confucius revered the Duke of Zhou and explicitly took it upon himself to support and explain the political philosophy that guided the early Zhou rulers, including such things as the doctrine of 天命 tiān mīng (the Mandate of Heaven). That religious view has continued down to the present and was (allegedly) active in the fall of the Diem regime and attempted (non-communist) successor regimes in Vietnam. (3) Independent of what Confucius, Mencius, and other people in that mainstream group thought, other people tried to make Confucius into a god. I don't know whether there are any statistics or any studies that otherwise show how influential this attempt was during the relatively brief period wherein it had some kind of institutional presence, whether anybody actually prayed to Confucius, etc. If being a "god" constitutes the foundation of a religion, was then Zhang Fei the center of a religion?
What people call "Confucianism" today is probably not limited to the views expressed by Confucius, and probably is not limited to respect/veneration for him as a "holy man." My understanding of Confucianism is that it is a somewhat amorphous collection (probably varying from individual to individual and with no pope to define a "true core" of belief) of beliefs regarding 天,ethical values that proceed from the early Zhou founders, amplifications of these values and rational discussions about why they are so made by Confucius and particularly by Mencius, and probably come accretion of totalitarian ideas or at least authoritarian views taken over by osmosis from Xun Zi and the Legalists. So it's all a bit messy. It's also extremely powerful because it suffuses the culture, provides things that "everybody knows is true" because everybody has been enculturated to the same general take on how best to be a human being, as hard to challenge as it is to punch the wind, etc. P0M (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency[edit]

Plotinus' Neoplatonism is/was a religion, but is not mentioned as such on the Neoplatonism page.

The Chinese did not have a word for "religion" until the 18th century, imported from Japan, yet Ruism is said to be a religion. The nations influenced by Kong Fuzi are some of the most secular nations on the planet, for crying out loud.

If talking about the heavens and things like that makes Ruism a religion, is not Platonism a religion as well? I would rule out Kantianism as a religion on grounds that it is not a religion into itself, but a part of the Christian faith.

It is not uncommon for Westerners traveling in the Far East to attribute local customs and traditions to religion, even when they have nothing to do with religion. But certainly, a dictionary should be a notch or two above that.

This smells like exotism to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The use of an English word to describe the social constructs produced in a different culture and using a different language is frequently going to be problematical. Naming a religion after a founding figure is also problematical. Jesus did not think of himself as founding a new religion, yet we ended up with Christianity (or maybe a bunch of them). Confucius did not think of himself as anything but an elaborater of early Zhou dynasty ideas. Mencius followed him but did not seek to make him anything more than a great teacher. Later on, however, he was sometimes officially recognized as a 神 shen, a "god" but more in the sense of Jupiter or Saturn or perhaps a deified Roman emperor. On top of that, the early ideas that he and Mencius took as the core of their thought clearly were religious. The religious texts are found in pre-Confucian documents. Of course the Chinese don't call this religion 孔子主義 (Confucius ideology) or 孔子教 (Confucius religion). So they don't create the confusion of naming the religion after someone who came much later.
A good way to at least get a start on seeing the pre-Confucian religion is to get a copy of Wing-tsit Chan's A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy and start reading through the early Zhou materials. There was a god. That god needed to be respected. There were sacrifices to be performed to that god. That god had as one of his most important (to humans at least) functions the determination of when a corrupt dynasty needed to be ended and what individual would become the founding ruler of a new dynasty. Most of the ceremonial stuff falls to the sovereign to perform, so it is a religion that is less intrusive in the daily lives of ordinary people. But the moral responsibilities once laid upon ruler somehow came to permeate the entire culture and became the rules by which ordinary people lived and motivated how they behaved toward others. (You can see some of this in the teachings of Confucius.)
教 means "the teachings of," so, e.g., 道教 is "the teachings of the (religious) Daoists." It doesn't mean "religion" in the sense of a binding. But arguing from the meanings of words in English and roughly equivalent words in Chinese doesn't really have anything to do with the character of the beliefs of the Chinese and those of Jews, Christians, or whtever. The basic idea of the Chinese religion associated with Confucius is a warning to the king or emperor: "God will get you if you do not treat his people right!" That idea carried down in practice until at least the 1970s. See FitzGeralds Fire in the Lake. The jig was up for South Vietnam when Diem lost the "Mandate of Heaven," the command from God that he and his descendants should rule the nation. Once the people made that assessment, FitzGerald contends, no replacement ruler could be grafted on by the United States or anybody else.P0M (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I am well aware of the problems of dealing with different cultures. And the Western culture is perhaps less equipped to do that than any other culture, since Western culture is still virtually synonymous with Christian thought.
My main point is Ruism contra Neoplatonism. Ruism is frequently referred to as a religion, whereas Neoplatonism is not. You cannot ask of all people to be consistent, but you can of a dictionary. If one is identified as a religion, the other has to.
The biggest problem with Confucianism may just be the name. It comes with a lot of baggage, just like the word "Oriental." We no longer refer to people of Kong Fuzi's race as Orientals for that reason. Confucianism along fortune cookies can actually be seen as part of Western Orientalism. We should do the same with Confucianism as we did with "Oriental." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)