Jump to content

Talk:Filial piety

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BillyTFried (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 19 February 2013 (→‎Why was the pic of the statue of the Japanese guy carrying his mother on his back removed?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comment

I think this article should be redirected to Confucianism#Some key concepts in Confucian thought, its already expounded in more detail than this in the main article.

  • Unfortunately you can't redirect to a section of a page, only to the page itself. If you think that would be more convenient for users, go right ahead and redirect it, like this:

#REDIRECT [[Confucianism]]
Kappa 09:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article was recently edited to begin: "In Confucian and Buddhist thought". Is there any evidence that filial piety ever occurs independently in Buddhist thought? - Nat Krause 8 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)

  • Ideas about childrens obligations to their parents are universal I guess. In the Chinese tradition, even the Daoists used the concept of xiao, as did and do indeed also Chinese muslims and christians. /Bero


Is the current third reference, "^ Walker, Byrne (2007)" valid? I am not someone researching in this particular field, so I do not know what significance is something this person said/wrote in 2007 can/would support argument made in the article. - 96.48.114.204 (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CopyVIO

i was duped by the copyvio accusation of another user. and added a copyvio tag by mistake. please ignore the addition of the tag, and i apolagize for any inconvenience this may have caused. --jonasaurus 21:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing needed

This is a decent article but there's some issues with the translation. I've gone ahead and added a {{copyedit}} tag and listed it on WP:Cleanup. I'll try to come back and have a look at it myself, but am busy fixing disambiguation links at the moment. --Daduzi talk 18:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Editing Efforts

I just wanted to let you all know that I have attempted to give this article more structure, and also made some sentence structure/phrasing/word choice changes. I'll be the first to admit that (1) I'm a newbie, and (2) I know very little about this topic. I hope that my efforts helped, please feel free to leave me any criticism or comments. I'm sure that someone who knows more about this topic could more effectively edit it. Thanks! Sonrisasgrandes 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Indian Buddhism

The section on Indian Buddhism is blatantly at odds with numerous Pali scriptures which explicitly encourage filial piety as a very high virtue to be encouraged. That the decision to live the "higher life," of a monk is regardly even more highly than the fulfillment of filial vows does not make filial piety itself any less of a virtue. Verses 331-333 of The Dhammapada express this explicitly. This section needs obvious reworking.Good4allpeople 07:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filial Piety (Western Version)

This entry for Filial piety seems very narrow. Japan has a slightly different version of filial piety that is engrained in the culture and is not based in Confucianism. So the focus on Buddhism certainly would help a great deal. But there is more.

In Western philosophical thought, there is an alternative concept that is often referred to as "filial piety". The focus is not on individual lineage and ancestry, but on national and/or ethnic identity. Filial piety, in this case, refers to promotion of members of one's own ethnic or national group to the top of a revered category, e.g., scientists, politicians, artists, writers, etc. For example, a Nobel Prize laureate who emigrated from Hungary to the USA, might be heavily promoted as a Hungarian scientist by Hungarians, particularly in government-sponsored textbooks or official propaganda, while Americans consider him to be one of their own. If the scientist in question happens to be Jewish, he will also be identified by many Jews as a pinnacle of Jewish achievement as well. At least for the Hungarians and the Jews, and perhaps for Americans as well, identifying with this successful individual would be an example of filial piety.

In this case, the national identification is relatively benign. However, this is not always the case. Filial piety is quite often an outgrowth of malignant nationalism. In Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, native scientists and thinkers were heavily promoted as having primacy in their field, often ignoring or outright suppressing, historical facts.

In Germany, this took on the character of purging Jews from the history of science and cultural history, sometimes going so far as to purge not only the individuals, but also the ideas that they brought into the field. At the same time, historical revisionism allowed such figures as Georg Cantor to be adopted as German, in order to hide their Jewish heritage.

In Soviet science, filial piety took on the character of crediting ostensibly Russian scientists and inventors with ideas and inventions usually credited to others. Even where the credit can be in dispute, because of the independent nature of discovery by two or more individuals or simultaneous work conducted in different parts of the world, Soviet literature, particularly official textbooks, suppressed all information about non-Russian aspects, making it appear that the credit should be given entirely to the Russian. For examples, consider the credit of invention of radio to Alexander Stepanovich Popov (cf. Guglielmo Marconi, who was often omitted from Soviet textbooks and history books) and of incandescent light bulb to Pavel Yablochkov (cf. Thomas Edison). The absurd nature of Soviet filial piety was not left unnoticed in the folklore. A fairly common joke among the Soviet intelligentsia was the comment, "Lomonosov discovered the law of Lavoisier," that referred to the usual Soviet textbook claim that Mikhail Lomonosov was first to discover the chemical law of conservation of mass, while making no references to Lavoisier at all. It is important to note, however, that credit to filial piety should not serve as an excuse to discount any such claims. For example, Lomonosov's claim to primacy in case of conservation of mass may have some credit.

It is important to distinguish the Eastern tradition of filial piety from the filial piety of Western nationalism.

[citation needed]. Thank God you didn't put that stuff into the article bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.195.250.2 (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filial piety the first virtue in China?

"Filial piety is considered the first virtue in Chinese culture" -- It's that important? I'd like to see a cite, please. -- 201.50.254.243 11:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also need a citation for: "These traditions were sometimes enforced by law; during parts of the Han Dynasty, for example, and those who neglected ancestor worship could even be subject to corporal punishment." Bao Pu (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filial piety the first virtue= 万恶淫为首，“百善孝为先”.--刻意(Kèyì) 10:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"hyo" redirects here...

Why does hyo redirect to this page? It's not mentioned a single time. Could anyone add what hyo means in this context? Thanks, Ibn Battuta 03:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hyo (효) is a Korean word which means Filial piety. The fact that Korean filial piety is not mentioned in the article is an obvious ommision given that hyo redirects to the page. Filial piety is just as strong (if not stronger) in Korea as in China. I thought that this whole topic was rather strange, given that it pretty much just seems to talk about how Buddhism was introduced to China, dispite the lack of filial piety in some of its teaching... DeanHarding 05:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rome

In Rome there was filial piety (lares).

Yes, and there was filial piety in ancient Greece as well (read the Aeneid), there should be more mention of these as well. From what I can tell, although it's not exactly the same as Chinese xiao, it is very much the same idea (distinct from the nationalism type mentioned elsewhere in the discussion page). Chunlong (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think Filial piety is declining in Japan somewhat?

As I think its kinda a sad thing, and i may like to know excatly why or something like that. it seem that japanese society is in some form or another destroying itself, especially that Filial piety is in decline as the population is getting older and older or Aging and so. But i may know the reason but i like to have your full explainations or Theories. So please tell me then and such, please. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.15.121 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One theory is the influence of Western culture. Another, perhaps more accurate one, is that people have always shirked these duties expected by society, it's just that they covered it up in public. Only now do people examine their lives and the lives of others and see how little we live up to the standards we set ourselves. --86.146.162.13 (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/top-japanese-official-urges-elderly-to-hurry-up-and-die/ BillyTFried (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irpa Ling?

The last lines of the introduction are confusing. What is the two year rule? Who is Irpa Ling? There's not even a wikipage on that philosopher and it's not explained anywhere in the text. EverGreg (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the text below, until it can be made sense of. It might be genuine. EverGreg (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A newer interpretation of ancient Chinese literature has shed new light on the filial piety tradition. Professor Wai Qin Liang of the university of Shanghai philosophy department argues that obedience to the power of government is sometimes held higher than obedience to family in the ancient texts. His paper titled "Filial Piety Versus the Residency Obligation in Ancient Philosophy" (China Daily (English Edition), 17 November 2009, page 12) makes the case that only in the most exceptional circumstances should humanitarian and compassionate ideals trump the generous two year rule set out by ancient philosopher Irpa Ling.

In reality it is rarely practiced in the West as most children from a Judeo-Christian background do not honor and care for parents to the extent of those from Eastern backgrounds. This is because in the West, the individual is more important than the family and when an elderly parent becomes a burden to the adult child, the needs of the adult child to be burden-free supersedes any feeling of obligation to care for the elderly parent.[2]

This needs a heck of a lot more support than one source. This claim is absurd. Even if it is relatively less, that hardly means it does not exist or is superseded by needing to be "burden free". 76.91.21.207 (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last section exhibits the casual racism that I find very common in Chinese people. No, this is not a bigoted generalisation, I've had long term relationships with Chinese and lived with them, many believe that Westerners don't love their parents as much as Chinese. In reality, many Chinese seem to value status and material success above almost all else, and seek to achieve this through the achievements of their children. For the final paragraph to claim that Westerners will not care for ill or elderly parents is an absolute disgrace, and has no place in wikipedia. 115.64.9.69 (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.9.69 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Sentence?

I'm going to be blunt. The first sentence of this article sucks. Isn't there a wiki-world rule on more general definitions in the first few sentences? Using "In Confucian ideals" feels like a specification for later elaboration rather than a general definition. "is one of the virtues to be held above all else" should most certainly not lead this article. 184.77.189.134 (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and piety

"Buddhism

Hinayana Buddhism did not have a strong notion of filial piety. Buddhism in India involved many men leaving or abandoning their families, parents, wives, and children to become monks (Buddha himself was said to have done so). The true Buddhist had to reject all family ties, just as they had to reject social and class ties if they were to pursue Nirvana. Family was viewed as just another encumbrance of mortal life that had to be dealt with. Sorrow and grief were said to be "born of those who are dear."[5] Buddhist monks were obligated to sever all ties with their family and to forget their ancestors. Theravada Buddhism stressed individual salvation, and had little room for the interdependent society that Confucianism had created in China, which stressed the good of the community more than the good of the individual. In India, Buddhism also advocated celibacy among its monks which was unacceptable in the Confucian world view, given that it was viewed as the child's duty to continue the parental line.[6]"

That can not be called right, there are plenty of Buddhas teachings (suttas) which are very similar to those of Confucius. It's just that he also teaches a way out of worldly relationships, but he never had pressed on that. For those who prefer to keep on being in the circle of duties the laws and the teachings are nearly similar. One might look at the Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala - The Layperson's Code of Discipline http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html Where all layman's relations and duties are listed. Or look the Iti § 106 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.4.100-112.than.html You can also look at the Mangala Suta

My english skills are to less to rewrite this article, maybe somebody likes to put some effort into it, as it s simply wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanzze (talk • contribs) 04:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the pic of the statue of the Japanese guy carrying his mother on his back removed?

I thought that was a really good graphical repsenstation of filial piety. BillyTFried (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Filial_piety&oldid=539087681"