|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 History
- 2 Comments
- 3 Main Schools of Thought
- 4 Some questions
- 5 Comparison between Chinese and Western philosophy
- 6 WikiProject class rating
- 7 What are the main philosophical schools of thought in contemporary China?
- 8 we need real belief to explain modern china
- 9 Expert Needed
- 10 Teaism deletion/merge
- 11 Taoism
- 12 Article Direction
- 13 What means "If one must rule, rule young" ?
- 14 Hundred Schools and Chinese philosophy
they were stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC) When the Communist Party took power, previous schools of thought were NOT were denounced as backward immediately. It is mainly during the period of Cultural Revolution - a relatively short period - that they have been denounced so.
- Well, I'm not quite sure. Many Chinese intellectuals (like Lun Xun) have denounced ancient Chinese thought as backward even before CP took power and argued that Daoist or Confucianist ideology was the cause of China's lack of progress during XIXth century. However, I agree that this topic should be rephrased in the article. gbog 05:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm transferring here some comments left inside the article source at the end of "Concepts within Chinese philosophy" section. _R_ 21:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
this paragraph only reflected the grand philosophy of merging Confucianism and Daoism and some aspects of Mohism since the Han Dynasty. Legalism, for example, doesn't have such a view as seen in Shang Jun Shu (商君書)
There's a lot more to it, but unfortunately I'm not an expert in this subject... Some gaps to be filled: more about the common concepts, differences between Western and Chinese philosophy, something about modern Chinese philosophy... you name it
Added a very simplistic explanation of the impact of Buddhist philosophy, which was sizeable though perhaps not as significant as established schools -- prat
I have modified few things but this article still needs improvement.gbog
Main Schools of Thought
Feel free to rewrite the summaries; I was lazy and copied and pasted them from the main articles. 24630 23:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Since Confucius was commonly accepted to have been born in 551 B.C., isn't it a bit strange to say his Analects were published in 600 B.C.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
the key word is "around" because it is also including the Tao te Ching24630 04:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The analects was probably created by Confucius' students or even his student's students. It is largely part of Chinese historigrahy that remainagines him having sat down and authored the analects and compiled/edited the Confucian classics. It is the same exact process that led to the attribution of parts of the bible, sometimes written many decades after the deaths of their supposed authors. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Comparison between Chinese and Western philosophy
The whole section are contradictory when mentioned the universal value of Chinese philosophy. For example, Confucianism are against legalism. Chan/Zen never belief in collective thinking. --Sltan 06:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC) - agreed. should consider editing that section for truth
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
What are the main philosophical schools of thought in contemporary China?
What are the main philosophical schools of thought in contemporary China? Specifically I'm interested in how orthodox Dialectical Materialism is promulgated in the PRC. Based on the way Chinese law and economic academia comes mainly from the Anglo-Saxon tradition, I would guess that Analytical Philosophy is the most influential in universities. Although I suppose Phenomenological philosophy would be more Marxist leaning. Also the CPC has promoted a revival of traditional Chinese philosophy, especially Confucianism.
If you could recommend websites books or journal articles, that be great too. I'm more interested in mainstream "official" philosophy of the universities, as opposed to dissident philosophers. --Gary123 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you might be wrong, phenomenology is having more attention from Chinese scholars than analytic philosophies, and little influenced by Marxism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuphrer (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
we need real belief to explain modern china
Chinese believe in pragmatism. Anything that works, Any means that are effective and not unethical is acceptable.
Chinese believe in mutual benefit. they are good at negotiating and they will make sure you didn't get more than you should.
Chinese traditionally don't believe in after sales service, especially in small stores, so check your changes and goods before you leave.
Some Chinese are cautious towards strangers. They don't believe strangers by default. trust takes time to build.
Chinese prefer good words then truth. Say nice things and you will be fine.
That's my experience after being chinese for 18 years =)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Philosophy and religion doesn't even have Chinese Philosophy.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I have a degree in Chinese philosophy and I can tell you from my brief perusual of the article that it is not /that/ bad. Most of the problems are sins of ommission and I think this article should be more a history of Chinese philosophy (since it will be more conducive to connecting to other pages that way) rather than going the philosophy route. Will be editing the article so be on the look out! --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Awesome, it's almost Machine Elf 1735 09:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC) and greatly expanded, so I definitely have no problem with removing that expert tag. I'll look forward to it. Thanks!—
Taoism though it traces its roots back into pre-confucian times is not really an organized religion until the introduction of Buddhism in the Three Kingdoms Era. Treating it as an organized philosophy on the level of Confucianism is a big mistake, especially since Laozi's text cannot be verified as even being used until well after the Han Dyansty by Taoists. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Taoism as a coherent philosophy was formulated later than is generally thought. A lot of ideas commonly thought of as Taoist actually originated in ideas of the Naturalist school and earlier, such as from the iching. But my area of expertise is Legalism.FourLights (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Two points: this article seems to be confused over religion and philosophy. I know that the two mix at some level, but philosophy is usually written down and is logically coherent. The sections on Chinese religious beliefs during the Shang while great for an article on Chinese religious beliefs seem out of place here.
Second, I think it needs to be decided if this article is more going to be a gateway to other articles about specific Chinese philosophies like the Great philosophical figures section, or should there be an attempt to create a chronological history of Chinese philosophy and its developments. Does anyone know how the philosophy sections handle a subject as big as this? --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
What means "If one must rule, rule young" ?
In Taoism, there was a sentence "If one must rule, rule young". But I can not understand it, and it is doubtful. What means it ? and where is basis in books of Taoism? --Adan (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hundred Schools and Chinese philosophy
The content of Hundred Schools of Thought and Chinese philosophy are similar in content. In hundred schools of thought, might it be more useful to give the definitions of the stated texts, and direct users to the Chinese philosophy page for the overviews? Because if I can, that's what I'll try and do if there's no objection, moving relevant material to the other page. Otherwise, if we do not want to have the book statements, we've just got duplicate pages here, and they ought to be merged. I also think it's very unscholarly to list them according to original source and then give a modern commentary, whereas people might actually appreciate having the statements of the books themselves at hand.FourLights (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)