Talk:Political thought in ancient China

Material

This page gets about 650 views. On the other hand, I got views for the Chinese Legalism page up to about 5-10K by incorporating it into "Basic forms of government".

Other than trying to better link Chinese articles together (need more material), it'd probably make more sense to incorporate the material of this page into some other article. But at the moment, I'm thinking about how unscholarly the hundred schools page is.FourLights (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creation

I created the Political Thought in Ancient China, splitting it off from the Chinese Legalism page that I mostly started writing to in May 2014.

permissions

Princeton University Press Guidelines for Fair Use (Guazi Text) "In general, Princeton University Press considers text excerpts shorter than 250 words to fall under the provisions of “Fair Use” under copyright law. You do not need to seek the Press’s permission to reproduce PUP-copyrighted prose excerpts of this size in your work, unless the excerpt is from a poem, or is to be used as an epigraph in your publication."

I contacted Wiley/Journal of Chinese philosophy but they have declined to take me seriously.FourLights (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Legalist views

Legalism has been described in a very negative way in the dominant Confucian tradition. Here are some links to academic papers assessing Legalism in a more balanced or even positive way. http://www.philosophy.hku.hk/ch/Substance-Function.htm http://law.nus.edu.sg/sjls/articles/SJLS-2005-313.pdf

These can be useful as the material in them can make the article more balanced. The controversy about rule of law vs. rule by law is also explicitly treated there, as it should be in this article as well. I would incorporate some of the stuff there myself, but I don't feel like it, at least at the moment.--91.148.130.233 (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have worked toward providing a balanced consideration of the subject.FourLights (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Points for development.

A big reason for Realpolitikal development was foreign bribes. The article can be made more realist in it's international relations sense in light of this, explaining the development of one by the other. I already have this starting to develop for law.05:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Chaung Tzu unconcern for death contrasts with that of the Confucians, but I need an academician to point this out. Chuangzhi also criticizes Yang Chu, but I do not talk about Yang Chu yet.FourLights (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs for integration.

Rule by law

“From the time when punishments came to be regularized by statutes, the rewards and punishments meted out to the common people were no longer totally dependent on the pleasure and anger of the aristocrats, but now were provided with a reference point on the basis of which challenges could be made. Teng Hsi Tzu’s Bamboo Penal Code appears to have served as the instrument for instructing the people how to make such challenges, and those in high position at that time had no choice but to appropriate that [instrument] by which such challenges arose, and employ it in their own governing. This constituted the crux of one of that age’s great changes.”

The moral ideal of a rule of law is an authentic ancient Chinese value. It is a part of the Chinese ethical substance, showing that we do not require the notion of "rights" or a moral individualism to justify the rule of law. The common moral outlook required was an authentically ancient Chinese spirit of equal concern for all. We saw this in the Mohists, who originated the notion of fa and advocated universal love. We also notice it in their skepticism of Confucian claims of special moral authority -- a skepticism expressed even more openly in Daoism and Legalism. Daoist emphasis on equality is even more radical--an equality based on rejecting any moral doctrine as absolute of treating everyone, even those whose toes and feet had been chopped off (probably as punishment) with equal respect. http://www.philosophy.hku.hk/ch/Substance-Function.htm

"(The) empire justified itself by making hierarchical distinction—between the universal, superior culture of the imperial center and the limited, particular cultures of regions and localities. This fundamental distinction manifested itself in political service, religion, literature,and many other aspects of Chinese life." Early Chinese Empires, page 2. FourLights (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This document. https://www2.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/file/1860ZBsPxaZ.pdf FourLights (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

Expand page http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Diverse/fajia.html

Add secondary material on the GuanziFourLights (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarify "Legalists" as "Realists". Added another source but needs more clarification.FourLights (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Later Realists

Song Dynasty reformers, and later Feng Guifen and the Self-strengthening movement movement may be considered later Confucian Realist reformers (in a similiar manner to Guan Zhong. As I try to explain in the article, Shang Yang and his ilk are not the only realpolitikally bent reformers of China. As the book wealth and power explains, the Chinese themselves had a tendency to dismiss any later reformer with an aim of wealth or power as "Legalism", but most of Feng Guifen's ideas were accepted and implemented, or attempted to be implemented by the Ching dynasty.

Much like Guanzi, the later reformers were Confucian, but they engaged in "Legalist" (i.e. Realist/Realkpolitikal) reform. I gave a mention to Feng Guifen but I don't have the resources to write about this right now. It would take a lot of time, and my main focus is earlier Realists.FourLights (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I see a great article brewing here. I'll post comments if something comes to my mind. First, "realism" or any other doctrine is not capitalized on WP: "Philosophies, theories, movements, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper name". (MOS:DOCTCAPS)

Ok. I've worked on this for more than a year. I hope other people can help so I can do other things.FourLights (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]