/lit/ - Literature

Legalism is plenty popular, there's just zero reason to be "a Legalist" if you aren't a Sovereign or his Prime Minister.

Anyways, Mohism collapsed because it fell prey to being too practical. The Chinaman is incredibly practical, contrary to Western (mis)understandings of the East as a land of mysticism and abstraction (the West is, ironically, the place of mysticism and abstraction), and Mohism is the most practical of doctrines to have sprung up from the Yellow River. After Qin Shi Huangdi won, however, it became incredibly obvious that there was zero point in being a Mohist as Mohism only had value in the Warring States period. Without military leaders to make siege-engines and fortifications for, the Mohists were out of a job. Their focus on radical social unity in the face of societal collapse meant nothing when society wasn't collapsing. The heavy focus on agriculture, likewise, was pointless in a society that could actually feed itself. Lacking any sort of deeper mystical doctrine, it naturally bled intellectuals to the circles that would later condense into Taoism and Confucianism. Plus, let's just be honest here, who the fuck wants to wear sack-cloth and straw sandals when you can wear silk and leather shoes now that the wars are over? Perhaps the most damning aspect of Mohism was that you cannot be "A Mohist" alone. There's plenty "to do" if you're a Taoist and completely alone, and a man with a family can easily do Confucianism with just him and his family, but a Mohist can only be a Mohist in a community of other Mohists.

What IS there to talk about them? It's a 2,000 year old political movement that was largely concerned with the temporal politics of its day and had very few philosophical or theological opinions. As an example of an ascetic political movement, I see it as very interesting, but only if you think that you might need one of those in the future.

>>18913448
>>18913506
Op btfo'd

>>18913506
Based well read and well written poster.

>>18913448
To add to the above poster, Mozi explicitly condemned favoritism towards your own family, which most people are naturally drawn to. A Mohist is naturally fighting against the instincts of people to care for those closest to them first. Not saying it's wrong but it's a hard sell.

>>18913506
Wow, an unironic fpbp and /thread.
Well done anon.

>>18913506
So Mohism is the Marxism of ancient China

>>18913506
Don't forget that Mohism had no use to imperial rulers and was completely oppressed as a result. Imperial China upheld the Legalized version of Confunism as the foundation of their government, and Taoisim was favored by certain emperors to gain immortality. Mohism was completely unpopular by comparision.

>>18913506
Good post

>>18913528
>>18913550
>>18913614
>>18913631
>>18913631
>>18914400
>obvious pseud bullshit getting praised

>>18914439
pick it apart then, nerd

>>18913506
>Mohism collapsed because it fell prey to being too practical.
Stopped reading right there. Already bullshit.

Taoism completely BTFO'd Mohism and to a lesser extent so did Confucianism. The truth was that Legalism did have it's value When it came to unifying China but outside of that it had no value. Mohism has been rendered completely obsolete in the east.

Legalism isn't popular because it isn't a popular philosophy. That is, it doesn't appeal to the masses for legitimacy. Say what you will about the hierarchical aspects of Confucianism, it did suggest that the ruler had an obligation to the people to some degree (especially in Mencius). Confucianism could also appeal to people beyond the palace walls by developing a comprehensive moral code everyone should follow, whereas Legalism was silent on issues or moral conduct or any conduct that did not concern the power of the state. Legalism is one of the few comprehensive political philosophies that is unabashedly concerned only with the good of the leader and not at all with the good of the people. It doesn't even have the Machiavellian twist which makes the argument that political expediency is actually good for the people by guaranteeing autonomy. So even though Legalism has a far more modern theory of human nature and mechanisms of governance than Confucianism, its complete rejection of the interests of the people is inimical with an age where all politics claims some sort of popular legitimacy. Plus it's hard to say it is that unpopular when Mao explicitly endorsed it against Confucianism, though no leader has since (well, the tenants of the 2012 'core socialist values' included 'wealth and power' and (depending on how you interpret it) 'rule by law' (more commonly thought of as 'rule of law', but it is ambiguous), which were both explicit Legalist principles).
It also has the stigma of presiding over the shortest lived dynasty in Chinese history and persecuting the group that subsequently became the intellectual class and wrote the history books. Not that post-Qin china completely discarded Legalism, they just clothed it in the robes of the Confucianism to make it more palatable.

>>18913448
Because they're basically the Chinese equivalent of logical positivism and analytic philosophy. Boring trash.

>>18913506
>The Chinaman is incredibly practical, contrary to Western (mis)understandings of the East as a land of mysticism and abstraction (the West is, ironically, the place of mysticism and abstraction)
Post disregarded.

>>18913448
>Legalism
Why talk about legalism when it fucking won?

>>18914439
>Obviously OP passed about getting btdo'd

>>18915142
Shouldn't we talk about it more then?

Legalism is literally the existing framework of modern china, the whole social credit score system they have is a legalist's dream.

Should I read confucius or zuangzi first?

>>18914846
Ah it appears you do not know about Plato :3

bump

>>18916202
Read the Greeks first

>>18914439
Huh? Dude that guy just introduced a whole new ontological set of unknowns and spoke of it on educated matter. You're just a nagger nigger wasting time with baseless interjection. Huh I wonder if you could program a BOT to harass a board like that hmmm. Fuck you bot nigger

>>18914846
Thank you Jesus and Obama for saving me from my own understanding

>>18916202
zuangzi is more enjoyable.

>>18916202
what a stupid fucking gesture

>>18916202
Read Zhuangzi. Then you won’t feel the need to read Confucius because you’ll have realized that rituals and virtue ethics are retarded.

>>18913448
What are the other 96?

Does it present a Confucian world? Would a contemporary Chinese be allowed to write something similar, considering it has people revolting and killing their rulers? Yes, I know it's Japanese fiction.

Is this a taoism thread?
>told to read this as a simple, practical guide in order to establish a personal praxis for spiritual development
>it doesn't really present anything concrete and feels more like a collection of philosophical sayings like the TTC
I suppose I got filtered, should I just try Mantak Chia?

Bump

>>18916781
rent-free

>>18919145
Yeah the twelve kingdoms is a Confucian tale. There was a belief in imperial China (or, spread by usurpers to legitimate their coup d'etat) that if an emperor is not following the Way they would lose the mandate of heaven, then people have a "right" to overthrow them.

>>18914439
well >>18914512, we're waiting

>>18919151
Anyone

>>18916202
ASIAN GIRLS AAAAHH

>>18921416

>>18914829
>Legalism has a far more modern theory of human nature and mechanisms of governance than Confucianism
What do you mean? Legalism became redundant after the warring states period ended. Confucianism stayed relevant for the next 2000 years.

>>18921700
rude