Chinese Philosophy

[Anonymous No.17186638]

Confucianism, Daoism or Legalism, /lit/? And who's your favorite chinese philosopher?

[Anonymous No.17186652]

>>17186638
dubs and I enter the tao

[Anonymous No.17186681]

>>17186638
Zhuang Zi is kino and clearpilled

[Anonymous No.17186688]

>>17186638
mohism

[Anonymous No.17186703]

>>17186638
Tao, obviously.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17186720]

I’m a fan of all three but if forced to pick? Taoism. I’m a big fan of ge Hong

[Anonymous No.17186728]

confucius, laozi, mencius, the list could go on..

[Anonymous No.17187276]

>>17186638
Xun Kuang aka Xunzi is the only Asian worth reading

[Anonymous No.17187595]

yang zhu is the only one worth knowing

[Anonymous No.17187634]

>>17186638
Of them i found Legalism the most interesting, at least as a political philosophy. I like Han Fei even if the system he advocates is abhorrent. An ingenious method of political control, but abhorrent. Here's a quote i've always loved from the Hanfeizi
>The ruler does not try to work side by side with his people, and they accordingly respect the dignity of his position. He does not try to tell others what to do, but leaves them to do things by themselves. Tightly he bars his inner door, and from his room looks out into the courtyard; he has provided the rules and yardsticks, so that all things know their place. Those who merit reward are rewarded; those who deserve punishment are punished. Reward and punishment follow the deed; each man brings them upon himself. Therefore, whether the result is pleasant or hateful, who dares to question it?
It just encapsulates the entire philosophy perfectly: that true power does not reside the strength of the ruler to directly order and control others, but in the creation of a system where he need not even lift his finger to have world revolve around him. In essence, creating a system where the people control themselves. Which is why the ideal Legalist ruler is said to embody a quite twisted idea of wu wei—perfect power in perfect repose.
Though as shrewde as the Legalists often were regarding human nature and desire, they were far off when they thought people wouldn't resent their punishment, even if the 'brought it on themselves'. The fate of the Qin empire testifies to that. It seems the Legalists understood that the most absolute power over another is when they submit voluntarily (after all they advocated clear law operating through 'two handles' of control—punishment AND reward). But their over reliance on punishment and fear ultimately undermined the power it was meant to project. As Mencius correctly pointed out
>When one uses force to make people submit, they do not submit in their hearts but only because their strength is insufficient. When one uses virtue to make people submit, they are pleased to the depths of their hearts, and they sincerely submit.
And a philosophy that explicitly rejects any virtue or care for interests of the people, replacing it with a system of self-interested reward and punishment, will at best produce a country of mercenaries, at worst of slaves. Both of which you will lose all power over the second the wind changes. That may be why Confucian philosophy proved a more stable public philosophy in Imperial China.

[Anonymous No.17187879]

>>17187276
Moged by Zhu Xi.
>>17186638
There are interesting Legalist and Confucian philosophers for sure but Taoism has them beat easily.
>>17186688
Get outta here you impartial faggot.

[Anonymous No.17188265]

I don't understand daoism

[Anonymous No.17188339]

The best work of Chinese philosophy I've read is Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana. I read the Analects recently and it was more enjoyable than I anticipated, it's impressive how succinct the original text is, some of them translations I looked at were so laborious. I imagine a reader who picks one of them and is also bogged down by unneccesarily footnotes/commentary would less appreciate his lindy message.

[Anonymous No.17188355]

>>17186638
Confucius is the worse parts of the latter Plato dialogues but even more lame.

[Anonymous No.17188608]

>>17188355
>Yuan Rang sat waiting for Confucius in a slovenly posture. The Master said, Young but not properly submissive, grown and no one speak well of you, old and you still don't die—a real pest!
>He rapped on Yuan's shins with his cane.

[Anonymous No.17188625]

>>17188265

[Anonymous No.17188653]

>>17187879
I have been curious to read about Taoism, have you any suggestions on good books to start out with?

[Anonymous No.17188869]

>>17188653
I mean Dao De Jing, Zhuangzi, and maybe the Daozang if you want to get into the stuff really committed Taoists get into. In that order chronologically to be specific. I suppose reading the I Ching before reading any of Chinese philosophical texts would also be advisable, if not necessary. All of the books I mentioned are on b.ok as well I'm pretty sure so if you've got the time I'd just get into it.

[Anonymous No.17188890]

What is the closest western approximation to daoist hermits? Philosophically speaking not behaviorally speaking.

[Anonymous No.17188895]

>>17188890
There really is no western Daoism. Abraham ruined the west.

[Anonymous No.17188896]

>>17188890
Christians influenced by Hermeticism I would suppose

[Anonymous No.17188932]

>>17186638
>muh li
>muh ren
>muh yi

WU WEI GANG
DO NOTHING
DIE NEVER

peace

[Anonymous No.17189094]

Legalism is keyed for sure.

[Anonymous No.17189435]

Why does /lit/ like Taoism so much?

[Anonymous No.17189441]

>>17189435
can't be refuted cause no one knows what it is

[Anonymous No.17189742]

>>17188890
Neoplatonists

[Anonymous No.17189824]

>>17186638
>Confucianism, Daoism or Legalism
The main 3 ideologies were Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, not legalism.

[Anonymous No.17189839]

>>17189435
It's comfy as fuck, monistic, and literally irrefutable

[Anonymous No.17189849]

>>17189435
It retroactively refutes itself while being correct.
Read Zhuangzi.

[Anonymous No.17189855]

>>17186638
>centrism, far left, or far right
Haven't we had this discussion every day already

[Anonymous No.17189858]

>>17189824
Buddhism entered China after the warring states period and the hundred schools.

[Anonymous No.17189931]

>>17186681
>>17189849
effortlessly and self-so based

[Anonymous No.17190087]

>>17188355
Yeah, Confucians like Mencius and Xunzi were better than Confucius himself

[Anonymous No.17190248]

>>17188890
Depends. In terms of actual philosophy, the Pre-Socratics. In terms of what they're doing, Hermeticist occultists and Renaissance neoplatonists.

>>17187634
There was a big overlap between Taoism and Legalism in the early period.
>a system where he need not even lift his finger to have world revolve around him