Who is more important to China, Marx or Confucius?
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Who is more important to China, Marx or Confucius?
Who is more important to China, Marx or Confucius?
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Confucius obviously. Pure rabid Marxist-inspired thought only lasted about 1 generation and Confucianism faintly influenced German thought and Marxism to begin with.
What are some things you think Marx and Confucius would have agreed about that are not just things everyone thinks is true?
Confucius influenced Leibnitz who influenced Hegel who influenced Marx. Even though French thinkers like Voltaire, etc were historically the most intense european Chinaboos, if you look closely enough at German thought you'll see clear strands of Chu Hsi's Neo-Confucian thought drifting around within it.
>Let us go back from Leibnitz, the founder of what could be termed the “organic” trend in Western thinking that was opposed Newton’s “mechanical” universe. Now, of course, we know that the post-Newtonian views have destroyed this mechanical vision of the universe and, with it, the philosophy that had been inspired by it. When German idealism took over Western philosophic leadership, where did Leibnitz find his theory of “monads,” those autonomous organisms participating as cells in a hierarchy culminating in an organistic universe? In Neo-Confucianism.
>It is well known that Leibnitz was in close touch with the Jesuits. Leibnitz’s naturalism, can be traced, in part, directly to Chinese sources. In a sense, it is not too far-fetched to state that Hegelian dialectics have sources in Chinese philosophy.
>Hegel’s ardent interest was due to a common pantheistic yearning toward a cosmic totality. The main features of Hegel’s philosophy—pantheism, historicism, the dialectical and organic rather than logical and mechanical outlook—were also the main characteristics of China’s traditional philosophic outlook. This is no accident.
>This Hegelian concept of human destiny was fated to stimulate an entirely new school of thought. A bold and revolutionary transmutation of Hegel’s dialectical idealism into materialism launched this philosophy on its dramatic career. But whereas Hegel stated that thought creates object, Feuerbach claimed the reverse. From this simple premise, the successors of Feuerbach derived a “materialistic” philosophy which had, in fact, all the hallmarks of an unconscious idealism.
>The founder and main apostle of this new creed was Marx, whose philosophy of history became the Koran of the 20th century’s great revolutions. The hard core of his philosophy was explained by Engels: “Marx saw with clarity the simple fact (heretofore hidden beneath ideological overgrowths) that human beings must have food, drink, clothing and shelter first of all, before they can interest themselves in politics, science, art, religion and the like. This implies that the production of material means of subsistence, and therewith the existing phase of development of a nation or an epoch, constitute the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal outlooks, the artistic and even the religious ideas are built up.
>It is obvious that, although he rejected Hegel’s idealist metaphysics, Marx retained all the other important features of Hegelian thought: the collectivistic viewpoint, the historical approach and the monistic outlook.
you get the idea.
As you can see from the cringe CCP TV show in OP's pic where Marx rolls a blunt and chats with Confucius, the Chinese are aware of the mental connection between German thinkers and Confucianism. Engels is still one of the most well-known popular European philosophers in China, possibly even second only to Marx himself. And if picrel had not been published and read by many a cultured European of the Enlightenment era, Marxist thought as we know it might not have ever existed, or at least been drastically different in nature.
That doesn't answer my question.
Having conquered the world its no surprise Europeans would be aware of every culture and so every culture can say they "influenced" European thought.
That doesn't mean they would have agreed.
Like do you honestly think Confucius would have like the idea of peasants overthrowing the ruling class or that Marx would have liked the Confucian class system?
>That doesn't answer my question
yea it does. I know Europeans were increasingly aware of Asiatic cultures in general during the Enlightenment, the Germans were overall much more influenced by Indian thought, not Chinese (Chinese have also historically been enthusiastic about Indian religion too lol) but that doesn't negate the Chinese influence on German and European thought, even if it isn't the only foreign influence. I said there were some concealed yet clear and undeniable links, not that they would have agreed on everything which they obviously wouldn't have. Leibnitz and Hegel were thinking up their own stuff, they obviously didn't just directly plagiarize Confucius or Hindu scriptures, but the influence of the latter two still played a very large and discernible part of their works.
>That doesn't mean they would have agreed. Like do you honestly think Confucius would have like the idea of peasants overthrowing the ruling class or that Marx would have liked the Confucian class system?
No i don't think they would have. again, they're obviously not gonna agree on EVERYTHING, but they did share some brainwaves such as the historicist nature of their thought. i suppose what they would and would not agree on is what the Chinese TV show about the two debating with each other is about lol. I guess you'll have to watch it to find out?
>do you honestly think Confucius would have like the idea of peasants overthrowing the ruling class
No way. Confucius wanted everyone to remain in their place including non humans, a slave and no individuality. It was for social harmony but you always had your betters. In practice communism is no different. The collective, know your place, and the dictatorship of the proletariat was the ruling class.
Your understanding of collectivism is bizarre.
Confucius, as evident by them building Confucius Institutes instead of Mao Institutes
Confucius makes up the backbone of Chinese culture. What kind of question is that?
Easily Confucius, not to mention the extensions of Mencius, Xunzi, and Neoconfucianism. You can see Confucianism in all aspects of Chinese life. Even the nonreligious go to Confucian shrines before exams.
>You can see Confucianism in all aspects of Chinese life
i wouldn't go that far. a bespectacled tiktok-watching bubble tea slurping Shanghai office worker these days isn't particularly Confucian in nature anymore.
Certainly, though, current Chinese still behave more in a Confucian manner than Marxist. When some Urban chinese middle schooler's parents scream at them for getting low school marks, and they shudder and obediently study 13 hours a day instead of 12, that's Confucianism not Marxism. And i guess Confucius would still have yet-greater prominence in the Brazil-tier rural areas.
Yeah, I overstated it a bit. Confucianism makes up a base level of Chinese culture in general. However, I wouldn't say that a bubble tea slurping Shanghai office worker is quite as culturally-Confucian as, for example, an atheist in America is culturally-Protestant.
>thread about china
>e-cath still manages to find a way to whine about the protties
I'm not Catholic. It's an observation that Christian thought, Protestant in this case, permeates a lot of American culture. Most American atheists I meet are often influenced by their Christian upbringings when it comes to some of their outlooks on life. If we were talking about a Catholic country, I'd say the same of cultural-Catholicism.
Without Confucious there is neither China nor Marx.
They don't have a picture of conficious anywhere
confucius he is central to the current governments societal ideals and their most recent forms of their state ideolly which is whatever the party decides it is alongside the ten other classical philosophies of china
marx is only important in the sense that he is used as a tool for justification which they do not have to follow seeing as they have not gotten around to the stage of implementing marxism yet and never will as that will allow them to be justified in maintaining power indefinitely without having to be responsible or morally consistent with the morals and traditions of their philosophies or their own traditional culture
allowing them to implement traditionalist policies without having to rebrand their state while also not having to be subject to traditional systems of propriety or what is considered proper
>As of September 2021, KFC operated over 8,100 outlets in around 1,600 cities across China
Confucius duh