Most oppressive non-Abrahamic religions/philosophies?

[PainRack]

Funny, but you don't demonstrate exactly how the argument is disproven.

Because the government doesn't follow Confucian teachings is definite proof that everything it does is Confucian in nature?

And since when was dictatorship and powerful governments a sole province of Confucius?

Confucian ideology is definitely at the root of the very hierarchical system which governed all aspects of Chinese society and established a lineage system which ordinary people simply couldn't operate outside of. Free enterprise, on the other hand, requires a relatively hands-off environment in order for any concern to be able to establish itself and operate freely.

Unfortunately for you, the Tang Dynasty disproves your point with the begining of the mercentilism and the merchant princes. The very example raised of the Ming navy forbidding seaborne trade is further proof of the existence of such merchants, considering how one of the above said "pirates" was exactly such a merchant prince. And one of course who had garned sufficient wealth as to be able to field a fleet and army capable of resisting the government ban, until he reverted back to the government fold and was later executed.

But hey! Don't let stupid imperial leadership get in the way, blame this all on Confucius shall we?

And of course, let's just examine what free enterprise China had shall we? The creation of licensed and franchise industries as seen in the government salt and iron monopolies, where merchants bid for the right to make salt and iron in various districts. The creation of course the first paper backed economy in the world, interestingly, the shift to a monetary based economy as opposed to one based on conscription of labour and goods also occured during this time period. Shall we also examine how banks similarly existed during the Tang dynasty and the various silk industries and the commercial empires it spanned?

Excuse me, but that is not at all my argument. Your strawman of it, perhaps...

Your argument is that the Chinese followed Confucius teachings so closely that free will and inquiry was prohibited.
Strange, I kept raising points where Confucius teachings was ignored, yet, you kept insisting that the lack of scientific inquiry is because of Confucius. Why not blame it on the 5 elements and the principles of Yin and Yang, which formed the basis of China supernatural science?

Confucianism did not "disallow" the Industrial Revolution; it merely made for a society which was too hidebound to recognise and grasp the forces of change and innovation. Higher education was aimed at preparation for the examination system which was the only access into the imperial bureaucracy and the one real avenue for upward mobility in Chinese society, and that education had degenerated into rote memorisation of classical texts. That does not build a foundation for a dynamic society.

Except that the Imperial examinations by the era of the Song had already begun to test not only practical methods, but also demand standards of creative analysis and arguments.

Oh really:

Yes..... really.

I fail to see why the failures of the Yuan dynasty and the reverses it made upon China liberalism is somehow proof that China remained backward because of Confucianism.....

Or are you now willing to accept inept Imperial leadership, corruption and power politics as the key failure? The Yuan dynasty turned back the clock on social progress when it enhanced the racist policies that the xenophobic Ming set up and removed what liberties the Tang and Song gave to women. A conservative Emperor decided to insitute conservative policies in his empire and chose as the subject matter for the Imperial examinations, conservative matter, in the equivalent of Ohio dictating that ID and evolution must be taught alongside.

Pray tell how does this change the fact that during the Song Dynasty, the Imperial examinations were changed so as to reflect analytical thinking and practical military skills?

Yes, it placed high value on obedience, piety, and loyalty. It also discouraged innovative thought and free scientific inquiry. It's emphasis on the preservation of tradition as a supreme virtue acted as a negative force against any trend toward progress.

Which would be why it would be nice for you to show that this preservance of tradition and inability to adapt and acquire new technologies and practices actually EXISTED.

I can keep throwing examples where this didn't occur. For example, the very fact that the Chinese managed to acquire archer cavalry when the Mongols invaded China. Similarly, the change from a peasant based military to a professional one. And let's not talk about the introduction of foreign cuisine and culture into China such as Buddhism and the eating of chilli.

Note: I never argued that Confucianism is not conservative. My argument is that despite its conservative nature, to argue that Confucius teachings prevented China from changing and thus, doomed it is absurd because we see otherwise.

Oh really:

Your counterpoint are ludricious!

Basic cultural differences existed between the Chinese and Western Europeans. To Westerners, the individual was more important than the group. The Chinese took the opposite view.

Right, because Confucius taught this? The idea of society above self has been inherent in Chinese philosophy even before Confucius made his impact.

Westerners believed in the supremacy of law. The Chinese believed in an all-powerful emperor.

Considering the importance Confucius laid on customs and traditions, its clear that he didn't believe the Emperor was all powerful.

Westerners placed a high value on technology and material wealth. The Chinese considered proper relationships far more important. According to Confucian thought, Chinese society at this time was divided into four classes. In order of importance, they were scholar-gentry, who governed in the name of the emperor; peasants, who provided food and taxes; artisans, who crafted useful objects; and merchants, who made profits by selling things that the peasants and artisans produced. Thus, while Westerners held merchants and business people in high regard, the Chinese tended to despise merchants, who "neither plow nor weed."

An attitude that had been discarded by the Tang dynasty when it made the shift to a monetary economy. Diehards of course existed, but to argue that the Chinese in later dynasties regarded merchants as parasites, which was Confucius attitude is misleading.

One might as well point out that by the end years of the Qing dynasty, being a civil official had also lost it shine.

The problem is that once Confucius' ideals became codified into doctrine, that doctrine was observed and applied with increasing rigidity with each passing century.

Right........ which is why we see Emperors executing intellectuals, using the power of decree as opposed to custom and tradition and of course, officials chose to constantly exert more and more power on the local level, as opposed to Confucianist ideals which argued for LESS government interference.

We don't see anyone choosing to follow Liu Bang declaration of only governing the government with 4 laws, do we?

Let's see what Prof. Henry Tsai Shih-shan (History dept., University of Arkansas) had to say on the matter:

Linky

"Fear of change is an enduring legacy of Confucianism," says Henry Tsai Shih-shan, a University of Arkansas history professor who has written several books on the Ming dynasty. "Chinese continually fail to appreciate that expansion can create power and wealth, not chaos."

Point no 1. Except that China did expand and grow constantly despite Confucianist arguments. Han Wudi attempted to expand the Han empire to reclaim the lost Qin outposts, the Tang exerted power into Indochina, and of course, let's not forget the expansionist nature of the Yuan and Qing dynasty which conquered Tibet.

With regards to the Ming, I wish to see how anyone can believe that the Ming can hold onto its overseas "subjects" when the Ming decided that fighting the steppe peoples were more important than solidifying control over the far flung "subject states" of SEA. Especially when above said "subject" states felt that they were allies as opposed to vassal states of the Ming.

Point no 2: How does this negate ANY of my points with regard to the Qing dynasty inability to modernise? That post was with regards to your counter-example of Japan modernising while China lagged behind.

Further, you toss out "supernatural inclination and attitudes" as the supposed catch-phrase answer to the entire question while ignoring the fact that neither Buddhist nor Taoist traditions (the prevailing religious/philosophical influences in Chinese society during the period in question) and teachings are particularly mystical or concerned with superstitious practises, and therefore cannot support your theory or explain the fact of Chinese stagnation. Insular and tradition-bound they might have been, but the Chinese certainly were not the Voodoo People. To punctuate both points:

Because the key reason the Chinese didn't advance was because they simply didn't have any scientific background. Its easy to see this when one consider that their "science" is based ENTIRELY on supernatural groundings and the equivalent of logic.

To argue that Confucius discouraged free enquiry is pointless, because whatever thinking was done was based utterly on supernatural grounds as opposed to a experimental one. The invention of the earthquake detecter did not propel study in geology. It propelled study in fengshui and how the gods showed their favour and disfavour, and how to win back Heaven mandate by moving relief supplies and resources to earthquake struck areas.

Let's examine your supporting evidence in detail before moving to a general argument, shall we?

They prevented the emergence of an independent commercial and industrial bourgeoisie on the European pattern.

And the European pattern of trade and colonial exploitation is the ONLY commercial pattern possible?

Entrepreneurial activity was insecure in a framework where legal protection for private activity was so exiguous. Any activity that promised to be lucrative was subject to bureaucratic squeeze. Larger undertakings were limited to the state or to publicly licensed monopolies.

Three letters. EIC. The West also played by similar rules.

Potentially profitable activity in opening up world trade by exploiting China’s sophisticated shipbuilding and navigational knowledge was simply forbidden.

RIIIGGHHHHTTTTTTT........ which is why Chinese traders dominated inter-straits trading in the SEA until the Portugese arrived.

The difference lay in military exploitation. China did not export the military strength required to conquer colonies outright whereas the West did. Zhenghe expedition, which made treaties and carried tribute from various states in SEA(and thus under China political system made them vassal states) did not have a lasting impact because the Ming did not have the military resources to intervene in such vassal states affairs, which ultimately led to the breaking off of ties. Similarly, one should note the ebb and flow of Chinese power on the mainland, where Indochina swung back and forth between Chinese control prior to the independent civilisations, heavily influenced by Chinese culture arose.

After the European Renaissance and the development of Galileian and Newtonian science, the balance of advantage changed. Needham argues that China was never able “to develop the fundamental bases of modern science, such as the application of mathematical hypotheses to Nature, the full understanding and use of the experimental method, the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, and the systematic accumulation of openly published scientific data” (Needham, 1981, p. 9).

How nice. He argues the same thing as I did.

As the above extract indicates, a system based upon the bureaucratic enforcement of Confucian doctrine sapped away the impetus toward any large-scale development of native Chinese technological abilities and robbed the Chinese civilisation of the fullest exploitation of its economic and scientific potential. Not mysticism as you would have it.

No it doesn't. It simply argued that the Chinese never developed the fundamental approaches towards science. IOW, it rested it scientific thinking UTTERLY on unscientific reasons. Whether its a non experimental approach similar to Greek logic, the appeal towards Chinese science such as fengshui and yin/yang, your very extract argued the EXACT SAME THING I DID.

In fact, if you even read the extract properly, you note that it counter rebutted other points you made, such as the broadening of the Imperial curriculum during the Song dynasty!

And if you choose to argue that the lack of independent enterprise is proof of Confucius teachings being a bane, refer back again to the fact that this is AGAINST Confucius teachings, as seen in the debate over the Salt monopoly during the Han dynasty. After a series of flip-flop, the Latter Han ultimately decided that revenue was more important than Confucist teachings of miminal government interference!

And what you continue to ignore is just what put China in such a position of weakness that it could not resist European incursion and exploitation in the first place. You focus on a symptom while ignoring the root cause of the disease.

I believe that tangent arose because you claimed that Confucianism retained such a conservative hold on Chinese affairs that they were unable to adapt while the Japanese did. As can be seen, that argument is simplistic. It ignores utterly the real effects of capital, expertise, space and of course, interference by the European who wished to maintain the status quo.

A so-called answer which actually explains nothing.

Right....... A problem that sociologists differ on regarding the answers and you expect a common pleb untrained in the science to be able to give an explaination?

China had no lack of arable land to support its human and animal populations and at least had agricultural production well-enough organised to obviate against the danger of famine. Furthermore, your argument here is self-contradictory: a country which supposedly lacks the agricultural capacity and expertise to support livestock as well as its human population but somehow can support a large labour-force? Doesn't track —particularly as Chinese civilisation was no less primitive or poor than 17th century Europe before the West gained the upper hand.

China had the agriculture capability to retain a large human populace through intensive farming. However, it did not have the wide grasslands neccesary for horses and other such work animals.

The situation of cheap food and expensive fodder was what made human labour so particularly attractive. One can argue that this attitude led to a human centric approach towards problems, as opposed to a technological one.
[/b]

[Frank Hipper]

Really? I read that the Aztec stone/obsidian clubs and unpractical sacrificial swords Bounced off Spanish metal armour?

Obsidian shatters like the glass it is when striking steel armor, but it cuts to the bone, and beyond, when flesh and cloth are the only things offering resistance. A discovery channel recreation made out of fucking balsa wood cut most of the way through a pig carcass, and the Aztec originals were made of mahogany; much heavier and stronger.
Many Spaniards abandoned their steel armor for Mexican quilted cloth armor for it's resistance to native arrows, and for it's comfort. Good against arrows, not so much against a maquahuitl.

[Patrick Degan]

Funny, but you don't demonstrate exactly how the argument is disproven.

Because the government doesn't follow Confucian teachings is definite proof that everything it does is Confucian in nature?

And since when was dictatorship and powerful governments a sole province of Confucius?

Nobody is saying that it was. So much for your pointless Red Herring.

Confucian ideology is definitely at the root of the very hierarchical system which governed all aspects of Chinese society and established a lineage system which ordinary people simply couldn't operate outside of. Free enterprise, on the other hand, requires a relatively hands-off environment in order for any concern to be able to establish itself and operate freely.

Unfortunately for you, the Tang Dynasty disproves your point with the begining of the mercentilism and the merchant princes. The very example raised of the Ming navy forbidding seaborne trade is further proof of the existence of such merchants, considering how one of the above said "pirates" was exactly such a merchant prince. And one of course who had garned sufficient wealth as to be able to field a fleet and army capable of resisting the government ban, until he reverted back to the government fold and was later executed.

Really, trying to cite a single 300 year period out of a larger 1500 year stretch of time does not disprove the argument, no matter how much you wish it did.

But hey! Don't let stupid imperial leadership get in the way, blame this all on Confucius shall we?

Insane babble.

And of course, let's just examine what free enterprise China had shall we? The creation of licensed and franchise industries as seen in the government salt and iron monopolies, where merchants bid for the right to make salt and iron in various districts.

"Licensed and franchised industries" is not free enterprise. If people have to go to bureaucrats to seek permission to trade and operate businesses, then the system by definition is not one based on free enterprise by any stretch of the imagination.

The creation of course the first paper backed economy in the world, interestingly, the shift to a monetary based economy as opposed to one based on conscription of labour and goods also occured during this time period.

All that demonstrates is that the Chinese were the first to invent paper money. That does not demonstrate free enterprise anymore than the fact that the Soviet Union had paper money demonstrates free enterprise in that country. And I'd love to see you try to square the concept of free enterprise with conscript-labour.

Shall we also examine how banks similarly existed during the Tang dynasty and the various silk industries and the commercial empires it spanned?

No, we shall not since these are more Red Herrings. The central question is whether or not the Chinese had an economy based on a mercantilist paradigm —i.e. the handing out of restricted licenses to select individuals or concerns— or one based on individual entrepreneurship with as little official oversight as possible —the free enterprise paradigm.

Your argument is that the Chinese followed Confucius teachings so closely that free will and inquiry was prohibited.

Strawman.

Strange, I kept raising points where Confucius teachings was ignored, yet, you kept insisting that the lack of scientific inquiry is because of Confucius. Why not blame it on the 5 elements and the principles of Yin and Yang, which formed the basis of China supernatural science?

Because your "points" amount to cherry-picking the evidence. As for the other part of your "rebuttal", I can presume you're citing this as part of your attempt to prop up the weak argument that Chinese mysticism is the actual retardant force against scientific advance in that country. Except any cursory examination of Chinese thought demonstrates that the mystical componnent took the form rather of seeking a wholism in nature rather than belief in supernatural voodoo.

Confucianism did not "disallow" the Industrial Revolution; it merely made for a society which was too hidebound to recognise and grasp the forces of change and innovation. Higher education was aimed at preparation for the examination system which was the only access into the imperial bureaucracy and the one real avenue for upward mobility in Chinese society, and that education had degenerated into rote memorisation of classical texts. That does not build a foundation for a dynamic society.

Except that the Imperial examinations by the era of the Song had already begun to test not only practical methods, but also demand standards of creative analysis and arguments.

The problem with Confucian teachings lay not with either an acceptance or rejection of empiricism per-se but rather its inability to incorporate the concept of testing a theory for falsification and basing every line of inquiry on integration with a harmonic wholism of nature rather than examining the world in bits and pieces, which means taking it apart beforehand for measurement.

I fail to see why the failures of the Yuan dynasty and the reverses it made upon China liberalism is somehow proof that China remained backward because of Confucianism.....

Or are you now willing to accept inept Imperial leadership, corruption and power politics as the key failure? The Yuan dynasty turned back the clock on social progress when it enhanced the racist policies that the xenophobic Ming set up and removed what liberties the Tang and Song gave to women. A conservative Emperor decided to insitute conservative policies in his empire and chose as the subject matter for the Imperial examinations, conservative matter, in the equivalent of Ohio dictating that ID and evolution must be taught alongside.

Pray tell how does this change the fact that during the Song Dynasty, the Imperial examinations were changed so as to reflect analytical thinking and practical military skills?

Pity that no serious analysis of Chinese cultural or scientific history agrees with you. You keep trying to point out exceptions that destroy the rule, but the fact remains that it really is not possible to separate the influence of Confucian ideology from any argument regarding the issue. The obsession with order and harmony, as outlined in the Five Relationships, created a culture in which the political sciences were non-existent and cemented the dynastic system in place. That same ideology also made the western conception of empiricism as testing theories for falsification as well as seeking knowledge for its own sake as opposed to purely practical aims an unknown quality. Or, as Vincent Shen writes in Chapter 9 of Man And Nature, The Chinese Tradition And The Future:

Linky

When searching for an explanation of the fact that no science in the Western modern sense was produced in traditional Chinese culture under the dominant ideology of Confucianism, we should first of all trace back to the philosophical origins of both Western and Chinese sciences, and compare their differences. To be brief, we could qualify Chinese science as a search for practical wisdom and Western science as a searching for theoretical knowledge. In other words, one of the fundamental reasons for the absence of modern science in Chinese culture is the latter’s lack of purely theoretical interest.

Nowadays, modern science becomes more and more operational both in its theory formation and its data construction processes. This calls for more interaction between knowledge and action, thus disengaging itself from its former qualification as knowledge for knowledge‘s own sake. But, we should not forget that, in the beginning, it was produced as the last avatar of the Greek notion of theoria, the disinterested pursuit of truth and sheer intellectual curiosity.1 Compared with this, Chinese culture in general and Confucianism in particular seemed to be short of such theoretical interest. Generally speaking, Western philosophy began as a result of the attitude of wonder, which led to the theoretical construction of scientific knowledge. In contrast, Chinese philosophy began as a result of an attitude of concern, which led finally to practical wisdom for guiding human destiny. Therefore, in the beginning, the difference between them was that between "wonder" and "concern".

Yes, it placed high value on obedience, piety, and loyalty. It also discouraged innovative thought and free scientific inquiry. It's emphasis on the preservation of tradition as a supreme virtue acted as a negative force against any trend toward progress.

Which would be why it would be nice for you to show that this preservance of tradition and inability to adapt and acquire new technologies and practices actually EXISTED.

I have, actually, but you can't seem to see any of it over that Great Wall of Ignorance you're so busy constructing in this thread.

I can keep throwing examples where this didn't occur. For example, the very fact that the Chinese managed to acquire archer cavalry when the Mongols invaded China. Similarly, the change from a peasant based military to a professional one. And let's not talk about the introduction of foreign cuisine and culture into China such as Buddhism and the eating of chilli.

Except none of your examples amounts to any more than picking gnatshit out of pepper. You simply continue to ignore an overall pattern which is seen by examining a 1500 year stretch of Chinese history in which the Confucian ideology became cemented in place as the governing paradigm of Chinese society and intellectual inquiry.

Note: I never argued that Confucianism is not conservative. My argument is that despite its conservative nature, to argue that Confucius teachings prevented China from changing and thus, doomed it is absurd because we see otherwise.

No, it is your denial which is absurd. To again cite Vincent Shen:

Now, let us compare Confucianism with Western modem science. Apparently speaking, Confucianism seemed to have emphasized the accumulation of empirical knowledge on the one hand and their intelligible unity on the other. B. Schwartz is right when he says,

To Confucius knowledge does begin with the empirical cumulative knowledge of masses of particulars, . . . then includes the ability to link these particulars first to one’s own experiences and ultimately with the underlying unity that binds this thought together.20

This judgment is supported by texts where Confucius affirmed the necessity of unifying diverse empirical knowledge. To his disciple Tzu Kung the Master put the question: "You think, I believe, that my aim is to learn many things and retain them in my memory?" Tzu Kung replied, "Is that not so?" The Master replied, "No, there is an unity which binds it all together."21

Besides, Confucius seemed to affirm, as did Kant, the complementary interaction between empirical data and thinking. He said, "He who learns without thought is utterly confused. He who thinks without learning is in great danger."22 These words of Confucius remind us of Kant’s proposition that sensibility without concept is blind, whereas concept without sensibility is void. "I have spent, elsewhere he said, a whole day without eating food and a whole night without sleep, thinking. It was of no use. It is better to learn."23 So it seems that for Confucius, learning, analogous to modem science, is a process of interaction between empirical knowledge and their intelligible unity.

Unfortunately, further reflection shows that, first, the empirical knowledge in Confucius was not technically controlled data collection; second, the ultimate unity for him was not merely the logico-mathematically structured theories; and finally the mode of interaction between the above two moments was not that of deduction and falsification in Popper’s sense, or induction and verification in Logical Empiricists’ sense or in other looser concepts such as testing and confirmation.

Your counterpoint are ludricious!

Because you declare them to be? No, I don't think so. Argument by mere assertion is meaningless.

Basic cultural differences existed between the Chinese and Western Europeans. To Westerners, the individual was more important than the group. The Chinese took the opposite view.

Right, because Confucius taught this? The idea of society above self has been inherent in Chinese philosophy even before Confucius made his impact.

Confucius sought to reaffirm that tradition in his teachings at a time when it was at its weakest. Besides, Confucian ideology is not simply a matter of the Pure Unadulterated Word of the Master.

Westerners believed in the supremacy of law. The Chinese believed in an all-powerful emperor.

Considering the importance Confucius laid on customs and traditions, its clear that he didn't believe the Emperor was all powerful.

Which is sort of like attempting to argue that because Christ didn't say X, that means that X isn't really part of Christian doctrine as practised by the churches.

Westerners placed a high value on technology and material wealth. The Chinese considered proper relationships far more important. According to Confucian thought, Chinese society at this time was divided into four classes. In order of importance, they were scholar-gentry, who governed in the name of the emperor; peasants, who provided food and taxes; artisans, who crafted useful objects; and merchants, who made profits by selling things that the peasants and artisans produced. Thus, while Westerners held merchants and business people in high regard, the Chinese tended to despise merchants, who "neither plow nor weed."

An attitude that had been discarded by the Tang dynasty when it made the shift to a monetary economy. Diehards of course existed, but to argue that the Chinese in later dynasties regarded merchants as parasites, which was Confucius attitude is misleading.

Which would be a nice rebuttal if the Tang Dynasty had endured and changed the course of Chinese history. It didn't.

The problem is that once Confucius' ideals became codified into doctrine, that doctrine was observed and applied with increasing rigidity with each passing century.

Right........ which is why we see Emperors executing intellectuals, using the power of decree as opposed to custom and tradition and of course, officials chose to constantly exert more and more power on the local level, as opposed to Confucianist ideals which argued for LESS government interference.

I guess that whole "increasing rigidity" bit just sailed over that pointy head of yours, didn't it? We're not arguing the purity of Confucian ideology to Confucius' actual writings but how that ideology became fossilised and interpreted increasingly as the justification for increasing absolutism in all areas of governmental and intellectual inquiry.

Let's see what Prof. Henry Tsai Shih-shan (History dept., University of Arkansas) had to say on the matter:

"Fear of change is an enduring legacy of Confucianism," says Henry Tsai Shih-shan, a University of Arkansas history professor who has written several books on the Ming dynasty. "Chinese continually fail to appreciate that expansion can create power and wealth, not chaos."

Point no 1. Except that China did expand and grow constantly despite Confucianist arguments. Han Wudi attempted to expand the Han empire to reclaim the lost Qin outposts, the Tang exerted power into Indochina, and of course, let's not forget the expansionist nature of the Yuan and Qing dynasty which conquered Tibet.

With regards to the Ming, I wish to see how anyone can believe that the Ming can hold onto its overseas "subjects" when the Ming decided that fighting the steppe peoples were more important than solidifying control over the far flung "subject states" of SEA. Especially when above said "subject" states felt that they were allies as opposed to vassal states of the Ming.

Uh huh:

For a brief interlude, Zheng He challenged such conservative tendencies. By the end of his fleet's seven voyages, China had become an unrivaled naval power. As a result of the expeditions, the Emperor in Nanjing (and later Beijing when the capital was moved north in 1420) commanded the fear and respect of leaders throughout South and Southeast Asia. China had established itself as a trade and diplomatic force, its authority backed up by the thousands of troops who accompanied Zheng He on his travels. If countries could be said to "own" centuries—the 20th century is often viewed as America's; the previous one arguably belonged to colonial superpower Britain—the 1400s were all China's. Or at least they could have been, had the country not suddenly turned inward.

There are many theories as to why China curtailed its maritime aspirations in the mid-15th century. The simplest is that the Confucians prevailed. The imperial bureaucracy sought to contain the expansionary ambitions of its sailors and the increasing power of its merchant class: Confucian ideology venerates authority and agrarian ways, not innovation and trade. "Barbarian" nations were thought to offer little of value to China. Other factors contributed: the renovation of the north-south Grand Canal, for one, facilitated grain transport and other internal commerce in gentle inland waters, obviating the need for an ocean route. And the tax burden of maintaining a big fleet was severe. But the decision to scuttle the great ships was in large part political. With the death of Yongle, the Emperor who sent Zheng He on his voyages, the conservatives began their ascendancy. China suspended naval expeditions. By century's end, construction of any ship with more than two masts was deemed a capital offense. Oceangoing vessels were destroyed. Eventually, even records of Zheng He's journey were torched. China's heroic age was over; its open door had slammed shut. "The expeditions wasted tens of myriads of money and grain," a 15th century Minister of War complained. Roderick MacFarquhar, a sinologist at Harvard University, characterizes the conservative triumph this way: "Yellow River over blue water."

The philosophical dispute is far more than a historical curiosity. Through the centuries, China has struggled to find its proper place in the world. The pendulum has shifted back and forth between openness and insularity, between the spirit embodied in Zheng He and that of, say, Yang Rong, the Confucian tutor to the Emperor who argued for rolling back the power of eunuch adventurers like Zheng He. The Confucians won; China wouldn't emerge again as a naval force until the past decade or so, as it began to build up a sizable fleet, probe disputed islands like the Spratlys and project a presence in Asia's sea-lanes.

Point no 2: How does this negate ANY of my points with regard to the Qing dynasty inability to modernise? That post was with regards to your counter-example of Japan modernising while China lagged behind.

It doesn't, but then I wasn't disputing that point at all, and you continue to ignore the ideological basis for the Qing Dynasty's rejection of modernisation even in a Chinese context.

Further, you toss out "supernatural inclination and attitudes" as the supposed catch-phrase answer to the entire question while ignoring the fact that neither Buddhist nor Taoist traditions (the prevailing religious/philosophical influences in Chinese society during the period in question) and teachings are particularly mystical or concerned with superstitious practises, and therefore cannot support your theory or explain the fact of Chinese stagnation. Insular and tradition-bound they might have been, but the Chinese certainly were not the Voodoo People.

Because the key reason the Chinese didn't advance was because they simply didn't have any scientific background. Its easy to see this when one consider that their "science" is based ENTIRELY on supernatural groundings and the equivalent of logic.

No scientific background, Gracie? The people who invented gunpowder, printing with moveable type, the kite, canal irrigation, the pump, and had developed zoology, astronomy, and the principle of crop rotation centuries ahead of the west had "no scientific background"? That's not what Joseph Needham ever argued. That's not what any serious analysis of Chinese science and culture demonstrates at all. Nor is it demonstrated in any detailed examination of Chinese religious thought or philosophy.

To argue that Confucius discouraged free enquiry is pointless, because whatever thinking was done was based utterly on supernatural grounds as opposed to a experimental one. The invention of the earthquake detecter did not propel study in geology. It propelled study in fengshui and how the gods showed their favour and disfavour, and how to win back Heaven mandate by moving relief supplies and resources to earthquake struck areas.

To yet again cite Vincent Shen:

Confucianism’s agnostic rationalism is manifested in the texts where Confucius expressed his distance from such supernatural powers as ghosts and spirits.

Fan Chih asked what constituted wisdom. The Master Confucius said, "To give one’s self earnestly to securing righteousness and justice among the people, and while respecting the gods and demons, to keep distantiated from them, that may be called wisdom.10

Chi-Lu asked about serving the ghosts and spirits. The Master Confucius said, "While you are not yet able to serve human beings, how can you serve ghosts?" Chi-Lu then ventured upon a question about the dead. The Master said. "You do not yet know about the living, how can you know about the dead?"11

These texts show not only a negative attitude towards supernatural powers, but also a positive emphasis on this life and social activities such as serving human beings and securing righteousness. Max Weber was correct when he said, "Confucianism maintained that magic was powerless in the face of virtue. He who lived the classical way of life need not fear the spirits; only lack of virtue in high places gave power to the spirits."12 Humanism with an ethical orientation is therefore fundamental to Confucian teaching. This explains also why Confucius’ frequent themes of discourse were the Odes, history and the maintenance of the rites.13 He took four subjects for his teaching: culture (letters), the conduct of affairs, loyalty to superiors and the keeping of promises.14 Subjects on which the Master never talked were: extraordinary things, unnatural forces, disorders and spiritual beings.15

In J. Needham’s eyes, Hsun Tzu’s humanism perfectly exemplifies the ambivalent relation of Confucianism to science.16 On the one hand, Hsun Tzu preached an agnostic rationalism and even a denial of the existence of spirits. For him, the term "Tao" means the order of nature and the right way of human society. His socio-ethical orientation was shown in his exaltation of Li, the essence of rites, good customs and traditional observances. On the other hand, he strongly opposed to the efforts of the School of Names and the Mohists to work out a kind of discursive logic. He insisted on the practical and social uses of technological process while denying the importance of theoretical investigation.

J. Needham’s judgment upon Hsun Tzu is sound, but it does not tell the whole story.Viewed from the philosophy of science, Hsun Tzu’s ideological framework is favorable for the development of modern science and even for that of technology: an attitude of domination over nature by seizing her causal regularities and her transformation by technical process. In the following text, Hsun Tzu said:

Your glorify Nature and meditate on her,

Why not domesticate her and regulate her?

You obey Nature and sing her praises,

Why not control her and use her?

You look on the seasons with reverence and await them,

Why not respond to them by seasonal activities?

You depend on things, marvel at them,

Why not unfold your abilities and transform them?

You meditate on what make a thing,

Why not so order things, that you do not waste them?

You vainly seek into the cause of things,

Why not appropriate and enjoy what they produce?"17

Notice that this important text is interpreted by Needham as merely a protest against Taoists, especially Chuang Tzu’s preference for nature and negligence of man, and as exhibiting a certain legalist learning. In fact, it was not so simple, because here "to domesticate and regulate" and "control over the course of Nature" would mean an attitude of domination over Nature by using her causal regularities. "Unfold one’s abilities", "transform things" "order things and appropriate what they produce" would mean the application of technology in accomplishing things and transforming natural process.

Therefore Hsun Tzu had an ideological framework favorable to the development of science and technology in the modern sense. His difficulty consisted in the fact that he did not understand the importance of investigating "what makes a thing" and consequently missed the dimension of knowledge for knowledge’s own sake, the disinterested pursuit of truth. What he had in mind was a pragmatic and utilitarian vision of domination over nature and technological application.

As to the Neo-Confucians in the period of Sung and Ming Dynasties, their vision of the world was also very congruent with that of the modern natural sciences. In fact, as Needham’s studies have shown, Neo-Confucian philosophy in the Sung dynasty was connected with the golden period of natural sciences and technologies such as mathematics, astronomy, botany, zoology, architecture and military technology in Chinese civilization.18 For example, Chu Hsi’s (1033-1170 A.D.) emphasis on "the investigation of things" and "the extension of knowledge" were quite positive for the development of science. Chu Hsi held that all actual and potential principles are contained in the Great Ultimate, which is complete in all things as a whole and in each thing individually. The Great Ultimate involves both Li (logos) and Chi (physis) which, while seemingly dualistic, are never separate but in mutual complementarity. This philosophy of organism is, as Needham would suggest, quite analogous to that of Whitehead, without having passed through the stages corresponding to Newton and Galileo. But it is not fair to say, as Needham does, that this philosophical system was produced only by "flights of genius."19 I would suggest that it was rather a philosophical system achieved by deep philosophical meditation on the nature of reality and also by creative interpretation of the Confucian tradition. The function of reason it implied was therefore speculative and hermeneutic, without being scientific and operational. Classical Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism never took into consideration the interaction of the logico-mathematically structured theories with the systematically controlled experimentation, which, on the contrary, was the essence of modem science.

They prevented the emergence of an independent commercial and industrial bourgeoisie on the European pattern.

And the European pattern of trade and colonial exploitation is the ONLY commercial pattern possible?

Here's a clue: it's the pattern which WORKED. I'm sorry if this doesn't suit you, but the methodology which produces the most, not the least, effective results is what sets the standard for evaluation.

Entrepreneurial activity was insecure in a framework where legal protection for private activity was so exiguous. Any activity that promised to be lucrative was subject to bureaucratic squeeze. Larger undertakings were limited to the state or to publicly licensed monopolies.

Three letters. EIC. The West also played by similar rules.

Except the West rejected the mercantilist paradigm which underlay the East India Company, and the British government ended up smashing the EIC's monopoly to underline that rejection. This being on the cusp of the Industrial Revolution, BTW.

Potentially profitable activity in opening up world trade by exploiting China’s sophisticated shipbuilding and navigational knowledge was simply forbidden.

RIIIGGHHHHTTTTTTT........ which is why Chinese traders dominated inter-straits trading in the SEA until the Portugese arrived.

Which amounts to exactly jack and shit. The Chinese may have dominated the straits, but the Europeans ended up owning the oceans.

The difference lay in military exploitation. China did not export the military strength required to conquer colonies outright whereas the West did. Zhenghe expedition, which made treaties and carried tribute from various states in SEA(and thus under China political system made them vassal states) did not have a lasting impact because the Ming did not have the military resources to intervene in such vassal states affairs, which ultimately led to the breaking off of ties. Similarly, one should note the ebb and flow of Chinese power on the mainland, where Indochina swung back and forth between Chinese control prior to the independent civilisations, heavily influenced by Chinese culture arose.

But, again, as you have done throughout this thread, you refuse to consider just why this was the case except to indulge your bullshit handwaving about Chinese mysticism and corrupt rulers.

After the European Renaissance and the development of Galileian and Newtonian science, the balance of advantage changed. Needham argues that China was never able “to develop the fundamental bases of modern science, such as the application of mathematical hypotheses to Nature, the full understanding and use of the experimental method, the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, and the systematic accumulation of openly published scientific data” (Needham, 1981, p. 9).

How nice. He argues the same thing as I did.

Only if Needham is, like you, ignoring the context of his overall argument and its central thesis:

On one side, Confucianism was basically rationalistic and opposed to any superstitious or even supernatural forms of religion. . . . But on the other side its intense concentration of interest upon human social life to the exclusion of non-human phenomenon negated all investigation of Things, as opposed to Affairs.9

As the above extract indicates, a system based upon the bureaucratic enforcement of Confucian doctrine sapped away the impetus toward any large-scale development of native Chinese technological abilities and robbed the Chinese civilisation of the fullest exploitation of its economic and scientific potential. Not mysticism as you would have it.

No it doesn't. It simply argued that the Chinese never developed the fundamental approaches towards science. IOW, it rested it scientific thinking UTTERLY on unscientific reasons.

Once more, we turn to Vincent Shen:

Unfortunately, further reflection shows that, first, the empirical knowledge in Confucius was not technically controlled data collection; second, the ultimate unity for him was not merely the logico-mathematically structured theories; and finally the mode of interaction between the above two moments was not that of deduction and falsification in Popper’s sense, or induction and verification in Logical Empiricists’ sense or in other looser concepts such as testing and confirmation. Let us explain this more explicitly in order to evaluate the epistemological import of Confucianism.

First, concerning the empirical side of Confucian learning, Confucius did not have in mind any sensible data gathered by technically controlled process. What he stressed consisted rather in the concrete and factual knowledge of the institutions, the code of behavior, the achievement of an idealized culture, that of Chou dynasty for example, and the realities of our life environment. This extended from knowledge in respect to the names of birds, animals, plants and trees, to that of the meaning of a religious rite. This empirical knowledge concerns mostly the meaningful world of human being, rather than with the savage world of nature, which in Confucius’ eyes was to be constructed in terms of codes congenial to human nature, not to be controlled by mere technical process. Even if we take the broad concept of"technique" such as the one given by Weber, which means the rule-governedness of reproducible behavior to which others can adapt themselves in a calculative manner, we cannot say that empirical knowledge in the Confucian sense is technically controlled. Perhaps it is for this reason that Confucianism did not offer any method conducive to modem scientific development.

Second, concerning the rational side of Confucian learning, there seemed to be no regard paid to the rigorous logico-mathematic structure of discourse. One thing Confucius proposed which was connected with the rationality of discourse was his emphasis on the correctness of names. This concerned mostly the use of language and the relation of language to reality. In fact it was not proposed by Confucius as a semantic theory, not to mention any concern for syntactical issues. It concerned terms not in themselves, but as used in human speeches and actions. Therefore it had some pragmatic significance determined in term of the social, rather than theological. Confucius said:

Would it not be necessary to correct names? . . . If names are not correct then one’s words will not be in accord [with one’s actions]. If words are not in accord, then what is to be done cannot be [correctly] implemented! . . . Therefore a noble man uses names only in their appropriate way, so that what he says can be appropriately put into effect. A noble man in his speech leaves nothing to chance.24

This text shows that the Confucian theory of language refers not to any observed physical entity, but to modes of human behavior. Confucius never tried to formulate any definition in the sense of Aristotelian logic. Neither did he propose any semantic theory. What we can discern here is only an ethically oriented pragmatic vision of language.

In the long history of Chinese science, mathematics was never considered by Confucians as the measure of rationality, not to mention taking it as necessary for structuring a meaningful discourse. The only exception was perhaps Shao Yung, who gave a very high place to numbers, seen by him as the manifestation of Tao. But this is a metaphysical rather than scientific thesis. Anyhow, mathematics was not highly evaluated in itself. The priority of social and ethical concern in Confucianism seems to explain this attitude. As Needham suggests,

Mathematics was essential, up to a certain point, for the planning and control of the hydraulic engineering works, but those professing it were likely to remain inferior of facials.25

This social and political reason given be Needham explains partly the unimportance of mathematical discourse in Confucianism. A more internal reason might be that mathematics was considered as technique of calculation and instrument of organizing empirical data, not as the objective structure of reality and discourse.

Third, concerning the mode of relation between empirical knowledge and the intelligible ground of unity, Confucianism had not conceived of any interactive relation in the mode of deduction/falsification, or induction/verification, or testing/confirmation. The mode of unity was for Confucianism a kind of mental integration in referring to the ultimate reality through the process of ethical praxis. Here praxis or practical action was not interpreted as a kind of technical application of theories to control concrete natural or social phenomena. It was understood rather as an active involvement in the process of realizing what is properly human in the life of the individual and that of the society. As to science and technology, they are not to be ignored but must be reconsidered in the context of this ethical praxis.

Whether its a non experimental approach similar to Greek logic, the appeal towards Chinese science such as fengshui and yin/yang, your very extract argued the EXACT SAME THING I DID.

In a word, bullshit.

In fact, if you even read the extract properly, you note that it counter rebutted other points you made, such as the broadening of the Imperial curriculum during the Song dynasty!

I'm not responsible for your fantasies.

And if you choose to argue that the lack of independent enterprise is proof of Confucius teachings being a bane, refer back again to the fact that this is AGAINST Confucius teachings, as seen in the debate over the Salt monopoly during the Han dynasty. After a series of flip-flop, the Latter Han ultimately decided that revenue was more important than Confucist teachings of miminal government interference!

No True Scotsman Fallacy. To attempt to argue this is to attempt to argue that Christian doctrine can only be defined by the pure, actual words of Christ. Unfortunately, Christian doctrine incorporates all the philosophical additions, interpretations, adaptations and goldplating from theologians over a period of nearly two millenia. The same thing applies to the consideration of what is defined as Confucian ideology.

And what you continue to ignore is just what put China in such a position of weakness that it could not resist European incursion and exploitation in the first place. You focus on a symptom while ignoring the root cause of the disease.

I believe that tangent arose because you claimed that Confucianism retained such a conservative hold on Chinese affairs that they were unable to adapt while the Japanese did. As can be seen, that argument is simplistic. It ignores utterly the real effects of capital, expertise, space and of course, interference by the European who wished to maintain the status quo.

Except you ignore just why the Chinese never developed an expanding capital base or a corps of experts, and just how China ended up so weak as to be unable to resist European colonial incursion and exploitation. Which is exactly due to its Confucianist ideology stretching back centuries before the Europeans ever came knocking on their door.

A so-called answer which actually explains nothing.

Right....... A problem that sociologists differ on regarding the answers and you expect a common pleb untrained in the science to be able to give an explaination?

But you will presume to argue it anyway in spite of your admitted ignorance in these areas. Sometimes, the comedy just writes itself.

China had no lack of arable land to support its human and animal populations and at least had agricultural production well-enough organised to obviate against the danger of famine. Furthermore, your argument here is self-contradictory: a country which supposedly lacks the agricultural capacity and expertise to support livestock as well as its human population but somehow can support a large labour-force?

Doesn't track —particularly as Chinese civilisation was no less primitive or poor than 17th century Europe before the West gained the upper hand.

On the contrary, it tracks quite well. If we cannot argue difference in the material underpinnings of both civilisations as reason for the advance of the one and the stagnation of the other, that leaves the ideological comparison as the only answer.

China had the agriculture capability to retain a large human populace through intensive farming. However, it did not have the wide grasslands neccesary for horses and other such work animals.

A pity for your argument that the Chinese had actually domesticated the ox, the yak, and the horse as early as 4000 BCE and used those animals extensively for farmwork and heavy hauling.

The situation of cheap food and expensive fodder was what made human labour so particularly attractive. One can argue that this attitude led to a human centric approach towards problems, as opposed to a technological one.

Except it's an utterly inadequate argument which is destroyed by your own attempt at a rebuttal on another point: that up to the 17th century, European civilisation was "no less primitive or poor" than that of the Chinese. The Europeans also relied on intensive human labour power to farm the land the same as the Chinese did. So what marks the difference that one society decided to take the world apart to study the bits and from there develop the science which made the Industrial Revolution possible while the other, at the same level as the former, did not? A question you keep ducking and I suspect will continue to duck for as long as you believe you can keep it up.

[PainRack]

Nobody is saying that it was. So much for your pointless Red Herring.

I'm sorry, but I'm still stuck on the idea that you stating that because the government doesn't follow Confucian teachings and that Its confuciuan teachings which is to blame for its ideology and governing style.

Really, trying to cite a single 300 year period out of a larger 1500 year stretch of time does not disprove the argument, no matter how much you wish it did.

And of course, how is any of my statements disproved? Are you going to argue that the Ming didn't have an overseas trading empire? Pray tell what is the significance of the Silk Road if not for its trade?

"Licensed and franchised industries" is not free enterprise. If people have to go to bureaucrats to seek permission to trade and operate businesses, then the system by definition is not one based on free enterprise by any stretch of the imagination.

Right......... because there is no such thing as registering a company or bidding for the right to make and sell goods in the Western economic model.

Do you have any idea of the scope and scale of the salt and iron industries in China? The government chose to extract its revenue from these industries by "selling" the right to merchants rich enough to exploit them. The scale of the salt industry for example can be seen in the fact that it took until the early 20th century, during the American oil rush for an derrick to be dug deeper than the equivalent salt derrick in China. There is no indication that the extraction of revenue via selling licenses and the like limited these industries.

All that demonstrates is that the Chinese were the first to invent paper money. That does not demonstrate free enterprise anymore than the fact that the Soviet Union had paper money demonstrates free enterprise in that country. And I'd love to see you try to square the concept of free enterprise with conscript-labour.

Of course not. But the argument you were attempting to make is that the Chinese were limited in their economic endeavours because of government interference. Which is pure nonsense. We see the economic maturation of China via these means, and beside, conscript labour was generally phased out as a form of taxation by the Tang.

There are even arguments that the Chinese practiced a form of "options" in the silk industry.

Are you going to argue that Free Enterprise is the only possible model that can generate economic wealth and growth?

No, we shall not since these are more Red Herrings. The central question is whether or not the Chinese had an economy based on a mercantilist paradigm —i.e. the handing out of restricted licenses to select individuals or concerns— or one based on individual entrepreneurship with as little official oversight as possible —the free enterprise paradigm.

And Mercantilism is not the only possible form of economic growth, nor does it form the sole basis of political and military form. The Germans and French practised a more traditional form of colonial exploitation of wealth as well as industralisation for example.

Strawman.

I'm sorry, but you stated
"It's enshrinement of the primacy of authority, set formulas governing every aspect of life, and general rigidity are three forces stifling free inquiry and scientific development."
If I have mistaken your meaning here, could you then elaborate and correct my mistake please?

Because your "points" amount to cherry-picking the evidence. As for the other part of your "rebuttal", I can presume you're citing this as part of your attempt to prop up the weak argument that Chinese mysticism is the actual retardant force against scientific advance in that country. Except any cursory examination of Chinese thought demonstrates that the mystical componnent took the form rather of seeking a wholism in nature rather than belief in supernatural voodoo.

How is it cherry picking the evidence when all the influences you claimed that Confucius could be shown is incomplete? You claimed that

Confucianism prevented China from advancing one millimeter.
You then made the second claim that the socioeconomic structure of China was too rigid, and presumably laid this on the door of Confucian teachings as well.
You thirdly argued that Confucian tradition presented a barrier that prevented the society from adapting and incorporating reform.

Yet, at every single step where this has been shown to be inaccurate, you revert to the status quo.

As for mysticism, what difference does it make what form it takes, if the very basis of experimental science did not take root because of it?

The problem with Confucian teachings lay not with either an acceptance or rejection of empiricism per-se but rather its inability to incorporate the concept of testing a theory for falsification and basing every line of inquiry on integration with a harmonic wholism of nature rather than examining the world in bits and pieces, which means taking it apart beforehand for measurement.

And I do not disagree with this in general. What I contest is the argument that the Chinese was robbed of the social and ideological tools to exploit these advances due to centuries of Confucian traditions.

As can be easily seen, Confucian traditions did not prevent China from incorporating new technologies and culture in the past. From cavalry to cuisine and religions, we seen that China did adapt and incorporate new technologies. Even the Qing reformed its armies with muskets and other forms of guns, this as opposed to just retaining a spear based army. If your arguments was valid, the Qing would had been wielding swords and shields against cannon toting European armies, and they would not had purchased war material from the Americans to update their armies.

Pity that no serious analysis of Chinese cultural or scientific history agrees with you. You keep trying to point out exceptions that destroy the rule, but the fact remains that it really is not possible to separate the influence of Confucian ideology from any argument regarding the issue. The obsession with order and harmony, as outlined in the Five Relationships, created a culture in which the political sciences were non-existent and cemented the dynastic system in place. That same ideology also made the western conception of empiricism as testing theories for falsification as well as seeking knowledge for its own sake as opposed to purely practical aims an unknown quality.

AGAIN, I'm not claiming that Confucius isn't conservative. I'm contesting the argument that Confucian teachings laid such a strong influence on Chinese culture that they prevented any form of change, or deviation from its teachings is somehow impossible.

That's absurd. No philosophy or even religion is that strong.

I have, actually, but you can't seem to see any of it over that Great Wall of Ignorance you're so busy constructing in this thread.

Except none of your examples amounts to any more than picking gnatshit out of pepper. You simply continue to ignore an overall pattern which is seen by examining a 1500 year stretch of Chinese history in which the Confucian ideology became cemented in place as the governing paradigm of Chinese society and intellectual inquiry.

I'm afraid I a bit confused as to what you're trying to say. May I enquire as to what you mean by the overall pattern, as well as its relevance to the topic?

-snip-So it seems that for Confucius, learning, analogous to modem science, is a process of interaction between empirical knowledge and their intelligible unity.

May I understand your argument to be different from what I think you're arguing then?You are arguing that the reason why science never emerged in China is because of Confucianist philosophy? And as such, this caused stagnancy in Chinese technology, which allowed for the West to eventually catch up and overtake it?

This as opposed to Confucianist philosophy being so strong that the Chinese could not adapt and incorporate new technologies and methods from overseas? Or that it prevented the Chinese from developing its own technology and methods, and limited Chinese economic and political endeavours, thus dooming them to be eclipsed by the West?

Which is sort of like attempting to argue that because Christ didn't say X, that means that X isn't really part of Christian doctrine as practised by the churches.

Yet, Confucian doctrine argued for miminal government interference and control. That is something that did not change until the Qing dynasty.

Which would be a nice rebuttal if the Tang Dynasty had endured and changed the course of Chinese history. It didn't.

Of course, you have proof that such a attitude existed during the Qing dynasty then? Or among the Ming?

The fact that both the Ming and the Qing retained extensive trading outposts outside of its borders disprove this statement. If you're referring however to the exclusion of European trading in Chinese ports, may I remind you that the extremely favourable trade deficit was more desirable than open, free trade with the Europeans?

I guess that whole "increasing rigidity" bit just sailed over that pointy head of yours, didn't it? We're not arguing the purity of Confucian ideology to Confucius' actual writings but how that ideology became fossilised and interpreted increasingly as the justification for increasing absolutism in all areas of governmental and intellectual inquiry.

No contest about Confucian being used to buttress government power and authority. Yet, can you show how Confucianist teachings was used to suppress alternative philosophies and ideas?

The philosophical dispute is far more than a historical curiosity. Through the centuries, China has struggled to find its proper place in the world. The pendulum has shifted back and forth between openness and insularity, between the spirit embodied in Zheng He and that of, say, Yang Rong, the Confucian tutor to the Emperor who argued for rolling back the power of eunuch adventurers like Zheng He. The Confucians won; China wouldn't emerge again as a naval force until the past decade or so, as it began to build up a sizable fleet, probe disputed islands like the Spratlys and project a presence in Asia's sea-lanes.[/i]

Right..... More simplistic arguments.

There is no doubt that the domestic party won the debate, however, the argument was not a simple "Confucius say we should never expand overseas" vs expansionism. It was a question of resource allocation between domestic social and military projects versus overseas expeditions. In this case, the decision to build the Great Wall of China as well as other social and military projects in China was taken as opposed to financing overseas expeditions. Similarly, the "vassal" states taken overseas were viewed as a finanical burden, and was unwelcome given the skewered Imperial system the Ming inherited.

Furthermore, to argue that this meant that China did not look overseas is also false. Again, Chinese ships dominated inter-straits trade in SEA until the Portugese arrived. The proclaimation against overseas trade was made three times in total, thus suggesting that smuggling, if not overt mercentile trade still occured. Furthermore, the proclaimation was made because of the belief of merchants supporting pirates, a belief in their rebellion against the throne. Last but not least, the Ming still retained a sizeable naval fleet until its demise. The last prince of the Ming dynasty died in a naval battle against the Qing.

It doesn't, but then I wasn't disputing that point at all, and you continue to ignore the ideological basis for the Qing Dynasty's rejection of modernisation even in a Chinese context.

The Qing dynasty didn't reject modernisation. They rejected Western culture. They were more than willing to accept telegraphs, cannon and other Western technologies. However, they came with strings attached and many officials, mired in the older systems which benefited them delayed reform.


The ideological basis doesn't make sense when one considers that it didn't prevent them from adopting Western technology .At best, one can argue that it delayed adoption of foreign technology because of ethnocentrism.

No scientific background, Gracie? The people who invented gunpowder, printing with moveable type, the kite, canal irrigation, the pump, and had developed zoology, astronomy, and the principle of crop rotation centuries ahead of the west had "no scientific background"? That's not what Joseph Needham ever argued. That's not what any serious analysis of Chinese science and culture demonstrates at all. Nor is it demonstrated in any detailed examination of Chinese religious thought or philosophy.

Yes. No scientific background. The "theories" backing all of the technological innovations you stated was pure nonsense, based on chinese mysticism such as yin/yang, astrology and divination and the 5 elements.

The Chinese detailed observation of the weather and the seasons were explained not using meterology, but as movements of the heavens and dragons, with the 4 dragon gods of the seas causing rain and wind, and of course, the Thunder and Lightning God had their role to play too.

Even the much acclaimed compass had its mystical backing in fengshui.

Here's a clue: it's the pattern which WORKED. I'm sorry if this doesn't suit you, but the methodology which produces the most, not the least, effective results is what sets the standard for evaluation.

So? The proof is in the pudding. The scale and extent of China economy and industry was not exceeded in the West until the Industrial Revolution.

Whether or not this scale was reached via Western or Chinese methods is irrelevant.

Except the West rejected the mercantilist paradigm which underlay the East India Company, and the British government ended up smashing the EIC's monopoly to underline that rejection. This being on the cusp of the Industrial Revolution, BTW.

Except that the British had no qualms about restricting free trade and enterprise in its colonies, as can be seen in Indian cloth and salt vs Liverpool salt.

Arguing that the need for licenses and restriction of trade= no Industrial Revolution is self-defeating, considering how Britain similarly limited competition to its own dominant industries in her colonial Empire.

Potentially profitable activity in opening up world trade by exploiting China’s sophisticated shipbuilding and navigational knowledge was simply forbidden.

RIIIGGHHHHTTTTTTT........ which is why Chinese traders dominated inter-straits trading in the SEA until the Portugese arrived.

Which amounts to exactly jack and shit. The Chinese may have dominated the straits, but the Europeans ended up owning the oceans.

And so? The statement "Potentially profitable activity in opening up world trade" is still false, right?

The Chinese did trade overseas. Arguing that Confucian philosophy prevented this from happening is wrong, because we know it HAPPENED.

But, again, as you have done throughout this thread, you refuse to consider just why this was the case except to indulge your bullshit handwaving about Chinese mysticism and corrupt rulers.

I did .I explictly stated that the Ming dynasty did not have the military and economic resources to spend outside of China to secure a colonial empire, choosing to spend those resources at HOME.

Did you not read these?

did not have a lasting impact because the Ming did not have the military resources to intervene in such vassal states affairs,

To put it simply, the massive treasure ship expeditions was a vast drain on resources, resources the Ming Dynasty desperately needed at home to maintain other social and military project.

No True Scotsman Fallacy. To attempt to argue this is to attempt to argue that Christian doctrine can only be defined by the pure, actual words of Christ. Unfortunately, Christian doctrine incorporates all the philosophical additions, interpretations, adaptations and goldplating from theologians over a period of nearly two millenia. The same thing applies to the consideration of what is defined as Confucian ideology.

So...........despite the fact that new technology and ideas contary to Confucius teachings was constantly introduced to China does not defeat this argument of Confucian teachings preventing the introduction of new technology and ideas?

This sir, is ABSURD. If you are not making this argument, then please pardon my language and correct me. But if not, then you're making a circular argument, by claiming that anything and everything done by the Chinese is Confucian in nature.

Except you ignore just why the Chinese never developed an expanding capital base or a corps of experts, and just how China ended up so weak as to be unable to resist European colonial incursion and exploitation. Which is exactly due to its Confucianist ideology stretching back centuries before the Europeans ever came knocking on their door.

Except that both the economy and technological level of China was constantly improving throughout the centuries. At no point in time did China hold a clear scientific advantage over Europe, what advantages it held was technological. If Confucian ideology prevented the Chinese from having these, pray tell why was it that China was stronger or equivalent to Europe in the past? Especially during the Han dynasty, when it was strongest, with little competition from other religions and philosophies?

But you will presume to argue it anyway in spite of your admitted ignorance in these areas. Sometimes, the comedy just writes itself.

Except that I'm not arguing that Confucianism did not prevent the Industrial Revolution from occuring in China. I'm arguing that Confucianisn did not prevent China from advancing at all, nor was it the key cause in China reforming and adapting to Western material superority.

A pity for your argument that the Chinese had actually domesticated the ox, the yak, and the horse as early as 4000 BCE and used those animals extensively for farmwork and heavy hauling.

Except that I'm not arguing that the Chinese did not have work animals.

Except it's an utterly inadequate argument which is destroyed by your own attempt at a rebuttal on another point: that up to the 17th century, European civilisation was "no less primitive or poor" than that of the Chinese. The Europeans also relied on intensive human labour power to farm the land the same as the Chinese did. So what marks the difference that one society decided to take the world apart to study the bits and from there develop the science which made the Industrial Revolution possible while the other, at the same level as the former, did not? A question you keep ducking and I suspect will continue to duck for as long as you believe you can keep it up.

Ok, first of all, both China and Europe had factories. The difference lay in the scale of machinery. Chinese iron and other industries were mostly cottage scale industries, similar to those that existed in Europe prior to the Industrial Revolution.

Science did not make the Industrial Revolution happen. It allowed for it to happen by making the technological developments such as the steam engine, but the Industrial Revolution was a machine mindset, ranging from centralisation of labour and machinery to produce goods at unprecedented levels.

[PainRack]

Edit:

Except that I'm not arguing that Confucianism did not prevent the Industrial Revolution from occuring in China. I'm arguing that Confucianisn did not prevent China from advancing at all, nor was it the key cause in China reforming and adapting to Western material superority.

What I meant was,

I'm not arguing that Confucianism did not prevent the Industrial Revolution from occuring in China. I'm arguing that Confucianism clearly didn't prevent China from advancing at all, since China did advance. Similarly, its was not the key cause in China not adopting and reforming to Western superority, rather, other hard factors such as capital and the like played a much more important role.

[Patrick Degan]

I'm sorry, but I'm still stuck on the idea that you stating that because the government doesn't follow Confucian teachings and that Its confuciuan teachings which is to blame for its ideology and governing style.

Except it was following Confucian ideology which promoted order and hierarchy of relationships above all things. Deny that as much as you like, toss in as many repetitions of the No True Scotsman Fallacy as you please, and the fact still doesn't change.

Really, trying to cite a single 300 year period out of a larger 1500 year stretch of time does not disprove the argument, no matter how much you wish it did.

And of course, how is any of my statements disproved? Are you going to argue that the Ming didn't have an overseas trading empire? Pray tell what is the significance of the Silk Road if not for its trade?

The Silk Road existed loooong before Confucius ever entered on the scene, so that really doesn't contribute to your argument. Nor does the brief Ming flirtation with an overseas trading empire since it was not followed up upon. Really, you're getting ridiculous with your endless attempts to argue that exceptions destroy the rule.

"Licensed and franchised industries" is not free enterprise. If people have to go to bureaucrats to seek permission to trade and operate businesses, then the system by definition is not one based on free enterprise by any stretch of the imagination.

Right......... because there is no such thing as registering a company or bidding for the right to make and sell goods in the Western economic model.

I was half-expecting you to attempt that ignorant comparison. Registering for a business license in modern-day capitalist societies is merely done for tax purposes. It is NOT the same thing as having to petition the government for official permission to be allowed to operate at all. And to have an expectation to receive that grant only if you're in with the ruling party.

Do you have any idea of the scope and scale of the salt and iron industries in China? The government chose to extract its revenue from these industries by "selling" the right to merchants rich enough to exploit them. The scale of the salt industry for example can be seen in the fact that it took until the early 20th century, during the American oil rush for an derrick to be dug deeper than the equivalent salt derrick in China. There is no indication that the extraction of revenue via selling licenses and the like limited these industries.

Which makes for a free enterprise system... how, exactly? Oh, that's right —IT DOESN'T! We're still talking about a government monopoly which only a select few persons are licensed to participate in. That is not free enterprise by any stretch of the imagination.

All that demonstrates is that the Chinese were the first to invent paper money. That does not demonstrate free enterprise anymore than the fact that the Soviet Union had paper money demonstrates free enterprise in that country. And I'd love to see you try to square the concept of free enterprise with conscript-labour.

Of course not. But the argument you were attempting to make is that the Chinese were limited in their economic endeavours because of government interference. Which is pure nonsense. We see the economic maturation of China via these means, and beside, conscript labour was generally phased out as a form of taxation by the Tang.

And yet you'll sit there and try to argue that licensed participation in government monopolies is free enterprise? That the withdrawal from international trade and the regulation that all ships be limited to a certain size to accomodate only two masts doesn't constitute government interference? You're arguments are all over the fucking map.

There are even arguments that the Chinese practiced a form of "options" in the silk industry.

Are you going to argue that Free Enterprise is the only possible model that can generate economic wealth and growth?

Yes, because it has been shown that IT WORKS! I'm sorry if this doesn't suit you, but the methodologies which produce the MOST —not least— effective results are the ones which set the standard for comparison.

No, we shall not since these are more Red Herrings. The central question is whether or not the Chinese had an economy based on a mercantilist paradigm —i.e. the handing out of restricted licenses to select individuals or concerns— or one based on individual entrepreneurship with as little official oversight as possible —the free enterprise paradigm.

And Mercantilism is not the only possible form of economic growth, nor does it form the sole basis of political and military form. The Germans and French practised a more traditional form of colonial exploitation of wealth as well as industralisation for example.

Which proved more successful than mercantilism, even with the flaws inherent in such colonial exploitation.

you stated "It's enshrinement of the primacy of authority, set formulas governing every aspect of life, and general rigidity are three forces stifling free inquiry and scientific development." If I have mistaken your meaning here, could you then elaborate and correct my mistake please?

Do you have a reading-comprehension problem? Is it really that impossible for you to grasp the idea that an ideology, especially one which is based on an Appeal to Tradition, can so completely ensnare the thinking of an entire society that it can exert a negative influence on free inquiry and scientific development? I should have thought the extracts from Vincent Shen would have underlined the point.

Because your "points" amount to cherry-picking the evidence. As for the other part of your "rebuttal", I can presume you're citing this as part of your attempt to prop up the weak argument that Chinese mysticism is the actual retardant force against scientific advance in that country. Except any cursory examination of Chinese thought demonstrates that the mystical componnent took the form rather of seeking a wholism in nature rather than belief in supernatural voodoo.

How is it cherry picking the evidence when all the influences you claimed that Confucius could be shown is incomplete? You claimed that Confucianism prevented China from advancing one millimeter. You then made the second claim that the socioeconomic structure of China was too rigid, and presumably laid this on the door of Confucian teachings as well. You thirdly argued that Confucian tradition presented a barrier that prevented the society from adapting and incorporating reform. Yet, at every single step where this has been shown to be inaccurate, you revert to the status quo.

So I guess when Joseph Needham, Vincent Shen, and every other analyst who has poured over this subject over decades, demonstrated the influence of Confucian ideology on Chinese social and intellectual life which did exert the retardant force on their development, and reached the same conclusions based on observation, they're also "reverting to the status quo"? I've made my cases, presented my evidence, and your response has been to keep moving the goalposts so you can claim that "the evidence is incomplete".

As for mysticism, what difference does it make what form it takes, if the very basis of experimental science did not take root because of it?

Translation: you have no real argument here but you're going to just keep handwaving by bring up the vaguely-defined Mysticism Boogeyman at every opportunity.

The problem with Confucian teachings lay not with either an acceptance or rejection of empiricism per-se but rather its inability to incorporate the concept of testing a theory for falsification and basing every line of inquiry on integration with a harmonic wholism of nature rather than examining the world in bits and pieces, which means taking it apart beforehand for measurement.

And I do not disagree with this in general. What I contest is the argument that the Chinese was robbed of the social and ideological tools to exploit these advances due to centuries of Confucian traditions. As can be easily seen, Confucian traditions did not prevent China from incorporating new technologies and culture in the past. From cavalry to cuisine and religions, we seen that China did adapt and incorporate new technologies. Even the Qing reformed its armies with muskets and other forms of guns, this as opposed to just retaining a spear based army. If your arguments was valid, the Qing would had been wielding swords and shields against cannon toting European armies, and they would not had purchased war material from the Americans to update their armies.

Once again, you try to cherry-pick exceptions to destroy the rule. The question is not whether the Qing adapted cannon and muskets (bought from an outside source) or bought American war materiel after the Revolution of 1911 but whether or not the Chinese had been hindered from independently developing their own technologies on a par or superior to a western civilisation they originally had several centuries on. It isn't enough to point to this or that little exception to counter the general observation in history of a society which by and large stagnated in its development in comparison to its rivals.

Pity that no serious analysis of Chinese cultural or scientific history agrees with you. You keep trying to point out exceptions that destroy the rule, but the fact remains that it really is not possible to separate the influence of Confucian ideology from any argument regarding the issue. The obsession with order and harmony, as outlined in the Five Relationships, created a culture in which the political sciences were non-existent and cemented the dynastic system in place. That same ideology also made the western conception of empiricism as testing theories for falsification as well as seeking knowledge for its own sake as opposed to purely practical aims an unknown quality.

AGAIN, I'm not claiming that Confucius isn't conservative. I'm contesting the argument that Confucian teachings laid such a strong influence on Chinese culture that they prevented any form of change, or deviation from its teachings is somehow impossible.

That's absurd. No philosophy or even religion is that strong.

The observation through history says otherwise.

You simply continue to ignore an overall pattern which is seen by examining a 1500 year stretch of Chinese history in which the Confucian ideology became cemented in place as the governing paradigm of Chinese society and intellectual inquiry.

I'm afraid I a bit confused as to what you're trying to say. May I enquire as to what you mean by the overall pattern, as well as its relevance to the topic?

Are you now degenerating into mere trollishness?

May I understand your argument to be different from what I think you're arguing then?You are arguing that the reason why science never emerged in China is because of Confucianist philosophy? And as such, this caused stagnancy in Chinese technology, which allowed for the West to eventually catch up and overtake it?

This as opposed to Confucianist philosophy being so strong that the Chinese could not adapt and incorporate new technologies and methods from overseas? Or that it prevented the Chinese from developing its own technology and methods, and limited Chinese economic and political endeavours, thus dooming them to be eclipsed by the West?

Asked and answered. Multiple times.

Which is sort of like attempting to argue that because Christ didn't say X, that means that X isn't really part of Christian doctrine as practised by the churches.

Yet, Confucian doctrine argued for miminal government interference and control. That is something that did not change until the Qing dynasty.

Unfortunately, Confucian doctrine is not limited strictly to the actual teachings and this has also been pointed out to you multiple times.

Which would be a nice rebuttal if the Tang Dynasty had endured and changed the course of Chinese history. It didn't.

Of course, you have proof that such a attitude existed during the Qing dynasty then? Or among the Ming?

Moving the Goalposts again, I see.

The fact that both the Ming and the Qing retained extensive trading outposts outside of its borders disprove this statement. If you're referring however to the exclusion of European trading in Chinese ports, may I remind you that the extremely favourable trade deficit was more desirable than open, free trade with the Europeans?

"Trading outposts" do not equal an open free market, which Ming and Qing China demonstrably lacked. Exclusionary practises by the regime also support my case, not yours.

I guess that whole "increasing rigidity" bit just sailed over that pointy head of yours, didn't it? We're not arguing the purity of Confucian ideology to Confucius' actual writings but how that ideology became fossilised and interpreted increasingly as the justification for increasing absolutism in all areas of governmental and intellectual inquiry.

No contest about Confucian being used to buttress government power and authority. Yet, can you show how Confucianist teachings was used to suppress alternative philosophies and ideas?

Whether or not Confucius' actual teachings stress suppressing alternative ideas is not a part of my argument, which I've more than made clear. However, Vincent Shen's observations have demonstrated how a Confucian approach to the investigation of nature denied the currents of logic which underlay the western scientific approach.

The philosophical dispute is far more than a historical curiosity. Through the centuries, China has struggled to find its proper place in the world. The pendulum has shifted back and forth between openness and insularity, between the spirit embodied in Zheng He and that of, say, Yang Rong, the Confucian tutor to the Emperor who argued for rolling back the power of eunuch adventurers like Zheng He. The Confucians won; China wouldn't emerge again as a naval force until the past decade or so, as it began to build up a sizable fleet, probe disputed islands like the Spratlys and project a presence in Asia's sea-lanes.

Right..... More simplistic arguments.

This coming from the person who's trying to pin China's woes on the vague Mysticism Boogeyman. How comical.

There is no doubt that the domestic party won the debate, however, the argument was not a simple "Confucius say we should never expand overseas" vs expansionism. It was a question of resource allocation between domestic social and military projects versus overseas expeditions. In this case, the decision to build the Great Wall of China as well as other social and military projects in China was taken as opposed to financing overseas expeditions. Similarly, the "vassal" states taken overseas were viewed as a finanical burden, and was unwelcome given the skewered Imperial system the Ming inherited.

Excuse me, but that decision was taken not due to overseas expenses anywhere near as much as isolationism decreed by the fourth Ming emperor, Xuande, who was reaffirming the initial closed-door policy of the first Ming emepror. And underpinning both decisions was the appeal to the Confucianist ideology, which as has been pointed out to you several times now, does not solely involve only the Pure Unadulterated Word of the Master.

Furthermore, to argue that this meant that China did not look overseas is also false. Again, Chinese ships dominated inter-straits trade in SEA until the Portugese arrived. The proclaimation against overseas trade was made three times in total, thus suggesting that smuggling, if not overt mercentile trade still occured. Furthermore, the proclaimation was made because of the belief of merchants supporting pirates, a belief in their rebellion against the throne. Last but not least, the Ming still retained a sizeable naval fleet until its demise. The last prince of the Ming dynasty died in a naval battle against the Qing.

Bragging upon that "sizeable naval fleet" compared to, say, the British Navy even at the time of the aforementioned battle is roughly about the same as trying to extol the record of the greatest hockey player in Ecuador. The rapid demise of a once formidable Chinese Navy actually bolsters the case regarding the country's overall political and intellectual stagnation.

The Qing dynasty didn't reject modernisation. They rejected Western culture. They were more than willing to accept telegraphs, cannon and other Western technologies. However, they came with strings attached and many officials, mired in the older systems which benefited them delayed reform.

Um, you realise you're actually supposed to present arguments which refute, not support, your opponent's case. Just what do you think those "older systems which benefitted" the aforementioned officials sprung from?

The ideological basis doesn't make sense when one considers that it didn't prevent them from adopting Western technology .At best, one can argue that it delayed adoption of foreign technology because of ethnocentrism.

The ideological basis makes eminent sense, as it largely interfered with wide-scale adoption of foreign technology, inhibited the domestic development of the same technology, and was what put China in the position of weakness it was in when the West came knocking on their doors and blasted them open.

No scientific background, Gracie? The people who invented gunpowder, printing with moveable type, the kite, canal irrigation, the pump, and had developed zoology, astronomy, and the principle of crop rotation centuries ahead of the west had "no scientific background"? That's not what Joseph Needham ever argued. That's not what any serious analysis of Chinese science and culture demonstrates at all. Nor is it demonstrated in any detailed examination of Chinese religious thought or philosophy.

Yes. No scientific background. The "theories" backing all of the technological innovations you stated was pure nonsense, based on chinese mysticism such as yin/yang, astrology and divination and the 5 elements. The Chinese detailed observation of the weather and the seasons were explained not using meterology, but as movements of the heavens and dragons, with the 4 dragon gods of the seas causing rain and wind, and of course, the Thunder and Lightning God had their role to play too. Even the much acclaimed compass had its mystical backing in fengshui.

Joseph Needham says your full of shit on this. And to again cite Vincent Shen's writings on the matter:

Linky

In J. Needham’s eyes, Hsun Tzu’s humanism perfectly exemplifies the ambivalent relation of Confucianism to science.16 On the one hand, Hsun Tzu preached an agnostic rationalism and even a denial of the existence of spirits. For him, the term "Tao" means the order of nature and the right way of human society. His socio-ethical orientation was shown in his exaltation of Li, the essence of rites, good customs and traditional observances. On the other hand, he strongly opposed to the efforts of the School of Names and the Mohists to work out a kind of discursive logic. He insisted on the practical and social uses of technological process while denying the importance of theoretical investigation.

J. Needham’s judgment upon Hsun Tzu is sound, but it does not tell the whole story.Viewed from the philosophy of science, Hsun Tzu’s ideological framework is favorable for the development of modern science and even for that of technology: an attitude of domination over nature by seizing her causal regularities and her transformation by technical process. In the following text, Hsun Tzu said:

Your glorify Nature and meditate on her,

Why not domesticate her and regulate her?

You obey Nature and sing her praises,

Why not control her and use her?

You look on the seasons with reverence and await them,

Why not respond to them by seasonal activities?

You depend on things, marvel at them,

Why not unfold your abilities and transform them?

You meditate on what make a thing,

Why not so order things, that you do not waste them?

You vainly seek into the cause of things,

Why not appropriate and enjoy what they produce?"17

Notice that this important text is interpreted by Needham as merely a protest against Taoists, especially Chuang Tzu’s preference for nature and negligence of man, and as exhibiting a certain legalist learning. In fact, it was not so simple, because here "to domesticate and regulate" and "control over the course of Nature" would mean an attitude of domination over Nature by using her causal regularities. "Unfold one’s abilities", "transform things" "order things and appropriate what they produce" would mean the application of technology in accomplishing things and transforming natural process.

Therefore Hsun Tzu had an ideological framework favorable to the development of science and technology in the modern sense. His difficulty consisted in the fact that he did not understand the importance of investigating "what makes a thing" and consequently missed the dimension of knowledge for knowledge’s own sake, the disinterested pursuit of truth. What he had in mind was a pragmatic and utilitarian vision of domination over nature and technological application.

As to the Neo-Confucians in the period of Sung and Ming Dynasties, their vision of the world was also very congruent with that of the modern natural sciences. In fact, as Needham’s studies have shown, Neo-Confucian philosophy in the Sung dynasty was connected with the golden period of natural sciences and technologies such as mathematics, astronomy, botany, zoology, architecture and military technology in Chinese civilization.18 For example, Chu Hsi’s (1033-1170 A.D.) emphasis on "the investigation of things" and "the extension of knowledge" were quite positive for the development of science. Chu Hsi held that all actual and potential principles are contained in the Great Ultimate, which is complete in all things as a whole and in each thing individually. The Great Ultimate involves both Li (logos) and Chi (physis) which, while seemingly dualistic, are never separate but in mutual complementarity. This philosophy of organism is, as Needham would suggest, quite analogous to that of Whitehead, without having passed through the stages corresponding to Newton and Galileo. But it is not fair to say, as Needham does, that this philosophical system was produced only by "flights of genius."19 I would suggest that it was rather a philosophical system achieved by deep philosophical meditation on the nature of reality and also by creative interpretation of the Confucian tradition. The function of reason it implied was therefore speculative and hermeneutic, without being scientific and operational. Classical Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism never took into consideration the interaction of the logico-mathematically structured theories with the systematically controlled experimentation, which, on the contrary, was the essence of modem science.

So you know just where you can shove your vaguely-defined Mysticism Boogeyman, don't you?

Here's a clue: it's the pattern which WORKED. I'm sorry if this doesn't suit you, but the methodology which produces the most, not the least, effective results is what sets the standard for evaluation.

So? The proof is in the pudding. The scale and extent of China economy and industry was not exceeded in the West until the Industrial Revolution. Whether or not this scale was reached via Western or Chinese methods is irrelevant.

VERY relevant —China got hopelessly overtaken in less than one hundred years by people they dismissed as barbarians because the "barbarians" discovered tools the Chinese were unable to twig upon themselves. That demonstrates which methodology was the more successful, whether you like the idea or not. And whether you like the idea or not is what's irrelevant in this discussion.

Except the West rejected the mercantilist paradigm which underlay the East India Company, and the British government ended up smashing the EIC's monopoly to underline that rejection. This being on the cusp of the Industrial Revolution, BTW.

Except that the British had no qualms about restricting free trade and enterprise in its colonies, as can be seen in Indian cloth and salt vs Liverpool salt. Arguing that the need for licenses and restriction of trade= no Industrial Revolution is self-defeating, considering how Britain similarly limited competition to its own dominant industries in her colonial Empire.

Nice try. Pity that this argument is defeated by the fact that Britain never closed her markets to outside goods, that the British reduced tarriffs on a more-or-less consistent downward curve from 1820 onward, repealed her Corn Laws in the 1840s, vigorously competed with foreign industries such as those of the French, the Germans, and increasingly the Americans through the latter part of the 19th century, and that her shipping industry was the number one competitor on the global stage right into the first decades of the 20th century.

Potentially profitable activity in opening up world trade by exploiting China’s sophisticated shipbuilding and navigational knowledge was simply forbidden.

RIIIGGHHHHTTTTTTT........ which is why Chinese traders dominated inter-straits trading in the SEA until the Portugese arrived.

Which amounts to exactly jack and shit. The Chinese may have dominated the straits, but the Europeans ended up owning the oceans.

And so? The statement "Potentially profitable activity in opening up world trade" is still false, right? The Chinese did trade overseas. Arguing that Confucian philosophy prevented this from happening is wrong, because we know it HAPPENED.

We also know it ENDED. The Chinese would never exploit that potential to its fullest. They withdrew from the world stage. They closed the doors. Deny it all you like and it makes that fact no less true.

I explictly stated that the Ming dynasty did not have the military and economic resources to spend outside of China to secure a colonial empire, choosing to spend those resources at HOME.

Did you not read these?

did not have a lasting impact because the Ming did not have the military resources to intervene in such vassal states affairs,

To put it simply, the massive treasure ship expeditions was a vast drain on resources, resources the Ming Dynasty desperately needed at home to maintain other social and military project.

I read them. I also observe that you continue to dance around the central issue and keep hoping it will simply go away. Unfortunately for you, it won't.

No True Scotsman Fallacy. To attempt to argue this is to attempt to argue that Christian doctrine can only be defined by the pure, actual words of Christ. Unfortunately, Christian doctrine incorporates all the philosophical additions, interpretations, adaptations and goldplating from theologians over a period of nearly two millenia. The same thing applies to the consideration of what is defined as Confucian ideology.

So...........despite the fact that new technology and ideas contary to Confucius teachings was constantly introduced to China does not defeat this argument of Confucian teachings preventing the introduction of new technology and ideas?

This sir, is ABSURD.

No sir, that is a STRAWMAN. Not your first one in this thread and I suspect it won't be your last one either.

If you are not making this argument, then please pardon my language and correct me. But if not, then you're making a circular argument, by claiming that anything and everything done by the Chinese is Confucian in nature.

Are you this dense in real life or merely pretending at it?

Except you ignore just why the Chinese never developed an expanding capital base or a corps of experts, and just how China ended up so weak as to be unable to resist European colonial incursion and exploitation. Which is exactly due to its Confucianist ideology stretching back centuries before the Europeans ever came knocking on their door.

Except that both the economy and technological level of China was constantly improving throughout the centuries. At no point in time did China hold a clear scientific advantage over Europe, what advantages it held was technological. If Confucian ideology prevented the Chinese from having these, pray tell why was it that China was stronger or equivalent to Europe in the past? Especially during the Han dynasty, when it was strongest, with little competition from other religions and philosophies?

Europe suffered the collapse of its civilisation, centuries of feudalism, plague, Christianity, internecene warfare and wasted the flower of its manhood and treasure on Crusades to attempt to reconquer the sacred sand from the Moselm infidel. The Chinese never had such a stretch of history which went so disasterously wrong for their civilisation and was able to more or less maintain a unitary culture through 2500 years, the odd political division or two notwithstanding. And given that Europe had lost what science it had from the Greeks and Romans and would not rediscover it again until the 1500s, the Chinese did indeed have a clear scientific advantage over Europe through that period. So did the Moslem Empire. Which makes China's story even more pathetic, given that they got overtaken so quickly and so completely by a people who only a very few centuries earlier were not much better than barbarians whereas they had the better, stronger, more advanced culture.

I'm not arguing that Confucianism did not prevent the Industrial Revolution from occuring in China. I'm arguing that Confucianism clearly didn't prevent China from advancing at all, since China did advance. Similarly, its was not the key cause in China not adopting and reforming to Western superority, rather, other hard factors such as capital and the like played a much more important role.

The problem with that argument is that you again, as you have been doing all along, are ignoring the ideological dimension to the problem. Sort of like attempting to debate the present state of Russia while ignoring Communism as a factor.

A pity for your argument that the Chinese had actually domesticated the ox, the yak, and the horse as early as 4000 BCE and used those animals extensively for farmwork and heavy hauling.

Except that I'm not arguing that the Chinese did not have work animals.

Then what was your point in even attempting to say that China's insularity was based on a human-centric attitude deriving from human-intensive labour for agriculture or attempting to argue the supposed lack of land to support large herds of horses?

Except it's an utterly inadequate argument which is destroyed by your own attempt at a rebuttal on another point: that up to the 17th century, European civilisation was "no less primitive or poor" than that of the Chinese. The Europeans also relied on intensive human labour power to farm the land the same as the Chinese did. So what marks the difference that one society decided to take the world apart to study the bits and from there develop the science which made the Industrial Revolution possible while the other, at the same level as the former, did not? A question you keep ducking and I suspect will continue to duck for as long as you believe you can keep it up.

Ok, first of all, both China and Europe had factories. The difference lay in the scale of machinery. Chinese iron and other industries were mostly cottage scale industries, similar to those that existed in Europe prior to the Industrial Revolution.

You really imagine that cottage industries are at all comparable to a fully industrial-scale economic machine?

Science did not make the Industrial Revolution happen. It allowed for it to happen by making the technological developments such as the steam engine, but the Industrial Revolution was a machine mindset, ranging from centralisation of labour and machinery to produce goods at unprecedented levels.

Without science, however, the Industrial Revolution would never have happened at all.

[PainRack]

Wipes slate clean..........


We seem to be arguing on two different topics now........

So...........despite the fact that new technology and ideas contary to Confucius teachings was constantly introduced to China does not defeat this argument of Confucian teachings preventing the introduction of new technology and ideas?

This sir, is ABSURD.


No sir, that is a STRAWMAN. Not your first one in this thread and I suspect it won't be your last one either.

Its not a strawman Because that was WHAT I thought you were ARGUING about. Why the FUCK do you think I kept asking you to CLARIFY your post? Why do you think my FIRST opening post was to ask you to ELABORATE your position? And your first elaboration was to say Japan changed, China didn't!

What do you think i have? Magical powers to read your mind? I can only GO by what you post!

Frankly, I been expending brain cells trying to reconcile the different posts and tangents you posted, and I just wish to ask a simple question to clarify your topic.

Are you arguing that China did not have a overseas trading empire because of Confucianism? That it did not expand throughout Asia because of Confucianism? That its industries and economy was limited because of Confucianism?

If that's the argument, then no, its not. Because we KNOW China had these things, the difference is in terms of scale.

Again, we know that trade existed DESPITE of any Confucianist ideology. The overseas trading outposts, the domination of inter-straits routes in SEA until the arrival of the Portugese in SEA shows otherwise.

Your attempts to prove otherwise is nonsenical. How is it that the Ming and Qing didn't continue their overseas trading posts, when the early histories of Temasek outside of Malay and Thai sources come from Chinese traders? An account of Singapore early days as a entrepot outpost of the British Empire? Comes from Wang Fu, a chinese trader.

If your argument is that Confucianism limited their spread, then I suggest that Mahan theories about seapower and a large land country with a land border to defend is sufficient to explain the disparity.

If the argument is that Free enterprise was forbidden by Confucius, then, no its not. Consider that we AREN"T discussing about economic models and the spread of wealth. We're talking about the scale of Chinese economic and industrial power. At any time in history, it was comparable to the Europeans prior to the Industrial Revolution. Sale and participation in a government controlled monopoly doesn't concern us, unless you can show that these two industries somehow prevented the Chinese from advancing technologically and industrially.

Do you have a reading-comprehension problem? Is it really that impossible for you to grasp the idea that an ideology, especially one which is based on an Appeal to Tradition, can so completely ensnare the thinking of an entire society that it can exert a negative influence on free inquiry and scientific development? I should have thought the extracts from Vincent Shen would have underlined the point.

Just to clarify something, your earlier post stated that you DIDN"T say Confucius restricted free will and inquiry, hence, my statement.

If you're wondering why I'm confused, look to your posts. You post conflicting statements at times.

I have no problem with the idea that Confucius thinking inhibited a western based scientific model from emerging, however, that doesn't change any of what I said. Chinese science was STILL based on the yin/yang dichotomy as set down by King Wu from the Zhou Dynasty, it was still based on the idea of Fengshui and mystical energies. Look at any chinese medical text, instead of using modern day methods of diagnosis, it still uses the old dichotomy of hot and cold and disharmony within the organs working disrupting the qi of the body.

If THAT is not an example of mysticism, then you have to tell me what scientific basis do Qi, Yin and Yang have. If rain falling is because of dragon gods is NOT an example of mysticism, pray tell what dragons have to do with the water cycle. If water divining is NOT an example of scientific quackary, pray explain to me what basis they have in science.

If you believe that a science based on these theories can ultimately compete with the experimental based methods of the West...................

Europe suffered the collapse of its civilisation, centuries of feudalism, plague, Christianity, internecene warfare and wasted the flower of its manhood and treasure on Crusades to attempt to reconquer the sacred sand from the Moselm infidel. The Chinese never had such a stretch of history which went so disasterously wrong for their civilisation and was able to more or less maintain a unitary culture through 2500 years, the odd political division or two notwithstanding. And given that Europe had lost what science it had from the Greeks and Romans and would not rediscover it again until the 1500s, the Chinese did indeed have a clear scientific advantage over Europe through that period. So did the Moslem Empire. Which makes China's story even more pathetic, given that they got overtaken so quickly and so completely by a people who only a very few centuries earlier were not much better than barbarians whereas they had the better, stronger, more advanced culture.

Just to nitpick, the collapse of the Han dynasty did the exact same thing in China. The six dynasties and the like are generally considered periods of anarchy similar to the Dark Ages of Europe.

Then what was your point in even attempting to say that China's insularity was based on a human-centric attitude deriving from human-intensive labour for agriculture or attempting to argue the supposed lack of land to support large herds of horses?

I was arguing that the cost of human labour vis a vis animal labour led to a focus on human labour, as opposed to machinisation.

That is one theory I seen advanced, although I have no idea about its external validity.

[Patrick Degan]

Gee, PainRack. A whole week and that pile of repetitive bullshit is the best you can come up with?

[Darth Wong]

Can someone recap precisely what the teachings of Confucius are and which ones are particularly "oppressive"? It is of course possible to have an extremely oppressive Confucian regime, just as it is possible to have an extremely oppressive regime dedicated to many other ideologies. But if someone is going to say that the religion itself is the most oppressive, it would be good to see examples.

Judaism and Christianity, for example, prescribe specific (and rather horrible) punishments for transgressions against the faith. That's right there in the ideology, not just a temporal governmental practice of a nation that happened to be Christian. What other religions are similarly and intrinsically oppressive?

[PainRack]

Gee, PainRack. A whole week and that pile of repetitive bullshit is the best you can come up with?

I would seriously, honestly, like to know what is the specifics of your argument though. It may not be obvious to you, but from my side, you keep attempting to argue on multiple fronts with unclear objectives and point of views.

As I repeatedly stated before, the question isn't whether Confucianism is or isn't conservative. It is, and it did exert a conservative influence on China that no doubt retarded its progress. My sole contention is with the argument that Confucianism retarded China so badly that it prevented it from either catching up or adopting the methods the West used to gain dominance.

Its just plain bullshit.

Yes, Confucianism ideology stated that China shouldn't expand and practise benevolence at the cost of power. However, China did expand, a look at her map borders show it.

Yes, Confucianist ideology placed merchants as parasites. However, by the era of the Tang dynasty and a rapidly evolving economy and taxation methodology that has moved away from the Han method of taxing goods and labour, the idea that merchants aren't neccesary has basically died out.

Yes, the court officials who pulled the rug on Zheng He expeditions were Confucianists in nature. However, that doesn't solve the basic issue that the reason why Zheng He expeditions were pulled was because the cost didn't justify the benefits in their eyes, and the Ming decided to place scarce resources on other social and military projects like the Great Wall. Furthermore, basic power projection issues meant that the vassal states system the Ming placed amongst the local states could not possibly be sustained in the face of the steppe peoples.

Yes, there was a decision to ban seaborne trade made by the Imperial court. However, history shows that the decision was never successfully enforced, furthermore, the actual target of the movement was against smuggling and pirates. Furthermore, you keep operating under the assumption that the chinese abandoned their overseas trading empire. History disproves this argument. The Bugis peoples traded with the Chinese for spices, with chinese junks forming the bulk of non canoe trade in the straits. Similarly, we learn from Malay sources that settlements like Malacca and Temasek(Singapore) contained chinese traders who had settled there. When the British ruled Singapore, it was Chinese traders who traded there and the account of Wang Fu tells us key details about early settlement life.

And of course, despite the rise of the Ang Kor Wat civilisation, trade in the Indochina area must had continued in order for China to have her supply of ivory and bird nest.

What was lacking was military adventurism overseas, and is easily explained by the military neccesity of the Ming dynasty to defend her northern borders against the steppe peoples. Even so, the Ming did expand into Indochina, incoporating it into her borders, compensating for the loss of chinese territory in the north.The Ming also exerted her military influence westward, encroaching into Tibet.

Your argument has been jumping from
"Japan changed, and China didn't, ergo, fault of Confucianism."
"China economy was retarded because of Confucianism"
"Confucianism retarded science because it ultimately failed to advocate the basic facets of science with its investigation of relationships and etc"

Unless I have honestly mistaken the thrust of your argument, which you keep insisting that I am but yet reverting to statements that somehow seem to say so, those statements are just, plain, simple, bullshit.

China failure to reform is based on physical faults.

Her economy showed no signs of being retarded. Despite your constant cant on lack of free enterprise, two government monopolies is not equivalent to economic stagnation especially when we don't see such a thing occuring. Her economy and production was in no way inferior to the West prior to the Industrial Revolution.


And frankly, unless you can show why Confucianism prevented the Chinese from industrialising, its impossible to place Confucianism as the key cause of the Chinese eventual decline.

Your only stand left is that Confucianism retarded Chinese science because of its authorative nature. A plausible argument, but frankly, one that I am unconvinced is worth a damn because Chinese science, as based on the Ba gua and other unscientific, mystical energies bullshit was highly unlikely to have allowed China to have overtaken the West.

[Patrick Degan]

Oh, puhLEEZE! YOU are going to try to say my arguments are all over the map when you've been jumping around from the Mysticism Boogeyman to trying to sell the idea that government monopolies and strict licensing somehow constitutes free enterprise to the desperate attempt to argue that the brief Ming flirtation with overseas commercial ventures and support for a large fleet under Adm. Zheng He somehow disproves the overall trend of Chinese history in every effort you've been marshalling to dodge the central question?!?

It, frankly, is to laugh.

[the wicked prince]

Point no 1. Except that China did expand and grow constantly despite Confucianist arguments. Han Wudi attempted to expand the Han empire to reclaim the lost Qin outposts,

And also thousands of miles across desert to the far west, to deprive the Hsiung Nu of the source of their wealth and procure heavenly horses descended from dragons in order to crush them nomads out of existence. A task at which they admirably succeeded.

the Tang exerted power into Indochina

and, of course, in every which way and deep into remote Central Asia. Along with open mindedness, full and serene self confidence, material wealth and vibrancy of culture. However, the loss of 2/3rd of the population (!) in an empire consuming nearly decade long rebellion by its own all conquering armies, the paralysis of the State for more than a century in the face of the same, and the prolonged and convulsive wars during and after the final end of the Tang certainly made its impression upon those who lived through those times. It is here that we reap the consequences of a runaway military:it is to the late and post Tang era that we attribute the origin of the term 'warlord'.

And it is here that, I think, the effects of Confucian doctrine upon Chinese development take upon a significant mantle, for it is after Tang that the Confucian schooled civil bureaucrats fully dominate the governmental elite, replacing the military aristocrats of earlier times. The founding of the Song sees the policy of the creation of a purposely weak stay at home military. Strong trunk, weak branches is the analogy. There were hardly even functioning police, and Song stories are full of bandits and robbers forming armies and sending the government forces running with a can of whup ass

Of course, Song had innovative economic policies and technology, social mobility, prosperity, but I am here talking about conquering the world Besides which, the Song was interrupted not by internal decay but simply outside military conquest, for which they have some part themselves to fault

, and of course, let's not forget the expansionist nature of the Yuan and Qing dynasty which conquered Tibet.

These are alien regimes, strictly speaking. They could not have left their martial ways else they could not have conquered in the first place.

[the wicked prince]

Of course, Song had innovative economic policies and technology

And the Tang had its own fantastic material culture, as the museum pieces can attest to and if the stories of automatons and amusement park rides, drinking party robots and elaborate serving contraptions can be believed. Certainly there are surviving specimens of some elaborate setups, although no clockwork contraption I am aware of. I am a fan of art and technological gadgets generally

[the wicked prince]

Which makes China's story even more pathetic, given that they got overtaken so quickly and so completely by a people who only a very few centuries earlier were not much better than barbarians whereas they had the better, stronger, more advanced culture.

Now, now, there's no need to be rude These things have a critical mass, so to speak, given the right conditions. America has exploded in population in power and it is a young country. And, to be fair, the Byzantine empire, in 1050 still a large, powerful, advanced descendant of the old Romans straight outta the age of Caesars, one of the premier civilizations of the world, was, by 1450, able to be bossed around and dangerously attacked by a mere city-state which had been formerly one of its border outposts

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Can someone recap precisely what the teachings of Confucius are and which ones are particularly "oppressive"? It is of course possible to have an extremely oppressive Confucian regime, just as it is possible to have an extremely oppressive regime dedicated to many other ideologies. But if someone is going to say that the religion itself is the most oppressive, it would be good to see examples.

I have studied quite a few of the "4 Classics" of Confucian, and frankly speaking I can't find the texts themselves being oppressive.

Not into much of the "Confucianism is the main blame on fucking China" debate, but when your Emperor is wanking over himself, and his most favored official owns like near half of the nation's riches, what would you expect him to learn from foreigners? And not only he doesn't want to learn, he forbids the foreigners to enter China. Oops, Confucian or not, this country is ready to be fucked.