Legalist Irony

Free discussion of anything human or divine ~ Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality

Moderator: Fist and Faith

Post Reply
User avatar
Holsety
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3490
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Principality of Sealand
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Legalist Irony

Post by Holsety »

The following occurred to me while consulting my friend's copy of Chinese philosophy, containing some chapters by legalist philosopher Han Feizi:
In the age of remote antiquity, human beings were few while birds and beasts were many. Mankind being unable to overcome birds, beasts, insects, and serpents, there appeared a sage who made nests by putting pieces of wood together to shelter people from harm. Thereat the people were so delighted that they made him ruler of All-under-Heaven and called him the Nest-Dweller. In those days the people lived on the fruits of trees and seeds of grass as well as mussels and clams, which smelt rank and fetid and hurt the digestive organs. As many of them were affected with diseases, there appeared a sage who twisted a drill to make fire which changed the fetid and musty smell. Thereat the people were so delighted that they made him ruler of All-under-Heaven. In the age of middle antiquity, there was a great deluge in All-under-Heaven, wherefore Kung and Yü opened channels for the water. In the age of recent antiquity, Chieh and Chow were violent and turbulent, wherefore T`ang and Wu overthrew them.

Now, if somebody fastened the trees or turned a drill in the age of the Hsia-hou Clan, he would certainly be ridiculed by Kung and Yü. Again, if somebody opened channels for water in the age of the Yin and Chou Dynasties, he would certainly be ridiculed by T'ang and Wu. That being so, if somebody in the present age praises the ways of Yao , Shun Kung , Yü , T`ang , and Wu , he would, no doubt, be ridiculed by contemporary sages.

That is the reason why the sage neither seeks to follow the ways of the ancients nor establishes any fixed standard for all times but examines the things of his age and then prepares to deal with them.

There was in Sung a man, who tilled a field in which there stood the trunk of a tree. Once a hare, while running fast, rushed against the trunk, broke its neck, and died. Thereupon the man cast his plough aside and watched that tree, hoping that he would get another hare. Yet he never caught another hare and was himself ridiculed by the people of Sung. Now supposing somebody wanted to govern the people of the present age with the policies of the early kings, he would be doing exactly the same thing as that man who watched the tree.
If you ignore the above argument, following the ways of the ancients and establishing a fixed standard for all times, it clearly follows that you would be doing exactly the same thing as that man who watched the tree.

But if you lend your ear to it, and lend credence to it, choosing not to follow the way of the ancients and lacking established fixed standards for all times, it still follows that you would be doing exactly the same thing as the man who watched the tree. For no matter how you tried, Han Fei Zi is now one of the ancients, and if you failed to follow all the others you would consequently follow him.

Lending your ear and credence to Han Fei Zi, you are condemned to never follow his advice, or follow his advice and in so doing not follow it.

Chinese Legalist Nietzche: "Sage is dead."
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 62038
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Contact:

Post by Avatar »

Why does lacking established fixed standards equate to expecting something that has happened in the past to happen again?

--A
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

There is an easy answer to this: when a problem occurs during your time, then get busy solving the problem.

If your solution is the same as a solution used in the past, then you haven't done anything wrong--you weren't necessarily copying the past but you might not have ignored them, either, especially if you researched previous soltuions to the problem.

The lesson to learn here is that you should never rely solely on what people in the past have done; rather, you should start from where they left off and continue on from there. There is no point in reinventing the wheel every generation or so.

The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 62038
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Contact:

Post by Avatar »

Makes sense to me.

--A
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10623
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Legalist Irony

Post by Vraith »

Holsety wrote: But if you lend your ear to it, and lend credence to it, choosing not to follow the way of the ancients and lacking established fixed standards for all times, it still follows that you would be doing exactly the same thing as the man who watched the tree. For no matter how you tried, Han Fei Zi is now one of the ancients, and if you failed to follow all the others you would consequently follow him.

Lending your ear and credence to Han Fei Zi, you are condemned to never follow his advice, or follow his advice and in so doing not follow it.
This reminds me of the argument over who has dogmas and who doesn't. The answer is no, the two are not the same, there is no paradox, they are different kinds of things...and they provide different answers [for example, a person "Lending an ear" to Han right now wouldn't be staring at a tree...s/he'd be out hunting rabbits.]
The first involves looking at the rules and doing what they say. The second involves looking at what is happening and doing what needs to be done.
The real irony is perception of paradox where it doesn't exist.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
Post Reply

Return to “The Close”