Now, we are done with the Confucian problem. What is then the solution suggested by the Master to cope up to such problem?
Here, in his way of laying down the assumptions of the solution for the primal problem, the Master suggested a philosophy which lies on the allegiance of the people to the etiquette or decorum provided by (1) the Tao or the Way, (2) the original tradition, (3) the basic goodness and educability of a human being, and (4) of the primary developmental method of the Chun Tzu or the superior man.
We have mentioned earlier, in discussing the basic philosophical problem, about that of the Way or the Tao. It was said that it was the thing that did not prevailed during that time and such absence of it led to more branching problems, especially to that of the disharmony of the societies in the Ancient China. Well, what is really this Way anyway? The Tao or the Way is the 'good path', which somehow connotes it's being a certain moral; the guide of the people in living out their lives. But Confucius tells us that we are to interpret such not as some sort of a custom that is like that of the Westerner's naive and somehow theocratic, therefore, unrealistic idea of a detached rule which is separated from that of the human beings as supposed that it is for the good of a supreme one and not for that of the people. What the Master said is that, the Tao is not merely of a moral way that most of us associate to what promptly signifies a certain norm that is someway remote or detached from us, human beings, and is then attributed to a certain far-flung "idea" or "virtue" of who-knows-what-it-is that is technically not to be associated to that of the humans. Rather it is also referred as a social path; from the Latin word "socius" (Encarta Dictionaries) which means a "friend" or "living with others", because it is not far from that of the men and their relations to others. Thus, the Tao is also to be attributed to that of the human beings. As what Confucius put it: "The Way is not far from man. When a man pursues the Way and yet remains away from man, his course cannot be considered the Way." (D o t M, 13)
Such notion of the "Tao" in Ancient China as something that is associated to that of the human beings was somehow justified by that of the Filipino word "Tao", which means "human" or "man", which is one of the approximately 1,500 words (e.g. Bakya, Bantay, Pinto, etc.) that were adopted by the natives of the Philippine islands from the Chinese people during their transports and visits here in the Philippines a long time ago (Wang Ta-Yuan, 1990).
Now, since we are to describe the Tao as both moral and social. In other words, both depicts an ethical rule that will give measures of what to do and what to do not, and is something that is associated to that of the human good. Thus, the Tao, is the measuring stick of what would be good or not for the human beings (not for any sort of divine supremacy) which they must follow and be faithful about.
Aside from that of the Way, one must also offer sincere loyalty to that of the prime tradition; the familiarity that was somehow conserved and fundamentally lived on by the people that started from the past. What is then the significance of the past if we are to live with the present and to somehow plan for the future? According to Confucius, one must rely first to the past; to what is traditional and familiar, for by looking to what is prior, one can formulate new things which illustrates an innovation that will be used for the latest generation. As what he said: "A man who reviews the old so as to find out the new is qualified to teach others"(2:11). For since the teacher has this inner responsibility with him/her as a provider of authentic education, in order to be qualified as such kind of contributor, he/she must pass the assessment of having been loyal to that of the past in making a new thing; a new discovery. This is because there is this truth that one cannot create something new if he/she was not able to deal with the past. Because how can one know if that thing he/she created is really new? What if such already existed before, or is already something familiar, therefore, now new at all? Such makes the past as the very key of the present; it is the one who made the present the way it appears now, like the way the present makes how the future would look like tomorrow. For example, when we do have a check-up with a doctor, we need to fill up this kind of form where we can find a list of illness/diseases that are for us to indicate whether we acquired it lately or not. Just like in my physical examination for our field work, I was given this form and I marked such infirmities I had in the past; Yes, in the past. Now, why is there a need to indicate such past ailments? I mean, I am fine now, and such ailments are not present in me anymore (except Amoebiasis though), but why is it still needed to mark those "past" things? It is because, it will help the physician/doctor to know more about my medical conditions, to advice me on what to do now, and to prohibit me on what to not to do now. Yes, the past helps the present. Thus, things are to be considered not "made" or "created", for such are only "transmitted" from that of the past like how this whole present thing will be transmitted later on to the future. (BLOG: Looking back...)
Like that of the Tao, Confucius perceived such tradition as something that demands fidelity, respect and appreciation from that of the people. In other words, we are to be steadfast and sensitive enough to that of our past, even if we are to live with the present or to plan for the future. This is for someday, somehow, such will be considered as the past too which will also provide enough ideas and matters that will open up the door of something new later on.
Next thing to be paid adherence to, according to Confucius, is the basic goodness and educability of man. From the word "basic", we can picture out that this two things, goodness and educability, is already there; something that is already given or rudimentary. Yes, rudimentary, for it acts as a vital root of things; the central primordial piece which offers an avenue for development and change. Such basicness, therefore primitiveness (like that of the prime tradition) of these two suggests and somehow justifies the idea that such must also be adhered and obeyed by the people.
The basic goodness of man referred here is the nature of a person to be good; to be upright from the beginning of his/her life. As what Muller said: “Man is straightforward at birth. Once they lose this, they rely on luck to avoid trouble”(Muller). Such statement of Muller reiterated the point of Confucius as provided in the Analects: “Man is born with uprightness. If one loses it he will be lucky if he escapes with his life” (6:17) and that of Mencius’ testimony that “man is basically good”(Text of Sir Rex Rola). Such assertions given by the following scholars and masters of knowledge somehow propose that the basic goodness of man is really a thing; that it really exists, which could be later on interpreted as something that unifies all of us by nature, despite of our differences which were brought up by our later experiences. As for what the Master said: “By nature men are alike. Through practice they have become far apart”(17:2).
Aside from that of goodness, a man also carries with him/her his aboriginal nature as an educable being; his/her basic educability. Yes, we are definitely crafted with us our innate desire to learn. In our childhood, we can observe ourselves to be curious about everything that passes our mere senses. We sometimes caught ourselves during these early years of ours to wonder how and why things appear the way they are. In other words, even to that of our innocent and somehow unconscious stage, we were able to gain interest to that of education. Well, not necessarily the formal one which we acquire later in school. Education here, refers to that of obtaining knowledge from any medium that somehow crosses one’s life; it could be people, experience, or virtues, etc. Such primal educability of a person was then given emphasis by Confucius when he suggested that he “will only give education to those who are interested for it” (7:8). Somehow, I think the logic here is that, since all of us have this kind of hunger of that of learning in us for, again, it is one of the basics for us to have, there is nobody who will be left untouched by that of education. Thus, education is indeed for everyone!
Lastly, Confucius also enlisted the primary method of developing oneself to a Chun Tzu as one of the things to be abided by the people. The Chun Tzu or the noble man, however, of that of the traditional Chinese (the Chun Tzu in the soceital disharmony) which they referred as the “son of a lord”; a person that is associated with aristocracy, nobility and of decency and in contrast of that hoi polois; the lower classes, is different to that of what Confucius referred here as the Chun Tzu. For the Master, Chun Tzu is not necessarily of a royal blood, nor must be of kingly influence, because Chun Tzu here is the ideal, or simply say, the “superior man”; the person who seeks the practice of the virtues first than that of his own desires or preferences. It’s like the superior man is to virtue while the inferior man, which is the opposite of that of the Confucian Chun Tzu, is to personal gain. Although the Master used the same name which associates that of the noble man because perhaps, he could somehow use it as an example for that of the unrectified names, and by that, it could be that he suggested that the authentic Chun Tzu is not to be identified as an imperial character, but rather as a virtuous individual whose influence could be not that of power, but of righteous disposition in life. Such superior man of Confucius then opened the avenue for the non-royal people to become an integral part in the society, as long as they are to observe and live with the virtues; to become exemplars themselves and be able to carry out the said virtues all of us, as Confucius would say, must have. Thus, allowing everyone to aspire as a Chun Tzu themselves.
Yes, of virtues. These virtues then is the keys to make up a superior man. And since it allows the development of one to become a superior man, such virtues, like the Way, the tradition, and the basic goodness and educability, must be embraced and obeyed by the people, especially those who want to become a superior man themselves. Such development then turns out to solve the basic philosophical problem as it suggests a moral character which is to implement harmony and peace by the use of such virtues which fabricates the superior man, as referred by Confucius.
As we are to observe the following propositions given by Confucius in dealing with the basic philosophical problem, we can conclude that his philosophy here is the act of adherence that people should give to that of the etiquettes and protocols as suggested by the values given by the Master himself; starting from that of the Tao, up to that of the development of the Chun Tzu. In other words, it is the obedience and loyalty which one gives to that of the recommended standards of Confucius which we can say is the precept or principle, or simply, the philosophy of the Ancient Chinese in solving the main problem as how Confucius would see it.
(REFERENCES ARE TO BE UPDATED)
No comments:
Post a Comment