Thank you so much, i have a sacratic circle tomorrow (im a freshman by the way) in honors world history about this discussion. Didn't wanna read a really long passage so this helped me alot💜
In my personal experience I find that Xunzi's view of human nature is more clear and leaning to truth. I also admire the equally well known statesman Han Fei and the school of legalism as a whole. As human beings it is clear that we have natural tendencies towards immoral acts, it is necessary to forcibly contain these traits. I believe that malevolent intent is more persuasive than benevolent intent, though benevolent intent feel better. A well organised and law enforced society is the only true check we have against our violent temperaments.
Partially correct. But who checks the evil people in government? The American Constitution believes the liberty of the people checks government, for it can't be assumed government will check itself properly. When a lady asked Ben Franklin what they gave them, he replied _"A republic, ma'am; if you can keep it."_
@@jimzheng4912 While I take in your view, I think it's a bit of a moot point. My main argument was that laws and institutions are the check themselves. I get it on who is going to check immoral governance, the thing is immorality in governance stems from complicity. If the people don't mind corruption as long as it fills their stomach, then they themselves are to blame for their misfortune. Corrupt officials are elected and backed by corrupt supporters whether poor or wealthy alike. Laws are what separate us from beasts and they must be strict and ruthless upon all levels of society.
@@HeroHoundoom Laws can be changed. And so what protects people from immoral laws? The Americans invented the idea of God-given rights. I think that's a good solution. Rights check against immoral legislation. Good legislation checks citizens. Citizens check legislature. Ultimately, it's the idea of God-given rights that keeps everything together I think.
@@jimzheng4912 Confucianism teaches that people should not tolerate an immoral unfit government. I definitely agree that people do need protecting in some way from a government in some way.
The entire village must drink from one cup to learn that elders deserve most respect. This is the best life humans could live. Why isn't this bullshit?
because western people dont get community strength, you are just individual animals who have nothing to stand for, hence u dont know who ur real father is :D
This is reactionary conservative regresive bullcrap. Such teaching become popular just because the easterners never advanced logic to the level that Aristotle and thous tha folowd after him did. Also because China had it worst that Europe, there wasn't that much plurality in leadership, so the totalitarian rulling class prefered this conservative philosophy. So was the reason defeted in the east.
There are actually many ideas that Confucius had in common with Aristotle; the notion of the Golden Mean, the finest moral life being one dedicated to public service, the idea of bettering oneself through habitual moral action, etc. As for Reason, many of the world's greatest inventions (as well as art and poetry) originate from China, such as gunpowder, movable type, compasses, and paper. For many parts of it's history, China was the wealthiest, most intelligent, and most culturally flowering nation on earth.
@@jonkeuviuhc1641 aristotle was not logical nor good, he trained the world's first fasist diktator alexander and his blood thirsty imperialist conquests....also every scientific thing aristotle said has been debunked....also his life philosophy s u c k s .....aristotle believed in gods on olympus, go figure.
The problem is the definition of good and evil. The idea of good and evil is not the same for all people, and the same motivators can act behind "good" and "evil" acts. For example someone who is incredibly greedy might protect those he thinks of as "his friends" or "his loved ones" more than himself, thus showing selflessness, for a selfish reason. Is he evil because he is acting on his selfish impulse to protect things that are important to him, or good for protecting others? Good and evil don't truly exist. As Xunzi argues, we are born evil, and with selfish intentions. It is necessary for us to channel those desires in a productive way, and refrain from destructive desires.
Well the Torah say's that when man was created by God and He finished His creating He looked over all of it and said that it was good, not just good but very good, so yes man is good and created in God's image but after man disobeys God and eats from the tree that God forbid him to eat from sin had entered the world and man has since carried with him the marr of sin and now has a natural leaning and bent and propensity towards sin which is missing the mark which is always love.
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: The Sleeping Beauty Problem [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5Cqbf86jTro/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: The Sleeping Beauty Problem [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![PHILOSOPHY - Ancient: Mengzi (Mencius) on Human Nature [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qvmxbDomk90/mqdefault.jpg)
![[BLACKSWAN] ‘Roll Up’ Official Music Video](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ulvCwyKrwqw/mqdefault.jpg)
Watched this before my ethics class today and it helped out. Thanks!
Thank you so much, i have a sacratic circle tomorrow (im a freshman by the way) in honors world history about this discussion. Didn't wanna read a really long passage so this helped me alot💜
This is much better than the boring lectures on our Institute and also very easy to understand the concept,
Thank you, I'm writing an essay of the Xunzi and you helped me see the context. I was getting lost in details
In my personal experience I find that Xunzi's view of human nature is more clear and leaning to truth. I also admire the equally well known statesman Han Fei and the school of legalism as a whole. As human beings it is clear that we have natural tendencies towards immoral acts, it is necessary to forcibly contain these traits. I believe that malevolent intent is more persuasive than benevolent intent, though benevolent intent feel better. A well organised and law enforced society is the only true check we have against our violent temperaments.
Partially correct. But who checks the evil people in government? The American Constitution believes the liberty of the people checks government, for it can't be assumed government will check itself properly. When a lady asked Ben Franklin what they gave them, he replied _"A republic, ma'am; if you can keep it."_
@@jimzheng4912 While I take in your view, I think it's a bit of a moot point. My main argument was that laws and institutions are the check themselves. I get it on who is going to check immoral governance, the thing is immorality in governance stems from complicity.
If the people don't mind corruption as long as it fills their stomach, then they themselves are to blame for their misfortune. Corrupt officials are elected and backed by corrupt supporters whether poor or wealthy alike. Laws are what separate us from beasts and they must be strict and ruthless upon all levels of society.
@@HeroHoundoom Laws can be changed. And so what protects people from immoral laws? The Americans invented the idea of God-given rights. I think that's a good solution. Rights check against immoral legislation. Good legislation checks citizens. Citizens check legislature. Ultimately, it's the idea of God-given rights that keeps everything together I think.
@@jimzheng4912 Confucianism teaches that people should not tolerate an immoral unfit government. I definitely agree that people do need protecting in some way from a government in some way.
@@jimzheng4912 I love these replies.
this is a presentation very but very good
Thankyou, Any primary sources I could use for an essay? Much appreciated! Subscribed and will spread the word.
The presentation is very knowledgeable. May I use this in our class report? Thank you.
Nice presentation of "xing e" chapter.
Very simple yet thorough explanation. Thank you. What program did you use to present this?
+Wilford Coromandel Videoscribe by Sparkol.
wonderfully clear. thank you, Prof. Wong. 🤎💜
There's no such thing as a fixed human nature. We evolve or devolve over time
Good for whom? Bad for whom? Do people ever commit violence on others claiming it’s good for them? Or that they are right?
Yes they do. Every. Single. Time.
I always liked xunzi. His ideas match up with the idea of “original sin” in biblical theology.
I was brought up by cats. Whos bad?
Wu hsin ih
5:20 might ma? Ahaha good night voladores
The entire village must drink from one cup to learn that elders deserve most respect. This is the best life humans could live. Why isn't this bullshit?
because western people dont get community strength, you are just individual animals who have nothing to stand for, hence u dont know who ur real father is :D
This is reactionary conservative regresive bullcrap. Such teaching become popular just because the easterners never advanced logic to the level that Aristotle and thous tha folowd after him did. Also because China had it worst that Europe, there wasn't that much plurality in leadership, so the totalitarian rulling class prefered this conservative philosophy. So was the reason defeted in the east.
There are actually many ideas that Confucius had in common with Aristotle; the notion of the Golden Mean, the finest moral life being one dedicated to public service, the idea of bettering oneself through habitual moral action, etc. As for Reason, many of the world's greatest inventions (as well as art and poetry) originate from China, such as gunpowder, movable type, compasses, and paper. For many parts of it's history, China was the wealthiest, most intelligent, and most culturally flowering nation on earth.
@@jonkeuviuhc1641 aristotle was not logical nor good, he trained the world's first fasist diktator alexander and his blood thirsty imperialist conquests....also every scientific thing aristotle said has been debunked....also his life philosophy s u c k s .....aristotle believed in gods on olympus, go figure.
Antinatalism FTW!
Natalism FTW!
Mengzi has a much more realistic and truthful view of humanity, he wins this debate. HUMANS FTW!
@HanselManCan If one wishes to achieve good in unhealthy manner then it becomes evil
@@christopherlin4706 that makes no sense
mengzi is a empty bubble
@@redblueyellowprimarycolors1801 you make no sense
The problem is the definition of good and evil. The idea of good and evil is not the same for all people, and the same motivators can act behind "good" and "evil" acts. For example someone who is incredibly greedy might protect those he thinks of as "his friends" or "his loved ones" more than himself, thus showing selflessness, for a selfish reason. Is he evil because he is acting on his selfish impulse to protect things that are important to him, or good for protecting others?
Good and evil don't truly exist. As Xunzi argues, we are born evil, and with selfish intentions. It is necessary for us to channel those desires in a productive way, and refrain from destructive desires.
Xunzi sucks.
Well the Torah say's that when man was created by God and He finished His creating He looked over all of it and said that it was good, not just good but very good, so yes man is good and created in God's image but after man disobeys God and eats from the tree that God forbid him to eat from sin had entered the world and man has since carried with him the marr of sin and now has a natural leaning and bent and propensity towards sin which is missing the mark which is always love.