Talk:Chinese philosophy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Main Schools of Thought

Feel free to rewrite the summaries; I was lazy and copied and pasted them from the main articles. 24630 23:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparison between Chinese and Western philosophy

The whole section are contradictory when mentioned the universal value of Chinese philosophy. For example, Confucianism are against legalism. Chan/Zen never belief in collective thinking. --Sltan 06:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC) - agreed. should consider editing that section for truth

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

History

they were stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.158.240 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC) When the Communist Party took power, previous schools of thought were NOT were denounced as backward immediately. It is mainly during the period of Cultural Revolution - a relatively short period - that they have been denounced so.

Well, I'm not quite sure. Many Chinese intellectuals (like Lun Xun) have denounced ancient Chinese thought as backward even before CP took power and argued that Daoist or Confucianist ideology was the cause of China's lack of progress during XIXth century. However, I agree that this topic should be rephrased in the article. gbog 05:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Teaism deletion/merge

it would be great to have some input from editors with experience on tea ceremony. icetea8 (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Direction

Two points: this article seems to be confused over religion and philosophy. I know that the two mix at some level, but philosophy is usually written down and is logically coherent. The sections on Chinese religious beliefs during the Shang while great for an article on Chinese religious beliefs seem out of place here.

Second, I think it needs to be decided if this article is more going to be a gateway to other articles about specific Chinese philosophies like the Great philosophical figures section, or should there be an attempt to create a chronological history of Chinese philosophy and its developments. Does anyone know how the philosophy sections handle a subject as big as this? --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Some questions

Since Confucius was commonly accepted to have been born in 551 B.C., isn't it a bit strange to say his Analects were published in 600 B.C.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.183.229 (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

the key word is "around" because it is also including the Tao te Ching24630 04:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The analects was probably created by Confucius' students or even his student's students. It is largely part of Chinese historigrahy that remainagines him having sat down and authored the analects and compiled/edited the Confucian classics. It is the same exact process that led to the attribution of parts of the bible, sometimes written many decades after the deaths of their supposed authors. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Expert Needed

I think someone made a lot of this up off the top of their head.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Philosophy and religion doesn't even have Chinese Philosophy.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a degree in Chinese philosophy and I can tell you from my brief perusual of the article that it is not /that/ bad. Most of the problems are sins of ommission and I think this article should be more a history of Chinese philosophy (since it will be more conducive to connecting to other pages that way) rather than going the philosophy route. Will be editing the article so be on the look out! --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, it's almost completely rewritten and greatly expanded, so I definitely have no problem with removing that expert tag. I'll look forward to it. Thanks!—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 09:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What means "If one must rule, rule young" ?

In Taoism, there was a sentence "If one must rule, rule young". But I can not understand it, and it is doubtful. What means it ? and where is basis in books of Taoism? --Adan (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Taoism

Taoism though it traces its roots back into pre-confucian times is not really an organized religion until the introduction of Buddhism in the Three Kingdoms Era. Treating it as an organized philosophy on the level of Confucianism is a big mistake, especially since Laozi's text cannot be verified as even being used until well after the Han Dyansty by Taoists. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Taoism as a coherent philosophy was formulated later than is generally thought. A lot of ideas commonly thought of as Taoist actually originated in ideas of the Naturalist school and earlier, such as from the iching. But my area of expertise is Legalism.FourLights (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hundred Schools and Chinese philosophy

The content of Hundred Schools of Thought and Chinese philosophy are similar in content. In hundred schools of thought, might it be more useful to give the definitions of the stated texts, and direct users to the Chinese philosophy page for the overviews? Because if I can, that's what I'll try and do if there's no objection, moving relevant material to the other page. Otherwise, if we do not want to have the book statements, we've just got duplicate pages here, and they ought to be merged. I also think it's very unscholarly to list them according to original source and then give a modern commentary, whereas people might actually appreciate having the statements of the books themselves at hand.FourLights (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605205614/http://ringmar.net/europeanfury/?page_id=1594 to http://ringmar.net/europeanfury/?page_id=1594

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chinese philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704160934/http://www.literati-tradition.com/space.html to http://www.literati-tradition.com/space.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704160751/http://www.literati-tradition.com/time.html to http://www.literati-tradition.com/time.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

we need real belief to explain modern china

Chinese believe in pragmatism. Anything that works, Any means that are effective and not unethical is acceptable.

Chinese believe in mutual benefit. they are good at negotiating and they will make sure you didn't get more than you should.

Chinese traditionally don't believe in after sales service, especially in small stores, so check your changes and goods before you leave.

Some Chinese are cautious towards strangers. They don't believe strangers by default. trust takes time to build.

Chinese prefer good words then truth. Say nice things and you will be fine.

That's my experience after being chinese for 18 years =) _______________-

This comment makes no sense. Your experience in stores are not relevant in an article of chinese philosophy. When I meet an american in the store I dont draw up conclusions about american philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.164.139.134 (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Commentary on article improvement

I moved the above from the article lead, because it seems to be directed towards Wikipedia editors rather than the general reading public (thus, more suited to the "discussion page"). Dcattell (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Article would be better more historical

This article would be better if it were more exacting and detailed in it's history and the development of said philosophies. I will probably try to develop this article at some point, but I currently have a backlog of a few other articles to work on.FourLights (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)