Tattooing, amputation of the nose or feet, removal of the reproductive organs and death became the main five forms of the punishment system during this period. Confucianism is often characterized as a system of social and ethical philosophy rather than a religion. In fact, Confucianism built on an ancient religious foundation to establish the social values, institutions, and transcendent ideals of traditional Chinese society.
Confucius B. His teachings, preserved in the Analects, focused on creating ethical models of family and public interaction and setting educational standards. Where was legalism founded? Category: religion and spirituality buddhism.
How was legalism created? What kind of government did legalist favor? Ancient China. Question Answer What kind of government did legalists favor? What is good legalism? Is legalism used today? What is legalism in religion? During the Warring States Period of Chinese history, from to BCE, what we now think of today as China was divided into seven competing nations.
Legalism remains highly influential in administration, policy and legal practice in China today. Legalism was spread through the teachings of important legalist figures as well as through its adoption by political leaders. Legalist is a small, fast-growing fintech startup disrupting a booming new asset class. Our mission is to help plaintiffs in meritorious lawsuits see justice.
Despite its long history, the Great Wall of China as it is exists today was constructed mainly during the mighty Ming Dynasty Like the Mongols, the early Ming rulers had little interest in building border fortifications, and wall building was limited before the late 15th century.
Taoism also spelled Daoism is a religion and a philosophy from ancient China that has influenced folk and national belief. Taoism has been connected to the philosopher Lao Tzu, who around B. The legalism shut out at one entrance gains admittance at another, and the result in either case is the same. I remain convinced that the parable has little or nothing to do with classic legalism at all.
It lasted from to B. The years from to B. Both terms are similar to fa but are narrower in their meaning, referring primarily to a variety of means through which the ruler controls his officials. This is what the ruler should hold. Yet amid the strong emphasis on the power of techniques, rules, laws, and regulations, we can discover the sober realization that even these are not always enough, and that a perfect administrative system simply cannot come into existence.
Thus, in one of the later chapters of the Book of Lord Shang it is said:. Nowadays, [the ruler] relies on many officials and numerous clerks; to monitor them he establishes assistants and supervisors. Assistants are installed and supervisors are established to prohibit [officials] from pursuing [personal] profit; yet assistants and supervisors also seek profit, so how they will able to prohibit each other?
Insofar as techniques and rules are implemented by self-interested—or simply erring—human beings, the question remains: to what extent can the impersonal mode of rule cure the intrinsic maladies of the bureaucratic system cf. Van Norden ? This evaluation should be qualified, though. Rather, their distinctiveness was in their pronounced anti-ministerial stance. This stance is exemplified by the following saying of Shen Buhai:. Now the reason why a ruler builds lofty inner walls and outer walls, looks carefully to the barring of doors and gates, is [to prepare against] the coming of invaders and bandits.
But one who murders the ruler and takes his state does not necessarily climb over difficult walls and batter in barred doors and gates.
Creel , translation modified. This warning epitomizes what may be considered the major dividing line between Legalists and their opponents. Despite their pronounced belief in monarchic form of rule, most thinkers of the Warring States period insisted that the monarch would never succeed without a worthy aide. Their common desideratum was attaining harmonious relations between the ministers and the rulers; not coincidentally, the common simile of these relations was that of friends, i.
One of the most radical manifestations of this pro-ministerial mindset of the Warring States era was the idea of abdication, according to which a good ruler may consider yielding the throne to his meritorious aide Allan ; Pines For Legalists, in contrast, this very idea proved that the pro-ministerial discourse of their rivals was usurpation in disguise.
They added a few new dimensions to this overarching monarchistic discourse. Goldin 3—4. As such, his power is conceived not as the means of personal enjoyment but as the common interest of his subjects.
Shen Dao elaborates:. In antiquity, the Son of Heaven was established and esteemed not in order to benefit the single person. Hence the Son of Heaven is established for the sake of All under Heaven, it is not that All under Heaven is established for the sake of the Son of Heaven….
Even if the law is bad, it is better than absence of laws; thereby the hearts of the people are unified. Shenzi , 16; Harris Shen Dao presents his political credo with rare clarity. A ruler is crucial for the proper functioning of the political system; he is the real foundation of political order, not a beneficiary but rather a servant of humankind.
Significantly, the ruler attains these blessed results by the sheer fact of his existence and not due to his morality or intelligence. As Shen Dao clearly states, bad laws are better than a lawless situation, and we may infer that a bad ruler is better than anarchy. As long as the ruler preserves his power intact, i. Otherwise, turmoil is inevitable. Shen Dao warns:. When the Son of Heaven is established, he should not let the regional lords doubt [his position]; when a lord is established, he should not let nobles doubt [his position]; … Doubts bring commotion; doubleness [of the sources of authority] brings contention, intermingling brings mutual injury; harm is from sharing, not from singularity Shenzi , 47—48; Harris It is because by the sheer fact of his exclusive authority, the ruler is able to arbitrate conflicts among his ministers and to preserve the chain of command in his state, without which the state may collapse.
The very fact that the monarch—unlike his officials—owed his position to pedigree alone meant that this position would more often than not be occupied by a mediocrity. The intrinsic contradiction between an institutionally infallible and humanly erring sovereign is the major source of tension in the Han Feizi Pines b. Thinkers of different ideological inclinations shared the sober realization that a sovereign may be a mediocrity; yet for them this problem was easily resolvable.
Insofar as the ruler would be prudent enough to entrust everyday affairs to a meritorious aide, he would be able to continue enjoying absolute prestige, while practical matters would be decided by worthy ministers see, e. For Han Fei, though, this solution is unacceptable.
Every single person around the throne should be suspected; and minimal negligence can cost a ruler his life and his power. Han Fei compares them to hungry tigers ready to devour the sovereign whenever the opportunity arrives:. If the minister does not murder his ruler, it is because the cliques and cabals are not formed. Han Feizi 8: This is an amazing saying: the minister is, by his nature, deceitful and murderous, and his failure to eliminate the sovereign is simply a sign of insufficient preparations, not of unwillingness to do so.
But going beyond this personal tragedy there is a more general question: how can the ruler maintain his functions in the situation of permanent danger and absolute mistrust between him and his aides? But this supposedly neat solution is problematic. Second, it remains unclear how the ruler will gain access to reliable information if each of his close aides—as Han Fei reminds him—is a potential cheater Han Feizi 6: 36— The monarch is the most revered individual, but also the weakest chain in the government apparatus.
He can be duped by his underlings, is prone to misjudge them, and his actions may frequently endanger the very foundations of political order that he is supposed to safeguard. Hence, the thinker repeatedly urges the ruler to refrain from any personal activities, any reliance on personal knowledge, and any manifestation of personal likes and dislikes.
The thinker summarizes his recommendations:. The ruler does not reveal his desires; should he do so, the minister will carve and embellish them. He does not reveal his views; should he do so, the minister will use them to present his different [opinion]. When there is success, the ruler possesses a worthy [name]; when there is failure, the minister bears the responsibility. Han Feizi 5: This is a curious recommendation: the ruler should completely nullify himself both in order to preserve his authority against scheming ministers, and to acquire—unjustly!
Yet this sovereign, who has neither desires nor observable views, becomes the ultimate slave of his office. For the sake of self-preservation he must abolish his personality, being completely submerged by the system which he ostensibly runs. This paradox of an entrapped sovereign, who enjoys God-like omnipotence, but who is required to refrain from any activism in order to preserve this omnipotence is one of the most fascinating manifestations of the intrinsic contradiction of the authoritarian system.
When it comes from a thinker who is often described as singularly authoritarian-minded, it deserves utmost attention. Some of the aspects of the Legalist program—a powerful state that overwhelms society, rigid control over the populace and the administrative apparatus, harsh laws, and the like—seem to lend support to this equation.
Yet when we move to the realm of thought control—a sine qua non for a true totalitarian polity—the results are somewhat equivocal. Shang Yang is particularly notorious for his comprehensive assault on traditional culture and on moral values.
The Book of Lord Shang abounds with controversial and highly provocative statements like this one:. Poems , Documents , rites, music, goodness, self-cultivation, benevolence, uprightness, argumentativeness, cleverness: when the state has these ten, superiors cannot induce [the people] to [engage in] defense and fighting. If the state is ruled according to these ten, then if the enemy arrives it will surely be dismembered, and if the enemy does not arrive, the state will surely be impoverished.
Shang jun shu 3: 23; Book of Lord Shang 3. Yet this conclusion should be qualified. It seems that the text assaults not morality as such but rather moralizing discourse. Shang Yang deplores traveling intellectuals because they damage the foundations of his sociopolitical model. When one thousand people are engaged in agriculture and warfare, yet there is a single man among them engaged in Poems , Documents , argumentativeness and cleverness, then one thousand people all will become remiss in agriculture and warfare.
Shang jun shu —26; Book of Lord Shang 3. The very fact that talkative intellectuals are being promoted distracts the people from substantial occupations and causes them engagement in hollow talk and needless learning. Thus, both economically and politically, learning is harmful: it distracts the people from their diligent work and diminishes their submissiveness.
Sanft In a major discussion of jiao , the text says:. And [entering] the gates of riches and nobility must be through military [service]. Therefore, when they hear about war, the people congratulate each other; whenever they move or rest, drink or eat, they sing and chant only about war. Yet the Book of Lord Shang never speaks of, e. Hence war, which elsewhere in the book is frankly associated with what the people hate Shang jun shu ; Book of Lord Shang Han Fei advises:.
Now, when the ruler listens to [a certain] teaching, if he approves of its doctrine, he should promulgate it among the officials and employ its adherents; if he disapproves of its doctrine, he should dismiss its adherents and cut it off. Han Fei does not deny in principle that some of the rival doctrines may benefit the state; he just denies their proponents the right to develop and elaborate their views independently of the state. Like Confucianism, Daoism, and Chinese Buddhism, the goal of legalism was to achieve order in Chinese society during a time of unrest.
Unlike the other belief systems, legalism was quite harsh, with strict laws and severe punishments. Created by World History Project.
0コメント