Taoist Mormon ??? does it work? (Jesus, moral, punishment, Earth)

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Orontes

To beg the question is not personal opinion. It is a logical fallacy.

In your opinion it is a logical fallacy. You say that li is no basis for morality. I say it is. Just because something is not rooted in your sense of morality, doesn't mean it is amoral. It is a different culture, after all.

Do you or do you not believe that something must be rooted in God for it to have a basis in morality?

Originally Posted by Orontes

You hostility is uninteresting.

Neither is your cultural arrogance.

Originally Posted by Orontes

I don't know who Jay is.

At the very least he's Jewish, as opposed to you (and I) arguing over the fundamental nature of a religion that neither of us subscribes to.)

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by Me

To beg the question is not personal opinion. It is a logical fallacy. This means it is a formal error of thought. Moral precept cannot be simply asserted, it must have a sound basis. Jen (仁) noted earlier is illustrative (the same would apply to the earlier mistaken judgment on Li). It cannot rise above the level of base assertion. This was the correct critique of Confucianism by Mo Tzu (who lived in the generation following Confucius and whose position you labeled a "shallow understanding of Confucianism"). Nonetheless his critique was/is correct.

Logical fallacies are not based on opinion. Logical fallacies are not based on culture. Logic is formal and turns of the notion of validity. I have given reference to a Classical Chinese thinker on the subject to indicate this noted failing of Confucianism is not new. I have also explained the basic problem. If you believe Li according to Confucian precept does not beg the question present the argument. I will read it.

Do you or do you not believe that something must be rooted in God for it to have a basis in morality?

Not necessarily.

Originally Posted by Me

You hostility is uninteresting. I don't know who Jay is. Regardless, the core of Judaism is the Torah. The core of the Torah is the revelation on Sinai. The first principle of the revelation on Sinai is: "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20: 2-3). Further, the foundational prayer of Judaism, the Shema that resonates in morning and evenings prayers and is found within the Mezuzah that marks a Jewish household's door post is: Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad. "Hear O'Isarel, the Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut 6:7). Judaism is an ethical monotheism. This is as far removed from humanism as is theoretically possible. Your statement was a fundamental error.

More hostility I see. This type of display does nothing for your position. The issue here has nothing to do with culture. The issue is the basic positioning of Judaism. Judaism has clear theological parameters. I have given a basic wherefore on the standing of Judaism which completely undercuts your assertion. You did not address it. If you cannot support your assertions, then you should retract them.

Originally Posted by Me

Alas, any virtue ascribed to the Duke of Chou was due to his successful regency which was an upholding of clan tradition that Confucius took as predating the Chou tracing back to Shang and Hsia dynasties. Confucius lived during the Warring States Period in China and was attempting to return to the stability of an assumed Golden Age. The key component in the appeal was to reinvigorate the traditions of that age (which perforce is an appeal to tradition) that in reality was the clan inheritance system and familial solidarity. "I transmit but do not innovate; I am truthful in what I say and devoted to antiquity" (Analects, VII, 1.) Moreover, I pointed out the very aphoristic element of Confucian Thought is itself an appeal to Tradition.

The above was not addressed at all. I therefore assume the Confucian appeal to tradition is a settled issue.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Orontes

Logical fallacies are not based on opinion.

The CLAIM that indigenous Chinese thought is amoral is your opinion. Based on that opinion, you claim there is a logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by Orontes

I have given reference to a Classical Chinese thinker on the subject to indicate this noted failing of Confucianism is not new.

You've referenced ONE philosopher, Mo Tse, and of course he was critical of Kung Fu Tse. How else does one claim that one's own philosophy is better than by criticizing others?

Originally Posted by Orontes

If you believe Li according to Confucian precept does not beg the question present the argument. I will read it.

I already presented the argument. You ignored it.

Originally Posted by lilithu

The moral basis of Confucian thought, just as in Taoism, is "as in heaven, so on earth." There is a natural order to things. If you align yourself with that order, as the Duke of Chou did, then things will go well. If you align yourself counter to the order, things go badly. That is indigenous Chinese thought, the thing you say offers no basis for morality.

Originally Posted by Orontes

Not necessarily.

Great, then you can give me an example of a system that does not appeal to God and yet is moral.

Originally Posted by Orontes

The issue here has nothing to do with culture.

Bull. Everything has to do with culture.

Originally Posted by Orontes

The issue is the basic positioning of Judaism. Judaism has clear theological parameters. I have given a basic wherefore on the standing of Judaism which completely undercuts your assertion. You did not address it. If you cannot support your assertions, then you should retract them.

Judaism is humanistic. Just because there is a god in their history does not negate that. In the Jewish tradition, humans argue even with God. It is a tradition that affirms human agency and human worth.

Originally Posted by Orontes

The above was not addressed at all. I therefore assume the Confucian appeal to tradition is a settled issue.

I ignored it because you ignored what I wrote above, and therefore I see no point in wasting my time repeating myself.

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by lilithu

The CLAIM that indigenous Chinese thought is amoral is your opinion. Based on that opinion, you claim there is a logical fallacy.

You are confused on my position and the structure of my position. This was my statement you took umbrage with: "There is a general amoral penchant within Chinese indigenous thought." This is not a categorical. The structure of my position was stated:

"It is not that any appeal to virtue doesn't exist, but rather the grounding for such. Because of this lack of grounding, an amoral penchant is clear. Confucianism (for example) is typically understood as a humanism. Any would be ethic is based on either simple dicta or appeals to tradition. Neither are solid groundings for moral systems as they beg the question. It was precisely this appeal to tradition where Mo Tzu leveled his critique of Confucianism."

The focus, as noted above, is there is no grounding for Confucian claims. This is a logical point. As such, the crux of the critique is not about feelings or personal loyalties. The logical point is explained: ethical claims are either dicta or appeals to tradition. Such beg the question. Do you see?

You've referenced ONE philosopher, Mo Tse, and of course he was critical of Kung Fu Tse. How else does one claim that one's own philosophy is better than by criticizing others?

This is incoherent. I have made no reference to any other beliefs or any comparisons with other beliefs (the only exception being to correct your flaw regarding Judaism, that you brought up). Referencing Mo Tzu was simply to note this particular critique of Confucian Thought is not new. It in fact dates back over 25 centuries and was made from within Chinese circles.

You capitalize "one". I take it this means it is important to you. If you know who Mo Tzu was then the stressed 'one philosopher' comment surprises me. Mo Tzu was the founder of Moism. Moism was the chief rival of Confucianism until the Han Dynasty. This isn't some random citation. Among Chinese figures it would be similar to citing Aristotle to criticize a Platonic concept. Even so, if you want references from other Sinologists on the subject ask, and I'll give citation. What I stated is a rather mundane point among Sinologists.

I already presented the argument. You ignored it.

The moral basis of Confucian thought, just as in Taoism, is "as in heaven, so on earth." There is a natural order to things. If you align yourself with that order, as the Duke of Chou did, then things will go well. If you align yourself counter to the order, things go badly. That is indigenous Chinese thought, the thing you say offers no basis for morality.

Actually, I did respond to the above. I explained the wherefore of any virtues claims about the Duke of Chou. I also tied it into the larger point about Confucian appeals to tradition. If you feel there is an argument in the above that wasn't responded to, that is fine. Simply looking at the first assertion: " The moral basis of Confucian thought, just as in Taoism, is "as in heaven, so on earth."" Show where in the 'Analects' the basis of Confucian moral precept Jen (仁) or other concepts Li (理) or ( 義) are stated as derived from heaven.

Great, then you can give me an example of a system that does not appeal to God and yet is moral.

Is this relevant? The focus is Chinese Thought specifically Confucianism with one aside on your claims about Judaism. If this is something you are really keen on, a simple example would be Kant's "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals".

Bull. Everything has to do with culture.

This is incorrect. The degree of this error is hard to grasp. One simple counter from the many that exist: show me one culture where:

If A then B
A
Therefore B

does not apply?

Judaism is humanistic. Just because there is a god in their history does not negate that. In the Jewish tradition, humans argue even with God. It is a tradition that affirms human agency and human worth.

I don't think you understand what humanism entails. Humanism isn't simply noting human worth. As much as I dislike dictionary references this is from the OED: "Humanism n.1 a rationalistic system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters." The sense for the idea can be found in Protagoras statement: "man is the measure of all things". The only major variant of this is the movement began by Petrarch in the 14th Century that continued through the Renaissance that was an intellectual rediscovery of Latin and Greek cultural inheritance. In this case, the label was apropos because it was contradistinct to Scholastic and other Theological Medieval Movements that had preceded it where knowledge of the Divine was central. Judaism does not fit under the major or minor strain of the concept.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Orontes

You are confused...

And you are wrong, yet persist in repeating the same things over and over again.


I said: The moral basis of Confucian thought, just as in Taoism, is "as in heaven, so on earth."

To which you responded:

Originally Posted by Orontes

Show where in the 'Analects' the basis of Confucian moral precept Jen (仁) or Li (理) or ( 義) is stated as derived from heaven.

Analects 2: At fifty, I knew the decrees of Heaven.

Analects 3: The Master said, "Not so. He who offends against Heaven has none to whom he can pray."

Analects 3 continued: "My friends, why are you distressed by your master's loss of office? The kingdom has long been without the principles of truth and right; Heaven is going to use your master as a bell with its wooden tongue."

Analects 7: The Master said, "Heaven produced the virtue that is in me.

Analects 8: The Master said, "Great indeed was Yao as a sovereign! How majestic was he! It is only Heaven that is grand, and only Yao corresponded to it. How vast was his virtue! The people could find no name for it.

NEED I GO ON?? Fine.

Analects 9: "If Heaven had wished to let this cause of truth perish, then I, a future mortal! should not have got such a relation to that cause. While Heaven does not let the cause of truth perish, what can the people of K'wang do to me?"

Analects 12: Yen Yuan asked about perfect virtue. The Master said, "To subdue one's self and return to propriety, is perfect virtue. If a man can for one day subdue himself and return to propriety, an under heaven will ascribe perfect virtue to him.

Analects 16: Confucius said, "There are three things of which the superior man stands in awe. He stands in awe of the ordinances of Heaven. He stands in awe of great men. He stands in awe of the words of sages.

Analects 17: Tsze-chang asked Confucius about perfect virtue. Confucius said, "To be able to practice five things everywhere under heaven constitutes perfect virtue."

Analects 20: The Master said, "Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man.

Originally Posted by Orontes

This is incorrect. The degree of this error is hard to grasp. One simple counter, show me one culture where:

If A then B
A
Therefore B

does not apply?

I stand corrected. Everything worth talking about has to do with culture.

Originally Posted by Orontes

I don't think you understand what humanism entails. Humanism isn't simply noting human worth. As much as I dislike dictionary references this is from the OED: "Humanism n.1 a rationalistic system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters."

And I think you have a very superficial understanding of what humanism entails.

I didn't just say that Judaism noted human worth. Funny how you choose to hear/repeat only that last part. I said Judaism emphasizes human agency and worth, and that it is a tradition in which humans argue even with God. Human opinions matter even when contrary to the Almighty. In other words, even tho there is a god, humans are at the center of importance. ie - Judaism is humanist.

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by lilithu

And you are wrong, yet persist in repeating the same things over and over again.

If you read the first sentence of my recent post again "You are confused on my position and the structure of my position." and the explanatory that follows, I am pointing out that my focus is a logical point. Logic is not about opinion. It is not concerned with sentimentality. It is concerned with the structure of claims. Earlier you stressed in bold type my statements were simply opinion. The above post was to make clear my claim isn't an opinion claim, but a logical claim. I gave my first post and then explained why it is a logical claim. Do you understand?

I said: The moral basis of Confucian thought, just as in Taoism, is "as in heaven, so on earth."

Analects 2: At fifty, I knew the decrees of Heaven....

Citation of random statements that note "under Heaven" or heaven does not address the challenge. Your claim was "The moral basis of Confucian thought, just as in Taoism, is "as in heaven, so on earth." I read "moral basis of" per the noun and preposition use, to indicate source. Is this what you meant? If so, then you need to demonstrate a causative. I asked for a causative statement regarding Jen (仁) or Li (理) or ( 義) (I included both 理 and 義 as you never indicated which you took as foundational). Even so, Nothing you cited does that. You need a statement like: the concept Jen is sourced from heaven. Once, that is established we need to consider what kind of claim is being made. Would this be a revelation? The Heavens opened and told Confucius? Confucius had a mystical experience? Is it a claim based on deduction? Or, is this simply a bald assertion? The latter is how Mo Tzu took things. I don't know of any counters from Confucianists that claim Confucius' ideas were revelatory or mystical experiences. The 'Analects' are not deductive, but aphoristic. This would seem to lead credence to Mo Tzu's understanding. The basic point is: when considering epistemic claims it is not enough to assert, the wherefore of the assertion must be considered. This is how the force of the claim is determined. So, the challenge is before you.

I stand corrected. Everything worth talking about has to do with culture.

So, you do not consider logic worth talking about? Do you feel the same about mathematics and existential subjects like geography, topography etc? An amazing statement to be sure. Since my focus is/was concerned with logic and you seem to see logic as unworthy of discussion, why are you engaging my point? If you embrace an irrational or a-rational approach to things, we really don't have any point for contact. I accept rationality and you only consider cultural fair worth talking about. I'm curious, since you reject reason, what is the standard you use to discuss culture?

And I think you have a very superficial understanding of what humanism entails.

This isn't a compelling counter. I cited the OED. This is typically considered the dictionary of the English language. I also explained humanism via Protagoras and explained its variant from Petrarch. Simply saying that is superficial is not enough. I'm happy to discuss the development of Humanism from the Greeks, through the Medieval Period into Modernity. Make your counter argument and I'll respond.

I didn't just say that Judaism noted human worth. Funny how you choose to hear/repeat only that last part. I said Judaism emphasizes human agency and worth, and that it is a tradition in which humans argue even with God. Human opinions matter even when contrary to the Almighty. In other words, even tho there is a god, humans are at the center of importance. ie - Judaism is humanist.

This is a fundamental failure to understand Judaism. Man is not the center of importance: God is. This is why the First Commandment of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." This is a categorical, which would include the individual or human concerns in general. Deity is given the central position. This is why the Shema uses Deity as the defining referent for Israel "Hear O'Isarel, the Lord our God is one Lord". This is why the dubbed greatest commandment from Deuteronomy 6 states: "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Orontes

Your claim was "The moral basis of Confucian thought, just as in Taoism, is "as in heaven, so on earth." I read "moral basis of" per the noun and preposition use, to indicate source. Is this what you meant? If so, then you need to demonstrate a causative. ..... Would this be a revelation? The Heavens opened and told Confucius?

No, of course it's not revelation. As I said several posts ago, it's more like "natural law." The natural order to things.

Why am I not at all surprised that despite the numerous references that I supplied, you still persist in your assertion that indigenous Chinese thought is amoral? Confucius' teachings were based on the idea that "as in heaven, so on earth." As stated in the quotes I provided, any virtuous persons that he points to for emulation are virtuous because they followed the will of heaven. The basis of Confucian morality is obedience to this natural law. It is not based on mere custom.

I'll leave it to anyone else reading this thread to decide whether or not the numerous quotes I supplied demonstrate this sufficiently. Goodbye.