4 ms·

>That included studying other societies and keeping an open mind about what works best. Yes. What works best for the individual is different than what works be

by fnovd 10y ago

>That included studying other societies and keeping an open mind about what works best. Yes. What works best for the individual is different than what works best for the state, though. 'What if the state should be more important than the individual?' is not a traditional Western question.

smallnamespace 10y ago
Food for thought though: Western philosophical thought prefers to draw distinctions between parts of a whole and then focus on how those parts are different and opposed. This is in contrast to Chinese philosophical thought, which stereotypically emphasizes the oneness and compatibility of disparate concepts. You can see this in how Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and other philosophical schools were all accepted and syncretized, while the West has always undergone violent ideological conflicts over relatively minor differences in doctrine (Protestantism vs. Catholicism vs. Eastern Orthodoxy). Of course the interests of the state and the people can sometimes come into conflict, but by and large, the state and the individual are part of an organic whole, namely, all of society. China's own political culture has had a long, long history pondering the question of what government's role should be, and has mostly concluded that a government must rule justly and well in order to be a legitimate [1]. The question is not be 'What's more important, the individual or the state?', but rather, 'How should society be organized so that the individual and the state will cooperate for mutual benefit?'. Just like one usually doesn't ask the question 'what's more important, the hand or the foot?'. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven#The_right_to_rule_and_the_right_of_rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven#The_right_to... > Throughout the history of China, times of poverty and natural disasters were often taken as signs that heaven considered the incumbent ruler unjust and thus in need of replacement.

by fnovd 10y ago

smallnamespace 10y ago

Food for thought though: Western philosophical thought prefers to draw distinctions between parts of a whole and then focus on how those parts are different and opposed. This is in contrast to Chinese philosophical thought, which stereotypically emphasizes the oneness and compatibility of disparate concepts. You can see this in how Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and other philosophical schools were all accepted and syncretized, while the West has always undergone violent ideological conflicts over relatively minor differences in doctrine (Protestantism vs. Catholicism vs. Eastern Orthodoxy). Of course the interests of the state and the people can sometimes come into conflict, but by and large, the state and the individual are part of an organic whole, namely, all of society. China's own political culture has had a long, long history pondering the question of what government's role should be, and has mostly concluded that a government must rule justly and well in order to be a legitimate [1]. The question is not be 'What's more important, the individual or the state?', but rather, 'How should society be organized so that the individual and the state will cooperate for mutual benefit?'. Just like one usually doesn't ask the question 'what's more important, the hand or the foot?'. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven#The_right_to_rule_and_the_right_of_rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven#The_right_to... > Throughout the history of China, times of poverty and natural disasters were often taken as signs that heaven considered the incumbent ruler unjust and thus in need of replacement.