2 ms·
I'm Korean: I didn't downvote GP, but honestly the argument doesn't look good. Korea used to be a highly sexist/Confucian country for the past several centurie
by yongjik 7y ago
I'm Korean: I didn't downvote GP, but honestly the argument doesn't look good.
Korea used to be a highly sexist/Confucian country for the past several centuries (and still is, to a degree). Confucianism are Taoism are about as much feminist as Christianity and Islam, that is, you can make them look feminist if you want. They are all ancient philosophies practiced by diverse peoples. Something is bound to sound feminist if you look hard enough.
Besides Korea is not exactly a threatened Amazonian tribe. It has literate tradition going back ~2,000 years, chip factories, skyscrapers, and idol groups. (I heard some of them are even popular worldwide these days.) There's certainly enough room for non-Koreans to talk about Korea.
* Finally, Do-ol (도올) is a quack. For an expert of traditional Asian philosophy, he always seemed too eager to promote himself rather than, you know, doing actual study of the values he's supposedly an expert of. Doubly ironic, considering how much traditional Confucian philosophy despised self-promotion. I heard he used to even praise Xi Jinping as an ideal Confucian ruler, so go figure.
- jeromebaek 7y agoTraditional Confucian philosophy certainly did not despise self-promotion. Confucius proclaimed himself the greatest sage alive, and his arrogant attitude turned off every ruler he was trying to advise. I wouldn't call Do-ol the greatest sage alive, but he is one of the most original and prolific thinkers in modern Korean philosophy. Before you dismiss him as a quack, try reading at least one of his fifty books.
- DuskStar 7y ago> Traditional Confucian philosophy certainly did not despise self-promotion. Confucius proclaimed himself the greatest sage alive, and his arrogant attitude turned off every ruler he was trying to advise. This doesn't actually follow - "do as I say, not as I do" and all that. The actions of the philosopher and the preferences of the philosophy do not have to match.