6 ms·

The Castration of Sima Qian (2022)

48 points by recroad 2y ago

barrkel 2y ago
See also this article from 2016, where I first read about Sima Qian: https://scholars-stage.org/history-is-written-by-the-losers/ https://scholars-stage.org/history-is-written-by-the-losers/
renewiltord 2y ago
> For in the Confucian ideal, officials attracted by the magnetic effect of the emperor’s moral example were supposed to be sufficiently righteous and high-minded to recognize their guilt and penalise themselves. Not to do would be to acknowledge their inadequacy for office in the first place and to cast a slur on the judgement and moral calibre of the emperor... Sounds like Bridgewater in the book The Firm. It's a pity about Sima Qian but today we know the optimal survival strategy in his place as the Kolmogorov Option.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- gradschoolfail 2y ago
  “truth has no need for heroes” Thats what the Kolmogorov option is according to Scott Aaronson ——-the originator of the term? >Hilbert said that science, unlike religion, has no need for martyrs, because it’s based on facts that can’t be denied indefinitely. Given that, Hilbert considered Galileo’s response to be precisely correct: in effect Galileo told the Inquisitors, hey, you’re the ones with the torture rack. Just tell me which way you want it. I can have the earth orbiting Mars and Venus in figure-eights by tomorrow if you decree it so. https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=3376 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=3376
  - spacebanana7 2y ago
    > unlike religion, has no need for martyrs, because it’s based on facts that can’t be denied indefinite Justin Martyr et al didn’t believe their deaths affected the truth of their theology. But their Matrydom spread awareness to others in a morally helpful way (assuming Christianity is true). Similarly, scientists who sustain viewpoints through difficult times don’t impact the truth of the underlying science. But they do help spread correct beliefs about germ theory etc in a morally helpful way (again, assuming their theory is correct - this part cannot be overstated).
  - Vecr 2y ago
    Is that actually true? If you go along with something that gets everyone killed, there's no do-over. Even if the core of the dispute is on scientific fact.
  - schiffern 2y ago
    >science... is based on facts that can’t be denied indefinitely This could apply to physics, but history (another kind of "truth") can still be written by the victors even in the long-term. Look at Carthage, etc. The old joke is that "all science disciplines are either physics or stamp collecting." The physics can always be re-discovered per Aaronson, but stamps (or entire civilizations) can be destroyed, leading to some parts of historical knowledge being lost irrevocably.
mjhay 2y ago
IMO, the Mandate of Heaven gets over-emphasized in a lot of Chinese historiography. The bestowal of the Mandate of Heaven was usually seen as occurring once a ruler controlled all or enough of Chinese territory, and disappeared once it was significantly lost (with a rebellion being justified if it does this). In other words, the right to rule China was mostly synonymous with ruling China. The Divine Right of Kings in the medieval and early modern Christian era functioned similarly, as did similar claims of divine legitimacy by various ancient regimes in the West. tl;dr, I think it was a real thing, but mattered much less in actual imperial politics than many suggest. It's also very much not a factor in current Chinese politics, despite what I regularly read in the media. No one talks about Macron's divine right to rule France.
- CMCDragonkai 2y ago
  There's a key difference. Kings could not lose their divine right. Whereas the emperors can lose the mandate of heaven - that's the theory of course. All power is self-justificating in the end.
  - Hunpeter 2y ago
    What if a king was excommunicated by the Pope? Isn't that kind of similar to "losing the divine right to rule"?
- hmm37 2y ago
  In my opinion, you are just focusing on a small aspect of what the Mandate of Heaven was about or how it was viewed. If you read the philosophical text like Mencius, etc., and understand what supposedly the Zhou were arguing to claim that they obtained the Mandate, then the mere territorial aspect is incorrect. To keep things relatively simple, my thoughts is that obtaining the Mandate is really what the Chinese and their philosophers call obtaining the hearts/minds (心) of the people. Emperors and their advisors all knew that their position was nothing without the people's backing as e.g. stated by Mencius, and therefore when there's tons of rebellions and famine/starvation, etc. going around this was considered a huge sign that the emperor was losing the mandate and if he didn't change his ways that he would outright lose the mandate. The Chinese have a proverb stating that the ruler was basically a boat in a vast ocean (the people), and that the ocean can easily capsize the boat. The right to rule China/rebellion was justified because it was believed that if a person truly had the heart of the large majority of the people he would actually win, because the ruling class was considered quite small compared to the ruled populace. And despite what people think, China didn't have large standing armies. Their armies were called up from basically the peasant class. The peasant class will not fight for a king who is a tyrant. Even Mao didn't want a professional army and wanted basically a civilian militia army that largely did farming work, etc., and would only be called up if they needed to fight some enemy thinking that standing armies were a waste of money. So this tradition was pretty well entrenched even to modern times. When the Zhou first came up with the idea of the Mandate of Heaven they cited the fact that the Shang king had become a tyrant, and that he lost the heart of the people, and therefore those people flocked to Zhou ruler instead and that the Shang king had barely anyone to protect him and therefore was easily defeated. Now this is probably mere ancient propaganda from 3000 years ago, but it became basically canon in terms of how the Mandate was said to work. There's actually more to this, e.g. Heaven is not a deity in Chinese thought. Heaven actually means nature, or a sort of natural law... but I'm trying to keep this simple.
niemandhier 2y ago
My brain just could not parse the blogs name, so I looked up its meaning: " Ijtihad ( lit. 'physical effort' or 'mental effort') is an Islamic legal term referring to independent reasoning by an expert in Islamic law, or the thorough exertion of a jurist's mental faculty in finding a solution to a legal question." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad
cat_plus_plus 2y ago
Maybe they had most peaceful society possible at the time, all things considered? Democracy / constitutional republic is an option for highly intelligent and engaged population. Didn't work for Greeks, Romans and Russians, at this rate not sure how long it will work in US. Without democracy, revolts just result in more revolts because new rulers have no special claim of legitimacy. Outright prosecution invites revenge and preemptive backstabbing out of fear. So, if that's all the options you have, maybe keeping society calm by people "accepting" their own punishment is the best you can do. Mind you, I don't want to live in that kind of society, but compared to people literally tearing each other's hearts out on streets in Syria...?
- scotty79 2y ago
  Democracy is the most advanced tool for pacification of the masses. As with any tool you need to use it correctly. Most importantly you need to protect it from breakage. If not manged correctly it will fall apart in times of some crisis when people predictably elect loud speaking ignoramus who doesn't understand how wonderful tool of control he got his hands on and is not really strong enough to exploit it instead of breaking it. US oligarchs were almost perfect in wielding democracy for many decades. Protect democracy even though it helps to exploit you because in the absence of it old systems of control come back and they are more painful.
- StefanBatory 2y ago
  Qin China was the first totalitarian society.
- jakobnissen 2y ago
  China also suffered a lot of war though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War_(disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War_(disambiguat...
- CMCDragonkai 2y ago
  Someone once said that democracy dies when voters realise they can vote themselves money.
- 2y ago
hoseja 2y ago
Incredible how similar Maoism and these palatial politics are identical.

48 points by recroad 2y ago

See also this article from 2016, where I first read about Sima Qian: https://scholars-stage.org/history-is-written-by-the-losers/ https://scholars-stage.org/history-is-written-by-the-losers/

renewiltord 2y ago

> For in the Confucian ideal, officials attracted by the magnetic effect of the emperor’s moral example were supposed to be sufficiently righteous and high-minded to recognize their guilt and penalise themselves. Not to do would be to acknowledge their inadequacy for office in the first place and to cast a slur on the judgement and moral calibre of the emperor... Sounds like Bridgewater in the book The Firm. It's a pity about Sima Qian but today we know the optimal survival strategy in his place as the Kolmogorov Option.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gradschoolfail 2y ago
“truth has no need for heroes” Thats what the Kolmogorov option is according to Scott Aaronson ——-the originator of the term? >Hilbert said that science, unlike religion, has no need for martyrs, because it’s based on facts that can’t be denied indefinitely. Given that, Hilbert considered Galileo’s response to be precisely correct: in effect Galileo told the Inquisitors, hey, you’re the ones with the torture rack. Just tell me which way you want it. I can have the earth orbiting Mars and Venus in figure-eights by tomorrow if you decree it so. https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=3376 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=3376
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  > unlike religion, has no need for martyrs, because it’s based on facts that can’t be denied indefinite Justin Martyr et al didn’t believe their deaths affected the truth of their theology. But their Matrydom spread awareness to others in a morally helpful way (assuming Christianity is true). Similarly, scientists who sustain viewpoints through difficult times don’t impact the truth of the underlying science. But they do help spread correct beliefs about germ theory etc in a morally helpful way (again, assuming their theory is correct - this part cannot be overstated).
- Vecr 2y ago
  Is that actually true? If you go along with something that gets everyone killed, there's no do-over. Even if the core of the dispute is on scientific fact.
- schiffern 2y ago
  >science... is based on facts that can’t be denied indefinitely This could apply to physics, but history (another kind of "truth") can still be written by the victors even in the long-term. Look at Carthage, etc. The old joke is that "all science disciplines are either physics or stamp collecting." The physics can always be re-discovered per Aaronson, but stamps (or entire civilizations) can be destroyed, leading to some parts of historical knowledge being lost irrevocably.

mjhay 2y ago

IMO, the Mandate of Heaven gets over-emphasized in a lot of Chinese historiography. The bestowal of the Mandate of Heaven was usually seen as occurring once a ruler controlled all or enough of Chinese territory, and disappeared once it was significantly lost (with a rebellion being justified if it does this). In other words, the right to rule China was mostly synonymous with ruling China. The Divine Right of Kings in the medieval and early modern Christian era functioned similarly, as did similar claims of divine legitimacy by various ancient regimes in the West. tl;dr, I think it was a real thing, but mattered much less in actual imperial politics than many suggest. It's also very much not a factor in current Chinese politics, despite what I regularly read in the media. No one talks about Macron's divine right to rule France.

CMCDragonkai 2y ago
There's a key difference. Kings could not lose their divine right. Whereas the emperors can lose the mandate of heaven - that's the theory of course. All power is self-justificating in the end.
- Hunpeter 2y ago
  What if a king was excommunicated by the Pope? Isn't that kind of similar to "losing the divine right to rule"?
hmm37 2y ago
In my opinion, you are just focusing on a small aspect of what the Mandate of Heaven was about or how it was viewed. If you read the philosophical text like Mencius, etc., and understand what supposedly the Zhou were arguing to claim that they obtained the Mandate, then the mere territorial aspect is incorrect. To keep things relatively simple, my thoughts is that obtaining the Mandate is really what the Chinese and their philosophers call obtaining the hearts/minds (心) of the people. Emperors and their advisors all knew that their position was nothing without the people's backing as e.g. stated by Mencius, and therefore when there's tons of rebellions and famine/starvation, etc. going around this was considered a huge sign that the emperor was losing the mandate and if he didn't change his ways that he would outright lose the mandate. The Chinese have a proverb stating that the ruler was basically a boat in a vast ocean (the people), and that the ocean can easily capsize the boat. The right to rule China/rebellion was justified because it was believed that if a person truly had the heart of the large majority of the people he would actually win, because the ruling class was considered quite small compared to the ruled populace. And despite what people think, China didn't have large standing armies. Their armies were called up from basically the peasant class. The peasant class will not fight for a king who is a tyrant. Even Mao didn't want a professional army and wanted basically a civilian militia army that largely did farming work, etc., and would only be called up if they needed to fight some enemy thinking that standing armies were a waste of money. So this tradition was pretty well entrenched even to modern times. When the Zhou first came up with the idea of the Mandate of Heaven they cited the fact that the Shang king had become a tyrant, and that he lost the heart of the people, and therefore those people flocked to Zhou ruler instead and that the Shang king had barely anyone to protect him and therefore was easily defeated. Now this is probably mere ancient propaganda from 3000 years ago, but it became basically canon in terms of how the Mandate was said to work. There's actually more to this, e.g. Heaven is not a deity in Chinese thought. Heaven actually means nature, or a sort of natural law... but I'm trying to keep this simple.

niemandhier 2y ago

My brain just could not parse the blogs name, so I looked up its meaning: " Ijtihad ( lit. 'physical effort' or 'mental effort') is an Islamic legal term referring to independent reasoning by an expert in Islamic law, or the thorough exertion of a jurist's mental faculty in finding a solution to a legal question." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad

cat_plus_plus 2y ago

Maybe they had most peaceful society possible at the time, all things considered? Democracy / constitutional republic is an option for highly intelligent and engaged population. Didn't work for Greeks, Romans and Russians, at this rate not sure how long it will work in US. Without democracy, revolts just result in more revolts because new rulers have no special claim of legitimacy. Outright prosecution invites revenge and preemptive backstabbing out of fear. So, if that's all the options you have, maybe keeping society calm by people "accepting" their own punishment is the best you can do. Mind you, I don't want to live in that kind of society, but compared to people literally tearing each other's hearts out on streets in Syria...?

scotty79 2y ago
Democracy is the most advanced tool for pacification of the masses. As with any tool you need to use it correctly. Most importantly you need to protect it from breakage. If not manged correctly it will fall apart in times of some crisis when people predictably elect loud speaking ignoramus who doesn't understand how wonderful tool of control he got his hands on and is not really strong enough to exploit it instead of breaking it. US oligarchs were almost perfect in wielding democracy for many decades. Protect democracy even though it helps to exploit you because in the absence of it old systems of control come back and they are more painful.
StefanBatory 2y ago
Qin China was the first totalitarian society.
jakobnissen 2y ago
China also suffered a lot of war though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War_(disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War_(disambiguat...
CMCDragonkai 2y ago
Someone once said that democracy dies when voters realise they can vote themselves money.
2y ago

hoseja 2y ago

Incredible how similar Maoism and these palatial politics are identical.