RCC - Analects Discussion

**Discussion Questions for the Analects of Kongzi**

In our own culture, it is common to condemn those who are "judgmental." But Kongzi frequently makes judgments about the character of others. (See especially Analects Books 5-6.) Is Kongzi's practice of judging others defensible? If you condemn Kongzi for condemning others, are you being hypocritical? Under what circumstances (if any) is it acceptable to pass judgment on others?

Kongzi seems to care a great deal about violations or misuses of rituals. (See especially Analects Book 3.) Why should one care about such a thing? (See, e.g., Analects 17:21.) Discuss criticisms and defenses of the importance of ritual.

What is Kongzi's view on profit or benefiting oneself? (See, for example, Analects 4:2, 4:8, 4:9, and 4:16.) Is it wrong to benefit oneself? Is it wrong to aim at profit? Is the virtuous life profitable? Does Kongzi allow for social change? If so, under what conditions? (See especially Analects 3:17, 4:18, 4:20, 7:1 and 9:3.)

Commentators often read Analects 13:3 in the light of 6:25 and 12:11. Discuss how the latter two passages might shed light on what is meant by the "rectification of names." (Mengzi 1B8 might also be a later illustration of the same notion.)

Read Analects 9:29 and think carefully about what it says. Do you think that it is possible for a person to have the virtues that Kongzi describes in this passage? Why or why not?

The Odes (translated by Arthur Waley under the title The Book of Songs) was already an ancient and respected classic by Kongzi's time. Why does Kongzi regard the Odes as so important, and how does he use it? (See especially Analects 1:15, 2:2, 3:8, 8:8, 13:5, 16:13, and 17:10.) In particular, how is not studying the Odes "like standing with your face to the wall" (17:10)?

In Analects 13:18, Kongzi expresses a view (sometimes labeled "graded love") that will become characteristic of Erudites (i.e., Confucians) for the next 2,500 years: we should have greater concern for, and have a greater ethical obligation toward, those who are bound to us by personal ties such as kinship than we do to strangers or to impersonal rules. (Soon after Kongzi, Mozi and his followers would argue for "universal love." See Chapter 2.) Do you agree with Kongzi (and later Erudites) about this?

The later Erudite (i.e., Confucian) Mengzi will say that human nature is good, while Xunzi will say that it is evil. Still others (like Gaozi, see Mengzi 6A1 ff.) will say that human nature is neither good nor evil. Does Kongzi have a view on this topic? Which view of human nature is most consistent with Kongzi's general views on education and governing? (See especially Analects 5:13 and 17:2.)

Analects 4:15 is one of the most studied and discussed passages in the text. Kongzi says that his Way "is unified by one guiding principle," yet Zengzi mentions two things. Why is this? Notice that Kongzi is not present when Zengzi explains his understanding of what the Master had said. Has Zengzi really understood Kongzi's message? Do you agree with Zengzi's interpretation? (See also Analects 5:12, 5:19, 6:30, 12:2, and 15:24.)

One of the most beautiful and interesting passages in the Analects is 11:26. What does it suggest about Kongzi's conception of "the good life"? (If you know some Western philosophy, you might discuss how this conception of the good life differs from those of philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, or Aquinas.)

Kongzi emphasized several themes that became characteristic of much of Chinese culture over the next 2,500 years: the importance of family, tradition, ritual, education, and ethical cultivation. Find at least one passage from the Analects to illustrate each of these themes. In addition, discuss how these themes are related to one another.

It has been said that some ethical philosophers emphasize moral rules, while others emphasize producing the best consequences, and yet others emphasize cultivating good character. In what group (or groups) does Kongzi belong?

So far, we have been treating the Analects as if it could all be reliably attributed to Kongzi. However, many passages are attributed to followers of Kongzi, who disagreed among themselves about what the views of the Master were. (See, e.g., Analects 19:12.) In addition, scholars now know that many portions of the Analects are much later than the time of Kongzi. In particular, Books 16-20 have long been identified as quite late. The noted translator Arthur Waley suggested that Books 3-9, minus the sayings of disciples, may represent the earliest portion of the text. Try reading only Analects Books 3-9. How (if at all) do the teachings of Kongzi seem different if you focus only on this stratum of the text?

If you have read some Western philosophy, in what ways and to what extent does the Analects seem different from it? In particular, how does it differ in its style of writing, methodology, underlying assumptions, and conclusions? (The most productive contrasts will probably be between some specific Western philosopher -- e.g., Plato, Aristotle, Kant -- and Kongzi, rather than trying to generalize about all of Western philosophy.)