Philosophy and Politics: East Meets West - Essay Example

?Philosophy and Politics: East Meets West Chinese Philosophical Perspective Chinese philosophy has usually been closely related to political activities in ancient Chinese society. Many schools of thought in Chinese philosophy have always been concerned with various aspects of state or social matters. Issues such as ethical conduct of individuals or political conduct of rulers and ministers of state are some of the central problems that Chinese philosophers deal with. Among the different schools of Chinese philosophers and philosophy, Confucius and Confucianism would be considered a foremost authority. Confucius’ social and political philosophies are both rooted in the idea that one should learn self-discipline and treat others with love and concern. He argued that men are responsible for their own actions with regard to how they treat others. Confucius also believed in harmony and having a relationship with the other person, like a father to his son or a mother to her daughter. He also believed in social harmony, which is the great goal of Confucianism. Confucius believed that everyone had a role in the social order and must be do their part in that society. Confucius’ social philosophy is known as Ren, which means being altruistic, compassionate, and loving toward others. This concept means that one should avoid speech that would result to negativity or the appearance of negativity. He also taught that only those who learned self-discipline could accomplish altruism. Ren is to be considered a practice that is broad, and informs one’s interactions with other people. Confucius noted that one should not use their social power to oppress those of the lowest power. Instead, one should treat others with respect, the same way one would want to be respected. This is what makes the idea of the superior man in Confucian philosophy. Another part of his social philosophy is Li, or etiquette, rituals, and morals. It is what a person does in order to gain respect in society. It does not mean one should demoralize or degrade another in order to build up a reputation. One should reconcile one’s desires with the needs of family and society. Confucius thought that if one did not have a sense of well being, then ceremonial manners would mean nothing. Confucius believed that what characterized superior leadership is through the possession of De, or virtue. Virtue would enable a ruler to maintain good order without trouble or without relying on his officers and deputies. He believed that in order for a ruler to maintain virtue, an individual must master the practice of Li. Practicing Li, or etiquette, through ceremonies that express humility and thankfulness, gift-giving rituals, acts of politeness, would result in efficacy for the ruler. As said in Confucius’ Analects: The Master said: “Lead the people with administrative injunctions (zheng) and keep them orderly with penal law (xing), and they will avoid punishments but will be without a sense of shame. Lead them with excellence (de) and keep them orderly through observing ritual propriety (li) and they will develop a sense of shame, and moreover, will order themselves.” (2:3) Confucius’ political philosophy is also rooted in self-discipline, and treating others with love, compassion, and concern. In this area, Confucius had a theory called Zhengming. This referred to rectifying the behavior of people so that it corresponds to the language they identify and describe themselves with. Confucius believed that this rectification should start at the top of the government, where he believed the discrepancies originated. If the ruler’s behavior has been rectified, those beneath him will follow and do the same. It is this way of thinking that Confucianism, and all the Chinese philosophies thereafter, developed a political philosophy that is strongly centered on a cultivated social and political merit system. Confucius also held that the concept of Zhengming is important or integral in his ideas of political meritocracy. The proper rectification of names, terms and titles is not only important in tradition and culture, but it also implies respect in the various levels of social relations. What distressed Confucius the most was his awareness that the political institutions during his time were wholly in disarray. Confucius recognized this collapse in the reality that political officials who held power, as well as individuals who held subsidiary positions, did so by declaring claims to titles which they were not qualified or deserving to possess. For Confucius, an individual deserves a title or position in government because his character and sense of conduct is worthy to do so.  The Rujia, or the School of Letters, was the school which Confucius established to teach and develop government officials to have a strong sense of moral responsibility and duty towards the people, and the nation as a whole. It was because of the teachings of Confucius and the forming of the Rujia that the civil service examination was established to meet the higher standards of government leadership through a deep sense of education and literacy. The advocacy of this learning, and its application on the civil service exams, would help bring out the Confucian characteristics of the superior man through education and practice. Since the Confucian teachings are deeply integrated and ingrained in the tests, every candidate must take seriously the ideas and philosophies of Confucianism to have a better chance of passing the test. It could be said that the civil service examination holds a double purpose. By instilling Confucian virtues within individuals who aspire leadership positions, while maintaining a system that promotes an effective government structure based on character merits is the dual purpose behind the civil service exams. Once an individual sincerely takes into heart the Confucian virtues, he has a better chance of succeeding the exams, and eventually becoming a dutiful and responsible public servant. Western Philosophical Perspective There are distinct differences on how Western based philosophies view political conduct and its dynamics compared to the Chinese philosophical perspective. The general differences between Western philosophy and Eastern philosophy, like that of the Chinese way of thinking, should be taken in consideration. One aspect of philosophy that shows marked differences of perspective between Western and Eastern philosophies is the concept of the individual. Western philosophical perspective usually presupposes as a fact that human beings are entities separate and distinct from the natural world. In addition, Western philosophies try to define and make categories of the natural world from a detached and objectively rationalistic point of view. On the other hand, Eastern philosophical perspectives normally rally the belief that human beings are an essential and indivisible element of the natural world, and that attempts to discuss the universe from an objective viewpoint as though the individual speaking is something separate and detached from the whole is inherently absurd. The result of these differing perspectives would lead to differences in outlook with regard to political systems. Since the Western philosophies have a more individualistic inclination, their political culture is a groundwork foundation for the principles of democracy. Eastern philosophies believe more on a unified and collective society, which in a modern sense can be likened to a socialist system. It could also be said that with regard to political philosophy, the Western philosophical perspective treats political activities and conduct closely as a social science, while Eastern philosophies treat political activities as a social art. In many ways, Western philosophies deal with matters in a very logical and scientific manner, while Eastern philosophies are more intuitive and dynamic. The Western philosophical perspective of politics can find its origin during the times of ancient Greece, specifically Athens. Democracy was born in Athens, and there began the political issues of liberty and the rights of a citizen. While Eastern philosophy looks at the political conduct in the sense of self-cultivation of character development, Western philosophy believes that the true measure of political acumen lies solely on output of action and good results. This is somehow contrary to the concept of meritocracy found in the Confucian school of thought. A great degree of attention is given to individuals who show effective pragmatism and efficient action in the political scene. Even in today’s political activities, the politician or statesman who seems to be a go-getter and has a character filled with enthusiasm gets the attention of the crowd, as well as the votes. A more contemplative, introspective or calculating individual in the political world is one who does not garner that same respect from his or her peers. In terms of political systems, Western philosophy views the individual as holding more power and influence than in the Eastern cultural setting. The focus on political measures in Western democracies is to ensure that the liberty of each citizen is insured, while Eastern cultures place more emphasis on social unity and cohesion. It might also be important to note that Western political culture does not believe in the luxury of being a thoughtful philosopher in a government setting. While philosophers are directly approached for advice in ancient Eastern cultures, philosophers are held merely as references in Western cultures. Self-cultivation of character is not as vital when it comes to political character in Western philosophy. What is more important in Western culture is the method by which the individual contributes practically through performance output. This means that an individual should be skilled for his or her position in political activities to get the tasks done, regardless of how their character is. Despite the focus on individualism by Western philosophy, the political history of Western civilization has been a struggle between individual liberties as against the authoritarianism of rulers. It should also be remembered that the current understanding of the individual’s importance was virtually non-existent in Western civilization during the Dark Ages until the Age of Enlightenment. It was only during the early 18th century that many Western philosophers began exploring the concept of human freedom and liberty. The famous Prussian philosopher, Immanuel Kant, held that freedom is important only if there is enlightenment from knowledge and learning. Kant believes that for an individual's actions to be morally wrong, it must be within his control. If an action was not within his control, it would not be correct to say that the act was erroneous. For Kant, morality applies specifically to individuals who can control their will and have within their capacity to either act morally or not. Kant’s view of human freedom is attached toward moral uprightness, which is comparably similar to Confucius’ idea of the supreme man. As Kant said: For enlightenment of this kind, all that is needed is freedom. And the freedom in question is the most innocuous form of all – freedom to make public use of one’s freedom in all matters… The public use of man’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring enlightenment among men; the private use of reason may quite often be narrowly restricted, however, without undue hindrance to the progress of enlightenment. (55) Freedom, in Kant’s perspective, shows that an individual has qualities of self-control and exceptional moral bearing unlike the average person. This sense of morality is based on Kant’s categorical imperative, wherein when applied to ethics, the individual should act in a manner that is applicable to everyone. Conclusion Both Western and Eastern philosophical perspectives view political conduct and values differently. However, they both look for similar goals and ends. The two perspectives have their own ways in approaching government affairs, and also different standards when it comes to the appropriate behavior of government officials or statesmen. It should be remembered, however, that there is really no contest or competition between the two perspectives. Each philosophical perspective applies its ideas in the political stage based on the distinct culture they are founded in. For example, when the ideas of democracy were espoused in the early 20th century in Japan, complete democracy in the political system was still not achieved due to the Japanese cultural adherence to their national traditions and their sense of national unity. At the same time, a more collective and unified political system, such as an absolute monarchy or despotism, is not a political system that is appreciated in states that have a highly individualistic society. An example would be the American Independence against the British Imperial rule during the 18th century. Various perspectives are applied differently, depending on the cultural background. Works Cited Confucius. The Analects of Confucius. Trans. Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont, Jr. New York: The Ballantine Publishing Group, 1999. Print. Kant, Immanuel. An Answer to the Question: “What is Enlightenment?” Kant’s Political Writings. Ed. Hans Reiss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. 54-60. Print. Read More