Recent years, the moralities of C/h/i[n]e_s~e people co-rr-up-t seriously. Many people are choosing "prescriptions" in flurries. Among whom there are people who have inclement motives take advantage of this psychology of people, and blatantly call on the "Renaissance of C/h/i[n]e_s~e Culture", and take the chance to peddle the "theories" of Co-nfu-ci-us and Me-nc-ius. In a time a lot of historical dregs flood everywhere.
If we survey the talks of some modern Con(fu)cians, we can find that they have com-m-itted many grammar mistakes, such as the f_alse translations of the key words of literary C/h/i[n]e_s~e. But their nonsense is still competent to fool ordinary people who do not understand literary C/h/i[n]e_s~e and have not read classical literature.
Although the contents of this kind of modern Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm have become so different from their founder's as the result of the modern Con(fu)cians' f_alse "explanations", yet the "spirit" remains the same. Because their "theory" has become somewhat "popular", it is necessary to explore what the Confucius said and what do these talks mean.
In this article, I will not use the word Con-fu-cius, because this is the transliteration of "Kong Fu Zi", which means "Mentor Kong" or "Teacher Kong". But he doesn't deserve this title. So I just to directly call his name Kong Qiu.
Nowadays modern Con(fu)cians have become shameful to advocate some viewpoint such as "respecting the monarch" or "keeping f_aithful to Your Majesty", instead, they began to advocate that "the essence of Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm is filialness and fraternity" and want to deceive people by this "new discovery". But if you know some history of C-h(i)n~a, you will know that "filialness and fraternity" are just used to conceal their "mentor's" misconducts.
In Chapter One of lun yu (The Analects), You-tze said, {{There are few who, being filial and fraternal, are fond of offending against their superiors. There have been none, who, not liking to offend against their superiors, have been fond of stirring up confusion. The superior man bends his attention to what is radical. That being established, all practical courses naturally grow up. Filial piety and fraternal submission,- are they not the root of all benevolent actions?}}
These words explicitly expose what the stuff of Con(fu)cian "filialness and fraternity" is. It is absolutely not the "essence" of Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm, but a kind of means ---- the means by which the superiority of "higher-rank men" and the inferiority of common people are well maintained.
Even so, his viewpoint was expressed prematurely. Before the implementation of the "im_p_erial examinations"(ke ju), if an ordinary man wanted to become a bu-reau_crat, he must do something to show his "filialness and fraternity". Chancellor C-a-o C-a-o of Han Dynasty is the representative of this kind. In order to get revenge for his f_ather, he attacked his enemy's city, and ki_lled thousands of the citizens. Maybe this is Con(fu)cians' "root of all benevolent actions"! As to the actions of "offending against their superiors", that was "quite a few" for him. [He made his Em_pe_ror a pup_pet, and his song perished Han Dynasty. ] This kind of "filial and fraternal" men are countless in C/h/i[n]e_s~e history.
In f_act, whether a person loves his or her compatriots and country or not has nothing to do with the love of his or her parents. On the contrary, people always infringe upon others for the sake of their parents. C/h/i[n]e_s~e history is full of these examples.
Now let's see what Kong Qiu himself said. In Chapter13 of lun yu:{{The Duke of Sheh informed Co-nfu-cius, saying, "Among us here there are those who may be styled upright in their conduct. If their f_ather have stolen a sheep, they will bear witness to the f_act." Co-nfuc-ius said, "Among us, in our part of the country, those who are upright are different from this. The f_ather conceals the misconduct of the son, and the son conceals the misconduct of the f_ather. Uprightness is to be found in this."}}
Honestly speaking, if my relatives do something wrong or even break the l_a_w, I would also conceal for them. This is the normal human feeling. But I can realize what I do is wrong, or even ev_il. If I were not expo_sed, I would just let it go; if I were ex_posed, then I would accept my misfortune.
But Kong Qiu shamelessly said, "Uprightness is to be found in this". If you want to do something wrong, then you just do it, ok. But why do you importune to label your misconduct as "uprightness"? This has shaped a bad tradition in C/h/i[n]e_s~e culture. That is: whatever the ju_sti_ce or the truth is is not important; we can label whatever we want to do as "j-ust-ice" or "truth".
So Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm is very hypocritical.
The "filialness and fraternity" Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm preaches are very deceptive. On the surf_ace, Loving parents is indeed glorious, and it is also the universal moral code of humanity. But the intention of Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm does not lie here. It just takes it as a kind of means ---- the means by which the superiority of "higher-rank men" and the inferiority of common people are well maintained. The difference between Con(fu)cian "filialness and fraternity" and Western philanthropy is like the difference between mice and humans.
Parenthood, friendship and love are three main forms of interpersonal relationships. And the parenthood is the most important. Motherliness is the loftiest affection in the world. But for many C/h/i[n]e_s~e this is a vacuum in this regard.
Many C/h/i[n]e_s~e people don't take their children as an independent human being; rather, they take the children as a kind of investment ---- the investment for both of their own affection and profits. C/h/i[n]e_s~e like to have boys rather than girls, because this concerns parents' direct interests. This counts as the investment for pension. Because children are identical to money, there is no real affection between parents and children. They are always in a state of alienation. If their children are not the biological children, parents always try their best to prevent them from knowing the truth. Because if so their investments would draw a blank.
There used to be the cases in which C/h/i[n]e_s~e parents contested for children with their white race parents. When C/h/i[n]e_s~e are poor, they abandon their children (or even sell their children. Human being traders are not scarce in C-h(i)n~a now). But when they think their children are profitable for them again, they will seize them back. So many C/h/i[n]e_s~e don't understand why Western people would like to adopt children of other races. They don't understand what the true love is.
C/h/i[n]e_s~e people prefer boys than girls. Why? Because having a boy is a profitable investment; while having a girl is a profitless investment. Daughters cannot provide for the parents when they are aged. In the rural areas of C-h(i)n~a, many people are seen k-il-ling their own daughters secretly. A C/h/i[n]e_s~e dictum says, "Tiger is vic-i-ous but it never eat its own children." Regarding to love, the level of Morality of many C/h/i[n]e_s~e people is lower than that of a beast.
Because the parenthood in C-h(i)n~a is a kind of investment, its "filialness and fraternity" thus become the children's acts of producing interests or repaying debts.
Apparently, Western people do not emphasize on the "filialness and fraternity", and the interpersonal relationships between parents and children seem indifferent. But their excellent l-a-ws explicitly prescribe the ri-ghts and obligations for each party, and both parties' welf-ares are accordingly well protected. But in C-h(i)n~a, in order to comply with the "filialness and fraternity" apparently, children and parents (even grandparents and grand-grand-parents) reluctantly live in the same room. So they are always in co-nf-licts. Such as the relationship between a man's wife and his mother is usually very bad, which is a f_amous phenomenon in C-h(i)n~a. Because of the "generation gaps", every member of these big f_amilies is very depressed, and the depressions usually develop into a kind of abnormal mentality. Because of this mentality, grown-up children usually abuse parents in a disguised form, such as regarding parents as the charge-free baby-nurses in order to compensate their discontentment. Or children abuse their parents when they are alive and ceremoniously inter the parents after their death, whereby they show their "filialness and fraternity".
In the street of C/h/i[n]e_s~e cities, you can usually see shabby old men who are homeless and sustained themselves by collecting and selling rubbishes. So who are really not "filial and fraternal"?
This is the mi-se-ry that C/h/i[n]e_s~e people cannot get rid of in this anti-human culture.
Actually the "big f_amilies" are not only found in C-h(i)n~a. Many third-world countries, such as India, have this phenomenon. This is the vestige of the ancient agricultural tradition. But it does not developed into the abnormal "filialness and fraternity" in these countries.
In ancient C-h(i)n~a, children were indeed the properties of parents. Parents had the absolute claim on children, even the ri-ght to k-ill their children. "If the f_ather ask the son to die, the son must die" was really supported by the l-a-ws. If parents thought their children were not filial, they had the ri-ght sue their children. And the children could be sentenced to death (usually the pe-na-lty of ling chi (death by dismembering the body)) without a single evidence or testimony. Because of the inhuman ex-cru-ci-ation, it is not surprise that there were so many "filial sons" in ancient C-h(i)n~a. This is the truth of Con(fu)cian "filialness and fraternity"!
The hypocrisy of Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm are also manifested through this paragraph of lun yu: {{The Master said, "While a man's f_ather is alive, look at the bent of his will; when his f_ather is dead, look at his conduct. If for three years he does not alter from the way of his f_ather, he may be called filial."}}(Chapter 1) (*Note: "Three years" is a nominal number; it means "many years". But the adherents exactly take three years as the time limit.*)
Why "while a man's f_ather is alive, look at the bent of his will"? Because when the f_ather is alive, the son is his property. He cannot act independently; he must follow the will of his f_ather; he must be absolutely tame and obedient. But this is not enough! Your f_ather has died, why still "for three years he does not alter from the way of his f_ather"? Are you insane? Your f_ather has died, what is the benefit to your dead f_ather that you hypocritically "do not alter from the way of the f_ather"?
Furthermore, if you want to be "filial and fraternal" and "not alter from the way of your f_ather", you should "not alter from the way of your f_ather" all your life! Be "a man" you should be always coherent. But why do you just adhere to it for only for "three years" (or X years)? Is this because of the "filialness and fraternity"? Or is it just a show?
What did Kong Qiu himself do in this regard? Just after his mother died, when he was in mourning, he heard that the Chi f_amily was holding a dinner party, he immediately attended the party regardless his mourning. Of course he was expelled by the se-rv-ants of Chi f_amily.
So it can be concluded that Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm is very hypocritical
The "filial and fraternal" and "the rule of filialness" Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm advocates are not practical at all. Obliged "filialness and fraternity " only alienates the parents and children.
{{The Master said, "If the people be led by l-a-ws, and uniformity sought to be given them by pu-ni-shments, they will try to avoid the pu-nish-ment, but have no sense of shame. If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the r-u-les of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good."}} £¨Chapter 2£© This is so wrong. Morality is not congenital. It is the restriction from l-a-w that makes people know what is ri-ght and what is wrong. Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm regards sermons over systems. This is wrong. And people are hurt by other people's actions, not other people's moralities. L-a-w cannot directly interfere morality. Otherwise the country would become a theocratic country. This is the second f_ault. When Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm found that "led by virtue" doesn't work at all, it offset this with cr-uel ex-cruc-iati-ons. This just amplifies the e-v-il. If we want the society to be harmonious, we should practice the check and balance of powers rather than cru-el excr-u-cia-tions. So this is a f_atal defect of Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm.
Nowadays C-h(i)n~a is a country where the p-an-al-ties are the cruelest while condition of p-u-bl-ic se-cu-r-it-y is the most terrible and the morality is the most corrupt. This is the consequence of this bad tradition.
Furthermore, the notion "ren2"("benevolence") Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm preaches is absolutely different from kindheartedness or philanthropy. Exactly, the notion "ren2" is the moral code whose purpose is to maintain the superiority of "higher-rank men" and the inferiority of "lower-rank men". In rare cases, "ren2" overlaps with benevolence, but this is just the side effect of the mis-go-ver-nm-ent. In most cases, the "ren2" is the antithesis of real benevolence.
For example, the top criterion of "ren2" is that you should not do things that the higher-rank ones are only allowed to do. (This "misconduct" is called "yue4 li3", which literally means "Exceed the level of ceremonies".) The treatment of princes can never be better than the treatments of mo-nar-chs. Every lower-rank class can never get the treatments that are better than those that are "only" fit for higher-rank classes.
When Yung Hui (Kong Qiu's disciple) died, his f_amily was too poor to inter him. His f_ather requested Kong Qiu to sell his carriage in exchange for a coffin. Kong Qiu said, "If I sold my carriage, I can only walk. I used to be a g-ov-ern-mental offi-cial. According to the ceremony, I cannot walk. So I can't help you." This is the "benevolence" and "ceremony" of Kong Qiu.
In Chapter3 of lun yu, {{Con-fu-cius said of the head of the Chi f_amily, who had eight rows of pantomimes in his area, "If he can bear to do this, what may he not bear to do?"}} Only because the Chi f_amily employed some dancers that Kong Qiu thought "it's too many", he stamped with fury like this! But we never see that he sympathized with the people who were k-i-lled in the continuous wa-r-s. So we can understand what on earth the "ren2" is.
Kong Qiu himself once confessed that "ren2" is:{{ To subdue one's self and return to propriety, is perfect virtue.}}(Chapter 12)
Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm usually says, "Benevolent men love humankind". But this "humankind" is not identical to "human being". This "humankind" are the persons who conform to the "ceremonies" of the go-ve-rnm-ental ru-les. As Meng Ke (Me-ncius) put it, "If you obey it you are a man, if you don't obey it you are a beast." If you are not obedient or tame, they don't want to "love" you, and even you are to be expelled from humanity and ki-ll-ed by "men" at any moment.
Once Kong Qiu accompanied the King of Lu to the Kingdom to Chi. When he saw the dance in the palace of that Kingdom contradicted his "ceremony", Kong Qiu forced the King of Chi to cut off the dancers' hands and feet.
When Kong Qiu was in his official post in the Kingdom of Lu, Shao Zhengmao gave lectures in public, some disciples of Kong Qiu left for his lectures at times, which made the number of the disciples of Kong Qiu fluctuate. This made Kong Qiu trapped into a rage, and finally ki-lle-d Shao Zhengmao for his groundless "cr-im-es".
So Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm is very hypocritical.
The "ceremony" of Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm does not mean "civility" or "good manner", but a kind of hierarchical order, a disciple by which the superiority of "superior men" and the inferiority of "inferior men" are well maintained.
In Chapter 5 of lun yu,{{The Master said, "Fine words, an insinuating appearance, and excessive respect;- Tso Ch'iu-ming was ashamed of them. I also am ashamed of them.}} But when we judge the words and deeds of Kong Qiu himself, can't we conclude that Kong Qiu himself represented "fine words, an insinuating appearance, and excessive respect"?
In Chapter 10 of lun yu:
{{Confucius, in his village, looked simple and sincere, and as if he were not able to speak.
When he was in the prince's ancestral temple, or in the court, he spoke minutely on every point, but cautiously.
When he was waiting at court, in speaking with the great officers of the lower grade, he spoke fr-eely, but in a straightforward manner; in speaking with those of the higher grade, he did so blandly, but precisely.
When the r-uler was present, his manner displayed respectful uneasiness; it was grave, but self-possessed.
When the prince called him to employ him in the reception of a visitor, his countenance appeared to change, and his legs to move forward with difficulty.
He inclined himself to the other officers among whom he stood, moving his left or ri-ght arm, as their position required, but keeping the skirts of his robe before and behind evenly adjusted.
He hastened forward, with his arms like the wings of a bird. When the guest had retired, he would report to the prince, "The visitor is not turning round any more."
When he entered the palace gate, he seemed to bend his body, as if it were not sufficient to admit him.
When he was standing, he did not occupy the middle of the gateway; when he passed in or out, he did not tread upon the threshold.
When he was passing the vacant place of the prince, his countenance appeared to change, and his legs to bend under him, and his words came as if he hardly had breath to utter them.
He ascended the reception hall, holding up his robe with both his hands, and his body bent; holding in his breath also, as if he dared not breathe.
When he came out from the audience, as soon as he had descended one step, he began to relax his countenance, and had a satisfied look. When he had got the bottom of the steps, he advanced rapidly to his place, with his arms like wings, and on occupying it, his manner still showed respectful uneasiness.
When he was carrying the scepter of his ru-ler, he seemed to bend his body, as if he were not able to bear its weight. He did not hold it higher than the position of the hands in making a bow, nor lower than their position in giving anything to another. His countenance seemed to change, and look apprehensive, and he dragged his feet along as if they were held by something to the ground.}}
What do these words mean? To put it popular, they mean: when in front of a higher-rank man, you should act as if you were a lac-k-ey; and when in front of a lower-rank man, you should act as if you were a pan-jan-drum. According to C/h/i[n]e_s~e idioms, that is: you should act the "grandson" in front of the higher-rank ones and act the " grandfather " in front of the lower-rank ones.
In Chapter 12 of lun yu: {{Now the man of distinction is solid and straightforward, and loves righteousness. He examines people's words, and looks at their countenances. He is anxious to humble himself to others. Such a man will be distinguished in the country; he will be distinguished in his clan.}} In Chapter 2 of lun yu: {{ Hear much and put aside the points of which you stand in doubt, while you speak cautiously at the same time of the others:--then you will afford few occasions for blame. See much and put aside the things which seem perilous, while you are cautious at the same time in carrying the others into practice: then you will have few occasions for repentance. When one gives few occasions for blame in his words, and few occasions for repentance in his conduct, he is in the way to get emolument.}} What do these two paragraphs mean? They mean: if you want to live well, you want to become a bu-reau-crat; you should learn to act the "grandson."
Kong Qiu was very good at showing. When people were in mourning and he attended their mourning feasts, he didn't eat fully on purpose. This is so artificial. In my opinion, he should not even think about the food of the f_amily who is in mourning.
Kong Qiu himself:{{ He did not dislike to have his rice finely cleaned, nor to have his mince meat cut quite small. He did not eat rice which had been injured by heat or damp and turned sour, nor fish or flesh which was gone. He did not eat what was discolored, or what was of a bad flavor, nor anything which was ill-cooked, or was not in season. He did not eat meat which was not cut properly, nor what was served without its proper sauce.}}(Chapter 10) But he commanded other people, {{ aims to be a man of complete virtue in his food does not seek to gratify his appetite, nor in his dwelling place does he seek the appliances of ease;}}(Chapter 1) And he discriminated these people: {{A scholar, whose mind is set on truth, and who is ashamed of bad clothes and bad food, is not fit to be discoursed with.}} (Chapter 4)
Although Kong Qiu once said:{{"In festive ceremonies, it is better to be sparing than extravagant. In the ceremonies of mourning, it is better that there be deep sorrow than in minute attention to observances."}}(Chapter 3)£¬ But these are just words. Kong Qiu and many of his disciples and followers do never hesitate to be extravagant.
As to Kong Qiu 's attitude toward women: {{Of all people, girls and servants are the most difficult to behave to. If you are f_amiliar with them, they lose their humility. If you maintain a reserve towards them, they are discontented." }} (Chapter 17) We can unreservedly say that the "ceremony" of Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm is the same thing as the "ceremony" of monkeys: every good thing should be turn over to the king monkey; every female monkey should be r-a-p-ed by king monkey first; lower-rank monkeys should keep respectful to higher-rank monkeys otherwise the former would be buffeted; female monkeys should keep respectful to male monkeys otherwise the former would be buffeted, too¡ The monkey's "ceremonies" as such.
In ancient C-h(i)n~a, there was no true love between a man and a woman. Because women were so inferior. Men could have a lot of wives, while women must keep "f_aithful" to and keep "virginal" for the (to-be/potential) marriages. Men had the ri-ght to cast off their wives at any moment, while women had no ri-ght to propose divorces. On the influence of this bad tradition, many young girls in C-h(i)n~a are fond of draw near to rich men and become the il-le-g-al "second wives", "third wives", or even "Nth wives" of them. They don't think it is a shame, rather, they think it is a glory. Pathetic C/h/i[n]e_s~e women.
Besides, it is very ludicrous that Kong Qiu always pretended to be solemn and dignified. No matter what manner you like most, if no r-u-le of l-a-w, how can you assure that people would keep "polite" to you? If you are a member of the lower-rank class, what can you do if people insult you? Kong Qiu himself was always besieged by "savages" like a drowned mouse.
As to being a good teacher, Kong Qiu is not competent either. Although Kong Qiu had casually said, {{Let every man consider virtue as what devolves on himself. He may not yield the performance of it even to his teacher."}}(Chapter 15) But the disciple whom he appreciated most is Yung Hui who always flattered him. He didn't like Tsze-lu who sometimes questioned his teachings.
In Chapter 7, Kong Qiu said, {{From the man bringing his bundle of dried flesh for my teaching upwards, I have never refused instruction to any one. }} Whatever people sent him he accepted it willingly and then hypocritically "instructed" them. But in ancient Greece many scholars gave lectures for free.
Co=nf_uc+ian "filialness and fraternity" underpin a kind of patriarchal ga-ng-st-er culture, which always develops into the organic gang-ste-rdom. The members in the C/h/i[n]e_s~e gan-gste-rdoms are able to do anything cru-e-lest without any sorrow.
The gan-gste-rdoms in Western country always realize that they are e-v-ildoers and their organizations are cri-m-inal organizations. So they always conceal themselves in order not to be exposed. But the gan-gs-terdo-ms in C-h(i)n~a always do not dodge p-ol-i-ce. And po-li-ce and gan-gsters always support each other as a kind of "loyalty". This is because C-h(i)n~a is ruled by the patriarchal "filialness and fraternity", not by rational l-a-w.
Before 1=9[]4=9, many ga-ngs-ter groups worshiped Guan Yu of the Three Kingdoms era. Because the history of Guan Yu, Zhang Fei, and Liu Bei (later the Em-per-or of Shu, one of the Three Kingdom) rising to power represented the ga-ngster spirit. And these three men are the models preached by later Con(fu)cians.
The most ridiculous thing is that, in order to elevate themselves, modern Con(fu)cians desperately debase Western culture. They ridicule that Western culture doesn't have the notions of "filialness" "fraternity" and "loyalty". This is too ridiculous. The Western people don't preach them constantly, but what they do are f_ar more magnificent than those tedious notions of Con(fu)cianism.
There is a notion of "xia2" in C/h/i[n]e_s~e which cannot be found in western languages. This is Western people's fortune. "Chivalrousness" maybe approximate most to the original meaning of that character. Many C/h/i[n]e_s~e novels describe "chivalrous samurai" as "helping the weak and restraining the strong", or "defending the justice." This is just the imagination of those fiction writers. "Xia2" means the absolute loyalty to the bosses/masters, revenge for friends/associates, or being hatchet men of the "bosses". That's why it permeates a gan-gs-ter culture in the folk in C-h(i)n~a. If a C/h/i[n]e_s~e conflicts with another C/h/i[n]e_s~e , the former is always prone to getting a lot of "friends" together and belabor the latter without any scruple.
Nowadays some off-icial "scholars" never "forget the cr-im-es committed by Western countries". But what about C-h(i)n~a itself? From H=a=n Dynasty of 2000 years ago, C-h(i)n~a had been skilled at inv-a-ding Turkish nations lived in the northwest of C-h(i)n~a. And C-h(i)n~a never stopped inva=ding nations which bordered with C-h(i)n~a such as Ko=rea and Vi=et Na=m (This happened most in Sui (581~618ad) and Tang (618~907ad)). And k=illed many national "minority" (They are not minority then.) lived in the south of C-h(i)n~a and perished their national identities. (This happened most in Qin (~206bc), H=a=n (206bc~220ad), Three Kingdoms (220~280ad), Ming (1368~1644ad) and Qing (1644~1911ad)) After 1~9~4~9, C-h(i)n~a relentlessly re=pr=esse=s T-i=b{e=t-a}n-s. C-h(i)n~a is the first big aggr-essor, first truly coloni-alist country, and its scale of agg-ressi-on ranks the first, and the treatment of the people living in the colon-ies is the worst. So these official-hired "scholars" have no qualification to attack Western people in this regard.
Why these Con(fu)cians like to show off that it is a marvelous achievement that C-h(i)n~a has known "filialness and fraternity" since 2500 years ago? Because the people's living condition in ancient (as well as modern to some extent) C-h(i)n~a is at the level of pigs: 1) The "C/h/i[n]e_s~e spirit" has still been keeping on telling you that you should eat food lest you become hungry. They thought this is a "big discovery". But any superior culture isn't interested in this regard, because even a pig would take it for granted that it should eat. 2) "C/h/i[n]e_s~e spirit" just tells you how to do, but it gives no reason for why doing so, nor does it permit you to ask this question. But any superior culture would allow you to search for the reason for doing a thing. In the Medieval Europe, even in the Islam world, if the r-ul-er asked you to do something, he probably gave you the reason "because it's the G-o-d's instruction". But in C-h(i)n~a, you just do it: you must do it when you understand it; you must do it when you don't understand it. No reason; no request for the reason. Lun yu itself is an example. There are many {{the master said: "@#$}[(*!@#$|%^&*(&^% #@%&")}s, but none of them gives you a reason. You must follow then unconditionally.
German Philosopher Hegel once said "We have conversations between Con=fucius and his followers in which there is nothing definite further than a commonplace moral put in the form of good, sound doctrine, which may be found as well expressed and better, in every place and amongst every people. Cicero gives us De Officiis, a book of moral teaching more comprehensive and better than all the books of Confucius." (Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy -- Oriental Philosophy)
Western culture in every age is always superior to the contemporary C/h/i[n]e_s~e culture. When C/h/i[n]e_s~e were writing the fortune-telling nonsense I Ching, Greek scholars dedicated us with rigorous logical texts. The spirits of pen-a-nce and red-empti-on of C-hr-is-tia-ni-ty are also more satisf_actory than Con(fu)cian advocate of that higher-rank men being the paragon of the lower-rank men. Many progressive ideas proposed in the Renaissance make Western culture exceed the changeless C/h/i[n]e_s~e culture again. Modern science and technology left the agricultural C-h(i)n~a f_ar behind. The prevalence of de(mo)cr-ac-y and the protection of hu-m-a-n ri-ghts in modern Western countries reflect that C-h(i)n~a seems to be an exotic country of another planet. The level of C/h/i[n]e_s~e culture and that of the Western culture are not in the same magnitude. If C/h/i[n]e_s~e culture reaches to 10, then the Western culture will reach to the ninth power of 10. C/h/i[n]e_s~e culture is like a piece of glass. When put in the desert, it seems shiny; but when put into a sack of diamonds, it suddenly looks like a piece of coal.
When you read lyn yu word by word, you certainly can find some words which seem sound. So why lun yu should be negate as a whole? The reason is simple. When we f_ace both medical science and "traditional C/h/i[n]e_s~e medicine", we would meet the option. Traditional C/h/i[n]e_s~e medicine is certainly not a science. But it can bring a few true therapeutic effects because it has accumulated many experiences in several thousand years. If there were no medical science, we have to keep on using traditional C/h/i[n]e_s~e medicine. But there is a medical science, whatever disease traditional C/h/i[n]e_s~e medicine can cure can be cured by true medicine (medical science). But not all disease that can be cured by true medicine can be cured by traditional C/h/i[n]e_s~e medicine. And furthermore, many herbs have toxicities that have been covered up by ancient traditional C/h/i[n]e_s~e medicine practitioners because C/h/i[n]e_s~e highly regard "reputations". And most herbs are not effective at all. Now that true medicine can resoles every problem which traditional C/h/i[n]e_s~e medicine can resole while traditional C/h/i[n]e_s~e medicine cannot resolve many problems that true medicine can resolve, it is reasonable to abandon traditional C/h/i[n]e_s~e medicine.
It is the same reason why Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm should be discarded. Whatever positive spirits Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm has can be found in modern Western cultures, and every positive spirit in the Western culture is better than its Con(fu)cian counterpart.
By the way, one idea Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm advocates is: "firstly to learn to be a man, and then to learn other things". Maybe this is the only viewpoint that can be affirmed reluctantly. But we should pay attention to the notion "man" here. The "man" means "la-ck-ey", not a human being with an independent personality.
Nowadays many Con(fu)cians are fond of "re-explaining" the classical literature f_antastically. Although the literary C/h/i[n]e_s~e is somewhat hard to understand, yet Kong Qiu and his disciples' dictums and "philosophy" are so shallow that every educated C/h/i[n]e_s~e can accurately guess them. And many words in the literary C/h/i[n]e_s~e have fixed meanings and explanations. Many normal textbooks and literature courses give us the extensive and correct anatomy of the grammar of literary C/h/i[n]e_s~e. But these ignorant modern Con(fu)cians who have neither learning nor skill disregard the grammar of literary C/h/i[n]e_s~e, and arbitrarily "re-explain" the classics according their own intentions. They distort the true meaning of lun yu and other classics and call this "the re-discovery of the value of Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm."
But if their "mentor's" text can be easily arbitrarily distorted like this, what value does it have?
If you want to understand what is the spirit of Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm, you should read the original text directly with the assistant of a literary C/h/i[n]e_s~e dictionary such as Ci Yuan (if you know C/h/i[n]e_s~e). Do not believe the nonsense of these cheater-like modern Con(fu)cians. Many C/h/i[n]e_s~e who proclaimed themselves "lover of C/h/i[n]e_s~e culture" are usually the poor "learners" of C/h/i[n]e_s~e culture. And some "lovers" actually do not love it. Rather, they use it to attain some ulterior purposes (Such as the intention to become a bu-rea-uc=rat ---- a "man who is beyond other men". "Loving Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm" is the way of "acting the grandson".) And furthermore, Co=nf_uc+ia(ni)sm is obviously the representative of the ba-ckw-ard culture. It's too rea-ctio-n-ary not to be disguised in a manner that we can accept through our common sense.
| 
