Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!gatech!prism!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!mayne From: esot@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: DEBATE: Buddhism and Taoism "vs." Confucianism Keywords: Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Debate, help Message-ID: <12720@ur-cc.UUCP> Date: 11 Mar 91 21:33:09 GMT References: <2491@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <64263@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Sender: mayne@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) Organization: University of Rochester, Rochester NY Lines: 25 Approved: mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu You have been assigned to debate against confucianism. Your strategy, it seems to me, is relatively straightforward. 1. Determine the most fundamental claims of confucianism. Here you would be advised to stick to the writings of (and about) Confucious. Many different philosophies go under the name of confucianism. Stick to Confucious himself as much as possible. For example, what sorts of claims does confucianism (per se) make about human nature, about the doctrine of rectificaiton of names, about the nature and qualities of the sage? 2. Your complaint about making a value judgment may be misplaced. Debate and rational discussion were far from alien to confucians, buddhists, and taoists (though Taoists and Buddhists (esp. Ch'an/Zen Buddhists) often had unorthodox approaches to such things, and were critical of the scope of the accomplishments such debate and discussion were thought to have). Thinking critically about religions, "Eastern" or otherwise, does not automatically amount to adopting a misguided or mistaken approach. Rather, it is the claim that thinking alone, in isolation from practice or first-hand insight, etc., is all there is to it. 3. Good luck. 4. I apologize for the inconsistent capitalization of names/terms. -- ******************************************************************** Eric Sotnak | "Sagehood is nothing esot@uhura.cc.rochester.edu | but sincerity" | - Chou Tun-I