Philosophy - Martyrdom, Texts, and Anonynimity in Moral Philosophy as Political Resistance

Comparisons between philosophical claims and historic political situations are often shunned by standard readings of philosophical texts. We tend to look at philosophy in a vacuum, as if the history of philosophy occurred in a vacuum. Instead of viewing the relationship in unidirectional manner (either thought dictating societal organization or societal structures determining thought), I prefer to think of these in a bidirectional manner –thought and cultural/political conditions are constantly influencing each other – like a bidirectional reaction or an equilibrium.

Consider this comparison between, on the one hand, issues surrounding Socrates death, including his relationship with Alcibiades and the history of Athens, and on the other hand, the ambiguous identity of Laozi, the philosophical claims of the Dao De Jing, the chaos of the Classical Chinese Era. I hope to bring out several themes, in particular the role of philosophy in public discourse, challenging power structures through philosophical analysis, and the real threat from challenging power dynamics with philosophical debate.

Let’s begin with David Johnson's work on Socrates and Alcibiades. Johnson looks at the relationship between Socrates and his on-again-off-again mentorship with Alcibiades, privileged son of Athens. We often interpret the trial of Socrates and his execution by hemlock as a purely philosophical affair, and in our hagiography we praise the incorrigible Gadfly for his steadfast commitment to the pursuit of Wisdom. Johnson tells the story of Alcibiades' disastrous military endeavors in the Peloponnesian War and the consequences this may have had for Socrates' own life. Alcibiades was blamed (not unjustly) for the complete disaster that was the Sicilian Expedition (it was his idea, allegedly). The episode marked a major turning point in the war which ended with Athens’ defeat and subsequent rule under the Thirty Tyrants.

Following Athens’ successful rebellion against  the Spartan proxy government the puppet government was ousted and clemency was granted to all Athenians involved (except the thirty tyrants themselves). But the city’s old democracy was never fully restored – instead we saw the consolidation of power under a newer oligarchy. Johnson argues this may have been part of the reason Socrates was tried for impiety and corruption of the youth as opposed to a more direct charge such as being a traitor. Alcibiades had already been exiled (twice, I believe) and was eventually assassinated in Phrygia. Socrates spent his time publicly critiquing the members of the new government, old war heroes who had seized power. But he did so under the guise of seeking Wisdom – if we are to believe Plato. We should be able to see here that Socrates’ mission may have been more than simply seeking wisdom – he may have actually been publicly challenging members of the new government by trapping them in contradiction and confusion.

So I wonder: to what extent were Plato’s writings an attempt to publicly rewrite the history between Socrates and Alcibiades? Or at least present a narrative where Alcibiades is morally and pedagogically distanced from Socrates: in the Symposium we are shown that Alcibiades neither fully understands Socrates’ position on the Good nor does Socrates support Alcibiades’ erratic dalliances in the realms of flesh and emotion. The message here (in this interpretation) is this: “Of course Socrates knew Alcibiades – everyone knew him! – And yes, they may have engaged in philosophical debate – but surely you can see here that Alcibiades did not understand Socrates’ position on wisdom and The Good, and that Socrates was only interested in trying to educate a young man with great potential. Certainly we can agree that Socrates should not be held responsible for Alcibiades’ flaws and certainly you can see Socrates should not have been executed for questioning the wisdom of the new Athenian order.”

Given the propensity that political leaders have for silencing their dissidents through political trials and purges, does this warrant asking whether or not Laozi ever really existed? While the hegemony of the Qin had not yet arrived, does the ambiguity of Laozi’s identity provide some shielding to his followers? You cannot kill the leader of a movement if that leader doesn’t really exist. You can kill his followers, but it is impossible to silence a leader who cannot be killed (or at least it’s really difficult – hence politically motivated censorship and book burnings).

While not convincing by itself, this line of thought agrees with another hypothesis I like to field about Laozi – that the clear lack of any personal characteristics or discussion of Laozi in the collected sayings of Laozi is both consistent and coherent with the philosophical reasoning of the Dao De Jing. The text proposes that the Confucian emphasis on virtue is problematic, because any attempt to publicly establish one’s virtue simultaneously undermines one’s own attempts to actually be virtuous. Less strongly worded, attempting to lead through imposing ritual and overt displays of virtue leads fails to meet the actual needs of the situation: the people are starving, the lands are overrun with war, and nobody can live in a time of violence.

While I’m not fully convinced – there are some holes here – I certainly think it’s worth exploring the possible philosophical and political reasons we have such difficulty in pinning authorship on the Dao De Jing. The use of anonymity was useful far before the rise of the information and the advent of activism; while a majority position in the classical Chinese world could be seen cultivating safety through establishing one’s name, virtue and group affiliation, the Daoists recognized that the safest position may be having no name at all.

Announcement - Rutgers 2013: Nature and Value in Chinese and Western Philosophies

The original post can be found here, at Warp, Weft and Way: 

The conference is at Rutgers University, April 4-5, and marks the first occasion of the Annual Rutgers Workshop on Chinese Philosophy.

1st Annual Rutgers Workshop on Chinese Philosophy (RWCP)

An International Conference on Nature and Value in Chinese and Western Philosophies

April 4-5, 2013
Rutgers University Inn & Conference Center 178 Ryders Lane
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
USA

Organizers:

Tao JIANG (Rutgers University)
Stephen Angle (Wesleyan University)
Ruth Chang (Rutgers University)

---

Thursday, April 4, 2013

8:45 am – 9:00 am
Welcome Remarks

Joanna Regulska (Vice President for International and Global Affairs, Rutgers University)
Jeffrey King (Chair, Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University)

9:00 am – 10:30 am
The Role of Nature in Early Confucian Ethics

Moderator: Ching-I TU (Rutgers University)

Presenters:
Kwong-loi SHUN (Chinese University of Hong Kong) — Ethical Justification and Ethical Appeal
Sor-hoon TAN (National University of Singapore) — Xunzi and Naturalistic Ethics

Commentator: Ruth Chang (Rutgers University)

10:30 am – 10:45 am Coffee Break

10:45 am – 12:15 pm
Nature and Norm in Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism

Moderator: Sukhee Lee (Rutgers University)

Presenters:
Stephen Angle (Wesleyan University) — Nature (xing) as Ground of Ethics: Neo-Confucianism And/Versus Buddhism
Justin Tiwald (San Francisco State University) — The Relationship between Imperatives and Natural Tendencies in Neo-Confucianism

Commentator: Barry Leower (Rutgers University)

12:15 pm – 1:45 pm Lunch

1:45 pm – 3:45 pm
Crafting Human Nature in Early Confucianism

Moderator: Wendy Swartz (Rutgers University) Presenters:

Amy Olberding (University of Oklahoma) — From Corpses to Courtesy: Xunzi’s Defense of the Artifice of Etiquette
Hagop Sarkissian (Baruch College, CUNY) — Manipulating Human Nature in Early Chinese Thought
David Wong (Duke University) — The Moral Craftsmen of Human Nature in the Analects and the Xunzi

Commentator: Owen Flanagan (Duke University)

3:45 pm – 4:00 pm Coffee Break

4:00 pm – 5:30 pm
Happiness and Compassion in Comparative Ethics

Moderator: Jessey Choo (Rutgers University)

Presenters:
Jiyuan YU (SUNY Buffalo) — Moral Naturalism in Daoism and Stoicism
Tongdong BAI (Fudan University, China) — Mencius, Nietzsche, and the Nature of Compassion

Commentator: Michael Slote (University of Miami)

5:30 pm Reception and Dinner

---

Friday, April 5, 2013

9:00 am – 10:30 am
Facts and Values in Neo-Confucianism

Moderator: Deborah Sommer (Gettysburg College)

Presenters:
HUANG Yong (Kutztown University) — How To Derive Ought from Is: Zhu Xi’s Neo- Confucian Approach
PENG Guoxiang (Peking University, China) — Nature as Value: A Confucian One-body Ecological Vision

Commentator: Holly Smith (Rutgers University)

10:30 am – 10:45 am Coffee Break

10:45 am – 12:15 pm
Chinese Naturalistic Metaethics in Comparative Perspective

Moderator: Peter Klein (Rutgers University)

Presenters:
Chris Fraser (University of Hong Kong) — Chinese Naturalism and the Limits of Ethics
JeeLoo LIU (California State University, Fullerton) — Grounding Objectivity in Confucian Ethics

Commentator: Dean Zimmerman (Rutgers University)

12:15 pm – 1:45 pm Lunch

1:45 pm – 3:45 pm
Virtue Epistemology and Chinese Philosophy

Moderator: Chun-fang Yu (Columbia University)

Presenters:
Chienkuo MI (Soochow University, Taiwan) — What Is Knowledge? When Confucius Meets Ernest Sosa
Rueylin CHEN (National Chung-Cheng University, Taiwan) — Intellectual Virtues and Craft Knowledge in Traditional China
Hsiang-Min SHEN (Soochow University, Taiwan) — On Zhu Xi’s Theory of Investigation, Knowledge and Intellectual Virtue: A Perspective from Virtue Epistemology

Commentator: Ernest Sosa (Rutgers University)

3:45 pm – 4:00 pm Coffee Break

4:00 pm – 5:30 pm
The Problem of Freedom in Confucian and Daoist Philosophical Projects

Moderator: Richard Simmons (Rutgers University)

Presenters:
Tao JIANG (Rutgers University) — Isaiah Berlin and the Problem of Spiritual Freedom in the Zhuangzi
Kai Marchal (Soochow University, Taiwan) — Paradoxes and Possibilities of “Confucian Freedom”: From Yan Fu (1853-1921) to Mou Zongsan (1909-1995)

Commentator: Larry Temkin (Rutgers University)

6:00 pm Dinner

Special thanks to our sponsors whose generous support has made this conference possible:

Confucius Institute of Rutgers University, Dean of Humanities at School of Arts and Sciences, Director of Rutgers China Office, Department of Philosophy, and Department of Religion

All inquiries should be directed to Ms. Susan Rosario srosa@rci.rutgers.edu.