DISCUSSION: Mencius and Marcus Aurelius

We had a great discussion today about the 2 books.  It helped that both books were very readable and still relevant to life today.  Lauren led the discussion on Mencius and Bruce guided us through the Meditations.

Up until the last one or two centuries, anyone who wanted to be a bureaucrat (Chinese civil service) had to study Mencius as well as write their exams.  One advantage for this was that all the bureacrats would have had a similar grounding in Confucian philosophy and ethics.  This commonality was an important unifying factor as China drew all the waring feudal fiefdoms into one country.

Q: Mencius believed that all men are inherently good Do you agree with this position? Is being morally upright the natural default or do people need to be habituated?

A: Chris felt that yes people are born good but they often go astray in adolescence.  Of those who enter the criminal justice system, 70 to 80% are in trouble with law once and then not.  It is only a small percentage that seem to be more bad than good.  Kristen commented that her son says it’s more fun to be bad, though he knows what it means to be good.  Bruce felt that we all have capacity to be good but it takes work.  Stephen mentioned that Plato said that all were born good and if they do evil it’s through ignorance.

Q: Were politicians always reviled and distrusted?

A: Hobbes says humans are self-aggrandizing (that’s our nature) and whole goal is to personally enrich ourselves.  This makes us do bad things to satisfy our needs/desires.  There is an alternative viewpoint which says humans are cooperative social beings and wish to advance society and fellow human beings.  Marcus Aurelius certainly felt this was what should guide us and Mencius counselled to follow the Way.

Q: Mencius envisioned good government as a benevolent leader acting in the best interests of the people. Would this be true in today's world – are people more willing to support a leader if they see him/her as morally strong? (think of Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Reagan)

A: Mencius said you can judge a good ruler if the old people eat meat and wear silk. In our society we worry about the tax paying segment and progress and growth, and focus on the productive members of society rather than the vulnerable.  Abilio mentioned that in S. America we have seen the election of many ultra-right wing governments.  The people are often voting for people they think are morally upright, though this usually doesn’t turn out to be the case.  Bruce noted that leaders are usually not selected by the people – it's either a monarchy and even in democracy a small group selects the candidates that people have to choose from.  In some countries you see military coups .  Stephen mentioned the phenomenon of 18^thcentury enlightened despots.

Sukhinder brought up the issue of moral intelligence vs intellectual intelligence.  Reflection can get in the way of moral thinking – moral thinking is better when you go with your instincts.

Q: In Saturday's class on Lucretius, we discussed empathy and sympathy. Mencius presents the story of a person who saves a child from falling in the well, and attributes his actions to compassion. What do you think is motivating the individual in this story?

A: compassion is innate in people but can be reduced or increased based on nurture, experiences etc

There was much to discuss in Marcus Aurelius - especially coming after Lucretius and Mencius.

Q: 1.  How are the two philosophies (Epicureanism and Stoicism) similar and different?

A: Marcus Aurelius feels there is providence and a master plan; both stoics and epicureans felt that after you are dead you are gone, there is nothing – with stoics you go back to matter which then goes on to be formed into other things; epicureans feel you just go back to random matter with no master plan. 

Q: 2.  Both schools of thought seem interested in minimizing or controlling needs and desires.  We saw with the Epicureans, the goal was achieving a “lucid state of robust tranquility” (ataraxia).  How does the stoic (in the form of M. Aurelius) define the good life, or the life well led?

A: living for the benefit of mankind, fulfilling duty, avoiding reactive emotions, praying for release from desires or from fear of events (death, illness etc).  The Stoic believes firmly in providence, Nature's master plan.

The conflict between epicureanism and stoicism is the conflict between ineluctable destiny (determinism) vs ungoverned confusion (fatalism).  Despite this major difference, both adherents want to live a good life, avoid being driven by desires, work to the benefit of mankind, avoid harming others especially the vulnerable.  Mencius also would have agreed with this.