Confucianism and Toaism

For the past few days in history class we have been studying Confucianism and Taoism separately. But today we looked at both of them together and compared and contrasted. I will say my thoughts and observations for each of them separately and then compare the two.

My Thoughts and Observations on Confucianism:

Confucius's teachings are regarded mostly in Asia , so China, Vietnam, Japan and Korea. Confucius, who lived in China during a state of turmoil and transition for the country during the Zhou Dynasty, wanted to create teachings to help China get out of a state of warfare and competition between the different feudal states. He tried to get solutions for unity. In passages from "On Humaneness," something called "The Way" is referred to a lot and that this just means the right way to live your life so being humane, respectful, and living your life with liberality, trustworthiness, earnestness and kindness. In the long run, the whole idea of Confucianism is to help others and everything will be okay. It is this idea of unity and everyone working together to make a better place. But the only way to help others is if you help yourself first and then you are worthy of helping others. You want to establish yourself and then help others do the same. Confucius said that the only way to be humane is to recognize yourself in other people. So this also goes with the unity idea and also means that everyone should be treated equally and the way you would want to be treated. Confucianism is kind of black and white. You either are something or your not. You are humane and if you are not humane then you must be the total opposite and you will have a really bad life. It is kind of the idea of Karma, if you are bad and mean to other people then your life is going to be bad. I don't really agree with all of his teachings because, like I said, he seems to black and white to me. I am humane but I am not totally humane, I even lack the knowledge of what the full definition of humane is. I think that not everything is one dimensional and people can have multiple layers to themselves. I think that I am a nice person but that doesn't mean that I am always nice to every single person I know and meet. So that is my perspective of Confucius's philosophy. 

My Thought and Observations on Taoism: 

I think that Taoism is pretty similar to Confucianism on a few things but the over all outlook is really different. Taoism was created by Lao Tzu who was contemporary of Confucius. Taoism started out kind of like the way Christianity started out. It was part of Confucianism but eventually broke off into it's own thing. Tzu, the founder of Taoism, was regarded and honored as almost a god. Tao actually translates to Path or road. Taoism isn't really a religion but more of a way of life. Actually maybe not even a way of life but a thing, an actual thing that is just there. It can't be described or explained it just is. If it were to be described it would be described as a force that flows through everything living. It is kind of like the force in Star Wars and actually Taoism is what the force in Star Wars was modeled after. Tao is what made everything and existed before anything else existed. In a quote that was in the reading, it says that "if you don't listen to me, then I will effect you." That is kind of a scare tactic and goes with the notion of Karma. The thing about Taoism that really makes it different is that it believes in helping only yourself and not others. But by helping only yourself you are actually helping others. Helping yourself is finding Tao and this will give you integrity and that, in turn, will help other people. So this religion is more of an individual religion and you can kind of do things your way and to your understanding of things. 

Differences and Similarities Between Confucianism and Taoism:

I think that the most major difference is the main philosophy of each of them which is the way to make things better. For Confucianism it is to help others and be humane at all costs. For Taoism it is to help yourself and find Tao in order to make the world better. So Confucianism is about unity and Taoism is about independence and self advocation. Similarities (other then the obvious of both being founded and followed in primarily China) are that they both have a kind of karma system. In both of the primary passages that I read explaining Confucianism and Taoism it says that if you don't do the right thing (the thing that each of the different religions are teaching so Humaneness for Confucianism and achieving Tao for Taoism) then your life will be bad. This is a kind of scare tactic and was probably put into place in both of the two religions to gain control into their own religion. Also another similarity is they both believe in achieving a higher goal. For Taoism it is actually finding Tao and for Confucianism it is following The Way and finding humaneness. 

Caste System

In a reading due tomorrow I learned about the Caste System of Hinduism. The caste system looks like this;
Brahmin: preists, teachers, highly educated scholars.
Kshatriyas: Warriors and royalty.
Vaishyas: Traders.
Shudras: Farmers, service providers, artists and laborers.
Untouchables: Not even in the caste system, considered "untouchable" and a disgrace.


To me, it is pretty obvious that a royal leader didn't make this up like usual. It was probably developed my a priest or scholar because they are the ones that are on top of the caste system. This is an example of how people can change history to their benefit using religion as the base. Religion can also be easily adapted to make it look good later on. 


If you were born into a certain caste you had to die in that exact caste so there weren't any cross-caste marriages. This was probably a tactic too keep the working people from gaining too much power and keeping the scholars and priest in charge. This kind of thing has been going on all around the world for pretty much ever. Like even in the early 1900's in America there was a very defined line between the elite, the working class and the lower class. It wasn't illegal for the different socioeconomic groups to mix but it was highly frowned upon and you wouldn't be thought of the same way. This does not have to do with religion like the caste system does but it is still a way for the upper class to remain in charge and keep things in order the way they want it to be.  


The Caste system was also something that motivated people to be and do good in the world. They were told and believed that if you are good you will reincarnate into a higher caste. So this is also a way for whoever is a the top of the caste system to keep the people in control. It prevents rebellion because if there was nothing to believe in and to strive to be, there would be no reason for the citizens not to rebel and make their life better. 


The structure of the caste system is fairly simple. And it has changed over time to become a more legal thing instead of a religious thing (even though it still related and was based off of religion). The reading talks about many little changes here and there over the course of 2000 years makes the world of difference. But overall, even though India was making a lot of advancements, the caste system still remained up until the 20th century. No one questioned the caste system because it had been in existence for so long and was pretty much second nature. The caste system is a good example of evolution. Religion can evolve just like the caste system did. 

The Split Between Christianity and Judaism

Something that I had not known very much about was the split between Christianity and Judaism. It just wasn't something that I was ever taught before this week. I knew that Christianity was originally part of Judaism but I had never known the specifics on how exactly the transition was made from being a sector of one religion to a completely different religion. Even though I am "Christian", I realized that I do not know very much about Christianity and its origins and I suppose those are kind of important things to know about if you want to call yourself a Christian. I did not know if the transition from being part Judaism to being a separate religion was a sudden change or a more gradual change.

I had always heard that the Christianity became a religion before Jesus was even killed. I thought that he made up the religion and gradually gained followers. I also thought that it was the Jews that killed him because he was becoming too powerful. I used to think all of that when I was younger but now that I think about it, it seems pretty impossible for a religion to spread and gain a lot of power in such a short period of time. So that is why it makes sense that Jesus was born and died a jew.

Another thing that I didn't know about was Paul and his letters. I found it very interesting that his letters contained teachings that were put into the bible. Back then, sending letters was a good way to spread to word about this new religion. When Paul said that if the Romans don't love god then they would be first to die when the world ends, the Romans thought that this was a threat and acted upon it. If someone told me that if I didn't love god then I would die, I would think they were crazy. And because I am not a religious person, and I don't really believe in god, it makes me wonder why these people like Paul and Jesus felt so strongly that there was one god. It makes me wonder if they were in fact crazy or if they were just power hungry. It if weird to think entire religions could be based off of lies that one person told, or even worse a crazy person thought they knew about.

So the main thing is, the change from Judaism to Christianity was kind of a gradual change but a few events occurred to help move it along. Events like the revolt against the Roman Empire. I learned that when some of the jews didn't convert to Christianity, the people  who did were mad so they said that it was the jews who hates Jesus even though that probably wasn't true given Jesus was jewish and Christianity was still part of Judaism. It is kind of intriguing to think about how history can be changed by one person saying something. It is kind of like how a religion can be made based on a lie. History can be made based on a lie too.

The Rise of Christianity

Today's history class was very interesting, getting into groups and discussing last nights reading got me thinking a little. After reading the article two nights ago, all of the ideas and things that it talked about didn't completely sink in. Yea, I understood that christianity changed to world and gave society a different understanding of life and an incentive to be good. But I think that the things the article left unsaid and open for understanding were the most meaningful things. I think that the whole idea of Christianity and having only one god altered society a little. It changed the peoples way of thinking because instead of many gods that were cold and mean looking down upon the humans, there is one god that loves all people if they are good. So this is something that made Christianity more appealing to people because no one wants to have to love gods that don't really do anything in return. So that is what changed societies view on things, the had a different motive to live. Also, they had a different motive to be good to other people because if they are then good will like them and let them go to heaven.

In class today, with answering questions on the spot about each of the different readings view on how Christianity changed the world, the two separate views were very different but still had similarities. My reading focused more on the appeal of Christianity and why people would want to convert in a more community oriented way and whats good for them socially. The second reading that I learned about today in class, was about how converting to Christianity would be good for someone in a more religious sort of way. This reading had to do with the beliefs and all of good things that Christianity would bring to the people that converted. I think that both of them are "right" in a way. Each of them could apply to different people, the first one would be people who aren't extremely religious but still want to follow good teaching and be a part of a more close community. The second reading could apply to more religious people who are looking for the best way to practice religion from a belief standpoint.

Akhenaton and Cuntural Diffusion

So what does cultural diffusion mean? Cultural diffusion is the spreading of ideas or products from one culture to another. That is the literal, dictionary.com meaning. But in actuality, it is a lot more then that and can not be described in one sentence. It is really complex and hard to wrap your brain around. But basically, whenever you have an interaction with someone you, as a person, have changed a little bit. So when there are a billion interactions between tons of different people, that can cause big change. When you tell your ideas to someone and they tell them to someone else and them to someone else, your idea spreads and soon a lot of people agree or disagree with you and this changes them as a person. This is cultural diffusion. 


So how does this relate to Akhenaton? Akhenaton was supposedly the one who came up with the idea of Monotheism and believing in only one god. But really, it could have been anyone who thought if that idea. And actually, it most likely wasn't Akhenaton who thought of this idea, he could have heard of it through cultural diffusion. But anyway, thats not really the point. The point is, when Akhenaton introduced Monotheism, the Egyptians didn't really follow it but they weren't angry or anything. So this means that as soon as Akhenaton died, Monotheism was over for Egypt. But how did the ideal of Monotheism live on? Again, possibly through cultural diffusion. Some Egyptians might have actually agreed with Akhenaton's idea of Monotheism and when they talk about it with other people, the idea gets around. But also,  Monotheism doesn't seem like an extremely uncommon thing to think of. Anyone could have thought of the idea of Monotheism any number of times after Akhenaton. So the idea might not have resurfaced because of cultural diffusion. Although, cultural diffusion probably played a role in the climb of Monotheism.  

Monotheism vs. Polytheism

Earlier this week in history, we focused on the differences between Monotheism and Polytheism. We were put into groups and we made a venn diagram about Monotheism and Polytheism. We found that the major differences between the two were:

• Monotheism has one god while Polytheism has many gods. This kind of goes without saying though.
• People that were/are monotheistic think that one over all god is more powerful then many weaker gods. But Polytheists thought that many gods made for a more powerful religion and so the two view points contradicted but of course each type of religion thinks it is better then the other.
• Monotheism is very popular now and Polytheism is not common at all nowadays. But Polytheism used to  be the more popular type of religion.
• Monotheism is more of strict religion because there is only one god that you can worship. But Polytheism lets you choose with god(s) you would like to worship and they don't force you to worship any certain god.

Some pros and cons that we came up for Monotheism were as follows. They are what monotheistic and polytheistic people would think, not what a neutral person would think:

Pros:

• One god can better unit a religion.
• One powerful god can do all of the things if not more then many weaker gods.
• A Monotheistic god has more concern for it's people. This was a piece of information that we found in a reading about monotheism.
• You can choose how religious you want to be. If you don't want to be that religious and worship everyday or go to church you don't have to.

Cons:

• Monotheism can cause more conflict because being forced to following one god is stricter then choosing which god you would like to worship.
• Having different denominations in religions can lead to wars over religion.

Pros about Polytheism:

• If someone believes in another god, it is easily accepted because there are so many gods and everyone can choose their own god to worship.
• There is a specific god for everything.
• Wars aren't fought over religions but instead over territory (which has nothing to do with religion). When countries or groups are conquered, they can still worship which ever god they want.

Cons:

• Polytheism doesn't have any very powerful gods, only a bunch of slightly powerful gods.
• People are less unified because everyone is worshipping a god of their choosing so it is more like your own little religion opposed to everyone worshipping the same one.
• Gods don't forgive their followers.

We were asked to answer this question with a thesis statement and three points. "Why did the world go from a civilization that was 90% polytheistic to a religion that was 90% monotheistic."

Thesis: Monotheism appealed to the progressing society and unvalidated the beliefs of Polytheism because of the rational core concepts of Monotheism, progressive changes to the approach of religion and the sense of unification and individuality in the experience if religion when compared to Polytheistic beliefs.

• Monotheism reflects rational values and beliefs, while polytheism expresses more radical themes.
• Monotheism proposed a change of take on religion after Polytheism lost validity as society progressed.
• Instead of the vastness and objectiveness of Polytheism, Monotheism provides a more unified community and subjective, individual opportunity to religiously practice.