One of the most interesting ideas that I have encountered in the reading I have done thus far about Confucianism is the idea that emotions all start as good. I find this idea to be interesting on many levels. This concept is not only an interesting one but a useful one as well.
The idea that all emotions are good to begin with is something that I think most people will have a difficult time accepting. The main reason for this is that I think most of us are brought up to believe that it is "natural" to have bad or evil impulses. The thing that makes a good person is not whether or not they have bad or harmful desires but whether or not they act on them. Confücians believe that this is a false statement in two ways, first, the idea that it is "natural" to have negative reactions to various situations and second, that these impulses stem from the very "core" or "center" of our beings. The Confucian approach is that the root of our emotional being is a tranquil and good place. This in of itself is a hard concept for modem western thinkers. Most of us probably believe that when someone does wrong it is a function of their "bad side" coming to the surface, that there are constantly forces of good and evil at war in our souls. I think that part of the reason that most of us think that this is probably the case because we have had the type of experience that would naturally lead to this conclusion, that is to say that we have all had some sort of impulse or desire to do something we believe is wrong and not acted on it because of that belief. This goes for all manner of actions in situations both social and moral. The Confucians used the word ii to describe the proper way of acting with the proper motivation; li cannot be described as just a way of behaving or as a way of thought. I think this fact is extremely helpful when trying to understand the mindset of the typical Confucian. The type of society that values the motivation and the action must have a different approach towards morality and propriety. This factor brings into play the concept of "self cultivation" that is spoken of very often in Confucian writings. The underlying theme to this area of writing seems to be that simply acting properly is worthless without the proper motivation for ones actions.
If one examines almost any aspect of western society (government in particular) one will find that the approach to how one should behave is basically "think whatever you want to but act the way we say". American democracy is somewhat closer to the Confucian way of thought than a great many other countries in the western world in that one is not told what to say or do except for those actions that the majority has decreed are purely harmful. In a great many other countries there is no such thing as freedom of speech for instance. However, freedom is not really what Confucians were concerned with. Their main concern was the cultivation of the individual, both emotionally and intellectually, their belief basically consisted of the idea that if everyone achieves this ideal of II the rest will sort itself out. In this country the approach is quite different, we are taught what our society expects of us and told that we will be punished if we differ from those expectations. Little or no effort is made to convince us of the value of these ideals. In contrast this seems to be the entire purpose of most Confucian teachings. However, I should mention that there is no list of what is proper and what is not according to Confucius. Rather it is ultimately up to the individual who is attempting to learn this way of life to interpret the teachings they are given.
Most of the reading I have done thus far seems to be a set of examples. That is to say the passage will give a set of circumstances and the actions of the individual in them. The actor is then praised or rebuked for said actions. When one reads enough of these examples the underlying "lesson" becomes apparent. The statement made about the proper method of education is indirect but nonetheless present. The approach that is taken is one directed at teaching a method of thought rather than a set of principles. Here again one can see that the Confucian idea that ones intentions and thoughts are more important than ones actions is at play. Take for example the statement "lying is wrong" this type of statement seems fairly reasonable to the typical western thinker. One will never see something this vague and authoritative in Confucian writings. The obvious question is "under what circumstances?" It would be foolish to say that lying is always a bad thing to do regardless of the situation. This is essentially the issue that this part of Confucian teachings seeks to address. If one wishes to attain the "proper" way of life one must not only act properly but also think properly. The way that this is achieved is to get in touch with ones most basic inclinations, which (according to the Confucians) is nothing but good. It is only after ones emotions leave this basic place that they have a good or bad connotation. When one examines this idea further one can see that it makes a great deal of sense both as a practice and as a philosophy. If one acts and believes as though human nature is basically good and that is the proper state of ones being, both society and the individual will benefit. When one tries to act according to what one believes society expects of them without paying attention to what they actually feel is good or bad, the result is someone who is both unhappy and only does the minimum amount to comply with whatever rules or principles they are given. However, when someone is acting in a way that they truly believe in their life becomes a great deal more fulfilling and beneficial to those around them. The goal of the good Confucian is to cultivate this "inner goodness" to the point where they don't have to think about acting properly any more, they automatically do the right thing. When this occurs, they have a better attitude towards life because they are doing what they believe is right all the time. This eliminates the feeling of "fighting with oneself' over moral issues, as well as making that person act in a way that is beneficial to all because they do not want to act in a way that they believe is wrong. The most obvious argument with this idea that I can think of is that not all people think the same things are good and bad. What is simple courtesy to one person could be completely unbearable to another; even the idea that one should always put the interests of others ahead of his or her own would probably raise some sort of argument. The way that Confucianism addresses this problem is very simple; Confucianism is not for everybody. I myself think that this is the particular genius of the Confucian way of life. It is the only ideology that I have heard of which takes into account that not everyone will agree as to what can or should be done, and so it is up to the few who have societies best interest at heart to come up with a plan of action. Many plans for societal improvement (most in fact) depend on the assumption that it will be possible to convert everyone to its particular set of ideals, and that just ain't gonna happen.
(by Amos Noons)