Censure in the Qin dynasty
Okumaya devam et...
← Previous revision | Revision as of 23:42, 9 May 2024 |
| Line 103: | Line 103: |
| Although from a modern perspective seeming to support totalitarianism, Pines does not take what he terms the Fa thinkers as supplying alternate totalitarian ideologies or thought control. While the Han Feizi recommends that the King either approve or disapprove doctrines in Chapter 50, the late [[Qin state]]'s [[Lüshi Chunqiu]] still reflects a military government. While the Han Feizi's unity is the king, the late pre-imperial Qin's unity was still that of military standards and commands. Neither much represents a concern for ideological or doctrinal unity, whose struggles for state supremacy are more typical of the Han dynasty. Qin's control, censure and imposition on intellectual life lacks intellectual content. Han Fei opposes the "discourses of the former kings", but does not reject that they may be of benefit. Sinologist Fraiser modernly considers [[Mozi]] to have been concerned with truth, but in governmental practice, fa methods in Han Fei's era test crimes and abilities against whatever fa standard, not ideological conceptions of truth.{{sfnm|1a1=Smith|1y=2003|1p=132-134|2a1=Pines|2y=2023|3a1=Hansen|3y=1992|3p=223,349,393|4a1=Fraser|4y=2023|5a1=Kejian|5y=2016|5p=170}} | Although from a modern perspective seeming to support totalitarianism, Pines does not take what he terms the Fa thinkers as supplying alternate totalitarian ideologies or thought control. While the Han Feizi recommends that the King either approve or disapprove doctrines in Chapter 50, the late [[Qin state]]'s [[Lüshi Chunqiu]] still reflects a military government. While the Han Feizi's unity is the king, the late pre-imperial Qin's unity was still that of military standards and commands. Neither much represents a concern for ideological or doctrinal unity, whose struggles for state supremacy are more typical of the Han dynasty. Qin's control, censure and imposition on intellectual life lacks intellectual content. Han Fei opposes the "discourses of the former kings", but does not reject that they may be of benefit. Sinologist Fraiser modernly considers [[Mozi]] to have been concerned with truth, but in governmental practice, fa methods in Han Fei's era test crimes and abilities against whatever fa standard, not ideological conceptions of truth.{{sfnm|1a1=Smith|1y=2003|1p=132-134|2a1=Pines|2y=2023|3a1=Hansen|3y=1992|3p=223,349,393|4a1=Fraser|4y=2023|5a1=Kejian|5y=2016|5p=170}} |
| Purported by Sima Qian as a policy of [[Li Si]], 'disturbance-causing' books are collected and given to the court erudites, with the suggestion that "those who want to study laws and ordinances take an official as a teacher." Apart from a control of intellectual activity, Pines connects it's narrative with the old idea in the [[Shangjunshu]] of recruitment for soldiers. Negating the idea that a study of the old texts could lead to office, persecution of independent interests redirects toward a new standard: the recruitment of 'law officers', with fa government program broader than law as such. Under Confucian state orthodoxy, 'disturbance-causing' books and ideologies are censured ''inside'' the government. Sima Qian's Qin military government does not in fact entirely ban the teachings of Confucians, who will hopefully join the government, but may censure private interests or learning as 'disturbance-causing' books ''outside'' the government. Only the prior is based in ideological antagonism. | Purported by Sima Qian as a policy of [[Li Si]], 'disturbance-causing' books are collected and given to the court erudites, with the suggestion that "those who want to study laws and ordinances take an official as a teacher." Apart from a control of intellectual activity, Pines connects it's narrative with the old idea in the [[Shangjunshu]] of recruitment for soldiers. Negating the idea that a study of the old texts could lead to office, persecution of independent interests redirects toward a new standard: the recruitment of 'law officers', with fa government program broader than law as such. Under Confucian state orthodoxy, 'disturbance-causing' books and ideologies are censured ''inside'' the government. Sima Qian's Qin military government does not in fact entirely ban the teachings of Confucians, who will hopefully join the government, but may censure private interests or learning as 'disturbance-causing' books ''outside'' the government. Only the prior is ideologically motivated as an antagonism; the Legalism category was invented by Han historians. |
| The Confucians would typify the dynasty as Legalist, but only one antagonism is ideological, as only one existed as an ideology. The First Emperor just does not acknowledge the Confucians as having a penultimate place, considering them one amongst the schools. Rather than a Legalist, as with [[Emperor Wu of Han]], the First Emperor has persons and institutions that would later come to be regarded as both Legalist and Confucian. He is not a dedicated Legalist, and would be difficult to say that he could have identified himself as a Legalist prior it's Conufcian coining. The Qin just places a higher reliance on law, but only in principle: penal law actually develops more in the Han dynasty. [[K. C. Hsiao]] takes the Qin as anticipating Wu's Confucian state orthodoxy.{{sfnm|1a1=Pines|1y=2023|2a1=Makeham|2y=1994|2p=1979-180|3a1=Goldin|3y=2011|3p=88,95(1,7)|4a1=Hsiao|4y=1979|4p=470-471|5a1=Hansen|5y=1992|5p=345}} | The Confucians would typify the dynasty as Legalist, but only one antagonism is ideological, as only one existed as an ideology. The First Emperor just does not acknowledge the Confucians as having a penultimate place, considering them one amongst the schools. Rather than a Legalist, as with [[Emperor Wu of Han]], the First Emperor has persons and institutions that would later come to be regarded as both Legalist and Confucian. He is not a dedicated Legalist, and would be difficult to say that he could have identified himself as a Legalist prior it's Conufcian coining. The Qin just places a higher reliance on law, but only in principle: penal law actually develops more in the Han dynasty. [[K. C. Hsiao]] takes the Qin as anticipating Wu's Confucian state orthodoxy.{{sfnm|1a1=Pines|1y=2023|2a1=Makeham|2y=1994|2p=1979-180|3a1=Goldin|3y=2011|3p=88,95(1,7)|4a1=Hsiao|4y=1979|4p=470-471|5a1=Hansen|5y=1992|5p=345}} |
Okumaya devam et...